CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology

jou rnal homep age : ht t p: // ees .e lse vi er. com/ci rp/ def a ult . asp

Product variety management

H. ElMaraghy (1)a,*, G. Schuh (1)b, W. ElMaraghy (1)a, F. Piller c, P. Schönsleben (2)d,
M. Tseng (1)e, A. Bernard (1)f
a
Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) Centre, University of Windsor, Canada
b
Laboratory for Machine Tool and Production Engineering (WZL), RWTH Aachen University, Germany
c
Technology & Innovation Management Group, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
d
BWI Center for Industrial Management, Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
e
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
f
LUNAM Université, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, IRCCyN UMR CNRS 6597, France

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A great challenge facing industry today is managing variety throughout the entire products life cycle.
Variety
Drivers of products variety, its benefits, pre-requisites and associated complexity and cost are presented.
Design
Enhancing consumers’ value through variety and approaches for achieving it efficiently including
Manufacturing
modularity, commonality and differentiation are discussed. Variant-oriented manufacturing systems
paradigms, as enablers of product variety, and the effective co-development of variants and their
manufacturing systems to ensure economic sustainability are reviewed. Industrial applications and
guidelines to achieve economy of scope with advantages of economy of scale are discussed. Perspectives
and insights on future research in this field are offered.
ß 2013 CIRP.

1. Introduction and motivation 1.1. The origins of product variety, drivers and consequences

The number of product variants has increased dramatically in
recent times. Variety can be seen in the simplest of products such
as light bulbs to larger and more complicated products such as
appliances, automobiles and airplanes. For example, a BMW series
7 car can have as many as 1017 possible variants [84]. The increase
in variety has a multitude of reasons including customers’ demand
for new product functions and features, different regional
requirements, large number of market segments with different
needs and certification specifications. Emergence of new materials
and technologies make new and different product features
possible, and the fierce competition among manufacturers and
retailers to distinguish their products, attract more buyers and
secure larger markets are important drivers of increased variety.
The concept of variety applies to products and services alike; the
provider seeks to achieve more economic benefit and enhance
consumers’ value by offering a wider spectrum of choice, more
differentiating features and functions, and opportunities for
customisation and even personalization. The wide spread of
electronic comparison shopping is seriously affecting retail profit.
Large retailers now demand that their suppliers provide them with
products not supplied to their competitors as unique variants
guard against losing sales due to comparison shopping and offer
more latitude for increasing profits.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 253 3000.
E-mail addresses: imscadmin@uwindsor.ca, hae@uwindsor.ca (H. ElMaraghy).
Products are designed and manufactured to fulfil perceived
needs. However, such needs vary because of differences among
users, usage scenarios, constraints, social values and others. In
order to address these differences, variety of products is created to
meet diversified requirements. Variety or assortment is defined as a
number or collection of different things of a particular class of the
same general kind. Variant is an instance of a class that exhibits
usually slight differences from the common type or norm.
Variety is not always good, and more product variants may not
serve customers well. In fact, experimental evidence [86] shows
that when asking consumers to choose among items in a wide
assortment, customers are often confused about the differentiation
among the product variants. In reality, offering more product
variants incurs expenses from product design to production,
inventory, selling and service. Thus, defining the right range of
variants with the product features combination that precisely
targets the needs and resonates with customers’ demands
becomes an important issue in variety management. It is the
challenge of aligning customers’ value with a specific set of product
features which involves several hurdles. From customers’ per-
spectives, their needs may be latent, inherent and difficult for
customers to describe. Furthermore, customers may not be well-
informed about the product possibilities and trade-offs between
product cost and its features. On the other hand, the producers are
often occupied with product technological and manufacturing
issues. The customers’ value preferences, usage patterns, compat-
ibility with the surrounding systems and limitations that
customers have to live with often drive the mismatch of demand
and supply. A major consequence is companies saddled with

0007-8506/$ – see front matter ß 2013 CIRP.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2013.05.007
630 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
excess inventory of unsold product variants. Customers may also
as a result experience long lead time waiting for their choice
product variant. This mismatch can be very costly.
Product variety can offer the potential to expand markets,
increase sales volume and revenues. However, this positive
outcome is not always guaranteed unless variety is well-managed
in all stages of design, planning, manufacturing and distribution,
usage, dismantling and recycling. In addition, research showed
that increasing variety may not lead to increased demand or sales.
This paradox of variety, its drivers and causes, its effects and
consequences and methods of managing it merit much attention
and study to reap its full benefit. Companies that are aware of the
potential growth of their product variants and plan for it stand to
benefit greatly, unlike those that find themselves forced by
competition to introduce product variants, differentiation, mass
customisation or personalisation of the products without utilizing
the tools and methods designed to manage variety at all levels.
But the variety challenge is larger than just variety of products.
Variety occurs across the entire product life cycle, and is also
related to logistics and pre- and after-sales services. Product
variants can be derived by innovating new, or adapting existing
products to new requirements, scaling current products or
changing their modules and components. It is imperative to use
variety-oriented methods to manage variety starting from new
ideas and innovation to aftermarket support and retirement.
Environmental constraints and products recycling and remanu-
facturing at the end of their life have to be taken into account
throughout even if variety induces more difficulties to assess and
control the factors that influence economical, environmental and
social sustainability as a whole. In order to satisfy the user needs
but also allow companies to be profitable and sustainable, models,
methods and tools are needed to help companies manage product
variety in such context.
1.2. Impact and cost of variety
As indicated earlier, product variety creates both challenges and
opportunities for firms. Customers prefer broad product lines and,
therefore, marketing managers are rewarded with greater revenue
when they increase product variety. However, this may also
increase costs and reduce profits [99]. Supply chain managers, on
the other hand, prefer less product variety to increase efficiency,
which may reduce revenues and profits. Unfortunately, firms face
this product variety conflict between supply chain managers and
marketers with limited predictive ability, as the variety literature
inadequately explains and predicts the cost and value of product
variety.
Gourville and Soman [76] hypothesized that product attribute
alignment influences demand. Non-aligned attributes do not help
customers frame the relative purchasing risks, while increasing the
potential for regret, which confuses them. They demonstrated that
cognitive overload reduces demand while cognitively simple tasks
led to greater probability of higher demand.
Webb [210] researched the effect that product variety
strategies create, with particular emphasis on understanding
how the cost and revenue trade-offs created by product variety can
assist supply chain and marketing managers in pursuing common
goals and how demand changes caused by product variety
influence performance, i.e. how these variables influence a firm’s
ability to create profitability with product variety. In this research
[210], two elements concerning product variety are defined:
product line breadth and attribute value. Product variation and
differentiation are the desired outcomes that managers expect
from these product variety decisions. Product line breadth refers to
the stock-keeping units (SKUs) within a brand category. For
instance, a product packaged in two sizes has greater breadth than
a product packaged in a single size. Product attribute value refers
to the perceived worth of an individual feature of a product, that
customers felt strongly about. Variants attributes distinguish
products within a product line, and differentiation relates to how a
product separates itself from competitors. A computer simulation
based on an appliance manufacturer’s supply chain and models the
demand increase, demand variance, and cannibalisation associated
with preference attributes and quality attributes was employed.
The results indicate that preference attributes and quality
attributes perform different strategic functions. Preference attri-
butes features, related solely to consumer’s tastes, increase
revenue and market share but do not increase profit. Quality
attributes that create a perceived product line hierarchy increase
revenue, costs, profits, and market share while those that fail to
create a perceived product hierarchy reduce revenue, costs, profits,
and market share.
1.3. Scope and focus
Based on the previous analysis and arguments, this keynote
paper addresses issues related to variety of products and services
with emphasis on its effects on their design and manufacturing,
customers’ value and profitability. It outlines variant-oriented
design, planning and manufacturing methods. Strategies for
managing variety at all levels are mapped out. Different
approaches of achieving product variety efficiently including
product architecture, product modularity, commonality, integra-
tion, differentiation, mass customisation and personalization are
discussed. Manufacturing strategies that lend themselves to
producing variety efficiently are presented. Business models and
strategies to help companies profit from variety are discussed.
Examples from industry are used throughout for illustration.
After this introduction section, variety enablers and manage-
ment strategies including mass customisation and personalization
are discussed in Section 2. The use of design methods for variety is
presented, justified, and exemplified in Section 3. Manufacturing
adaptation to and efficient planning for variety are introduced and
discussed in Section 4. Section 5 proposes some new variety-
oriented manufacturing concepts, and technological and manage-
ment solutions. Management of variety is not simple because of
numerous factors that induce additional complexity. Variety-
induced complexity issues are discussed in Section 6. Companies
have to adapt their methods and environment in order to increase
their strategic capabilities for profiting from variety, and this is the
focus of Section 7. Finally, Section 8 includes summary discussion
and conclusions about product variety management and section 9
presents future research perspectives.
2. Variety enablers and management strategies
Variety management strategies, techniques tools and enablers
are classified according to three main activities related to
products and their variants; namely design, planning and
manufacturing (Fig. 1). Their granularity ranges from parts to
products and extends to the enterprise and market. Each cell
contains strategies applicable to the region defined by the
intersection of two factors.
The notion of grouping and classification to capitalize on
similarity and commonality within a class of products is a pre-
requisite of success in managing variety. The principle of not ‘‘re-
inventing the wheel’’ at any level every time a new variant is
introduced is the foundation of any variety management approach.
Product families, therefore, are important when dealing with
variants which represent individual instances in a class of similar
products. As products and their variants evolve and change over
time the boundaries of such product families dynamically change
as well – a concept that helps manage the co-development of
product variants and their manufacturing systems [52].
Variant management considers the product, process and
market views. It includes all measures by which the range of
product variants offered by an enterprise is controlled and the
resulting effects throughout their life cycle are managed. One of
the important objectives is the reduction and management of
variety-induced complexity and its associated cost. Within a
[(Fig._1)TD$IG] H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652 631

for product variants [10]. A Product Family Architecture represents

the whole structure of the functional elements and their mapping
into the different modules, and specifies their interfaces. It also
embodies the configuration mechanism to define the rules of
product variant derivation [198]. Unified product architecture
lends itself to mass production strategies while a modular
architecture is more suitable for mass customisation using flexible
manufacturing systems. Advances in information and commu-
nication technologies allow customers to select from list(s) of pre-
planned and pre-designed product features and options using an
online product configurator. Strategies like make-to-order and
just-in sequence are used to arrange material flow timing and
manufacturing sequence accordingly [207]. Flexible manufactur-
ing is capable of responding quickly to increasing product variants
and decreasing quantities per variant. The utilization of human
capital, automation and FMS increases the responsiveness of
manufacturing facilities and enterprises to extreme variety [146].

2.2. Personalization

Personalization means that products are made-to-measure or

to-customers’ personal specifications. However, to achieve some
measures of economy, only few product components are allowed
to be manufactured to fit a specific customer body part or
specifications. Exact dimensions are left to the customer to decide
in some products such as clothing, blinds, curtains and mattresses.
Personal figurines are an artistic example of this category of
Fig. 1. Variety management strategies map. personalization or extreme variety, where the customer chooses
from a pool of standard figures, and personalizes it using the
company, the causes of variant multiplicity may be external or likeness of their face and head using a photograph. Medical
internal. The external causes result from factors such as market, applications include personalized hearing aids and prostheses.
competition, and technology upon which the company has little [(Fig._2)TD$IG]This degree of personalization is now possible due to advances in
influence. Internal causes can be ascribed mainly to organizational
and technical deficiencies leading to an unnecessary number of
variants at the product and parts levels. Simultaneous and
concurrent engineering is an important method to holistically
consider all aspects related to increased variety from design to end
of product life. The recent ‘‘Engineering as Collaborative Negotia-
tion’’ (ECN) design paradigm [118] would be of particular value if it
were adopted for effective management of product variety.
Collaborative engineering is the application of collaboration
sciences to the engineering domain to accomplish complex
technical tasks, which is a challenge currently faced by the
engineering community including industry particularly in dealing
with variety.

2.1. Mass customisation

Mass customisation (MC) means producing goods and services

to meet individual customer’s needs with near mass production
efficiency without compromising cost, quality or delivery. It aims
at achieving economy of scope at a cost approaching that of
economy of scale by delaying products differentiation and
capitalizing on commonality and similarity between variants
within a product family [52]. The economic benefits of the notion
of postponement of product variants differentiation can be traced
back to the fifties [20,30]. The MC concept permeates through the
whole value chain from product design to end of life. The variants’
portfolio should be planned such that each customer could find
exactly what s/he needs [124,148,198].
Mass customisation includes [148]: (1) adaptive MC based on
forward planning and representation of almost all possible
combinations of product modules, (2) collaborative MC in which
final product is a direct result of collaboration with consumers, (3)
cosmetic MC by producing a single product and marketing it to
different consumers in different ways (e.g. packaging and
labelling), and (4) transparent MC by providing consumers with
unique products without collaborating with customers.
Product platforms and product modules, incorporated into
product family architectures, are established to facilitate planning Fig. 2. Customization and Personalization Processes.
632 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
Additive Manufacturing technologies which build useable end
products in layers by machines driven directly by CAD models.
Other supporting technologies such as scanning and digitisation
are often used to reverse engineer customers’ required shapes.
Interactive CAD modelling using intuitive haptic interfaces is also
used to capture customer suggestions for modifying products to
their liking. Parametric CAD models allow quick, on-screen
modifications and Rapid Manufacturing techniques are then used
for constructing the personalized product. The complete custo-
misation and personalization cycle is illustrated in Fig. 2. for
products assembled in the reconfigurable iFactory system in the
IMS Centre at the University of Windsor, Canada [55].
Footwear, from sports to high fashion, is a growing market for
mass customisation and personalization. Quick product design
adaptation can produce a unique shoe design that combines choice
of model, style, material, colour, size and foot shape and expected
‘‘function’’ during use. Fabricating the resulting design and its
components requires a manufacturing system capable of produ-
cing variable orders down to single pairs of personalized shoes
quickly and economically as has been demonstrated in an
experimental factory for the production of personalised shoes at
ITIA-CNR in Italy [31].
The nature and degree of customer involvement differentiate
between mass customisation, extreme customisation and true
personalization. Customization can be seen as an exercise of
configuring a product by selecting pre-designed modules and
features within pre-determined scope of offered variety. Custo-
mers’ value is enhanced by configuring the product that fits their
preferences. However, the resulting product is not unique.
Personalization, however, entails more active and closer involve-
ment by customers in defining some or all of product features and,
hence, often results in unique products.
3. Design for variety (DFV)
3.1. Customer-centric DFV
Customers’ requirements and their interdependence and
integrating them with families of technological solutions are
important when designing for variety [33,34]. Manufacturers must
consider customers’ needs and expectations in their product
development strategies. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a
well-known tool for identifying customer requirements and their
relationships to product specifications [149]. However, require-
ments do change with time and with customer’s environment. A
Kano Model [102] shows that customer satisfaction declines when
product quality remains unchanged; as a result markets of stable
products shift with time from high to low end market segments.
Careful product variants planning based on different market
segments and requirements for several years into the future is
required using laws of development of needs to forecast new
potential product functions [85].
Knowledge management methods convert designers’ knowl-
edge and verbal customer requirements into specific product
functions and specifications. Ontologies are used to create unique
product variants and solutions by developing knowledge bases
specific to various domains [32]. Products are decomposed into
functional entities to determine the boundaries and composition of
possible product variants that respond to certain market segments,
then product components relevant to those functional entities and
product variants are constituted using different entities combina-
tions [141].
Design methodologies are used to derive product specifications
that meet customer requirements. Quality Function Deployment is
often integrated with other methods, such as conjoint analysis, for
deriving more accurate relationships [114]. Market segmentation
grid is a visual method to divide customers into several bands and
levels of product quality demands and specifications and relate them
to specific market segments [100]. Rizzi and Regazzoni [156]
presented an integrated use of design methodologies, such as Design
Structure Matrix (DSM), Module Interference Matrix, Pugh Matrix
and TRIZ. ElMaraghy and AlGeddawy [53] combined an analytical
classification model with multi-dimensional DSMs to select the best
product variants for each market segment while maximizing
component commonality and modules sharing. Analytical models
and optimisation are used to balance company profit and customer
satisfaction with offered variety [107,121,214,222].
Product variety can satisfy customer requirements in two
ways, either collectively through a family of product variants, or
individually through a configurable product design. A family of
product variants should be optimised to reduce engineering costs
and time to market, extend product portfolios, expand market
share, and maximize customer satisfaction while increasing
components commonality and reducing cost. These goals might
conflict and need to be balanced and optimised [116]. Products
can be configured to satisfy individual customer requirements. As
a prerequisite, a clear definition of what the company is
potentially ready to offer is necessary and feasibility of product
characteristics should be established and verified a priori [68].
Because of new and changing customers’ expectations, industries
are evolving towards the production of highly customized
products or services instead of dominating markets with
standardized products [52,184].
Design for variety (DFV) is a design strategy and methodology
to help designers satisfy individual customer needs, gain market
shares and remain competitive in spite of increased product
variety. It provides methods for determining the components/
modules to be redesigned based on the external drivers of
generational change including: customer requirements, cost
reduction, regulations and standards. Parts of a product that are
highly integrated within the product architecture represent a core
to be treated as geometry constraint. Core modules, forming the
product platform, contain highly coupled parts/components [122].
The standardization of core modules (geometry constraints)
represents an important element for controlling the product
complexity costs. The main criterion used to define core
components, which should be standardized across all product
variants, is to reduce the effect of modifications of product
attributes on production using intelligent standardization [175].
For example, modern machine tools are now designed with
modular product architecture. The main machine assembly
groups, such as the machine bed, the machine column and the
rotational axes, are interchangeable to enable a flexible config-
uration depending on the customer requirements. The interchange
ability of the different module specifications is supported by
standardized module interface such as the mechanical, electrical
and hydraulic interface of the machine spindle with adjacent
components. Therefore, it is possible to equip a milling machine for
honing operations. In addition, core modules can be shared across
machine tools platforms.
The Mori Seiki Japanese Machine tool company [132] re-
designed their small and medium size machine tools to be modular
and to occupy the same foot print as shown in Fig. 3. This
intelligent standardization and application of principles of Design
for Variety leads to more product variety and configurability while
reducing variety-induced costs [175].
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]
Fig. 3. Modular design of a Mori Seiki machine tool [132].

