Why Product Platforms and Product Families?
Transcription
Why Product Platforms and Product Families?
Product Product Family Family Design Design and and Platform-Based Platform-Based Product Product Development Development Timothy W. Simpson Associate Professor Engineering Design & Optimization Group Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering and Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 USA http://edog.mne.psu.edu/ phone: (814) 863-7136 email: [email protected] PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Overview Overview of of Lecture Lecture • Product Platforms and Product Families Motivation Definition of key terms Some examples • Approaches for Architecting Families of Products Platform leveraging strategies Module-based product families Scale-based product families • Challenges and Opportunities • Closing Remarks PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Why Why Product Product Platforms Platforms and and Product Product Families? Families? “Since many companies design new products one at a time, the focus on individual customers and products often results in a failure to embrace commonality, compatibility, standardization, or modularization among different products or product lines.” - Meyer and Lehnerd, 1997 • The end result: a “mushrooming” or diversification of products and components with proliferating variety and costs Æ lower profits • To remain competitive, companies are utilizing product platforms and product families to: increase product variety shorten product lead-times maintain economies of scale (and scope) to reduce costs PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Definition Definition of of Key Key Terms Terms • What is a product family and a product platform? • Product family: a group of related products that share common features, components, and subsystems; and satisfy a variety of markets • Product platform: the set of features, components or subsystems that remain constant from product to product, within a given product family • Derivative: products derived from the product platform through: – addition, removal, or substitution of one or more modules ( module-based product family) – scaling or “stretching” the platform in one or more dimensions ( scale-based product family) PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON ®® Platform Strategy Sony Walkman Sony Walkman Platform Strategy • In 1980s, Sony dominated portable stereo market with three basic platforms: WM2, WMDD and WM20 Incremental changes accounted for only 20-30 of the 250+ models introduced in the U.S. Remaining 85% of Sony's models produced from minor rearrangements of existing features and cosmetic redesigns of the external case Ref: (Sanderson and Uzumeri, 1997) PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Product Product Platform Platform Definitions Definitions • Product Platform: “set of common components, modules, or parts from which a stream of derivative products can be efficiently developed and launched” (Meyer and Lehnerd, 1997) “collection of the common elements, especially the underlying core technology, implemented across a range of products” (McGrath, 1995) “collection of assets [i.e., components, processes, knowledge, people and relationships] that are shared by a set of products” (Robertson and Ulrich, 1998) • In the automotive industry (Muffato, 1999): Platforms increase plant usage and enhance flexibility between plants, reducing product lead times by as much as 30% Firms using a platform-based product development approach gained a 5.1 percent market share per year while firms that did not lost 2.2 percent in 1998 PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Source: Platforms Platforms in in Auto Auto Industry Industry Development Car Division • The number of platforms with over 1 million units in volume will increase from 6 to 16 by 2004 PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Common Common Components Components in in Volkswagen Volkswagen Platform Platform Source: • Shimokawa, K., Jurgens, U., and Fujimoto, T. (Eds.), 1997, Transforming Automobile Assembly, Springer, New York. PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Under Under the the Hood Hood of of the the VW VW Family Family VW Golf Audi TT Source: Development Car Division Audi A3 • Common hard points (interfaces) • Similar packaging philosophy and relative arrangements • Different engines PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Automobile Automobile Platforms Platforms at at Ford Ford Source: (C. Moccio, K. Ewing, G. Pumpuni, 2000) • At Ford, an automobile platform includes: A common architecture (e.g., assembly sequence, joint configuration, system interfaces, etc.) Definition of subsystem and module interfaces A set of common hardpoints used by the range of products that share the platform and the manufacturing processes • Ford defines a platform as a set of subsystems and interfaces that form a common structure from which a stream of derivative products can be efficiently produced PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Reference: (Pessina and Renner, 1998) • Lutron makes customizable lighting control systems for commercial and residential applications including hotel lobbies, ballrooms, conference rooms, and exec offices. • Lutron has rarely shipped the same lighting system twice. Work with individual customers to extend the product line until they have 100+ models from which to choose. Engineering and production redesign the product line with 15-20 standardized components that can be configured into the same 100+ models. PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON General General Approaches Approaches to to Product Product Family Family Design Design Top-down Approach: A company strategically manages and develops a family of products based on Black & Decker a product platform and its moduleand/or scale-based derivatives E.g., Sony, Volkswagen Bottom-up Approach: A company redesigns/consolidates a group of distinct products by standardizing components to improve economies of scale and reduce inventory E.g., Lutron, Black & Decker Sony Lutron PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Identify Identify Platform Platform Leveraging Leveraging Strategy Strategy • Market segmentation grid can be used to identify and map platform leveraging strategies (Meyer, 1997) High Cost High Performance Mid-Range What Market Niches Will Your Product Serve? Low Cost Low Performance Segment A Segment B Segment C Derivative Products Product Platform PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Platform Platform Strategies: Strategies: No No Leveraging Leveraging • Niche-specific platforms (products) with very little sharing of subsystems and/or manufacturing processes High-end Product 1 Product 3 Product 4 Mid-range Product 2 Low-end Segment A Segment B Segment C • Disadvantages: R&D can be easily duplicated by different product teams Manufacturing and capital investments much higher Manufacturing improvements not adopted by others Potential for synergy in marketing development is lost • Result: myriad of products, higher costs, lower margins PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Platform Platform Strategies: Strategies: Horizontal Horizontal Leveraging Leveraging • Horizontally leverage platform subsystems and/or manufacturing processes across different segments High-end High-end platform Mid-range Low-end Low-end platform Segment A Segment B Segment C • Benefits: Introduce series of related products for different customer groups without having to “reinvent the wheel” R&D can develop products more rapidly and with less risk (since technology has been proven in other market segments) Manufacturing procurement and retooling costs can be minimized PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Platform Platform Strategies: Strategies: Vertical Vertical Leveraging Leveraging Mid-range Low-end Platform 1 Scale down High-end Scale up • Vertically scale key platform subsystems and/or manufacturing processes within a market segment Platform 2 Segment A Segment B Segment C • Benefits: Leverage knowledge of customer wants and needs within a given market segment Product development is less costly (R&D and manufacturing enjoy same benefits as horizontal leveraging) • Risk: Weak platform may undermine competitiveness of product family PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Platform Platform Strategies: Strategies: Beachhead Beachhead Approach Approach • Beachhead approach combines horizontal leveraging with upward vertical scaling High-end Mid-range Low-end Platform Segment A Segment B Segment C • Key Aspects: Develop low-cost, effective platform and efficient processes Scale up performance characteristics of low-cost platform to appeal to needs of mid- and high-end users Extend platform for customers in different market segments Combine extensions and scaling to provide step-up functions required by mid- and high-end users in other segments PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Example Example Leveraging Leveraging Strategies: Strategies: B&D B&D Cordless Cordless Industry (Heavy) Use Home (Med) Use Home (Light) Use Saws PENNSTATE Drills & Drivers Lighting © T. W. SIMPSON Source: Volkswagen Volkswagen A-Platform A-Platform Development Car Division Audi A3 (3+ 5-door) Audi TT coupe