Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Systems journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmansys

Technical Paper

Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms Marcel T. Michaelis a,∗ , Hans Johannesson a , Hoda A. ElMaraghy b a b

Department of Product and Production Development, Chalmers University of Technology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) Centre, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON, Canada N9B 3P4

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 16 May 2013 Received in revised form 17 June 2014 Accepted 18 June 2014 Available online xxx Keywords: Platform development Functional modeling Axiomatic Design Theory of Domains Function-Means Modeling Domain mapping

a b s t r a c t Manufacturing companies face increasingly tougher individual customer requirements that force them to revise conceptual solutions for the redesigning of products. This situation limits the reuse of ready-made components and requires physical changes to the manufacturing system. In these settings, platforms must be prepared with greater flexibility to allow development over time. The corresponding platform models need to include conceptual considerations for products and manufacturing systems. The literature advocates functional modeling to capture these considerations but applies it separately to either the product domain or to the manufacturing domain. Further, its relationship to manufacturing processes is not expounded. Thus, functional modeling falls short of its potential to facilitate the integrated development of products and manufacturing systems. This paper puts forth an integrated platform model using functional modeling to capture the conceptual considerations for products and manufacturing systems together with the manufacturing processes. The model is tested for consistency and then illustrated by studying a real case example from the automotive industry modeled according to the approach suggested. The example shows that the model facilitates an understanding of the design of products and their manufacturing systems, including functions shared across domains and across lifecycle phases. Thus, the model is proposed for the conceptual phase of designing, aimed at reusing and redesigning components, machinery, manufacturing processes and design solutions. © 2014 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Companies in the manufacturing industry are faced with numerous challenges related to change and variation. These challenges include [1]: -

Increasing frequency in the introduction of new products Changing in parts of existing products Large fluctuations in product demand and mix Changes in government regulations (safety and environment) Changes in process technology

While facing these challenges, companies must continue to strive for more efficiency, product variety and customization. As shown for example by the car industry, this goal can be achieved

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 700771200. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M.T. Michaelis).

by developing different car models on the same underbody design and by assembling pre-designed parts to customer order. For other manufactured products, this platform-based development is useful to achieve the combined efficient reuse across variants [2]. In these cases, a platform can be defined as a “set of subsystems and interfaces developed to form a common structure from which a stream of derivative products can be efficiently developed and produced” [3, p. xii]. The success of a platform depends on a company’s ability to maintain stable interfaces over time until a new platform has been developed. Moreover, such platforms and their emerging product variety must be sustained by efficient manufacturing systems, i.e., the physical technical systems that carry out the production of the products, including the factory, facilities, workstations, machines, tools, and operators. However, there exist factors that prevent static interfaces or, alternatively, shorten the lifetime of a platform, thus limiting the applicability of these conventional platforms. For example, the increasing frequency in the introduction of new products accumulates incremental changes to the products and manufacturing

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012 0278-6125/© 2014 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13 2

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

systems that ultimately exceed the scope of the platform. Likewise, extensive redesigning from one customer to the next due to tough individual customer requirements limits the reuse of ready-made components and requires physical changes to the manufacturing system, as for instance reported for a supplier in the aerospace industry [4]. In such settings, platforms must be prepared with greater flexibility to allow development over time [5]. The platform contents must be captured in models that encompass earlier conceptual considerations for products and manufacturing systems, representing the output of the conceptual design phases. From a product-centered perspective, this phase is defined as elaborating solutions “by identifying the essential problems through abstraction, by the establishment of function structures and by the search for appropriate working principles and their combination” [6, p. 57]. Seen from the manufacturing perspective, this phase concerns the “determination of manufacturing operations, selection or initial design of machines to provide the required operations, determination of the type of manufacturing systems and identification of possible material handling systems” [7, p. 300]. Conceptual considerations thus include decompositions of functional requirements and solutions to these requirements. Together they express the design rationale, which can be defined as the information about why an artifact is designed the way it is [8]. Moreover, conceptual considerations involve manufacturing processes that link products with manufacturing systems [9,10]. Manufacturing processes include a series of process steps that through the transformation of raw materials and unfinished components leads to the realization of a product. Hereafter these steps are referred to as manufacturing operations, or simply operations. Finally, the partial reuse of existing components and machinery must be evaluated on the basis of how they relate to overall functionality and performance. For this purpose, their architecture must be understood. This will be defined as the scheme by which the functions of a system are allocated to physical components (as an adaptation of the definition of product architecture by Ulrich [11]). Manufactured products and the manufacturing systems that produce them are multi-technological systems that consist of different types of hardware subsystems (e.g., mechanic, hydraulic and electronic hardware) and software subsystems. These systems and their subsystems interact with each other and with the surrounding environment [12] during the different phases of their lifecycles in so-called lifecycle meetings [13]. In particular, the interactions between the product and the manufacturing system during the manufacture of a product must be understood and managed during and after the conceptual design phases because these interactions govern how the product and manufacturing system mutually affect each other. A change in a product may require new tools for its manufacture or a product may require modification to allow the implementation of a more efficient manufacturing sequence. In general, a platform model to support product development over time must be a sufficiently information-rich and adaptable source of knowledge to enable the effective and efficient generation of quality assured variants. The products and manufacturing systems of the platform must be developed to a level of maturity and expressed by means of an artifact model that allows for reuse or redesign [5]:

- to develop new platform systems aimed at original or updated settings - to extend original or previously required functionality and performance - for the ordered configuration of quality assured variants within platform limits.

This paper focuses on development related to the first two points. Thus, it aims to support platform-based development in settings that require redesigning and revisiting of conceptual considerations rather than being limited to the reuse of ready-designed components. To achieve this objective, it examines the possibility of integrating product and manufacturing system descriptions into one integrated platform model. Specifically, it focuses on supporting these conceptual considerations rather than providing comprehensive solutions that include and extend to detailed designing of the product and manufacturing system and detailed manufacturing process planning.