H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
3.2. Enablers of design for variety
3.2.1. Product families
Grouping of similar variants into families is a fundamental
enabler of designing, planning and producing variants efficiently.
Derivatives and variations in function, form and configuration lead
to new product classes including series of products with different
functions, series of components with different configurations and
series of features with different characteristics (dimensions,
material, quality, colour, etc.). This gives rise to product families
that contain variants of the products and their parts, components
and configurations [49,52] in an effort to better meet the diverse
needs of today’s highly competitive global marketplace, increase
variety, shorten lead-times, and reduce costs [107]. Companies can
efficiently develop a set of differentiated products by sharing and
reusing assets such as components, modules, processes, and
ultimately knowledge and information when developing new
families of products [180]. A family consists of a group of products
based on a specific design concept, or derived from a standard
parent product, and are similar in design and/or production
methods. A family of products description can vary according to
three points of view: (1) customer or sales; to allow the selection of
the desired product parameters’ value, (2) manufacturing; to
generate the bill of materials that describes the components and
their features and plan their manufacture, and (3) assembly; to
identify relationships between components and sequence of
assembly process. It is informative to capture and classify the
hierarchy of product variants, types and scope and consider ways
of modelling variety and its effects at different levels. ElMaraghy
[52] identified eight distinguishable variety levels in the hierarchy
(Fig. 4): (1) part features, (2) parts/components, (3) parts family,
(4) product modules or sub-assemblies, (5) products, (6) products
families, (7) products platform, and (8) products portfolios.
[(Fig._4)TD$IG]
Fig. 4. Product variety hierarchy in automotive industry [52].
Several approaches to creating modular product families,
using different criteria, have been reviewed by Roy et al. [158]
including modular function deployment for grouping product
functions according to styling, technology evolution, planned
changes, and other strategic criteria as the basis for identifying
potential product architecture and modules. Hölttä-Otto [82]
discussed evaluation criteria for modular product platforms
which set common modules shared by members of a product
family. Product platforms can bring cost savings and enable
introduction of multiple product variants quicker than without
platforms. The classical notion of a ‘‘static parts/products
families’’ was established in conjunction with the concept of
Group Technology (GT) where members of the family are similar
in the design and/or manufacturing features.
[(Fig._5)TD$IG]
633
Fig. 5. Evolving families of products (adapted from [51,52]).
Classification and Group Technology codes, such as that
developed by Opitz [139], were introduced to facilitate informa-
tion retrieval and modification of designs and manufacturing
processes. In this case, a ‘‘Composite Part’’ that contains all features
of the family members is constructed and a ‘‘Master Process Plan’’
is devised and optimised, in anticipation of the pre-defined
variants, for use in ‘‘Variant Process Planning’’ and other
manufacturing related activities [51]. A well-designed family of
parts or products helps achieve the economy of scale while
realizing a wider scope of products. ElMaraghy [51,59] later
proposed a new class of ‘‘evolving parts/products families’’ where
the boundaries of those families are no longer rigid or constant
(Fig. 5). The features of new members in these evolving families of
parts and products overlap to varying degrees with some existing
features in the original families; they mutate and form new and
sometimes different members or families similar to the evolution
witnessed in nature. This notion of evolution applies to products
where parts, modules or sub-assemblies may be added, removed or
changed causing the product and its family members to evolve.
After many and different products generations, new product
features and different products and product families emerge with
much less resemblance to the original parent family [52]. The
concept of evolving products and parts families is consistent with
the observed changes in product variants and is directly mapped
into new manufacturing systems paradigms suitable for respond-
ing to the changing family boundary and manufacturing its
member products. ElMaraghy et al. [54] introduced a novel
biological analogy for modelling evolution in products to under-
stand change in product families over many generations using
Cladistics analysis, and demonstrated it by case studies of a set of
automobile engine cylinder blocks, and families of engine
accessories (Fig. 6). This classification model lends itself to
[(Fig._6)TD$IG]changing product variants.
Fig. 6. Modelling evolution of a family of products and its variants using cladistics
(adapted from [7]).
Capturing customer needs in different market niches has been
prioritised in literature for developing the technical capabilities of
mass customized products. However, cost, delay, quality, balance
between variety and complexity in addition to customer satisfac-
tion as well as value perceived by all partners in the network such
634 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
as retailers and suppliers should all be considered [38]. Building
the appropriate product family architecture is a prerequisite for
‘‘Design for Mass Customization’’. Product family architecture
integrates the traditional activities of product design in a more
comprehensive scope which extends to sales, marketing and
product service. A product family architecture establishes the
product platform, the mechanism of variation and the method to
satisfy customer needs in the targeted market niches [92].
The architecture of the product must support variety in order to
facilitate variants generation in products families. Product
architecture is how functional elements of a product are arranged
into physical units and how these units interact. Product
architecture enables variants generation in a modular family of
products such that: (1) there exist a one-to-one or many-to-one
correspondence between the functional and physical structures,
and (2) the un-intended interactions between modules are
minimized [201]. Modularity of product architecture makes it
possible to design products, assemblies, and components that fulfil
various functions through the different combinations of modules
[93]. Product design modularity promotes flexibility and change-
ability of parts and components and leads to performance stability
and design optimisation. Modularity and Integration are conflict-
ing design objectives that should be balanced to reduce overall
design complexity and manufacturing cost. This can be realized by
optimising product architecture in the functional, technological
and physical domains [63,92]. There are three main principles to
follow when designing a family of products: (1) create modular
designs, (2) avoid components’ variants, and (3) standardise
components and interfaces at all design levels [42,141]. The
conceptual structure and organization of a generated family of
products provides a platform which contains the core common
components based on which each new product variant is
instantiated. The trade-off between economies of scale and scope
depends on the appropriate identification of common bases and
differentiation enablers; this is what should be optimised in a
product family architecture. The architecture has to include: (1)
common core of shared components within the family, (2)
differentiation enablers to configure each product variant, and
(3) configuration mechanism to define the rules of variety
derivation such as combining, swapping and scaling modules
[46,215].
3.2.2. Product platforms and portfolios
A product platform represents the collection of parts and
product variants designs shared by product families. Designing
product variety within a robust platform reduces engineering costs
and time to market, extends product portfolio and increases
market share.
A platform can be seen as a module, preferably independent, of
a product architecture with standardized interfaces, which
represents the core foundation of a product family [174]. The
platform is adapted with different additional modules to create a
new product variant. The choice of versatile modules opens new
possibilities to economically extend the product range to enhance
customers’ value by adding niche products for specific customers
or markets. A temporally stable platform can be used effectively
over several product lifecycles [100].
Modular products are an extension of product platforms which
do not necessarily have such a central or core element(s). A
modular product consists of several basic modules which are
combined in different arrangements and at different assembly
stages. Therefore, the modular product with its greater flexibility
represents a generalization of the normally rigid product platforms
[26].
Product platforms enable the implementation of unified
underlying core technologies for design, planning and manufac-
turing across a range of products. Other advantages include
increasing production processes flexibility and manufacturing
responsiveness, increasing flexibility between plants and in-plant
usage, hence, reducing initial investments, development time,
production costs and complexity, while improving ability to
upgrade products and reducing testing and certification of
complex products such as aircrafts and motor vehicles [10,52].
However, the mix of standard and differentiated components
should be carefully balanced within platform architecture to allow
platform evolution [100]. Platform planning can be divided into:
(1) Component-related including design of parts and their fixtures
and tools, (2) Process-related including the fabrication and
assembly equipment and design of the associated production
processes and supply chains, (3) Knowledge-related such as design
know-how, technology applications and limitations, production
techniques, mathematical models and testing methods, and finally
(4) People-related such as teams, relationships among team
members, between the team and the larger organization, and
with the network of suppliers [157].
The basic development strategy within any product family,
whether its product platform is modular or scalable, is to leverage
the product platform across multiple market segments or niches.
Market segmentation grids and platform leveraging strategies
were proposed by Meyer [127] to develop platform-based product
families. In horizontal platform leveraging, components and
manufacturing processes are shared across different market
segments for less R&D effort and manufacturing cost, and rapid
product development. For example, power-tools have batteries
and motors which form the base of the used platforms where they
are shared horizontally across the different segments. In vertical
platform leveraging, key components are scaled up or down within
a market segment. Therefore, platforms must be carefully designed
and optimised to achieve required performance and gain
competitiveness. In the power-tools example, stronger motors
with scaled-up power are introduced to provide higher torques. A
Beachhead Platform Leveraging [127] is a hybrid strategy that
combines horizontal components sharing and vertical scaling by
developing low cost and effective platform with efficient
manufacturing processes which is scaled up for mid- and high-
end performance specifications. For example (data taken from
[183]), a family of jet engines share compressors across its niche
market segments. The high thrust compressor shares the same
design with the low thrust one but with a 1.8 scale-up flow rate.
Product configuration reasoning at the family level is used to
identify the product portfolio that can be supported by a product
platform.
Incorporating flexibility and modularity into product platforms
allows manufacturers to respond to changing market needs with
minimum increase in complexity and investment. Design of
flexible platform components is critical for successfully designing
flexible product platforms. These components can be described as
‘‘cousin’’ parts as they are neither completely unique nor
completely common among variants [64]. The new Volkswagen
Platform architecture includes flexible under body chassis with
variable size components, different engine modules and modular
instrument panel.
In addition to the benefits of adopting a product platform
strategy, there are also some perceived risks including: (1) the loss
of product variant performance or distinctiveness due to compo-
nents sharing resulting in potential loss of market share, and (2)
the phenomenon of cannibalisation, in which the market share of
high end products is taken over by low end products of the same
product family. This occurs when consumers become aware of
extensive component sharing between high and low end products
in the same family.
A repository of design building blocks can be established
through optimising the reusability among design parameters [95]
leading to predefining a set of preferences and features for
customers to choose from [106]. These distinctive features are the
differentiation enablers of the product family architectures. Only
applicable options are presented to customers by utilizing a set of
selection constraints to ensure technically feasible and market-
wanted combinations. Selected features and common features
(product platform) required by all customers comprise the

H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
customer requirements of a customized product design [95,215].
Components commonality is a main consideration in Design for
Mass Customization, since it is built on a platform approach and
modular architectures.
Many commonality indices exist, however they have limita-
tions in the mass customisation environment. A good commonality
index should consider product representation (e.g. bills of
material) as well as variety induced complexity [28]. To assess
the suitability of product architecture for customisation, Jiao and
Tseng [94] proposed a design customisability index (DCI) that can
be used to evaluate the goodness of a customized design in
successfully satisfying a range of a customisation requirements. It
is based on the information content defined in the complexity
theory by Suh [190], and is expressed as:
1
DCI ¼ (1)
1I
Information content I is the probability of success of a design in
meeting the expected performance. The value of DCI ranges from 0
to 1, where DCI = 0 corresponds to I =1 indicating zero degree of
customisability (i.e. worst design), and DCI = 1 is equivalent to I = 0
representing maximum degree of customisability (i.e. best design).
3.2.2.1. Modularity and integration. Companies may handle the
trade-off between variety and cost by intentionally designing
modular products. Modularity is a condition where a system’s
components may be separated and re-combined to form a new
product variant. A module is functionally independent and
contains a group of standard and interchangeable components
[74,100]. Final product configurations are obtained by mixing and
matching sets of standard components/modules. Issues such as the
appropriate types of modularity to be built into the product family
architecture, and how they relate to component sourcing should be
explored when designing modular products in order to maximize
market coverage. In general modular products are characterized by
a high degree of flexibility. Independence of modules, functionally
and physically, supports the realization of many possible
combinations depending on the required functional range. The
development of individual modules by specialists in the module
function improves module performance. The incremental optimi-
sation of product modules often conflicts with the more difficult
overall improvement of an integrated product. Additionally,
modularity is predicated on having standardized interfaces which
are not necessary for integration [26]. Integrated product
structures do not have to be flexible and, therefore, can be
specifically designed with limited potential variety. Having fewer
interfaces reduces development cost. The concept of integration,
however, can generate benefits for companies with market
dominance or products that are integrated in a successful
proprietary system to protect intellectual property [66]. The
challenge in the development of modular products is the
improvement of the organizational integration as it creates
different conflicts due to opposing interests between development
teams. Therefore, creating specific teams for developing the
product and its platform helps control the process. The platform
development team is responsible for defining degrees of freedom
for modules design which are valid for the whole product range
[171].
A high degree of components commonality and modularity
helps achieve a high degree of product variety more efficiently. If
individual modules are themselves families of components, then
each individual variant of the components family can be combined
with any variant of another module (including a component
family), which quickly results in a very large number of end
product variants that can be produced.
This effect on the product variety is seen most clearly in
parameterised component families. For example, Fig. 7 shows
several modules of an elevator, such as the drive, controller, car,
counterweight and door modules. The group of components
making up the door module are represented by a number of
[(Fig._7)TD$IG]
635
Fig. 7. Schindler elevator modules and parameterization of the door module [166].
parameters and associated values. Therefore, a very large number
of possible door variants, which differ either physically or in how
they work, can be easily defined. In principle, each door variant can
be combined with any variant of the other elevator modules
excluding certain incompatible combinations which are prevented
using appropriate configuration constraints.
Increasing modules commonality by parameterisation
improves efficiency by standardizing and re-use especially in
Design-To-Order (DTO) environments [166]. This does not result in
new parameters or new components; it merely extends the range
of parameters value. The concept of ‘‘meta product families’’ refers
to the ‘‘parameter families’’ used to generate product families. The
rules for deriving a component family parameter values from the
product family that comprises the component family are defined
only once and managed in one place, which supports faster and
more efficient DTO processes.
Using a modular design architecture to quickly develop new
products, using common modules and reducing design time and
cost, can be compared with an integral design of a fixed
architecture oriented to an optimised product with simplified
design, and reduced number of parts, assembly time, uncertainty
and complexity, as suggested by the rules of Design for
Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) [29]. The design of product
variety that has common and different components and parts is an
optimisation problem of balancing modular and integral archi-
tectures despite their conflicting rules [55]. Liaison graphs which
represent the logical relationships between components, and
commonality analysis that identifies areas of commonality and
differentiation in design, are essential tools for reaching that
desired balance [11]. The degree of architecture granularity is also
important for determining the balance of modularity vs. integra-
tion. Coarse granularity found in highly integrated products with
small number of modules and few module hierarchies in the
architecture are not suitable for product evolution and variety
since product components in different modules would be loosely
related, while modules are highly interconnected. Fine granularity
featuring weak integration as well as large number of modules and
module hierarchies increase development and assembly cost by
introducing many unnecessary parts. An optimum level of
granularity can achieve both economy of scope and scale of
modular variety and integrated designs as defined by AlGeddawy
and ElMaraghy [12,13].
3.2.3. Examples of industrial implementation of product platforms
A good example of implementing product platforms for mass
customisation is found at the Volkswagen Group. In the 1990s the
company developed platforms as a technical basis for several
models within a vehicle category. This concept enabled the use of
common parts for different brands of the Volkswagen group
vehicles while diversifying the external appearance of different
models. Typical basic platform parts which are used across
different models are the main parts of the under body structure,
drive-train components, chassis and electrical parts. This reduced
development and design effort for the common parts across the
group models and the model specific components. However, the
rigid platform structure led to limited product differentiation and
636 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
did not achieve the desired adaptation flexibility to different
applications. Further advancement of this platform strategy led to
a product architecture which enables significant scalability of
different parameters combined with an even higher commonality
between product variants across vehicle categories. This concept is
called Modular Transverse Matrix (MQB). Several longitudinal and
transverse vehicle dimensions are defined based on the constitu-
tive feature of a standardized distance between the engine
mounting and throttle positions. This enables deriving variants
not only for different models but also in different vehicle categories
(subcompact, compact, compact van and compact SUV). Volkswa-
gen plans to derive 40 different models within the first generation
of the MQB with a quantity of three million vehicles per year. The
positive effects of the MQB are an even higher number of common
parts across the different variants with better differentiation
[(Fig._8)TD$IG]ability compared to the earlier platform concept (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8. Variable and fixed features of Volkswagen Modular Transverse Matrix
platform (courtesy of Volkswagen [205]).
These days, mass customisation is also widely used in the
service sector. Zurich Insurance Company recognized that various
customer segments need tailor-made solutions rather than
standard products. Customers in these segments were prepared
to pay higher premium for customized insurance policies.
However, this should not involve developing an individual product
from scratch for each customer. The successful P2000 contract
family business model allowed customers to assemble and
customize individual elements of their ‘‘contract’’ from modular
building blocks called a ‘‘composite product’’. Each composite
product consists of reusable standard components (‘‘elementary
products’’) designed to be assembled in many different ways. Fig. 9
[(Fig._9)TD$IG]
Fig. 9. Zurich insurance company contract family [167].
shows the ‘‘insurance for consultants’’ contract family, which
demonstrates that the principles of the parameterised product
configuration have been migrated from the industrial domain to
the service sector where each elementary product has been
parameterised. Examples of typical parameters include the insured
sum, the excess and type of compensation. Each new customized
insurance contract consists of the composite product plus selected
elementary product modules [167].
3.3. Design for variety methods
Most well-known design methodologies are usable for product
families and variants with more focus on capturing customer
needs, concept generation and evaluation, product structure
modularisation and platforms. A general framework of generic
DFV methods flow is shown in Fig. 10. It uses design methodologies
such as QFD (level 1 and 2) [191] to convert customer
requirements into product specifications then into product
features. Axiomatic Design [189] is used to relate those features
(design parameters) to customer requirements (functional
[(Fig._10)TD$IG]
requirements).
Fig. 10. Design methods used in DFV literature.
TRIZ [16] is used to solve real couplings in product design for
better product modularity. DSM [62] is used for clustering
components into modules and DFMA [29] is used to integrate
components within each modules for easier assembly.
3.3.1. Family leverage and re-design
Companies strive to satisfy customers desired products variety
effectively and economically by adopting platform thinking to
identify and explore commonalities among their products, target
market segments and production processes for more efficient
resources utilization in offering variety [152,218]. However, the
traditional platform concept may not be able to adapt to future
products design [79], hence, it has to be frequently modified and
revamped [85]. Fujita [73] classified product variety optimisation
problems into: (1) Optimising product modules’ attributes with
fixed module combinations, (2) Optimising product modules’
combination for pre-defined module candidates, and (3) Simulta-
neously optimising both module attributes and modules combina-
tions. Fujita [72] illustrated two types of cost which are sensitive to
variety and the platform optimisation process. When commonality
increases, the production volume related cost increases due to
over-specification, while cost related to number of variants and
modules decreases due to unification of suppliers and manufac-
turing systems. Product platforms should be designed to sustain
their technological and architectural stability for relatively long
time. Changing common modules frequently increases capital
investments, reduces production volume and ultimately platforms
become ineffective. Platform stability is essential for the platform
to implement mass customisation, but if the stability period is long
it will lag behind in innovation [85]. Since dynamic products
variants play a crucial role in platform design, platform planning
has to be considered to achieve long term commonality, increase
 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
the adaptability of platform modules that are subject to change and
increase commonality robustness on all levels [174]. To revitalize a
platform-based family of products, new variants should have four
types of modules: (1) fixed core modules responding to basic
customers’ needs, (2) new modules satisfying the emerging
requirements, (3) customized modules responding to known
requirements with varying parameters, and finally (4) similar
modules in terms of parameters of physical structure [85]. Schuh
et al. [174] suggested the introduction of adaptive platforms that
combine two functions in a constrained balance: (1) core functions
of static nature that exist in all variants, and (2) core innovation
functions which are adaptive but also common and change their
technical solutions frequently. Those adaptive platforms use the
logic of constraint-based product development in order to define
best-suited design spaces for product functions. Adaptive product
platforms lend themselves to dynamic and evolving product
families [52]. Many approaches were developed to re-design and
optimise existing families of products. Alizon et al. [15] used value
analysis, Design Structure Matrix and Commonality vs. Diversity
Index to improve commonality and diversity trade-off within the
family and achieve customer satisfaction through design. A new
metric of Homogeneity versus Heterogeneity Ratio (HHR), based
on product variant functionality was introduced [135]. The
establishment of common ontologies promotes modules’ sharing
in a family, while assisting search and exploration of linguistic and
parametric design information during various phases of the
product realization process. AlGeddawy and ElMaraghy [11]
presented a product family redesign model capable of identifying
the product family platform and its potential modules which
satisfies the constraints expressed in assembly liaison graphs. It
uses Cladistics analysis, a hierarchical classification tool, to cluster
components into modules and sub-assemblies up to the core
platform (Fig. 11). It also defines the optimal point(s) of product
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
assembly differentiation.
Fig. 11. Components classification using cladistics for a family of household kettles
[11].
3.4. DFV support tools
In addition to the main tools and enablers for DFV, other tools
and services are needed to support more efficient planning and
design of product variants.
3.4.1. Variant-oriented PLM support tools
Product variants with lengthy development process are likely to
be outdated sooner than expected. Product Lifecycle Management
(PLM) systems have been introduced to decrease the product
development process to cope with shrinking product life and
increasing product variety [17]. The pace of product-oriented
innovations has increased drastically shifting PLM towards
engineering and the micro-view of each product development
phase rather than only marketing [87]. PLM is a holistic strategic
business solution for integrating people, information and pro-
cesses across the extended enterprise through a common body of
637
knowledge, representing product activity chain such as conceptual
design, detailed design, prototyping, design verification and
inspection, process planning, tool design, tool manufacture,
production planning, components production, quality control,
assembly, delivery, maintenance, customer service, disassembly
and recycling [81]. PLM consists of a set of tools and technologies
which provides a shared platform for collaboration among product
stakeholders and streamlines the flow of information throughout
the product life cycle [17]. PLM systems normally have two
software applications: (1) Computer-Aided Design (CAD) where
geometric models are reused as needed, and (2) Product
Development Management (PDM) for controlling product infor-
mation. By adopting a PLM system, companies can gain many
benefits such as delivering more innovative products in a shorter
time through better integration and less duplication of efforts,
improving the success rate of newly introduced products, and
establishing more effective collaborative relationships with supply
chain partners [81].
Defining product variants separately results in: (1) huge
amount of redundant data, since variants are similar for most
parts, (2) weak relations between variants, and (3) inability to
automatically combine existing variants to create new ones.
Hellerbach and Bauer [78] emphasized that efforts for modelling
process variants should be minimized, therefore, reuse of product
models has to be supported. In particular, it should be possible to
create new variants by inheriting properties from existing ones,
but without creating redundant or inconsistent model data. The
hierarchical structure of such ‘‘variants of variants’’ has to be
adequately represented and should be easy to adapt. A large
collection of related variants can be derived from a basic product
model. In principle, each variant corresponds to a number of
adaptations of the basic model. Related variants should be
analysed frequently using advanced data mining techniques, since
it is a complex task to decide which parts should be captured by the
basic model and which ones would be considered variant-specific.
Le Duigou et al. [109] proposed an original solution to create
variants from product functions based on an integrated informa-
tion model that enhances the PLM system [111]. All variants can be
defined with a direct link with both product and processes, by
changing requirements and functional parameters. This has
successfully been used and tested in SMEs in automotive, special
machines and ship making equipment industries [110]. Hellerbach
and Bauer [78] also presented a closed-loop PLM that compliments
the regular PLM design/modelling, selection/configuration and
variant deployment activities with a feedback link using which
variant models are continuously optimised and adapted. Their
approach includes advanced techniques for unifying modelling of
variants within a single model of reasonable size and complexity.
3.4.2. Design for maintenance and service of product variants
Separating products and service is no longer feasible from
concept development to products [125]. The effect of variants on
maintenance should be considered at the earliest stages of product
design to reduce its related cost. Serviceability of products is
important especially for frequently serviced products. In some
cases it is impossible to design products to operate without
attention for the whole life of that product [213], especially with
the added burden of increased variety. Desai and Mital [45]
provided a set of guidelines to build maintainability into the design
of product variants to reduce maintenance and service require-
ments during operation.
3.4.3. Design for assembly, disassembly, remanufacturing and
recycling of product variants
Product assembly is concerned with combining components to
create end products. Design for Assembly (DFA) [29,108] analyses
product design to make assembly operations easier and reduce
assembly time. Most DFA methods do not consider product variety.
They are applicable to product modules instead of individual parts.
As a result, redesign using DFA tends to integrate components in
638 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
that module. Remanufacturing, reusing and recycling of returned
products are effective methods to reduce resources consumption
and environmental damage. However products are returned at
different times, including product variants of several generations
with different performances. Generally, earlier product genera-
tions have lower performance. Remanufactured product variants
can have new performance characteristics suitable for different
users by recombining the modules of returned product variants.
This can be done by clustering the returned modules of product
variants based on their type, features and performance [159]. A
product ends its life-cycle by remanufacturing or disposal and in
either case disassembly is needed and is affected by increased
variety. Disassembly considers the activities of separation of a
product into its components and modules. Product variants can be
grouped into families based on the similarity of their disassembly
activities and modules resemblance in a manner similar to family
grouping for assembly [48].
4. Planning for variety
Designers of products, processes and manufacturing systems as
well as production planners should consider the coupling between
product variants and manufacturing systems, its special nature
and characteristics, and capitalize on its potential benefits for
improving the productivity of the whole enterprise. Process
planning is the link between product design and product
manufacturing and re-manufacturing. Necessary processes, opera-
tions, capabilities, capacities, material, inventory, etc. have to be
analysed before the actual processing starts. The selection of parts/
components to form modules/sub-assemblies into different
products and defining their boundaries are important decisions
to offer the desired variety. Product variety increases the
complexity of planning in general and requires well-designed
strategies and models to handle it. One of the challenges for
planning activities is to define methodologies and strategies that
can be used consistently to respond to the variety observed in
parts, products and families as well as changes in manufacturing
resources utilization and inventory. The efficient generation and
adaptation of process plans for variety is an important enabler of
changeable and responsive manufacturing systems needed to
successfully implement variety [52,57,58].
As shown in Fig. 12 variant-oriented products models,
representations of relationships and liaisons between the product
components and modules, methods for grouping and classification
for downstream adaptable and re-configurable planning processes
all the way to manufacturing and plant design and control are
needed to avoid duplicating the efforts at all levels when new
variant are introduced. While parametric design is commonly
available for CAD product models, variant-oriented tools for the
subsequent activities remain primarily in the research domain
[(Fig._12)TD$IG]with few commercial software exceptions in limited applications.
Fig. 12. Variant-oriented planning [56].
4.1. Process planning (concepts, models, and tools)
Process planning is part of the ‘‘soft’’ or ‘‘logical’’ enablers of
change in manufacturing. It connects product design with product
manufacturing and production as well as manufacturing system
design. Changes in design of product variants and engineering
specifications trigger frequent changes in process plans, which
often dictate corresponding costly and time consuming changes to
jigs, fixtures, processes and machinery [137]. Agility and respon-
siveness to change is an important requirement in process
planning [52,57,58]. Fig. 13 shows the IDEF0 representation of
process planning.
[(Fig._13)TD$IG]
Fig. 13. IDEF-0 representation of process planning.
Process planning techniques are now being applied in many
domains such as metal removal, assembly, disassembly, inspec-
tion, robotic tasks, rapid prototyping, welding, forming, and sheet
metal working. The process planning concepts and approaches are
classified based on their level of granularity into: (1) Multi-Domain
Process Planning, (2) Macro-Process Planning, and (3) Micro-
Process Planning [58].
Process planning may be done manually or using Computer-
Aided Process Planning (CAPP) systems. Automated process
planning varies according to the type and degree of automation
and includes: (1) retrieval/variant process planning, which
capitalizes on the similarity in design or manufacturing features
among parts grouped into families and revises existing master
plans, (2) semi-generative process planning that benefits from
retrieved ‘‘Master Process Plans’’ to make some ‘‘variant-specific’’
changes, but also optimises the operations to be performed and
their parameters using algorithmic procedures assisted by CAD
models, databases, decision tables or trees, heuristics and knowl-
edge rules, and (3) generative process planning that aims to
generate an optimised process plan from scratch [23,24,52].
Retrieval/variant and semi-generative type of process planning are
most suitable for coping with product variety.
Process plans for product variants can take several forms: (1) a
Master Plan for the whole family of products requiring minimum
modification for each variant, (2) an Adaptive Plan that can handle a
set of pre-planned design differences and changes between
different product variants, or (3) a Changeable Plan that can be
changed and reconfigured according to the changes in product
design [97]. These strategies apply to Micro-Process Plans
including detailed processes and their parameters as well as
Macro-Process Plans concerned with manufacturing processes and
technologies used and the sequence of processes and their
precedence relationships [55].
4.2. Changeable and reconfigurable process plans
The nature and extent of change in process plans depend on the
type and degree of changes between different parts and products
variants. Not only are products variations increasing in scope and
frequency and families of manufactured parts are evolving, but
 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
also manufacturing resources on the shop floor and their
functionalities are becoming changeable and reconfigurable.
Existing process plans can be changed and adapted effectively
using parametric variations, where group technology, composite
parts and retrieval/variant process planning would be used. The
addition or deletion of features to generate product variants affects
the sequence of operations; and significant changes in macro-
process plans would be required where all types of precedence
constraints must be re-checked and satisfied.
Reconfigurable process planning (RPP), a term coined by
ElMaraghy [50] represents partial reconfiguration of process plans
for new features/operation which are not within the boundaries of
existing product families. The RPP approach is an important
enabler of effective management of increased parts and products
variety. It addresses problems arising due to increased frequency
and extent of changes in products and manufacturing systems and
the need to manage these changes economically and with the least
disruption of the production activities and their associated high
cost [52].
Azab and ElMaraghy [23] introduced a novel process planning
approach to reconfigure existing plans instead of generating new
ones for new variants. The Reconfigurable Process Planning (RPP)
method transformed the act of planning from one of sequencing
to that of insertion. Master process plans of existing parts/
products are reconfigured on the fly using RPP to meet the
requirements of new parts and products variants and their
features/operations while minimizing changes on the shop floor.
Therefore, instead of generating new plans from scratch for each
variant, only new portions of existing process plans, correspond-
ing to the added or removed features or operations, are
generated and optimally inserted/deleted within the existing
process plan. This approach enables local reconfiguration of
master process plans when needed, where needed and as needed
while minimizing the extent of change due to introducing new
product variants. RPP has been applied to the fabrication of
individual parts, modules as well as the assembly of product
variants [22,24].
In summary, reconfiguring process plans on demand is an
effective management strategy to cope with products variety. It
allows doing reconfiguration as needed, hence, reducing the effort
and cost of maintaining and managing huge inventory of variants
process plans.
4.3. Production planning for variety
The production planning and control system is the central
logistic control mechanism that matches the company’s output
and logistic performance with customer demands. Its objective is
to plan, schedule and control the manufacturing of products.
Typical functions of a production planning systems include
planning material requirements (MRP), demand management,
capacity planning and the scheduling and sequencing of jobs on
the shop floor. The key purposes include reducing Work-in-
Progress (WIP), minimizing shop floor throughput and lead times,
lowering stock holding costs, improving responsiveness to changes
in demand and improving adherence to delivery dates. In dynamic
and highly customized markets, companies have to be able to
adjust their production to actual and future conditions quickly and
efficiently to achieve competitive advantage. Companies have to
resolve two contradictions ‘‘production scale vs. scope’’ and
‘‘value-orientation vs. planning-orientation’’ [176]. Production
planning and control (PPC) for variants is facilitated by enablers
such as modularity and scalability of their design and logic
[57,212].
Increasingly companies need to use mass customisation and
personalization and their production systems to satisfy rapidly
changing market requirements and deal with complex and
dynamic manufacturing environment [2]. They should be able to
define and take appropriate actions at the right time to deal with
the dynamic nature of internal and external changes [4,57].
639
Two different approaches to enable the targeted adaptability of
the production planning and control system are [212]:
 Flexible methods capable of dealing with various production
planning and control requirements. Agent-based systems are
good examples of such flexible methods due to their properties
such as autonomy, intelligence and interaction between agents.
 Generic methods able to build different production plans only by
adapting parameters. The load-oriented order release is an
example of such systems.
Companies have different objectives to optimise their produc-
tion plans according to the prevailing conditions and scenarios.
Tough financial conditions worldwide demonstrate the changing
emphasis and trade-off between the products, facilities, capacities,
work force and profitability as industrial companies struggle for
survival. The ability to achieve a balance between the conflicting
objectives in such a turbulent environment is a challenge, and
could be a real competitive edge [89]. Ismail and ElMaraghy [90]
proposed incremental and progressive modelling approaches that
integrate several scientific disciplines such as software engineer-
ing, artificial intelligence and operation research. They demon-
strated that handling the production planning problem from a
system perspective and propagating the balance across many
disciplines produces a set of trade-off solutions to consider; and
that financial considerations are not the only good measure of
manufacturing system health and its ability to survive in the face of
change.
Changes of internal and external conditions require: (1)
continuous review of relevant factors to identify sudden and
expected changes, (2) assessment of necessity and scope of change
in production plans, and (3) evaluating success in fulfilling the
targeted objectives.
Following a Make-To-Order (MTO) strategy to deal with variety,
production is not started until a customer order is received. The
implementation of lean production control principles helps in
identifying and eliminating unnecessary sources of variability
through the levelling of production and the use of pull mechanisms
and takt time control. More implementations of lean production
control principles were observed in Make-To-Stock (MTS) flow
shops than in make to order (MTO) job shop environments [185].
Schuh et al. [172] developed a general closed-loop approach to
model real-time capable production planning and control which
fits the specific requirements of Built-To-Order scenarios. It is
important to identify the specific performance measure(s) which
most accurately model(s) customer behaviour for specific markets.
Iravani et al. [89] developed a performance measure to manage
assemble-to-order systems with flexible and selective customers.
Assemble-To-Order (ATO) represents multi-item inventory sys-
tems with dependent demands across items. The literature on
these systems can be divided into two groups: (1) systems with
deterministic supply processes, e.g., deterministic lead times; and
(2) systems with stochastic supply processes. The later strategy
allows manufacturers to achieve a high degree of product variety
and quick product delivery while keeping low inventories. They
evaluated the system performance from three different perspec-
tives: (1) Items-Based Performance, (2) Order-Based Performance,
and 3) System Performance. Item-Based Performance reflects the
availability of an item when requested. The Order-Based Perfor-
mance represents the customer satisfaction regarding each order
type. System performance combines customer satisfactions of
different orders into one measure which reflects the overall
performance of the system. Krishnamurthy and Suri [104]
developed a hybrid push-pull material control strategy suited
for manufacturing environments with high variety and/or custo-
mized engineered products. The implementation of this strategy
resulted in a reduction in lead time, increase in percentage of on-
time deliveries and employee satisfaction. Mourtzis et al. [133]
used discrete-event simulation models to investigate the perfor-
mance and viability of centralized and decentralized production
640 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
networks, under highly diversified product demand. The decen-
tralized production network showed reduced cost, lead time and
environmental impact, and greater flexibility and productivity
compared with a centralized production network of the same
product variants.
4.3.1. Operation of manufacturing systems
There is a need for more advanced variant-oriented product
data representation and powerful scheduling models to implement
production planning strategies. Increased demand for customized
and personalized products has led to a large growth in the number
of MTO companies, hence, better competition amongst these
companies and the increasing strategic importance of lead times
[188]. In manual work, job rotation is necessary to create varying
work load and compensate for the effect of monotonous repetitive
work. This varying workload allows workers to develop multiple
skills to meet the demands of different tasks. Michalos et al. [128]
developed a user friendly web-based tool to represent the
production system, tasks to be performed, operator’s character-
istics and generate alternative production schedules using multi-
criteria decision making. They found that the fast and efficient
reallocation of operators in case of unexpected events (such as the
introduction of extra orders or different product variants, the
change of product sequence and failures) leads to smooth
adaptation to changes including those resulting from increased
variety.
In addition to quality and throughput, flexibility and the
response of a manufacturing system to any given input is
important for managing variety and should be quantified.
Flexibility measures of manufacturing system performance
include scalability and convertibility. Scalability is the ability to
modify the production capacity of a system by adding or removing
manufacturing equipment. Convertibility is the ability of a
manufacturing system to change its functionality. Cost-based
metrics are the ultimate measure of manufacturing system
performance [83].
It is difficult to deal with the very large amounts of data and it is
necessary to understand the implications of product variants. The
challenges of data management associated with the production of
high variety include: (1) data explosion resulting from treating
every product variant as a separate product, (2) data redundancy,
(3) data comprehensiveness, (4) data separation, and (5) data
errors. Jiao et al. [96] developed a generic Bill-of-Materials-and-
Operations (BOMO) by integrating product and production data
management in terms of order processing, engineering change
control, production job planning, cost accounting, and material and
capacity planning to reflect the flow of material through
production. Nonaka et al. [138] studied the problem of scheduling
with alternative sequences of operations in CNC workshops which
is useful in dealing with variants.
4.3.2. Resources utilization and inventory
Production planning and control systems must be adjusted in
consideration of introduced product variants and manufacturing
resources and systems must be re-balanced accordingly [56].
Managing resources utilization effectively in the presence of
variants is important for creating sustainable competitive advan-
tage and enhancing productivity [115].
Resources planning represents the central logic of production
planning and control [172]. Many companies with high variety or
custom engineered products are struggling to implement effective
material control strategies on the shop floor [104]. Material
inventory on-site as well as off-site, production line buffers and
WIP, and machines redundancy are but a few of the available
production resources that must be carefully monitored and
controlled as product variants change [176]. Resources like
capacity are always related to cost and, therefore, over capacities
should be avoided. Such costs include setup (changeover) costs,
inventory holding costs, production costs and volume flexible
production costs. In addition to cost measures, the effects of
shortages causing inability to meet customer demands for certain
variants and in a timely manner are important factors [136].
Benjaafar et al. [27] investigated the effect of product variety on
inventory-related costs without assuming specific distributions for
demand, production time and setup times. They showed that
inventory costs increase almost linearly with the number of
products and the rate of increase is sensitive to demand and
process variability, demand and capacity levels, and setup times. In
a production environment, real limits on workforce and machine
capacities to produce various variants of product families may
exist.
4.4. Logistics and supply chains management
Supply chain management (SCM) deals with the coordination
and integration of the interactions among various businesses
involved in the provision of product and service packages required
by the end customers in a supply chain. It encompasses integration
of functional and geographical considerations as well as tactical
and operational decisions [60]. SCM is applied to the comprehensive
supply chain, within and across companies, and along the entire
product life cycle, from initial R&D to sales and customers support
[21,165]. For many companies, especially in sectors such as
construction, machinery and equipment, the automotive sector
and fashion; fulfilling customer specification through flexibly
offering product families with many variants is the main market
strategy [166].
The contribution made by logistics and supply chain manage-
ment to a company’s performance is often expressed in terms of
how well quality, cost and delivery goals are achieved. It was
shown that higher product variety increases the complexity of
assembly and supply processes [84]. In assembly systems, the
variety and complexity may cause human errors and in turn
impacts system performance. In addition, there is a relationship
between increased product variety and increased costs and longer
process times. Where demand is generally constant, the increased
costs are due to more frequent re-tooling and transport processes
for producing an increased number of product variants. If
production capacity is already fully utilized, then more frequent
re-tooling processes will result in delays, and thus in longer
process times and higher cost. These effects are multiplied when
demand varies across the individual product variants, even if the
overall demand remains constant. The quantitative impact of these
effects has been (and continues to be) studied [41,154,196]. This is
an optimisation problem, where modelling and simulation can be
used. Depending on the assumptions made and included factors, it
has been shown that the predicted cost of inventories and back
orders increases in a linear, squared or even higher order
relationship with number of product variants.
As for consequences of increased product variety downstream
in the supply chain, Ren et al. [155] investigated the effects of
product variety from a retail industry perspective. A store’s
product variety expressed by the number of stock-keeping units
(SKUs) increases if a rival store exists in the market, but decreases
when the rival store is collocated within one mile of the focal store.
Moreover, collocated rival stores tend to differentiate themselves
by overlapping less in product range, an effect that entails a smaller
and differentiated product variety. Moreover, it was found that
some retailer differentiation benefits the retailers (not the
manufacturer), but excessive differentiation hurts both the
retailers and the manufacturer [151].
Upstream in the supply chain, a first consequence of increased
product variety is a tendency towards decentralized production
networks, and thus towards a more complex network structure in
comparison with centralized production in a single site. Consider
the frequent case of high demand volatility between the individual
product variants, even if product demand remains constant overall.
If the same items are manufactured at different locations, and at
various production levels, they can be moved to different locations
and distributed globally. This brings advantages in that the
[(Fig._14)TD$IG] H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
Fig. 14. Daimler production network alternatives for engine variants [adapted from
164].
capacities in the network are utilized more evenly or can even
substitute for one another. However, this makes sense only for
products with high value density and sufficient customer tolerance
time [164].
Fig. 14 shows two alternatives for Daimler’s production of two
engine variants, the 4- and 6-cylinder, for their Mercedes-Benz E-
class model. The increased tooling and investment costs for
producing both engine types at several locations and the transport
costs are lower overall than the costs of back orders that would arise
if demand for one of the engines was so high that there was
insufficient production capacity at any single location. Production
volume of product variants can be determined using mixed integer
linear programming (MILP) models. For a quantitative assessment of
the performance of various decentralized automotive manufactur-
ing networks; costs of production and transport, the achievable
production volumes of different variants and processing time and
environmental impact due to product transportation in the network
are included [133], and discrete event simulation models for
evaluating the network performance under highly diversified
product demand were developed. Arafa and ElMaraghy [22]
evaluated manufacturing strategies for enhancing enterprises
dynamic capability using systems dynamics. ElMaraghy and
Mahmoudi [60] developed a decision support model to determine
the optimal location of global supply chain nodes by simultaneously
considering currency exchange rate at various sites and optimal
modular product architecture to be used to minimise the total cost.
ElMaraghy and Deif presented optimisation models for production
capacity planning needed to manage products variety [43].
A second variety consequence, upstream in the supply chain, is
a tendency towards outsourcing and thus a more complex network
structure in comparison to manufacturing within the company.
There may be advantages to working with a legally independent
company as a supplier, rather than an internal production
department, for reasons such as specificity of product and
processes, location, complexity of product and processes, core
competencies, cost breakdown structure, trust or stability [165].
The coordination of the resulting network of suppliers is often
difficult, particularly in mass customisation (MC). The lot size of a
production order (e.g. for final assembly of a car variant) is often
‘‘1’’, which implies a lot size of ‘‘1’’ in the purchase order for product
components. Disruptions to production or changes in the stock of
the many individual orders often call for change of plans. Just-In-
Time (JIT) and Just-In-Sequence (JIS) techniques require high
transparency with regards to work in process (WIP) by both the
company and suppliers. The ERP systems must be capable of
exchanging data quickly and constantly. The design and imple-
mentation of a system capable of dynamically querying the supply
chain partners to provide real time or near real time information
regarding the availability of parts required for the production of
highly customisable products was discussed [134].
4.4.1. Variant-sensitive capability and capacity planning for product
variants and product mix
In several industries a number of related but different items,
such as variants of a product family, are produced on the same
production line because the initial setup of capacities requires
significant expenses. Capacity changeovers can generate expenses
641
regarding labour, lost output and material. Another consequence of
frequent changeovers is increased quality issues, a loss in learning
curve effects and reduced capacity balancing. These are typical
examples for the negative effect of product variety on manufactur-
ing efficiency [91,119]. A possible approach to reduce these
negative effects is the definition of constitutive features for the
product architecture, which allow for standardized production
processes and equipment. On the manufacturing-side, variety-
oriented planning of capabilities and capacities is needed. There-
fore, the manufacturing system is designed to fit the product
variety to be produced. An example of this is the use of
standardized fixtures in the body-in-white manufacture in a
mixed model production at Volkswagen. These fixtures are
designed to match the planned product variety without necessi-
tating changeovers with the help of a defined products reference
point system as was also investigated in [1].
Capacity scalability, which is temporal flexibility of capacity, is
a significant factor in the target areas of delivery and cost. A high
product variety normally involves a production environment that
is based on Assemble-To-Order (ATO), Make-To-Order (MTO) or
even Design-To-Order (DTO) strategies. The value added within
the customer tolerance time (the time span the customer will (or
can) tolerate between order release and delivery of the product or
fulfilment of the service [21]) must be completed by the delivery
deadline. In most cases, fluctuations in the capacity requirements
are considerable. Lack of temporal capacity flexibility leads to idle
capacities or back orders and thus increased costs.
In the short term, workers have greater potential to achieve
temporal capacity flexibility than machines. Short-term capacity
scalability of machines, necessitated by variety, can only be
practically reached by means of maintaining over-capacity, and
thus higher capital cost. People, on the other hand, can adapt their
efforts to the current load which need not necessarily entail higher
costs. If the requirements for capacity scalability (scale-up or scale-
down) are significant, there will be macro costs, e.g. for introducing
or cancelling a second or third shift, or weekend work as well as
costs for setting up the new production mode. There will also be
different costs, such as paying staff a higher rate for night or
weekend overtime work. These increased costs can be offset
against the costs that would otherwise be needed for storing
products made ahead of time, i.e. at times when there is capacity
available in ‘‘normal’’ work mode - during normal working hours. A
simulation model for determining production quantities and the
sequence of changeovers to achieve an optimal long-term cost-
containment strategy to deal with variety was developed [136].
A high product variety is often associated with small lot sizes
where reducing the setup time becomes a key issue. When capacity
is fully utilized, the emphasis is on the setup costs. In the process
industry, for example, setup times are often very long (e.g. for
cleaning processes) and, due to high capital investment costs, any
downtime is very expensive. Methods such as campaign planning
(cyclical planning in the process industry) plan for a setup-
optimised sequence of batches of different product variants.
Capacity that is not fully utilized is often maintained for strategic
reasons, such as short waiting times and therefore short lead times,
especially when customer tolerance times are short and the
emphasis is on reducing the setup time. The single minute
exchange of dies (SMED) principle, which is part of the Toyota
production system, involves concepts such as cycles that optimise
change-over times, or re-tooling whole sets of tools for product
families and careful planning of the number of tools or machines to
cope with variants efficiently [181].
A producer’s capability is made up of the capability of its
employees and of its production infrastructure. Production
capability can usually only be altered over the longer term. The
flexible capability of the workforce can often be achieved to a
greater degree, by increasing number of jobs, than flexible
capability of the production infrastructure (e.g. by reconfigura-
tion). Employees do not simply represent a production factor, for
they are themselves stakeholders. Schönsleben [166] shows that
[(Fig._15)TD$IG]
642 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
Fig. 15. Need for permanent DTO enabling process [166].
flexible capability of the employees is especially important for a
DTO production environment when broad expertise and experi-
ence is required in order to construct and produce different
variants quickly and efficiently. Fig. 15 shows a typical DTO
business process in a company. The sales phase (including quoting)
is followed by receipt of the customer’s order, then design,
production and delivery of the product and its variants.
Fast and efficient DTO calls for the consistent, long-term use of a
permanent DTO enabling process. Queries from the on-going DTO
business processes are answered by a form of know-how transfer.
Lessons learned during implementation are fed back to the
enabling process. A fast and efficient DTO system needs this
expertise to be shared amongst more people, and it must be
extended to the shop floor. Schindler, a globally active lift
manufacturer, was able to quickly fulfil a DTO request from a
client in their workshops near Lucerne, Switzerland, based on a
simple outline drawing. To be produced in their workshops in
China, the same request would have had to be specified in detail.
This requires cost and time due to a lack of flexible shop-floor staff
capability needed for the high product variety.
5. Variety-oriented manufacturing
Several manufacturing paradigms have emerged over the years
in response to changes in product variety and production volume
as illustrated in Fig. 16. Craft manual production afforded
maximum flexibility and high variety but for limited production
volume and low productivity. Mass production of goods achieved
economy of scale by extremely limiting variety, standardizing
manufacturing methods and using dedicated production equip-
ment and lines to produce very large volumes of same or similar
products for steady demands. As variety increased, economy of
scope was achievable by capitalizing on similarity between parts/
products to increase the efficiency of design, planning, tooling,
fixturing, fabrication, assembly and transportation of members of a
pre-planned product families using cellular and flexible manu-
facturing. The mass customisation manufacturing paradigm
emerged later to deal with increased variety by utilizing concepts
of delayed product differentiation and platforms to capitalize on
benefits of mass producing a major part of the final products and
[(Fig._16)TD$IG]
Fig. 16. Variety and evolution of manufacturing systems paradigms.
introducing variety late in the process. Extreme variety, as a result
of more customer participation in product design, is now giving
rise to personalized products to be produced with rapid and
additive manufacturing methods. This trend is creating special
aftermarket product personalization opportunities and generating
a need for more personalized production systems paradigms.
5.1. Manufacturing adaptation enablers
Manufacturing systems and their support functions, both
physical and logical, should be capable of accommodating change
and variety in order to be usable for several generations of products
and product families and, hence, become more economically
sustainable. Therefore, adaptability should be built into manu-
facturing systems, and logically enabled by grouping product
variants into families, forming composite parts to standardize
planning and using Group Technology (GT) production cells and
flexible systems to realize economy of scope [52]. A composite part
is a hypothetical part that combines all features found in members
of a part family Fig. 17. Therefore, any part variant may be derived
by omitting features and its related operations. A production cell
for a parts family would consist of all machines required to make
the composite part [49]. These grouping principles apply equally to
products consisting of many parts, where assembly is the main
[(Fig._17)TD$IG]
manufacturing activity, or customized services.
Fig. 17. Composite parts enable GT and capitalize on commonality.
The observed co-evolution of products and manufacturing
systems (Fig. 18) offers insight into the ability of manufacturing
systems to adapt to product variety and change [7,14]. Companies
make important strategic decisions to manage such co-evolution
considering: (1) determining the system configuration that best fits
production requirements over time and for many product variants
and generations, and (2) accommodating production changes by
utilizing reconfigurable machines and auxiliary equipment and
adjusting the production plans and schedules [197].
There are two types of enablers of adaptation, transformation
and co-evolution, namely hard (physical) and soft (logical)
enablers. The ‘‘hard’’ change-enablers include the physical
[(Fig._18)TD$IG]
Fig. 18. A map of co-evolution between machined parts and machine tools to
produce them (adapted from [9]).
 [(Fig._19)TD$IG]
H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652 643