Audi TT roadster VW Golf IV (3+5 door, station wagon, convertible, and Minivan) VW Bora VW Beetle Skoda Octavia (Bora sedan, coupe, convertible, and station wagon) (New Beetle, New Beetle convertible) (Octavia sedan, and station wagon) • VW plans for 19 vehicles based on A-platform • VW estimates development and investment cost savings of $1.5 billion/yr using platforms PENNSTATE Seat Toledo Successor (Toledo, coupe, station wagon, and convertible) © T. W. SIMPSON Modularity Modularity in in Automobiles Automobiles Different Modules in an Automobile Dashboard Module PENNSTATE Source: • Shimokawa, K., Jurgens, U., and Fujimoto, T. (Eds), 1997, Transforming Automobile Assembly, Springer, New York. © T. W. SIMPSON Module-Based Module-Based Product Product Families Families • Modular design is best known approach for effective product family design Design a product platform that can be up easily modified by adding, subtracting, and/or upgrading of modules • Designing a module-based product family involves defining its product architecture (Ulrich, 1995): the arrangement of functional elements the mapping of functional elements to physical components the specification of the interfaces among physical components • Common modules in family form the product platform • Standardized interfaces facilitate addition, substitution, and removal of modules PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Creating Creating aa Module-Based Module-Based Product Product Family Family 1. Decompose products into their representative functions 2. Develop modules with one-to-one (or many-to-one) correspondence with functions 3. Group common functional modules into a common product platform Product Common 4. Standardize interfaces to Functions Platform facilitate addition, removal, and substitution of modules } Product Family PENNSTATE { Specific Function 1 Specific Function 2 Specific Function k Derivative Product 1 Derivative Product 2 Derivative Product k © T. W. SIMPSON Example: Example: Braun Braun Family Family of of Coffee Coffee Makers Makers Electricity Water Ground Coffee Store Water Heat Water Heat Coffee Store Grounds Mix Coffee and Water Store Coffee Common Function Brew Coffee Coffee Basic Model Water Filter Thermos Karafe Auto Shutoff, Clock Adjustable Heater Frothing Attachment KF130 KF145 KF170 KF180 KF185 KF190 PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Sectional Sectional Modularity Modularity at at Nippondenso Nippondenso • Nippondenso can make 288 different panel meters from variations of 8 modules (17 different parts) PENNSTATE © T. W. ©S T.IMPSON, W. SIMPSON 2001 PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Rolling Rolling Chassis Chassis Module Module • Consists of brake, fuel, steering, and exhaust systems, suspension, and driveline assembled to the frame • Largest and most complex module provided by suppliers • Used in both truck and SUV manufacturing, accounting for 25% of vehicle content • Dana’s rolling chassis saved DaimlerChrysler $700 million at the Dodge Dakota facility Source: • Kimberly, W., 1999, “Back to the Future,” Automotive Engineer, May , 24 (5), pp. 62-64. PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Smart Smart common car features PENNSTATE Source: http://www.smart.com © T. W. SIMPSON Mercedes Mercedes Vario Vario Research Research Car Car PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Mercedes Mercedes Vario Vario Research Research Car Car PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Mercedes Mercedes Vario Vario Research Research Car Car PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Mercedes Mercedes Vario Vario Research Research Car Car PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Scale-based Scale-based Product Product Families Families • Develop a product platform that can be “scaled” or “stretched” in one or more dimensions to satisfy a variety of market niches • Boeing 737 is divided into 3 platforms: Initial-model (100 and 200) Classic (300, 400, and 500) Next generation (600, 700, 800, and 900 models) • The Boeing 777 has also been designed knowing that it will be “stretched” PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Boeing Boeing 737 737 Interior Interior Layouts Layouts 737-600 737-300 110 passengers (8 first class) 126 passengers (8 first class) 737-700 126 passengers (8 first class) 737-400 147 passengers (10 first class) 737-800 162 passengers (12 first class) 737-500 110 passengers (8 first class) PENNSTATE 737-900 177 passengers (12 first class) © T. W. SIMPSON Dimensions Dimensions of of Boeing Boeing 737-300, 737-300, -400, -400, and and -500 -500 • All three aircraft share common height and width... …but