Platform‐Driven Development of Product Families: Linking Theory with Practice

Abstract

Firms in many industries increasingly are considering platform‐based approaches to reduce complexity and to better leverage investments in new product development, manufacturing, and marketing. However, a clear gap in literature still exists when it comes to discussing the problems and risks related to implementing and managing product families and their underlying platforms. Using a multiple‐case approach, we compare three technology‐driven companies in their definition of platform‐based product families, investigate their reasons for changing to platform‐driven development, and analyze how they implemented platform thinking in their development process and which risks they encountered in the process of creating and managing platform‐based product families. The field study shows that the companies involved in the study use a homogeneous concept of platform‐based product families and that they have similar reasons to turn to platform thinking and to encounter comparable risks. However, the companies analyzed use mainly product architecture as a basis for their platforms (and ignore many of the platform types advocated in literature), while on the other hand they show divergent applications of the platform concept regarding the combinations of product families and market applications. Through this exploratory study, some important white spots in literature became evident as well. In the discussion part of this article these white spots are discussed and directions for future platform research are proposed. The article concludes that given its importance, platform‐driven development of product families clearly deserves further research to provide more insight into strategic planning for new products.

Crafting Platform Strategy Based on Anticipated Benefits and Costs

“…Past research (Ulrich and Eppinger 2004, Halman 2003, Cameron 2012 suggests that the upfront investment in platforms can be multiples of an individual product design effort. If a platform of three products costs $200 million compared with 3 individual products at $100 million each, the savings are significant ($100 Table 2.3 Commonality drawbacks, costs, and risks (Note: The costs do not materialize universally; rather, the potential for costs to exist has been demonstrated, and the third column provides guidance on whether the cost recurs with each successive variant within the original platform extent or the individual cost behavior will vary by platform.)…”

A methodology for developing product platforms in the specific setting of the housebuilding industry

“…Platform thinking is defined as the process of identifying and exploiting commonalities among a firm's offerings, target markets, and the processes for creating and delivering offerings (Halman et al 2003). A product platform can be defined as a set of subsystems and interfaces that form a common structure from which a stream of derivative products can be developed and produced efficiently (Sawhney 1998).…”

“…The principle behind the platform concept is to achieve an optimum balance between the commonality potential and the differentiation needs within a product family. A basic requirement therefore is the decoupling of elements to achieve the separation of common (platform) elements from differentiating (nonplatform) elements (Halman et al 2003).…”

“…In industries as diverse as electronics, software, automobile and domestic appliances, module-based product platforms have already proved successful (Fixson 2002;Martin and Ishii 2002;Salvador et al 2002;Muffato and Roveda 2000). The benefits are mainly greater flexibility in product design, efficiency in product development and realization, and effectiveness in both communication and market positioning (Halman et al 2003). The key elements of a successful product or service-in terms of its features, how quickly it is developed, and the cost to produce it-are based on the provider's ability to create robust, shared platforms that are leveraged into many products (Meyer and DeToreb 2001).…”

Introducing Design Descriptions on Different Levels of Concretisation in a Platform Definition

“…A risk emphasised in literature is the trade-off between commonality and distinctiveness [10]. Another trade-off is the one between increased development efforts for the initial platform and the uncertainty whether the right platform is chosen in order to develop a sufficient number of derivatives to gain back the extra expenses [12]. Platforms are generally described to be of one of either two kinds: Module based (discrete) or scale based (parametric) [5].…”