Supporting the utilization of a platform approach in the engineer-to-order supplier industry

(1)

Supporting the Utilization of a

Platform Approach in the

Engineer-to-Order Supplier

Industry

Licentiate Thesis Samuel André Jönköping University School of Engineering

(2)

Licentiate Thesis in Machine Design

Supporting the Utilization of a Platform Approach in the

Engineer-to-Order Supplier Industry

Dissertation Series No. 020

© 2017 Samuel André

Published by

School of Engineering, Jönköping University

P.O. Box 1026

SE-551 11 Jönköping

Tel. +46 36 10 10 00

www.ju.se

(3)

ABSTRACT

Manufacturing companies are continuously faced with requirements regarding technology novelty, shortertimetomarket,ahigherleveloffunctionality,andlowerpricesfortheirproducts.ThisisesͲ peciallytrueofsuppliersthatdevelopandmanufacturehighlycustomizedproductswithintheautoͲ motiveindustry.Itisnotuncommonthatarequestforanewproductorsubsystemgoesouttoseveral suppliersandthattheonethatcandelivertheproductmostquicklyandatthelowestpricereceives thecontract.Itisthereforevitalforanysuppliertoanswertoquotationrequestsrapidlyandwitha highlevelofprecisionwhilealsoensuringthatcompanyassetsareusedefficiently.Otherissuesthat applytosuppliersintheautomotiveindustryareheavilyfluctuatingrequirementsduringdevelopment projects,eachcustomer’sindividualpreferences,andtheeverͲchanginginterfaceswiththeOEMprodͲ uctwithwhich thesupplier’sproductistobeintegrated.Platformstrategies havebeenwidelyacͲ ceptedinindustrytoserveawideproductvarietywhilemaintainingbusinessefficiency.However,the challengeofapplyingaplatformstrategyatthesupplierlevelinthefaceoftherealitydescribedabove hasnotbeenfullyinvestigated.Platformapproachestendtorequireafocuseddevelopmentofthe platform,whichinturnrequiressomeknowledgeaboutwhichfuturevariantsaretobederivedfrom theplatform.TheresearchpresentedinthisthesisinvestigatesthestateofpracticeinindustryregardͲ ingthechallenges,needs,andcurrentuseofplatforms.Torespondtotheidentifiedneed,aplatform approachisproposedthatexpandsthescopeofwhataproductplatformhastraditionallycontained. Thisisundertakentoaidinthedevelopmentofhighlycustomizedproductswhenphysicalmodulesor componentscalabilitydoesnotsuffice.Theplatformapproachprovidesacoherentenvironmentfor heterogeneousdesignassetstobeusedinproductdevelopment,supportingboththeactivityofdeͲ signingandoffͲtheͲshelfsolutions.Theapproachisbasedonidentifyingandmodellinggenericproduct itemsthatareassociatedwithdescriptionsgoverningtheirdesign.BydescribingtheoutcomeoftechͲ nologyandproductdevelopmentlikefinisheddesigns,designguidelines,constraints,etc.,inastandͲ ardizedformat,theplatformcontinuestoevolve.Toaidinusingtheplatformapproach,asupport systemcalledDesignPlatformManagerisintroducedatacompanyactiveasasecondͲtiersupplierin theautomotiveindustry.ThesystemenablesthecreationofgenericproductitemsthatcanbestrucͲ tured,instantiated,andassociatedwithdescriptions,whichaidsinrealizingproductvariants.Theaim oftheplatformapproachandtoolistosupportthequotationandcontinueddesignprocessesbyidenͲ tifyingvalidknowledgetouseascircumstances,suchasrequirementchangesornewdesigniterations, warrant.Thesupporttoolandoverarchingmodelhavebeenevaluatedbycompanyrepresentatives, whoreportedgoodresults. Keywords:ProductDevelopment,EngineeringDesign,Quotation,Customization,Supplier,Platform, DesignReuse,Adapt,ConcurrentEngineering

(4)

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ThisthesiswascarriedoutintheDepartmentofProductDevelopment,JönköpingUniversity,Sweden. Iwouldliketoexpressmygratitudetomysupervisor,FredrikElgh,whogavemetheopportunityto pursueadoctoraldegree.Youhavegivenmethefreedomtotrymyownideasandsupportedmewith input,fruitfuldiscussions,andyourinvaluableabilitytoseethebiggerpicture. Thisworkwouldnothavebeenpossibleifitwerenotforindustrialcollaboratorsandexternalfunding. IwouldliketothanktheSwedishAgencyforInnovationSystems,VINNOVA,forfundingtheChaSE project,inwhichthisresearchhasbeenconducted.ThankstoThule,GKNAerospace,andAxelentEnͲ gineeringforparticipatingintheresearchprojectandmakingpartialcontributionstothework.AspeͲ cialthanksgoestoKongsbergAutomotiveforpermittingmetohaveaccesstotheirfacilitiesandperͲ sonnel,whichwereabsolutelyessentialtothesuccessfulcompletionofthisthesis. ThankyoutomycoͲsupervisorRolandStoltforconstructivecriticism,valuableinput,andcarefulproofͲ reading in the writing process. Great thanks also go to Joel Johansson for the incredible level of knowledgeofcomputerprogrammingthathewassowillingtosharewithme.ThanksalsogotoTim HeikkinenandMortezaPoorkianyforfruitfulandchallengingdiscussions.ItisbychallengingourbeͲ liefsthatwedevelop. IwouldalsoliketothankadditionalfriendsandcolleaguesattheSchoolofEngineering,especiallyin theDepartmentofProductDevelopment.Itisajoytoworktogetherwithyouinthisenvironment. Finally,Iwouldliketooffermythankstomyfamily,especiallymywifeAnnikaandourthreechildren, Olle,Svante,andTage,forthecontinuousencouragementandsupportwhichyouhavegivenmeand forthemanyperfectlyvalidreasonstonotbeatwork.Withoutyou,lifewouldmakemuchlesssense andnotbeanywherenearlyasenjoyable.

(6)

(7)

APPENDEDPAPERS

APPENDED PAPERS

Thefollowingpapersconstitutethefoundationofthisthesis: Paper1 SamuelAndré,RolandStolt,FredrikElgh,JoelJohansson,&MortezaPoorkiany(2014). ManagingFluctuatingRequirementsbyPlatformsDefinedintheInterfaceBetweenTechͲ nologyandProductDevelopment.Proceedingsofthe21stISPEInternationalConference onConcurrentEngineering,Beijing,China,September8Ͳ11,2014. Workdistribution SamuelAndréperformedthedataanalysisandwrotethepaper.FredrikElghsynthesizedthehypothesis model.RolandStoltandFredrikElghsupportedbyproofreading.Allincludedauthorscontributedtothe researchdesignanddatacollection. ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ Paper2 SamuelAndré,RolandStolt,&FredrikElgh(2015).IntroducingDesignDescriptionsonDifͲ ferentLevelsofConcretizationinaPlatformDefinition.Proceedingsofthe12thIFIPWG 5.1InternationalConference,PLM2015,Doha,Qatar,October19Ͳ21,2015. Workdistribution SamuelAndréwrotethepaper,synthesizedthemainpartsofthetheory,anddevelopedthecomputer supporttool.RolandStoltandFredrikElghsupportedinthesynthesisofthetheoryandinproofreading. ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ Paper3 SamuelAndré,RolandStolt,&FredrikElgh(2016).APlatformModelforSuppliersofCusͲ tomizedSystems–CreatinganAbilitytoMasterFluctuatingRequirements.Proceedingsof ASMEInternationalDesignEngineeringTechnicalConferences&ComputersandInforͲ mationinEngineeringConferenceIDETC/CIE,Charlotte,NorthCarolina,USA,August21Ͳ 24,2016. Workdistribution SamuelAndréwrotethepaper,synthesizedthemainpartsofthetheory,developedthecomputersupͲ porttool,anddesignedtheevaluationapproach.RolandStoltandFredrikElghsupportedinthesynthesis ofthetheory,conductingtheevaluation,andproofreading. ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ Paper4 SamuelAndré&FredrikElgh(2017)IntroducingaPlatformApproachataSupplierforEffiͲ cientDesignofHighlyCustomizedSystems.Submittedtoajournal. Workdistribution SamuelAndréwrotethepaperanddevelopedthecomputersupporttool.SamuelAndréandFredrikElgh synthesizedthetheory,conductedtheevaluation,andexecutedthestudy.FredrikElghsupportedby proofreading.

(8)

(9)

ADDITIONALPAPERS

ADDITIONAL PAPERS

Thefollowingpaperscontributepartiallytotheresultsbutdonotformpartofthethesisfoundation. RolandStolt,SamuelAndré,FredrikElgh,JoelJohansson,&MortezaPoorkiany(2015).ManagingRiskin theIntroductionofNewTechnologyinProducts.JournalofAerospaceOperations,ISSN2211Ͳ002X,Vol.3, nos.3Ͳ4,167Ͳ184. RolandStolt,SamuelAndré,FredrikElgh,&PetterAndersson(2015).ManufacturabilityAssessmentinthe ConceptualDesignofAircraftEngines–BuildingKnowledgeandBalancingTradeͲoffs.Proceedingsofthe 12thIFIPWG5.1InternationalConference,PLM2015,Doha,October19Ͳ21,2015. JoelJohansson,SamuelAndré,&FredrikElgh(2015).SimulationReadyCADͲmodelsasaMeansfor KnowledgeTransferBetweenTechnologyDevelopmentandProductDevelopment.Proceedingsofthe 20thInternationalConferenceonEngineeringDesign(ICED),Milan,Italy,July27Ͳ31,2015. SamuelAndré(2016).TowardsaPlatformApproachSupportingtheInterfaceBetweenTechnologyͲand ProductDevelopment.Proceedingsofthe14thInternationalDesignConference,Dubrovnik,May16Ͳ19, 2016. FredrikElgh,SamuelAndré,JoelJohansson,&RolandStolt(2016).DesignPlatform–SettingtheScope andintroducingtheConcept.Proceedingsofthe14thInternationalDesignConference,Dubrovnik,May 16Ͳ19,2016. RolandStolt,JoelJohansson,SamuelAndré,&TimHeikkinen(2016).HowtoChallengeFluctuatingReͲ quirements:ResultsfromThreeCompanies.Proceedingsofthe23rdISPEInc.InternationalConferenceon TransdisciplinaryEngineering,Parana,Curitiba,October3Ͳ7,2016. RolandStolt,SamuelAndré,FredrikElgh,&PetterAndersson(2016).EarlystageassessmentoftheinͲ spectabilityofweldedcomponents:Acasefromtheaerospaceindustry.ProceedingsofSPS16,Lund,OctoͲ ber26Ͳ27,2016.

(10)

(11)

ABBREVIATIONS

AD–AdaptableDesign B2B–BusinessͲtoͲBusiness BOM–BillofMaterial CAD–ComputerͲAidedDesign CC–ConfigurableComponent CE–ConcurrentEngineering CODP–CustomerOrderDecouplingPoint CTO–ConfiguretoOrder DE–DesignElement DMM–DomainMappingMatrix DP–DesignPlatform DPM–DesignPlatformManager DS–DescriptiveStudy DSM–DesignStructureMatrix ETO–EngineertoOrder GPI–GenericProductItem MTO–ModifytoOrder PCB–PrintedCircuitBoard PD–ProductDevelopment PDM–ProductDataManagement PLM–ProductLifecycleManagement PS–PrescriptiveStudy PVM–ProductVariantMaster RFQ–RequestforQuotation SBCE–SetͲBasedConcurrentEngineering SC–SuccessCriteria TD–TechnologyDevelopment TRL–TechnologyReadinessLevel

(12)

(13)

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...1 1.1 Aimandgoal...2 1.2 Researchfocus...3 1.3 Researchquestions...3 1.4 Scopeanddelimitations...5 1.5 Researchproject...5 1.6 Outlineofthethesis...5 FRAMEOFREFERENCE...7 2.1 Productdevelopment...8 2.2 Customization...8 2.2.1 Masscustomization...9 2.2.2 Productplatforms...11 2.2.3 Adaptabledesign...14 2.3 Requirementmanagement...15 2.3.1 Changingandconflictingrequirements...16 2.4 Reuseofdesignknowledge...18 2.4.1 Toolsfordesignknowledgereuse...18 2.5 Technologydevelopment...19 2.5.1 Thetechnologyandproductdevelopmentinterface...20 2.6 Summaryandresearchopportunities...21 METHODOLOGY...23 3.1 Designresearch...23 3.2 Designsupportmodels...23 3.3 Researchdesignandanalysisofdata...24 3.3.1 Typeofresearch...25 3.3.2 Datacollectionmethods...26 3.3.3 Actionresearch...27 3.3.4 Systemdevelopment...28 3.4 Qualityoftheresearch...28 3.5 Applicationoftheresearchmethodology...29 SUMMARYOFPAPERS...31 4.1 Paper1...31

(14)

CONTENTS 4.1.1 PlatformchallengesandprerequisitesinETOindustries...32 4.1.2 Platformabstractionlevels...33 4.1.3 Aplatformmodelhypothesisforsuppliersofcustomizedsystems...33 4.2 Paper2...33 4.2.1 Aconceptualplatformdescription...34 4.2.2 Introducingdesignelementsascarriersofdesignknowledge...34 4.2.3 Designelementstructuringandidentification...35 4.3 Paper3...36 4.3.1 Aplatformapproachtosupportsuppliersofcustomizedsystems...36 4.3.2 Supportingtheuseandexpansionofanapplieddesignplatform...37 4.4 Paper4...38 4.4.1 Arefinedandformalizedplatformapproachandmodel...38 4.4.2 TheDPMandPDM...38 4.4.3 Platformexpansionanduse...40 EVALUATIONOFRESULTS...43 5.1 Thefirstcaseevaluation...43 5.1.1 Evaluationanalysis...43 5.2 Thesecondcaseevaluation...44 5.2.1 Evaluationresults...45 DISCUSSION...47 6.1 Anenablerforincreasedresponsivenesstofluctuatingrequirements...48 6.2 Discussingtheresearchquestions...49

6.2.1 RQ1: What is the current state of the utilization of product platforms for suppliers developinghighlycustomizedproductsinB2Benvironments?...49 6.2.2 RQ2:Howcanaplatformapproachbeconceptualizedtosupportcustomizationfora companyactiveinthisenvironment?...50 6.2.3 RQ3:Howcansuchaplatformapproachbeformalizedandappliedinpractice?...50 6.3 Verificationandvalidationofresearch...51 CONCLUSIONS...53 7.1 Futurework...54 REFERENCES...57 APPENDEDPAPERS...63

(15)

INTRODUCTION

1

INTRODUCTION

Manufacturing companies are continuously faced with requirements regarding technology novelty, shortertimetomarket,higherleveloffunctionality,andlowerpricesfortheirproducts.Thisapplies especiallytotherealityofcompaniesthatdevelopandmanufacturehighlycustomizedproductswithin thesupplierindustry.Thetraditionalviewoftheproductlifecycleintroducesthecustomerintothe saleanddistributionphases.Thistypeofbusinessisoftenconcernedwithidentifyingandtransferring customer needs into fixed specifications, which guides the product development of end consumer products.TheengineerͲtoͲorder(ETO)supplierindustrydifferentiatesitselffromthisapproachinthat thecustomerisalreadyinvolvedinthescopingandquotationstages.Thisindustrycannotworkasthe endcustomersectorcan,sincerequirementsareexpresslysetbythecustomer,whichoftenisanorigͲ inalequipmentmanufacturer(OEM)oranothersupplier.ItisnotuncommonforproductstobedevelͲ opedincooperationwiththecustomerandforprojectstoextendoverseveralyears.DuringthecoͲ operativedevelopmentphase,requirementsoftenfluctuate.ThishasbeeninvestigatedintheautoͲ motiveindustry(Almefelt,Berglund,Nilsson,&Malmqvist,2006),andissaidtobeanaturalprocess sinceknowledgeisgainedandprerequisiteschangethroughouttheproject.Andersson(2003)states thatmisunderstandingsareoneofthesourcesofrequirementchanges,oftenduetothefactthatthe requirementsarenotspecifiedclearlyinthefirstplace.Thesechangesoftenstemfromthecomplex interplay between various suppliers using the same interfaces as inputs to their development proͲ cesses.Whensolutionsrequirechangestotheinterfaces,othersuppliersandthustheirsolutionsare alsoaffected.Thisinturnrequireschangesinaffectedsubsystemsorchangestotherequirements themselves.Ontheseoccasions,itiscrucialtomanagerequirementfluctuationsandhaveaneffective methodtoadapttotheeverͲevolvingsituation.TherearedifferentviewsofthedynamicsofrequireͲ ments.Sutinen,Almefelt,andMalmqvist(2000)indicatethatitisdesirabletoformafixedlistofthe requirementstoguidetheproductdevelopment(PD)processandtoreducerisk(Halbleib,2004).A slightlydifferentviewisgivenbyAlmefeltetal.(2006),whoreportthatrequirementsshouldbeesͲ tablishedearlybutthatstakeholdersshouldbeopenͲmindedaboutchanges.Anunderstandingthat

(16)

INTRODUCTION differsfromtheseistheviewofsetͲbasedconcurrentengineering(SBCE),whichstatesthatlatedeciͲ sionmakingandlatedetailingoftherequirements–i.e.keepingalargedesignspace–isdesirable, sincesuchastrategyleadstoasteadyconvergenceofsolutions(Land,1982).InRaudberget(2012), improvementsinproductperformance,productcost,andthelevelofinnovationareshownthrough theimplementationofSBCE.

Customization refers to abilities and strategies that aim at the design and manufacture of tailored productsforindividualcustomers.Dependingonpreciselywhentheactualcustomizationstarts,four differentbusinessmodelscanbeidentified:engineertoorder(ETO),modifytoorder,configureto order,andselectvariant(Hansen,2003).Forthelattertwo,productplatformshavesubstantialsuccess asenablersofefficientcustomization. Onefactorthatamplifiesthechallengeforsuppliersofapplyingaplatformapproachisthesplittingof technologydevelopment(TD)andPD.TDoftenhasalongͲtermgoalofsupplyingafuturemarketthat istosomeextentuncertainwithnewtechnology,whereasPDhasamoreshortͲtermgoaloffulfilling specificcustomerrequirements.IthasbeensuggestedthatthesplittingofTDandPDcandecreaserisk in customerͲfocused projects (Säfsten, Johansson, Lakemond, & Magnusson, 2014). Lakemond, JoͲ hansson, Magnusson, and Säfsten (2007) emphasize that technology transfer must take place in a physicalhandoverandthatanunderstandingofoneanother’sworkmustbedeveloped.Eldredand McGrath(1997),meanwhile,proposeahighͲlevelprocesstomovefromTDtoPD.Alltheseauthors sharetheviewthatatechnologytransferstepisneededintheinterfacebetweenTDandPD. Platformstrategies,asenablersofcustomization,havebeenwidelyacceptedinindustrytoservea widerangeofproductvarietieswhilemaintainingbusinessefficiency.Earlydescriptionsofproduct platformsfocusedonefficientlyprovidingthemarketwithawideproductvarietywhilekeepingthe internalvariationsaslowasfeasible(Meyer&Lehnerd,1997).Platformshavealsobeenawaytoreach differentcustomersegmentsefficientlybyachievingcommonalityinproductcomponentsandinterͲ faces.Balancingthetradeoffbetweencommonalityanddistinctivenessisthekeytosuccesshere(HalͲ man,Hofer,&Vuuren,2003).RecentresearchhasfocusedonplatformswithamoreabstractdefiniͲ tion;theseplatformsaimtoreusemoreoftheskillsandknowledge(i.e.assets)createdinacompany. Fromthatperspective,Johannesson(2014)questionswhethercompaniescanaffordnottoapplya platform.However,howtoapplyaplatformstrategyatthesupplierlevelinthefaceofthereality describedabovehasnotyetbeenfullyinvestigated.Platformapproachestendtorequireafocused developmentoftheplatformandlatecustomerinvolvement,whichrequiressomeknowledgeabout whichfuturevariantsaretobederivedfromtheplatform.Thisiscommonlydonebycompaniesthat developproductsfortheendconsumer,suchasvehiclemanufacturers.Thereare,however,limitaͲ tionstodevelopingsuchplatformsforETOͲorientedsuppliersinbusinessͲtoͲbusiness(B2B)environͲ ments,sincethebusinessmodelforcesthemtodevelophighlycustomizedsolutionsforeverynew projectduetothelimitationsintheirabilitytoforeseefuturecustomerrequirements.

1.1 Aim and goal

Theaimoftheresearchistomakecompaniesactingassuppliersanddevelopinghighlycustomized productsmoreresponsivetofluctuatingrequirementsduringthescoping,quotation,andsubsequent developmentprocesses.ThegoalofthisthesisistoinvestigateandsupportthecurrentstateinindusͲ tryregardingplatformsasameanstomanagingchangesinrequirements.ThecurrentstatealsoinͲ cludestheneeds,challenges,andprerequisitesofcompanieswiththesecharacteristics.Asecondary

(17)

INTRODUCTION

goalistoexplorehowaplatformapproachandsupporttoolcanbeformulatedtomakeitpossiblefor acompanytogainthebenefitsofwhatplatformscanenable.Thisaimandgoalaretoasignificant extent focused on contributing to industry. The scientific contribution is to add to the body of knowledgeregardingtheuseofplatformsinsettingswhereplatformstraditionallyhavebeendifficult toimplement,toexpandtheboundariesofplatformdefinitions,andtoexemplifytheapplicationof analternativetothetraditionalproductplatformapproachesintheliterature. 1.2 Research focus ThechallengesforthesuppliersdescribedaboveregardingthesplittingofTDandPDandthedevelͲ opmentofartifactͲbasedproductplatformscreatedifficultiesintheirtakingadvantageofplatform strategies.Productplatformsarewellestablishedintheliterature(Simpson,Jiao,Siddique,&HölttäͲ Otto, 2014); more recently, technology platforms have also been of interest (Johannesson, 2014). However,therearenotmanyexamplesintheliteraturethatdescribeacoherentplatformapproach and the application of such an approach to supplier companies, given these prerequisites. An imͲ portantissueinindustryisthelossofknowledgecreatedbyfocusingonspecificproductinstances withouttheassistanceofasuitableformattogainthebenefitsofformerlycreatedknowledgeinfuture PDprojects.ItiscrucialthatthekeyknowledgecreatedduringbothTDandPDbedescribedinaway thatbothenableseasyadaptationduringcustomizationandthatcanbegeneralizedinordertobe usedinfutureprojects,anapproachthat,ifsuccessful,willexpandsthecompany’soverallknowledge. Theresearchpresentedinthisthesisfocusesonhowacompanyactiveinthesupplierenvironment cangainthebenefitsofaplatformapproachwhenacomponentͲbasedproductplatformisnotarealͲ isticoption. Inordertovisualizethelineofargumentationandlogicforthechosenresearchfocus,areference modelwascreated,followingBlessing&Chakrabarti(2009),asshowninFigure1.ThefigurealsoillusͲ tratestheintendedlineofeffectthattheintroducedsupportisexpectedtohaveonthecompany’s competitiveedge.Thekeyelementthatisintendedtobesupportedisthepossibilityforthecompany toutilizeaplatform,whichinturnshouldincreasethelevelofdesignreuse.Thechiefeffectshould appearintheefficiencyofthecustomizationsperformedbyacompany,whichshouldimprovethe company’scompetitiveedge.TheplusandminussignsonthearrowsinFigure1areintendedtoshow howthedifferentconceptsareassumedtoincreaseordecreaseoneanother. 1.3 Research questions Thisbroadresearchquestionistheoverallfocusofthiswork: “Howcansuppliersofcustomizedsystemsbesupportedinusingaplatformapproach?” Torespondtothisquestion,ithasbeenbrokendownintothefollowingthreesubͲquestions: x RQ1:Whatisthecurrentstateoftheutilizationofproductplatformsforsuppliersdeveloping highlycustomizedproductsinB2Benvironments?

(18)

INTRODUCTION

ThisquestionregardsthestateofpracticeinETOcompaniesintermsofproductplatforms.ThequesͲ tion concerns if and to what degree companies engage in platform development, what challenges thereare,andunderwhichcircumstancesandwithwhichprerequisitestheirplatformsarecreated andused. x RQ2:Howcanaplatformapproachbeconceptualizedtosupportcustomizationforacompany activeinthisenvironment? Akeyassumptionwhichissupportedbytheliterature(Högman,Bergsjö,Anemo,&Persson,2009)is thatETOsupplierscannotfullyapply,atraditionalcomponentͲbasedproductplatform.Thisresearch questionaimstoinvestigateasuitableformatandmodeltobeusedforsuchacompanyandtoreport onwhatbuildingblocksitcouldcontain. x RQ3:Howcansuchaplatformapproachbeformalizedandappliedinpractice? Tomakeuseofamodelatahigherlevel,itmustbesupported,andthisquestionconcernshowsuch supportcouldbedesigned.Thesecondpartreferstoapplyingthesupportandthevalidationofthe results. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ͳ Ͳ + Ͳ Ͳ + + + + + + + + + + Efficiencyof customization Levelof requirement fulfillment _Other factors Accessto existing knowledge Amount ofdesign knowledgereuse Knowledgeof Applicabilityof existingknowledge Utilizationof Platform definition Riskof cannibalization Knowledge modeling Number of iterations Customer satisfaction Development costofproduct Competing edge Product quality Other factors Other factors Other factors Durationof design process Key factor Success criterion Measurablecriterion Support Figure1.ReferencemodelaccordingtoBlessingandChakrabarti(2009),visualizingthelineofargumentationandlogic behindthechosenresearchfocusandtheintendedeffectoftheintroducedsupport.

(19)

INTRODUCTION

11.4 Scope and delimitations

ThisresearchfocusesonaspecificgroupofindustrialcompaniesthatactassuppliersofhighlycusͲ tomizedproducts.Theresultsareexpectedtohavethepossibilityofbeinggeneralizedacrossabroad rangeofcompanies,butthiselementisnotspecificallyevaluatedwithinthescopeofthisthesis. PDconcernsmanyartifacts,processes,andpeople.Organizationalandmanagementissuescoupled withtheapproachandsupportintroducedarenotinthefocusofthisthesis.Theintroducedsupport is,however,intendedforcertainpeopleworkingwithinthedesignfield,suchasdesignengineersand technicalprojectmanagers. 1.5 Research project TheresearchconductedwithinthescopeofthisthesisispartofaresearchprojectcalledChaSE,which isashortenedformforChallengeFluctuatingandConflictingRequirementsbySetͲBasedEngineering. Theproject’saimistodeterminehowcompaniescandevelopadaptablesolutionstorespondeffiͲ ciently to fluctuating and conflicting requirements. The project is a joint effort between Jönköping University, The Swedish Agency of Innovation Systems (VINNOVA), and four companies developing customizedproducts.

1.6 Outline of the thesis

Chapter1introducestheworkpresentedinthisthesis.Itcontainsthebackground,problemarea,and delimitationsandpresentstheresearchquestionsthatareansweredinthescopeofthisresearch. Chapter2presentstheframeofreference,whichisanassortmentofliteraturethathasbeenstudied toidentifybestpractices,thecurrentstateofindustry,andfundamentaltheories.ThechapterconͲ cludeswithasummarythatidentifiestheresearchgapthatthisthesisstrivestofill. Chapter3outlinestheresearchmethodologyappliedinthiswork.Itpresentsmethodsandmodelsin agenericmannerandtheirapplicationinthiswork. Chapter4summarizestheresultsfromtheappendedpapersandpointstotheprogressionandevoluͲ tionoftheresearchinthevariouspapers. Chapter5presentstwoevaluationsoftheresultsthathavebeenfoundinthisresearch. Chapter6outlinesthediscussion,focusingontheresultsinlightoftheliterature,thevalidityofthe research,andtheresearchquestions. Chapter7brieflysummarizesthemainconclusionsandtakeawaysfromthethesisasawhole.Italso summarizesfutureworkthatmightbeconducted.

(20)

INTRODUCTION

(21)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE

2

FRAME OF REFERENCE

Thischapter presentsaselectionofresearchthatis essentialfororcloselyrelatedtotheresearch subject.Figure2showhowthefieldsarerelatedandtheirimportance.Thefigurealsoshowsthearea towhichthisthesismakesacontribution. Figure2.ACRdiagram(inspiredbyBlessingandChakrabarti(2009))

Modularization Scalability Product Platforms Technology Platforms ProductDevelopment Technology Development Useful Essential Contribution Customization Platform Approaches Requirements Management Quotation Process Support Design Guidlines Computer Support Database Technology PDM CAD Configuration Systems Design Automation Supply Chain Engineering Design DesignReuse Methods Models Considered Supportingtheutilizationofa platformapproachintheETO supplierindustry– Integrating heterogeneousdescriptionsina coherentmodel PlatformͲbased Development

(22)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE 2.1 Product development PDisdefinedastransformingamarketopportunitytomeetacustomerneedandthestrategicgoals ofthecompany.Thisisachievedthroughasetofcoherentactivitiesthatinteractwithoneanother (León&Farris,2011).Ottoson(Holmdahl,2010,p.51)offersthefollowingdefinitionofPD’saim(auͲ thortranslationfromSwedish):“Theaimofproductdevelopmentistoincreasethequalityoflifefor onehumanbeingwithoutdecreasingitforanother.”However,themainideaistousePDasthepriͲ mary means of moving from concept to income. Several development process models have been testedanddevelopedovertheyears,withthesequentialmodelbeingthenorm(Engwall,2004).There isnosingleprocessmodeldescribingthePDprocessinagenericfashion;however,anattempthas beenmadebyUlrichandEppinger(2011),asshowninFigure3. 2.2 Customization Intoday’smarketplace,customersexpectproductstosatisfytheirparticularneedsand,inmanycases, tocostaslittleaspossible.Thisstressestheneedforstrategiesforcustomizingproductsatalowcost. Customizationreferstoabilitiesandstrategiesthataiddesigningandmanufacturingtailoredproducts foranindividualcustomer.Simpson(2004)statesthatcustomerscannolongerbelumpedtogetherin anenormous,homogenousmarket.Theyareindividualswhosespecificwantsandneedscanandmust beascertainedandfulfilled.NewproductsmustdifferfromwhatisalreadyonthemarketwhilemeetͲ ing customer needs more completely than ever before. He proposes product families as a primary enabler,describingtwobasicapproachesforthedesignofproductfamiliestoachieveefficientcusͲ tomization:(1)Topdown,whichoccurswhenthecompanystrategicallymanagesanddevelopsafamͲ ilyofproductsbasedonaproductplatformanditsderivatives;(2)Bottomup,whichapplieswhena companyredesignsagroupofproductstostandardizecomponentsandimproveeconomicsofscale. Dependingonacompany’scustomizationstrategy,thewayaproductisspecifieddiffer.Supplierswith an ETO business approach often find themselves in an environment in which several intermediate stepsthatinvolveofdifferentstakeholders,othersuppliers,andanOEMdifferentiatethemfromcomͲ paniesfocuseddirectlyontheendcustomer.ThisintroducesseveralinterfacesandstakeholderinterͲ eststhattheETOsuppliermustmanage.Holisticresearchinthisarea,takingalloratleastseveralof theseperspectivesintoconsideration,however,remainsscarce.TuliandShankar(2015)describeleanͲ incollaborationbetweensupplierandOEMandreviewtheexistingliteratureonsupplier,OEM,and Figure3.AgenericproductdevelopmentprocessaccordingtoUlrichandEppinger(2012) Planning Concept Development System-Level Design Detail Design Testing and Refinement Production Ramp-Up

(23)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE

customer integration. One interface towards the customer which is central to customization is the customerorderdecouplingpoint(CODP).Thisisnormallydefinedasthepointintheflowofgoodsat whichforecastͲdrivenproductionandcustomerorderͲdrivenproductionareseparated(Giesberts& Tang,1992).TheCODPisoftenviewedasapointonaoneͲdimensionallinethatcanalsobecoupled withthelevelofcustomization.Hansen(2003)usesfourcategorizations:engineertoͲorder,modifyto order,configuretoorder,andselectvariant.WiknerandRudberg(2005),however,proposeatwoͲ dimensionalcategorizationforcompaniesintheproductrealizationprocess.ThelevelofcustomizaͲ tion has often focused on production, with engineering viewed as taking place before production. TheseauthorsproposeanapproachthattakesintoconsiderationtheengineeringadaptationthatocͲ curs for each customer order, including both the engineering and production dimensions. Figure 4 showsatwoͲdimensionalCODPwithboththeengineeringandproductiondimensions.Itshould,howͲ ever,benoted thatonly someofthe pointsin thetwoͲdimensionalareaarefeasibleinrealͲworld contexts.

Onetradeoffthatischallengingoccursbetweenflexibilityandrigiditywhenitcomestocustomization. FredrikssonandGadde(2005)investigatedtheimplementationofmoduleassemblyunits(MAUs),a combinationofbuildͲtoͲorderandmassproduction,whichhasbeenshowntobeafeasiblestrategyin ordertobalancethetradeoff.FredrikssonandGaddealsoemphasizethattherangeofoptionsforthe customer must be constrained to control the number of variants. This is also stressed by Michael, Kilian,andLuciënne(2007),whoargueforthenecessityofconstraintsinthecustomizationofferin ordertodecreaseproblemswithcustomers’insistingoncustommodificationswhichinturnhavea negativeeffectonthecompany’sfinancial.OthertradeoffsareinvestigatedbySquire,Brown,ReadͲ man,andBessant(2006),whousedaquantitativeapproach.Theirresultsshowthatcustomizationhas asignificanteffectonmanufacturingcost,doesnothaveasignificanteffectonquality,increasesboth timetodeliveryandaverageleadtimesignificantly,doesnothaveasignificanteffectonthereliability ofdeliverytimesorthepercentageofproductsdeliveredontime,anddoesnotreducevolumeflexiͲ bility. 2.2.1 Mass customization Masscustomizationisaconceptfoundinautomotive,clothing,andcomputermanufacturing,along withthefoodindustry,electronics,andmobilephones(Fogliatto,daSilveira,&Borenstein,2012);it hastwodefinitions(Hart,1995).Thefirstisthevisionarydefinition:“TheabilitytoprovidethecusͲ tomerswithanythingtheywantprofitably,anytimetheywantit,anywheretheywantit,anywaythey wantit.”Thesecondandmorerealisticdefinitionis“theuseofflexibleprocessesandorganizational structurestoproducevariedandoftenindividuallycustomizedproductsandservicesatthelowcost ofastandardized,massproductionsystem.”Hart(1995)continuesbydefininganddescribingthefour ETOED ETOED MTOPD ATOPD MTSPD Productiondimension(PD) Engineering dimension(ED) Figure4.ThetwoͲdimensionalCODPadaptedfromWiknerandRudberg(2005)

(24)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE pillarsinvolvedinansweringthequestion,“ShouldwepursueanexplicitmasscustomizationstratͲ egy?”Thepillarsareasfollows:customersensitivity,processamenability,competitiveenvironment, andorganizationalreadiness.AccordingtoHvam,Mortensen,andRiis(2008),therearetwomainenͲ ablersformasscustomization:(1)productrangesshouldbedevelopedonthebasisofmodules,and (2)configurationsystemsshouldbeusedtosupportrelatingthetasksinvolvedincustomͲoriented businesstothespecificationofcustomerͲspecificproducts.Theauthorscontinuebydescribingthe threekindsofcompaniesthatareinvolvedinmasscustomization.Thefirstisafirmthathaspreviously producedandsoldidenticalproductsinlargeruns;thesekindsofcompaniestendtodeclineandevolve intocompaniesthatstrivetoadapttheirproductstotheindividualcustomer.Theyarebestsituated topursueamasscustomizationstrategy(Figure5).Thesecondtypeofcompanyisonethatdevelops andmanufactureslargecomplexproducts.Theexcessivedevelopmentishereinitiateddirectlybythe customer.Inordertomaketheprocessmoreefficient,separatingdevelopmentfromdetaileddesign issuggested.Thethirdtypeofcompanymanufacturescustomizedproductsinsmallseries.ForcomͲ paniesengagedinoneͲofͲaͲkindorsmallseriesproductionthechallengebecomesseparatingthetask ofspecifyingcustomizedproductsfromthetaskofdevelopment,andformalizingthatprocesswhile introducingITsupporttomaketheprocessmoreeffective.ThesethreekindsofcompanieshavedifͲ ferenttypesofcustomerͲinitiatedspecificationprocesses.ForzaandSalvador(2002)describeacase inwhichaconfigurationsystemwasimplemented.Theauthorsstatethatthemultiplicationofproduct featuresinducesanexponentialgrowthinthevolumeofinformationexchangedbetweenthefirm’s salesorganizationanditscustomerbase.Byusingthiskindofexpertsystem,theinformationcanbe storedinorganizationalmemoryinsteadofretainedinbeing(orforgottenby)individualemployees. However,theintroductionofsuchasystemmayrequiresignificantandpotentiallypainfulchangesin thewaytheorderacquisitionandfulfilmentactivitiesareorganized.Knowledgebasedengineering (KBE)hasbeenpointedoutasakeyenablerformasscustomizationinmanaginglargerangesofvariant designsandrespondingquicklytocustomerrequirements.KBE,however,requiresfurtherresearchin order,forexample,todevelopmethodologicalsupport,improvetransparency,andsourceandreuse knowledgeefficiently(Verhagen,BermellͲGarcia,vanDijk,&Curran,2012). AdetailedframeworkfordesigningformasscustomizationispresentedinTseng,Jiao,andMerchant (1996).Theauthorsoutlineaprocess,emphasizingthecreationofproductfamilyarchitecturesinorͲ dertoconductfamilybasedͲdesignandintegrationofdepartmentswithinthecompany.Swaminathan Figure5Differenttypesofcompaniespursuingmasscustomisation;adaptedfromHvam, Mortensen,andRiis(2008) Mass production Mass customization Smallseries production Oneofakind production Nu mb er of ite m s Numberoffinisheddifferentproducts

(25)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE

(2001)presentsaframeworkforstandardizationstrategiesthatenablemasscustomizationbyemphaͲ sizing parts standardization, process standardization, product standardization, and procurement standardization.Theauthoralsodescribestheconceptsofmodulardesignsandprocessesandhow theyinteractandcanbecombined.Considerationsthatmustbetakenintoaccountbeforeadopting standardizationstrategiesarepresentedinFigure6. 2.2.2 Product platforms Severaldefinitionsofproductplatformcanbefoundintheliterature;dependingonwhichdefinition ischosen,aproductplatformcanbemanydifferentthings.Thefourmostcommonlyuseddefinitions areasfollows: x Thecollectionofassets[i.e.,components,processes,knowledge,peopleandrelationships] thataresharedbyasetofproducts.(Robertson&Ulrich,1998,p.20) x Acollectionofcommonelements,especiallytheunderlyingcoretechnology,implemented acrossarangeofproducts.(McGrath,1995,p.39) x AgroupofrelatedproductsthatisderivedfromaproductplatformtosatisfyavarietyofmarͲ ketniches.(Simpson,Siddique,&Jiao,2006,p.3) x Asetofcommoncomponents,modules,orpartsfromwhichastreamofderivativeproducts canbeefficientlydevelopedandlaunched.(Meyer&Lehnerd,1997,p.7) Basedonthesedefinitions,itisclearthataplatformcanbedescribedonmanylevelsofconcretization orabstraction.Thisisalsoreflectedamongsuppliers,asshownbyHögmanetal.(2009),inwhichthe companyplatformdescriptionisdescribedusinglevelsofabstraction.Theauthorsinvestigatewhether aplatformstrategyisapplicableforreusepurposestoasupplierintheaerospaceindustry.Theauthors concludethatamodularplatformisnotseenasfeasibleinsuchacompany,sincemostofthereuseis foundonahigherlevelofabstraction.Halmanetal.(2003),however,statethatthatcompaniesin industryhavenotbeenkeepingpacewithresearchonplatformsduetoalackoftools.Theauthors alsoidentifiedadisjointedviewofplatformsinindustry,whichisexemplifiedbythefourdefinitions presentedearlier.Theresearchin the fieldofproduct platformshasgenerallyadoptedanartifactͲ

Figure6.Choosingstandardisationstrategies;adaptedfromSwaminathan(2001) Part Standardization Maximizecomponent commonalityacross products Process Standardization Delaycustomizationas lateaspossible Product Standardization Carryalimitednumber ofproductsininvenͲ tory Procurement Standardization Leverageequipment andpartcommonality acrossproducts Modular NonͲmodular NonͲmodular Modular Product Process

(26)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE

orientedapproach,supportedbytheevolutioninPLMandconfigurationsystems;i.e.theruleshave beendefinedandorganizedinaccordancewithaproductstructure.However,variantmanagement remains a challenge for many of the conventional PLM systems on the market. Bruun, Mortensen, Harlou,Wörösch,andProschowsky(2015)describeavisualarchitecturerepresentationanditsoperͲ ationalhandlinginaPLMsystemintendedtoenablecompaniestoovercomethechallengingsituation ofidentifyingcommonmoduleswhendevelopingproductfamilies.Thearticledescribestheusesof interfacediagramswhichareconvertedviaXMLanduploadedtoaPLMsystem. Twoapproachesforcreatingplatformsarefoundintheliterature: x ModuleͲbased(configurable);bycarefullylisteningtocustomerneedsandadoptingawellͲ plannedproductarchitecture,successcanbeachievedbyapplyingamoduleͲbasedplatform approach.Themodulebasedplatformcanbeoftwokinds: o Integral:Severalfunctionsshareaphysicalelement. o Modular:Eachfunctionisdeliveredbyaseparatephysicalelement. x ScaleͲbased(parametric);designedsothatanumberofdesignvariablescanbevariedand allowthedesigntostretchorshrink.Thisissuitableforoptimizationduetoitscontinuous nature. Modularityisproposedbyseveralauthorsasthebestenablerforcustomization(HsuanMikkola& SkjøttͲLarsen,2004;Hundal,2012;Hvametal.,2008;Swaminathan,2001).DifferentmodularitystratͲ egiescanbefoundintheliterature(Hvametal.,2008).“Componentsharingmodularity”and“comͲ ponentswappingmodularity”usethesamecomponentstospanbothproductvariantsandproduct families.With“sharing”,thesamecomponentsareusedacrossproductfamilies,while“swapping” involvesintroducingvariantsintoaproductfamilybyaddingsmallcomponents.”CutͲtoͲfit”modularͲ ityhasthepropertyofparameterization,inwhichsomeofthemodulescanbeadaptedbymodest changes,suchastheirdimensions.”Sectionalmodularity”meansthatmodulescanbecombinedfreely (likeLEGObricks),byusingthemodules’interfaces.”Busmodularity”–alsocalledabusplatform– meansthataplatformisdevelopedonwhichcomponentscanbemounted.ThesedefinitionsofmodͲ ularizationtypes,however,intersectwiththedefinitionsofplatformtype(i.e.modularorscalable) since the “cutͲtoͲfit” type includes scalability. This overlap and the inconsistency across definitions showsadisjointedviewevenintheliterature.

A successful platform must be flexible, according to Suh, De Weck, and Chang (2007). The authors outlineaprocessfordesigningaflexibleplatformthatusesacombinationofquantitativeanalysisand engineeringknowledge.Platformflexibilitybyabstractionoftheplatformconstructshasproventobe one successful way of managing the changing requirements. Pakkanen, Juuti, and Lehtonen (2016) describeaprocessthatemphasizesthereuseofassets,giventhattherearelimitationsinexistingdeͲ signs.ThemethodisdirectedatcompaniesintheprojectbusinessthatdealwithahighlevelofcusͲ tomization. OneriskwithusingaproductplatformapproachisthetradeoffbetweencommonalityanddistinctiveͲ ness(Robertson&Ulrich,1998).ExamplesfromthecarindustryshowthatlowerͲendmodelscancanͲ nibalizeonhigherͲendmodelsifdistinctivenessisnotpronouncedenough.However,Simpson(2004) reportsthatbysharingunderbodies,acompanyinthecarindustrycanfinda50%reductionincapital investments.Inthe1990s,carmanufacturersthatappliedaplatformstrategygaineda5.1%market share,whilethosethatdidnotsawa2.2%lossofshare.Anothertradeoffoccursbetweenincreased developmenteffortsfortheinitialplatformanduncertaintyastowhethertherightplatformhasbeen

(27)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE chosenforthedevelopmentofasufficientnumberofderivativestorecovertheaddedexpenses(HalͲ manetal.,2003).Cabigiosu,Zirpoli,andCamuffo(2013)provideevidencethattheinherentcomplexity ofautomobilesreducestheopportunitiesformodularityamongsuppliers.Theyalsoinvestigatethe interfacedefinitionprocessintheautomotivesupplierindustry,concludingthatinterfacesdivergesigͲ nificantlyandthatthedefinitionprocessesareneithertechnologicallydeterminednorthemereresult ofproductarchitecturechoices.Thestudyalsopointstootherfactorssuchasknowledgescopeand capabilitiesthataffecttheinterfacesmorethanarchitecturalchoices.

2.2.2.1 Models for platforms

Foraplatformtobedescribedinthecontextofengineeringdesign,amodeloftheplatformishighly suitable.Theterm“model”isusuallyusedtodescribeasimplificationofreality.Therefore,aplatform model,asdefinedinthisthesis,isasimplifieddescriptionofsomeaspectsofaplatform.SomeapͲ proachestocreateaplatformmodelhavebeenpresentedovertheyears,thehighlightsofwhichare presentedhere. Theproductvariantmaster(PVM)isatoolthathasbeendescribedinseveralscientificarticlesand books;itcanbeusedtomodeltosomeextentaproductplatform(Hvametal.,2008).Themainaim ofthePVMistomaptheproductvariantsinacompanyandcouplethemwithagenericproductarͲ chitecturetocreateafoundationforintroducingconfigurationsystems.ThegenericproductarchitecͲ tureisreferredtoasthe“partͲof”structureandvisualizesparentͲchildconnectionsbetweensystems, subsystems,andcomponents.Coupledtothe“partͲof”structureisthe“kindͲof”structurethatdeͲ scribesthenatureofthedifferenttypesofvariants.Inordertodescribeallvariants,classͲresponsibilͲ ityͲcollaborationcards(CRC)cardsareusedasdescribedinMortensen,Hvam,andHaug(2010).The productvariantmasterandCRCcardsaresaidtobridgethegapbetweendomainexpertsandITdeͲ velopers.

Bruun, Mortensen, and Harlou (2013) present an approach for using a visual product architecture modelincombinationwithaPLMsystemtosupportthedevelopmentofmodularproductfamilies. Themotivationfortheirresearchisbasedontheconsequencesofnothavingproperdocumentation oraligneddatawhendevelopingmodulararchitectures.Oneofthemainaimsofthisapproachisto supportthedesignerinfindingandreusingexistingmodules.Ottoetal.(2016)proposeageneric13Ͳ stepprocessfordesigningproductplatforms,whichisbasedontheexistingliterature.The13steps arethenassociatedwithvariousplatformdevelopmentmethodsusedinseveralindustrialcompanies. Anothermethodologythatcanbetermedaplatformmodelistheconfigurablecomponent(CC)conͲ cept(Claesson,Rosvall,&Johannesson,2005).Insteadofmodelingtheconnectionsbetweenphysical partsandmodules,asinthePVM,theconnectionsfromfunctionalrequirementstodesignsolutions aremapped.Themodelingtechniqueusesanumberofobjecttypes,suchasfunctionalrequirements, designsolutions,andconstraints.ThesecreateahierarchythatstartsfromthemainfunctionalreͲ quirement, passes through design solutions and derived functional requirements, and eventually reachesthelevelatwhichthedesignsolutioncanbeembodiedinacomponent.Levandowski,RaudͲ berget,andJohannesson(2014)proposeamethodologytomodelaplatformintheearlyphasesof developmentusingtheCCconceptandSBCE.

(28)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE 2.2.2.2 Technology platforms ComponentͲandmoduleͲbasedproductplatformshavebeenfoundnottofiteverybusinessmodelby Högmanetal.(2009).However,companiesinETOindustriesneedwaystoharvestthefruitsofaplatͲ formdefinitionthatcangivethemadvantagesthataresimilartoacomponentͲbasedplatform.JohanͲ nesson(2014)evenaskswhethercompaniesreallyhaveachoiceaboutimplementingaplatform,since platformscanexistonalllevelsrangingfromstandardcomponentstoknowledgeandrelationships (Robertson&Ulrich,1998),makingthemusefulforallkindsofcompanies.Cooper(2006)suggeststhat onedeliverablefromtechnologydevelopmentcouldbeatechnologyplatform,aclaimfurtherinvesͲ tigatedbyHögman(2011).Högmanpresentsatechnologyplatformdefinitionthatisnotconnectedto aspecificimplementation,asaproductplatformis,butratherconsistsofdesignknowledge,product concepts,appliedtechnology,andtechnologicalcapabilitiesthatsupportproductrealization.InHögͲ manandJohannesson(2013),theauthorsinvestigatetheapplicationofastageͲgateprocesstoaidin managingtechnologydevelopment.Levandowski,Forslund,Söderberg,andJohannesson(2012)analͲ ysesplatformapproachesfromaPLMperspectiveandassesshowwelltheycovertheneedsofthe aerospaceindustry.CorinStigandBergsjö(2011)reportintheirpaperthatthereisaneedtoaccess knowledgeandwaystoshareknowledgeofbothnewandmaturetechnologies.Theauthorsdescribe twotoolstosupporttheseaims:atechnologyplatformwikitoshareinformationregardingkeytechͲ nologiesandreusability,andalightweightonlinechecklistsystemtoassurethematurityandplatform compatibilityoftechnologies. 2.2.3 Adaptable design Adaptabledesign(AD)isanemergingfieldindesignscience.IthascharacteristicssimilartocustomiͲ zation,butcustomizationismerelyonepartoftheADconcept.ADtakestheentireproductlifecycle inconsideration,emphasizingadaptabilityfromproductdesignthroughtheuseoftheproductand endingwithrecycling.Inthisway,ADconsidersproductfunctionality,quality,manufacturability,cost, andenvironmentalperformance.Unliketraditionalplatformandmodularapproachestoadaptability withinterfaces,designsintheADcontextshouldbeadaptableinordertoadapttonewchangesreͲ quiredtomeetcustomer,environmental,andmarketneeds.SincePDoftenleadstobothaproduct designandaproduct,ADisdefinedforbothoutcomes(Gu,Hashemian,&Nee,2004).Inthefieldof adaptable engineering, a method for identifying the optimal product by considering changes in reͲ quirements,configurations,andparametersintheentireproductlifecycleisproposedbyXue,Hua, Mehrad,andGu(2012). x Designadaptabilityreferstotheabilityofaproducttobemodified(thedesign)toproduce anotherproduct. x Productadaptabilityreferstotheproduct’sabilitytobeadaptedbytheusertofulfildifferent purposeswithoneproduct,andthusreplacingtheneedformultipleproducts. Twotypesofadaptabilitycanbeidentified: x SpecificadaptabilitydescribestheabilityofaproductdesigntobeadaptedforpotentialapͲ plicationsthatcanbeforeseenatthetimetheproductisinitiallydesigned. x Genericadaptabilitydescribesaproduct’sabilitytoadaptwhentheenvironmentchangesunͲ predictablyorunanticipatedrequirementsarise;thisisimportantinmorecomplexsystems.

(29)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE Theauthorsdescribethedifferentprocessesthatareusedtoachievedesignandproductadaptability. TheprocessesarebrokendownfurtherinGu(2004),whoaddstheconceptofflexibleinterfacesysͲ tems.Zhang,Chen,Xue,andGu(2014)describethethreedifferentproductarchitecturesusedinAD: closed,semiͲopen,andopenarchitectures.Thedistinctionismadebasedontheleveltowhichathird partycancontinuetodeveloptheproduct. 2.3 Requirement management Tounderstandwhyaproductisdeveloped,thepurposeitserves,andwhatitshouldachieve,some statementsmustbemadeabouttheoutcomeofPD.Requirementstelltheengineerwhataproduct shouldactuallydo.Theyarethequantifiableandtestablelink(s)fromcustomerneedtoaproduct’s functionalattributes.Halbleib(2004,p.1)definesrequirementsas“theagreedͲuponfactsaboutwhat an application or system must accomplish for its users.” A requirement statements answerers the questionofwhatthesystemshoulddoorwhattheproductmustdo.However,itshouldneverstate howtheproductshouldfulfilltherequirement.WhetherPDisinitiatedbyaproposalfromaproduct planningprocessoraspecificcustomerorder,itisnecessarytoclarifythetaskbeforebeginningdeͲ velopment.Intheclarificationphase,informationabouttherequirementsthatmustbefulfilledbythe productandabouttheexistingconstraintsandtheirimportancearegathered.Thisphaseleadstoa requirementslistthatfocuseson,andisattunedto,theinterestofthedesignprocessandsubsequent workingsteps.Theconceptualdesignphaseshouldbebasedonthisdocument,whichisupdatedconͲ tinually(Pahl&Wallace,2007). Requirementtraceabilitylinksrequirementstorealizingcomponentsandviceversa.Arequirementis traceable if one can detect (1) the source that suggested the requirement, (2) the reason why the requirementexists,(3)whatotherrequirementsarerelatedtoit,(4)howtherequirementrelatesto otherinformationsuchasfunctionstructures,parts,analyses,testresultsanduserdocument,(5)the decisionͲmakingprocessthatledtoderivationoftherequirement,and(6)thestatusoftherequireͲ ment(Sutinenetal.,2000). Nilsson(2004)endshisdoctoralthesisbyofferingsomewaystoenablesuccessinrequirementmanͲ agement: x Requirementandconceptmodelling:Describesthedevelopmentofacomputertool. x Incorporatingcustomerneedsthroughqualityfunctiondeployment(QFD):LinksQFDtothe hierarchical breakdown of requirements, and proposes dividing a master matrix QFD into smalleronestoimprovemanageability.

x Stakeholderintegration:Proposestoinvolveallstakeholders’needs,notjustthecustomer voice;amodelisdeveloped.

x Productandprocessmodelling:Describeshowtolinkproductandprocessdevelopmentbya model.

x Structuring manufacturing requirements: Proposes a way of structuring manufacturing reͲ quirementsinatool.

(30)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE

2.3.1 Changing and conflicting requirements

TherequirementspecificationaimstodescribeproductfunctionsandconstraintsinthePDprocess andtoofferaunifiedimpressiontoallstakeholdersinvolvedintheaproject(Pahl&Wallace,2007). Thedynamicnatureofrequirementsoftenresultsinchangesornewrequirementsbeingaddedwhile othersaredropped;thiscomplexprocesshasbeeninvestigatedintheautomotiveindustrybyAlmefelt etal.(2006).Theauthorsstatethatitisanaturalprocess,sinceknowledgeisgainedandprerequisites changethroughouttheproject.Differentcustomergroupscanhavedifferentcustomerneedswhich cangiverisetoconflictingrequirements(Jiao&Chen,2006).Requirementfreezeisatermfoundin theliteraturetodescribethepointatwhichrequirementsarenolongerallowedtochange.Thereare differentviewsofwhenorevenifthispointshouldoccur: x ItisdesirabletoformafixedlistofrequirementstoguidethePDprocess(Sutinenetal.,2000) andtoreducerisk(Halbleib,2004). x Requirementsshouldbeestablishedearly,butstakeholdersshouldbeopenͲmindedabout changes(Almefeltetal.,2006). x Latedecisionmakingandlateformationoftherequirements(i.e.keepingalargedesignspace) aredesirable,sincesuchstrategyleadstoasteadyconvergence(Land,1982).Thisisoneof thekeyelementsofSBCE(Raudberget,2012). Andersson(2003)identifiesgeneralfactorsforchangingrequirements: x Requirementsarechangedthroughadevelopmentprojectduetocompetitor,product,marͲ ket,andprojectevolution. x Requirementsareconsciouslyandunconsciouslyreprioritizedthroughoutthedevelopment projectbecauseof,amongotherthings,theknowledgegained,approachingtollgates,and responsibleactors. x Misunderstandingsoftenoccurduetothefacttherequirementsarenotspecifiedclearly. Sincerequirementstendtochangeorbedroppedfromoraddedtoaproject,theymustbeformally managedinsomefashion.Changesinrequirementsalsoneedstobereflectedinproductdefinitions, lifecyclesystems,andpropertymodels(Sutinenetal.,2000).StechertandFranke(2009)proposea modelthatlinksrequirementswithfunctions,whichenablestracingofchangesfromimpacttosource. Nilsson(2004)reportsonacasestudyinwhichtheproductionlinewasdevelopedconcurrentlywith theproduct.Thisisachallengewhenitcomestochangingrequirementsinbothproductionsystems and products; it demands an iterative and dynamic requirement engineering process. FaceͲtoͲface communicationandregularmeetingsareofimmenseimportanceinachievingcooperationandinclarͲ ifyingrequirementspecificationsandotherkeyparameters. Inthefieldofrobustdesign,theaimistodesignproductssoastomaketheminsensitivetovariation (Arvidsson&Gremyr,2008).AgileandflexibledesignisusedbyThomkeandReinertsen(1998)asa meansofhandlingchangingrequirementsandvariations.Theauthorsproposekeepingrequirements simultaneouslyfrozenandliquid,makingacomparisonwiththewayanewspaperisstructuredsoas toallowdifferenttimehorizonsforcompletion.Somepartsareplannedandwrittenweeksinadvance, whileotherpartsarenotfinalizeduntilthelastminutesbeforeprinting.ThisimpliesthattherequireͲ mentsareplannedtobefrozeninsuccession,ratherthanallatonce.Thisway,designersdonothave topredictanuncertainfuture.However,tryingtogaugethefutureinordertopredictwhichrequireͲ mentswillbechangedisactuallyproposedbyLand(1982).

(31)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE

2.3.1.1 Agility as a means to manage the dynamics of requirements

Agilemethodshavebecomeagreatsuccessinthedomainofsoftwaredevelopment.Methodssuchas extremeprogrammingandscrumarepartoftheconceptofagiledevelopment.OvesenandDowlen (2012)investigatewhetherthesemethodsareapplicabletophysicalPD.Theauthorsconcludethat themethodsapplicabletosoftwareengineeringarenotcompletelytransferabletophysicalPD.To gain the best of agile methods, other methods such as QFD and evaluation and selection matrices shouldbeadded.However,agilemethodsdoshowgreatpromisewhenitcomestoprojectdevelopͲ menttimeandthedevelopmentofcustomerrequirements.Agilitycanalsobeseenfromtheflexibility pointofview.Developmentflexibilitycanberegardedastheeconomiccostofmodifyingaproductin responsetoexternalchanges(e.g.,changesincustomerneeds)orinternal(discoveringabettertechͲ nicalsolution),accordingtoThomkeandReinertsen(1998).Flexibilityisoftenusedinaqualitative manner,butmuchcanbegainedbyusingquantifiableterms.Theauthorsproposea“flexibilityindex” tomeasurehowwelladesignactuallyrespondstochange.

Landaeta et al. (2011) describe scrum in development from an organizational learning perspective. Scrumisbasedontheprinciplethatrequirementsareboundtochange,andthatitisawasteofreͲ sourcestotrytopredictthefutureandsetuptoodetailedaprojectplan.Scrumseekstomanage chaosbyuseofshortͲtimelineplansinwhichcostandtimearefixedbythecustomer.Theconstraints arethennegotiatedwithintheprojectteamtofindafeasiblescope.Severalshortiterationshelpto manageuncertainty;ifsomethingfails,theimpactisnotassevereasintraditionalprojectmanageͲ mentduetothelimitedscope.Theteamproducesaworkingproductincrementbytheendofeach iteration,providingthecustomerwithtransparencyandallowtheproducttobeadaptedthroughclose collaboration between customer and development team. Scrum is characterized by selfͲmanaged teams,crossfunctionalteams,anddailymeetings.Scrumenablesgreaterorganizationallearningdue totheshorttimelines,unliketheclassicallessonslearnedwrittenattheendofaproject.However,the philosophylacksintermsoflearningtransferbetweenprojects. TheconceptofaskunkworksconsistsofasmallhandͲpickedteamthatisformedandremovedfrom theongoingpartofthebusiness(Bommer,DeLaPorte,&Higgins,2002).Theteamisgivencomplete responsibilityandoperatesinanautonomousfashiontodevelopnewproductsorservices.Theteam controlsitsownmilestonesandisentirelyselfͲmanaged.Thechoiceofproceduresandresponsibility forbudgetandresourceallocationarealsoundertheteam’scontrol.Somereportedsuccessfactors are: x Adheringtoaclearfocusontheteam’smission. x ExtensiveupͲfrontplanningefforts. x Criticallyanalyzingcustomerneeds. x Leveragingprojectoverlaps. x Earlyinvolvementofcustomer. x Empoweringtheteam. x Breakingrules.

(32)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE

2.4 Reuse of design knowledge

Thereuseofdesignknowledgehasbeenstudiedbymanyresearchersovertheyears.ToolsandmethͲ odshavebeendevelopedtosupportreuseofsomeaspectsofboththedesignprocessandtheartifact. Oneresearchfieldinwhichtheformalizationofknowledgeisanenablingfactoristheintroductionof configurationsystems.Haug,Hvam,andMortensen(2012)emphasizeknowledgeacquisition,inwhich theknowledgeofthedomainexpertsisgatheredandformalized.TheyalsostressknowledgerepreͲ sentation,whichisdescribedasasimulationoftherelevantknowledge.Theseaspectsarediscussed togetherwithsevenstrategiesforimplementingconfigurationsystems.Stokes(2001)presentsacomͲ plete framework and a detailed methodology known as MOKA that aims to collect and formalize knowledgeinordertocreateknowledgeͲbasedsystems.Knowledgeisgatheredfromdomainexperts usingstandardtemplates,calledICAREforms,whichtogethercreateaninformalandformalmodel. Preston,Chapman,Pinfold,andSmith(2005)elaborateontheMOKAmethodologyandpresentaclasͲ sificationofKBEapplications,givingexamplesofthedifferenttypes:generativesystems,advisorysysͲ tems,andselectionsystems.TheseauthorscriticizeMOKAinaconstructivemanner,proposingthata softwaretoolwouldbehelpfulinthecreationoftheinformalmodelforreasonssuchascheckingfor validity.TheyproposethatMOKAshouldsupportaniterativeprocessindevelopingtheformalmodel, whileamoreconcurrentapproachisproposedforcreatingthecodeinthefinalsystem.Thissuggestion isanefforttomitigatetheriskofprogrammingandsystemintegrationproblemsthatoftenoccurif the coding is left for the very last stages. Creating the system at the same time as collecting the knowledgeisproposedasasolutionthatcreatesafeedbackloopthatenablestheexpertstocheck whetherthesoftwaremodelfitswellwiththeirownunderstandingofthearea. Animportantaspectofdesignreuseresearchisdesignrationale.Regli,Hu,Atwood,andSun(2000) definedesignrationaleastheexplanationofwhyanartifactorsomepartofanartifactisdesignedin thewaythatitis.Acompletedesignrationaleincludesallbackgroundknowledge,reasoning,tradeoffs made,anddecisionstakenthroughoutthedesignprocess.AccordingtoElghandPoorkiany(2012), accesstothedesignrationalecansupportthedevelopmentofnewproducts,themodificationofexͲ istingones,orthereuseoffinishedproductsinanewcontext.Therequirementsconcerningthescope andgranularityofthedesignrationaletobecaptureddependonfutureneeds.Forexample,inorder topracticethereuseofrulesinanewcontext,informationsuchasscope,range,simplifications,and underlyingassumptionsarerequired.Ifarulemustbemodifiedandadaptedtospecificcircumstances, moreinformationisrequired.SunandLiu(2008)exploreamethodofdeliveringsufficientknowledge inordertoenabledesignprocessreusebyattachingcognitiveknowledgesuchasdesignintentsand justificationtothegenericknowledgetemplate.Alizon,Shooter,andSimpson(2005)presentamethͲ odologyaimedatretrievingknowledgefromexistingproductdesigns.Thisiscarriedoutbyfiltering candidatesbasedontheirsimilaritytodesiredcharacteristicsandtheirperformanceefficiency.

2.4.1 Tools for design knowledge reuse

Thereisapressingneedinindustryfortoolstopracticereuseofknowledge.Thisis,however,ahighly complexarea,sinceknowledgecanbeofdifferentkinds,indifferentformats,orindifferentlocations (suchasinPDMsystemsorinpeople).Thiscomplexityhashinderedresearchtofindagenericsolution forknowledgereusethat integratessystems usedbya companyandis userͲfriendlyenough to be employed throughout an entire organization. Huang, Jiang, Liu, Song, and Han (2015) describe the methodologyfordevelopingaknowledgemap,whichisatoolkitforvisualizingandexploringcontexts

(33)

FRAMEOFREFERENCE andrelationshipsindistributedknowledgecollections.Baxteretal.2007considersknowledgetobe actionableinformationandproblematizethatmanypreviousdesignknowledgereusesystemsfocus exclusivelyongeometricaldata,whichisoftennotapplicableintheearlystages.Futurereusemodels needtocontainproblemͲsolvingmethods,solutiongenerationstrategies,designintent,andproject knowledge.Baxteretal.(2007)alsostressthatevenifknowledgestoredincomputerͲbasedsystems isaccessed,severaladditionalfactorsmustbemetifitistobereused:reusability,availability,and relevance.Theauthorsproposeadesignknowledgereusesystemthathastwokeyelements,aprocess modelandaproductmodel.Theprocessmodelprovidesadetailedstructure,whiletheproductmodel isacombinationofproductdataandontology.Itisemphasizedthatamajorcontributionisderived fromcreatingtheprototypesystem,whichforcestheorganizationtoformalizeitsknowledge.Christ, Wenzel,Faath,andAnderl(2013)emphasizealackofuserͲfriendlyclassificationandstructuringof engineeringknowledgeintoday’sCADsoftware.Therefore,theretrievalofexistingtemplates(used forknowledgecapture)isachallengeandoftenresultsinthetotalrecreationofdesigns.Theirpaper proposesastructuredwayofreusingfeaturetemplatestomakeupforthelackofdoingsoinasysͲ tematicway.Theproposedapproachisbasedonthegenericproductstructureofaproduct. 2.5 Technology development Thewaythatresearch(TD)anddevelopment(PD)havebeenmanagedhasevolvedinrecentyearsdue tochangesinthestructureanddemandsoftheeconomy.60yearsago,R&Dwasseenasanoverhead costthatwasfocusedonpushingtechnologytowardsthemarket.AscompetitionincreasedinthemidͲ 1960s,amoreshortͲtermapproachwasadoptedandmarketpullwasemphasizedtotheneglectof longͲtermresearch.10yearslater,riskͲrewardanalysisandcostreductionbecameimportant,leading totheeliminationofwaste.EffortswerefocusedonimprovingTDwithinacompany.Inthe1980s, company role models, such as Toyota and Sony, emerged. The focus shifted towards developing a completeproductconceptconsistingofservice,distribution,andproductplatforms.Additionally,inͲ tegratedandparallelactivitiesbecamegoalstowhichcompaniesbegantostrive.Mostrecently,ithas becomemoreandmorecommontoshareintensivetechnologyinvestmentsbyinteractingwithsupͲ pliers,distributors,andcustomers(Nobelius,2002). So,whatisTDandwhatisittryingtoenable?TDaimstodevelopknowledge,skills,andartifactsin ordertoenablePD(Högman,2011).DeliverablescanalsoappearintheformofdemonstratedfeasiͲ bility(Nobelius,2002)oratechnologicalplatform(Cooper,2006).ItisfurthernotedbyCooper(2006) thatTDisimportantforacompany’slongͲtermgrowth,butoftenisassignedlowpriorityandrepreͲ sents a small portion of the total effort of a company. A technology has been defined as "a set of knowledgethatformsacapabilitytoachieveapracticalresultwhenappliedtothedesignordevelopͲ mentofaproduct,serviceoritsmanufactureordelivery"(CorinStig,2015,p.7).Similarly,technology hasbeendefinedasknowledgeappliedtoproductsorproductionprocesses(Säfstenetal.,2014). CompaniescangainacompetitiveedgebycontinuouslyandsystematicallyinvestinginTDinstrategic areas.TDcanbedescribedasastreaminwhichacompanydevelopstechnologiesandproductsthat areinlinewiththecompany’soverallstrategy(Clausing,1994).InFigure7,thisisshownbyvisualizing aPDproject(withacertaintimeframeandatargetedcustomer)thattriestofishoutaͲtosome extentͲpreͲdevelopedtechnologypresentinthecompanythatcanformthebasisofanewproduct. However,whatistheneedtoseparatethesetwodevelopmentprocesses?SinceitisdifficulttoestiͲ matetheoutcomeofTDduetoitsfundamentallyuncertainnature,adifferentmanagementstrategy