Modular product design and product support

Karmarkar, Uday S.; Kubat, Peter

doi:10.1016/0377-2217(87)90195-0

Cited by 45 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…to allow for the same component(s) to be used in multiple product variants, and when feasible, in all product variants (Evans, 1963). As such, one motivation underlying the operations management research stream has been to understand the benefits of component commonality on operational performance, as well as the various factors that might affect these benefits (Baker et al, 1986;Collier, 1981;Karmarkar and Kubat, 1987;Mather, 1986;Sheu and Wacker, 1997;Vakharia et al, 1996).…”

Section: Modularity Research In Operations Management/management Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…. parts which can be combined in the maximum number of ways" (Starr, 1965, p. 38), thereby enhancing the compatibility between product variety require-ments and operational performance for discrete products (Hoekstra and Romme, 1992;Karmarkar and Kubat, 1987). Research on how to reduce the product variety-operational performance trade-off through modularity in the design of products can be further classified into one of the two disciplinary areas: operations management/management science and design theory/engineering management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions

Salvador

Forza

Rungtusanatham

2002

J of Ops Management

397

281

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in operations management suggests that firms can mitigate the negative impact of product variety on operational performance by deliberately pursuing modularity in the design of product family architectures. However, modularity is not a dichotomous property of a product, as different types of modularity can be embedded into a product family architecture. The present paper explores how manufacturing characteristics affect the appropriate type of modularity to be embedded into the product family architecture, and how the types of modularity relate to component sourcing. The study is based on a qualitative research design involving a multiple case study methodology to examine six product families belonging to six European companies. The themes derived through case analyses are synthesized in the form of empirical generalizations. Insights from these empirical generalizations are subsequently developed into two propositions explaining why and under what conditions these empirical generalizations might hold for a product family outside of the original sample. The theoretical results formalize, first of all, a type of modularity (i.e. combinatorial modularity) not currently described in literature. Second, the theoretical propositions suggest that when the desired level of product variety is low (high) relative to total production volume, component swapping modularity (combinatorial modularity) helps to maximize operational performance. Finally, the complexity of component families outsourced to suppliers and the geographical proximity of component family suppliers affect the extent to which the product variety-operational performance trade-off can be mitigated through modularity.

show abstract

Section: Modularity Research In Operations Management/management Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions

Salvador

Forza

Rungtusanatham

2002

J of Ops Management

397

281

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…linking and assembly relations [34]. So, the structural correlation DSM of DPs can be gained by: DSM s ir = W geoDSM geo + W phyDSM phy (5) where Wgeo and wphy are the general weights of the geometrical and physical relations, respectively. The entries, rgeo and rphy , in DSM geo and DSM phy , respectively, can be denoted as:…”

Section: Structural Correlation Design Structure Matrixmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Modular architecture symbolizes a one-to-one mapping of performance elements to physical building blocks with distinct interfaces [2], and is justly considered a promising solution where sharing the idea that 'controlling by size' may be advantageous and has been long and widely touted as a good design practice credited with streamlining product realization and reducing developmental costs and lead times [3][4][5]. Therefore, in recent years modularity has become very popular in academia and been studied from many perspectives [6][7][8][9][10][11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A product modular design method based on axiomatic design

Cheng

Xiao

Cai

et al. 2012

Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to develop reasonable modular product architecture with physically detachable modules, a new systematic method for product modularization is proposed based on axiomatic design (AD). In the proposed method, the product is decomposed hierarchically in its functional, physical and process domains according to AD. After the transformation from design matrices to design structure matrices, the correlation design structure matrices of design parameters about function, structure and manufacturing process are constructed. Finally, a genetic algorithm combined with the minimal description length is introduced to solve the modularization optimization problem. To illustrate and validate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology, an indoor air conditioner unit is presented as a demonstrative example. (Abstract)

show abstract

“…Karmarkar and Kubat (1987) discuss the module selection problem from an operations research perspective. Kusiak and Huang (1996) present a graphical representation of product modularity and propose a heuristic approach to module identification.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Fundamentals of product family architecture

Jiao

Tseng

2000

Integrated Manufacturing Systems

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognizing the rationale of a product family architecture (PFA) with respect to design for mass customization (DFMC), this paper discusses the fundamental issues underlying a PFA, including product information modeling, structural implications of product families, functional variety versus technical variety, class‐member relationships inherent in variety, modularity and commonality, PFA design spaces, and PFA composition. The background research is reviewed in terms of product architecture and modularity, product platform and product families, and product modeling and design process models. To organize product varieties in DFMC, a PFA should be described from three different perspectives, namely the functional (as seen from customer, sales and marketing viewpoints), behavioral (as seen from the product technology or design engineer perspective) and structural (as seen from the fulfillment or manufacturing and logistic perspective). Meeting diverse customer requirements and achieving volume economy simultaneously can be best achieved by synchronizing these three perspectives. In fact, the mappings between PFA views manifest the cooperative effort among different business functions, whilst three PFA views facilitate the integration of different phases of product development.

show abstract

Modular product design and product support

Cited by 45 publications

References 7 publications

Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions

Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions

A product modular design method based on axiomatic design

Fundamentals of product family architecture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About