Abstract
The rationale of a product family architecture (PFA) has been well recognized as an effective means to achieve mass customization. Investing into a PFA creates flexibility for the company to accommodate future customization requirements while taking a risk by increasing complexity in design and production. Thus an important issue of PFA is the economic justification of flexibility. This paper applies the real option theory to the valuation of PFA flexibility. A real option model is proposed, in which product family design within a PFA is referred to as an investment strategy being crafted by a series of options that are continuously exercised to achieve expected returns on investment. The real option approach surmounts traditional discounted cash flow analysis based valuation methods that tend to ignore the upside potentials to an investment from management flexibility.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Sanderson SW, Uzumeri M (1997) Managing product families. McGraw-Hill, Singapore
Tseng MM, Jiao J (1996) Design for mass customization. Annals CIRP, 45/1:153–156
Jiao J, Tseng MM (2003) Customizability index based on information content. Annals CIRP, 52/1:121–124
Gupta YP, Goyal S (1989) Flexibility of manufacturing systems: concepts and measurements. Eur J Oper Res, 43/2:119–135
Sethi AK, Sethi SP (1990) Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey. Int J Flex Manuf Syst, 2/4:289–328
Bengtsson (2001) Manufacturing flexibility and real options: a review. Int J Prod Econ, 74/2:213–224
Fogliatto FS, da Silveira GJC, Royer R (2003) Flexibility-driven index for measuring mass customization feasibility on industrialized products. Int J Prod Res 41/8:1811–1829
Martin MV, Ishii K (2002) Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Res Eng Des 13/4:213–235
Gonzalez-Zugasti JP, Otto KN, Baker JD (2001) Assessing value for platformed product family design. Res Eng Des 13/1:30–41
Simpson TW, Maier JRA, Mistree F (2001) Product platform design: method and application. Res Eng Des 13/1:2–22
Collier, DA (1981) The measurement and operating benefits of component part commonality. Decis Sci 12/1:85–96
Kota S, Sethuraman K, Miller R (2000) A metric for evaluating design commonality in product families. ASME J Mech Des 122/4:403–410
McAdams DA, Wood KL (2002) A quantitative similarity metric for design-by-analogy. ASME J Mech Des 124/2:173–182
Ho T-H, Tang CS (1998) Product variety management: research advances. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
Kusiak A, He DW (1998) Design for agility: a scheduling perspective. Robot Comput-Integr Manuf 14/4:415–427
MacDuffy JP, Sethuraman K, Fisher ML (1996) Product variety and manufacturing performance. Manag Sci 42/3:350–369
Kogut B, Kulatilaka N (1994) Option thinking and platform investment: investing in opportunity. Calif Manage Rev 36/20:52–71
Trigeorgis L (1996) Real options: managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. MIT Press, MA
Trigeorgis L (1991) A log-transformed binomial numerical analysis method for valuing complex multi-option investments. J Finan Quan Anal 26/3:309–326
Du X, Jiao J, Tseng MM (2001) Architecture of product family: fundamentals and methodology. Concurr Eng Res Applic 9/4:309–325
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jiao, J., Kumar, A. & Lim, C.M. Flexibility valuation of product family architecture: a real-option approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30, 1–9 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-005-0020-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-005-0020-2