Oct 3, 2002 - chnology. GM Corvette ... Introduction to PlatformIntroduction to Platform Architecture in ProductsArchitecture in Products ..... Margins x: LOWC.
October 3, 2002
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ph.D. Student: Eun Suk Suh Sponsor: Dr. David Chang, General Motors R&D
Olivier de Weck Assistant Professor Dept. of Aeronautics & Astronautics Engineering Systems Division
A Two-Level Optimization Approach
Platform Architecture
October 3, 2002
GM Corvette
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
VW Golf
3 - Discussion
2 - Automotive Platforming Example: A Two-Level Optimization Approach
1 - Introduction to Platform Architecture in Products
Outline
October 3, 2002
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1 - Introduction to Platform Architecture in Products
October 3, 2002
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The embodiment of concept, and the allocation of functionality and definition of interfaces among the elements. (Crawley)
The arrangement of the functional elements into physical blocks. (Ulrich & Eppinger)
Definition of Architecture
October 3, 2002
Dining Room
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Residing
Food Eating
Entertaining
Parlor
Food Preparing
Kitchen
Connects to
1st Floor
Relaxing
Moving around
Porch
...
2nd floor
Hall
House
Example: Private Residence
A defined set of common or shared elements and its interface definition
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Product 2
E
Product 1
B A
D
A
C
October 3, 2002
B
C B
E Product 3
A
C
Elements can be all kind of architectural elements , e.g. parts, components, systems, processes, organizations - objects or processes
Platform =
Definition of Platform
C
P3
A
B
E
P2
October 3, 2002
B
P2
C
E
P3
D
Interconnections: A
P1
A
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
E
D
C
B
A
DSM:
Platform = common set= ABC
P1 ∩ P 2 I P3 = { A, B, C}
D
P1
Set Theory:
Set Theory - DSM
VW
SKODA
Fabia*
Felicia
Octavia
Beetle Bora Golf Polo Lupo
new W8 model?
Passat
new W8 model?
October 3, 2002
SEAT
Arosa
Cordoba
Toledo Leon
new W8 model?
AUDI
A2**
TT A3
A4
A6
A8
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ca. 65% common parts
Segments A&B “Small Class”
Segment C “Medium”
Segment D “Medium High”
Segment E Upper Class” “
Concept D***
(A00, A01, A02, A03)
Platform A0
(A4, A5)
Platform A
(B5, C6?)
Platform B(C?)
(D1) (incl.Bugatti EB118)
Platform D
Platforming - VW Example
October 3, 2002
Ref: K. Otto © Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Leverage for rapid next generation development
Generational Platforms
Same function but different capacity
Scalable Platforms
Create functionally different variants
Modular (Functional) Platforms
Platforms
Computers
BWB Photo Films
BWB
Examples
Classification of Platforms
October 3, 2002
200
250
350
400
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
300
Scaling in size
• Identical Wings • Identical Cockpit • Identical & Similar Bays
BWB Family covering 200-450 passengers with:
Source: Boeing
450
Boeing Blended Wing Body - 1
C2ISR
Bomber
Commercial Family
Tanker
Global Reach Freighter
Bomber
October 3, 2002
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Source: Boeing
Share Common Wing, Cockpit and Centerbody Elements
Tanker
Representative Cross Sections
C2ISR
Global Range Transport/Tanker
BWB Common Fleet
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
… based on empirical evidence
Systems with common basic sets of attributes Long lifecycle, distributed ownership Highly interconnected systems with need for future growth Products in rapidly changing environment Products that include “fast clockspeed” technologies Products with stable core functionality but variability in secondary functions and/or external styling Products with peripheral customization architecture
October 3, 2002
•
• • • • • •
When we have ….
Platforming makes sense
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ref: E. Fricke
Single-use or short lifecycle products without need for product variety - commodities Systems insensitive to change over time Single function products Stable, unchanging packaging or design Slowly changing markets Ultra-high performance markets with no performance loss allowables
October 3, 2002
• • • • •
•
When to avoid Platforming
October 3, 2002
Low-End
Mid-Range
High-End
Luxury
Brand A
Brand B
Brand C
Brand D © Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Vertical Leveraging
No Leveraging
“Market Segment”
Ref: Meyer,Simpson
Beachhead Approach
Horizontal Leveraging
Usually start with some market segmentation grid
Platforming Strategies
October 3, 2002
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Standard manufacturing processes and tooling
• Faster response to changing market needs (always?)
