Modularization to Support Multiple Brand Platforms

Methods to determine acceptable architecture for multiple platforms supporting multiple brands must represent both platform cost saving commonization as well as revenue enhancing brand distinctions. Functional architecting methods determine modularization based upon functional concerns. Brand identity is additionally determined by sensory aesthetics. We introduce three architecting rules to maintain brand identity in platforms. A dominant theme must be ensured on each product of a brand, and this must be transferred to each product’s specifications and aesthetics. Elements critical to brand identity must be made common across all products in a brand. For any platform, brand specific elements must be maintained unique on each product variant. The set of elements not identified as a brand carrier can be made common to a platform. A matrix representation of each platform and its supported brand variants is useful as an architecting tool. NOMENCLATURE Aesthetic Forms: industrial design / human factors aspects of a product Brand differentiation: concept of maintaining common expectations to a brand’s offerings, and distinct from others Brand identity: the desired expectation of any product offered within a brand Brand module: a module that is used within many/all offers within a brand, to maintain brand identity Brand platform: the set of shared brand signatures and modules Brand signature: a function or aesthetic element made common to a brand’s offerings, to maintain brand identity Dominant theme: the particular brand identity description Functions: what a product does Module: a pair of both grouped functions and associated grouped physical systems as a subset of a product INTRODUCTION Determining product architecture is one of the key activities of any industrial product development activity. Volkswagen claims to save $1.7 billion annually on development and production costs through effective product architecture (Bremmer, 1999, 2000). Volkswagen is able to take advantage of platform and component commonality by sharing between its four major brands, namely VW, Audi, Skoda, and Seat. These different automobiles share car platforms, which in Volkswagen’s case includes front axles, rear axles, front ends, rear ends, exhaust systems, brake systems, and numerous other elements (Bremmer, 1999, 2000). However, Volkswagen also claims that all vehicle on this shared common platform, each of different brand, can be effectively differentiated in the eyes of the customer. Interestingly, Ford Motor Company has similar shared platform ambitions within its new Generic Architecture Process program. However, Ford defines its platform, which will be shared between several car models and brands, to consist of common locator points among the three major units of the underbody framing. Ford has similar expectations of large monetary savings in development and production costs while maintaining the ability to effectively differentiate the platformed cars in price and performance. Both comprise associated common processes to the shared parts and systems. Surprisingly, though, Volkswagen and Ford's definitions as to what constitutes a platform were vastly different. This example highlights the fact that the product architecting process, despite being a key determining factor in both cost savings and in the ability to offer product variety, is not well understood. System engineering and architecting remains an activity relegated to heuristics. Such activities are often only completed by experienced systems engineers who have gained an understanding of the various objectives that must be considered when architecting a product line. In past work, we have been developing tools and methods to support systematic architecting of product portfolios. A very important aspect of