attributes that facilitate change, which are not limited to

machinery but also apply to the whole factory configuration and
layout and physical plant infrastructures and buildings. Hardware
changes also require major changes at the logical enablers level,
such as the software systems used to control individual machines,
complete cells and systems, as well as to plan individual operations
and processes and control the whole production [55]. Equipment
and systems producers play a great role in enabling changeability
in manufacturing systems by developing the hardware and
software solutions to accommodate new products and production
technologies and implement the flexibility, modularity, scalability
and re-configurability paradigms [197]. Modern manufacturing
paradigms achieve adaptation to product changes through: (1)
pre-planned generalized flexibility, as seen in flexible manufactur-
ing systems (FMS), designed and built-in a priory for pre-defined
anticipated product variants over a period of time, (2) limited/ Fig. 19. Reconfigurable manufacturing. (a) jigs and fixtures [adapted from [223]],
focused flexibility to suit a narrower scope of products variants, or (b) machine tools [adapted from [131]], (c) material handling [adapted from [194]],
(3) customized flexibility on-demand by physically reconfiguring a and (d) manufacturing system layout.

manufacturing system (RMS) to adjust its functionality and

capacity as needed when needed [49,103].
5.2. Changeable manufacturing systems (CMS) paradigms
Manufacturing is experiencing a paradigm shift towards more
changeability (physically and logically) to respond quickly and
efficiently to product variety in order to economically accomplish
early and foreseeable adjustments of the factory structures and
processes on all levels. Changeability is an umbrella framework
that encompasses many paradigms such as agility, adaptability,
flexibility and re-configurability, which are themselves enablers of
product variety management [55]. To enable changeability,
manufacturing systems should possess some characteristics
including: (1) universality, (2) scalability, (3) modularity, (4)
mobility, and (5) compatibility [211].
5.2.1. Flexibility
Flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) offers built-in general-
ized flexibility which permits changes and adaptation of processes
and production volumes, within the pre-defined boundaries,
without physically changing the manufacturing system itself
[57]. In practice, applying FMS concept to industry commonly
results in a fully integrated manufacturing system consisting of
computer numerically controlled (CNC) machines, connected by an
automated material handling system, all under the control of a
central computer [25,36]. ElMaraghy [49] summarized flexibility
types in manufacturing applicable to machines, material handling,
operations, processes, products, routing, production volume,
expansion of capacity and/or capability, machines and systems
control, and production volume. Flexibility can be expressed in a
quantitative manner as metrics to guide FMS design based on the
company’s objectives [35,129].
5.2.2. Reconfigurability
Reconfigurability can be defined as the ability to repeatedly
change and rearrange a manufacturing system and its the
components cost effectively [179]. Reconfigurable manufacturing
systems (RMS) allow changeable functionality and scalable
capacity by physically changing the components of the system
by adding, removing or modifying machine modules, machines,
manufacturing cells, material handling and/or complete lines.
Hence, RMS responds to changes by offering focused flexibility on
demand through physical reconfiguration.
Reconfigurability can be built into manufacturing systems on
many levels including system configurations, machines, material
handling equipment, robots, fixtures and controllers as shown in
Fig. 19. Reconfiguration of system components and re-location of
system stages and individual machines may be needed to adapt to
new product variant requirements [219,221]. To allow easy
reconfiguration, system modules should have their own distrib-
uted control, modular standard interfaces, extensive sensory
system and the technology to enable establishing communication
quickly.
The iFatory [55] is an example of a truly modular and
reconfigurable assembly factory with the ability to change both
its layout by modules relocation and its configuration by adding/
removing modules and workstations. This ‘‘Factory-in-a-Lab’’
(Fig. 20) contains robotic assembly, inspection, automated
retrieval and storage and material handling Plug’n play modules.
Its intelligent control and interface does not require re-program-
ming or set-up after physical reconfiguration which greatly
reduces ramp-up efforts and time. Reconfigurable manufacturing
systems should be planned and designed to maximize their
changeability and adaptability to product variant changes. Several
metrics and methods have been proposed for assessing RMS
[(Fig._20)TD$IG]convertibility [120] and reconfiguration smoothness [220].
Fig. 20. Changing assembly system layout and configuration [88].
5.3. Shop floor variety enablers
5.3.1. Process platform
The highest level of product variety is reached at the end of the
value-adding process typically represented by final assembly [83].
The platforms used to face those challenges do not only focus on
common product design features or components, they can be
extended to the common core processing technology and stations
used to manufacture the core (platform) of product variants.
Process platforms can be seen as the evolution of cellular
manufacturing, with more complex layout and a system design
that is well-integrated with the product architecture. An important
challenge is not only to design the product family but also to
simultaneously design its production processes and assembly
system. Once functional entities of the product are identified the
corresponding assembly system, which is often non-linear due to
the multitude of product variants, is designed. Sequence genera-
tion and assembly line balancing techniques are utilized to design
and construct assembly systems to handle high variety [83].
Behind the assembly line there has to be a production system,
supporting the modular product structure and the production
platforms and emphasizing quality, cost and delivery. Quality is
644 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652

