0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

An Approach for Product Line Design Selection Under Uncertainty and Competition

[+] Author and Article Information
Hui Li, Shapour Azarm

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

J. Mech. Des 124(3), 385-392 (Aug 06, 2002) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1485740 History: Received December 01, 2000; Online August 06, 2002
Copyright © 2002 by ASME
Topics: Design
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Li,  H., and Azarm,  S., 2000, “Product Design Selection under Uncertainty and with Competitive Advantage,” ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 122, 411–418.
Nelson, S. A., Parkinson, M. B., and Papalambros, P. Y., 1999, “Multicriteria Optimization in Product Platform Design,” CD-ROM Proceedings of DETC’99, 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 12–16, 1999, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Simpson, T. W., Maier, J. R. A., and Mistree, F., 1999, “A Product Platform Concept Exploration Method for Product Family Design,” CD-ROM Proceedings of DETC99, 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 12–15, 1999, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., Otto, K. N., and Baker, J. D., 1998, “A Method for Architecting Product Platform with an Application to Interplanetary Mission Design,” CD-ROM Proceedings of DETC’98, 1998 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 13–16, 1998, Atlanta, Georgia.
Fujita, K., Akagi, S., Yoneda, T. and Ishikawa, M., 1998, “Simultaneous Optimization of Product Family Sharing System Structure and Configuration,” CD-ROM Proceedings of DETC’98, 1998 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 13–16, 1998, Atlanta, Georgia.
Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., Otto, K. N., and Baker, J. D., 1999, “Assessing Value for Product Family Design and Selection,” CD-ROM Proceedings of the 25th Design Automation Conference, 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 12–15, 1999, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Green,  P. E., and Krieger,  A. M., 1985, “Models and Heuristics for Product Line Selection,” Mark. Sci. (Providence R.I.), 4(1), pp. 1–19.
McBride,  R. D., and Zufryden,  F. S., 1988, “An Integer Programming Approach to the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem,” Mark. Sci. (Providence R.I.), 7(2), pp. 126–140.
Kohli,  R., and Sukumar,  R., 1990, “Heuristics for Product-Line Design Using Conjoint Analysis,” Manage. Sci., 36(12), pp. 1464–1477.
Dobson,  G., and Kalish,  S., 1993, “Heuristics for Pricing and Positioning a Product-Line Using Conjoint Analysis and Cost Data,” Manage. Sci., 39(2), pp. 160–175.
Meyer, M. H., and Lehnerd, A. P., 1997, The Power of Product Platform: Building Value and Cost Leadership, Free Press, New York.
Thonemann,  U. W., and Brandeau,  M. L., 2000, “Optimal Commonality in Component Design,” Oper. Res., 48(1), pp. 1–19.
Green,  P. E., and Srinivasan,  V., 1978, “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,” J. Consum. Res., 5, pp. 103–123.
Park, C. S., and Sharp-Bette, G. P., 1990, Advanced Engineering Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H., 1976, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Levine, D., 1996, “PGAPack Parallel Genetic Algorithm Library,” Mathematics and Computer Science, Argonne National Lab, Argonne, IL.
Balakrishnan,  P. V., and Jacob,  V. S., 1996, “Genetic Algorithms for Product Design,” Manage. Sci., 42(8), pp. 1105–1117.
Narayanan,  S., and Azarm,  S., 1999, “On Improving Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms for Design Optimization,” Struct. Optim., 18, pp. 146–155.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Bottom-up overall framework for product line design selection
Grahic Jump Location
Schematic of a selection approach for a product line
Grahic Jump Location
GA representation of: (a) a single design alternative, and (b) a candidate product line
Grahic Jump Location
Utility distribution of nearly balanced, (a), (c), and unbalanced, (b), (d), product lines with two and three variants
Grahic Jump Location
Normalized attribute levels for Pareto solutions in scenario 1 (without commonality)
Grahic Jump Location
Expected NPV of profit and expected market share for best candidate product lines identified in (a) scenario 1: without commonality, and (b) scenario 2: with commonality

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In