• Reduce design risk and cost
• Easier coverage of market niches (Meyer and Lehnerd 1997)
• Shortening product design lead times (Ulrich 1995)
• More standard parts (Martin and Ishii 1996)
• Reduction of inventory (Baker et al. 1986)
Advantages - Reported Benefits
October 3, 2002
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Effect of platforming on long-term product innovation
• Loss of performance competivity if degree of commonality is chosen too high and market segment is price insensitive
• Cannibalization of high end products by low end products of the same platform product family, when customer awareness is high (e.g. Golf versus Skoda)
• Introduction of undesirable functions and unexpected technical problems in different variants based on the same platform (e.g. Audi TT problems with rear wheel pressure)
Disadvantages - Potential Downsides
How does the competitor’s position affect the platform strategy?
(3)
October 3, 2002
What is the right trade-off between degree of commonality between variants and loss of distinctiveness (performance compromise)?
(2)
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
… there are many more
Given a product family with N products to be placed in M market segments - how many platforms to use?
(1)
Interesting Research Questions
October 3, 2002
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A Two-Level Optimization Approach
2 Automotive Platforming Example:
Name Compact Car Medium Sedan Luxury Sedan Sports-Roadster SUV Truck Van
October 3, 2002
16.8 M/year
Size 2,357,802 4,198,028 1,591,438 514,837 3,519,461 2,800,104 1,589,958 16,571,628
Mean Price $13,427 $19,844 $34,238 $23,424 $25,146 $22,805 $24,986
What is the right strategy?
#vhc 30 33 65 34 56 51 24
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology Source: NIADA National Market Report - 2002
Total U.S. Market 2001 ca. New Vehicle Sales
Symbol LOWC MDSD LXSD SPTR SUVC PUPT MVAN
We are a (new) automotive manufacturer and want to compete successfully in these market segments:
Problem Setup
October 3, 2002
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• The targeted market segments are known • One product (vehicle) per market segment • The basic vehicle architecture is given • Market segments operate independently • Competitors continue to offer the same • The fixed operating cost per year is $B 4.0 • MSRP corresponds to actual sales price • Offer at the same price as market leader
Simplifying Assumptions
October 3, 2002
Selected platform vehicle design variables styling
i=1…N
market segments # platforms (?) vehicle architecture
Decision Vector
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(Vehicle Design & Optimization)
Individual Vehicle
VARIANT LEVEL
(Platform Architecting)
FAMILY LEVEL Vehicle Portfolio
Performance Perceived Value Cost Relative Market Position
Σi
Market share Variable Cost Profit
Objective Vector
Two Level Approach
October 3, 2002
N=7
Sports
Sedans
Utility
VAN
TRCK
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
7 Variants, but how many platforms?
SPTR
SUV
LOWC
MDSD
LXSD
Vehicle Segments
ED
ED
HT
October 3, 2002
WB
T
SF ]
WT
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Simplified BOF Vehicle Architecture
engine
platform
r x = [WB WT
body
SF
(phenotype)
Vehicle Architecture
HT
[in]
ED
2990
[ccm]
j
decode
1400 1.0 ]
Body
SF ]T
1.0 ]T
[-]
binary
October 3, 2002
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
DV’’=[ 0 1 1 | 1 1 1 | 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 | 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 ]
encode
DV’ = [ k
HT
58
[in]
MDV(j) =[ ED ]
Platform Engine
DV=[ WB WT
DV=[ 108.2 61.3
[in]
PDV(k) =[ WB WT]T
Example:
Units
(genotype = vehicle “DNA”)
Vehicle Design Vector
0.15 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.15
0.15 0.15 0.05 0.45 0.2
0.4 0.3 0.05 0.2 0.05
0.1 0.25 0.05 0.3 0.3
Preference weight matrix
0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1
October 3, 2002
i =1
∑ wi, j ⋅
JˆML ,i
Ji
MSRPj Relative Price Prel , j = MSRP ML , j
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Relative J rel , j = Performance
5
i =1
= 1.0
0.05 0.1 0.05 0.4 0.4
i, j
∑w
5
0.15 0.35 0.10 0.05 0.35
Perceived value = Aggregate performance relative to the market segment leader
*TBD
AC - Acceleration HP - HorsePower FC - Fuel Efficiency PV - Passenger Vol. CV - Cargo Volume SR - Styling Rating*
LOWC MDSD LXSD SPTR SUV TRCK VAN
Vehicle Price & Performance
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
0
100000
300000
Sales Volume
200000
Compact Cars -Sales vs MSRP
October 3, 2002
Source: AutoPro
400000
0
Honda Civic
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
100000
300000
400000
500000
Ford Explorer
Sales Volume
200000
Sales Volume vs MSRP - SUVs
Sports Utility Vehicles - SUV
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Who are the leaders?
MSRP
Compact Cars - LOWC
Example Segments
MSRP
October 3, 2002
Relative Price
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
0.800
1.100
1.200 Relative Performance
1.000
1.300
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
0.900
1.500
Suggests two “sub-segments” 1.400
Relative Position w.r.t. Leader - SUV
“Sweet Spot” Hypothesis
$0.60
$0.70
$0.80
$0.90
$1.00
$1.10
$1.20
$1.30
$1.40
$1.50
$1.60
October 3, 2002
Relative Price
0.800
1.000
J rel ,i
Prel ,i
rel ,i
− 1) + ( Prel ,i − 1)
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1.200
I - Contender
(J
1.100
⋅
2
II - Overscoped
Relative Performance
0.900
III - Underscoped
Dw =
III - Noncompetitive
Relative Position w.r.t Leader - LOWC
Competitive Position
2
0 0.00
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
w ,i
(β D
α
+ 1)
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Establishes an estimate for sales volume penalty due to platforming/commonality effects
Weighted Distance from Leader Dw
0.20
SVi = f ( Dw,i ) =
Sales Volume Sensitivity - MDSD
Sales Volume Sensitivity
October 3, 2002
Sales Volume
100
110 120 Wheelbase [in]
SUV
130
26
28
10 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 Curb Weight [lbs]
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
SUV
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Instead of detailed CAD/CAE-simulation model, use approximate scaling relationships for each segment.
2000 90
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
October 3, 2002
Curb Weight [lbs]
Engineering Model Fuel Economy [mpg]
October 3, 2002
WB WT HP HT
input 103.1 57.9 115 55.1 FC PV CV CW
FC PV CV CW
output 33.85824 87.707918 11.86767 2233.1235
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
truth 36 85.9 12.9 2405
- Multivariable function approximator - Trained with market segment data
WB WT HP HT
FC PV CV CW
error % 6.3257 2.0613 8.6987 7.6967
Neural Network Model
October 3, 2002
C fam =
i =1
∑
# platform
45%
- x%
∑
i =1
Body
30%
i =1
∑
# bodies
TFU b ,i N bB,i
B = 1 − ln(100 / S ) ln 2
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
TFU p ,i N pB,i +
# engines
L
B
C = TFU ⋅ { N
Engine
25%
Vehicle Cost
TFU e ,i N eB,i +
Include Learning Curve Effect
Platform
Total Product Family Cost:
Margins x: LOWC 5% MDSD 10% LXSD 20% SPTR 15% SUV 15% Truck 25% Van 15%
Market Leader MSRP
Cost Model
October 3, 2002
# of platforms
platform
nnet
opt 2
cost
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
i=1,..,7
opt 1
mkt
Vehicle Level
Family Level
Simulation Framework
portfolio
profit
0
0.2
1
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1
2
October 3, 2002
3 4 5 Number of Platforms
6
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Non-competitiveness due to uniformity
“Optimal” Platform Strategy
2
7
7 cost of variety
Null Platform Strategy
Optimal # of Platforms Product Family Profit [B$]
1
October 3, 2002
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
2
3
4 # of platforms
6
7
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
5
LOWC MDSD LXSD SPTR SUV TRCK VAN
105.1 105.1 114.8 105.1 114.8 137.0 114.8
WB
α β γ
Optimal - 3 Platforms
- results sensitive to learning curve S
Some observations
Performance penalty goes down with increasing # of platforms
Weighted Avg Distance
October 3, 2002
α β χ δ ε φ γ
1 2 3 4 4 4 4
Sedans
LOWC
MDSD
LXSD
1 2 3 3 3 3 3
1 2 2 2 2 2 7
1 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 2 2 5 5 5
Utility
VAN
TRCK
Can see the resulting strategy as more platforms are added.
Horizontal Levering
Beachhead strategy
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1 2 3 4 4 6 6
Sports
SPTR
SUV
Resulting Strategy
2200 10
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
Can one reverse engineer a competitors platform strategy based on: - grid patterns in data? - teardown inspection?
In design space one discovers grid patterns for some design variables … indicates commonality
Future Work
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Attempt to apply methodology to GM vehicle family ( > 80 vehicles, >20 platforms)
15 20 Fuel Capacity (gal)
GM Vehicle Family
October 3, 2002
Wheelbase [mm]
October 3, 2002
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Include components in platform that are: - hidden from the customer - insensitive to performance - high value - technologically stable
• Different strategies exist, must be carefully chosen
• Platform Architecture important for cost effectively creating product variety with commonality savings
Summary
