Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:33:11.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complex products and systems: Potential from using layout platforms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2005

ADRIAN P. HOFER  and
JOHANNES I.M. HALMAN
ADRIAN P. HOFER
Affiliation:
Hofer und Partner AG, CH-8002 Zürich, Switzerland
JOHANNES I.M. HALMAN
Affiliation:
University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In their quest to manage the complexity of offering greater product variety, firms in many industries are considering platform-based development of product families. Key in this approach is the sharing of components, modules, and other assets across a family of products. Current research indicates that companies are often choosing physical elements of the product architecture (i.e., components, modules, building blocks) for building platform-based product families. Other sources for platform potential are widely neglected. We argue that for complex products and systems with hierarchic product architectures and considerable freedom in design, a new platform type, the system layout, offers important commonality potential. This layout platform standardizes the arrangement of subsystems within the product family. This paper is based on three industry case studies, where a product family based on a common layout could be defined. In combination with segment-specific variety restrictions, this results in an effective, efficient, and flexible positioning of a company's products. The employment of layout platforms leads to substantial complexity reduction, and is the basis for competitive advantage, as it imposes a dominant design on a product family, improves its configurability, and supports effective market segmentation.

Keywords

Complex Products and SystemsLayout PlatformPlatform ConceptProduct Families
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 55 - 69
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baldwin, C.Y. & Clark, K.B. (1997). Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review 75(5), 84–93.Google Scholar
Belz, C., Schuh, G., Groos, S.A., & Reinecke, S. (1997). Industrie als Dienstleister. St. Gallen, Switzerland: Thexis.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
Forza, C. & Salvador, F. (2002). Managing for variety in the order acquisition and fulfilment process: The contribution of product configuration Systems. International Journal of Production Economics 76(1), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halman, J.I.M., Hofer, A.P., & van Vuuren, W. (2003). Platform driven development of product families: Linking theory with practice. Journal of Product Innovation Management 20(2), 149–162.Google Scholar
Henderson, R.M. & Clark, K.B. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), 9–30.Google Scholar
Hobday, M. (1998). Product complexity, innovation and industrial organization. Research Policy 26(6), 689–710.Google Scholar
Hobday, M., Rush, H., & Tidd, J. (2000). Innovation in complex products and systems. Research Policy 29(7/8), 793–804.Google Scholar
Jiao, J. & Tseng, M. (2000). Understanding product family for mass customization by developing commonality indices. Journal of Engineering Design 11(3), 225–243.Google Scholar
Kogut, B. & Kulatilaka, N. (1994). Options thinking and platform investments: investing in opportunity. California Management Review 36(2), 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnan, V. & Gupta, S. (2001). Appropriateness and impact of platform-based product development. Management Science 47(1), 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnan, V. & Ulrich, K.T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management Science 47(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, M.E. (1995). Product Strategy for High-Technology Companies. Homewood IL: Irwin.
Meyer, M.H. & Lehnerd, A.P. (1997). The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and Cost Leadership. New York: Free Press.
Meyer, M.H. & Utterback, J.M. (1993). The product family and the dynamics of core capability. Sloan Management Review 34(3), 29–47.Google Scholar
Meyer, M.H., Tertzakian, P., & Utterback, J.M. (1997). Metrics for managing research and development in the context of the product family. Management Science 43(1), 88–111.Google Scholar
Moore, W.L., Louviere, J.J., & Verma, R. (1999). Using conjoint analysis to help design product platforms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 16(1), 27–39.Google Scholar
Pine, J.B. (1993). Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Robertson, D. & Ulrich, K.T. (1998). Planning for product platforms. Sloan Management Review 39(4), 19–31.Google Scholar
Salvador, F., Forza, C., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2002). Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: Theorizing beyond generic prescriptions. Journal of Operations Management 20(5), 549–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal 16, 135–159.Google Scholar
Sanchez, R. & Mahoney, J.T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal 17, 63–76.Google Scholar
Sanderson, S. & Uzumeri, M. (1995). Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman. Research Policy 24(5), 761–782.Google Scholar
Sanderson, S. & Uzumeri, M. (1997). The Innovation Imperative: Strategies for Managing Product Models and Families. Chicago: Irwin.
Sawhney, M.S. (1998). Leveraged high-variety strategies: From portfolio thinking to platform thinking. Journal of the Academy of Management Science 26(1), 54–61.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Soinonen, T., Tiihonen, J., Mannisto, T., & Sulonen, R. (1998). Towards a general ontology of configuration. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 12(4), 357–372.Google Scholar
Svensson, C. & Barfod, A. (2002). Limits and opportunities in mass customization for “build to order” SMEs. Computers in Industry 49(1), 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, M.M. & Jiao, J. (1998). Fundamental issues regarding developing product family architecture for mass customization. 5th Int. Conf. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Beijing, August 1998.
Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy 24(3), 419–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wheelwright, S.C. & Clark, K.B. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. New York: Free Press.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yu, J.S., Gonzalez–Zugasti, J.P., & Otto, K.N. (1998). Product architecture definition based on customer demands. ASME Design for Manufacturing Conference, DETC98/DFM-5679, Atlanta, GA.