1
Modular development opportunities for the Philips Senseo
A case study at Philips Drachten
Research Project by
Ivo van der Zouwen S1935895
3 Master Thesis
University of Groningen
Faculty of economics and business Technology and Operations Management
Author: Ivo van der Zouwen
Student number: s1935895
Supervisors: MSc. H. van der Meulen Drs. A.J.J. Braaksma Company supervisor Mark-Olof Dirksen
Company information: Philips Consumer Lifestyle Tussendiepen 4
5
Management Summary
This report investigates what modularity can do for the development process of a new Senseo coffee maker. Modularity in product development involves developing a product by means of creating a set of functional chunks. A functional chunk exists out of combined parts that together carry out a single function. When combining one or more chunks, they form so called modules. A product built up out of modules can provide benefits in the development of product variants and supply chain design, like economy of scale, reduced complexity and improved development lead-time.
The Senseo product family consists out of a whole range of different appliances. However, all share the core function; making Pad coffee. Although different Senseos share some components, the appliance is built-up in a rather integrated manner. Rather integrated, because some new versions and variants require development actions on components while they serve also other, non-changing, functions. The development of Senseo variants is considered complex because product differentiation increases. To accommodate this trend, and the complexity that comes with it, literature suggests modular development as a solution. Modular development has the capability to deliver improved business performance in almost all areas of the company. The difficulty, however, is recognizing this capability in the early stages of a new product
development.
Modular development starts with functions. These functions are grouped into modules, which is the key step in modular product development. The methodology used in this research utilizes two methods for the identification of modular opportunities; the Module Identification Matrix (MIM) and the heuristic method. The methods show four modular opportunities which where compared using the Pugh selection matrix. From the four opportunities, two were selected as modular focus areas for Philips. These are discussed in separate cases.
The first suggested module is a module for differentiating aesthetics, like color. This module is purely concerned with the aesthetic functions and changes every variant. It therefor serves the purpose of developing variants more efficiently. Decoupling the aesthetics from critical
components reduces development complexity and risk drastically. A significant cost reduction of around x euros is identified, together with a possible decrease in variant development lead-time by x% to x%.
6
Acknowledgement
This thesis is result of a research done at Philips Consumer Lifestyle. It was written to finalize my study Technology and Operations Management and support Philips in development of Senseo Coffee makers. My graduation internship at Philips has taught me a lot about the
difficulties involved in conducting a broad but focused research in a company setting. Mark-Olof Dirksen from Philips has helped me focus, all while providing me with the freedom, the
knowledge and the trust that made this research a great learning experience for me. I would like to thank the designers, architects and function developers who helped met gather all the
7
Index
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ... 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... 6
INDEX ... 7
PHILIPS SENSEO TERMINOLOGY ... 9
1 INTRODUCTION ... 10
1.1 COMPANY INFORMATION ... 10
1.2 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ... 10
1.3 MANAGEMENT QUESTION ... 12
1.4 PRELIMINARY LITERATURE STUDY:MODULARITY BASICS ... 13
1.5 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ... 14
1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 16
1.7 RESEARCH BOUNDARIES ... 17
2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY... 18
2.1 MODULAR DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY ... 18
2.2 STRUCTURING ... 19
3 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 22
3.1 INTEGRATED AND MODULAR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT ... 22
3.2 POSTPONEMENT THROUGH LATE MASS CUSTOMIZATION ... 25
3.3 COMPLEXITY ... 26
3.4 MODULE IDENTIFICATION METHOD ACCORDING TO EGGEN (2003) ... 27
3.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ... 29
4 CURRENT SENSEO PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ... 30
4.1 SENSEO BASICS ... 30
4.2 SENSEO VARIETY... 31
4.3 EXAMPLES OF MODULARITY IN HOUSE AND COMPETITION ... 33
4.4 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ... 34
4.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ... 38
5 APPLICATION OF MODULAR IDENTIFICATION METHODS ON SENSEO ... 39
5.1 INPUT AND FUTURE SENSEO REQUIREMENTS ... 39
5.2 FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION ... 40
5.3 MODULAR FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT ... 41
5.4 HEURISTIC APPROACH TO MODULARITY DEVELOPMENT ... 44
5.5 IDENTIFIED MODULES ... 47
5.6 SELECTION OF MODULAR FOCUS AREAS FOR CASE ANALYSIS ... 48
6 CASE: DIFFERENTIATING AESTHETIC FUNCTION ... 50
6.1 IMPACT FRAMEWORK ... 51
6.2 RISKS ... 51
6.3 ASSOCIATED COSTS ... 51
6.4 VARIANT DEVELOPMENT ... 53
8
6.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ... 56
7 CASE: BREW CHAMBER AS CORE FUNCTION ... 58
7.1 IMPACT FRAMEWORK ... 59
7.2 SUPPLY AND TOOLS ... 60
7.3 ASSOCIATED COSTS ... 60
7.4 COMPLEXITY ... 61
7.5 AFTER SALES, STOCK AND SERVICE ... 61
7.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ... 61
8 CONCLUSIONS ... 63
8.1 THE METHODOLOGY: FUTURE RESEARCH ... 65
8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHILIPS ... 67
9 REFERENCES ... 69
APPENDIX 1. SALES ... 72
APPENDIX 2. MODULARITY ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ... 73
APPENDIX 3. SHAVER ANALYSIS ... 76
APPENDIX 4. SENSEO FLAVORS – LATE CUSTOMIZATION ... 77
APPENDIX 5. COMPONENTS ... 79
APPENDIX 6. EXPERTS USED FOR MIM ... 80
APPENDIX 7. PRODUCT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT TASKS ... 81
APPENDIX 8. FUNCTION- / COMPONENT MATRIXES ... 82
APPENDIX 9. TESTING ... 83
APPENDIX 10. COST ESTIMATIONS ... 84
9
Philips Senseo terminology
This paragraph provides definitions of the case specific terms used in this thesis.
Black Coffee Appliance/Senseo – The Senseo coffee appliances without milk frothing ability. Pad coffee – Senseo based coffee. An abstract of the type of coffee a Senseo device makes. Single cup – Is a device that can only make one cup at a time.
Aesthetics – Coloring or material finishing that differentiates between product variants. Upgradability - The possibility to enhance the product or extending the functionality by the
customer.
Integrated Product Development (IPD) – the development of the first set of Senseos, usually a
few color variants made available for a limited number of countries.
Project-end – The end of IPD. The introductions of new variants also occur after project-end,
when Product Lifecycle Management takes over.
Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) – is the whole of development procedures and tasks done
after the ‘initial product development’.
Lifecycle – The time from a product range release until the phase out of production. In the
lifecycle new variants are released.
Technological solution – It is the set of components chosen to deliver a function. For example,
heating water is a function; the technological solution can be a boiler or a flow through heater.
10
1 Introduction
This research looks into the opportunity of implementing modular product development in the Senseo and will be of interest to Senseo x. The Senseo x will be a new black coffee Senseo with the ambition to replace the Senseo II. This Senseo II has had new variant introductions
throughout its lifecycle, including new colors, market introductions and specials. These variants turned out to be time-consuming and costly in development. This research will investigate the possibility of implementing a more modular product to increase the performance of development throughout the lifecycle. This chapter describes how the research questions are formulated and starts in paragraph 1.1 with a description of the company. In paragraph 1.2 the problem will be described and paragraph 1.3 will present the management question. Before the research question is formulated a basic understanding about Modularity is required. Therefor paragraph 1.4 is a preliminary literature study. In paragraph 1.5 the subjects are placed into a research model after which the research questions will be formulated in paragraph 1.6. Finally, Paragraph 1.7 briefly discusses the boundaries.
1.1 Company information
Philips Consumer Lifestyle develops, tests, produces, releases and sells small domestic appliances. Today Philips is one of the largest global players in consumer lifestyle in terms of turnover. Under their slogan ‘Sense and simplicity’ Philips was able to introduce a wide range of innovative products like the wake-up light1. Products groups include, but are not limited too; Sound and vision, Personal care, Mother and child care, Household products and Home lighting. Especially successful is the Philips Senseo which is the product this research is about. The Senseo is a coffeemaker developed by Douwe Egberts and Phillips. The coffee maker is unique in that it uses coffee pads, has a fast processing time and pressurizes during brewing resulting in a cream layer on top of the coffee. Philips has introduced its latest generation of its 20 million unit-selling Senseo coffee maker, the Senseo Latte Select and cappuccino select, which can make cappuccino, latte macchiato or caffè latte by automatically adding frothed fresh milk.
