Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:04:18.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTRODUCING A FRAMEWORK TO GENERATE AND EVALUATE THE COST EFFECTS OF PRODUCT (FAMILY) CONCEPTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Kai G. Mertens ,
Mark Schmidt ,
Tugba Yildiz  and
Matthias Meyer
Kai G. Mertens*
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology - Institute of Management Accounting and Simulation
Mark Schmidt
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology - Institute of Management Accounting and Simulation
Tugba Yildiz
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology - Institute of Management Accounting and Simulation
Matthias Meyer
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology - Institute of Management Accounting and Simulation
*
Mertens, Kai G., Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Management Accounting and Simulation, Germany, kai.mertens@tuhh.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Product concept generation and evaluation are critical for the success of new product developments (NPD) because managers need to select the most profitable product concepts. However, current approaches can be restricted to single products and do not cover product families' effects. Similarly, they do not necessarily capture all requirements and usually lack extensive cost analyses. Thus, this paper proposes a framework supporting product concept generation and evaluation by providing an accessible conceptualization to overcome the limitations. Using the so-called Extended Axiomatic Design (EAD) supports designers and managers to configure the requirements across product concepts' various domains while concurrently evaluating their economic consequences. The study applies the framework on a simplified case of a bottle manufacturer to conceptualize four product concepts. The case illustrates how the EAD can be used as a virtual testbed to generate and evaluate new product concepts. Finally, designers and managers can make more informed decisions about product concepts by considering their economic and engineering selection criteria to select the most profitable NPD project configuration.

Keywords

Product concept frameworkProduct familiesBusiness models and considerationsProduct modelling / modelsNew product development
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1907 - 1916
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1995. Product development: Past Research, Present Findings, and Future Directions. Academy of Management Review, 20, 343–378. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9507312922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campagnolo, D. & Camuffo, A. 2009. The concept of modularity in management studies: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00260.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demski, J. S. 2008. Managerial uses of accounting information, New York, NY, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, X., Jiao, J. & Tseng, M. M. 2001. Architecture of Product Family: Fundamentals and Methodology. Concurrent Engineering, 9, 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x0100900407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppinger, S. D. & Browning, T. R. 2012. Design structure matrix methods and applications, MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erens, F. & Verhulst, K. 1997. Architectures for product families. Computers in Industry, 33, 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(97)00022-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fixson, S. K. 2006. A Roadmap for Product Architecture Costing. In: Simpson, T. W., Siddique, Z. & Jiao, J. R. (eds.) Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and Applications. New York, NY: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_13Google Scholar
Gonçalves-Coelho, A. M. & Mourão, A. J. F. 2007. Axiomatic design as support for decision-making in a design for manufacturing context: A case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 109, 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiao, J. & Tseng, M. M. 1999. A methodology of developing product family architecture for mass customization. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 10, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008926428533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, D., Beckmann, G., Eilmus, S., Gebhardt, N., Jonas, H. & Rettberg, R. 2014. Integrated Development of Modular Product Families: A Methods Toolkit. In: Simpson, T. W., Jiao, J., Siddique, Z. & Hölttä-Otto, K. (eds.) Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design: Methods & Applications. New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_10Google Scholar
Krishnan, V. & Gupta, S. 2001. Appropriateness and Impact of Platform-Based Product Development. Management Science, 47, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.52.10665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulak, O., Cebi, S. & Kahraman, C. 2010. Applications of axiomatic design principles: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 6705–6717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.03.061Google Scholar
Markham, S. K. 2013. The Impact of Front-End Innovation Activities on Product Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, K. G. 2020. Measure and manage your product costs right – development and use of an extended axiomatic design for cost modeling. Thesis, Technische Universität Hamburg. https://doi.org/10.15480/882.2888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meßerschmidt, O., Gumpinger, T., Meyer, M. & Mertens, K. G. Reviewing Complexity Costs – What Practice Needs and What Research Contributes Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, 2020. Cambridge University Press, 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsd.2020.152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M., Meßerschmidt, O. & Mertens, K. G. 2019. How much does variety-induced complexity actually cost? Linking axiomatic design with cost modelling. In: Schröder, M. & Wegner, K. (eds.) Logistik im Wandel der Zeit – Von der Produktionssteuerung zu vernetzten Supply Chains. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25412-4_39Google Scholar
Moon, S. K. & Simpson, T. W. 2014. Platform Valuation for Product Family Design. In: Simpson, T. W., Jiao, J., Siddique, Z. & Hölttä-Otto, K. (eds.) Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design: Methods & Applications. New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_7Google Scholar
Otto, K., Hölttä-Otto, K., Simpson, T. W., Krause, D., Ripperda, S. & Ki Moon, S. 2016. Global Views on Modular Design Research: Linking Alternative Methods to Support Modular Product Family Concept Development. Journal of Mechanical Design, 138. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. & Simpson, T. W. 2008. Toward an activity-based costing system for product families and product platforms in the early stages of development. International Journal of Production Research, 46, 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600825240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripperda, S. & Krause, D. 2017. Cost Effects of Modular Product Family Structures: Methods and Quantification of Impacts to Support Decision Making. Journal of Mechanical Design, 139. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4035430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, T. W., Jiao, J., Siddique, Z. & Hölttä-Otto, K. 2014. Advances in product family and product platform design. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N. P. 2001. Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications, USA, NY, New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thevenot, H. J. & Simpson, T. W. 2006. Commonality indices for product family design: a detailed comparison. Journal of Engineering Design, 17, 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820500275693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thyssen, J., Israelsen, P. & Jørgensen, B. 2006. Activity-based costing as a method for assessing the economics of modularization—A case study and beyond. International Journal of Production Economics, 103, 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K. 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24, 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K., Eppinger, S. & Yang, M. C. 2020. Product Design and Development, New York, McGraw Hill.Google Scholar