Advertisement

Value analysis for customizable modular product platforms: theory and case study

  • E. F. Colombo
  • N. Shougarian
  • K. Sinha
  • G. CasciniEmail author
  • O. L. de Weck
Original Paper
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Mass customization and product platform design can exploit the benefits of modularity and provide personalized devices at competitive costs through economies of scope. However, customization-intense platforms can have thousands of potential configurations, whose development and verification must be prioritized. This paper develops a value analysis methodology that is able to rank alternative platform configurations according to customers’ preferences. It introduces Logit value, a definition of value based on a well-known stated choice model and explains the five steps of platform-based value analysis. Since product platforms are complex technical systems, particular attention is given to the gathering of information, the automatic generation of platform architectures and the visualization of results. A case study based on Google ARA’s Spiral-2 modular smart phone concept demonstrates an application of the methodology and shows its potential benefits. The case study leverages data from a conjoint analysis and survey of 200 potential customers in Puerto Rico and a generated set of over 21,000 potential configurations of which less than 1% are shown to be non-dominated. The value analysis identifies module types that are compatible with the modular product platform and appear in a high percentage of Pareto architectures. Knowledge pertaining to non-dominated configurations can provide insights into module development strategy and verification/validation activities.

Keywords

Value analysis Product platform Customization Modularity Choice model Open innovation Automatic architecture synthesis 

List of symbols

\(v_{j}^{{\{ h\} }}\)

Utility of product j according to agent h

\(b_{i}^{{\{ h\} }}\)

Part-worth utility of i-th feature according to agent h

\(u_{i}\)

Binary variable of i-th feature

\(u_{c}^{{\{ h\} }} (p)\)

Part-worth utility for price p

\(P_{i}\)

Probability of i-th choice

\(V_{i}^{{\{ h\} }}\)

Logit value of i-th choice

\(b_{F,i}^{{\{ h\} }}\)

Part-worth utility of i-th function according to agent h

\(b_{P,i}^{{\{ h\} }}\)

Part-worth utility due to performance level of i-th function according to agent h

\(V_{0}^{{\{ h\} }}\)

Baseline value according to agent h

\(V_{\text{cust}}^{{\{ h\} }}\)

Benefits of customizability according to agent h

\(V_{\text{uniq}}^{{\{ h\} }}\)

Benefits of uniqueness according to agent h

\((U_{F,i}^{{\{ h\} }} P_{i}^{{\{ h\} }} )_{emerg}\)

Benefits of i-th emergent function

\((U_{F,i}^{{\{ h\} }} P_{i}^{{\{ h\} }} )_{\text{md}}\)

Benefits of i-th module function

\(U_{c}^{{\{ h\} }}\)(p)

Price sensitivity for price p according to agent h

\(c_{{w,{\text{md}}}}\)

Price of w-th module

\(c_{\text{core}}\)

Price of platform core

Notes

Supplementary material

163_2019_326_MOESM1_ESM.docx (250 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 249 kb)
163_2019_326_MOESM2_ESM.m (12 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (M 13 kb)
163_2019_326_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (2.1 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (XLSX 2148 kb)
163_2019_326_MOESM4_ESM.txt (0 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (TXT 1 kb)
163_2019_326_MOESM5_ESM.txt (1 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (TXT 2 kb)
163_2019_326_MOESM6_ESM.m (1 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (M 2 kb)
163_2019_326_MOESM7_ESM.txt (1 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (TXT 1 kb)
163_2019_326_MOESM8_ESM.txt (0 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (TXT 1 kb)

References

  1. AppleInsider Staff (2015) Teardown finds Samsung Galaxy S4 more costly to build than Apple’s iPhone 5. http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/09/teardown-finds-samsung-galaxy-s4-more-costly-to-build-than-apples-iphone-5. Accessed 23 Jan 2015
  2. Armstrong JS (2001) Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practitioners, vol 30. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baylis K, Zhang G, McAdams DA (2018) Product family platform selection using a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity. Res Eng Design 29:547–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand, vol 9. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Akiva M et al (1997) Modeling methods for discrete choice analysis. Mark Lett 8(3):273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bharadwaj N, Naylor RW, ter Hofstede F (2009) Consumer response to and choice of customized versus standardized systems. Int J Res Mark 26:216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blessing LT, Chakrabarti A (2009) DRM: A design reseach methodology. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron BG, Crawley EF (2014) Crafting platform strategy based on anticipated benefits and costs. Advances in product family and product platform design. Springer, New York, pp 49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan KY, Kwong C, Hu B (2012) Market segmentation and ideal point identification for new product design using fuzzy data compression and fuzzy clustering methods. Appl Soft Comput 12(4):1371–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandukala SR, Kim J, Otter T, Rossi PE, Allenby GM (2008) Choice models in marketing: economic assumptions, challenges and trends. Foundations and Trends® in Marketing 2(2):97–184zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chatterjee S, Heath TB (1996) Conflict and loss aversion in multiattribute choice: the effects of trade-off size and reference dependence on decision difficulty. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 67:144–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheema A, Kaikati AM (2010) The effect of need for uniqueness on word of mouth. J Mark Res 47:553–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheng X, Xiao R, Wang H (2018) A method for coupling analysis of association modules in product family design. J Eng Des 29(6):327–352.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2018.1487531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiandussi G, Codegone M, Ferrero S, Varesio FE (2012) Comparison of multi-objective optimization methodologies for engineering applications. Comput Math Appl 63:912–942MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colombo EF, Cascini G (2014) Complexity as information content and its implications for systems design. In: DS 77: proceedings of the DESIGN 2014 13th International Design Conference, pp 1249–1260Google Scholar
  16. Colombo EF, Cascini G, de Weck OL (2016) Classification of change-related ilities based on a literature review of engineering changes. J Integr Des Process Sci 20(4):3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corning P (2002) The re-emergence of emergence: a venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity 7:18–30MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crawley E, Cameron B, Selva D (2015) System architecture: strategy and product development for complex systems. Prentice Hall Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  19. De Weck O, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2007) A classification of uncertainty for early product and system design. In: DS 42: Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th international conference on engineering design, Paris, France, 28–31, 2007, pp 159–160Google Scholar
  20. De Weck OL, Roos D, Magee CL (2011) Engineering systems: meeting human needs in a complex technological world. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dell’Isola A (1997) Value engineering: practical applications for design, construction, maintenance and operations. RSMEans, Wiley, 464 pp. ISBN: 978-0-876-29463-5Google Scholar
  22. Den Hartigh E, Ortt JR, Van de Kaa G, Stolwijk CC (2016) Platform control during battles for market dominance: the case of Apple versus IBM in the early personal computer industry. Technovation 48:4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Derdenger T, Kumar V (2013) The dynamic effects of bundling as a product strategy. Mark Sci 32(6):827–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Diehl K, Poynor C (2010) Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. J Mark Res 47:312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Everitt BS, Landau S, Leese M (2001) Cluster Analysis. Arnold, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Fairphone (2015) Cost breakdown of a Fairphone 2. https://www.fairphone.com/2015/09/09/cost-breakdown-of-the-fairphone-2/. Accessed 26 Nov 2019
  27. Ferguson S, Olewnik A, Cormier P (2011) Exploring marketing to engineering information mapping in mass customization: a presentation of ideas, challenges and resulting questions. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Washington, DC, August, pp 28–31Google Scholar
