Set-based development using an integrated product and manufacturing system platform

Abstract

A platform is commonly used as a basis for generating a number of derivative products, after which it is replaced by a new platform. For some companies, a more viable approach is to adopt a continuous platform that is sustained and expanded over time. This applies to companies that have to provide highly customized products while not in control of interfaces, suppliers in the aerospace industry, for example. For them, the traditional part-based generation of platforms is not sufficient, and more flexibility must be built into the platform. This article proposes an approach for continuous platform development, based on an integrated artifact model and connected development processes. The processes apply set-based concurrent engineering to develop derivative products and to extend the bandwidth of the platform. The artifact model serves as a basis for development and connects products and manufacturing systems to enable informed design decisions that span across the lifecycle. The proposed approach incorporates two modes of platform use. Mode I is applied for configuring products to order within the bandwidth of the platform. This includes automatic concept evaluation using a pallet of computer-aided engineering tools and supporting tools. Mode II is applied when the bandwidth does not suffice to cover the required functionality and therefore needs to be expanded. This article exemplifies the approach through a case from a supplier in the aerospace industry.

A literature review on multitype platforming and framework for future research

“…In addition, authors discuss their product platform design methods by taking into account diverse other considerations, including (a) both engineering and marketing issues (Zacharias and Yassine, 2008), (b) the decision making at the tactical level (Qu et al, 2011), (c) component flexibility evaluation (Jiao, 2013), (d) reduction of computational load (Fellini et al, 2006), and (e) design for manufacturing and assembly (AlGeddawy and ElMaraghy, 2013), (f) the sharing and reusing distributed design knowledge and information (Moon et al, 2008), (g) the trade-off between product performance and manufacturing costs (OlivaresBenitez and Gonzalez-Velarde, 2008), (h) commonality and modularity in product platform development (Liu et al, 2010), (i) commonality and product performance (Dai and Scott, 2006), and (j) product platform expansion and integrated design of product platforms and manufacturing systems (Levandowski et al, 2014). Veenstra et al (2006) describe a methodology for designing product platforms to be used in the house-building industry.…”

“…Veenstra et al (2006) describe a methodology for designing product platforms to be used in the house-building industry. In addition to the above approaches to designing and developing product platforms, solution tools and methods are introduced to assist product platform design (Alizon et al, 2010;Cai et al, 2008;Kim et al, 2006;Michaelis et al, 2014;Otto and Holtta-Otto, 2007;Holtta-Otto et al, 2008;Thevenot and Simpson, 2006;Van Wie et al, 2007). For examples, Michaelis et al (2014) apply functional modeling to model integrated product platform and manufacturing system for supporting the integrated design of product platforms and manufacturing systems.…”

“…Thus, a review of all platform concepts that contribute to systematic product family development is not available. However, such a review is deemed important because systematic product family development relies on the potentials of common elements from different development stages, instead of the design stage only, as noted in Levandowski et al (2013Levandowski et al ( , 2014 and Michaelis et al (2014). Based on their field study, Halman et al (2003) also point out that it is very important to investigate other platform concepts so as to utilize the undetected platform potentials, other than these from product platforms.…”

Assessing the cost saving potential of shared product architectures

“…In this step, the market and required properties are mapped according to (3,14,34). It means that the market for a product line is grouped into approximately 4 to 12 categories.…”

“…ability to develop specific products for specific markets, targeting specific low cost needs and high end needs etc. The consequences are however often that there exist a large portfolio of products, where there is very limited sharing between the product families, leading to increased complexity cost, several "inventing the wheel" projects and thereby increased time to market and profit for new products (1, 2,3,4). A warning signal is often that costs are increasing faster than turnover.…”