Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A multi-criteria assessment tool for screening preliminary product platform concepts

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Platform concept evaluation is a more challenging task than evaluating a single product concept since a platform must effectively support multiple product variants over a prolonged period of time. Existing platform methods develop specific criteria in depth, yet an evaluation of alternative platforms should be based on a broad set of criteria. Based on expert interviews, personal experience, and a literature search we propose a platform assessment tool consisting of 19 criteria for platform evaluation. The criteria are group into six categories: customer satisfaction, variety, after-sale, organization, flexibility, and complexity. The tool is focused on the early platform architecture phase, before proof-of-concept prototyping. However, it can also be used subsequently for platform refinement when more data becomes available. We demonstrate our platform assessment tool through an example with a cordless drill platform.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Association of National Advertisers. (1984). Prescription for new product success. New York.

  • Baldwin C., Clark K. (2000) Design rules: The power of modularity design. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, L., Clements, P., & Kazman, R. (2003). Software architecture in practice (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.

  • Black and Decker corporate website. http://www.bdk.com/environment/environmental_affairs.htm

  • Blackenfelt, M. (2001). Managing complexity by product modularization. Doctoral Thesis, Dept. of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

  • Dahmus, J., & Otto, K. (2001). Incorporating lifecycle costs into product architecture decisions. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh. DETC2001/ DAC-21110.

  • De Weck, O., & Chang, D. (2002). Architecture trade methodology for LEO personal communication systems. AIAA 20th Intl Comm Satellite Systems Conference, Montreal.

  • Boothroyd G., Dewhurst P., Knight W. (2002) Product design for manufacture and assembly (2nd ed). Marcel Dekker Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson A., Erixon G. (1999) Controlling design variants: Modular product platforms. ASME press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M., Papalambros, P., & Perez-Duarte, A. (2002). Platform selection under performance loss constraints in optimal design of product families. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Montreal. DETC02/ DAC-34099.

  • Fine, C. H., Vardan, R., Pethick, R., & El-Hout, J. (2002). Rapid response capability in value-chain design. Sloan Management Review, Winter 2002.

  • Ferdinand, A. (1993). Systems, software, and quality engineering, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

  • Fredriksson P., Araujo L. (2003) The evaluation of supplier performance: A case study of Volvo Cars and its module suppliers. Journal of Customer Behavior 2(3): 365–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita, K., & Nishikawa, T. (2001). Value-adds assessment method for product deployment across life stages through Quality Function Deployment. International Conference on Engineering Design, Glasgow.

  • Fujita, K., Sakaguchi, H., & Akagi, S. (1999). Product variety deployment and its optimization under modular architecture and module communalization. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Las Vegas. DETC1999/ DFM-8923.

  • Gershenson J.K., Prasad G.J., Allamneni S. (1999) Modular product design: A life-cycle view. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 3(4): 13–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Zugasti, J., & Otto, K. (2000). Modular platform-based product family design. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Baltimore. DETC00/DAC-14238.

  • Graedel T., Allenby H., Comrie P. (1995) Matrix approaches to abridged life cycle assessment. Environmental Science and Technology 29(3): 134A–139A

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J. R. (2001). Metrics thermostat. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 3.

  • Holtta, K., & Otto, K. (2003). Incorporating design complexity measures in architectural assessment. Design Studies, to appear. Also in ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Chicago. DETC2003/DTM-48648.

  • Hölttä, K., Tang, V., & Seering, W. (2003). Modularizing product architectures using dendrograms. International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.

  • Kota, S., Sethuraman, K., & Miller, R. (2000). A Metric for evaluating design commonality in product families. Journal of Mechanical Design, 122, 403–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin M., Ishii K. (2002) Design for variety: Developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Research in Engineering Design 13(4): 213–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. V., Kmenta, S., & Ishii, K. (1998). QFD and the designer lessons from 200+ houses of quality. World Innovation and Strategy Conference, Sydney.

  • Nayak, R., Chen, W., & Simpson, T. (2000). A variation-based methodology for product family design. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Baltimore. DETC00/DAC-14264.

  • Nelson S., Parkinson M., Papalambros P. (2001) Multicriteria optimization in product platform design. Journal of Mechanical Design 123: 199–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb P., Bras B., Rosen D. (1998) Implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. Journal of Mechanical Design 120: 483–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

  • Raiffa H., Keeney R. (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, P., Van Wie, M., Campbell, M., Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2003). Design for flexibility – measures and guidelines. International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm. Also to appear in Design Studies.

  • Saaty, T. (1988). The analytic hierarchy process.

  • Siddique, Z., & Rosen, D. (2000). Product family configuration reasoning using discrete design spaces. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Baltimore, Maryland. DETC00/DTM-14666.

  • Simpson T., Maier J., Mistree F. (2001) Product platform design: Method and application. Research in Engineering Design 13(1): 2–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., & Duffy, A. (2001). Modularity in support of design for re-use. International Conference on Engineering Design. Glasgow.

  • Sosa M., Eppinger S., Rowles G. (2003) Identifying modular and integrative systems and their impact on design team interactions. Journal of Mechanical Design 125: 240–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudjianto, A., & Otto, K. (2001). Modularization to support multiple brand platforms. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh. DETC2001/DTM-21695.

  • Suh N. (2001) Axiomatic design: Advances and applications. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, M. (1989). Cost planning in the design phase of a new product. In Y. Mondem & M. Sakurai (Eds.), Japanese management accounting. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.

  • Ulrich K., Eppinger S. (2000) Product design and development (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • www.consumerreports.com

  • Zamirowski, E., & Otto K. (1999). Identifying product family architecture modularity using function and variety heuristics. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Las Vegas. DETC1999/DTM-8760.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Robust Systems and Strategy, Taunton, MA, USA

    Kevin Otto

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA, USA

    Katja Hölttä-Otto

Authors
  1. Kevin Otto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katja Hölttä-Otto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Otto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Otto, K., Hölttä-Otto, K. A multi-criteria assessment tool for screening preliminary product platform concepts. J Intell Manuf 18, 59–75 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0004-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0004-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation