IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v16y2013i2p175-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Divergence and lifecycle offsets in product families with commonality

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan Boas
  • Bruce G. Cameron
  • Edward F. Crawley

Abstract

Commonality, or the reuse and sharing of components, manufacturing processes, architectures, interfaces, and infrastructure across the members of a product family, is an often leveraged strategy targeted at improving corporate profitability. Commonality strategies are widespread in the literature and in industrial practice, but a clear gap exists: The literature has a distinctly positive bias towards the benefits of commonality, whereas industrial success with commonality has been mixed. This article explores two phenomena, divergence and lifecycle offsets, that may prevent companies from properly assessing and realizing the potential benefits of commonality. Using a multiple case study approach, we trace commonality levels through the lifecycles of seven complex product families that span the aerospace, automotive, semiconductor capital equipment, and printing industries. The case studies indicate that commonality tends to decline over time, a phenomenon we title divergence. In contrast to the prevailing concept of parallel development in product families, we find that lifecycle offsets, or temporal separations between the development, manufacturing, operations, and/or retirement phases of two or more products, are prevalent in industrial practice. Through this exploratory study, we find that lifecycle offsets may reduce the potential benefits of commonality, make the realization of benefits much more difficult, delay the realization of benefits, and reallocate potential benefits across individual products. We predict that lifecycle offsets exacerbate divergence. We propose a framework for categorizing parts‐level changes that explicitly recognizes the potential for divergence. We conclude with guidance for product family managers, namely, that commonality be managed dynamically throughout the product family lifecycle, rather than as a static property. Additionally, we articulate the need to make commonality decisions from a product family perspective, a perspective that may lead to decisions that create near‐term costs for one variant but result in larger long‐term savings for a second variant and for the product family as a whole. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 16

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan Boas & Bruce G. Cameron & Edward F. Crawley, 2013. "Divergence and lifecycle offsets in product families with commonality," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 175-192, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:16:y:2013:i:2:p:175-192
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21223
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21223?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kamalini Ramdas & Marshall Fisher & Karl Ulrich, 2003. "Managing Variety for Assembled Products: Modeling Component Systems Sharing," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 142-156, November.
    2. V. Krishnan & Saurabh Gupta, 2001. "Appropriateness and Impact of Platform-Based Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 52-68, January.
    3. Sanderson, Susan & Uzumeri, Mustafa, 1995. "Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 761-782, September.
    4. Azad M. Madni, 2012. "Adaptable platform‐based engineering: Key enablers and outlook for the future," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 95-107, March.
    5. Uzumeri, Mustafa & Sanderson, Susan, 1995. "A framework for model and product family competition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 583-607, July.
    6. Marc H. Meyer & Peter Tertzakian & James M. Utterback, 1997. "Metrics for Managing Research and Development in the Context of the Product Family," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 88-111, January.
    7. Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini & Sylvain Lenfle & Caroline Derousseaux, 2007. "Product development in a platform-driven organization," Post-Print hal-00663018, HAL.
    8. Ernst Fricke & Armin P. Schulz, 2005. "Design for changeability (DfC): Principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 1-1.
    9. Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini & Sylvain Lenfle & Caroline Derousseaux, 2007. "Product development in a platform-driven organization," Post-Print hal-00263343, HAL.
    10. Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini & Sylvain Lenfle & Caroline Derousseaux, 2007. "New Product Development in a Platform-driven Organization: Towards platform lifecycle management," Post-Print hal-00663019, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erica Gralla & Zoe Szajnfarber, 2016. "Characterizing Representational Uncertainty in System Design and Operations," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 535-548, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter E. Harland & Zakir Uddin & Sven Laudien, 2020. "Product platforms as a lever of competitive advantage on a company-wide level: a resource management perspective," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 137-158, February.
    2. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Ali A. Yassine & Luke A. Wissmann, 2007. "The Implications of Product Architecture on the Firm," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 118-137, June.
    4. Israelsen, Poul & Jørgensen, Brian, 2011. "Decentralizing decision making in modularization strategies: Overcoming barriers from dysfunctional accounting systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 453-462, June.
    5. Johnson, Michael D. & Kirchain, Randolph E., 2009. "Quantifying the effects of product family decisions on material selection: A process-based costing approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 653-668, August.
    6. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    7. Suryakant, & Tyagi, Satish, 2015. "Optimization of a platform configuration with generational changes," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 299-309.
    8. Stadtherr, Frank & Wouters, Marc, 2021. "Extending target costing to include targets for R&D costs and production investments for a modular product portfolio—A case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    9. Liu, He & Li, Xuerong & Wang, Shouyang, 2021. "A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of platform research: Developing the research agenda for platforms, the associated technologies and social impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    10. Liu, Heng & Özer, Özalp, 2009. "Managing a product family under stochastic technological changes," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 567-580, December.
    11. Yacine Felk & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil & Patrick Cogez, 2010. "Advanced R&D for prepositioning strategies: the economics of platform shift in high technological velocity environments," Post-Print hal-00696978, HAL.
    12. Kamalini Ramdas & Taylor Randall, 2008. "Does Component Sharing Help or Hurt Reliability? An Empirical Study in the Automotive Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 922-938, May.
    13. Jacobides, Michael G. & Cennamo, Carmelo & Gawer, Annabelle, 2024. "Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    14. Murthy, D.N.P. & Hagmark, P.-E. & Virtanen, S., 2009. "Product variety and reliability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(10), pages 1601-1608.
    15. Thyssen, Jesper & Israelsen, Poul & Jorgensen, Brian, 2006. "Activity-based costing as a method for assessing the economics of modularization--A case study and beyond," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 252-270, September.
    16. René Krikhaar & Wim Mosterman & Niels Veerman & Chris Verhoef, 2009. "Enabling system evolution through configuration management on the hardware/software boundary," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 233-264, September.
    17. Nepal, Bimal & Lassan, Gregg & Drow, Baba & Chelst, Kenneth, 2009. "A set-covering model for optimizing selection of portfolio of microcontrollers in an automotive supplier company," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(1), pages 272-281, February.
    18. Inoue, Yuki & Tsujimoto, Masaharu, 2018. "New market development of platform ecosystems: A case study of the Nintendo Wii," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 235-253.
    19. Wilhelm, Wilbert E. & Xu, Kaihong, 2002. "Prescribing product upgrades, prices and production levels over time in a stochastic environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(3), pages 601-621, May.
    20. Wallace J. Hopp & Xiaowei Xu, 2005. "Product Line Selection and Pricing with Modularity in Design," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 172-187, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:16:y:2013:i:2:p:175-192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.