Research Papers

Concurrent Design of Product Families and Reconfigurable Assembly Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
April Bryan

The University of the West Indies,
St. Augustine,
Trinidad and Tobago
e-mail: april.bryan@sta.uwi.edu

Hui Wang

e-mail: hui.wang@gm.com

Jeffrey Abell

e-mail: jeffrey.abell@gm.com
Manufacturing Systems Research Lab,
General Motors Global Research & Development,
30500 Mound Road,
Warren, MI 48090

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the Journal of Mechanical Design. Manuscript received March 4, 2011; final manuscript received January 17, 2013; published online April 4, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Timothy W. Simpson.

J. Mech. Des 135(5), 051001 (Apr 04, 2013) (16 pages) Paper No: MD-11-1141; doi: 10.1115/1.4023920 History: Received March 04, 2011; Revised January 17, 2013

To cope with the challenges of market competition and the greater purchasing power of consumers, manufacturers have increased the variety of products they offer. Product families and reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMS) are used to produce product variety cost-effectively. However, there is a lack of concurrent engineering methods for the joint design of a product family and an RMS, since existing concurrent engineering methods were developed for a single product and its associated manufacturing system. The presence of product variety brings challenges to the concurrent engineering of a product family and its reconfigurable assembly system (RAS), as the decision space is broader. This paper introduces a mathematical model for the concurrent design of a product family and a RAS. In addition, a mathematical model for the sequential approach to product family and RAS design is introduced to compare with the results of the concurrent methodology. A genetic algorithm has been developed to solve the models introduced for both the concurrent and sequential approaches. Examples are used to demonstrate the implementation of the concurrent approach to product family and RAS design and the benefits that could be achieved by using this approach. The solutions indicate that the concurrent design of product families and RASs leads to profits that are the same as or higher than the profits obtained with the sequential design approach. Therefore, the concurrent design of product families and RAS methodology is a more cost-effective approach to designing families of products and their associated manufacturing systems.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Topics: Manufacturing , Design
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Dewhurst, P., and Boothroyd, G., 1984, “Design for Assembly: Automatic Assembly,” Mach. Des., 46(2), pp. 87–92.
Nevins, J. L., and Whitney, D., 1989, Concurrent Design of Products and Processes: A Strategy for the Next Generation in Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Meyer, M. H., Terzakian, P., and Utterback, J. M., 1997, “Metrics for Managing Research and Development in the Context of the Product Family,” Manag. Sci., 43(1), pp. 88–111. [CrossRef]
Pine, B. J., II, 1993, “Mass Customizing Products and Services,” Plann. Rev., 21(4), pp. 6–8. [CrossRef]
Koren, Y., 2010, The Global Manufacturing Revolution: Product-Process-Business Integration and Reconfigurable Systems, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Koren, Y., Heisel, U., Jovan, F., Moriwaki, T., Pritschow, G., Ulsoy, G., and Van Brussel, H., 1999, “Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems,” Ann. CIRP, 48(2), pp. 527–540. [CrossRef]
Jose, A., and Tollenaere, M., 2005, “Modular and Platform Methods for Product Family Design: Literature Analysis,” J. Intell. Manuf., 16(3), pp. 371–390. [CrossRef]
Jiao, J., Simpson, T. W., and Siddique, Z., 2006, “Product Family Design and Product-Based Platform Development: A State-of-the-Art Review,” J. Intell. Manuf., 18(1), pp. 5–29. [CrossRef]
Ulrich, K. T., and Eppinger, S. D., 2008, Product Design and Development, McGraw-Hill, New York, Chap. 11, pp. 209–234.
Gonzalez-Zugasti, J., Otto, K., and Baker, J., 2000, “A Method for Architecting Product Platforms,” Res. Eng. Des., 12(2), pp. 61–72. [CrossRef]
Green, P., and Krieger, A., 1985, “Models and Heuristics for Product Line Selection,” Mark. Sci., 4(1), pp. 1–19. [CrossRef]
Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M., Papalambros, P., and Perez-Duarte, A., 2005, “Platform Selection Under Performance Bounds in Optimal Design of Product Families,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 127(4), pp. 524–535. [CrossRef]
Li, H., and Azarm, S., 2002, “An Approach for Product Line Design Selection Under Uncertainty and Competition,” ASME J. Mech. Design, 124(3), pp. 385–392. [CrossRef]
Green, P. E., and Srinivasan, V., 1990, “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments With Implications for Research and Practice,” J. Market., 54(4), pp. 3–19. [CrossRef]
Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., and Wind, Y., 2001, “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects,” Interfaces, 31(3), pp. S56–S73. [CrossRef]
Green, P., and Krieger, A., 1989, “Recent Contributions to Optimal Product Positioning and Buyer Segmentation,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 41(2), pp. 127–141. [CrossRef]
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., and Greene, W. H., 2005, Applied Choice Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Kholi, R., and Krishnamurti, R., 1987, “A Heuristic Approach to Product Design,” Manag. Sci., 33(12), pp. 1523–1533. [CrossRef]
Shocker, A. D., and Srinivasan, V., 1979, “Multiattribute Approaches for Product Concept Evaluation and Generation: A Critical Review,” Manag. Sci., 16(2), pp. 159–180.