1.2 Problem description
Ever since the introduction of the Senseo, Philips has introduced variants. Some are just different colors; others involve more radical changes indicating a new range of Senseo or a country
version. The current Senseo designs are partly integrated, resulting in an initial introduction with the lowest possible development and manufacturing cost. Developing new variants sometimes involves redesigning a great deal of the product. For example, a color development results in tremendous costs and has a long lead-time. Another example is the change of a plastic part, which could affect food approval, taste and/or dish washer requirements. The problem is summarized in the following statement:
11
“Philips faces implementation issues during the development of new Senseo variants. This process involves changing a complex set of interrelated parts. A seemingly simple change can
generate complex problems and prolonged lead times in development and supply”.
Philips wants to improve the development process during the lifecycle because introducing a new color, for example can take up to half a year2. The current situation at Philips presented an opportunity to do valuable research on product architecture in an innovative environment. Product architectural decisions impact the entire lifecycle of a new product and its variants. This includes design and development decisions, which have a significant impact on the lifecycle of a product family (Gu & Sosale, 1999). Possibility of implementing a more modular architecture is researched to increase the performance of development throughout the lifecycle with the goal to:
“Gain insight into the development of a product range of Senseos. Provide recommendations towards the development using modular principles to find out if modularity can drive new
designs efficiently during the lifecycle”
Currently Philips develops new Senseos one at a time. This is visualized in Figure 1. The process is called the ‘Integrated product development (IPD) process. It ends after the first introductions, which is called the ‘project end’. Hereafter the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) takes over. At this point lifecycle management has to work with the product built-up that result from the ‘IPD processes’. The creation of variants during the lifecycle depends a lot on the initial product built-up. Some sets of components are already developed together as modules and sub-assemblies. These modules, however, are not created to support the product development of new variants.
12 The current situation presented an opportunity to introduce a product family development
through modularity. This is because the Philips roadmap displays a trend towards increasingly more variant introductions. Modularity is considered as an effective means for development of an increasing amount of variants. Benefits of this are economy of scale, reduced risk and upgradability (Jiao, Simpson, & Siddique, 2007) (Gershenson, Prasad, & Zhang, 2003). It also proved to be a successful strategy for companies seeking to increase market share, reduce development costs and time to market (Alizon, et al., 2007). Modular product development benefits are directly in line with the goal desired by Philips.
1.3 Management question
New product developments start with new functionalities, new markets, new materials, other architectures and designs in-line with consumer wishes. Looking at the competitive environment of coffee machines, one sees different architectures; integrated designs and the more modular designs. Philips management has seen successful implementations of modularity by their
competitors. For example, Nespresso coffee makers just change the color of a single panel, when color variants are concerned. Obviously this method simplifies the development of aesthetic variants, but may limit the difference between variants.
Philips Development Process
Integrated product development
Product Lifecycle Management Market Demand over time
New Senseo Device New Senseo variant Initial product development Variant development Product built-up Project end
13 The management question is based upon the initial project description. It contained the question whether the product is developed to accommodate all design changes effectively. An interest was expressed in discovering the main cost-drivers resulting from the architectural choices for the lifetime of a Senseo. The following management question could be formulated:
“How do the decisions in the integrated product development process drive costs and influence performance of the development process during the lifecycle, what can modularity do for our
new range of Senseos?”
Philips is interested in what parts of the integrated design process influence the future expenses, especially where the development of new colors is concerned.
1.4 Preliminary literature study: Modularity basics
The research topic modularity should be discussed before the research question and structure can be explained. This chapter discusses the ground principles of modularity.
Modularity is the division of a product in functional elements and the Process of creating functional chunks. This is in essence the opposite of an integration development, in which functional elements are realized through the smart combination of technical solutions. This is best explained using examples. Figure 2 provides visualization of two products, in both an integrated and a modular form. However, one should realize that modularity principles affect more than just the built-up of a product. The modular principles effect operations and strategies throughout the company and lifecycle.
FIGURE 2, INTEGRATED- VS MODULAR DESIGN (Ulrich K. , 1995)
14 that it is more expensive to have fewer components. However disassembled it is possible to fit a lot more tables in a truck, which benefits the supply chain. Also providing a table with a different height would not entail redesigning the entire product, just the legs. One can even think of
designing adjustable legs, to achieve a form of customizability.
