0
Research Papers

A Product Dissection-Based Methodology to Benchmark Product Family Design Alternatives

[+] Author and Article Information
Henri J. Thevenot

 General Electric Transportation, Erie, PA 16531henri.thevenot@ge.com

Timothy W. Simpson

Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802tws8@psu.edu

http://www.dfma.com, accessed on February 25th, 2009.

J. Mech. Des 131(4), 041002 (Mar 20, 2009) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3086789 History: Received June 02, 2007; Revised December 23, 2008; Published March 20, 2009

Today’s companies are pressured to develop platform-based product families to increase variety, while keeping production costs low. Determining why a platform works, and alternatively why it does not, is an important step in the successful implementation of product families and product platforms in any industry. Internal and competitive benchmarking is essential to obtain knowledge of how successful product families are implemented, thus avoiding potential pitfalls of a poor product platform design strategy. While the two fields of product family design and benchmarking have been growing rapidly lately, we have found few tools that combine the two for product family benchmarking. To address this emerging need, we introduce the product family benchmarking method (PFbenchmark) to assess product family design alternatives (PFDAs) based on commonality/variety tradeoff and cost analysis. The proposed method is based on product family dissection, and utilizes the Comprehensive Metric for Commonality developed in previous work to assess the level of commonality and variety in each PFDA, as well as the corresponding manufacturing cost. The method compares not only (1) existing PFDAs but also (2) the potential cost savings and commonality/variety improvement after redesign using two plots—the commonality/variety plot and the cost plot—enabling more effective comparisons across PFDAs. An example of benchmarking of two families of valves is presented to demonstrate the proposed method.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Product family benchmarking method (PFbenchmark)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Four types of commonality/variety plots

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Cost plot example

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Max CMC versus n

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