The development of product families, groups of products that share a common platform, is one way to provide product variety while keeping design and production costs low. The design of a product platform can be formulated as a multicriteria optimization problem in which the performances of individual products trade off against each other and against the objective of platform standardization. The problem is often solved in two stages: one to determine the values of the shared platform variables and a second to optimize the product family members with respect to specific targets. In the first stage, it is common to target the mean and variability of performance when fixing the values of platform variables. This paper contributes three new methods for platform development. The new methods are demonstrated on an electric motor example from the platform design literature, and the results are compared to those from existing methods. First, a preference aggregation method is applied to aggregate the multiple objectives into a single overall objective function. On the example problem, this approach gives superior results to existing techniques. Second, an alternative method that targets the minimum and maximum of the range of performance across the platform, instead of the mean and standard deviation, is proposed and shown to succeed where the existing method may fail. Third, a single-stage optimization approach which solves for both platform and nonplatform variables in a single pass is presented. This method delivers notably superior performance on the example problem but will, in general, incur greater computational expense.

1.
Uzumeri
,
M.
, and
Sanderson
,
S.
, 1995, “
A Framework for Model and Product Family Competition
,”
Res. Policy
0048-7333,
24
, pp.
583
607
.
2.
McDermott
,
C. M.
, and
Stock
,
G. N.
, 1994, “
The Use of Common Parts and Designs in High-Tech Industries: A Strategic Approach
,”
Prod. Invent. Manage. J.
0897-8336,
35
(
3
), pp.
65
68
.
3.
Collier
,
D. A.
, 1981, “
The Measurement and Operating Benefits of Component Part Commonality
,”
Decision Sci.
0011-7315,
12
(
1
), pp.
85
96
.
4.
Fellini
,
R.
,
Kokkolaras
,
M.
,
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
, and
Perez-Duarte
,
A.
, 2002, “
Platform Selection Under Performance Loss Constraints in Optimal Design of Product Families
,”
Proceedings of 2002 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
,
ASME
, New York, ASME Paper No. DETC02/DAC-34099.
5.
Fellini
,
R.
,
Kokkolaras
,
M.
,
Papalambros
,
P.
, and
Perez-Duarte
,
A.
, 2005, “
Platform Selection Under Performance Bounds in Optimal Design of Product Families
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472
127
(
4
), pp.
524
535
.
6.
Simpson
,
T. W.
, 2003, “
Product Platform Design and Optimization: Status and Promise
,”
Proceedings of 2003 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
,
ASME
, New York, ASME Paper No. DETC03/DTM-48717.
7.
Simpson
,
T. W.
, 1998, “
A Concept Exploration Method for Product Family Design
,” PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
8.
Simpson
,
T. W.
,
Maier
,
J. R. A.
, and
Mistree
,
F.
, 2001, “
Product Platform Design: Method and Application
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
13
(
1
), pp.
21
22
.
9.
Sanderson
,
S.
, and
Uzumeri
,
M.
, 1997,
Managing Product Families
,
McGraw-Hill
, New York.
10.
Pine
,
B. J.
, II
, 1993, “
Mass Customizing Products and Services
,”
Plann. Rev.
0094-064X,
22
(
4
), pp.
6
8
.
11.
Ulrich
,
K.
, 1995, “
The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm
,”
Res. Policy
0048-7333,
24
(
3
), pp.
419
440
.
12.
Zamirowksi
,
E. J.
, and
Otto
,
K. N.
, 1999, “
Identifying Product Portfolio Architecture Modularity Using Function and Variety Heuristics
,”
Proceedings of ASME 1999 Design Engineering Technical Conferences
,
ASME
, New York, ASME Paper No. DETC99/DTM-8760.
13.
Dahmus
,
J. B.
,
Gonzalez-Zugasti
,
J. P.
, and
Otto
,
K. N.
, 2000, “
Modular Product Architecture
,”
Proceedings of 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
,
ASME
, New York, ASME Paper No. DETC00/DTM-14565.
14.
Gonzalez-Zugasti
,
J. P.
, and
Otto
,
K. N.
, 2000, “
Modular Platform-Based Product Family Design
,”
Proceedings of 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
,
ASME
, New York, ASME Paper No. DETC00/DAC-14238.
15.
Martin
,
M. V.
, and
Ishii
,
K.
, 2000, “
Design for Variety: A Methodology for Developing Product Platform Architectures
,”
Proceedings of 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
,
ASME
, New York, ASME Paper No. DETC00/DFM-14021.
16.
Hernandez
,
G.
,
Simpson
,
T. W.
,
Allen
,
J. K.
,
Bascaran
,
E.
,
Avila
,
L. F.
, and
Salinas
,
F.
, 2001, “
Robust Design of Families of Products With Production Modeling and Evaluation
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
123
(
2
), pp.
183
190
.
17.
Messac
,
A.
,
Martinez
,
M. P.
, and
Simpson
,
T. W.
, 2002, “
Effective Product Family Design Using Physical Programming and the Product Platform Concept Exploration Method
,”
Eng. Optimiz.
0305-215X,
3
(
3
), pp.
245
261
.
18.
Nayak
,
R. U.
,
Chen
,
W.
, and
Simpson
,
T. W.
, 2002, “
A Variation-Based Methodology for Product Family Design
,”
J. Eng. Optim.
,
34
(
1
), pp.
65
81
.
19.
Seepersad
,
C. C.
,
Mistree
,
F.
, and
Allen
,
J. K.
, 2002, “
A Quantitative Approach for Designing Multiple Product Platforms for an Evolving Portfolio of Products
,”
Proceedings of 2002 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
,
ASME
,
New York
, ASME Paper No. DETC02/DAC-34096.
20.
Martin
,
M. V.
, and
Ishii
,
K.
, 2002, “
Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architecture
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
13
(
4
), pp.
213
235
.
21.
de Weck
,
O. L.
,
Suh
,
E. S.
, and
Chang
,
D.
, 2003, “
Product Family and Platform Portfolio Optimization
,”
Proceedings of 2003 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
,
ASME
,
New York
, ASME Paper No. DETC03/DAC-48721.
22.
Dai
,
Z.
, and
Scott
,
M. J.
, 2005, “
Product Platform Design Through Sensitivity Analysis and Cluster Analysis
,”
J. Intell. Manuf.
0956-5515 (accepted).
23.
Nelson
,
S. A.
,
Parkinson
,
M. B.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
, 2001, “
Multicriteria Optimization in Product Platform Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
123
, pp.
199
204
.
24.
Scott
,
M. J.
, and
Antonsson
,
E. K.
, 1998, “
Aggregation Functions for Engineering Design Trade-offs
,”
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
0165-0114,
99
(
3
), pp.
253
264
.
25.
Scott
,
M. J.
, and
Antonsson
,
E. K.
, 2000, “
Using Indifference Points in Engineering Decisions
,”
Proceedings of 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
,
ASME
,
New York
, ASME Paper No. DETC2000/DTM-14559.
26.
Otto
,
K. N.
, and
Antonsson
,
E. K.
, 1991, “
Trade-off Strategies in the Solution of Imprecise Design Problems
,”
Fuzzy Engineering Toward Human Friendly Systems: Proceedings of the International Fuzzy Engineering Symposium ’91
,
T. Terano
et al.
, Eds., LIFE,
IFES
,
Yokohama, Japan
, Vol.
1
, pp.
422
433
.
27.
Scott
,
M. J.
, 1999, “
Formalizing Negotiation in Engineering Design
,” Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.
28.
Scott
,
M. J.
, and
Antonsson
,
E. K.
, 2005, “
Compensation and Weights for Trade-offs in Engineering Design: Beyond the Weighted Sum
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472
127
(
6
), pp.
1045
1055
.
29.
Anony, 2003, Optimization Toolbox 3. Tech. Report, The MathWorks, Natick, MA.
30.
Chapman
,
S. J.
, 1991,
Electric Machinery Fundamentals
,
McGraw-Hill
, New York.
31.
Keeney
,
R.
, and
Raiffa
,
H.
, 1993,
Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs
,
Cambridge University Press
, Cambridge, England.
You do not currently have access to this content.