1.4.1 Product architecture
The “product architecture” as discussed by Sebastiaan & Fixson (2005) is defined as a set of product characteristics. It contains information like the number of components and the connections between these components. Also information regarding the development and assembly of these components is part of the architecture. The goal is to present a fundamental structure of the product based on the components and the interfaces (Robertson & Ulrich, 1998). Components are clustered in “modules” or so called sub-systems; this is done in a way that each subsystem has a clear defined function (Dahmus, Gonzalez- Zugasti & Otto. 2001). This process of creating modules is called “system architecting”. Dahmus et al., (2001) suggest that ideal product architecture is a product presented as a set of its practical and functional modules. This is the essence of modular product architecture.
1.4.2 Effect of modularity
Product modularity has great influence on the ability to develop variants and the costs associated with it (Gershenson, Prasad & Zhang 2010). According to Gershenson et al., (2010) modularity within the product architecture can reduce development costs for product variants. Modularity, however, does not come in a single form. Different types and degrees of modularity are
discussed by Salvador (2002a 2002b) and depending on the situation, can have various results. This will be further discussed in chapter 3. A modular strategy can result in a combination of: reduced stock, shorter lead times, and higher degree of customizability, reduced development costs, improved management complexity, economy of scale on parts, improved upgradability and/or more depending on the way modularity is implemented. For example a module that contains all recyclable materials can improve recycling power of a product (Gershenshon, Prasad, & Zhang, 2003) (Eggen, 2003). Appendix 2 discusses the advantages and disadvantages in more detail.
1.5 Research framework
15 A single-case study is often used to conduct in-depth longitudinal research. A power of this study is the opportunity to analyze more than one context within a case. Choosing this type of research allows assessment of the main topic in a single-case, while providing a research setting that lends itself to early exploratory investigations. Even when uncertainty is present and variables are not fully understood (Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). In this thesis the general case analysis focuses on the opportunity what Modular development theory can do for Philips. This is
explanatory research that is used to test theory. Within the case research there should be room for exploratory early investigations that look into the possible impact of the developed knowledge. Structuring the research this way creates the opportunity to identify how interdepartmental arrangements work, or how knowledge is produced. Furthermore a testing of existing theories and the extension of these theories is possible (Yin, 1981).
A case research starts with a framework and questions. The framework underlines the research and visualizes the variables, key/factor or constructs that are to be studied (Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). A conceptual framework can show these elements while depicting there
16
FIGURE 3, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1.6 Research questions
Case research is most suitable for answering how or why questions. These questions can lead to theory testing and theory development (Yin, 1994). Using modular development principles Philips will be able to develop a product with strategic aim for creating variants. This can be summarized in the following question:
“How can modular product development principles help Philips develop Senseo variants, reducing complexity and costs?”
The research question focuses on the in- and output of the conceptual framework, being modularity, costs and complexity. To provide a structured answer to this question, a set of sub-questions has been defined. The answer should provide a deeper understanding about the relations presented in the conceptual framework. Sub-questions 7 & 8 are used to review the used methodology.
1. What are the principles of modularity in consumer appliances? 2. How can modular focus areas be identified?
3. What are modular focus areas for Senseo?
4. What strategies fit with these modular focus areas?
5. What operational changes are necessary to support modularity?
Research entities
Philips Development Process
17 6. How could the identified focus areas affect product development variants in terms of
costs and complexity?
7. What are the limitations of currently available methods for identifying focus areas? 8. How can the applied methods be improved for future use?
1.7 Research boundaries
Integrated design reduces costs when it concerns the introduction of a single product. This is currently the case for the Senseo introduction model, which will be designed at lowest cost instead of flexibility. This means that the development costs for the entire family depend on the combination of the initial design costs of the introduction model and the development costs of variants later developed. Because the demand for variety increases, the current strategy that Philips uses is less suitable in theory (Jiao, Simpson, & Siddique, 2007). Variant development costs could be lower when they are a concern early in the product development process. Since the focus lies on the development process, one should realize that the effect of changing the product architecture stretches beyond the scope. For example, modular packaging of the product can become very interesting if late customization is possible. At this point too much estimation is needed to be able to do more than only discuss packaging. In this early stage a methodology that can identify modular opportunities on a high scale is more valuable. Creating technical solutions for each sub function, without already focusing on modules will form a barrier to the implementation of modularity later in development. The methodology for modular product development need to be capable of suggesting modules based on functions instead of technical solutions.
