Proceedings of DETCí98:

1998 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences

September 13-16, 1998, Atlanta, Georgia

98-DETC/DTM-5661

ON THE APPLICABILITY OF PRODUCT VARIETY DESIGN CONCEPTS TO

AUTOMOTIVE PLATFORM COMMONALITY

Zahed Siddique and David W. Rosen*

Systems Realization Laboratory

The Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332-0405

Nanxin Wang
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn, MI 48121

ABSTRACT commonization. The findings are potentially applicable to

The issue of moving from a mass production operating product platforms in general.
mode to mass customization, or even limited customization,
has many companies struggling to reorganize their product 1 INTRODUCTION
architectures. Enabling the production of several related The current market place is volatile, where the
products for different market segments, from a common customers are constantly changing demands. The new shift
base, is the focus of the product variety design research area. in the current market has introduced the concept of product
In this paper, the applicability of product variety design variety, in which variety and customization replace
concepts to the design of automotive platforms is explored. standardized products. One of the key elements in product
Many automotive companies are reducing the number of variety is the product platform. “A product platform is a
platforms they utilize across their entire range of cars and collection of the common elements, especially the underlying
trucks in an attempt to reduce development times and costs. core technology, implemented across a range of products.”
To what extent can research on product variety design apply (McGrath, 1995) One way to achieve mass customization is
to the problem of platform commonization? This question is by developing the product platform carefully and then using
explored by comparing product variety design concepts different modules to provide product variety. Focusing
(standardization, modularity, mutability, etc.) to platform product strategy at the platform level simplifies the product
structures and requirements. After assessing the applicability development process because there are fewer platforms than
of these concepts, a platform representation and methods for products and major platform decisions can be made much
measuring platform commonality are proposed that less frequently than product decisions. A platform approach
incorporate key characteristics of these concepts. An encourages a long term view of the product strategy. Until
application to two platforms is included. Although recently product platform strategy was not implemented by
preliminary, this work has led to insight as to why many automotive companies.
automotive platform commonization is difficult and how
product design variety research can potentially aid Balancing the need to customize products for target
markets while enabling the economies of scale of a "world

* Corresponding author.

1
car" is a challenge faced by every automotive manufacturer. 2 FAMILY OF PRODUCTS
A proliferation of options and model derivatives leads to Design for product variety is a relatively new research
increased tooling cost and production line complexity. field. The characteristics of product variety range from
Careful commonization of platforms can be used to increase flexible modular designs (Chen et al., 1994) to robust and
product variety while reducing the number of components scaleable designs (Rothwell and Gardiner 1990) to
and the product line complexity. standardized, flexible products (Uzumeri and Sanderson
1995). In Simpson, et al. (1997) the authors identify
The common product platform and the family of product robustness, modularity, and mutability as the core
concepts are linked. Common platforms are required to characteristics of product families.
produce families of products; consequently some of the
ideas, characteristics, and concepts developed for families of In their paper Uzumeri and Sanderson (1995) examine
products apply to common platform design. The purpose of the forces that drive product variety and rate of change as
this paper is to investigate automotive platform design and they influence the evolution of product families and models.
commonization in the context of research on product variety In the paper the authors stress on the importance of variety
design. We first review different product family design and analogies to the biological life cycle. Sanderson (1991)
research, highlighting the different product, assembly, and points out that rapid technological change and increased
design characteristics of product variety. competition are forcing firms to compress the time it takes to
develop product families and realize innovations among
At first glance, it may appear that automotive platforms successive family members. Modular design and virtual
are quintessential examples for product variety design design are the two approaches of design information
research. However, our study has identified significant management discussed in the paper. Virtual design describes
differences between the variety characteristics of platforms the abstraction hierarchy used to represent product function.
from some of the examples that other researchers have The functional elements of a design are decomposed to
studied. Most of the product family design research is increase the efficiency of reimplementation of common
applicable to products that are modular with respect to product functions among a family of products and across
functions. The automotive platform, on the other hand, is product generations.
not modular in nature, since the platform accomplishes just
one function as a whole. As a result some of the family of Modularity is the concept of separating a system into
product design concepts do not readily apply. independent parts or modules which can be treated as logical
units. Ulrich and Tung (1991) gave a summary of different
In this paper we present some of our preliminary types of modularity. The authors also state that modularity
findings related to the automotive platform design problem. depends on two characteristics of a design: (1) Similarity
Specifically these are: between the physical and functional architecture of the
• Identification of different product family design design and (2) Minimization of incidental interactions
concepts and investigation of the applicability of these between physical components. A complete modularity is
concepts towards automotive platform design achieved when there is a one to one correspondence between
• Development of a representation scheme for automotive the physical and functional architectures. In their paper
platform commonization. Newcomb et. al. (1996) describe modularity of architectures
• Development of a scheme to measure commonality for with respect to life cycle concerns, not just product
automotive platforms. functionality and structure. The authors adopt the
architecture decomposition algorithm developed by Kusiak
In the next section we will give a brief overview of some and Chow (1987) for partitioning architectures into modules
of the product family design concepts followed by an from each life cycle viewpoint. Two measures of modularity
introduction to the automotive platform commonization are also proposed in the paper: (1) module correspondence
problem. In Section 4 we will determine the applicability of and (2) coupling between modules.
the different product platform concepts for the automotive
platform commonization problem. Representation schemes In their book Ulrich and Eppinger (1995) describe the
for modeling relationships among the components and different stages of product development. The book also
assembly process to measure commonality is presented in focuses on different aspects of product architecture and how
Section 5. The conclusion (Section 6) will include a brief they can be used to develop modular products. According to
description of our future directions for this research. the authors a modular architecture implements one or a few
functional elements in their entirety and the interactions
between the chunks are well defined and are generally
fundamental to the primary functions of the product. The
opposite of a modular structure is an integral architecture.

2
 spatial (EMIS) interactions between elements are
documented and the DSM can be partitioned with respect to
any of these viewpoints.

Rear Structure 3 PLATFORM COMMONIZATION

One of the key elements in designing for product variety is
Front Underbody
the product platform. Ideally, a common platform can
Front Structure accommodate different models without requiring any
Figure 1. Automobile underbody change. Platform commonization can be helpful in reducing
product development cost and time for product families by
Modular chunks allow changes of a product to be made to a leveraging additional products from a common core.
few isolated functional elements of the product. Products Success of a product family depends on how well the product
built around modular product structures can be more easily platform has been designed. In the case of automobiles the
varied without adding tremendous complexity to the underbody structure is the product platform. One of the
manufacturing system. Modular product architecture also main purposes of the underbody is to provide support to the
facilitates component standardization. rest of the automobile. According to common classification
with respect to function, the underbody is integral, rather
In a series of studies Ishii et al. (1995), Martin and Ishii than modular. The underbody is mainly composed of sheet
(1996) and Fujita and Ishii (1997) discuss the direction metal components which are welded or bolted together into a
toward computational approaches for product variety design. support structure. The underbody is rarely seen by the user
A method that can be used to capture the broadest customer and, as a result, variety is not required from the end user’s
preference in a product line while minimizing the life-cycle viewpoint. The variety in the underbody comes from the
cost of providing variety is developed by Ishii and et al. need of manufacturers to accommodate the different car
(1995). The cost measure utilizes the concept of late point models with different engines, transmissions, suspension,
identification which urges standardization early in the and body lengths, to name a few.
manufacturing process and differentiation at the end of the
process. A product structure graph is used to represent the From the perspective of our industry collaborator, Ford,
product variety in a hierarchical tree. These product a set of platforms is said to be common if their assembly
structure graphs are useful for products that have a clearly processes, locators and weld-lines are the same. As shown in
defined dimension of variety that involve discrete choices, Figure 1, typical unibody platforms are composed of three
but is difficult to apply for complex variety structures. The main sections: front structure (engine compartment), front
concept of Design for Variety (DFV) is further developed in underbody (floor of passenger compartment), and the rear
Martin and Ishii (1996). According to the authors DFV structure (trunk area). The joints between these three
refers to product and process design that meets the best sections are called the weld-lines. An ideal common
balance of design modularity, component standardization, platform is a platform which can accommodate a set of
late point differentiation and product offering. Their different car models without any changes in components,
research approach focuses on measures of the cost of assembly process and module interfaces. More realistically a
providing variety, representation of variety and measure of common platform is one which can accommodate different
the importance of variety. Fujita and Ishii (1997) define the variations required for different car models without requiring
formal representation of product variety design and propose changes in assembly process, weld-lines and locators.
a structure of design tasks involved in product variety.
Automobile platform manufacturing and assembly plants
Pimmler and Eppinger (1994) described a methodology are very expensive to design, build or modify. This gives
for the analysis of product design decomposition. Design rise to the problem of developing common platforms for
Structure Matrix (DSM) is used to design organization based same/similar class cars. Platform commonization can be
upon product structure. The DSM partitioning method is divided into two segments (Figure 2):
used for two purposes in the paper: 1) organization of the 1. Mapping of different platforms into a common
development teams and 2) the definition of product platform to support all the individual platforms.
architecture. This is accomplished by using components as 2. Evaluation of assembly processes and plants, that
the row and the column elements. The method involves can be used to assemble the platform, to determine
decomposition of the system into elements, the feasibility, possible impacts and minimization of cost for
documentation of the interactions between the elements, and changeover.
clustering (or integrating) the elements into architectural and
team chunks. (Architectural chunks are equivalent to As mentioned earlier automobile platforms are integral.
product modules.) The energy, material, information and A one to one correspondence between function and

3
components is not readily evident. Although research done Different
in the area of developing mass customized products focuses Car Models
on modular products some of the concepts do or do not apply
to this problem.
Assembly
4 PRODUCT VARIETY DESIGN CONCEPTS AND Platforms Processes and
PLATFORM COMMONALITY Assembly Plants
Some of the important concepts related to design for

COMMONIZATION
product variety were introduced in Section 2. In this section
applicability of these concepts and their limitations towards Commonize platform Commonize
automotive platform commonization will be discussed. components and assembly processes
relationships for common platform

Standardization: The main concept behind developing a

common platform is to provide a standard platform for
different models and classes of automobiles. Thus, the
concept of standardization certainly applies to platform Common Automotive
commonality. Standardization of all the components in the Platform
platform is desired with the goal that it will be able to
Assembly
accommodate the different variety criteria. To develop a Platform Plant
common platform, standardization is one of the required
characteristics. In the context of platform commonization, Figure 2. Platform Commonization
standardization has to be achieved in several levels. We changing the platform or the assembly process. For many
consider three levels: platforms, a subframe is used as the powertrain-platform
• Standardization of components interface. That is, the engine, transmission, and often the
• Standardization of module interfaces front suspension are assembled onto a subframe. Then, the
• Standardization of assembly process entire module is decked into the platform in one assembly
operation. The workstations that perform powertrain
Standardization of components refers to having standard decking are very expensive; interface standardization is
components in the platform. An ideal common platform is a required so that all required powertrain and suspension
platform which does not require any variation in components variations can be accommodated.
to support different car models. It should be pointed out that
one of the objectives of a common platform is to provide Standardization of assembly process refers to assembling
underbodies for different cars models without changing the required variations of the platform without changing tools,
assembly process. As a result it is acceptable to have assembly sequences, and/or the assembly line. Although the
variations in components to provide the required varieties, as ideal common platform is a platform that uses all standard
long they do not add complexity to the assembly process. components, more realistically a common platform will
There is a natural trade-off between component cost and require variations in components to provide the required
assembly cost. While slightly different components can be variety. As a result the assembly process needs to be
assembled on the same assembly line, different stamping dies standardized so that the same assembly line can be used to
will be required to fabricate different components. How this assemble the variations without any change.
trade-off is resolved depends upon the relative costs of
component and assembly variations. Delayed Differentiation: The concept of delayed
differentiation, i.e., adding variety at later stages of the
Standardization of module interfaces refers to having assembly process, does not directly apply to platform
standard internal and external interfaces. This can be commonization. The delayed differentiation concept is
described as a strategy for providing variety by isolating applied to products that have a well defined correspondence
variations in the module interfaces. Interfaces to external between variety attributes and product modules. In the case
modules need to be standardized so that different modules of automobile platforms, the correspondence between these
can be assembled, to produce the required product variety, variety attributes and different models of the platform is not
using the same process. As an example different car models readily evident.
use different types of engines and transmissions. However,
the engine/transmission module has standard module Imagine a scenario where front structure length has to
interfaces with the automobile underbody to ensure that change to accommodate a new engine type. In some cases,
engine and transmission variants can be assembled without assembling platforms with different lengths may not be

4
feasible because to increase the length of the front structure, variety into appropriate module types (structural, functional,
the side structures (aprons) must be lengthened, but the assembly, etc.).
aprons are required to be loaded at the early steps of the
assembly process. The only way this could be done is by Module Interfaces: Another important concept that applies
adding different assembly lines for different lengths. Where to platform commonization is developing robust module
these parallel lines are added is not particularly important, interfaces. The variety in automobiles is mainly achieved
within reason. However, delaying their addition until late in through modules that are external to the platform; for
the assembly process is not feasible without greatly example, the shape of the car is achieved through body
complicating this process. panels attached to the underbody. Developing robust
interfaces that can accommodate a variety of external
Modularity: The concept of modularity generally applies to modules without changes is sought while developing
the relationship between functions and structure. In the case common platforms.
of automobile platforms, the concept of functional modules
does not apply readily, mainly because the whole underbody The impact of platform commonization decisions on the
is a support structure. The other modularity characteristic, plant floor is critical, due to the expense of assembly plants.
that of minimizing incidental interactions, is difficult to Provided that the major module interfaces can be kept
apply since a platform is an integral structure. On a more constant across a car model family, changes on the plant
abstract level, the platform can be divided into front floor can be minimal. By measuring the number of different
structure, front underbody and rear structure, as described assembly fixtures and workstations required across a family,
earlier. But because of its integral nature, one to one an indication can be given to the platform designer of the
correspondence among components and functions does not impact of his designs. Additional comments on modular
exist. interfaces have been offered in the standardization and
modularity sections above.
Since platforms are large and geometrically complex, it
is necessary to partition them into major sections, then Robustness: Robustness implies an insensitivity to small
partition these sections into manufacturable and assemblable variations and does not dictate a change in form nor a change
components and modules. The division into front structure, in function (Simpson et al. 1997). A common platform needs
front underbody, and rear structure is just one method of to be robust, so that if there are small changes in the platform
platform decomposition (albeit the apparent “standard” for requirements the form does not change. Small changes in a
unibody platforms). Other methods include the twin-rail platform could be adding a different type of rear seat mount.
platform commonly used for light trucks. A new platform From the assembly point of view robustness is also desired
architecture, for small cars intended for developing not only in the assembly process, but also in the assembly
countries, has been developed by Chrysler which utilizes fixtures and workstations, such that if there are small
only four injection molded components for the entire dimensional changes in the platform components, the
platform and body framing (Kobe, 1997). assembly line can still operate without any changes.

From a life-cycle modularity perspective, the platform Mutability: Mutability is the capability of the system to be
can be divided into modules from different life-cycle view contorted or reshaped in response to changing requirements
points (Newcomb et al., 1996). Using the extended or environmental conditions without a change in function.
definition of modularity to allow one-to-one correspondence This is the characteristic that enables a platform to be used
between physical structures and structures of relevance to a across several car models. For example, by lengthening the
life cycle viewpoint, the automobile underbody can be front underbody, an increase in wheelbase helps enable the
divided into modules with respect to external modules, same platform to be used for coupe, sedan and wagon
assembly viewpoint etc. As an example components with models. An increase in rear overhang is also needed for
physical connections with the engine can be considered a wagons. By designing assembly stations to accommodate
module. Also, groups of components that get welded these different lengths, the same expensive welding
together, then assembled into the platform are assembly equipment can be used across all of these car models. In this
modules. The general lesson appears to be that to achieve manner, a common platform should be designed so that if
both variety and standardization, it is necessary to go beyond changes in shape or size are desired, the capability of the
the conventional view of functional and structural modules to platform to meet all its functions and requirements is not
include assembly and other life-cycle considerations. This sacrificed.
broader view of modularity enables the isolation of required

5
 Components
Right Apron
Weld Weld
Front Product Front
Variety Rear Mutability
Structure Underbody Structure Mutability
Right
Rail
Bolted Bolted Robustness
Standardization Right
Mutability of Components Radiator Bracket
Engine Suspension Engine
Support Suspension
Interface Modules Dash/Cowl
Figure 5. Platform architecture first level Assembly Process Left
Mutability
Bracket
(automobile
Supported withoutunderbody)
any changes by
Mutability Mutability
Assembly process Module interfaces Left
Robustness Rail Robustness
Standardization Standardization
Figure 3. Mutability of components and its effects on Left Apron
commonization Common (a)
Platform
Figure 3 illustrates the relationships among platform Figure 4. CommonRight Apron
platform characteristics
commonization, component characteristics, and the effects
on the assembly process and module interfaces. Product Right
Rail
variety requires a certain amount of component mutability. Radiator Sub
Engine
Suspension Dash/Cowl
The ranges of component size and shape variations must be Support frame

accommodated by the module interfaces, from functional and

Left
structural viewpoints, and by the assembly workstations, Rail
from the assembly process viewpoint.
Left Apron

Platform commonization and its relation to different (b)

product variety concepts was discussed in this section. As Figure 6. Front Structure Architecture - 3rd Level
pointed out standardization of components and module for (a) Platform A (b) Platform B
interfaces is essential in developing a common platform
(Figure 4). Robustness and mutability are two of the Interface Modularity Measuring Question: How to
characteristics that are desired in common platforms. measure interface modularity?
Although some of the product variety concepts do not apply In this section we will present our preliminary findings
to platform commonization, most of them do apply and are toward answering these questions.
related.
5.1 Representation - Assembly Graphs
5 PLATFORM COMMONIZATION - CASE STUDY Assembly graphs, similar to the assembly representation
One of questions that is being answered in this paper is presented in Rosen et al. (1996), are used to represent the
“Can product variety design and product family design be architecture of platforms. The diagrams are used to illustrate
applied to automotive platform commonization problem?” the physical connections among components and
To answer this question we develop representation schemes subassemblies. The graphs can also be extended to include
and measures of commonality to apply some of the concepts, assembly information for illustrating how the connections
mainly standardization, discussed in the previous section. among the components/assemblies are achieved in an
We focus our approach at the configuration design stage of assembly process.
the design timeline. Configuration design is the design stage
that falls between conceptual design and parametric design. 5.1.1 Representing component connections
It is at this design stage that product modules and module In the graph representation, physical connections among
interfaces are identified. The design of common platforms assemblies/components are represented by labeled arrows.
has important configuration design elements that involve the The type of connections (welds, bolted joint, etc.) can also
layout of components, the specification of interfaces between be specified in the graph. For any platform, graph
automotive subsystems, etc. The question posed above is representations can be created at different levels of detail to
divided into smaller questions that relate to different aspects identify the specific level of detail where differences among
of the platform commonization problem: different platforms start occurring. The virtual design
Representation Question: How to represent the platform approach of Sanderson (1991) encourages such an
configuration to facilitate commonization? The exploration of commonality at different levels of detail.
representation should provide the means to (1) Identify
problem areas (2) Measure commonality and (3) Determine At the top level, the graph will represent the connections
module interfaces. among the principal subassemblies (Figure 5). At this level
Measuring Question: How to measure commonality? What all unibody automotive platforms have the same architecture,
are the important viewpoints? in a more detailed level, the graph will represent

6
component/subassembly connections for a specific 5.2 Measuring Commonality
subassembly. The differences in the product architectures One of the primary questions that arises from designing
begin to emerge at these detailed levels. Two possible a common platform is - how good is the common platform?
configurations of front structure at a more detailed level are One of the main issues that needs to be addressed before
shown in Figure 6. The connections in the platform measuring the commonality of the platform is - What are the
architectures not only represent physical connections but also criteria for evaluation? One possible measurement could be
components which are used to connect other components. % commonality/reusability of the common platform from
For example, in platform B front structure the engine is different relevant viewpoints. In order to determine the %
connected by using a subframe. commonality one needs to know what the index means and
how to define and validate the scale for this measurement.
5.1.2 Representing assembly sequence Some of the possible viewpoints are:
In Section 3, we illustrated that automotive platform Components Viewpoint: What % of the components of a
commonization can be divided into two segments - one platform are common to different models? This can also
addressing the issues related to components and the other be thought of as how big the common core is compared to
related to the assembly process of the platform. In this the whole underbody structure.
section we will extend the assembly graphs to organize Assembly Operations Viewpoint: What % of the assembly
assembly related information which consists of a platform’s operations are common? In this viewpoint common refers
assembly sequence and related plant information. In our to not only same operations but also the sequence.
approach, we superimpose the assembly sequence on top of Component-Component Connections Viewpoint: What % of
the platform architecture to illustrate the assembly sequence connections between the components are common?
for that level. This combined assembly sequence and Locators Viewpoint: What % of the locators are common?
platform architecture gives a more complete model of the Common locators can be defined as locators having same
platform to allow comparison of assembly sequences for type and same relative positions with respect to the weld
different car model platforms to identify areas where line and the locators on the front and rear of the
commonization is required (product and assembly). In underbody.
Figure 7.a and 7.b the sequence of component loading is
superimposed on the architecture of A and B front structures The measurement of % commonality from different
respectively. Engine and suspension are not included. viewpoints can then be combined to determine an overall
measurement of commonality for a platform.
As can be seen from Figure 7.a, Apron Front Side
Member Assembly LHS/RHS, Panel Assembly Body Front 5.2.1 Platform Architecture Commonality
and Member Assembly Front Cross Dash are loaded first and One approach to determine commonality between
welded. Then the Reinforcement Bracket is loaded and platforms is by comparing the underbody architectures.
joined with the assembly followed by Floor Front Cross When comparing underbody architectures of different
Member Lower and Dash Panel Assembly. For platform B, models, the information can be categorized into (1) common
Apron Front Side Member Assembly LHS/RHS, Panel components (2) unique (vehicle-specific) components (3)
Assembly Body Front and Dash Panel Assembly are loaded external modules. The common set of components makes up
and welded first. Then Floor Front Cross Member Lower a common platform. To increase the commonality of the
followed by Member Assembly Front Cross Dash are loaded underbody structure, the number of common components
and welded at the second and third station respectively. The needs to be increased. It is useful to look at the different
architectures are very similar but the assembly sequences are levels of the platform architecture and identify where the
different. differences occur, because this information might provide
insight into how to increase the commonality of platforms.
Apron
Front Side
Apron Member
Front Side Assembly
Member Floor Front Panel RHS Member
Assembly Cross Assembly Dash
Floor Front Panel RHS
1 Assembly
Member
Cross Assembly 1
Reinforce- Dash Member Body Front Panel
Assembly
Member Body ment Panel Lower Front Assembly
Front Apron Cross
Lower Front Bracket Assembly 1
Apron Cross 2 1 Front Side Dash
3 1 Front Side Dash 2 3
Member 3
Member 1
Assembly
Assembly
LHS LHS
1 1
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Component Loading Sequence For (a) Front Structure A (b) Front Structure B

7
 front structures at different levels.
Two different architectures of two different platforms at
the same level have been illustrated in Figure 6.a and 6.b. Components that are common to the core of the
We can now measure the commonality of the two platforms. platforms are shown in bold. Components italicized
One measure is percent commonality of components (Cc): represent unique underbody components. The shaded 1’s
100 * common components [1] represent connections that are common, which is
C =
common components + unique components
c
accomplished by comparing the architecture of the two
platforms (Figure 6.a and 6.b). The common components
The percent commonality of connections (Cn) can also and connections can be easily identified from the spreadsheet
be measured in a similar manner by counting the core and % commonality can be calculated automatically. The
connections and the unique connections. percent commonality of components (Cell C) is calculated by
100 * common connections [2] using Equation 1 and the percent commonality of
C = connections (Cell F) is calculated using Equation 2.
common connections + unique connections
n

The representation of platform architecture presented in The results from Table 1 can be interpreted as follows.
Section 5.1 provides a means for visualization and Overall, the front structures have similar sets of components
identification of differences and commonality among and connections. We know from Figure 6 that the primary
platforms. To provide a better and easier approach to difference is in the method of attaching the powertrain-
measure commonality we utilize a tabular scheme to suspension package to the front structures. In our method of
represent the assembly graph (Table 1). The first row and counting components, which is consistent with Figure 6,
column list all the components and subassemblies for the platform A has only 4 unique components, while platform B
underbody. The 1’s in the table represent that the has 3. Hence, platform B has a slightly higher %
components/subassemblies are connected and the 0’s commonality measure for components. Regarding the
represent no connection. Table 1 captures the same measure of connection commonality, the two front structures
information as in the assembly graph and is used to have the same types of components and the same
automatically determine percent commonality for different components are welded together. Again, the differences
Table 1. Example Spreadsheet used to Calculate Percent Commonality Between Platform A and
Platform B with Engine and Suspension

Front Structure Front Structure

3rd Level for 3rd Level for
Platform A Platform B

Right Apron 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Right Apron 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

Right Rail 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Right Rail 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
Right Bracket 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Radiator Support 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
Radiator Support 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Engine 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
Engine 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Sub-frame 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Suspension 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Suspension 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
Dash/Cowl 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Dash/Cowl 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Left Bracket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Left Rail 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
Left Rail 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 Left Apron 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
Left Apron 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1

A Total No. of Core Common Components: 6 A Total No. of Core Common Components: 6
B Total No. of Unique components B Total No. of Unique components
including External Components: 4 including External Components: 3
C Percent commonality of components: 60.00% C Percent commonality of components: 66.67%

D Total No. of Common Connections: 14 D Total No. of Common Connections: 14

E Total No. of Unique Connections: 5 E Total No. of Unique Connections: 6
F Percent commonality of connections: 73.68 % F Percent commonality of connections: 70.00 %
Common Connections 1 - connected 0 - not connected

8
 Table 3. Comparison Of Assembly Attributes Table 2. Percent Commonality Summary for
Between Platform A and B Platform A and B
Platform Platform Import Platform Platform
A B ances A B
A Number of components with 3 3 % Component 0.2 60 66.7
common loading sequence Commonality
B Number of components with 4 3 % Connection 0.3 73.7 70
unique loading sequence Commonality
C % commonality for loading 42.86% 50.00% % Assembly Work 0.5 40 28.6
sequence Station Commonality
D Number of Common Stations 4 4 Overall Commonality 54.2 48.7
E Number of Unique Stations 6 10 (weighted sum)
F % commonality of work 40.00% 28.57%
stations Table 1). Approximately one-half of the components in
arise in the method of attaching the powertrain-suspension platform B and platform A share similar loading sequences,
package to the front structures. The subframe for Platform B while the other half are unique to their respective platforms.
has one additional connection to the front structure than Platform A has a slightly lower percent commonality
platform A’s brackets, giving platform B a slightly lower for measure for loading sequence since it has an additional
Platform B. unique component. However, the significant differences
arise in the layout of the assembly work stations because
Platform B requires 4 additional welding work stations.
5.2.2 Assembly Attributes Commonality
Another significant difference is highlighted by the number
In Section 5.2.1, we illustrated how commonality related
of unique work stations for both platform A and platform B:
to components and connections can be calculated. Different
each requires 6 unique work stations, while sharing only 4.
commonality measures related to assembly attributes can
also be calculated in a similar fashion. The percent
commonality of the component loading sequence (Cl) for the 5.2.3 Combining Commonality Measures
front structure assemblies of platform A and platform B The percent commonality measures discussed in the last
(Figure 7.a and 7.b) can be calculated in a similar fashion. two sections (5.2.1 and 5.2.2) can be combined into an
overall platform commonality measure in several different
100 * common assembly component loading [3]
Cl = manners. We will illustrate one method using a weighted-
common + unique
sum formulation as shown in Equation 5.
There are 3 components that have common loading 3

sequence. There are 4 components for platform A that are Commonality = ∑ I C = I C + I C + I C

i i c c n
[5]
n a a
i =1
unique, while for platform B, 3 components have a unique Ii = importances (weighting factors)
loading sequence. Using Equation 3, the percent Ci = % commonality measures from Equations 1, 2, 4.
commonality of component loading sequences for platform
A is 43% and for platform B 50%. Similarly, the measure of The importances must be normalized and can be used to
assembly work station commonality (Ca) can be given by model designer preferences. For example, a selection of Ic =
Equation 4: 0.2, In = 0.3, and Ia = 0.5 indicates that the designer believes
100 * common assembly workstations [4] that assembly is as important as the combination of the
Ca =
common + unique components and their connections. Overall Commonality
measures can be presented in a related table, as shown in
Table 2 shows a comparison between platform A and Table 2, which summarizes the results in Table 1 and 2. The
platform B to calculate Cl and Ca. The table is constructed Commonality measures for platform B and platform A are 49
from Figure 7 and additional information about assembly and 54 percent, respectively.
operations and work stations. As can be seen there are 3
components that have the same loading sequences and 4 5.3 Measuring Interface Modularity
common assembly workstations. The percent commonality A successful approach to developing independent
of the loading sequence (Row C) is calculated using modules is to standardize module interfaces. Modularity
Equation 3. Percent commonality of work stations (Row F) presented in Section 2 pertains to functionality. However,
is calculated in a similar manner using Equation 4. modularity is not limited to this. The viewpoint of assembly
plays a key role in identifying platform modules. As an
Conclusions from these results can be summarized as example, in the case of the platform-engine interface,
follows. The assembly sequences for the two front structures subframes are typically used to isolate the required
are considerably different. This is somewhat surprising since variability from the common platform as presented in the
their architectures appear to be similar (see Figure 7 and Standardization discussion in Section 4. Thus, only the

9
subframe needs to be changed (if needed) to accommodate • Product variety concepts of standardization (component,
various engines. The surface acts as an interface; its value is interface, and assembly), modularity, robustness, and
in separating different assembly modules. mutability are key concepts in platform commonization.
• The delayed differentiation concept does not appear to
Two candidate measures of interface modularity will be apply directly to platform commonization.
introduced to assess the independence of modules. For the • The graph representation of platform architectures is a
first measure, assume that ne different engines are required useful abstraction to illustrate the overall structure of a
to be used in a given platform. Typically, there are four platform. The representation can be extended to include
engine mounts: two on the subframe and two on each apron. assembly information.
Let’s say that each mount must be different for each engine; • % commonality measures provide an indication of the
i.e., the number of unique interface components is me = degree to which platform commonization has been
4*ne. In addition, there may be other interface components, accomplished.
ce (common engine interface), such as brackets, that do not • The combination of the above enables an understanding
change across engine types. Since we are trying to isolate of the relationship between configuration decisions and
variability into the interface between modules, this is potential assembly problems. This allows the
probably an acceptable situation since no changes to the identification of problem areas in the platform.
aprons or other platform components are required. A
candidate interface modularity measure is: As mentioned earlier this research is in its preliminary
Interface Modularity = ce/(me + ce) [6] stage. Currently we are looking at:
where (me + ce) is the total number of components required • Developing a representation scheme that can be used to
to provide the interface between a platform and its capture other aspects of the platform commonization
powertrain-suspension module. One extreme would be for problem.
ce to be zero. In this case, there are no common interface • Developing definitions and computational foundations
components. The other extreme is for me to be zero which that can be used with the architecture representation
indicates that no unique components are needed for the scheme(s) for automotive common platform. The
interface, a very good situation in that variety is being definitions are required to represent the relationships
provided without any impact on the interface. Another among the different components/modules of the platform
useful measure of interface modularity can be the average and the specific attribute being modeled. Computational
number of components in an interface. foundations are required to manipulate and synthesize
Average number of components = (me + ce)/ne [7] platform architectures subject to design and commonality
An average of 1 indicates that there is one interface requirements.
component for each engine. The objective is to reduce the
average as low as possible. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We gratefully acknowledge the support of Ford Motor
6 CLOSURE Company and the cooperation of several Ford employees in
Design theory and methodology research has focused providing information. Also, we acknowledge the National
increasing attention on the area of product variety design. In Science Foundation through grant DMI-9414715.
this paper, we investigated the extent to which this research
applies to automotive platform design. Many automakers are REFERENCES
undertaking significant efforts to commonize their platforms Chen, W., Rosen, D., Allen, J. and Mistree, F. (1994)
in an attempt to simplify and shorten car development "Modularity and the Independence of Functional
projects. These efforts should greatly reduce the cost of Requirements in Designing Complex Systems", Concurrent
bringing new car models to market. We summarized the Product Design (Gadh, R., ed.), Vol. 74, pp. 31-38.
main product variety concepts from the literature, then Fujita, K. and Ishii, K. (1997) Task structuring toward
investigated automotive platforms with respect to these computational approaches to product variety, ASME 1997
concepts. From the applicable concepts, we proposed a Design Automation Conference, Sacramento, CA,
platform representation and commonality measures that seem September 14-17, 1997, pp. DETC97/DAC-3766.
to capture important characteristics of platform commonality Ishii, K., Juengel, C. and Eubanks, F. (1995) Design for
and car model variety. We presented two candidate methods product variety: key to product line structuring, ASME
and tools for measuring platform commonality and Design theory and methodology Conference, Boston, MA,
demonstrated them on two similar platforms. 1995, DE-Vol. 83, pp. 499-506.
Kobe, G. (1997) "Chrysler Molds the Future",
Although preliminary, our work has attracted Automotive Industries, November 1997, pp. 58-60.
considerable interest in industry and has led to some
tentative conclusions:

10
 Kusiak, A. and Chow, W. S. (1987) "Efficient Solving
of the Group Technology problem", Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, Vol 6(2), pp. 117-124.
Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K. (1996) Design For Variety:
A Methodology for understanding the Costs of product
proliferation, 1996 ASME Design Engineering Technical
Conferences, Irvine, CA, August 18-22, 1996, pp. 96-
DETC/DTM-1610.
McGrath, M. E. (1995) Product Strategy for High-
Technology Companies, Irwin Professional Publishing, New
York.
Newcomb, P. J., Bras, B. and Rosen, D. W. (1996)
Implications of Modularity on product design for the life
cycle, ASME 1996 Conference on Design Theory and
Methodology, Irvine, CA, August 18-22, 1996, pp. 96-
DETC/DTM-1516.
Pimmler, T. U. and Eppinger, S. D. (1994) Integration
analysis of product decompositions, Proceedings ASME
Design Theory and Methodology conference, 1994, DE-
Vol. 68, pp. 343-351.
Pine, B. J. (1993) Mass Customization - The New
Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Rosen, D. W. (1996) Design of modular product
architectures in discrete design spaces subject to life cycle
issues, 1996 ASME Design Automation Conference, Irvine,
CA, 1996, pp. 96-DETC/DAC-1485.
Rothwell, R. and Gardiner, P. (1990) robustness and
product design families in design management: a handbook
of issues and methods, m. oakley, basil blackwell inc.,
cambridge, MA,
Sanderson, S. W. (1991) "Cost Models for evaluating
virtual design strategies in multicycle product families",
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol
8, pp. 339-358.
Simpson, T. W., Lanutenschlager, U. and Mistree, F.
(1997) Toward Mass Customization in the Age of
Information: The Case for Open Engineering Systems in The
Information Revolution: Present and Future, W. H. Read
and A. L. Porter, Ablex Publishing, Greenwich, CT, in press.
Ulrich, K. and Tung, K. (1991) Fundamentals of product
modularity, Proceedings of ASME Winter Annual Meeting
Conference, Atlanta, GA, 1991, DE Vol. 39, pp. 73-80.
Ulrich, K. T. and Eppinger, S. D. (1995) Product
Design and Develoment, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Uzumeri, M. and Sanderson, S. (1995) "A framework
for Model and Product Family Competition", Research
Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 583-607.

11