Keywords

JEL Codes

1 Introduction

By methodology we mean a set of principles, methods, tools, strategies for developing systems, as well as procedures and requirements, implementation of which allows to get a result.

Based on the position that a product development system serves as a model in shaping the development strategy of machine-building production, we determine the content of the methodology for creating product systems at industry enterprises as the following sequence in the PDP approach or the simultaneous development of a set of processes in the CE concept [1]:

  1. 1.

    PD—product development (where is the PEP product development process);

  2. 2.

    MSP—planning of corporate systems (product development systems, production systems);

  3. 3.

    Production.

The conducted research allowed to reveal relevant practices of the methodology for formation of product systems by machine-building enterprises (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Methodology for the formation of product systems in mechanical engineering

Full size image

2 Research Results

Considering examples of the product systems formation by industry leaders. We determine that the level of the methodology are issued strategic decisions on product and production. Only then - technical and technological and operational solutions for the design of enterprise systems and manufacture [2]. Proposed solution–control and management of the product development system complexity takes into account the following:

  1. 1.

    Stages of the product life cycle (PLC cycle). Implemented strategies on the phases of “input” and “growth” [3, 4]: (a) Differentiation (customization), (b) Cost leadership, standardization (mass production), (c) Hybrid competitive strategy (mass customization). Implemented strategies on the phases of “maturity” and “recession” [5, 6]: (a) Priority of the system functional complexity (b) Priority of the physical complexity (c) The compromise between functional and physical complexity.

In our opinion, the PLC cycle phase affects the set of guidelines for managing product complexity. The priority value of goals with complexity of the system in each phase is reflected in Fig. 2:

Fig. 2
figure 2

Summary of guidelines for managing product complexity based on the PLC cycle phase

Full size image
  1. 2.

    Key management tasks:

Task 1: Determining the complexity of systems (products and processes): identification of complexity sources and factors associated with its growth; quantitative assessment of complexity in a manufacturing company due to increased product diversity.

Task 2: Identify the relationship between product complexity and processes: the problem of the relationship between the complexity of products and processes; the impact of change/creation of a new product on production processes in terms of their complexity growth (1 assumption: replacement at the module and component level in the system improves processes; 2 assumption: if it is possible to reuse part of the elements of classical systems in new projects, this determines a significant reduction in the cost of system design).

Task 3: Achieving the “optimal” level of complexity of the systems: classification/grading of products by degree of difficulty; the problem of achieving optimal operational and financial indicators due to the reduction, preservation, and increase in complexity.

In accordance with the idea put forward, a model of the methodology for the formation of the product development system of engineering enterprises based on the complexity management strategy is presented in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

PD-systems management model in the context of production product complexity control

Full size image

The proposed methodology for creating a product development system for engineering enterprises based on a complexity management strategy includes:

Stage 1. Product development. Assessing the complexity of the product from the position of the system (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Content of the product concept

Full size image

At the considered stage, the critical indicators of complexity growth are [7, 8]:

– Unit cost/financial scale of the project;

– The number of alternative components, design, and design approaches;

– Volume of product release;

– The presence of feedback from later to earlier stages;

– The degree of technological novelty;

– The variety of knowledge bases used;

– The degree of IT-support systems;

– A variety of skills and technical resources;

– The number of subsystems and components;

– The intensity of consumer participation;

– The degree of customization of the components;

– Uncertainty due to changing consumer needs;

– The complexity of the choice of product and system architectures;

–– The intensity of the involvement of suppliers in the project

When assessing the complexity are calculated:

  • independent components of complexity due to the growth of varieties of products (C product), processes (C process) and systems (C system).

  • dependent components of complexity: C productANDprocess and C productANDsystem—complexity of the process and the system, respectively, is due to the growth of diversity at the product level, C processANDproduct and C processANDsystem—the problems that arise in the production system due to the growth of process diversity, C systemANDproduct and C systemANDprocess—respectively, the level of complexity of the product and the process due introduction of diversity system.

The total complexity is calculated by summing the listed difficulty levels:

$$ C_{total} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M} {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N} {C_{product} } } + \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{K} {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{L} {C_{process} } } + \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{U} {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{V} {C_{system} } } $$

Stage 2. Formation of a complexity matrix (Fig. 5), where:

Fig. 5
figure 5

Schematic representation of the complexity matrix of a product consisting of several components/ elements/ modules * From the picture: components located in the center are more balanced, i.e. their level of physical complexity roughly corresponds to their contribution to functionality

Full size image
  1. 1.

    Functional (external) complexity—due to demand, competition and/or technological complexity;

  2. 2.

    Physical (internal) complexity—is determined by: the complexity of the product, determined by a wide variety of raw materials, components, etc.; the complexity of production—the need for a flexible production system; organizational complexity.

The disadvantage of the proposed approach is the impossibility of distinguishing a single functional element for two products, as well as the impossibility of dividing functional elements into two separate functions [9].

Stage 3. Formation of complexity management solutions.

Most manufacturers use classic methods to reduce product complexity, such as [10]:

  • replacement of components and product standardization

  • inventory management by reducing the number of options stored in stock

  • standardization of production processes

  • product standardization due to modulation, and standardization strategies.

Based on a complexity matrix and the goal of achieving a balanced system: guidelines for action on managing complexity at the level of production systems and engineering design of a product, in our opinion, can become (Table 1).

Table 1 Set of guidelines for actions to manage complexity of systems
Full size table

At the domestic production level, the strategic options for complexity management can become variable strategic solutions (Table 2):

Table 2 Methods for improving PD systems in comparison with complexity management
Full size table

Research hypothesis requiring further confirmation/refutation: development of product development systems [11, 12] in the context of systems complexity management is possible due to: (1) formation of strategic approaches for the development of production in the context of harmonization of “product-production” systems; (2) simulation of integrated systems and their harmonization—through the integration of production systems and product creation and through the joint development of systems based on: (a) on the primacy of the product model; (b) on the primacy of the process model.

3 Conclusion

The proposed methodology allows to ensure:

  • gradation of difficulty to “good” and “bad”, where: first determines the cost increase for both producers and consumers, with increased product diversity, and the second—an increase in the cost of production while reducing the level of diversity;

  • acquisition by the manufacturer of structural and functional product diversity in the context of a compromise between a unique product/differentiated product range with relatively high production costs and a unified/standardized product with a minimum product range, but also with minimal production costs.