To manage the scale of this research it has been decided to leave Senseo appliances with milk frothing out of scope. The Senseo x will be a Black coffee Senseo, with these types of appliances in scope, x% (Appendix 1), the gross amount of sales is taken into account.
18
2 Research Methodology
This chapter presents the methodology that is used to structure the research. Paragraph 2.1 discusses the methodology for modular product development. This methodology is used to determine modular focus areas. Paragraph 2.2 presents the research structure.
2.1 Modular development methodology
To achieve modularity, a methodology for modular product development is required. For the methodology to be useful for Senseo, it will need to adhere to four criteria:
1. Because the research is meant, primarily, for a new range of Senseos, data availability is limited. This new range features innovations on the core components and technical and financial specifications are not yet available. The methodology was thus chosen upon its capability to cope with this level of uncertainty. Since a lot of components are not standardized and need to be constructed, no costs data are available. A highly cost dependent methodology would thus not suffice this early in development.
2. The model should not provide a single solution but instead provide focus areas for modularity. This allows for discussion and makes sure no modules are discarded this early in the development of a new product.
3. The model should be capable to work with multiple aggregation levels. This is because some parts of the product are better defined than others. Where re-use is more likely, there is more information and the aggregation level can be lower. Other parts of the research are still fuzzy requiring the ability to generalize and continue upon a higher level of aggregation.
4. The methodology should be supported by modularity experts. To ensure this, scientific literature is used and modularity experts from the University of Groningen have been consulted3. The literature that helped define the methodology is described below.
A lot of research has been done on how to develop modularity in products. The possible benefits receive much attention (Erixon, von Yxkull, & Arnström, 1996) (Gershenson, Prasad, & Zhang, 2003) (Jiao, Simpson, & Siddique, 2007). Multiple methodologies have been described for the actual modular development (Ulrich & Eppinger, Product Design and development, fourth edition, 2008) (Erixon, 1998) (Dahmus, Gonzalez-Zugasti, & Otto, 2001). But what makes a good methodology. First, the pluralist approach can help assess the situation from different perspectives and automatically ensures that the methods are viewed beyond their boundaries. Cooper & Schindler (2008) suggest using different types of external literature. Second, a methodology supported by modularity experts is preferred (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). This research, therefore, looks into multiple development methodologies.
3Jeroen Vos at the Lean Symposium (13-04-2012),M.W. Hillen (05-2012), dr. W.M.C. (Wout) van Wezel
19 Although there has been extensive research on modularity, no single method, model of approach proved to be fully capable of delivering the desired insights. Eggen (2003) realized that in the multitude of methodology two streams of literature could be recognized. He constructed a methodology that incorporates the two streams of literature. In his methodology he uses the two most used methods for identifying modules in parallel; Modular Heuristics and The Module Identification matrix (MIM).
The methodology proved almost applicable to the Philips case but was missing general understanding about the types of differentiation faced. To accommodate for this, the differentiation plan was applied to the case as well. This plan is part of the ‘Establishing of architecture steps’ of Ulrich & Eppinger (2008) (Robertson & Ulrich, 1998) (Erixon, von Yxkull, & Arnström, 1996). Combining these methods is often done in qualitative research (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Figure 4 shows the general outline of the methodology of to this research.
FIGURE 4, UNIFIED PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE DESIGN METHODOLOGY – BASED ON: (EGGEN, 2003) + NOTES
2.2 Structuring
Knowing what methodologies to use, the structure can be defined. Figure 5, Research structure, Page 20 displays this. In the structure the methodology of Eggen (2003) can be recognized. The phases are based upon the ‘Qualitative Research and the Research Process’ of Cooper & Schindler (2008). Which are: knowledge and data collection’, ‘data processing’, ‘analysis’ and ‘research reporting’. Gather customer needs Create design specifics Functional decomposition 4&5 Heuristic Module creation 4&5 Modular Function Deployment 6 Generate concepts 7 Evaluate concepts
Identification of the core functions
Identification of module opportunities
Conceptualize modular opportunities
20
21
2.2.1 PHASE 1 – knowledge and data collection
The case study methodology allows for in-depth research into a specific setting. Acquiring the right data is a prerequisite for achieving an in-depth study like this research. For this, input from Philips is needed and from scientific journals and books. Before the data is collected at Philips, the available literature is studied. Modularity in product family development is the main subject that requires a theoretical basis, but also the other entities of the research framework are
discussed
For the collection of Senseo data different sources within Philips where used, these include: historic data, development procedures, informal conversations with Philips engineers, semi-structured interviews, observations and the reverse engineering of Senseo appliances. The research furthermore relies on data from the older Senseo devices and the proposition of the new Senseo x.
