Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:01:53.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Framework for Development Architecture for Modular Products: Cross-Domain Variety Management Perspective

Part of: Product Architecture and Modularization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Kwansuk Oh ,
Jong Wook Lim ,
Seongwon Cho ,
Junyeol Ryu  and
Yoo S. Hong

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.

Variety management is a cross-domain issue in product family design. In the real field, the relationships across the domains are so complex for most of the existing product families that they cannot be easily identified without proper reference architecture. This reference architecture should provide the cross- domain mapping mechanisms in an explicit manner and be able to identify the proper units for management. From this perspective of cross-domain framework, this paper introduces development architecture (DA) to describe the relationships between elements in market, design, and production domains and to give insights for the cross-domain variety management in the product development stage. DA has three parts: (1) the arrangement of elements in each domain, (2) the mapping between elements, and (3) the identification of management sets and key interfaces which are the proper units for variety management. The proposed development architecture framework is applied to the case of front chassis family of modules of an automobile.

Keywords

Product architectureProduct familiesComplexityVariety management
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2921 - 2930
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) 2019

References

Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B. (2000), Design rules: The power of modularity, Vol. 1, MIT press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Blees, C, Kipp, T., Beckmann, G. and Krause, D. (2010), “Development of modular product families: Integration of design for variety and modularization”, International NordDesign Conference, Göteborg, Sweden, 25.-27.08.2010, The Design Society, pp. 159–170.Google Scholar
Bonev, M., Wörösch, M., Hauksdóttir, D. and Hvam, L. (2013), “Extending product modeling methods for integrated product development”, International Conference on Engineering Design, Seoul, Korea, 19.-22.08.2013, The Design Society, Vol. 4, pp. 219–228.Google Scholar
Bruun, H.P.L., Mortensen, N.H., Harlou, U., Wörösch, M. and Proschowsky, M. (2015), “PLM system support for modular product development”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 67, pp. 97–111.Google Scholar
Du, X., Jiao, J. and Tseng, M.M. (2001), “Architecture of product family: fundamentals and methodology”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 309–325.Google Scholar
ElMaraghy, H.A., Schuh, G., ElMaraghy, W.H., Piller, F., Schönsleben, P., Tseng, M. and Bernard, A. (2013), “Product variety management”, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 629–652.Google Scholar
Erixon, G. (1998), “Modular function deployment: A method for product modularisation”, Designation, Royal Inst. of Technology.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Zugasti, J.P. and Otto, K.N. (2000), “Modular platform-based product family design”, Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, 10.-13.09.2000, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 677–688.Google Scholar
Hanna, M., Schwede, L.N. and Krause, D. (2018), “Model-based consistency for design for variety and modularization”, International DSM Conference, Trieste, Italy, 15.-17.10.2018, The Design Society, pp. 239–248.Google Scholar
Hansen, C.L. and Mortensen, N.H. (2014), “Proactive identification of scalable program architecture: How to achieve a quantum-leap in time-to-market”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 74–85.Google Scholar
Harlou, U. (2006), “Developing product families based on architectures”, Desingation, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Jiao, J., Tseng, M.M., Ma, Q. and Zou, Y. (2000), “Generic bill-of-materials-and-operations for high-variety production management”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 297–321.Google Scholar
Jiao, J., Simpson, T.W. and Siddique, Z. (2007), “Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review”, Journal of intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5–29.Google Scholar
Krause, D. and Eilmus, S. (2011), “A methodical approach for developing modular product families”, International Conference on Engineering Design, Copenhagen, Denmark, 15.-19.08. 2011, The Design Society, Vol. 4, pp. 299–308.Google Scholar
Krause, D. and Ripperda, S. (2013), “An assessment of methodical approaches to support the development of modular product families”, International Conference on Engineering Design, Seoul, Korea, 19.-22.08. 2013, The Design Society, Vol. 4, pp. 31–40.Google Scholar
Løkkegaard, M., Mortensen, N.H. and Hvam, L. (2018), “Using business critical design rules to frame new architecture introduction in multi-architecture portfolios”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 24, pp. 7313–7329.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. and Utterback, J. (1993), “The product family and the dynamics of core capability”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 29–47.Google Scholar
Mortensen, N.H., Hansen, C.L., Hvam, L. and Andreasen, M.M. (2011), “Proactive modeling of market, product and production architectures”, International Conference on Engineering Design, Copenhagen, Denmark, 15.-19.08. 2011, The Design Society, Vol. 4, p. 133.Google Scholar
Mortensen, N.H., Hansen, C.L., Løkkegaard, M. and Hvam, L. (2016), “Assessing the cost saving potential of shared product architectures”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 153–163.Google Scholar
Mortensen, N.H. and Løkkegaard, M. (2017), “Good product line architecture design principles”, International Conference on Engineering Design, Vancouver, Canada, 21.-25.08. 2017, The Design Society, Vol. 3, pp. 141–150.Google Scholar
Otto, K., Hölttä-Otto, K., Simpson, T.W., Krause, D., Ripperda, S. and Moon, S.K. (2016), “Global views on modular design research: linking alternative methods to support modular product family concept development”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 138 No. 7, p. 071101.Google Scholar
Ripperda, S. and Krause, D. (2017), “Cost effects of modular product family structures: Methods and quantification of impacts to support decision making”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 139 No. 2, p. 021103.Google Scholar
Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K. (1998), “Planning for product platforms”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 19.Google Scholar
Simpson, T.W., Bobuk, A., Slingerland, L.A., Brennan, S., Logan, D. and Reichard, K. (2012), “From user requirements to commonality specifications: an integrated approach to product family design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 141–153.Google Scholar
Tseng, M.M. and Jiao, J. (1998), “Design for mass customization by developing product family architecture”, Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Atlanta, Georgia, 13.-16.09.1998, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, DETC98/DTM-5717.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”, Research policy, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 419–440.Google Scholar