Application of Product Line Commonality Index (PCI) in a Family of Products

Abstract:

Currently many companies base their marketing strategy around a family of products. Thus, they regularly add new variations to products in order to meet changing market needs, or to attract new customers. Although the basic functionality remains unchanged across products, new features, aesthetic appearance and technologies are incorporated in each new product. This if it is not checked, can generate the “complexity of the product,” which leads to a loss of productivity or quality. Thus, the effective management of product variations in design and manufacturing is challenging. The key is minimizing the non-value added variations through models within a range of options without limiting customers. This article discusses the factors that contribute to the "complexity of the product” and this is done through the product line commonality index (PCI) , which measures the level of common parts in a product family. A case study of bicycle frame displays its implementation and functionality. The index shows the possibility that the products in a family share parts effectively (modularity) and reduces the total number of parts (multifunctionality).

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volume 564)
• Pages: 650-655
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.564.650
• Online since: June 2014
• Authors: M. Oliver Rubio*, O. Julian Mora, G. Alvaro Guarin, I. Pablo Carrizosa
• Keywords: Design, Design Tools, Family Product, Product Platform, Standardization

References

[1] S. Kota, K. Sethuraman and R. Miller, A Metric For Evaluating Design Commonality In Product Families, Journal of Mechanical Design, pp.403-410, (2000).

DOI: 10.1115/1.1320820

[2] J. Mac Duffie, K. Sethuraman and M. Fisher, Product Variety and Manufacturing Performance: Evidence from the International Automotive Assembly plant Study, Manage Sci, (1996).

DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.42.3.350

[3] K. Ulrich, the Role of Product Architecture in The Manufacturing Firm, Research Policy 24, pp.419-440, (1995).

DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3

[4] T. W. Simpson, Product Plataform Design and Customization: Status and Promise Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturign, vol. 18, no. 1, pp.3-20, (2004).

DOI: 10.1017/s0890060404040028

[5] A. P. Lehnerd, Technology and Global Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Economy, Washington: The National Academies, 1987, pp.49-64.

[6] M. Pessina and J. R. Renner, Mass Customization at Lutron Electronics a Total Company Process Agility & Global Competition, Agility & Global Competition, pp.50-57, (1998).

[7] M. Mian, Modularity, platforms, and customization in the automotive industry, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, (2001).

[8] G. V. Shirley, Models for Managing the Redesign and Manufacture of Product Sets, Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management, pp.85-104, (1990).

[9] A. Page and H. Rosenbaum, Redesigning product lines with conjoint analysis: How sunbeam does it, Journal of Production Innovation Management, pp.120-137, (1987).

DOI: 10.1111/1540-5885.420120

[10] K. Sethuraman, The impact of product variety on manufacturing performance: An empirical investigation of the world automobile industry, Pennsylania, (1994).

[11] J. Pine, Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard Business School Press, (1992).

[12] K. Ulrich and K. Tung, Fundamental of Product Modularity, ASME Winter Annual Meeting Symposium on Issues in Design/Manufacturing Integration, (1991).

[13] H. Lee and C. Billington, Designing Products and Processes for Postponement, Conference on Design Management, (1992).