The final part of this phase concerns an analysis of the Philips development process. This research looks into what needs to change in the development process when modularity is introduced. Information about past projects is gathered in this stage and to provide an
understanding about the lifecycle of Senseo. Besides this a differentiation plan is constructed showing the differentiating features of currently available black coffee Senseos.
2.2.2 PHASE 2 - Data processing
In this phase the data is coded into usable functional elements and models that can help define modules. It consists out of 4 steps: the functional decomposition, which is then used for the two methods to modular development. The methods are Modular Heuristics and Modular Function Deployment through the use of the Module Identification Matrix. Both methods are applied to the Senseo with the goal is to discover modular opportunities. In the ‘Module generation and selection’ part of this phase, the modular opportunities are compared using a selection matrix. The best opportunities are used for further analysis.
2.2.3 PHASE 3 - Data analysis
In this phase the effects of the modular principles on Product Lifecycle Management are researched. The previous phase delivers two modular focus areas; these are analyses in two separated cases in this phase. The analysis of a modular focus areas starts with the creation of an impact framework. This framework shows the possible impact of the modular strategy on the business. It is based on the literature about modular development strategies and the situation at Philips. Each part of the impact framework is discussed in this phase.
2.2.4 PHASE 4 - Research reporting: knowledge and findings
22
3 Literature review
This chapter reviews the relevant literature, the following topics are discussed: modular product development, supply chain configuration and complexity in product family development. The preliminary literature study (paragraph 1.4) already provided a basic understanding about modularity. Paragraph 3.1 discusses the modular development concepts. Extra attention is given to postponement in paragraph 3.2 and to complexity in paragraph 3.3. The chosen methodology for modular product development was the methodology of Eggen (2003). This methodology is discussed in paragraph 3.4, before closing the chapter with concluding remarks in paragraph 3.5. 3.1 Integrated and modular design and development
Integrated design is the opposite of a modular design. An integrated product allows to,
efficiently, handle a specific need. When no variants are made, integrated design usually proved the most cost efficient solutions. Even the lifecycle of an integrated product tends to be longer since the building blocks are specifically designed for each other. It should, however, be noted that this longer lifecycle merely refers to the fact that the integrated product is less likely to break down whereas modular product can perhaps easily be updated or repaired (Loch & Terwiesch, 1998). Integrated design suffers from development complexity as a result from the higher amount of interactions between components. In contrast, an important benefit of modularity is the ability to develop modules easily in parallel.
Modularity receives increased attention in literature and is not short of examples depicting its success in achieving high variety through customization. This literature study therefore summarizes these benefits in the following paragraphs in avoidance of being unnecessarily lengthy. Appendix 2 provides a more detailed study.
Modularity allows for the decoupling of differentiating functions from other components, which can then be standardized. Economy of scale can then be realized for these parts. In such a case purchasing can buy a bulk amount and, because these parts are the same, it is easier for the supplier to deliver consistent quality against low costs. With variety dedicated to a module, the handling of variants can experience benefits in upgradability, quality and development.
Especially management would be easier since there are more similarities in a range of products. With modular development the amount of components concerned with a creation of a variant is reduced. General variants are created through the changing of one or more modules. In this case engineers only have to concern with the parts that make up the module; the whole product does not need to be considered (Gershenson & Prasad, 1997) and (Gershenshon, Prasad, & Zhang, 2003).
Types of modularity
23 literature (Ulrich en Tung, 1991 en Ulrich, 1995) and a sixth resulted from their own research. Besides these, there are two interface modularity types.