Sudharshan, D., May, J. H., and Gruca, T., 1988, “An Analytical Procedure for Generating Optimal New Product Concepts for a Differentiated-Type Strategy”, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 36(1), pp. 50–65. [CrossRef]
Green, P. E., and Krieger, A. M., 1996, “Individualized Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis,” Manag. Sci., 42(6), pp. 850–867. [CrossRef]
Srinivasan, V., and Su Park, C., 1998, “Surprising Robustness of the Self-Explicated Approach to Customer Preference Structure Measurement,” J. Market., 34(2), pp. 286–291.
Becker, C., and Scholl, A., 2006, “A Survey on Problems and Methods in Generalized Assembly Line Balancing,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 168(3), pp. 694–715. [CrossRef]
Rekiek, B., Dolgui, A., Delchambre, A., and Braicu, A., 2002, “State of Art Methods for Assembly Line Design,” Annu. Rev. Control, 26(2), pp. 163–174. [CrossRef]
Koren, Y., and Shpitalni, M., 2010, “Design of Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. E., 29(4), pp. 130–141.
Rekiek, B., De Lit, P., and Delchambre, A., 2000, “Designing Mixed-Product Assembly Lines,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom., 16(3), pp. 268–280. [CrossRef]
Thomopoulos, N., 1967, “Line Balancing-Sequencing for Mixed-Model Assembly,” Manag. Sci., 14(2), pp. B59–B75. [CrossRef]
Thomopoulos, N., 1970, “Mixed Model Line Balancing With Smoothed Station Assignments,” Manag. Sci., 16(9), pp. 593–603. [CrossRef]
Abdi, M. R., and Labib, A. W., 2004, “Grouping and Selecting Products: The Design Key of Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (RMSs),” Int. J. Prod. Res., 42(3), pp. 521–546. [CrossRef]
De Lit, P., Delchambre, A., and Henrioud, J., 2003, “An Integrated Approach for Product Family and Assembly System Design,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom., 19(2), pp. 324–334. [CrossRef]
Stadzisz, P. C., and Henrioud, J. M., 1998, “An Integrated Approach for the Design of Multi-product Assembly Systems,” Comput. Ind., 36(1), pp. 21–29. [CrossRef]
Michalek, J., Ceryan, O., Papalambros, P., and Koren, Y., 2005, “Manufacturing Investment and Allocation in Product Line Design Decision Making,” Proc. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Long Beach, CA.
Jiao, J., and Zhang, Y., 2005, “Product Portfolio Planning With Customer-Engineering Interaction,” IIE Trans., 37(9), pp. 801–814. [CrossRef]
Hernandez, G., Allen, J., Simpson, T., Bascaran, E., Avila, L., and Salina, F., 2001, “Robust Design of Families of Products With Production Modeling and Evaluation,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 123(2), pp. 183–190. [CrossRef]
Raman, N., and Chhajed, D., 1995, “Simultaneous Determination of Product Attributes and Prices and Product Processes in Product-Line Design,” J. Operations Manage., 12(3), pp. 187–204. [CrossRef]
Xu, Z., and Liang, M., 2007, “Integrated Planning for Product Module Selection and Assembly Line Design/Reconfiguration,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 44(11), pp. 2091–2117. [CrossRef]
Bryan, A., Hu, S. J., and Koren, Y., 2007, “Concurrent Product Portfolio Planning and Mixed Product Assembly Line Balancing,” Chin. J. Mech. Eng., 20(1), pp. 96–99. [CrossRef]
Holland, J. H., 1975, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Leu, Y., Matheson, L. A., and Rees, L. P., 1996, “Assembly Line Balancing Using Genetic Algorithms With Heuristic-Generated Initial Populations and Multiple Evaluation Criteria,” Decision Sci., 25(4), pp. 581–606. [CrossRef]
Balakrishnan, P. V., and Jacob, V. S., 1996, “Genetic Algorithms for Product Design,” Manage. Sci., 42(8), pp. 1105–1117. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Features, modules, instances, and a product variant

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Assembly system showing workstations and parallel centers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Precedence diagram for Product Variant 1; (b) precedence diagram for Product Variant 2; (c) product family precedence diagram [27,28]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Optimization formulation for the concurrent design of product families and RAS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Optimization formulation for the sequential engineering approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Chromosome representation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Algorithm for grouping task sequences into workstations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Decoding of a task sequence into workstations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Crossover operator for a product variant subsection

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Crossover operator for a task sequence subsection

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Inversion operator (a) before inversion and (b) after inversion

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Example 1: Selected product family

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Example 2: Office chair (a) and modules (b) precedence diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Example 2: Percentage difference in profit between the concurrent engineering and RAS system and the sequential engineering approaches

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Profit, revenue, and cost versus cost factor for (a) concurrent design of product family and RAS and (b) sequential engineering

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Example 2: Profit versus revenue factor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Example 2: Profit versus consumer preference factor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Example 2: Profit versus competition factor




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