ensured by in-line and in-process inspections. Costs remain
unchanged if additional variants are introduced within the same
cycle-times and delivery is improved by demand synchronized
production [42,101,121].
5.3.2. Postponement and delayed product differentiation
Postponement, or delayed product differentiation, is an
approach applied to products and manufacturing systems design.
It shifts product differentiation closer delivery to customers by
postponing identity changes, such as in assembly (Finish-To-Order
or Assemble-To-Order) or packaging (Package-To-Order), to the
last possible supply chain position [21]. Postponement is linked
with late customisation of product variants to be produced within
the customer tolerance time. This reduces the supply chain risks of
excessive inventory and shelf warmers upstream from or at the
customer order penetration point [165]. It enables cost-reducing
economies of scale for value-adding steps to be achieved ahead of
the product differentiation stage.
Numerous works developed the principle of postponement
[3,30,37,69,140,193,217,224]. Today, we can distinguish between
different forms of postponement to prolong keeping the product in
a generic state. The main areas of postponements include: (1)
manufacturing, (2) assembly, (3) packaging, (4) labelling, and (5)
logistics. Manufacturing postponement helps meet customer-
specific specifications such as materials and accuracy. Assembly
postponement helps fulfil customer requirements in the later
phases where additional value-adding steps can be customer-
specific [5,6,8]. Packaging postponement is achieved through
individualized packaging for different markets mostly at the point
of product distribution or delivery. Labelling postponement is
based on standardized packaging and differentiation occurs by
using special labels and stickers [37,224]. Logistic postponement
deals with standardized product and packaging, hence, economies
of scale exist in storing stock and finished products. The
differentiation occurs during transportation to allocate the
standardized product to a specific customer or market [37,151].
Implementing a postponement strategy also has an impact on the
supply chain network structure [216]. In particular, the product
differentiation within the supply chain often occurs in decen-
tralized locations that are close to the customer, in order to comply
with customer tolerance times [202]. The postponement principles
have been applied extensively to the textile and electronics
industries. At Benetton, colour dyeing normally carried out before
the expensive and time-consuming knitting process is now done
after knitting. This provides economies of scale during knitting and
enables the company to respond more quickly to market demands
for specific colours [39]. Hewlett Packard standardized printer’s
power connectors and delayed the assembly of the power supply
units until the regional distribution centres. Although this resulted
in a slight increase in production cost, it enabled Hewlett Packard
to significantly reduce the transportation cost and reduce the
overall cost of the value-added chain by 25% [65,112].
Zinn et al. [224] carried out an economic evaluation of
postponement taking into consideration various cost factors such
as production, logistics and warehousing costs and opportunity
costs due to lost turnover. Lee et al. [113] extend this model by
including cost of implementing postponement such as standardi-
zation, modularisation and process re-sequencing. Anand et al.
[18] considered market criteria used by companies such as
monopoly.
A recent study on the application of postponement in the
pharmaceutical industry [203] revealed that this industry is
currently working intensively on ‘‘delayed printing’’. For solid
forms of medication, the relatively new technology of white line
packing machines involves producing primary packaging units
(blisters) marked only with a 2D matrix code which identifies the
product that can be printed later with country-specific or
customer-specific information. At the same time, the machine
also allows secondary packaging elements such as information
leaflets or folding boxes to be printed, provided they are
comparable with the primary packaging units and their formats
are standardized. Even though printing postponement increases
the time needed for actual packaging, it decreases set-ups and
reduces the overall packaging time and cost. For liquid medicines,
primary packaging units are gathered, filled and stored unlabelled.
Manufacturing information (e.g. date of manufacture) is added by
the storage facility, without the need for printing it on the primary
packaging units. In response to customer demand, the primary
packaging units are labelled with country-specific information and
secondary packaging are applied before dispatching to the
customer.
6. Variety-induced complexity
Variety-induced complexity arises due to the increased number
of variants and their features, more multi-disciplinary complex
components and modules, lack of processes streamlining and
insufficient use of adaptable CAD models and planning tools to
benefit from similarity and commonality. The challenge is to
respond quickly to dynamic shifts in customer needs and
increasing complexity due to variety and balance between
individualized, customer-specific production and quantity-driven
mass production. Fig. 21 illustrates the dilemma of production
scale versus scope, which is intensified by today’s increase in
product variety leading to a flattened curve of production
quantities to include highly individualized products [150].
Additional product variants raise expectations of higher sales
and prices. The consequential profit is often overestimated and
does not compensate for the complexity-induced costs which
cannot be easily quantified by traditional cost-accounting methods
[37]. Higher price of standard products to subsidize individualized
products reduces competitiveness; hence, systematic manage-
ment of variants complexity and cost is a must. A complex system
exhibits two complementary characteristics according to complex
systems theory: an increased plurality and variety of elements as
well as a high degree of interdependence and dynamics between
elements [98]. Complex systems have limited comprehensibility.
This dimension of complexity can be seen as de-coupled from the
dimensions of plurality and dynamics due to the fact that systems
[(Fig._21)TD$IG]containing a vast number of elements and a high degree of
Fig. 21. Typical cost/price-distribution in individualized production [adapted from
[173]].
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
Fig. 22. Structural framework of complexity.
 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
interdependence exist, according to simple physical laws. In
contrast, the comprehensibility of a system is a relative measure
related to the cognitive capability of the observer and the degree of
analytical description. Fig. 22 aggregates these three dimensions
into a structural framework of systems complexity [190].
6.1. Complexity and cost of variety
The effect of increase in product variants on cost and profit has
been discussed by several authors. Mather [123] described the rise
in cost as a result of complexity from increased product variants
and its effect on profit. While it is desirable to satisfy the need for
variety, it cannot be achieved at any cost. The trade-off
consideration, however, is not static since modular product and
process designs can reduce both complexity and cost. Thus, it is
important to distinguish between the effect of variety and
complexity on the final cost [158].
Variety is what the market and customers expect in the product
functions, however complexity that results from variety is related to
complexity of the product due to the large number of variants and
the resulting operational complexity as well as complexity of the
manufacturing process that is capable of effectively producing all of
these variants. Modern complex products or equipment may have
many thousands of parts and take hundreds of manufacturing and
assembly steps to be produced. The complexity increases with the
number of variants, as well as the presence of ‘‘multi-disciplinary
complexity’’ as most products and equipment now incorporate not
only mechanical and electrical components but also software,
control modules, and human–machine interfaces [61].
Computational complexity arises from the number of elements
(subsystems, components, or parts). This complexity becomes
problematic, when the number of elements (N) and solution time
grow. Different approaches may be used to deal with computa-
tional complexity such as reducing the number of elements if it is
feasible through integration within product modules. ‘‘Divide and
conquer’’ is another approach where modular rather than integral
product architecture is preferred. Modular architecture has
demonstrated advantages in dealing with complexity, cost, design
quality management, variety management, manufacturing, supply
chain, risk management, and life cycle aspects. Not only product
architecture but also production architecture (organization) can be
modular as discussed by ElMaraghy et al. [61].
Higher complexity can be very valuable, if it offers a compelling
value proposition to customers. Furthermore, delivering custo-
mized solutions does not necessarily add to complexity, it really
depends on the product design. For example, Dell succeeded in
managing myriad combinations of computers, peripherals and
software by managing the complexity with ‘‘combinatorial
assembly’’ - a mixing and matching of existing modular options
to meet customer preferences, such as screen size, disc size,
memory, etc. Hence, combinatorial assembly is among the proven
techniques in complexity management, as is ‘‘versioning,’’ or re-
packaging existing products for different contexts [75]. Schuh and
company [169] have concluded from about a hundred companies
they have analysed throughout more than 16 years, that it is useful
[(Fig._23)TD$IG]
Fig. 23. External and internal complexity due to variety [169].
645
to consider both the external and internal perspectives on variety-
induced complexity. This is illustrated in Fig. 23. The external
complexity due to the market describes the product based on
customer-desired functions, features and options. This determines
the overall number of variants that need to be taken into
consideration for the product. The central questions are related
to the product configuration and functions required by the market
and customers. The guiding principle is ‘‘As few variants as possible
and as many as necessary’’. The internal complexity or the company
view on complexity is based on evaluating the external complexity
of the range of product variants to be managed and the ability to
produce them as efficiently as possible. This is governed by the
effects of product complexity on process and production planning,
manufacturing, logistics, supply chains as well as inventories and
how well they are managed in the presence of variety. Therefore,
both external and internal aspects of variety-induced complexity
must be considered simultaneously, addressing mass customisa-
tion, while focusing attention on increasing revenue and reducing
cost. Variety-induced complexity affects the product and its
manufacture which should be considered and designed as an
interconnected system.
Schuh et al. [171] developed an integrative assessment model
considering the different variety-related dimensions of a product-
manufacturing-system (Fig. 24). It classifies product-manufacturing
systems into four domains: (I) product program (i.e. product range),
(ii) product architecture (i.e. the functions and components of the
product and their interaction), (iii) production structure (i.e. the
resources and processes applied for value creation), and (IV) the
supply chain (i.e. logistic interface to the customer). Deriving from
the superior dilemma between economies of scope and economies
of scale, in each of these domains a partial dilemma exists which is
modelled as two antagonistic dimensions per domain. For example,
the product architecture domain is dominated by the dilemma
between flexibility and commonality. In this regard the product
architecture flexibility represents the extent to which the product
can be customized to individual customer needs without violating
defined product standards while the product architecture common-
ality corresponds to the amount of standardized components built
into the product [170]. In this model each domain is represented by a
quantitative performance measure between 0 and 1 [170,171]. A
value of 1 for all eight performance measures corresponds to the
ideal state of a perfect resolution of the dilemma between scale and
scope. Wan et al. [209] investigated the impact of product variety on
operations and sales performances and showed that product variety
has both direct and indirect effects on sales. They provided some
guidelines to industrial practitioners such as: (1) ignoring the
indirect effect of product variety on sales leads to overestimating its
benefits; (2) taking advantage of the benefits of product variety
[(Fig._24)TD$IG]
Fig. 24. Integrative assessment model for product-production-systems [adapted
from [177]].
646 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
requires an overall understanding of its nonlinear impact on both
operations and sales performance; and (3) increasing product
variety may have positive impacts on sales, while excessive increase
in product variety may have negative effects.
6.2. Manufacturing ramp up and variety-induced complexity
Production ramp-up management becomes even more impor-
tant in an environment of product variety which may result in
reconfiguration of the manufacturing system. In manufacturing
the performance indicators are mostly derived from the classical
project performance measures – the ‘‘magic triangle’’ of cost,
quality, and time. These are also the important performance
measures for manufacturing and production ramp up.
Kruger et al. [105] indicated that due to shorter product life
cycles combined with higher product variety, companies are
increasingly challenged to have an effective and efficient produc-
tion ramp-up. Consequently, effective management of frequent
ramp-up is becoming a key competency of successful manufactur-
ing companies. This is particularly challenging for small and
medium size industries, where ramp-up is usually conducted
reactively from a narrow perspective. It is important for companies
to possess knowledge about the ramp-up capability of their
production systems to plan ramp-ups successfully; including those
necessitated by change of product variants and develop a holistic
approach including both reactive and proactive production ramp-
up.
Nine types of factors affecting ramp-up complexity were
identified by Surbier [192] and grouped into three main categories:
(1) knowledge and information; (2) cooperation, and (3) human
resources management. The ‘‘missing information’’ includes
problems relating to difficulties in accessing information or a lack
of information to perform a task. The ‘‘missing knowledge’’
category is rooted in a lack of knowledge, particularly in the case
of large products variants and/or complex products with multi-
disciplinary components such as mechatronic products that
include mechanical and electrical components as well as software
modules. This kind of complexity and lack of knowledge is defined
as ‘‘imaginary complexity’’ by ElMaraghy et al. [61]. The ramp-up
management includes ‘‘all activities and measures for planning,
management and implementation of start-up with the related
manufacturing systems, from the release of the pre-series, up to a
planned production, including upstream and downstream pro-
cesses in terms of measurable suitability of the product – and
process maturity’’ [105].
The essential task of ramp-up management is the target-
oriented coordination of all necessary activities to shorten the
production ramp-up phase and guarantee timely availability of the
required quantity and quality of parts and products for steady-
state production. Frequent and significant changes in product
variants affect ramp-up problems regarding parts supplies and
inventories, tools, fixtures and machines qualification for yield and
quality, manufacturing cycle time and line balancing, systems
control and integration as well as training. Industry has primarily
dealt with ramp-up issues by trial-and-error, which takes long
time up to months in case of large and complicated systems. This is
exacerbated by the extent and frequency of changes due to the
proliferation of products variants. Analytical, experimental and
holistic models are needed for effective ramp-up management to
shorten the lead time and reduce costs.
7. Strategic firm capabilities to profit from variety
The previous sections of this paper have introduced different
engineering-based methods and approached to master variety
efficiently. In this section, we will provide an economic analysis of
variety as an enabler of innovative business models, providing a
framework to distinguish three strategic capabilities that can
structure the previously discussed methods.
7.1. An economic model of variety-driven value creation
Ultimately, variety-based offering results from a firm’s demand
to offer superior customer value. In case of competition among
vendors of comparable offerings, customers will buy from the firm
that they believe offers the highest net value [40]. To determine
this net value (NV), customers compare the gross utility (GU) they
receive from it to its associated acquisition costs (AC), and search
and evaluation costs (SEC):
NV ¼ GU  ðAC þ SECÞ (2)
Acquisitions costs (AC) include the quoted price for a product,
less any discounts allowed, plus shipping charges. Customers’
main motivation to search for products is to find a lower price or a
product that better fits their needs, but this activity naturally
incurs a search and evaluation cost [19]. Search and evaluation
costs (SEC) include any monetary costs of acquiring the informa-
tion, the opportunity cost of the time devoted to searching, and the
cognitive costs determined by the customers’ ability to undertake
the search, depending on their prior knowledge, education and
training [186].
Given that customers are rational decision makers who seek to
maximize their gross utility (GU), customers only purchase a
product if they can expect a positive surplus [204]. Hence, if the
perceived benefits from an assortment with high variety exceed
the expected sacrifices of selecting and acquiring a product from
this assortment, customers are more likely to prefer this vendor.
Variety can increase perceived benefits: customers expect to
receive a product with larger fit to their individual requirements
[26,93], i.e. to reduce the compromise between their ‘‘ideal point’’
of product characteristics compared to a standard, mass produced
good [71]. But selecting from a high-variety assortment also may
increase their sacrifices in terms of a price premium demanded by
the supplier, time and effort spent, and uncertainty [187]. Applying
the previously outlined logic, a high-variety strategy potentially
creates additional value by increasing the gross utility (DGU) to the
customer but also raises both acquisition costs (DAC) and search
[(Fig._25)TD$IG] evaluation costs (DSEC) (Fig. 25a).
and
Fig. 25. (a) Effect on net value generated for customers by offering high variety, and
(b) Effect of strategic capabilities of variety-driven business models (adapted from
[80]).
 Variety, by either offering a large assortment or the possibility to
customize a product, can create greater value for the customer to
the extent that variety increases gross utility (DGU), more than it
does increase acquisition costs (DAC) and search costs (DSEC).
Evidently, many practices and principles influence these three
factors including form postponement [193], product modular-
ization [47,162], cellular manufacturing, dynamic teaming [200],
socio-technical system design [117], or system configuration
design [67]. But when variety shall be regarded as the source of a
business model that provides superior value compared to other
models, variety needs to be conceptualized at a more abstract
 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
level than practices or methods. Variety-driven business can be
best understood as a set of requisite organizational capabilities
that are generally needed by any firm wishing to create value by
offering customers an assortment of relatively larger variety
compared to their competitors [195]. In their research on mass
customization, Salvador, Piller, and colleagues developed a
framework of three strategic capabilities of an organization to
build a sustainable variety-driven business model [71,143–
145,161–163]. These three capabilities directly influence the net
value generated for customers (Fig. 25b):
 Robust process design: the capability of the manufacturer to
reuse or recombine existing resources to efficiently deliver a
stream of differentiated solutions, resulting in lower manufac-
turing cost which allows lower acquisition costs (DAC).
 Solution space development: the capability of the manufacturer to
identify customers’ idiosyncratic needs that are not addressed by
competitors and target them with appropriate offerings, thus
increasing gross utility (DGU).
 Choice navigation capability: the capability of the manufacturer to
support customers in finding the best variant while minimizing
choice complexity, thus reducing search costs (DSEC).
7.2. Robust process design
An assortment with high variety can ultimately only create
value for customers when the variants in design can be ‘‘translated
into production’’ [206] that is, they can be manufactured without
excessive price, quality and delivery penalties to the customer. As
outlined in the previous sections of this paper, this is a crucial
problem, because variability in customers’ requirements tends to
generate costs due to the need to reconfigure or dynamically
recombine different manufacturing and supply chain resources in
response to differentiated customer orders [147]. Minimizing or
even eliminating these additional costs demands a robust process
design defined as the capability to reuse or re-combine existing
manufacturing, organizational and supply chain resources to fulfil
a stream of differentiated customers’ needs. With robust process
design, high-variety solutions can be delivered with near mass
production efficiency and reliability. Hence, a successful business
model for variety is characterized by stable, but still flexible,
responsive processes that provide a dynamic flow of products
[148,163,200].
This paper has already introduced the central methods forming
this capability of robust processes: the product family and
platform approach (Section 3.2), the different concepts of planning
for variety (Section 4), and the principles of flexible manufacturing
systems (Section 5). While these concepts and approaches derive
from different streams of research and have been developed
independently, they provide – from the perspective of strategic
management – a set of practices that jointly form the strategic
capability to manufacture efficiently in high-variety environments.
7.3. Solution space development
A basic assumption for the creation of any assortment with
variety is the definition of a solution space, which is a statement of
all the possible permutations of design parameters that are offered
to prospective customers [148]. This space determines what
universe of benefits the manufacturer is willing to offer to its
customers. It is represented by the product architecture and
family, as introduced before in Section 3 of this paper. For a
traditional Engineer-To-Order strategy, such space has blurred
borders and manufacturability of admitted solutions is not certain.
In the case of mass customisation, the solution space is precisely
delimited and delivery conditions can be associated to any option
without any uncertainty relative to price, quality levels and
manufacturability.
Setting an appropriate solution space is a major challenge as it
directly affects the customers’ perception of the utility of the
647
customized product and determines the efficiency of downstream
processes in the fulfilment system [199]. To set its solution space, a
supplier must, first of all, identify the idiosyncratic needs of its
customers, specifically the product attributes along which
customer needs diverge the most. This is in stark contrast to a
mass producer which must focus on serving universal needs,
ideally shared by all the target customers. Once that information is
known and understood, the business can define its solution space,
clearly delineating what it will/will not offer.
Despite the importance of solution space development, there is
surprisingly little research in the literature on how to identify the
need areas where customers are different and, hence, where
variety matters [142]. A first option is to engage in conventional
market research [77] by surveying a group of representative
customers to obtain information on needs for new products.
However, no market research methods have been developed yet to
decompose customer heterogeneities so that a firm could under-
stand for which components of an offering people want choice, and
how much and along which spectrum choice is needed. Here, more
research in the marketing domain is needed, supplementing the
research in the engineering domain on how to represent a solution
space in modular architectures and to optimise an existing
architecture from the perspective of manufacturability and life
cycle cost.
Another option for companies in developing their solution
space is to employ some form of ‘‘customer experience intelli-
gence’’, that is, to continuously collect data on customer
transactions, behaviours, or experiences and analysing that
information to determine preferences. This also includes incorpor-
ating data not just from customers, but also from people who
might have taken their business elsewhere. Such data can be
obtained from log files generated by the browsing behaviour of
people using online configurators [145]. By systematically
analysing that information, managers can learn much about
customer preferences, ultimately leading to a refined solution
space. A company could, for instance, eliminate options that are
rarely explored or selected, and it could add more choices for the
popular components. Hence, it is important to note that solution
space development is not a one-off activity but rather a continual,
iterative improvement process [182].
7.4. Choice navigation
Lastly, a supplier of an assortment with high variety must
support customers in identifying their own needs and creating
solutions while minimizing complexity and burden of choice.
When a customer is exposed to myriad choices, the cost of
evaluating those options can easily outweigh the additional benefit
from having so many alternatives. The resulting syndrome has
been called the ‘‘paradox of choice’’ [178], in which too many
options can actually reduce customer value instead of increasing it
[86]. In such situations, customers might postpone their buying
decisions. Recent research in marketing has addressed this issue
and found that the perceived cognitive cost is one of the highest
hurdles towards a larger purchase from a high variety assortment
[44]. To avoid this, companies have to provide choice navigation
tools and systems to simplify the ways in which customers explore
their offerings.
The core method in solving this task is the application of an IT-
based configuration system. Previous research has identified
design features of these systems that provide good choice
navigation, including context-specific help functionality, recom-
mendation systems, or visualization features [70,153], and also
community functionality or design libraries by other users. Choice
navigation, however, does not just refer to preventing ‘‘complexity
of choice’’. Offering choice to customers in a meaningful way can
become a way for new profit opportunities especially in consumer
markets. Recent research has shown that up to 50% of the
additional willingness to pay for customized (consumer) products
can be explained by the positive perception of the choice process
648 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
itself [71,126,168]. While one can argue that the value delivered by
an assortment with high variety is the result of good solution space
development, it is the design of the choice navigation process that
delivers and realizes this opportunity. The rather preliminary state
of implementation of configurators in practice, as identified in
Walcher and Piller [208], indicates that there still is plenty of room
for improvement and strategic differentiation in developing
systems for choice navigation that guide customers to their
‘‘perfect’’ variant.
7.5. Relating the capabilities with each other
Recent research has confirmed that the three capability
dimensions are empirically distinguishable, emphasizing the
multidimensional nature of a variety-driven business model
[80]. Second, the three strategic capabilities are complementary,
this means that the magnitude of the effect of overall variety
capability is greater than the sum of marginal effects from
developing each capability individually [130]. Unfortunately,
transforming an existing business along all three dimensions is
difficult [160]. The core problem associated with the implementa-
tion of sustainable business models leveraging variety is that the
changes associated with the development of the three capabilities
are pervasive and are opposed by powerful inertial forces. In order
to keep up with its market for lawn tractors which had been
evolving towards greater fragmentation, John Deere began to offer
more and more product variety, but that resulted in a proliferation
of parts and processes. Divisional managers were aware of this and
knew that they could save millions of dollars by simplifying their
product platforms. Yet it took years to implement the needed
changes, as this required overhauling accounting and performance
measurement systems, product development as well as manu-
facturing and supply chain processes. John Deere learned that
these changes had to be done simultaneously, because variety
capabilities relate to all the major areas of the value chain. At the
same time, however, these challenges also provide a strong source
of competitive advantage for managers who master the task to
establish the strategic capabilities of a variety-based business
model.
8. Discussion and conclusions
This keynote paper concerns the most important issues related
to product variety and its management. Competitiveness of
companies is mostly driven by customer satisfaction that most
often induces variety and complexity throughout the product life-
cycle. Increased demand for customized and personalized products
caused a large growth in the number of companies filling these
demands and hence leading to more competition amongst them
and better value to consumers. Therefore, it is strategic for
companies to adapt their organization and practices in order to
effectively manage variety throughout the product development
processes even if many internal and external factors are impacted
by variety. Families, platforms, architectures are essential concepts
in designing, planning and producing for variety as product
variants evolve over time. While increasing commonality and
integration is proven to decrease design and manufacturing cost,
differentiation and modularity have to be considered for enhan-
cing customer satisfaction. The balance between these opposing
criteria provides the ideal product choices and optimum product
architecture designed for ease of variety generation. Variety
induces additional complexities in products and systems which
must be carefully measured and managed to keep cost of variety
down.
Variety management has to consider the product range, the
product architectures as well as the manufacturing system and the
supply chain in a holistic and integrated manner. Variety
management has to be considered in three dimensions: (1) Scope,
to cover different market segments, (2) Scale, to produce in
response to fluctuating demand ranging from a one variant unit as
easily as a high demand of that variant, and (3) Time, so companies
can sustain the evolution of their line of products and its variants.
Design for variety is also a major approach in order to integrate
and control all complexity aspects during both product and process
design stages. With robust process design, high-variety solutions
can be delivered with near mass production efficiency and
reliability. Hence, a successful business model for variety is
characterized by stable, but still flexible, responsive processes that
provide a dynamic flow of product variants.
The ultimate goal of design and manufacturing is to meet
customers’ needs within budget and lead time constraints. Having
the right combination of product variety, built on top of a common
set of modules and product platforms, and maintaining a high
degree of commonality at different levels of product structure
represent some of the most important keys to achieving this
ultimate goal. To this end, the management of product variety has
to encompass the entire product life cycle. The efficient generation
and adaptation of process and production plans for variety is an
important enabler for effective variety management
Manufacturing systems have additional capabilities for flexible
reconfiguration and adaptation, depending on product families
and variants, in order to target reasonable costs and reasonable
delays. With the advent of information technology, the flexibility
of manufacturing systems has increased dramatically in recent
years, spanning from product design, work, organization, and
information systems, all the way to the tools, fixtures, layout, and
supply chain logistics. With increasing flexibility, the possibility of
product variety has grown in the order of magnitude of
combinatorial explosion. Armed with flexibility and changeability,
modern manufacturing has the capability to create wide range of
product variety. However, without proper product variety
management, the benefit of creating value towards human needs
will not be substantiated. On the other hand, there is a growing
trend of diversification of human needs from consumer goods to
infrastructural equipment. The product requirement diverges not
only because of freedom of expression globally, but also the need to
be more precisely differentiated to target the needs to enhance
satisfaction, to avoid the environmental cost and to meet the
society rules and regulations.
Finally, products modularity allowed companies to protect its
most valuable intellectual property by limiting them to few
modules to be manufactured in-house while, when necessary, sub-
contracting the manufacture of other less sensitive product
modules. This has also had an effect on the migration of jobs
from high cost manufacturing countries to other less developed
regions in the world and raising their standard of living and know-
how.
But much further progress is still needed in order to provide
companies with a real integrated approach for managing variety
and the corresponding adequate tools.
9. Perspectives on future research
As seen in this keynote, it is always strategic to satisfy the
customers. As customer needs change, companies have to move
forward in order to become more self-adaptive and reactive to
market changes, but not at any cost. They need new models,
methods and tools to effectively face these new challenges. Future
research trends to support this important field continue to evolve.
However, many topics have been highlighted and are summarized
in point form as follows:
 Relating customers’ needs with product variety is one of the
important research issues to be tackled. Connecting marketing
with design and manufacturing becomes an important issue.
Currently, one of key approaches to link customers’ needs to
production systems is through configuration tools, design by
customers, and Bayesian probability networks etc. These
approaches open up many new avenues to tackle the very
critical area of product variety management.
 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
 Better decision support tools are needed to help manufacturers
define the trade-off between production scope and scale – the
objective is to adopt economy of scope principles while achieving
economy of scale benefits and facilitate offering variety cost
effectively.
 There still is significant room for improvement and strategic
differentiation in developing systems for products configuration
and customers’ choice navigation that guide customers to their
‘‘ideal variant’’ and suppliers to their ‘‘ideal variants scope’’.
 Understanding customers’ value in the face of wide range of
products attributes and possibilities remains a challenging issue
for manufacturing industry and needs more in-depth models and
tools.
 Defining the optimum variety level remains a challenge for many
enterprises. Models and tools are needed to ensure that they
identify the optimal set of products variants and adopt the right
variant-oriented business models which maximize consumer’s
value as well as their own shareholders value.
 Manufacturing systems should be designed to be flexible,
changeable and reconfigurable to achieve both economic scope
and scale and to enable smooth adaptation to dynamic change,
and increase productivity when producing increased product
variants.
 The need for developing new manufacturing processes that
require very small fixed cost and short setup time such as
additive manufacturing becomes more urgent as the demand for
personalized, extremely high variety low volume products
escalates. Similarly, manufacturing systems that cater to highly
customized and personalized products including after sale
customization are needed.
 The concept of ‘‘manufacturing process platforms’’ should be
better explored with the objective of developing methods to
integrate the design of modular products platforms with
modular manufacturing processes platforms to ensure robust,
integrated and economically sustainable product and manufac-
turing process design and implementation.
 There is a need to improve communication among different stake
holders in product life cycle to link commonality assessment to
the structure of product architecture, and modularity assessment
with commonality index or a closed form relationship to
redesign and assess families of products.
 Integrating DFV with other DFXs methodologies to balance
conflicting rules, e.g. less parts count and more integration in
DFMA versus more part count and modularity in DFV.
 Integrating principles of DFV with manufacturing systems
synthesis and design to develop process platforms for common
modules, flexible systems for similar modules, and reconfigur-
able systems for different modules.
 Variety in a network of connected companies is another
interesting point for future research: how to manage variety
across company borders, starting with managing variety in an
open innovation process, and service variety and product-service
systems.
 Economical, social and environmental sustainability is a major
goal for companies as they face new challenges. The influence of
increasing product variety, with its inherent focus on increasing
demand and consumption, but also with its abilities to leverage
products that are more fit to their purpose, on the possibilities of
achieving a sustainable society should be investigated. As an
example, product variety introduces many new challenges in
recycling and remanufacturing. Models and methods for including
product commonality in environmentally sustainable manufac-
turing analyses and assessments are important to develop.
Acknowledgements
The support and able assistance by Dr. T. AlGeddawy (3) and Dr. S.
Badrous at the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) Centre,
University of Windsor, Canada throughout the preparation and
organization of this keynote paper, and the assistance by Dr. J.
649
Arnoscht and Mr. A. Bohl, of WZL Institute, RWTH Aachen, Germany,
in the preparation of some sections, are greatly acknowledged.
References
[1] Al-Zaher A, Pasek ZJ, ElMaraghy W (2012) RMS Design Methodology for
Automotive Framing Systems BIW. Proceedings of the 4th CIRP Conference on
Assembly Technologies and Systems, Michigan, USA.
[2] Akillioglu H, Onori M (2011) Evolvable Production Systems and Impacts on
Production Planning. 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and
Manufacturing (ISAM 2011), 25–27 May 2011, Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE.
[3] Alderson W (2006) Marketing Efficiency and the Principle of Postponement.
in Wooliscroft B, Tamilia RD, Shapiro SJ, (Eds.) A Twenty-First Century Guide to
Aldersonian Marketing Thought, Springer, US109–113.
[4] Alexopoulos K, Makris S, Xanthakis V, Chryssolouris G (2011) A Web-Services
Oriented Workflow Management System For Integrated Digital Production
Engineering. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 4(3):290–295.
[5] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H (2008) Assembly System Design For Delayed
Product Differentiation. 2nd CIRP Conference on Assembly Technologies and
Systems, Toronto, Canada.
[6] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H (2009) Assembly Systems Layout Design Model
For Delayed Products Differentiation. International Journal of Production
Research 48(18):5281–5305.
[7] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H (2010) Co-evolution Hypotheses and Model
For Manufacturing Planning. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 59(1):
445–448.
[8] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H (2011) Design of Single Assembly Line for the
Delayed Differentiation of Product Variants. Flexible Services and Manufactur-
ing Journal 22(3):163–182.
[9] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H (2011) A Model for Co-Evolution in Manufactur-
ing Based on Biological Analogy. International Journal of Production Research
49(15):4415–4435.
[10] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H (2011) Product Variety Management in Design
and Manufacturing: Challenges and Strategies. Proceeding of the 4th Interna-
tional Conference on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual Production
(CARV2011), Montreal, Canada.
[11] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H (2013) Reactive Design Methodology for Product
Family Platforms, Modularity and Parts Integration. CIRP Journal of Manu-
facturing Science and Technology 6(1):34–43.
[12] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H (2013) Optimum Granularity Level of Modular
Product Design Architecture. CIRP Annals 62(1). (p. submitted).
[13] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H (2013) Determining Granularity Level in Product
Design Architecture. 23rd CIRP Design Conference, Smart Product Engineering
2013, Bochum, Germany.
[14] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy W (2012) A Co-evolution Model for Prediction and
Synthesis of New Products and Manufacturing Systems. Journal of Mechanical
Design. (Online).
[15] Alizon F, Shooter SB, Simpson TW (2007) Improving an Existing Product
Family Based on Commonality/Diversity, Modularity, and Cost. Design Studies
28(4):387–409.
[16] Altshuller G (1973) The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ. Systematic Innovation,
and Technical Creativity, Technical Innovation Ctr..
[17] Ameri F, Dutta D (2005) Product Lifecycle Management: Closing The Knowl-
edge Loops. Computer-Aided Design and Applications 2(5):577–590.
[18] Anand KS, Girotra K (2007) The Strategic Perils of Delayed Differentiation.
Management Science 53(5):697–712.
[19] Anderson SP, Renault R (1999) Pricing, Product Diversity, and Search Costs: A
Bertrand-Chamberlin-Diamond model. The Rand Journal of Economics
(Washington) 30(4):719–735.
[20] Anderson W (1950) Making Efficiency and the Principle of Postponement.
Cost and Profit Outlook 3(Septemper):15–18.
[21] APICS (2010) in Blackstone JH, (Ed.) Dictionary 13th Edition: Advance Your
Career with an Industry-Savvy Vocabulary, APICS The Association for Opera-
tions Management.
[22] Azab A, ElMaraghy H, Samy S (2009) in ElMaraghy H, (Ed.) Reconfiguring
Process Plans: A New Approach to Minimize Change, in Changeable and Recon-
figurable Manufacturing Systems, Springer, London179–194.
[23] Azab A, ElMaraghy H (2007) Mathematical Modeling For Reconfigurable
Process Planning. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 56(1):467–472.
[24] Azab A, Samy S, ElMaraghy H (2008) Modeling and Optimization in Assembly
Planning. Proc. 2nd CIRP Conf. on Assembly Technologies & Systems, Toronto,
CanadaCATS..
[25] Babic B (1999) Axiomatic Design of Flexible Manufacturing Systems. Inter-
national Journal of Production Research 37(5):1159–1173.
[26] Baldwin C, Clark K (1997) Managing in An Age of Modularity. Harvard
Business Review 75(September–October):84–93.
[27] Benjaafar S, Joon-Seok K, Vishwanadham N (2004) On the Effect of Product
Variety in Production-Inventory Systems. Annals of Operations Research
126:71–101.
[28] Blecker T, Abdelkafi N (2007) The Development Of A Component Common-
ality Metric For Mass Customization. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man-
agement 54(1):70–85.
[29] Boothroyd GDP (1989) Product Design For Assembly, 3rd ed. Boothroyd
Dewhurst, Wakefield, RI. (134 pp. in various pagings).
[30] Bucklin LP (1965) Postponement, Speculation and Structure of Distribution
Channels. Journal of Marketing Research 2(February):26–32.
[31] Carpanzano E, Ballarino A, Jovane F (2007) Towards the New Mass Custo-
misation and Personalisation Paradigm: Needed Next Generation Manufac-
turing Technologies. Proceedings of the 40th CIRP International Manufacturing
Systems Seminar.
650 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
[32] Chandra C (2004) Knowledge Management For Consumer-Focused Product
Design. Proceedings of the World Automation Congress, 28 June–1 July 2004,
Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE.
[33] Christophe F, Bernard A, Coatanea E (2010) RFBS: A Model For Knowledge
Representation of Conceptual Design. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology
59(1):155–158.
[34] Christophe F, Sell R, Bernard A, Coatanea E (2009) OPAS: Ontology Processing
for Assisted Synthesis of Conceptual Design Solutions. ASME 2009 Interna-
tional Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information
in Engineering Conference, IDETC/CIE2009, August 30, 2009–September 2009,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, San Diego, CA, United states.
[35] Chryssolouris G (2006) Manufacturing Systems: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
[36] Co HC (2001) Managing Flexible Manufacturing Technology: Must Parts in an
FMS Always Move in a Job-Shop Manner? International Journal of Production
Research 39(13):2851–2866.
[37] Cooper JC (1993) Logistics strategies for global business. International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 23:12–23.
[38] Daaboul J, Da Cunha C, Bernard A, Laroche F (2011) Design For Mass
Customization: Product Variety vs. Process Variety. CIRP Annals – Manufac-
turing Technology 60(1):169–174.
[39] Dapiran P (1992) Benetton – Global Logistics in Action. International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 22(6):7–11.
[40] Day GS, Wensley R (1988) Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing
Competitive Superiority. The Journal of Marketing 52(2):1–20.
[41] De Groote X, Yucesan E (2011) The Impact of Product Variety on Logistics
Performance. 2011 Winter Simulation Conference, WSC 2011, December 11–14,
2011, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Phoenix, AZ, United
states.
[42] De Lit P, Delchambre A (2003) Integrated Design of a Product Family and its
Assembly System, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
[43] Deif A, ElMaraghy H (2007) Assessing Capacity Scalability Policies in RMS
Using System Dynamics. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Sys-
tems 19(3):128–150.
[44] Dellaert BGC, Stremersch S (2005) Marketing Mass Customized Products:
Striking a Balance Between Utility and Complexity. Journal of Marketing
Research 42(2):219–227.
[45] Desai A, Mital A (2006) Design for Maintenance: Basic Concepts and Review
of Literature. International Journal of Product Development 3(1):77–121.
[46] Du X, Jiao J, Tseng MM (2001) Architecture of Product Family: Fundamentals
and Methodology. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications 9(4):309–
325.
[47] Duray R, Ward PT, Milligan GW, Berry WL (2000) Approaches to Mass
Customization: Configurations and Empirical Validation. Journal of Operations
Management 18(6):605–625.
[48] Eguia I, Lozano S, Racero J, Guerrero F (2011) A Methodological Approach for
Designing and Sequencing Product Families in Reconfigurable Disassembly
Systems. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 4(3):418–435.
[49] ElMaraghy H (2005) Flexible and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems
Paradigms. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems
17(4):261–276.
[50] ElMaraghy H (2006) Reconfigurable Process Plans for Reconfigurable Man-
ufacturing. Proceedings of DET2006, CIRP International Conference on Digital
Enterprise Technology.
[51] ElMaraghy H (2007) in Cunha F, Maropoulos G, (Eds.) Reconfigurable Process
Plans for Responsive Manufacturing Systems, in Digital Enterprise Technology:
Perspectives & Future Challenges, Springer Science, pp. 35–44.
[52] ElMaraghy H (2009) Changing and Evolving Products and Systems – Models
and Enablers, in Changeable and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems. in
Editor H, (Ed.) ElMaraghy, Springer-Verlag, London25–45.
[53] ElMaraghy H, AlGeddawy T (2012) New Dependency Model and Biological
Analogy for Integrating Product Design for Variety With Market Require-
ments. Journal of Engineering Design 23(10–11):719–742.
[54] ElMaraghy H, AlGeddawy T, Azab A (2008) Modelling Evolution in Manu-
facturing: A Biological Analogy. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology
57(1):467–472.
[55] ElMaraghy H, AlGeddawy T, Azab A, ElMaraghy W (2011) Change in Man-
ufacturing – Research and Industrial Challenges. 4th International Conference
on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual Production (CARV2011), Mon-
treal, Canada: Springer.
[56] ElMaraghy H, Azab A, Schuh G, Pulz C (2009) Managing Variations in
Products, Processes and Manufacturing Systems. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology 58(1):441–446.
[57] ElMaraghy H, Wiendahl H-P (2009) in ElMaraghy H, (Ed.) Changeability – An
Introduction, in Changeable and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems,
Springer-Verlag, London3–24.
[58] ElMaraghy H (1993) Evolution and Future Perspectives of CAPP. CIRP Annals –
Manufacturing Technology 42(2):739–751.
[59] ElMaraghy H (2006) Reconfigurable Process Plans For Responsive Manufac-
turing Systems. Keynote Paper Proceedings of the CIRP International Design
Enterprise Technology (DET) Conference, Portugal.
[60] ElMaraghy H, Mahmoudi N (2009) Concurrent Design of Product Modules
Structure and Global Supply Chain Configurations. International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing 22(6):483–493.
[61] ElMaraghy W, ElMaraghy H, Tomiyama T, Monostori L (2012) Complexity in
Engineering Design and Manufacturing. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Tech-
nology 61:793–814.
[62] Eppinger SD, Browning TR (2012) Design Structure Matrix Methods and
Applications Engineering Systems, vol. xii. Mass: MIT Press, Cambridge 334.
[63] Erens F, Verhulst K (1997) Architectures for Product Families. Computers in
Industry 33(2–3):165–178.
[64] Eun Suk S, de Week O, Il Yong K, Chang D (2007) Flexible Platform Component
Design Under Uncertainty. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 18(1):115–
126.
[65] Feitzinger E, Lee HL (1997) Mass Customization at Hewlett-Packard: the
Power Of Postponement. Harvard Business Review 75(1):116.
[66] Fixson SK, Park J-K (2008) The Power of Integrality: Linkages Between
Product Architecture, Innovation, and Industry Structure. Research Policy
37(8):1296–1316.
[67] Forza C, Salvador F (2006) Product Information Management for Mass Custo-
mization: Connecting Customer, Front-office and Back-office for Fast and Efficient
Customization, Palgrave Macmillan.
[68] Forza C, Salvador F (2008) Application Support to Product Variety Manage-
ment. International Journal of Production Research 46(3):817–836.
[69] Forza C, Salvador F, Trentin A (2008) Form Postponement Effects on Opera-
tional Performance: A Typological Theory. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 28(11):1067–1094.
[70] Franke N, Keinz P, Steger CJ (2009) Testing the Value of Customization: When
Do Customers Really Prefer Products Tailored to Their Preferences? Journal of
Marketing 73(5):103–121.
[71] Franke N, Piller F (2004) Value Creation by Toolkits for User Innovation and
Design: The Case of the Watch Market. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment 21(6):401–415.