their fuselage lengths are different: Boeing 737-300 PENNSTATE Boeing 737-400 Boeing 737-500 © T. W. SIMPSON Example Example Leveraging Leveraging Strategies: Strategies: Rolls Rolls Royce Royce Engines Engines • Rolls Royce scales its aircraft engines to satisfy a variety of requirements and expedite testing/certification Reference: (Rothwell and Gardiner, 1990) Incremental improvements and variations made to increase thrust and reduce fuel consumption RTM322 is common to turboshaft, turboprop, and turbofan engines When scaled 1.8x, RTM322 serves as the core for RB550 series PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Universal Universal Motor Motor Platform Platform • Universal motor is most common component in power tools • Challenge: redesign the universal motor to fit into 122 basic tools with hundreds of variations geometry and axial profile common stack length varied from 0.8”-1.75” to obtain 60-650 Watts fully automated assembly process material, labor, and overhead costs reduced from $0.51 to $0.31 labor cost reduced from $0.14 to $0.02 PENNSTATE 650 Watts • Result: a common platform where Electric motor field components prior to standardization 60 0.8” Stack length 1.75” Universal motor variants © T. W. SIMPSON Opportunity: Opportunity: Product Product Platform Platform Definitions Definitions • Challenge: what requirements enable a platform? • For example, in automobiles: common wheel-base? width? common front and rear track? A3 Σ 163.5 34.1 98.9 30.4 Beetle Volkswagen (A-platform) vs. Honda (Accord platform) Σ 161.1 ? 98.9 ? Golf IV Σ 163.3 33.9 98.9 30.6 Octavia Σ 177.6 36 98.9 42.7 Source: Source: (Naughton, 1997) PENNSTATE Development Car Division © T. W. SIMPSON Opportunity: Opportunity: Manufacturing Manufacturing Platforms Platforms • Bosch manufactures braking systems for GM, Toyota, etc. What types of partial commonization are most essential for manufacturing complexity reduction? How can our manufacturing strategy best enable savings from product commonization? • Challenge: Simulate alternative manufacturing layouts Step in the mannual process of the TMC8 line out Step in the mannual process of the Assembly cell Assembly cell TMC8 machine line out PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Opportunity: Opportunity: Wed-Based Wed-Based Platform Platform Customization Customization • Challenge: Capitalize on web-based customization trends in the automobile industry: – identify key enablers and drivers – identify limiting factors that hinder growth Examine platform architecture and process capabilities required to enable web-based automotive customization PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Opportunity: Opportunity: Flexible Flexible Production Production Technology Technology • F.A.S.T. = Flexible Automotive Structures Technology • F.A.S.T. = Product flexibility + production flexibility • Challenge: Develop Activity-Based Costing Analysis tool to support rapid manufacturing cost estimation for hydro-formed and roll-formed parts within automotive frame Baseline design PENNSTATE Targeted variants © T. W. SIMPSON Production Production Cost Cost Estimation Estimation Framework Framework to to Support Support Product Product Family Family Design Design • Objective: Develop a production cost framework based on Activity-Based Costing ABC to facilitate product family decision-making • ABC steps: 1. Describe a company’s production system 2. Identify and classify major activities and resources 3. Collect cost for each activity 4. Select cost-driver bases 5. Measure activity costs per unit of cost-driver bases, assign the costs to each product • Example: Estimate the production costs of hydroforming processes for automotive components PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Example: Example: Hydroforming Hydroforming Processes Processes Hydroforming processes for automotive body structures Hydroformed parts in automobiles: A. Roof Headers B. Instrument Panel Supports C. Radiator Supports D. Engine Cradles E. Roof Rail F. Frame Rails Process steps for hydroforming processes 1. Close die PENNSTATE 2. Fill with water 3. Move cylinders and regulate water pressure 4. Open press and unload component © T. W. SIMPSON Activity Activity Flow Flow and and Resources Resources 1. Describe the production system S to ra g e S to ra g e L a s e r trim L a s e r trim B lo w o ff B lo w o ff in e In l s h a W In li n Wa e sh End c u ttin g 2. Identify and classify major activities and resources Resources: • Labor, machinery, robots, tools, materials, utilities, capital, building, poka-yoka, etc. End c u ttin g F in a l h y d ro fo rm in g F in a l h y d ro fo rm in g P re c ru sh P