1. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON PENN S TATE Timothy W. Simpson Professor of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering and Engineering Design The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 phone: (814) 863-7136 email: tws8@psu.edu http://www.mne.psu.edu/simpson/courses/me546 Differentiation and Platform Architecting ME 546 - Designing Product Families - IE 546 © T. W. S IMPSON

2. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Planning Product Platforms Robertson and Ulrich (1998) advocate a three-step approach: 1) Product plan – which products to offer when 2) Differentiation plan – how products will be differentiated 3) Commonality plan – which components/modules will be shared Source: D. Robertson and K. Ulrich, 1998, "Planning Product Platforms," Sloan Management Review, 39(4), pp. 19-31.

3. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Commonality Plan and Differentiation Plan Source: D. Robertson and K. Ulrich, 1998, "Planning Product Platforms," Sloan Management Review, 39(4), pp. 19-31. Differentiation Plan for automotive example Commonality Plan for automotive example

4. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Product Family Architecting Based on the commonality plan and differentiation plan, an architecture must be developed for the platform and family of products  If everything is the same, then nothing is different despite cost savings  If everything is different, then costs skyrocket Trick: how to find the best architecture to balance the two Source: D. Robertson and K. Ulrich, 1998, "Planning Product Platforms," Sloan Management Review, 39(4), pp. 19-31.

5. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Platform Architecting The platform architecture will lead to a product family with a given level of commonality and distinctiveness  Option A has low commonality but each product is very distinctive  Option B has high commonality but products lack distinctiveness  Option C has a good balance of commonality and distinctiveness A B C

6. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Commonality/Variety Tradeoff Angle Within a given industry do companies tend to apply the same strategy: do they have the same trade-off angle, , between commonality and variety? X. Ye & J. Gershenson (Michigan Tech) argue that they do and have created the Product Family Evaluation Graph (PFEG) based on this idea to provide guidance for companies in product family design A B C   

7. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Product Family Evaluation Graph (Ye, 2008) Compares alternative product families to determine which family best meets a company’s strategic goals  Also good for product family benchmarking The tradeoff angle, , is dictated by strategic impact factors and a company’s competitive focus  ideal target  realistic goal for company  target tradeoff  actual

8. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Strategic Impact Factors – Marketing

9. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Strategic Impact Factors: Others Each factor is scored and weighted: and  is computed:

10. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Power Tool Case Study Imagine you are designing Delta’s new power toolset The competition is existing toolsets made by:  

11. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Determining  for Delta – Ideal vs. Actual   39.61 74.3 Use linear regression to correlate S and  based on competition

12. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON PFEG Discussion Why the differences between estimated and actual?  How else could we use PFEG?  What do you think about the underlying assumption, i.e., companies within a given industry tend to use a similar commonality/variety strategy? 

13. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Factors Affecting Platform Architecture Customer requirements Changing performance needs (including size, style, weight, etc.) New environmental constraints (temperature, humidity, vibration, etc.) New functions (due to new markets or new enabling technologies) Reliability improvements Reduce prices (cost reductions required) Reduce amount of material Change material type Remove redundant components Reduce assembly time Use lower cost technology Reduce serviceability requirements Reduce serviceability time Improve component manufacturing process Regulations, standards, and so on Changing government/industry regulations or standards Competitor introduction of improved product (higher quality or lower price) Obsolescence of parts Source:Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002, "Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 213-235.

14. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Generational Variety Index Step 1: Determine market & desired life for platform Step 2: Create QFD matrix Step 3: List expected changes in customer requirements Step 4: Estimate engineering metric target values Step 5: Calculate normalized target values matrix Step 6: Create GVI matrix Step 7: Calculate GVI Source:Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002, "Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 213-235. GVI is an indicator of the amount of redesign required for a component to meet future market requirements Process for calculating GVI:

15. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON What is Quality Function Deployment (QFD)? Developed by Japanese in 1970’s to provide a way to propagate customer needs through product, part, and process quality requirements using a series of maps  House of Quality helps translate “Voice of the Customer” into specific engineering requirements Source: J. R. Hauser and D. Clausing, 1998, "The House of Quality," Harvard Business Review, 66(3), pp. 63-73.

16. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Customer Attributes  Engineering Characteristics Source: J. R. Hauser and D. Clausing, 1998, "The House of Quality," Harvard Business Review, 66(3), pp. 63-73.

17. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON House of Quality (HOQ) The “roof” identifies any relationships between the Engineering Requirements Source: J. R. Hauser and D. Clausing, 1998, "The House of Quality," Harvard Business Review, 66(3), pp. 63-73. The “basement” identifies specific targets for each Engineering Requirement

18. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Generational Variety Index Step 1: Determine market & desired life for platform Step 2: Create QFD matrix Step 3: List expected changes in customer requirements Step 4: Estimate engineering metric target values Step 5: Calculate normalized target values matrix Step 6: Create GVI matrix Step 7: Calculate GVI Source:Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002, "Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 213-235. GVI is an indicator of the amount of redesign required for a component to meet future market requirements Process for calculating GVI:

19. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON Example of GVI Computation Consider the design of a water cooler for current and three future markets: Water bottle Insulation TECTEC Heat sink Fan Power supply Water Cooler Chassis (side view) Reservoir Source:Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002, "Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 213-235.

20. PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON GVI Matrices QFD Matrix I QFD Matrix II Customer Requirements Engineering Requirements Engineering Requirements Components GVI Ratings GVI Matrix Note: Elements with higher GVI values will require most redesign for future markets; so, platform low GVI elements and embed flexibility into/for high GVI elements