The effectiveness of manufacturing enterprises that compete with product families can be leveraged through an appropriate standardization of components. In this paper we examine how a robust standardization of components can be implemented in the early stages of design with an explicit evaluation of the production system. The approach is based on (1) a mathematical formulation of design decisions using the Compromise Decision Support Problem (DSP), which includes robustness considerations, and (2) modeling production systems as networks of response surfaces. This modeling method facilitates evaluation of the impact of product design changes on the performance of the production system, thus enabling concurrent product-process design exploration. We demonstrate the approach with a case study, namely, the design of an absorber-evaporator module for a family of absorption chillers.

1.
Wheelwright, S. C., and Clark, K. B., 1992, “Creating Project Plans to Focus Product Development,” Harvard Business Review, 70, pp. 70–82.
2.
Uzumeri
,
M.
, and
Sanderson
,
S.
,
1995
, “
A Framework for Model and Product Family Competition
,”
Research Policy
,
24
, pp.
583
607
.
3.
McDermott
,
C. M.
, and
Stock
,
G. N.
,
1994
, “
The Use of Common Parts and Designs in High-Tech Industries: A Strategic Approach
,”
Production and Inventory Management Journal
,
35
, No.
3
, pp.
65
68
.
4.
Collier
,
D. A.
,
1981
, “
The Measurement and Operating Benefits of Component Part Commonality
,”
Decision Sciences
,
12
, No.
1
, pp.
85
96
.
5.
Chen, W., Rosen, D., Allen, J. K. and Mistree, F., 1994, “Modularity and the Independence of Functional Requirements in Designing Complex Systems,” Concurrent Product Design, ASME, pp. 31–38.
6.
Rothwell, R., and Gardiner, P., 1990, “Robustness and Product Design Families,” Design Management: A Handbook of Issues and Methods (Oakley, M., ed.), Basil Blackwell Inc., Cambridge, MA, pp. 279–292.
7.
Martin, M., and Ishii, K., 1996, “Design for Variety: A Methodology for Understanding the Costs of Product Proliferation,” Design Theory and Methodology—DTM’96 (Wood, K., ed.), Irvine, CA, ASME, Paper No. 96-DETC/DTM-1610.
8.
Martin, M. V., and Ishii, K., 1997, “Design for Variety: Development of Complexity Indices and Design Charts,” Advances in Design Automation (Dutta, D., ed.), Sacramento, CA, ASME, Paper No. DETC97/DFM-4359.
9.
Ishii, K., Juengel, C., and Eubanks, C. F., 1995, “Design for Product Variety: Key to Product Line Structuring,” Design Theory and Methodology—DTM’95, Boston, MA, ASME, DE-Vol. 83-2, pp. 499–506.
10.
Fujita, K., and Ishii, K., 1997, “Task Structuring Toward Computational Approaches to Product Variety Design,” Advances in Design Automation (Dutta, D., ed.), Sacramento, CA, ASME, Paper No. DETC97/DAC-3766.
11.
Gonzalez-Zugasti, J., Otto, K., and Baker, J., 1998, “A Method for Architecting Product Platforms with an Application to Interplanetary Mission Design,” Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Atlanta, GA, ASME, DETC98/DAC-5608.
12.
Fujita, K., Yoneda, T., Akagi, S., and Ishikawa, M., 1998, “Simultaneous Optimization of Product Family Sharing System Structure and Configuration,” Design for Manufacturing Conference, Atlanta, GA, ASME, DETC98/DFM-5722.
13.
Tseng, M., and Jiao, J., 1998, “Design for Mass Customization by Developing Product Family Architecture,” Design for Manufacturing Conference, Atlanta, GA, ASME, DETC98/DFM-5717.
14.
Mistree, F., Hughes, O. F., and Bras, B. A., 1993, “The Compromise Decision Support Problem and the Adaptive Linear Programming Algorithm,” Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, AIAA, Washington, D.C., pp. 247–286.
15.
Simpson, T., Chen, W., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F., 1996, “Conceptual Design of a Family of Products through the Use of the Robust Concept Exploration Method,” 6th. AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, AIAA, Vol. 2, pp. 1535–1545.
16.
Hood, S. J., and Welch, P. J., 1993, “Response Surface Methodology and its Application in Simulation,” Proceedings of the 1993 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, pp. 115–122.
17.
Box, G. E. P., and Draper, N. R., 1987, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
18.
Kleijnen, 1995, “Sensitivity Analysis and Optimization in Simulation: Design of Experiments and Case Studies,” Proceedings of the 1995 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, pp. 133–140.
19.
Peplinski, J. D., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F. M., 1996, “Integrating Product Design With Manufacturing Process Design Using the Robust Concept Exploration Method,” Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Irvine, CA, ASME, Paper No. 96-DETC/DTM-1502.
20.
Buzacott, J. A., and Shanthikumar, J. G., 1993, Stochastic Models of Manufacturing Systems, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
21.
Whitt
,
W.
,
1983
, “
The Queueing Network Analyzer
,”
Bell Syst. Tech. J.
,
62
, No.
9
, pp.
2779
2815
.
22.
Whitt
,
W.
,
1995
, “
Variability Functions for Parametric-decomposition Approximations of Queueing Networks
,”
Management Science
,
41
, No.
10
, pp.
1704
1715
.
23.
Myers, R. H., and Montgomery, D. C., 1995, Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, John Wiley and Sons, NY.
24.
Hernandez, G., 1998, “A Probabilistic-based Design Approach with Game Theoretical Representations of the Enterprise Design Process,” MS Thesis, George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
25.
Balling, R., Borup, L., Busaker B., Chambers T., Davidson, D., Gritton, G., Free, J., Parkinson, A., Talbert, J., Warren, D., 1998, OptdesX: A Software System for Optimal Engineering Design, Users Manual, Release 2.0.4., Design Synthesis Inc., Provo, UT.
26.
Koch, P., Mavris, D., Allen, J., and Mistree, F., 1998, “Modeling Noise in Approximation-Based Robust Design: A Comparison and Critical Discussion,” Design Automation Conference, Atlanta, GA, ASME, DETC98/DAC-5588.
27.
Hopp, W. J., and Spearman, M. L., 1996, Factory Physics, IRWIN, Boston.
You do not currently have access to this content.