re c ru sh D r y in g Material Flow Unit-activities (U): operation Batch-activities (B): material handling, transfer, and storage Product-activities (P): repair and maintenance Facility-activity (F): support Lube R o ta r y d ra w b e n d e r PENNSTATE L a s e r trim R o ta r y d ra w b e n d e r Storage operator Sensor station robot transfer Inspection load/unload © T. W. SIMPSON Activities Activities and and Cost-Drivers Cost-Drivers 3. Collect costs for each activity 4. Select cost-driver bases Activity Cost Activity Level/driver Activity Operation Activity Level/driver In-line washer P Material U Pre-crush station P Labor U Support equipment P B Robots P Laser (4 items) P Automation P Material transfer Scrapping P/machine hours Repair and maintenance (7 items) RM machinery P/machine hours RM labor P/machine hours Utilities (30 items) Oil, gas, electricity Support Receiving and Shipping F/plants Inventory F/plants Quality F/plants Human resource F/plants P/machine hours Capital PENNSTATE Cost CNC bending P Accounting F/plants Dry and lubrication P Others (12 items) F/plants Hydroforming P Fringe Benefits P/laborers © T. W. SIMPSON Activity Activity and and Cost Cost Allocation Allocation 5. Measure activity costs and assign costs to each product Breakdown of Production Costs of Hydroforming Processes 20.4% 22.5% 2.1% 7.2% 9.3% 18.7% 0.5% 1.5% 3.2% 5.0% Capital Fringe Electic Power Misc. 2.8% 6.9% Labor (direct) Oil & Gas Oils grease compound wate Maintenance Mach & Equip Labor (indirect) Purchased Service Scrap Tube Cost Note: only 22.5% of total expenses accounts for the consumption of direct resources: direct labor (2.1%) and material cost (20.4%) PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Extensions Extensions to to Product Product Platforms Platforms • Production costing for product platforms: Increasing the number of products is likely to create new activities and raise the level of use of existing activities during production ABC is the most appropriate costing method to address the production costs for product variety On the contrary, product platforms are formed by sharing parts and subassemblies under companies’ strategy and play an economical role in reducing production costs by restraining new activity generation and increase of the level of existing activities • To estimate the cost savings generated by product platforms, designers need to investigate two types of cost savings during production: 1.Savings from shared resources (e.g., machine, tooling, space, etc) and 2.Savings from reduced level of activities (e.g., reduced part handling, etc). • Designers can then suggest product platforms for new family design by identifying high cost savings in production PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON Closing Closing Remarks Remarks • Product platform design is a difficult task involving: all of the complexities of product development compounded by the need to design multiple products simultaneously innovative, creative solutions to satisfy a variety of customer requirements and market niches efficiently and effectively • The key to a successful product family is the product platform around which it is derived: multiple platform leveraging strategies module-based product family Management scale-based product family & Marketing Challenge is to ensure that the product family is “optimal” for the company and its customers! PENNSTATE $ Design & Engineering Manufacturing & Production © T. W. SIMPSON References References • Muffatto, M. (1999) Introducing a Platform Strategy in Product Development, International Journal of Production Economics, 60-61, 145-153. • Meyer, M. H. & Lehnerd, A. P. (1997) The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and Cost Leadership, The Free Press, New York. • Park, J. and Simpson, T. W. (2004) Development of a Production Cost Estimation Framework to Support Product Family Design, International Journal of Product Research, in press. • Simpson, T. W. (2004) Product Platform Design and Customization: Status and Promise, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 18(1), in press. PDFs available on-line at: http://edog.mne.psu.edu/simpson-pubs.html • Simpson, T. W., Siddique, Z. and Jiao, J., eds., Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, forthcoming (Summer 2005). • To learn more about product families, visit my course website for ME/IE 597B: Designing Product Families: http://www.me.psu.edu/simpson/courses/me597b/ • Participate in the 2005 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. (Sept. 24-28, 2005, Long Beach, CA): http://www.me.washington.edu/~asmeda/2005DAC/ PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON