Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Integration of design structure matrix and modular function deployment for mass customization and product modularization: a case study on heavy vehicles

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work presents the integrating process of two modularization methods: design structure matrix (DSM) and modular function deployment (MFD), to products with many components commonly found in the automotive industry. To validate this process, the authors and a cross-functional team worked on the modularization process of an air rear suspension system for heavy vehicles with 44 components. The DSM method was used first as a screening method. Its application generated the first modules reducing the number of components, since the fewer components the product has, the less laborious the application of the MFD method, and the more suitable the results (final set of modules). Therefore, the modularization process started with the DSM method base on a binary square matrix that shows the presence or absence of relationships between pairs of components in a system. A DSM algorithm reordered the binary square matrix elements to generate the preliminary modules. That way, 26 of the 44 components were grouped into eight modules that became new components, reducing the initial number of components from 44 to 26 (44 − 26 + 8). The MFD method incorporated the customer requirements using the quality function deployment (QFD), the engineering point of view utilizing the design property matrix (DPM), and the strategies of the company employing the module indication matrix (MIM) in the modularization process. The QFD matrix, DPM, and MIM union formed the product management matrix (PMM). A dendrogram helped the cross-functional team visualize the hierarchical relationship between the DPM and MIM components and analyze the modules’ set. The cross-functional team chose seven final suitable modules considering components mounting in the assembly line and the supply chain of components too. This systematic modularization process showed up efficiently and made the work of the cross-functional team easy. Finally, the cross-functional team recommended the company board invest in knowledge management tools to assist the future cross-functional teams in replicating this modularization process in other heavy vehicle systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Source: Adapted from Borjesson [35]

Fig. 8

Source: adapted from Erixon (1998)

Fig. 9

Source: Elaborated by the author, using The DSM Excel Macro 2.1 [33]

Fig. 10
11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Source: Adapted from Erixon (1998)

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Blecker T, Abdelkafi N (2006) Complexity and variety in mass customization systems: analysis and recommendations. Manag Decis 44(7):908–929. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610680596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bednar S, Modrak V (2014) Mass customization and its impact on assembly process’ complexity. Int J Qual Res 8(3):417–430

    Google Scholar 

  3. Viana DD, Tommelein ID, Formoso CT (2017) Using modularity to reduce complexity of industrialized building systems for mass customization. Energies 10(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/en10101622

  4. Martínez-Olvera C (2020) An entropy-based formulation for assessing the complexity level of a mass customization industry 4.0 environment. Math Probl Eng 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6376010

  5. Hu SJ, Zhu X, Wang H, Koren Y (2008) Product variety and manufacturing complexity in assembly systems and supply chains. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 57(1):45–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2008.03.138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shunko M, Yunes T, Fenu G, Scheller-Wolf A, Tardif V, Tayur S (2018) Product portfolio restructuring: methodology and application at caterpillar. Prod Oper Manag 27(1):100–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rossit DA, Tohmé F, Frutos M (2019) An Industry 4.0 approach to assembly line resequencing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 105(9):3619–3630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03804-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bednar S, Rauch E (2019) Modeling and application of configuration complexity scale: concept for customized production. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 100(1–4):485–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2659-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Santos V, Sampaio M, Alliprandini DH (2020) The impact of product variety on fill rate, inventory and sales performance in the consumer goods industry. J Manuf Technol Manag 31(7):1481–1505. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-06-2019-0213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. MacDuffie M, Sethuraman JP, Fischer K (1996) Product variety and manufacturing performance. Manage Sci 42(3):350–369. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.3.350

  11. Hallgren M, Olhager J (2009) Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers and performance outcomes. Int J Oper Prod Manag 29(10):976–999. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570910993456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shamsuzzoha AHM, Helo PT (2010) Rapid modelling and quick response. Rapid Model Quick Response: 195–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-525-5

  13. Blackenfelt M (2001) Managing complexity by product modularisation - Balancing the aspects of technology and business during the design process. Doctoral thesis, department of machine design, Royal institute of technology of stockholm, Sweden. Available: http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A8851&dswid=-8832

  14. Shao XF (2020) What is the right production strategy for horizontally differentiated product: standardization or mass customization? Int J Prod Econ 223(December 2018):107527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Efthymiou K, Pagoropoulos A, Papakostas N, Mourtzis D, Chryssolouris G (2012) Manufacturing systems complexity review: challenges and outlook. Procedia CIRP 3(1):644–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fisher ML, Ittner CD (1999) The impact of product variety on automobile assembly operations: empirical evidence and simulation analysis. Manage Sci 45(6):771–786. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.6.771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jiao J et al (2007) Product family design and platform-based product development: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 18(1):5-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0003-2

  18. Jose A, Tollenaere M (2005) Modular and platform methods for product family design: Literature analysis. J Intell Manuf 16(3):371–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-005-7030-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Amanda E, Elsam K, Gupta R, Velinder M (2010) Modular design playbook: Guidelines for Assessing the Benefits and Risks of Modular design. The corporate executive board company. https://kipdf.com/modular-design-playbook_5ab795e41723dd339c816ede.html#google_vignette

  20. Ye Y, Huo B, Zhang M, Wang B, Zhao X (2018) The impact of modular designs on new product development outcomes: the moderating effect of supply chain involvement. Supply Chain Manag 23(5):444–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2018-0021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sun Y, Zhong Q (2020) How modularity influences product innovation: The mediating role of module suppliers’ relationship-specific investments. Manag Decis 58(12):2743–2761. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2019-0837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lima MB, Kubota FI (2022) A modular product design framework for the home appliance industry. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 120(3–4):2311–2330. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00170-022-08896-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Andersen R, Brunoe TD, Nielsen K (2021) Investigating the applicability of modular function deployment in the process industry. Procedia CIRP 104:659–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCIR.2021.11.111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Campagna D, Kavka C, Nicastro S, Poloni C, Turco A (2020) Using DSMs for the visualization and analysis of decision models in business processes. Depend Struct Model Conf DSM 2020: 23–32. https://doi.org/10.35199/dsm2020.3

  25. West SN, Cribb M, McCarthy TR (2021) Applied design structure matrices to quantify impact of proposed model based engineering solutions. AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-0238

  26. Gan TS, Steffan M, Grunow M, Akkerman R (2021) Concurrent design of product and supply chain architectures for modularity and flexibility: process, methods, and application. Int J Prod Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1886370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Park SO, Yoon J, An H, Park J, Park GJ (2022) Integration of axiomatic design and design structure matrix for the modular design of automobile parts. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 236(3):296–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544054211014484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Borjesson F, Hölttä-Otto K (2014) A module generation algorithm for product architecture based on component interactions and strategic drivers. Res Eng Des 25(1):31–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-013-0164-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Borjesson, F. S. (2009). Improved output in modular function deployment using heuristics. In DS 58-4: Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 4, Product and Systems Design, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 24.-27.08. 2009

  30. Eppinger, S. D., & Browning, T. R. (2012). Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT press.

  31. Brem, A., Wolfram, P. (2014) Research and development from the bottom up - introduction of terminologies for new product development in emerging markets. J Innov Entrep 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-3-9

  32. Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48(3):292–306. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.946528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Eppinger SD (n.d.) Excel macros for partitioning und simulation — the design structure matrix (DSM). https://dsmweb.org/excel-macros-for-partitioning-und-simulation/. Accessed 28 May 2022

  34. Hölttä, K., & Salonen, M. (2003). Comparing three different modularity methods. In ASME 2003 design engineering technical conferences: 15th International conference on design theory and methodology, Chicago, Illinois, USA, September 2-6,2003 (pp. 9)

  35. Borjesson F (2010) A systematic qualitative comparison of five approaches to modularity. 11th Int Des Conf Des 2010:147–156

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bataglin M (2013) O Método do desdobramento da função modular no projeto e manufatura sustentável de produtos: Aplicação em uma empresa do setor metal-mecânico. Master's dissertation (in portuguese), Department of mechanical, federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Available: http://www.grima.ufsc.br/dissert/DissertMarceloBataglin.pdf

  37. Machado J, Maziero NL (2014) Aplicação Do Método Mfd Para Projeto De Produto Modular Com Enfoque Na Manufatura E Montagem. Rev CIATEC-UPF 6(2):1. https://doi.org/10.5335/ciatec.v2i1.3704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Erixon G, von Yxkull A, Arnström A (1996) Modularity — the basis for product and factory reengineering. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 45(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)63005-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Smeds R, Haho P, Alvesalo J (2003) Bottom-up or top-down? Evolutionary change management in NPD processes. Int J Technol Manag 26(8):887–902. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Archer JA, Scalice RK (2010) Aplicação E análise de uso de três metodologias de projeto de produtos modulares. In: XXX Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção, São Carlos, SP, Brasil, 12-15 de outubro de 2010.

  41. Oesterholm J, Tuokko R, Olli U (2002) Moving into Mass Customization - Information Systems and Management Principles. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  42. Minitab statistical software (2021). [Computer software]. Minitab, Inc. www.minitab.com

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Guaratingueta, Brazil

    Antonio Wagner Forti & Jorge Muniz Jr.

  2. Volkswagen Caminhões e Ônibus, C-ECC Chassis, Resende, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    César Coutinho Ramos

Authors
  1. Antonio Wagner Forti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. César Coutinho Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jorge Muniz Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Antonio Wagner Forti and César Coutinho Ramos. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Antonio Wagner Forti, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Wagner Forti.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All of the authors mentioned in the manuscript have agreed to authorship, read, and approved the manuscript, and give consent for submission and subsequent publication of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forti, A.W., Ramos, C.C. & Muniz, J. Integration of design structure matrix and modular function deployment for mass customization and product modularization: a case study on heavy vehicles. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 125, 1987–2002 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10615-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10615-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation