Product Portfolio Selection of Designs Through an Analysis of Lower-Dimensional Manifolds and Identification of Common Properties

Functional commonalities across product families have been considered by a large body of product family design community but this concept is not widely used in design. For a designer, a functional family refers to a set of designs evaluated based on the same set of qualities; the embodiments and the design spaces may differ, but the semantics of what is being measured (e.g., strength of a spring) remain the same. Based on this functional behaviour we introduce a product family hierarchy, where the designs can be classified into phenomenological design family, functional part family and embodiment part family. And then, we consider the set of possible performances of interest to the user at the embodiment level, and use multi-objective optimisation to identify the non-dominated solutions or the Pareto-front. The designs lying along this front are mapped to the design space, which is usually far higher in dimensionality, and then clustered in an unsupervised manner to obtain candidate product groupings which the designer may inspect to arrive at portfolio decisions. We highlight and discuss two recently suggested techniques for this purpose. First, with help of dimensionality reduction techniques, we show how these clusters in low-dimensional manifolds embedded in the high-dimensional design space. We demonstrate this process on three different designs (water faucets, compression springs and electric motors), involving both continuous and discrete design variables. Second, with the help of a data analysis of Pareto-optimal solutions, we decipher common design principles that constitute the product portfolio solutions. We demonstrate this so-called ‘innovization’ principles on a spring design problem. The use of multi-objective optimisation (evolutionary and otherwise) is the key feature of both approaches. The approaches are promising and further research should pave their ways to better design and manufacturing activities.

[1]  Shyh-Jen Wang,et al.  The Clemson Limit Stress Diagram for Ductile Parts Subjected to Positive Mean Fatigue Loading , 2000 .

[2]  Roger Jianxin Jiao,et al.  Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review , 2007, J. Intell. Manuf..

[3]  Aravind Srinivasan,et al.  Innovization: innovating design principles through optimization , 2006, GECCO.

[4]  S. N. Kramer,et al.  An Augmented Lagrange Multiplier Based Method for Mixed Integer Discrete Continuous Optimization and Its Applications to Mechanical Design , 1994 .

[5]  Amitabha Mukerjee,et al.  FUNCTIONAL PART FAMILIES AND DESIGN CHANGE FOR MECHANICAL ASSEMBLIES , 2008, DAC 2008.

[6]  Eun Suk Suh,et al.  PRODUCT FAMILY AND PLATFORM PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION , 2003, DAC 2003.

[7]  Lawrence K. Saul,et al.  Think Globally, Fit Locally: Unsupervised Learning of Low Dimensional Manifold , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[8]  Thomas Martinetz,et al.  'Neural-gas' network for vector quantization and its application to time-series prediction , 1993, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[9]  R. K. Ursem.  Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2009 .

[10]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Multi-Objective Design Optimization for Product Platform and Product Family Design Using Genetic Algorithms , 2005, DAC 2005.

[11]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Product platform design and customization: Status and promise , 2004, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[12]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Product platform design: method and application , 2001 .

[13]  Sridhar Kota,et al.  A Metric for Evaluating Design Commonality in Product Families , 2000 .

[14]  Dimitrios Gunopulos,et al.  Non-linear dimensionality reduction techniques for classification and visualization , 2002, KDD.

[15]  Michael J. Scott,et al.  Product platform design through sensitivity analysis and cluster analysis , 2004, DAC 2004.

[16]  Radford M. Neal.  Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2007, Technometrics.

[17]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Nonlinear multiobjective optimization , 1998, International series in operations research and management science.

[18]  Mikhail Belkin,et al.  Laplacian Eigenmaps and Spectral Techniques for Embedding and Clustering , 2001, NIPS.

[19]  Andrew Kusiak,et al.  Standardization of Components, Products and Processes with Data Mining , 2004 .

[20]  M. Meyer,et al.  The product family and the dynamics of core capability , 1992 .

[21]  Warren P. Seering,et al.  MODULARIZING PRODUCT ARCHITECTURES USING DENDROGRAMS , 2003 .

[22]  Michael P. Martinez,et al.  Effective Product Family Design Using Physical Programming , 2002 .

[23]  T. Simpson.  A concept exploration method for product family design , 1998 .

[24]  A. Messac,et al.  Normal Constraint Method with Guarantee of Even Representation of Complete Pareto Frontier , 2004 .

[25]  S T Roweis,et al.  Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding. , 2000, Science.

[26]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  A Variation-Based Method for Product Family Design , 2002 .

[27]  Javier P. Gonzalez-Zugasti,et al.  Assessing value in platformed product family design , 2001 .

[28]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  AN EXTENSION OF THE COMMONALITY INDEX FOR PRODUCT FAMILY OPTIMIZATION , 2007, DAC 2007.

[29]  Kunihiko Fujita,et al.  Product Variety Optimiza-tion: Simultaneous Optimization of Module Combination and Module Attributes , 2001 .

[30]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. , 2000, Science.

[31]  Robert Stone,et al.  A customer needs motivated conceptual design methodology for product portfolio planning , 2008 .

[32]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Towards automating the discovery of certain innovative design principles through a clustering-based optimization technique , 2011 .

[33]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Assessing Variable Levels of Platform Commonality Within a Product Family Using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm , 2004, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl..

[34]  Mark Treleven,et al.  Component part standardization: An analysis of commonality sources and indices , 1986 .

[35]  Simon Szykman,et al.  A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts , 2002 .

[36]  Roger Jianxin Jiao,et al.  A generic genetic algorithm for product family design , 2007, J. Intell. Manuf..

[37]  Amitabha Mukerjee,et al.  Discovering implicit constraints in design , 2011, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[38]  Roger Jianxin Jiao,et al.  Product portfolio identification based on association rule mining , 2005, Comput. Aided Des..

[39]  Zhengdong Huang,et al.  Parametric Modeling of Part Family Machining Process Plans From Independently Generated Product Data Sets , 2003, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[40]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Product Family Commonality Selection Through Interactive Visualization , 2008, DAC 2008.

[41]  Zhi-Hua Zhou,et al.  Transactions on Systems , Man , and Cybernetics – Part B : Cybernetics 1 Supervised Nonlinear Dimensionality Reduction for Visualization and Classification , 2005 .

[42]  Matthew B. Parkinson,et al.  MULTICRITERIA OPTIMIZATION IN PRODUCT PLATFORM DESIGN , 1999, DAC 1999.