[72] Fujita K (2002) Product Variety Optimization Under Modular Architecture.
Computer Aided Design 34(12):953–965.
[73] Fujita K, Yoshida H (2004) Product Variety Optimization Simultaneously
Designing Module Combination and Module Attributes. Concurrent Engineer-
ing Research and Applications 12(2):105–118.
[74] Galsworth GD (1994) Smart, Simple Design, Omneo, Essex Junction, Vermont:
Oliver Wight Publications, Vermont, USA.
[75] George Group (2006) Unravelling Complexity in Products and Services, Special
report by the Wharton School of Business, Pennsylvania University: 15.
[76] Gourville JT, Soman D (2005) Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and
Why Variety Backfires. Marketing Science 24(3):382–395.
[77] Griffin A, Hauser JR (1993) The Voice of the Customer. Marketing Science
12(1):1–27.
[78] Hallerbach A, Bauer T, Reichert M (2008) Managing Process Variants in the
Process Life Cycle. Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information
Systems. Information Systems Analysis and Specification, 12–16 June 2008,
INSTICC Press, Setubal, Portugal.
[79] Halman JIM, Hofer AP, Van Vuuren W (2003) Platform-Driven Development
of Product Families: Linking Theory With Practice. Journal of Product Innova-
tion Management 20(2):149–162.
[80] Harzer T, Ihl C, Piller F, Salvador F (2012) Complementarities in Mass Custo-
mization. Working Paper, MIT Smart Customization Group, Cambridge, MA..
[81] Haydaya P, Marchildon P (2012) Understanding Product Lifecycle Manage-
ment and Supporting Systems. Industrial Management and Data Systems
112(4):559–583.
[82] Hölttä-Otto K (2005) Modular Product Platform Design, Helsinki University of
Technology, Espoo.
[83] Hu SJ, Ko J, Weyand L, ElMaraghy H, Lien TK, Koren Y, Bley H, Chryssolouris G,
Nasr N, Shpitalni M (2011) Assembly System Design and Operations for
Product Variety. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 60(2):715–733.
[84] Hu SJ, Zhu X, Wang H, Koren Y (2008) Product Variety and Manufacturing
Complexity in Assembly Systems and Supply Chains. CIRP Annals – Manu-
facturing Technology 57(1):45–48.
[85] Huangao Z, Wenyan Z, Jianhui Z, Guoping L, Runhua T (2006) An Approach on
Optimization, Upgrade, Renewal of Product Platform. 2006 IEEE International
Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, 21–23 June 2006,
Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE.
[86] Huffman C, Kahn BE (1998) Variety For Sale: Mass Customization Or Mass
Confusion? Journal of Retailing 74(4):491–513.
[87] Hui C, Folan P (2012) Product Life Cycle: The Evolution of a Paradigm and
Literature Review from 1950–2009. Production Planning and Control
23(8):641–662.
[88] iFactory, http://www.uwindsor.ca/imsc/laboratories, 2012.
[89] Iravani SMR, Luangkesorn KL, Simchi-Levi D (2003) On Assemble-To-Order
Systems With Flexible Customers. IIE Transactions (Institute of Industrial
Engineers) 35(5):389–403.
[90] Ismail MA, ElMaraghy H (2009) Progressive Modeling-an Enabler of Dynamic
Changes in Production Planning. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology
58(1):407–412.
[91] Jacobs M, Vickory SK, Droge C (2009) The Effects of Product Modularity on
Competitive Performance. Do integration Strategies Mediate The Relation-
ship? International Journal of Operations & Production Management
27(10):1046–1068.
[92] Jianxin J, Tseng MM (1999) A Methodology Of Developing Product Family
Architecture For Mass Customization. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
10(1):3–20.
[93] Jianxin J, Tseng MM (2000) Fundamentals of Product Family Architecture.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems 11(7):469–483.
[94] Jianxin J, Tseng MM (2004) Customizability Analysis in Design For Mass
Customization. Computer Aided Design 36(8):745–757.
[95] Jianxin J, Tseng MM, Duffy VG, Fuhua L (1998) Product Family Modeling For
Mass Customization. 22nd International Conference on Computers and Indus-
trial Engineering. ICC& IE, Elsevier, UK.
[96] Jiao J, Tseng MM, Ma Q, Zou Y (2000) Generic Bill-of-Materials-and-Opera-
tions For High-Variety Production Management. Concurrent Engineering
Research and Applications 8(4):297–321.
[97] Jiao J, Zhang L, Pokharel S (2007) Process Platform Planning for Variety
Coordination From Design to Production in Mass Customization Manufactur-
ing. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 54(1):112–129.
 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
[98] Johnson JH (2008) Science and Policy in Designing Complex Futures. Journal
of Futures 40:520–536.
[99] Johnson PR (2003) The Challenge of Complexity in Global Manufacturing.
Critical Trends in Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Practice 5(3):
54–67.
[100] Jose A, Tollenaere M (2005) Modular and Platform Methods For Product
Family Design: Literature Analysis. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
16(3):371–390.
[101] Kamoda H, Hotta T, Nakatsuka N, Sugawa S (2006) A Novel Production
System For Wide-Variety-Small-Volume Production – Modular Structure
and Production Platform Hierarchy. Int. Conf. on Management of Innovation
and TechnologyICMIT 2006, Singapore.
[102] Kano N, Seraku N, Takahashi F, Tsuji S (1984) Attractive Quality and Must-Be
Quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control 14(2):39–48.
[103] Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritschow G, Ulsoy G, Van Brussel H
(1999) Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology 48(2):527–540.
[104] Krishnamurthy A, Suri R (2009) Planning and Implementing POLCA: A Card-
Based Control System for High Variety or Custom Engineered Products.
Production Planning and Control 20(7):596–610.
[105] Kruger C, Klemke T, Heins M, Nyhuis P (2010) Development of a Methodology
to Assess The Capability of Production Ramp-Up. 2010 World Congress on
Engineering and Computer Science (WCECS 2010), 20–22 Oct. 2010, Newswood
Limited, Hong Kong, China.
[106] Kumar A (2004) Mass Customization: Metrics and Modularity. International
Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 16:287–311. (4 SPEC. ISS.).
[107] Kumar D, Wei C, Simpson T (2009) A Market-Driven Approach to Product
Family Design. International Journal of Production Research 47(1):71–104.
[108] Kuo T-C, Huang SH, Zhang H-C (2001) Design for Manufacture and Design for
‘X’: Concepts, Applications, and Perspectives. Computers and Industrial Engi-
neering 41(3):241–260.
[109] Le Duigou J, Bernard A, Perry N (2011) Framework for Product Lifecycle
Management integration in small and medium enterprises networks. Com-
puter-Aided Design and Applications 8(4):531–544.
[110] Le Duigou J, Bernard A, Perry N, Delplace JC (2009) Global Approach for
Technical Data Management. Application to Ship Equipment Part Families.
CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 1(3):185–190.
[111] Le Duigou J, Bernard A, Perry N, Delplace JC (2012) Generic PLM system for
SMEs: Application to an Equipment Manufacturer. International Journal of
Product Lifecycle Management 6(1):51–64.
[112] Lee HL, Billington C, Carter B (1993) Hewlett Packard Gains Control of
Inventory and Service Through Design For Localization. Interfaces 23(4):
1–11.
[113] Lee L, Tang C (1997) Modelling the Costs and Benefits of Delayed Product
Differentiation. Management Science 43(1):40–53.
[114] Li B, Wu F (2011) Analyzing the Variety of Customer Needs for Product Family
Design by Integrating Conjoint Analysis And Quality Function Deployment.
2nd Int. Conf. on Digital Manufacturing and Automation, ICDMA 2011, Zhang-
jiajie, China.
[115] Liang-Hsuan C, Shu-Yi L (2001) Investigating Resource Utilization and Pro-
duct Competence to Improve Production Management. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 21(9):1180–1194.
[116] Liu E, Hsiao S-W (2006) ANP-GP Approach For Product Variety Design. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 29(3):216–225.
[117] Liu G, Shah R, Schroeder RG (2006) Linking Work Design To Mass Customiza-
tion: A Sociotechnical Systems Perspective. Decision Sciences 37(4):519–545.
[118] Lu SCY, Elmaraghy W, Schuh G, Wilhelm R (2007) A Scientific Foundation Of
Collaborative Engineering. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 56(2):
605–634.
[119] MacDuffie JP, Sethuraman K, Fisher ML (1996) Product Variety and Manu-
facturing Performance: Evidence From The International Automotive Assem-
bly Plant Study. Management Science 42(3):350–369.
[120] Maier-Speredelozzi V, Koren Y, Hu SJ (2003) Convertibility Measures
For Manufacturing Systems. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 52(1):
367–370.
[121] Markus A, Vancza J (1998) Product Line Development With Customer Inter-
action. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 47(1):361–364.
[122] Martin MV, Ishii K (2000) Design For Variety: A Methology For Developing
Product Platform Architectures. in ASME Design Theory and Methodology
Conference, Baltimore.
[123] Mather H (1988) Competitive Manufacturing, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J..
[124] McCarthy IP (2004) Special Issue Editorial: The What, Why and How of Mass
Customization. Production Planning and Control 15:347–351. (Compendex).
[125] Meier H, Roy R, Seliger G (2010) Industrial Product-Service Systems-IPS2.
CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 59(2):607–627.
[126] Merle A, Chandon JL, Roux E, Alizon F (2010) Perceived Value of the Mass-
Customized Product and Mass Customization Experience For Individual
Consumers. Production and Operations Management 19(5):503–514.
[127] Meyer MH (1997) Revitalize Your Product Lines Through Continuous Plat-
form Renewal. Research Technology Management 40(2):17–28.
[128] Michalos G, Makris S, Mourtzis D (2011) A Web Based Tool For Dynamic Job
Rotation Scheduling Using Multiple Criteria. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology 60(1):453–456.
[129] Michalos G, Makris S, Papakostas N, Chryssolouris G (2011) A Framework For
Enabling Flexibility Quantification In Modern Manufacturing System Design
Approaches. 44th CIRP International Conference on Manufacturing Systems,
Madison, USA.
[130] Milgron P, Roberts J (1990) The Economics of Modern Manufacturing:
Technology, Strategy, and Organization. The American Economic Review
(Evanston) 80(03):511–528.
651
[131] Moon Y, Kota S (2002) Design of Reconfigurable Machine Tools. Transactions
of the ASME 124:480–488.
[132] Moriwaki T (2008) Multi-Functional Machine Tool. CIRP Annals – Manufac-
turing Technology 57(2):736–749.
[133] Mourtzis D, Doukas M, Psarommatis F (2012) A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of
Centralized and Decentralized Production Networks in a Highly Customer-
Driven Environment. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 61(1):427–430.
[134] Mourtzis D, Papakostas N, Makris S, Xanthakis V, Chryssolouris G (2008)
Supply Chain Modeling and Control For Producing Highly Customized Pro-
ducts. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 57(1):451–454.
[135] Nanda J, Thevenot HJ, Simpson TW, Stone RB, Bohm M, Shooter SB (2007)
Product Family Design Knowledge Representation, Aggregation, Reuse, and
Analysis. (AI EDAM) Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and
Manufacturing 21(2):173–192.
[136] Narasimhamurthy S, Muni DP (2009) A Computational Framework For
Learning Production Planning Policies. IEEE International Conference on Indus-
trial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEM 2009, December 8–11
2009, IEEE Computer Society, Hong Kong, China.
[137] Newman ST, Nassehi A (2009) Machine Tool Capability Profile For Intelligent
Process Planning. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 58(1):421–424.
[138] Nonaka Y, Erdos G, Kis T, Nakano T, Vancza J (2012) Scheduling with
alternative routings in CNC workshops. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technol-
ogy 61(1):449–454.
[139] Opitz H (1970) A Classification System To Describe Workpieces 1–2, Pergamon,
Oxford. 2 bd.
[140] Pagh JD, Cooper M (1998) Supply Chain Postponement and Speculation
Strategies: How to Choose The Right Strategy. Journal of Business Logistics
19(2):13–33.
[141] Pierre De L, Danloy J, Delchambre A, Henrioud JM (2003) An Assembly-
Oriented Product Family Representation For Integrated Design. IEEE Transac-
tions on Robotics and Automation 19(1):75–88.
[142] Piller F (2004) Mass Customization: Reflections on the State of the Concept.
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 16(4):313–334.
[143] Piller F (2008) in Wankel C, (Ed.) Mass Customization, In 21st Century
Management: A Reference Handbook, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles,
CA420–430.
[144] Piller F, Salvador F (2013) Design Toolkits, Organizational Capabilities, and
Firm Performance. in Harhoff D, Lakhani K, (Eds.) Revolutionizing Innovation:
Users, Communities, and Open Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[145] Piller FT, Moeslein K, Stotko CM (2004) Does Mass Customization Pay? An
Economic Approach To Evaluate Customer Integration. Production Planning &
Control 15(4):435–444.
[146] Piller FT, Tseng MM (2010) Handbook of Research in Mass Customization and
Personalization, vol. 2. World Scientific, New Jersey 1122.
[147] Pine I BJ, Victor B, Boynton AC (1993) Making Mass Customization Work.
Harvard Business Review 71(5):108.
[148] Pine J, Davis S (1993) Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business
Competition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
[149] Qin Y, Wei G (2012) Product Configuration Flow From Obtaining Customer
Requirement to Providing the Final Customized Product. Journal of Software
7(2):308–315.
[150] Queudeville Y, Ivanov T, Nubaum C, Vroomen U, Buhrig-Polaczek A (2009)
Decision and design methodologies for the lay-out of modular dies for high-
pressure-die-cast-processes. 4th International Conference Organised by the
CAST CRC, on Behalf of the Global Light Metals Alliance, June 29–July 1,
2009 Gold Coast, QLD, Australia: Trans Tech Publications Ltd.
[151] Rajagopalan S, Xia N (2012) Product Variety, Pricing and Differentiation in a
Supply Chain. European Journal of Operational Research 217(1):84–93.
[152] Ramdas K (1995) Using Parts Sharing To Manage Product Variety: A Study In The
Automobile Industry, University of Pennsylvania, United States, Pennsylvania.
p. 126.
[153] Randall T, Terwiesch C, Ulrich KT (2005) Principles For User Design Of
Customized Products. California Management Review California Management
Review 47(4):68–85.
[154] Reichhart A, Framinan JM, Holweg M (2008) On the Link Between Inventory
and Responsiveness in Multi-Product Supply Chains. Production Coordination
and Inventory Policies, 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Taylor and Francis
Ltd., Oxfordshire, OX14 4RN, United Kingdom.
[155] Ren CR, Hu Y, Hu Y, Hausman J (2011) Managing Product Variety and
Collocation in a Competitive Environment: An Empirical Investigation of
Consumer Electronics Retailing. Management Science 57(6):1009–1024.
[156] Rizzi C, Regazzoni D (2006) Systematic Innovation in the Management of
Product Variants. The Proceeding of 16th CIRP International Design Seminar,
Design & Innovation for Sustainable Society, Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada.
[157] Robertson D, Ulrich K (1998) Planning for Product Platforms. Sloan Manage-
ment Review 39(4):19–31.
[158] Roy R, Evans R, Low MJ, Williams DK (2011) Addressing the Impact of High
Levels of Product Variety on Complexity in Design and Manufacture, SAGE
Publications Ltd., United Kingdom. (55 City Road, London, EC1Y 1SP).
[159] Sakai T, Takata S (2012) Reconfiguration Management Of Remanufactured
Products For Responding To Varied User Needs. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology 61(1):21–26.
[160] Salvador F, De Holan PM, Piller F (2009) Cracking The Code Of Mass Custo-
mization. MIT Sloan Management Review 50(3):71–78.
[161] Salvador F, Forza C (2007) Principles for Efficient and Effective Sales Config-
uration Design. International Journal of Mass Customisation 2(1/2):114–127.
[162] Salvador F, Forza C, Rungtusanatham M (2002) Modularity, Product Variety,
Production Volume, and Component Sourcing: Theorizing Beyond Generic
Prescriptions. Journal of operations management 20(5):549–575.
[163] Salvador F, Rungtusanatham M, Forza C (2004) Supply-Chain Configurations
for Mass Customization. Production Planning & Control 15(4):381–397.
652 H. ElMaraghy et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013) 629–652
[164] Schönsleben P (2009) Changeability of Strategic and Tactical Production
Concepts. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 58(1):383–386.
[165] Schönsleben P (2012) Integral Logistics Management: Operations and Supply
Chain Management Within and Across Companies, Boca Raton, FL, Auerbach.
[166] Schönsleben P (2012) Methods and Tools That Support a Fast and Efficient
Design-To-Order Process for Parameterized Product Families. CIRP Annals –
Manufacturing Technology 61(1):179–182.
[167] Schönsleben P, Leuzinger R (1996) Innovative Gestaltung von Versicherung-
sprodukten: Flexible Industriekonzepte in der Assekuranz, Wiesbaden, Gabler.
[168] Schreier M (2006) The Value Increment Of Mass-Customized Products: An
Empirical Assessment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5(4):317–327.
[169] Schuh and Company. Complexity Manager-How to escape the Variant jungle
2012; Available from: www.schuhgroup.com/en/images/stories/Dateien/
Brochure Complexity Manager pdf.
[170] Schuh G, Arnoscht J, Bohl A, Kupke D, Nubaum C, Quick J, Vorspel-Ruter M
(2011) Assessment of the Scale-Scope Dilemma In Production Systems: An
Integrative Approach. Production Engineering 5(4):341–350.
[171] Schuh G, Arnoscht J, Bohl A, Nussbaum C (2011) Integrative Assessment and
Configuration of Production Systems. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology
60(1):457–460.
[172] Schuh G, Brosze T, Kompa S, Meier C (2012) in ElMaraghy HA, (Ed.) Real-time
Capable Production Planning and Control in the Order Management of builtto-
order Companies Enabling Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic Sus-
tainability, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 557–562.
[173] Schuh G, Klocke F, Brecher C, Schmitt R (2007) Excellence in Production,
Apprimus Verlag.
[174] Schuh G, Lenders M, Arnoscht J (2009) Focussing Product Innovation and
Fostering Economies of Scale Based on Adaptive Product Platforms. CIRP
Annals – Manufacturing Technology 58(1):131–134.
[175] Schuh G, Lenders M, Hieber S (2008) Lean Innovation: Introducing Value
Systems to Product Development, Portland Int. Conf. on Management of
Engineering and Technology, PICMET ‘08, Piscataway, USA.
[176] Schuh G, Lenders M, Nussbaum C, Kupke D (2009) in ElMaraghy H, (Ed.)
Design for Changeability in Changeable and Reconfigurable Manufacturing
Systems, Springer, London251-266.
[177] Schuh G, Schmitt R, Aryobsei A, Bohl A, Hienzsch M, Quick J (2011) Integrative
Standardisation – Theoretical Model and Empirical Investigation of German
Toolmaking Firms, 17th Int. Conf. on Concurrent Enterprising (ICE 2011),
Piscataway, USA.
[178] Schwartz B (2004) The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, Ecco, New York.
[179] Setchi R, Lagos N (2004) Reconfigurability and Reconfigurable Manufacturing
Systems: State-Of-The-Art Review. 2nd IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Informatics, .
[180] Seung Ki M, Simpson TW, Kumara SRT (2010) A Methodology for Knowledge
Discovery to Support Product Family Design. Annals of Operations Research
174:201-18.
[181] Shingo S (1985) A Revolution in Manufacturing: The SMED System, Productivity
Press, Cambridge, MA.
[182] Simonson I (2005) Determinants of Customers Responses to Customized
Offers: Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions. Journal of Market-
ing 69(1):32–45.
[183] Simpson TW (2004) Product Platform Design and Customization: Status and
Promise. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufactur-
ing AIEDAM 18(1):3–20.
[184] Simpson TW, Jiao JR, Siddique Z, SpringerLink (Online service) (2006) Product
Platform and Product Family Design Methods and Applications, Springer
Science/Business Media LLC, Boston, MA. (p. v. digital).
[185] Slomp J, Bokhorst JAC, Germs R (2009) A Lean Production Control System for
High-Variety/Low-Volume Environments: A Case Study Implementation.
Production Planning and Control 20(7):586–595.
[186] Smith GE, Venkatraman MP, Dholakia RR (1999) Diagnosing the Search Cost
Effect: Waiting Time and the Moderating Impact of Prior Category Knowl-
edge. Journal of Economic Psychology 20(3):285–314.
[187] Squire B, Readman J, Brown S, Bessant J (2004) Mass Customization: The Key
to Customer Value? Production Planning & Control 15(4):459–471.
[188] Stevenson M, Hendry LC, Kingsman BG (2005) A Review of Production
Planning and Control: The Applicability of Key Concepts to the Make-To-
Order Industry. International Journal of Production Research 43(5):869–898.
[189] Suh NP (2001) Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications, Oxford University
Press, USA.
[190] Suh NP (2005) Complexity in Engineering. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Tech-
nology 54(2):581–598.
[191] Sullivan LP (1986) Quality Function Deployment. Quality Progress 19(6):39–50.
[192] Surbier L (2010) Problem and Interface Characterization During Ramp-Up in the
Low Volume Industry, Institut Polytechnique De Grenoble, Universite De
Grenoble, Francep214.
[193] Swaminathan JM, Tayur SR (1998) Managing Broader Product Lines Through
Delayed Differentiation Using Vanilla Boxes. Management Science 44(12):
161–172.
[194] Swanson. Agile Assembly Platform. 2012; Available from: http://www.swan-
son-erie.com.
[195] Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (2009) Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management. Strategic Management Journal 18(5):509–533.
[196] Thonemann UW, Bradley JR (2002) The Effect of Product Variety on
Supply-Chain Performance. European Journal of Operational Research
143(3):548–569.
[197] Tolio T, Ceglarek D, Elmaraghy HA, Fischer A, Hu SJ, Laperriere L, Newman ST,
Vancza J (2010) SPECIES-Co-evolution of Products, Processes and Production
Systems. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 59(1):672–693.
[198] Tseng MM, Jiao J, Merchant ME (1996) Design for Mass Customization. CIRP
Annals – Manufacturing Technology 45:153–156. (Compendex).
[199] Tseng MM, Piller FT (2003) The Customer Centric Enterprise: Advances in Mass
Customization and Personalizaton, Springer, Berlin/New York.
[200] Tu Q, Vonderembse MA, Ragu-Nathan TS (2001) The Impact of Time-Based
Manufacturing Practices on Mass Customization and Value to Customer.
Journal of Operations Management 19(2):201–217.
[201] Ulrich K, Tung K (1991) Fundamentals of Product Modularity. Issues in
Design Manufacturing/Integration. ASME 39(1):73–79.
[202] Van Hoek RI (2001) The Rediscovery of Postponement: A Literature Review
and Directions for Research. Journal of Operations Management 19(2):
161–184.
[203] Verhasselt S, Festel G, Schönsleben P (2012) Supply-Chain-Strukturen Und -
Abläufe In Der Pharmaindustrie Aktuelle Modelle Und Trends Vor Dem
Hintergrund Einer Sich Verändernden Umwelt. Pharmazeutische Industrie
1:164–170.
[204] Villas-Boas JM (2009) Product Variety and Endogenous Pricing With Evalua-
tion Costs. Management Science 55(8):1338–1346.
[205] Volkswagen (2012) The MQB Platform.
[206] von Hippel E, Katz R (2002) Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits. Manage-
ment Science 48(7):821–833.
[207] Wagner SM, Silveira-Camargos V (2011) Decision Model for the Application
of Just-In-Sequenc. International Journal of Production Research iFirst. (Online).
[208] Walcher D, Piller F (2011) The Customization 500: an International Benchmark
Study on Mass Customization and Personalization in Consumer E-Commerce,
Lulu Marketplace.
[209] Wan X, Evers PT, Dresner ME (2012) Too Much of a Good Thing: The Impact Of
Product Variety on Operations and Sales Performance. Journal of Operations
Management 30(4):316–324.
[210] Webb GS (2011) Product Variety: An Investigation Into Its Revenue, Cost, And
Profit, Michigan State University, United States, Michigan.
[211] Wiendahl H-P, ElMaraghy HA, Nyhuis P, Zaeh M, Wiendahl H-H, Duffie N,
Kolakowski M (2007) Changeable Manufacturing: Classification, Design,
Operation. Keynote Paper – CIRP Annals 56(2):783–809.
[212] Wiendahl H (2009) in ElMaraghy H, (Ed.) Adaptive Production Planning and
Control -Elements and Enablers of Changeability, in Changeable and reconfigur-
able manufacturing systems, ElMaraghy, Springer, London197–212.
[213] Wilson RM (2008) Design for Maintenance in Electric Traction Systems. IET
Professional Development course on.2008.
[214] Wu L, De Matta R, Lowe TJ (2010) Consumer Influence on Product Variety
Decisions. 5th IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and
Technology, ICMIT2010, June 2–5, 2010, Singapore, Singapore: IEEE Computer
Society.
[215] Xuehong D, Jianxin J, Tseng MM (2000) Architecture of Product Family For
Mass Customization. Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Management of Inno-
vation and Technology, 12–15 Nov. 2000, Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE.
[216] Yang B, Burns N (2003) Implications of Postponement for the Supply Chain.
International Journal of Production Research 41(9):2075–2090.
[217] Yang B, Burns N, Backhouse C (2005) An Empirical Investigation into the
Barriers to Postponement. International Journal of Production Research
43(5):991–1005.
[218] Ye X (2008) Product Family Design and Evaluation Based on the Commonality/
Variety Tradeoff, Michigan Technological University, United States, Michigan.
[219] Youssef AM, ElMaraghy HA (2007) Optimal Configuration Selection For
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems. International Journal of Flexible Man-
ufacturing Systems 19(2):67–106.
[220] Youssef AMA, ElMaraghy HA (2006) Assessment Manufacturing Systems
Reconfiguration Smoothness. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 30:174–193.
[221] Youssef AMA, Elmaraghy HA (2006) Modelling and Optimization of Multiple-
Aspect RMS Configurations. International Journal of Production Research
44(22):4929–4958.
[222] Yu DZ (2012) Product Variety and Vertical Differentiation in a Batch Produc-
tion System. International Journal of Production Economics 138(2):314–328.
[223] Yu Z, Wen-Han Q (2008) A 3D Modular Fixture With Enhanced Localization
Accuracy and Immobilization Capability. International Journal of Machine
Tools and Manufacture 48(6):677–687.
[224] Zinn W, Bowersox DJ (1988) Planning Physical Distribution with the Principle
of Postponement. Journal of Business Logistics 9(2):117–136.