2. State of the art The literature addresses the designing of products and manufacturing systems from two different perspectives. The first perspective regards both as artifacts designed for the generic purpose of transforming inputs into outputs [14]. The second perspective acknowledges both their differences and inherent relationship; typically, only one manufacturing system is built to manufacture many individual products. Both perspectives are reflected, specifically elaborating on the methods aimed at supporting conceptual design processes of products and manufacturing systems. 2.1. Modeling functions and solutions The representation of the design rationale of a system and its functional decomposition is addressed by various methods. One of these methods, Function-Means Modeling, captures the designs of technical systems and their rationale to create a decomposition of functions by alternating the means used to solve these functions [15,16]. It distinguishes between functional requirements (FR) that are solved by various means and non-functional constraints (C) that limit the means selected [17]. Each means accomplishes a single function, whereas several constraints can limit its selection. As carriers of functionality, means are also known as organs [14] or design solutions (DS) [5]. By adding alternative means and supplementary design information, Function-Means models are enhanced and refined [18]. Fig. 1 schematically illustrates a Function-Means tree involving modeling elements as different relationship types. However, manufacturing processes are not addressed through Function-Means Modeling. In contrast to this, Axiomatic Design connects the product design to manufacturing processes by using so-called process variables [19]. Expansions achieve an objective-solution mapping for the product and its manufacturing process separately [20,21] without explaining the manufacturing system in functional terms. Other adaptations of Axiomatic Design consider the functional decomposition of a manufacturing system [22,23] without extending it to product design. Neither Function-Means Modeling nor Axiomatic Design address how the functions of the products or functions of the manufacturing system are mapped or linked to existing product components and existing machinery, i.e., the architecture. The means, design parameters and process variables express this information indirectly without explicitly including existing product components and machinery. 2.2. Design solutions and parts Connecting existing product components and machinery to conceptual solutions leads to causal relationships between the modeling elements. Whereas a single design solution accomplishes

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

3

Documents FR1 isb

C1a icb

DS1

ipmb

ipmb

rf

FR

Functional requirement

DS

Design solution

Attribute lists

C

External models

rf

Constraint

isb: An FR “is_solved_by” a DS rf: A DS “requires_function” FR

FR11 isb

FR12

C11a

C12a

isb icb

icb iib

DS11a

DS12a

icb: A DS “is_constrained_by” a C ipmb: A C “is_partly_met-by” a DS iib: Fulfillment of an FR “is_influenced_by” a DS iw: A DS “interacts_with” a DS

iw Fig. 1. Enhanced Function-Means tree with linked information items [17].

a single function, there are three different cardinalities in the relationship between parts and functions: - One-to-one: A part accomplishes a single function and is congruent with the design solution. - One-to-many: Several parts that are spatially confined accomplish a single function (e.g., neighboring parts in a labyrinth seal). - Many-to-one: One part accomplishes several functions (e.g., the two ends of a claw hammer). This last case of cardinality is also called function sharing [24]. As part of the Theory of Domains [25], this distinction is directly implemented in the Chromosome Model. From a product perspective, it differentiates between a process domain, a function domain, an organ domain and a part domain. Further, it proposes a production domain with process elements. Thus, the Theory of Domains proposes a relationship model that connects elements from one domain to the elements from another domain. An example of such a relationship would be an organ that is realized by a component produced by a manufacturing process. The Theory of Domains also frames the concept of function more broadly to express purpose in general rather than understanding it as a transformation of an operand [26]. A bookshelf supporting the weight of a book can thus also be regarded as accomplishing a function. This kind of purpose function can express a type of functionality not connected to a process and corresponds to how functions are understood in Function-Means Modeling. 2.3. Modeling for changing requirements The desire to capture and manage the variety in products and manufacturing systems is a driver for related work on integrated models of products and their manufacture. Ahmad et al. [27] devised a model that can be used to assess the impact of changes introduced to products, including requirements, functions, components and a detailed design process. The Extended Product Family Master Plan by Kvist [28] and the object-oriented manufacturing process modeling by Zhang [29] connect manufacturing processes to product platform structures. However, these methods do not explicitly address the design of a manufacturing system. In contrast to the above, the co-evolution model of products and their manufacturing systems by AlGeddawy and ElMaraghy [30] allows tracing their historical co-development to predict and synthesize future configurations of both. It was inspired by the field of biology and focuses on the distinguishing features of products and

manufacturing systems by representing them jointly in branching diagrams. Moreover, the configurable component framework, originally proposed by Claesson [31], represents technical systems and the respective subsystems and has been proposed to build integrated models of the product and manufacturing system. The framework is an object-oriented methodology that captures products, manufacturing systems and their design solutions and design rationale. The configurable component framework aims at addressing similar challenges as the authors of this paper and is thus treated more thoroughly in the following sections.

2.4. The configurable component framework Claesson [31] proposed to describe the elements of the platforms that are subject to reuse and redesign by generic building blocks termed configurable components (CCs). CCs can model technical systems in general, hereafter referred to as systems, including products and manufacturing systems. Depending on the level of detail, a single CC can represent entire product platforms, configurable products or manufacturing systems, product assemblies or manufacturing machines, physical parts or form features, to name a few. Moreover, a CC can represent non-physical systems, such as software systems. Each CC is composed of CCs that solve several functions required by the super system. It uses Function-Means trees, to capture information about the system solution and the means by which system variants are composed [32–34]. The information between CCs is exchanged in a standardized way via the control interface, the composition set, and the interface set as shown in the schematic illustration of a CC structure in Fig. 2. The composition set and the control interface describe how a higher-level CC is composed of other CCs, for example. In Fig. 2, CC12 is composed of CC121 and CC122 . The composition elements (i.e., external CCs) implement design solutions requested by the CC Function-Means tree and configured by variant parameters. An interaction links two or more CCs via their respective interfaces. The interfaces and interactions together constitute the interactionmodeling concept of the configurable component framework. In Fig. 2, CC121 and CC122 interact via their interfaces while the interaction is governed by CC122 . This representation mirrors the interaction of physical interfaces, such as an interaction between a product component and a manufacturing tool. These interfaces are governed by variant parameters in their CC representation and

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

4

CC1

CC12

icu CC11

CC12

I/F

CI VP(VPV1i) IA

icb

icu CC111

icu

Configurable component

DR

Design rationale

I/F

Interface

IA

Interaction

CI

Control interface

CS

Composition set

DS

CC121

iaio iaio CS CEn(VPV2i), CEn+1(VPV3 i)

CC122 CI VP(VPV2 i)

FR

FR

FR

DS

DS

DS

icu

icu

CC121

CC

FR

CC122

CC113

CC112

DR

Ca, Cb, …Cn

I/F

I/F

CE: Composition element CI VP(VPV3 i) IA

VP: Variant parameter VPV: Variant parameter value FR: Functional requirement DS: Design solution C: Constraint icu: ”is_composed_using” iaio: ”is_an_implementation_of” icb: ”is_constrained_by”

Fig. 2. Composition of configurable components with encapsulated elements and relationship types. Adapted from [31].

are thus configurable [12]. All elements are encapsulated in the CC building block. As the figure indicates, several configurable components can be combined to represent a system platform. Multiple system variants can be derived from this platform description. The variation ranges of the configurable components involved are called design bandwidths [35] and determine the feasible system variants. Thus, they define the limits of the solution space and, consequently, the scope of the system family that may be derived from the platform. Further, an expansion of the framework was proposed to model the behavior of a CC [12]. The manufacturing processes of a manufacturing system constitute examples of such behavior. The behavior is captured by state transition models in CCs. However, how the steps in the state models connect to remaining modeling elements in the CC remains to be further investigated.

3. Research approach The industrial challenges presented above provide the general problem basis for the research in this paper. As proposed in the literature, the modeling of products and manufacturing systems into an integrated model can contribute to alleviating some of these challenges. Therefore, the research presented investigates the notion of an integrated model for development in the concept phase by using available modeling methods whenever possible and amending them where required. Specifically, the Function-Means formalism [16,18] and the configurable component framework [31] have been selected for their ability to capture the results of the concept phase of development, including the design rationale. The focus was set on the modeling elements function and design solution. Further, ideas from the Theory of Domains [25] have been selected as modeling elements, including parts, assemblies, and manufacturing processes. Together, the proposed modeling elements capture conceptual considerations or existing components and machinery in technical systems, such as manufactured products and manufacturing systems. The idea is to capture the design of both systems into an integrated

model as opposed to creating two independent models. For the purpose of advancing this idea, the following question was formulated: How can products and manufacturing systems be represented in an integrated platform model, including functions, design solutions, physical components and manufacturing operations, in order to support development during the concept phase? Addressing this question, an integrated model was developed through an iterative process by trying to connect modeling elements in different ways and by testing these approaches for consistency using simple examples. Following this, a specific manufacturing system and its respective product were studied and then modeled according to the proposed model. The selection of the case example was guided by a suggestion from the company where the study was conducted and by the twofold function of the case example. First, the case example provided empirical data to test whether a consistent model of a real manufacturing system and product could be built based on the approach. Second, the case is used in this paper to illustrate details of the modeling approach. However, its purpose was not to further analyze the industrial challenge or to demonstrate the usefulness of the model in a full-scale development project. The case example will be presented and discussed in the second half of this paper. The data sources for this case included the physical products and production facilities, product and production documentation, in addition to informal interviews with engineers from the Engineering Design Department and engineers and operators from the Production Department at the company manufacturing the product. Visits to the factory were accompanied by manufacturing engineers in charge of operation and maintenance of the manufacturing systems. The systems were observed in operation and operators and engineers were interviewed about the functionality of the systems to gain an understanding of the function of each subsystem and component of the manufacturing system and how these elements contribute to handling and transforming parts of the product.

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Further, the design engineer in charge of the product was interviewed. To assist the interview, the engineer used the Computer-Aided Design model of the product to explain all aspects of its overall mechanical structure and constituent parts. Moreover, the product was studied in use after it had been further processed and integrated into the final product to be delivered to the customer. Similar to the analysis of the manufacturing system, the goal was to understand the function of each subsystem and product component and how these elements provide functionality during the use phase. As the company had not established a functional decomposition of either its manufacturing system or product, the raw data collected did not comply with the formalism of the approach. Thus, these data had to be reinterpreted as functions and design solutions. In essence, the Function-Means trees were established following a top-down approach, starting by defining higher-level functions and design solutions before successively continuing to lower-level functions and solutions. Thereafter, the operations and component structures were defined and linked to the trees. Rather than following a linear procedure, the modeling had to be carried out iteratively as the understanding of the product and the manufacturing system increased and inconsistencies were removed. Upon completion, the model was presented to the company engineers to check whether any misconceptions about the manufacturing systems or the product had been incorporated in the model.

The integrated platform model uses the Function-Means formalism to connect the functions and design solutions of the product in the same way as for the manufacturing system. Two kinds of Function-Means trees result: one for the product and another for the manufacturing system. These trees connect functional domains to solution domains, thus describing the product and the manufacturing system in terms of two domains. Consequently, the model makes no compromises by simultaneously focusing on the product and the manufacturing system. Moreover, the Function-Means formalism includes transformation functions as well as purpose functions. In other words, it is possible to model functions and design solutions that are not aimed at describing transformations. Further, the two kinds of Function-Means trees are each connected to their respective component trees—one for the product and another for the manufacturing system—serving as bills of material and bills of equipment, respectively. The model indicates in which component a certain design solution is realized, thus capturing the architecture of the product and manufacturing system. For manufactured products, the components are typically assemblies and parts, such as hydraulic cylinders and camshafts. For manufacturing systems viewed from a high hierarchical level, components typically include manufacturing cells, stations, assembly lines, fixtures, robots, and machine tools. The assemblies and parts of these manufacturing systems populate the lower levels in the component structure of the manufacturing system, for example fixtures or welding electrodes. Depending on the level of detail required, the component trees can also include form features, i.e., “form elements with a characteristic form, related to a traditional production process” [25, p. 26], such as the draft angle of a cast component. Alternatively, form features can be defined in relation to the functionality of the product or manufacturing system. An example is the shape of a stamping die, which refers to the functionality of the manufacturing system. Linking the product and manufacturing system, the manufacturing operations are included in the platform model. According to the sequence in which they are performed, the model presents these operations starting on the left and progressing to the right. The operations show how the functions of the manufacturing system are executed when producing the product, which is a perspective that the Function-Means trees do not provide. The focus is on the operations directly connected to the making of the product, i.e., transformations of the product, its components or form features. In order to reflect the typical mode of production

4. Integrated platform model To summarize the model, it uses Function-Means trees to capture the design rationales and thus conceptual considerations of the product and manufacturing system. It also incorporates component trees to further clarify how design solutions can be realized in physical components. For purposes of linking the product and manufacturing system models, the manufacturing operations in the manufacturing processes involved have been added. Fig. 3 provides a simplified schematic overview of the resulting model. The platform model focuses on the lifecycle meetings between the design solutions of the product to be materialized and the design solutions of the manufacturing system to execute this materialization. These lifecycle meetings were modeled using and modifying the interaction-modeling concept of the configurable component framework. This section explains its main characteristics. Further details are added by the example in the next section.

Product Function-Means Tree

5

Manufacturing System CO Tree

Function-Means Tree

isb

CO Tree

isb

Functional requirement FR rf

rf

rf

rf

Design solution DS Component CO

iri iri

iri

Operation O

iri iw

iw

iw

iri iw

iw

iw

iw

isb: An FR “is_solved_by” a DS rf: A DS “requires_function” FR iw: A DS “interacts_with” an O

Operations Feature Integration!

iri: A DS “is_realized_in” a CO

Part Integration! Fig. 3. Schematic overview of the proposed model including modeling elements and relationship types.

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

6

CC Product I/F

CC Manufacturing System I/F

FR

FR

CC

Configurable component

FR

Functional requirement

DS

Design solution

DS

DS

O

CC Operation I/F

I/F

Operation Interface

IA O

IA

Interaction

Fig. 4. Connecting design solutions and operations with the interaction-modeling concept.

in the manufacturing industry, operations are divided into two different types: - Feature integration operations create parts or add form features to existing parts in manufacturing processes, such as forming and machining. - Part integration operations create parts and assemblies through manufacturing processes, such as joining and assembly. All other process steps are auxiliary, such as transport and loading for instance. They enable the overall working of the manufacturing system. It is generally desirable to gain an understanding of the overall working in the concept phase of development, including these auxiliary process steps in design. Therefore, they can be added to the model to the extent that they are known. The design solutions are connected to the operations of the model by adopting the interaction-modeling concept of the configurable component framework, illustrated as interacts with relationship type in Fig. 4. To this end, the branches of the FunctionMeans trees and operations are encapsulated into configurable components. Fig. 4 shows schematically how the interacts with relationship is implemented in the model. An interaction element contains information about which interfaces interact, thus connecting the design solutions to operations. This approach allows the model to be implemented through using the Configurable Component Modeler (CCM), an IT-tool developed for the purpose of supporting development work for extension of originally required functionality and for ordered configuration of variants based on a platform. Implementation using the IT tool allows for more effective management of the complexity emerging in a large model with many interactions. 5. Industrial example

Fig. 5. CAD rendering of Rear Header Roof Panel.

roof of the car, on the inside of the car by the head lining, and to the rear by the rear door when closed. The panel is an assembly of five die-stamped sheet metal parts. Their names are indicated in Fig. 5 together with some form features that are explained below. The parts are first pressed, delivered to a welding station, loaded by a human operator, and automatically spot-welded using two robots. Robot 1 is equipped with a welding electrode. Robot 2 uses a gripper to transport the semi-finished assembly from the fixture to a stationary electrode for further welding and then unloads the finished panel from the station. Because of its shape, the Gutter is pressed in a transfer press, including deep impressions and an undercut along its length. In this type of press, individual sheets are blanked from a coil and the semi-finished parts are transported as single entities between dies. All other parts in the panel assembly are pressed in a progressive die press. Here, the form features are pressed into the sheet metal conveyed continuously through the press. In the last die, the finished panel is cut from the coil. Fig. 7 is a montage of several photographs of the sheet metal parts in the fixture of the welding station. Using image-processing

This section illustrates the proposed model by means of an industrial example of a product and its manufacturing systems. Moreover, it explains the details of the modeling approach. The example is taken from the automotive industry and presents a sheet-metal product typical of structural components in cars. 5.1. The Rear Header Roof Panel and its manufacturing systems The product, a so-called Rear Header Roof Panel, is an integrated part of the body-in-white structure situated at the back-end of the roof where the roof and rear door meet. It carries the loads of the car body at large and serves as mounting point for the rear door. Fig. 6 shows a photograph of the Rear Header Roof Panel marked by the dashed rectangle. The panel is covered above by the outer

Fig. 6. Photograph of the Rear Header Roof Panel as part of the car’s rear door opening.

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

7

Fig. 7. Rear Header Roof Panel in welding fixture – (1) Outer Panel, (2) Inner Panel, (3) Gutter, (4) Hinge Reinforcement 1, (5) Positioning Cone 1, (6) Positioning Cone 2, and (7) support features.

software, the parts were made transparent or cut to show elements of the roof panel and elements of the fixture that are otherwise covered (such as positioning pins and supports).

5.2. Overview of the example modeled Fig. 8 provides an overview of the roof panel example modeled according to the proposed approach. In the following figures, certain parts are enlarged and explained. For the sake of brevity, not every aspect of this example is presented. For instance, an explanation of the transfer press is omitted and relevant aspects instead highlighted by elaborating on the welding station. Directing attention to the product design, Fig. 9 shows the solutions for the Rear Header Roof Panel to accomplish its main function of integrating the rear body structure of the car. For purposes of connecting the Function-Means tree to product components, the focus is aimed at design solutions at the lowest branch level. For instance, holes and surfaces are integrated into parts, such as the Gutter and the Hinge Reinforcement. The arrows pointing to the component trees indicate the design solutions that are realized as form features in the parts. Continuing with the design solutions in the Welding Station, Fig. 10 illustrates how these design solutions accomplish the main function of the station to assemble the Rear Header Roof Panel. The focus is on the design solutions interacting with other systems, in this case the product. The positioning system in the fixture is of particular interest to the interaction between product and manufacturing system. The positioning system locks the six degrees of freedom (DOF) of each part of the product. A reference plane and two positioning cones accomplish the positioning if the Gutter. As an example of the one-to-many cardinality of function and component, eight support features form a reference plane that accomplishes the locking of three DOFs of the Gutter (see also Fig. 7 for the support features included in the component tree as constituents of the fixture). The interactions between design solutions and manufacturing operations are shown in Fig. 11. In particular, the figure illustrates how the design solutions of the product are accomplished by the feature integration operations. The embossing operation accomplishes the surface interfaces with the embossing die system of the transfer press providing the necessary design solutions for the manufacturing system, an upper and a lower die. Note that the lower die accomplishes a function that cannot be expressed as a

transformation process: “support sheet metal”, an example of a purpose function that would not have been included in the model if the manufacturing system had been modeled exclusively in terms of processes. The interactions between design solutions and operations can be implemented in CCM. Fig. 12 illustrates an extract of the model focusing on the “emboss surfaces” operation that links the interacting design solutions of the Gutter to the embossing system. The DSs of the Gutter and the embossing systems are encapsulated in the CCs. For purposes of preparing the model for ordered configuration of variants, the interactions must be further defined by parameters.

5.3. Using the model for redesigning The following scenario illustrates the use of the model for redesigning a roof beam based on the platform description: a heavier door needs to be installed in the next car model, which leads to changed requirements on the rear panel system to “enable mounting of rear door”. A solution is to increase the thickness of the sheet metal for the Hinge Reinforcements, leading to consequences that can be handled within the scope of the platform but also requiring expansion of available solutions per Fig. 13: 1. The “surface interface” of the hinge needs to be modified to account for the new thickness of the part, requiring a change in the “emboss surfaces” operation. 2. The altered operation triggers a change in the “embossing system” (i.e., higher force must be applied by the upper die and better support must be provided by the lower die). 3. The modified Hinge Reinforcements also influence the welding operation that joins them to the Gutter. 4. The Gutter must be modified to ensure the quality of the spot welds. 5. The modified welding operation influences the design solution “spot welding robot”. 6. In particular, the capability of the existing robot needs to be expanded. 7. This expansion necessitates the installation of a new weld electrode (i.e., Welding Electrode 2). This concept, which influences the product, manufacturing system and manufacturing operations, can be evaluated for its

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

8

Rear Header Roof Panel

Transfer Press

Figure 9

Welding Station

Figure 10 Figure 11 Product Function

Manufacturing System Function

Feature Integration Operation

Product Design Solution

Manufacturing System Design Solution

Part Integration Operation

Product Component

Manufacturing System Component

Auxiliary Process Step

Fig. 8. Overview of the example modeled.

soundness and, if promising, further developed to arrive at a customized solution.

5.4. Analysis of the example Although the Function-Means tree of the product was primarily drawn with the use phase of the product in mind, functions required from a manufacturing perspective were also considered functions of the product. This perspective allowed capturing design solutions realized in form features that accomplish functions exclusively during the production lifecycle phase and have no connection to the use phase of the product. The foldable hook features indicated in Fig. 5 provide an example on the roof panel. These features are folded to interlock the panel with adjacent components to temporarily hold together the body-in-white while it moves from station to station in the body shop. After final welding, permanent joints (indicated in Fig. 6) hold together the components. Consequently, the hook features serve no purpose during the use phase of the car but are examples of form features in the product domain that accomplish a function relevant to the manufacturing domain.

Further, there are product design solutions and form features that accomplish functions during several lifecycle phases. In the lower left corner of the Function-Means tree of the roof beam, the “provide space for hinges” and “enable positioning in fixture” functions are accomplished by a single design solution each. In both cases, the design solutions are holes in the Gutter. The designers of the body-in-white first designed the holes for mounting the hinges. The designers of the fixture then used these form features to position the part for welding. Thus, originally separate design solutions are integrated and realized in a single form feature that shows that design solutions can accomplish functions that were not initially considered but rather depend on their mode and condition of use, as highlighted by Roozenburg and Eekels [36] in their work. Moreover, this indicates a coupling that must be considered in a redesigning scenario for the product, as the holes cannot be altered without affecting the product positioning in the fixture. Thus, the model reflects that function sharing is not limited to the use phase of the product. Instead, functionality is achieved by design solutions in other domains and across lifecycle phases. The set of product FRs in the example is therefore a mixture of functions needed for two different lifecycle phases, manufacture and

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Integrate rear body structure

9

Rear Header Roof Panel

Rear Header Roof Panel

Outer Panel

Support roof

Enable mounting of rear door

Enable mounting of roof lining

Gutter

Outer Panel

Rear panel system

Inner Panel

Hinge Reinforcement 1

Establish door interface

Reinforce panel structure

Hinge Reinforcement 2

Gutter

Hinge Reinforcement

Inner Panel

Provide space for hinges

Enable positioning in fixture

Enable interaction w/ Hinge Reinf.

Provide space for hinges

Enable positioning in fixture

Enable interaction w/ Rear Panel

Rectangular hole

Holes for positioning

Surface interface

Rectangular hole

Holes for positioning

Surface interface

Fig. 9. Rear Header Roof Panel described with Function-Means tree and component tree.

use. The model highlights this function sharing across domains and lifecycle phases. Considerations of other phases are conceivable but have not been included because this paper has been focused on the integrated development of products and manufacturing systems.

The Function-Means trees connect one of the two functional domains with their respective solution domain, as illustrated in Fig. 14, which is partly based on domain mapping as presented by Suh [19]. In Figs. 8 and 9, the arrows that point from the design

Assemble Rear Header Roof P.

Welding Station

Assembly system

Operator

Fixture

Load parts

Hold parts

Join parts

Operator

Fixture

Spot welding system

Support Feature 1

Sense presence of parts

Position parts

Clamp parts

Apply weld spots while in fixture

Transport assembly

Apply weld spots when not in fixture

Support Feature 8

Sensor system

Positioning system

Clamping system

Spot welding robot

Gripper robot

Stationary Welding Electrode

Positioning Cone 1

Lock 3 DOF

Lock 2 DOF

Lock 1 DOF

Reference plane

Four-flanked cone

Two-flanked cone

Positioning Cone 2

Robot 1

Welding Electrode

Robot 2

Gripper Stationary Welding Electrode

Fig. 10. Welding Station described with Function-Means tree and component tree.

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

10

Rear Header Roof Panel

Transfer Press

Welding Station Apply weld spots while in fixture

Load parts

Hinge Reinforcement

Gutter

Embossing die system

Positioning system

Operator

Spot welding robot

Provide space for hinges

Enable positioning in fixture

Enable interaction w/ Hinge Reinf.

Provide space for hinges

Enable positioning in fixture

Enable interaction w/ Rear Panel

Apply force to sheet metal

Support sheet metal

Lock 3 DOF

Lock 2 DOF

Lock 1 DOF

Rectangular hole

Holes for positioning

Surface interface

Rectangular hole

Holes for positioning

Surface interface

Upper die

Lower die

Reference plane

Four-flanked cone

Two-flanked cone

Punch holes

Emboss surfaces

Trimm edges

Flange edges

Position parts

Hold parts

Feature Integration Operations

Part Integration Operations

Apply weld spots

Fig. 11. Relationships between design solutions and manufacturing operations.

solutions in the Function-Means trees to the component trees connect the solution domains to their respective component domain, thus capturing the architecture of the product and manufacturing system. In Fig. 11, the lines connecting the product design solutions to the manufacturing operations indicate which operations realize the respective design solution. Thus, the model maps operations to design solutions rather than operations to components.

The component domains are, however, included in the model. They are not essential for understanding the rationale of the designs but provide additional design information in accordance with development work during the conceptual design phase. The components might not be fully defined or need not be regarded as long as the workings of a design solution are understood. Still, in a reuse and redesigning scenario, these components provide additional cues for deciding what to keep and what to change. For example,

Fig. 12. The example modeled in CCM with focus on the interaction between the DSs in the Gutter, the embossing system and the embossing operation.

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Hinge Reinforcement

Gutter

Embossing die system

11

Spot welding robot

Enable interaction w/ Hinge Reinf.

Enable interaction w/ Rear Panel

Apply force to sheet metal

Support sheet metal

Surface interface

Surface interface

Upper die

Lower die

6

Robot 1

1

Welding Electrode 1

2 7 3

Emboss surfaces

4

Welding Electrode 2

5

Apply weld spots

Fig. 13. A concept for mounting of a heavier rear door.

if a part remains unchanged from one product version to the next, its manufacture need not be changed either. Moreover, certain design solutions in the Function-Means tree of the product are used for integrating operations and auxiliary process steps. For example, the “holes for positioning” design solution was first realized by “punching holes”, a feature integrating operations. It is used to “position parts”, an auxiliary process step relevant to following part integration operations. The lines that connect the design solutions of the manufacturing system to the operations indicate the design solutions that are used

to achieve an operation. In other words, the execution of a FR in the manufacturing system Function-Means tree accomplishes an operation. 6. Discussion The research presented addresses settings that require redesigning and revising conceptual considerations for products and manufacturing systems. To accomplish this, a model is prepared consisting of the elements function, design solution,

Functional Domain Product

Solution Domain Product

Component Domain Product

FRP

DSP

COP

FRP1

DSP1

FRP11 FRP12

DSP11 DSP12

COP1 COP11

COP12

O & AP O1

AP1

O2

O3

FRM

DSM

FRM1

DSM1

FRM11 FRM12

DSM11 DSM12

Functional Domain Manufacturing System

COM Manufacturing Process Domain

Solution Domain Manufacturing System

COM1 COM11 COM12

Component Domain Manufacturing System

Fig. 14. Mapping between domains in the model.

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

physical component, and manufacturing operation, as reflected in the research question. Given the potentially passive opposition against formalized approaches in industry, it may be argued that these modeling elements are not suitable to the challenge at hand. However, components and operations are already typically modeled in industry, for example in Computer-Aided Manufacturing software. Conversely, functions and design solutions are in fact not commonly framed in the form presented. In industrial practice, requirements and performance parameters are rather managed by means of requirements lists and analytical reports. These methods adhere to component-based descriptions and thus provide limited information for revising conceptual considerations without starting rework with the existing components. As indicated by the literature, the design solution modeling element and its distinction from physical parts can help convey this information. Further, general industrial challenges provide a broad background to this paper and concern many areas of industrial operations, including marketing, procurement and process control. Given this background, the modeling elements selected are not completely capturing all information that is relevant to designing products and manufacturing systems. For detailed designing and process planning, the model needs to be connected to ComputerAided Engineering tools, as demonstrated by Levandowski et al. [37]. For this purpose, the model itself needs to be implemented in an IT-tool like the Configurable Component Modeler. A future larger-scale implementation may help pave the way for the integration with other software tools to manage the evolving complexity as the size of the model increases. The methods selected and amended for the model have assumed the perspective of technical systems and essentially regard the product and manufacturing system as two interdependent artifacts that need to be designed and modified over time. Nevertheless, the model acknowledges their inherent relationship and specifically models the manufacturing operations rather than the behavior of the product. In the case example, the functional requirements of the manufacturing system are driven by the product design. However, design information about the manufacturing system also emerges from other less product-related aspects of the production. On reflection, generic manufacturing objectives might be included following the decomposition proposed by Cochran et al. [22]. The case example provided an empirical perspective and illustrated details that need to be considered in modeling. It allowed testing whether an internally consistent model might be devised, thus shedding light on the research question. Moreover, modeling the case example increased the understanding of the researchers and of the engineers from industry involved in the study. It brought to light design details that had not previously been known to everyone, including engineers at the company, such as the functions shared across domains and lifecycle phases identified during the course of the modeling. While these findings do not allow any conclusions to be reached on whether the effort put into modeling would be economically viable, it indicates that modeling facilitates understanding the designs of the product and of the manufacturing system, corroborating what is indicated in the literature. Future analyses must be based on studies that implement the model for redesigning and revising conceptual considerations of products and manufacturing systems. Furthermore, the example studied of a sheet-metal component and its partly automated manufacturing systems, provides some evidence for its applicability to other industrial cases. Other manufacturing methods also yield parts with form features that need to be integrated into larger structures, for example an assembly of injection-molded parts. However, process modeling may differ significantly in cases of more complex sequences of operations or

exclusively manual processes. Thus, further studies must investigate the generalizability of the proposed model with regard to other product and manufacturing system types and industries. The use example of the model points at further potential for its integration with other methods. Specifically, it may prove to be a first step toward understanding change propagation. For this purpose, it can be combined with existing methods for analyzing change propagation and the redesigning process, as proposed by Ahmad et al. [27] and Clarkson et al. [38]. Their methods use a product model as the basis for analysis but do not include the design of the manufacturing system. They may profit from an integrated model such as the model presented that already includes information about subsystem interdependencies. Finally, the theoretical basis available has not been fully utilized in the model, which provides opportunities for further refinement. Functions-Means trees can be enhanced with constraints [18], indicating capability limits. For example, functions that machinery is generally capable of achieving but does not exploit in a given design can thus be added to the trees to provide a more comprehensive picture. Moreover, with the Function-Means formalism, engineers can model alternative solutions to required functions (see Fig. 1). This may prove useful in conceptual design to keep track of available design concepts and is promoted in Set-Based Concurrent Engineering [39,40]. Lastly, product and manufacturing system variety can be expressed by alternative solutions and components. On reflection, this opens the door to integrating platform thinking in the product domain with similar mindsets in the manufacturing domain [41], thus enabling integrated development of configurable product and manufacturing system platforms.

7. Conclusions This paper proposes an integrated platform model for product and manufacturing systems. It complements an existing modeling framework with manufacturing process models and aims at supporting platform-based development of products and manufacturing systems during the conceptual design phase. The model was synthesized in three steps: - The established Function-Means formalism is used to represent products and manufacturing systems with their functions and solutions, thus capturing the functional decomposition and design rationale of both systems. - A component structure is introduced for both products and manufacturing systems, including form features, parts, and assemblies. Mapping component structures to Function-Means structures allows capturing the architecture of both systems. - The manufacturing processes directly connected to the making of the products and the operations are modeled. They elicit the interdependency of product and manufacturing system designs. Interesting findings emerged by interviewing engineers as well as studying a product and its manufacturing system to model them according to the proposed model. One finding is that the model can capture information on how the two systems individually and together accomplish functionality. Another finding is that the model follows a consistent approach to an integrated product and manufacturing system platform. The paper proposes the model for possible implementation in industry where product engineers and manufacturing engineers can share this information and use it for the development in the concept phase. Further research will aim at enhancing the model to include information about manufacturing capabilities, alternative design concepts, and product and manufacturing system variety.

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012

G Model JMSY-310; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.T. Michaelis et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Acknowledgments This work was carried out at the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems Centre at the University of Windsor, Canada, and at the Wingquist Laboratory VINN Excellence Centre within the Area of Advance Production at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. It has received support by the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA), the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) via the ProViking Graduate School, the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg (KVVS), and the Chalmers University Research Fund (Chalmersska forskningsfonden). All sources of support are gratefully acknowledged. References [1] Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritschow G, et al. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol 1999;48(2):527–40. [2] Jiao RJ, Simpson T, Siddique Z. Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. J Intell Manuf 2007;18(1):5–29. [3] Meyer MH, Lehnerd AP. The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. New York, NY, USA: Free Press; 1997. [4] Berglund F, Bergsjö D, Högman U, Khadke K. Platform strategies for a supplier in the aircraft engine industry. In: Proceedings of ASME IDETC. 2008. p. 55–66. [5] Johannesson H. Emphasizing reuse of generic assets through integrated product and production system development platforms. In: Simpson TW, et al., editors. Advances in product family and product platform design – methods and applications. New York, NY, USA: Springer; 2013. [6] Pahl G, Beitz W. Engineering design – a systematic approach. 1st ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1988. [7] Gu P, Rao HA, Tseng MM. Systematic design of manufacturing systems based on axiomatic design approach. CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol 2001;50(1):299–304. [8] Lee J. Design rationale systems: understanding the issues. IEEE Expert 1997;12(3):78–85. [9] ElMaraghy HA. Changing and evolving products and systems – models and enablers. In: ElMaraghy HA, editor. Changeable and reconfigurable manufacturing systems. London, UK: Springer; 2009. p. 25–45. [10] Scallan P. Process planning the design/manufacture interface. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2003. [11] Ulrich K. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res Policy 1995;24(3):419–40. [12] Gedell S, Michaelis MT, Johannesson H. Integrated model for co-development of products and production systems – a systems theory approach. Concurr Eng Res Appl 2011;19(2):139–56. [13] Pedersen R [Doctoral thesis] Product platform modelling – contributions to the discipline of visual product platform modelling. Lyngby, Denmark: Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Demark; 2009. [14] Hubka V, Eder WE. Theory of technical systems – a total concept theory for engineering design. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1988. [15] Tjalve E. Systematisk udformning af industriprodukter – Værktøjer for konstruktøren [Systematic design of industrial products – tools for the designer]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Akademisk Forlag; 1976 [in Danish]. [16] Malmqvist J. Improved function-means trees by inclusion of design history information. J Eng Des 1997;8(2):107–17. [17] Johannesson H, Claesson A. Systematic product platform design: a combined function means and parametric modeling approach. J Eng Des 2005;16(1):25–43.

13

[18] Schachinger P, Johannesson HL. Computer modelling of design specifications. J Eng Des 2000;11(4):317–29. [19] Suh NP. The principles of design. Oxford series on advanced manufacturing. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press; 1990. [20] Sohlenius G. Concurrent engineering. CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol 1992;41(2):645–55. [21] Vallhagen J. Aspects on process planning issues in axiomatic design. In: Proceedings of the 1994 ASME design technical conferences. 1994. p. 373–81. [22] Cochran DS, Arinez JF, Duda JW, Linck J. A decomposition approach for manufacturing system design. J Manuf Syst 2001;20(6):371–89. [23] Houshmand M, Jamshidnezhad B. An extended model of design process of lean production systems by means of process variables. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 2006;22(1):1–16. [24] Ulrich KT, Seering WP. Function sharing in mechanical design. Des Stud 1990;11(4):223–34. [25] Andreasen MM. Designing on a ‘designer’s workbench’ (DWB). In: Proceedings of the 9th WDK workshop. 1992. [26] Andreasen MM [Doctoral thesis] Syntesemetoder på Systemgrundlag – Bidrag til en konstruktionsteori [Synthesis methods on a systems foundation – a contribution to a design theory]. Lund, Sweden: Lund Technical University; 1980 [in Danish]. [27] Ahmad N, Wynn DC, Clarkson PJ. Change impact on a product and its redesign process: a tool for knowledge capture and reuse. Res Eng Des 2012:1–26. [28] Kvist M [Doctoral thesis] Product family assessment. Lyngby, Denmark: Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark; 2010. [29] Zhang L. Modelling process platforms based on an object-oriented visual diagrammatic modelling language. Int J Prod Res 2009;47(16):4413–35. [30] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy HA. A co-evolution model for prediction and synthesis of new products and manufacturing systems. J Mech Des 2012;134(5):051008–51012. [31] Claesson A [Doctoral thesis] A configurable component framework supporting platform-based product development. Gothenburg, Sweden: Department of Product and Production Development, Chalmers University of Technology; 2006. [32] Gedell S, Johannesson H, Holmberg L. Design rationale for efficient product platform development: a systematic configurable component approach. In: Proceedings of TMCE 2008 symposium. 2008. p. 537–50. [33] Johannesson H, Gedell S. Knowledge based configurable product platform models. In: Piller FT, Tseng MM, editors. Handbook of research in mass customization and personalization. London, UK: World Scientific; 2009. p. 357–75. [34] Gedell S [Doctoral thesis] Efficient means for platform-based development – emphasizing integrated. Information-rich system models. Gothenburg, Sweden: Department of Product and Production Development, Chalmers University of Technology; 2011. [35] Berglund F, Claesson A. Utilising the concept of a design’s bandwidth to achieve product platform effectiveness. In: Proceedings of ICED 2005. 2005. Paper No. 377.46. [36] Roozenburg NFM, Eekels J. Product design: fundamentals and methods. Wiley series in product development. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1995. [37] Levandowski CE, Corin-Stig D, Bergsjö D, Forslund A, Högman U, et al. An integrated approach to technology platform and product platform development. Concurr Eng: Res Appl 2013;21(1):65–83. [38] Clarkson PJ, Simons C, Eckert CM. Predicting change propagation in complex design. J Mech Des 2004;126(5):788–97. [39] Sobek DK, Ward AC, Liker JK. Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Manage Rev 1999;40(2):67–83. [40] Michaelis MT, Levandowski C, Johannesson H. Set-based concurrent engineering for preserving design bandwidth in product and manufacturing system platforms. In: Proceedings of ASME IMECE. 2013. Paper No. 63624. [41] Michaelis MT, Johannesson H. Platform approaches in manufacturing – considering integration with product platforms. In: Proceedings of ASME DETC. 2011. Paper No. 48275.

Please cite this article in press as: Michaelis MT, et al. Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms. J Manuf Syst (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012