  28. Ferguson SM, Olewnik AT, Cormier P (2014) A review of mass customization across marketing, engineering and distribution domains toward development of a process framework. Res Eng Des 25:11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fogliatto FS, da Silveira GJC, Borenstein D (2012) The mass customization decade: an updated review of the literature. Int J Prod Econ 138:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franke N, Piller F (2004) Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and design: the case of the watch market. J Prod Innov Manag 21:401–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Franke N, Schreier M (2008) Product uniqueness as a driver of customer utility in mass customization. Mark Lett 19:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Franke N, Schreier M (2010) Why customers value self-designed products: the importance of process effort and enjoyment. J Prod Innov Manag 27:1020–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Franke N, Keinz P, Steger CJ (2009) Testing the value of customization: when do customers really prefer products tailored to their preferences? J Mark 73(5):103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Freeman, R. E., McVea, J. (2001) A stakeholder approach to strategic management. In: The Blackwell handbook of strategic management. WileyGoogle Scholar
  35. Garvare R, Johansson P (2010) Management for sustainability—a stakeholder theory. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 21:737–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gawer A (2009) Platforms, markets and innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ghosh DD, Olewnik A, Lewis KE (2017) An integrated framework for predicting consumer choice through modeling of preference and product use data. In: ASME 2017 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital CollectionGoogle Scholar
  38. Gourville JT, Soman D (2005) Overchoice and assortment type: when and why variety backfires. Mark Sci 24:382–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Green PE, Rao VR (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J Mark Res 8(3):355–363Google Scholar
  40. Green PE, Goldberg SM, Montemayor M (1981) A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis. J Mark 45:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Han S, Gupta S, Lehmann DR (2001) Consumer price sensitivity and price thresholds. J Retail 77:435–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning, 2nd edn. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  43. Hölttä-Otto K, De Weck O (2007) Degree of modularity in engineering systems and products with technical and business constraints. Concur Eng 15(2):113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Informate (2015) International smartphone mobility reportGoogle Scholar
  45. Jiao J, Ma Q, Tseng MM (2003) Towards high value-added products and services: mass customization and beyond. Technovation 23:809–821.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00023-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnson RM (1987) Adaptive conjoint analysis. In: Sawtooth software conference proceedings. Sawtooth Software, pp 253–265Google Scholar
  47. Jung S, Simpson TW (2016) An integrated approach to product family redesign using commonality and variety metrics. Res Eng Des 27:391–412.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0224-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kano N (1984) Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu (Qual J Jpn Soc Qual Control) 14:39–48Google Scholar
  49. Kasiri LA, Cheng KTG, Sambasivan M, Sidin SMd (2017) Integration of standardisation and customisation: Impact on service quality, customer satisfaction, and loyalty. J Retail Consum Serv 35:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kazemzadeh RB, Behzadian M, Aghdasi M, Albadvi A (2009) Integration of marketing research techniques into house of quality and product family design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41:1019–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Keizer G (2015) Teardowns reveal Apple’s customary high margins for both iPhone 5S and 5C. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2485106/mobile-wireless/teardowns-reveal-apple-s-customary-high-margins-for-both-iphone-5s-and-5c.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2015
  52. Kim H, Chen J, Kim E, Agogino AM (2017) Scenario-based conjoint analysis: measuring preferences for user experiences in early stage design. In: ASME 2017 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital CollectionGoogle Scholar
  53. Kumar D, Chen W, Simpson TW (2009) A market-driven approach to product family design. Int J Prod Res 47:71–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lassar W, Mittal B, Sharma A (1995) Measuring customer-based brand equity. J Consum Mark 12(4):11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Liang B, He Y (2012) The effect of culture on consumer choice: the need for conformity vs. the need for uniqueness. Int J Consum Stud 36:352–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lindemann U, Maurer M, Braun T (2008) Structural complexity management: an approach for the field of product design. Springer Science and Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ma J, Kim HM (2016) Product family architecture design with predictive, data-driven product family design method. Res Eng Design 27(1):5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McCracken H (2014) Project Ara: inside Google’s bold gambit to make smartphones modular. Time Mag. https://time.com/10115/google-project-ara-modular-smartphone/. Accessed 26 Nov 2019
  60. McManus H, Hastings D (2006) A framework for understanding uncertainty and its mitigation and exploitation in complex systems. IEEE Eng Manag Rev 34(3):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meyer MH, Lehnerd AP (1997) The power of product platforms—building value and cost leadership. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Miles LD (1961) Techniques of value analysis and engineering. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Mohan M, Chen Y, and Shah JJ (2011) Towards a framework for holistic ideation in conceptual design. In: ASME 2011 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, American Society of Mechanical EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  64. Muffatto M, Roveda M (2000) Developing product platforms: analysis of the development process. Technovation 20:617–630.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(99)00178-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Okudan GE, Chiu MC, Kim TH (2013) Perceived feature utility-based product family design: a mobile phone case study. J Intell Manuf 24(5):935–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pakkanen J, Juuti T, Lehtonen T (2019) Identifying and addressing challenges in the engineering design of modular systems—case studies in the manufacturing industry. J Eng Des 30(1):32–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Piasecki M, Hanna S (2011) A redefinition of the paradox of choice. Design computing and cognition’10. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pine BJ (1993) Making mass customization happen: strategies for the new competitive realities. Plan Rev 21(5):23–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Qian, L (2009) Supply chain selection with delivery time, price and service level dependent demand. POMS 20th annual conference, pp 129–134Google Scholar
  70. Rao VR (2014) Applied conjoint analysis. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ricci F, Rokach L, Shapira B (2011) Introduction to recommender systems handbook. Recommender systems handbook. Springer, BostonzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ruvio A, Shoham A, Brencic MM (2008) Consumers’ need for uniqueness: short-form scale development and cross-cultural validation. Int Mark Rev 25:33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schwartz B (2004) The paradox of choice: why less is more. Harper PerennialGoogle Scholar
  74. Selva VD (2012) Rule-based system architecting of earth observation satellite systems. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  75. Shougarian NR (2016) Towards concept generation and performance-complexity tradespace exploration of engineering systems using convex hulls, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  76. Simpson TW, Jiao JR, Siddique Z, Holtta-Otto K (2014) Advances in product family and product platform design. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sinha K, de Weck OL (2013) A network-based structural complexity metric for engineered complex systems. In: 2013 IEEE international systems conference (SysCon). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  78. Sylcott B, Cagan J (2014) Modeling aggregate choice for form and function through metaconjoint analysis. J Mech Des 136(12):124501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Topcu TG, Mesmer BL (2018) Incorporating end-user models and associated uncertainties to investigate multiple stakeholder preferences in system design. Res Eng Design 29:411.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0276-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Trentin A, Perin E, Forza C (2013) Sales configurator capabilities to avoid the product variety paradox: construct development and validation. Comput Ind 64:436–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tu Q, Vonderembse MA, Ragu-Nathan B (2001) The impact of time-based manufacturing practices on mass customisation and value to customer. J Oper Manag 19:201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tu YL, Xie SQ, Fung RYK (2007) Product development cost estimation in mass customization. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 54:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Turner C, Ferguson S, Donndelinger J (2011) Exploring heterogeneity of customer preference to balance commonality and market coverage. In: ASME 2011 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 67–79Google Scholar
  84. Ulrich K (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res Policy 24:419–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ulrich K, Eppinger S (2011) Product design and development. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  86. Valenzuela A, Dhar R, Zettelmeyer F (2009) Contingent response to self-customization procedures: implications for decision satisfaction and choice. J Mark Res 46:754–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vigneron F, Johnson LW (1999) A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer behavior. Acad Mark Sci Rev 1(1):1–15Google Scholar
  88. Ware C (2008) Visual thinking for design. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA. ISBN 978-0-12-370896-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weustink I, ten Brinke E, Streppel AH, Kals HJ (2000) A generic framework for cost estimation and cost control in product design. J Mater Process Technol 103:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wynn DC, Grebici K, Clarkson PJ (2011) Modelling the evolution of uncertainty levels during design. Int J Interact Des Manuf (IJIDeM) 5:187–202.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-011-0131-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wang W, Qin X, Yan X, et al (2007) Developing a systematic method for constructing the function platform of product family. 2007 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, pp 60–64Google Scholar
  92. Zeelenberg M, Van Dijk WW, Manstead AS (1998) Reconsidering the relation between regret and responsibility. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 74(3):254–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zeidner, L, Reeve, H, Khire, R, Becz, S (2010) Architectural enumeration and evaluation for identification of low-complexity systems. In: 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) ConferenceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Aeronautics and AstronauticsMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Data, Systems and Society, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations