Joint optimization of product family configuration and scaling design by Stackelberg game.

*(English)*Zbl 1305.90221Summary: Product family design is generally characterized by two types of approaches: module-based and scale-based. While the former aims to enable product variety based on module configuration, the latter is to variegate product design by scaling up or down certain design parameters. The prevailing practice is to treat module configuration and scaling design as separate decisions or aggregate two design problems as a single-level, all-in-one optimization problem. In practice, optimization of scaling variables is always enacted within a specific modular platform; and meanwhile an optimal module configuration depends on how design parameters are to be scaled. The key challenge is how to deal with explicitly the coupling of these two design optimization problems.

This paper formulates a Stackelberg game theoretic model for joint optimization of product family configuration and scaling design, in which a bilevel decision structure reveals coupled decision making between module configuration and parameter scaling. A bilevel mixed 0-1 non-linear programming model is developed and solved, comprising an upper-level optimization problem and a lower-level optimization problem. The upper level seeks for an optimal configuration of modules and module attributes by maximizing the shared surplus of an entire product family. The lower level entails parametric optimization of attribute values for optimal technical performance of each individual module. A case study of electric motors demonstrates that the bilevel joint optimization model excels in leveraging optimal scaling in conjunction with optimal module configuration, which is advantageous over the existing paradigm of product family scaling design that cannot change the product family configuration.

This paper formulates a Stackelberg game theoretic model for joint optimization of product family configuration and scaling design, in which a bilevel decision structure reveals coupled decision making between module configuration and parameter scaling. A bilevel mixed 0-1 non-linear programming model is developed and solved, comprising an upper-level optimization problem and a lower-level optimization problem. The upper level seeks for an optimal configuration of modules and module attributes by maximizing the shared surplus of an entire product family. The lower level entails parametric optimization of attribute values for optimal technical performance of each individual module. A case study of electric motors demonstrates that the bilevel joint optimization model excels in leveraging optimal scaling in conjunction with optimal module configuration, which is advantageous over the existing paradigm of product family scaling design that cannot change the product family configuration.

##### MSC:

90B50 | Management decision making, including multiple objectives |

91A65 | Hierarchical games (including Stackelberg games) |

##### Keywords:

product family design; module configuration; scaling design; joint design optimization; bilevel programming; Stackelberg game
PDF
BibTeX
XML
Cite

\textit{G. Du} et al., Eur. J. Oper. Res. 232, No. 2, 330--341 (2014; Zbl 1305.90221)

Full Text:
DOI

##### References:

[1] | Akundi, S., Simpson, T. W., & Reed, P. M. (2005). Multi-objective design optimization for product platform and product family design using genetic algorithms. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2005/DAC-84905, Long Beach, CA. |

[2] | Ben-Akiva, L., Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand, (1985), MIT Press |

[3] | Bracken, J.; Falk, J. E.; McGill, J. T., The equivalence of two mathematical programs with optimization problems in the constraints, Operations Research, 22, 5, 1102-1104, (1974) · Zbl 0294.90071 |

[4] | Browning, T., Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48, 3, 292-306, (2001) |

[5] | Chapman, S. J., Electric machinery fundamentals, (1991), McGraw-Hill New York, NY |

[6] | Christiansen, S.; Patriksson, M.; Wynter, L., Stochastic bilevel programming in structural optimization, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 21, 5, 361-371, (2001) |

[7] | Cogdell, J. R., Foundations of electrical engineering, (1990), Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ |

[8] | Colson, B.; Marcotte, P.; Savard, G., A trust-region method for nonlinear bilevel programming: algorithm and computational experience, Computational Optimization and Applications, 30, 3, 211-227, (2005) · Zbl 1078.90041 |

[9] | Dai, Z., & Scott, M. J. (2004). Product platform design through sensitivity analysis and cluster analysis. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2004/DAC-57464, Salt Lake City, UT. |

[10] | de Weck, O. L., Suh, E. S. & Chang, D. (2003). Product family and platform portfolio optimization. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC03/DAC-48721, Chicago, IL. |

[11] | Deb, K.; Sinha, A., An efficient and accurate solution methodology for bilevel multi-objective programming problems using s hybrid evolutionary-local-search algorithm, Evolutionary Computation, 18, 3, 403-449, (2010) |

[12] | Du, G., & Wang, J. Z. (2009). Product family hierarchical associated design and its hierarchical optimization. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (pp. 1642-1645). Hong Kong. |

[13] | Emam, O. E., A fuzzy approach for bi-level integer non-linear programming problem, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 172, 1, 62-71, (2006) · Zbl 1169.90408 |

[14] | Fliege, J.; Vicente, L. N., Multi-criteria approach to bilevel optimization, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 131, 2, 209-225, (2006) · Zbl 1139.90417 |

[15] | Fortuny-Amat, J.; McCarl, B., A representation and economic interpretation of a two-level programming problem, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 32, 9, 783-792, (1981) · Zbl 0459.90067 |

[16] | Fujimoto, T., The evolution of a manufacturing system at toyota, (1999), Oxford University Press New York |

[17] | Fujita, K., Sakaguchi, H., & Akagi, S. (1999). Product variety deployment and its optimization under modular architecture and module communalization. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC99/DFM-8923, Las Vegas, NV. |

[18] | Fujita, K.; Yoshida, H., Product variety optimization simultaneously designing module combination and module attributes, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application, 12, 2, 105-118, (2004) |

[19] | Gu, X., & Renaud, J. E. (2000). Decision based collaborative optimization. In The 8th ASCE specialty conference on probabilistic mechanics and structural reliability. |

[20] | Hazelrigg, G. A., A framework for decision-based engineering design, ASME Journal Mechanical Design, 120, 4, 653-658, (1988) |

[21] | Hernandez, G.; Seepersad, C. C.; Mistree, F., Designing for maintenance: A game theoretic approach, Engineering Optimization, 34, 6, 561-577, (2002) |

[22] | Hooker, J. N.; Ottosson, G., Logic-based benders decomposition, Mathematical Programming, 96, 1, 33-60, (2003) · Zbl 1023.90082 |

[23] | Jeroslow, R., The polynomial hierarchy and a simple model for competitive analysis, Mathematical Programming, 32, 2, 146-164, (1985) · Zbl 0588.90053 |

[24] | Jiao, J.; Simpson, T. W.; Siddique, Z., Product family design and platform-based product development: A state-of-the-art review, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18, 1, 5-29, (2007) |

[25] | Jiao, J.; Tseng, M. M., Customizability analysis in design for mass customization, Computer-Aided Design, 36, 8, 745-757, (2004) |

[26] | Jiao, J.; Zhang, Y., Product portfolio planning with customer-engineering interaction, IIE Transactions, 37, 9, 801-814, (2005) |

[27] | Jin, Y. & Danesh, M. (2006). Value aggregation for collaborative design decision-making. In K. Lewis, W. Chen & L. Schmidt (Eds.), Decision-making in engineering design (pp. 293-301). |

[28] | Kaul, A.; Rao, V. R., Research for product positioning and design decisions: an integrative review, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 4, 293-320, (1995) |

[29] | Kokkolaras, M.; Fellini, R.; Kim, H. M.; Michelena, N. F.; Papalambros, P. Y., Extension of the target cascading formulation to the design of product families, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 24, 4, 293-301, (2002) |

[30] | KovĂˇcs, A.; Kis, T., Constraint programming approach to a bilevel scheduling problem, Constraints, 16, 3, 317-340, (2011) · Zbl 1233.90162 |

[31] | Kroo, I., Altus, S., Braun, R., Gage, P., & Sobieski, I. (1994). Multidisciplinary optimization methods for aircraft preliminary design. NASA Langley Technical Report Server. |

[32] | Kumar, D.; Chen, W.; Kim, H., Multi-level optimization for enterprise-driven decision-based product design, (Lewis, K.; Chen, W.; Schmidt, L., Decision making in engineering design, (2006), ASME Press New York), 203-216 |

[33] | Lai, Y. J., Hierarchical optimization: A satisfactory solution, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 77, 3, 321-335, (1996) · Zbl 0869.90042 |

[34] | Lamothe, J.; Hadj-Hamou, K.; Aldanondo, M., An optimization model for selecting a product family and designing its supply chain, European Journal of Operational Research, 169, 3, 1030-1047, (2006) · Zbl 1079.90557 |

[35] | Lewis, K.; Chen, W.; Schmidt, L., Decision making in engineering design, (2006), ASME Press New York |

[36] | Li, D.; Sun, X. L., Towards strong duality in integer programming, Journal of Global Optimization, 35, 2, 255-282, (2006) · Zbl 1097.90068 |

[37] | Li, G.; Wang, H.; Aryasomayajula, S. R.; Grandhi, R. V., Two-level optimization of airframe structures using response surface approximation, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization, 20, 2, 116-124, (2000) |

[38] | Roy, R.; Hinduja, S.; Teti, R., Recent advances in engineering design optimization: challenges and future trends, CIRP Annals, 57, 2, 697-715, (2008) |

[39] | Seepersad, C. C., Mistree, F., & Allen, J. K. (2002). A quantitative approach for designing multiple product platforms for an evolving portfolio of products. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2002/DAC-34096, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. |

[40] | Shabde, V. S.; Hoo, K. A., Optimum controller design for a spray drying process, Control Engineering Practice, 16, 5, 541-552, (2008) |

[41] | Simpson, T. W., Product platform design and customization: status and promise, AIEDAM, 18, 1, 3-20, (2004) |

[42] | Simpson, T. W.; Maier, J. R.A.; Mistree, F., Product platform design: method and application, Research in Engineering Design, 13, 1, 2-22, (2001) |

[43] | Simpson, T. W.; Siddique, Z.; Jiao, R. J., Product platform and product family design: methods and applications, (2005), Springer New York |

[44] | Tseng, M. M.; Piller, F. T., The customer centric enterprise, advances in mass customization and personalization, (2003), Springer Berlin, ISBN 3-540-02492-1 |

[45] | Ulrich, K., The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm, Research Policy, 24, 3, 419-440, (1995) |

[46] | von Stackelberg, H., The theory of the market economy, (1952), Oxford University Press Oxford |

[47] | Wen, U.; Hsu, S., Linear bi-level programming problems - A review, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 42, 2, 125-133, (1991) · Zbl 0722.90046 |

[48] | Wynter, L., Stochastic bilevel programming, (Pardalos, P.; Floudas, C., Encyclopedia of optimization, (2001), Kluwer) |

[49] | Yu, Y.; Huang, G. Q., Nash game model for optimizing market strategies, configuration of platform products in a vendor managed inventory (VMI) supply chain for a product family, European Journal of Operational Research, 206, 2, 361-373, (2010) · Zbl 1188.90044 |

[50] | Zangwill, W. I.; Garcia, C. B., Equilibrium programming: the path following approach and dynamics, Mathematical Programming, 21, 1, 262-289, (1981) · Zbl 0476.90078 |

This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.