Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-30T01:56:05.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION CHALLENGES AT TWO GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE OEMS

Part of: Systems Engineering and Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

I. Alonso Fernández ,
M. Panarotto  and
O. Isaksson
I. Alonso Fernández*
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
M. Panarotto
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
O. Isaksson
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
*
*inigo.alonso@chalmers.se

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Platform design has been firmly established in the automotive industry as a strategy to provide wider product variety while maintaining cost effective production. But this strategy can struggle to keep up with the pace and nature of emerging technologies. This paper reviews the existing approaches to modelling product platforms, and showcases the challenges at OEMs introducing new technological innovations in their platforms. A gap is identified in the methods to assess the ability of existing platforms to integrate new technologies whenever they become available.

Keywords

product platformtechnology developmentproduct architecturedecision makinginnovation

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 2245 - 2254
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Agard, B. and Bassetto, S. (2013), “Modular design of product families for quality and cost”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1648–1667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, J. (2006), “Modularisation and the changing nature of automotive design capabilities”, International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 276–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, W. et al. (2015), “Determination of the Required Product Platform Flexibility from a Change Perspective”, 2015 Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon) Proceedings, IEEE, pp. 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology, DRM, a Design Research Methodology, Springer London, London, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Den Broeke, M., Boute, R. and Samii, B. (2015), “Evaluation of product-platform decisions based on total supply chain costs”, International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 53 No. 18, pp. 5545–5563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A. and Pavitt, K. (2001), “Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make?”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 597–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buganza, T. and Verganti, R. (2006), “Life-cycle flexibility: How to measure and improve the innovative capability in turbulent environments”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, W.W. and Paolucci, E. (2001), “Commercial development of environmental technologies for the automotive industry towards a new model of technological innovation”, International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 363–383.Google Scholar
Clarkson, P.J., Simons, C. and Eckert, C. (2004), “Predicting Change Propagation in Complex Design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 126 No. 5, p. 788.Google Scholar
Coronado Mondragon, A.E. and Coronado Mondragon, C.E. (2018), “Managing complex, modular products: how technological uncertainty affects the role of systems integrators in the automotive supply chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 56 No. 20, pp. 6628–6643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daaboul, J. et al. (2011), “Design for mass customization: Product variety vs. process variety”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, X., Jiao, J. and Tseng, M.M. (2003), “Modelling platform-based product configuration using programmed attributed graph grammars”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, X., Tseng, M.M. and Jiao, J. (2003), “Product Families for Mass Customization”, In: Tseng, M.M. and Piller, F.T. (Eds.), The Customer Centric Enterprise, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 123–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eklund, U. et al. (2005), “Experience of introducing reference architectures in the development of automotive electronic systems”, SEAS 2005 - Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Software Engineering for Automotive Systems. available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/1083190.1083195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasson, U. et al. (2015), “Architecting in the Automotive Domain: Descriptive vs Prescriptive Architecture”, Proceedings - 12th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA 2015, IEEE, pp. 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erens, F.J. and Wortman, H.C. (1996), “Generic product modeling for mass customization”, Implementation Road Map 1996, No. January, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Erixon, G. (1998), Modular Function Deployment, Institutionen för produktionssystem, available at: http://swepub.kb.se/bib/swepub:oai:DiVA.org:kth-2619?tab2=abs&language=enGoogle Scholar
Farrell, R.S. and Simpson, T.W. (2010), “Improving cost effectiveness in an existing product line using component product platforms”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 11, pp. 3299–3317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fixson, S.K. (2006), “A Roadmap for Product Architecture Costing”, In: Simpson, T.W., Siddique, Z. and Jiao, J.R. (Eds.), Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and Applications, Springer US, New York, NY, pp. 305–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förg, A. et al. (2014), “Enabling modularisation potentials by standardized vehicle layouts”, Proceedings of NordDesign 2014 Conference, NordDesign 2014, pp. 754–764.Google Scholar
Fulcoly, D.O., Ross, A.M. and Rhodes, D.H. (2012), “Evaluating system change options and timing using the epoch syncopation framework”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 8, pp. 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackl, J. and Krause, D. (2017), “Towards an impact model of modular product structures”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Vol. 3 No. DS87-3, pp. 151–160.Google Scholar
Halman, J.I.M., Hofer, A.P. and Vuuren, W.V. (2003), “Platform-Driven Development of Product Families: Linking Theory with Practice”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmel, G., Bonjour, E. and Dulmet, M. (2006), “A method to manage the co-evolution of Product an Organization architectures”, The Proceedings of the Multiconference on Computational Engineering in Systems Applications, IEEE, Vol. 21, pp. 1207–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haubelt, C., Richter, K. and Ernst, R. (2002), “System Design for Flexibility”, Proceedings of Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’02), Paris, France, pp. 854–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölttä-Otto, K. (2005), Modular Product Platform Design, Vol. 18, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1448-8272(05)80018-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaksson, O. et al. (2013), “Value-Driven Design - A methodology to Link Expectations to Technical Requirements in the Extended Enterprise”, INCOSE International Symposium, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 803–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jana, P., Graves, S.C. and Grunow, M. (2018), “Balancing Benefits and Flexibility Losses in Platform Planning”, SSRN Electronic Journal, pp. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jianxin Jiao, T., Qinhai Ma, M.M. and Zou, Y. (2000), “Generic Bill-of-Materials-and-Operations for High-Variety Production Management”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiao, J., Simpson, T.W. and Siddique, Z. (2007), “Product family design and platform-based product development: A state-of-the-art review”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiao, J. and Tseng, M.M. (1999), “Methodology of developing product family architecture for mass customization”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannesson, H. et al. (2017), “Development of product platforms: Theory and methodology”, Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. and Moon, S.K. (2017), “Sustainable platform identification for product family design”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 143, pp. 567–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreimeyer, M. and Lindemann, U. (2011), Complexity Metrics in Engineering Design, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20963-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levandowski, C., Michaelis, M.T. and Johannesson, H. (2014), “Set-based development using an integrated product and manufacturing system platform”, Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 234–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundbäck, M. (2002), “Cross-brand product platforms: a product development perspective on acquisitions in the automotive industry”, International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Vol. 2 No. 3-4, pp. 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M.H. and Lehnerd, A.P. (1997), “The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership”, 1997, New York, NY, Vol. 10020, p. 39.Google Scholar
Michaelis, M.T. and Johannesson, H. (2011), “Platform approaches in manufacturing - Considering integration with product platforms”, Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Vol. 9 No. February 2015, pp. 1115–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. and Theoret, A. (1976), “The Structure of ‘Unstructured’ Decision Processes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, p. 246.Google Scholar
Mirshekarian, S. (2015), “Enhanced Time-Expanded Decision Network: The Original TDN and More”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, K. et al. (2019), “A Framework for Development Architecture for Modular Products: Cross-Domain Variety Management Perspective”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2921–2930.Google Scholar
Otto, K. et al. (2016), “Global Views on Modular Design Research: Linking Alternative Methods to Support Modular Product Family Concept Development”, Journal of Mechanical Design, ASME International, Vol. 138 No. 7, p. 071101.Google Scholar
Parslov, J.F. and Mortensen, N.H. (2015), “Interface definitions in literature: A reality check”, Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, P. and Pavitt, K. (1997), “The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety”, Research Policy, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelliccione, P. et al. (2017), “Automotive Architecture Framework: The experience of Volvo Cars”, Journal of Systems Architecture, Vol. 77, pp. 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, T., Inkermann, D. and Vietor, T. (2016), “A framework for integrated product architecture design”, Proceedings of NordDesign, NordDesign, Vol. 2016 No. 1.Google Scholar
Ross, A.M. et al. (2004), “Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration as Front End for Effective Space System Design”, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheidemann, K.D. (2006), “Optimizing the selection of representative configurations in verification of evolving product lines of distributed embedded systems”, Proceedings - 10th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2006, pp. 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrieverhoff, P. et al. (2012), “Evaluation of architecture options in systems engineering”, Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN, Vol. DS 70, pp. 1791–1802.Google Scholar
Schroeder, J. et al. (2016), “Design and evaluation of a customizable multi-domain reference architecture on top of product lines of self-driving heavy vehicles - An industrial case study”, Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), Proceedings - Series of the Gesellschaft Fur Informatik (GI), IEEE, Vol. P252, pp. 77–78.Google Scholar
Seepersad, C.C., Hernandez, G. and Allen, J.K. (2000), A Quantitative Approach to Determining Product Platform Extent”, ASME Advances in Design Automation Conference, No. January 2000.Google Scholar
Silver, M.R. and de Weck, O.L. (2007), “Time-expanded decision networks: A framework for designing evolvable complex systems”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocker, J. et al. (2016), “Development of market-oriented architectural standards by means of standardized vehicle layouts”, Proceedings of NordDesign, NordDesign 2016, Vol. 1, available at https://www.designsociety.org/publication/39311/Development+of+market-oriented+architectural+standards+by+means+of+standardized+vehicle+layouts.Google Scholar
Suh, E.S., De Weck, O.L. and Chang, D. (2007), “Flexible product platforms: Framework and case study”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Templier, M. and Paré, G. (2015), “A Framework for Guiding and Evaluating Literature Reviews”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 37, available at https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thyssen, J., Israelsen, P. and Jørgensen, B. (2006), “Activity-based costing as a method for assessing the economics of modularization-A case study and beyond”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 252–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2012), Product Design and Development, Fifth-In, McGraw-Hill, Singapore. available at: https://www.pdd-resources.net/Google Scholar
Upton, D.M. (1994), “The Management of Manufacturing Flexibility”, California Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Weck, O.L., Ross, A.M. and Rhodes, D.H. (2012), “Investigating Relationships and Semantic Sets amongst System Lifecycle Properties (Ilities)”, Third International Engineering Systems Symposium CESUN 2012, Delft University of Technology, 18-20 June 2012, No. June, pp. 18–20.Google Scholar
De Weck, O.L., Suh, E.S. and Chang, D. (2003), “Product family and platform portfolio optimization”, Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Vol. 2 A, pp. 175–185.Google Scholar
Woolley, M., Scanlan, J. and Eveson, W. (2001), “Optimising the Development of a Medical Device Using Formal Engineering Design Techniques and the CODA-System”, Proceedings in the 7th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, pp. 367–376.Google Scholar