FIGURE 6, TYPES OF MODULARITY
1. With ‘Component Swapping Modularity’ one standardized part is connected with a variety of components. Product variants are created by replacing one or more components.
2. ‘Component sharing Modularity’ is similar, referring to the re-use of a module over different products.
3. With ‘Fabricate-to-fit’ modularity one part is variable. The other components and interfaces are standardized. A belt for example can have the same buckle, but the leather band is variable in length.
4. With ‘Sectional Modularity’ different components are combined. Any set of components is possible as long as the interface is the same principle of a standardized link.
5. With ‘Bus modularity’ product variants are created by connecting a selection of components to a standardized part. ‘Bus modularity’ is a specific kind of ‘sectional modularity’.
Interface modularity
6. With ‘Slot interface Modularity’ the components can only be connected via a specified interface.
7. ‘Sectional interface modularity’ means that the components are connected via the same interface
Modularity is not limited to the types described above. A mixture of the differed types is also an option. Within the different types of modularity, different degrees can be defined. The degree of modularity was part of a research done aiming at mass customization. Which is the ability, to supply large amounts of product variants, with widespread individual specifications?
24 8. Combinatorial Modularity’ is comparable with ‘Component swapping modularity’ combined
with ‘slot modularity’. All, or almost all, components are part of a component family while interfaces stay the same. With a limited set of components a lot of variants can be created Applying this knowledge to the table example from the preliminary literature study (paragraph 1.4), provides the following visualization: Figure 7. The different types of modularity
automatically show certain opportunities. The ‘bus’ type table, is very versatile within a confined space while the sectional type allows changing the desk size while adding functions, like
drawers. The ‘bus’ type is easier to assemble which allows a situation in which the customer can do the assembly and the package is thus smaller and transportable.
FIGURE 7, TYPES OF MODULARITY VISUALIZED IN TABLE EXAMPLE (ULRICH K. , 1995)
25
FIGURE 8, COMBINATORIAL MODULARITY SPECTRUM (SALVADOR, FORZA, & RUNGTUSANATHAM, 2002A) & HARD- EN SOFT MASS CUSTOMIZATION CHARACTERISTICS (SIDES)
3.2 Postponement through late mass customization
Delivering variety on a large scale using soft mass customization is difficult, even with a
modular strategy. Postponement is a viable solution in theory; with postponement the swappable components are assembled last or later in the supply chain. The idea is that a standardized assembly is shipped and in a late customization center finalized. This is a widely discussed subject in literature, however, the strategy is found to be little implemented (Salvador,
Rungtusanatham, & Forza, 2004). Postponement would counter the uncertainty in demand but the actual implementation is costly and risky. Salvador found that postponement is subject to a set of principles: the situation should have long distribution channels and customers do not want to wait. These customers require the availability of different variants on the shelf. Furthermore, general customer preference doesn’t change overnight. Company reactivity should be high. Regarding manufacturing: technology should be in the swappable component and not in the interface. The result is that assembly is not affected significantly with manufacturing a new variant. This often result in batch processing and low performance penalties for variety.
26 Figure 9 illustrates postponement; it depicts a situation in which a company delivers three
variants of a product. In situation 1 the products are all produced at the assembly plant, shipped to a foreign location and then distributed to the stores. A change in demand, like increasing popularity of one of the products, will be communicated throughout the whole supply chain. Transporting the new demand to the customer will take time since it requires shipping and distribution. With postponement the late customization center will customize according to demand. Only the last part of the supply chain is affected by the shift in demand.
3.3 Complexity
The term complexity is open to different interpretations. The dictionary provides one suitable definition of complexity: a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts4. In terms of product differentiation this definition lacks acknowledgement of the impact of the amount of parts. Complexity, thus, occurs with the increase in parts or interrelations in a whole.
The perceived complexity in organization can result from two elements: uncertainty and/or interrelations, uncertainty is the result of variations in a system. Examples are demand fluctuation, test results and creative performance. On the other hand, complexity can be the whole of interrelations between parts. These interrelations can be found in the technology of the product, process and in the organization (Zhou, 2002). Organizational complexity can be divided in internal en external complexity. Figure 10 provides an overview of where complexity impacts the business.
4 Merriam-webster online dictionary
Distribution center Final assembly
Late customization center
Store
Store Assembly
1: No postponement
2: Postponement applied to the swappable chunk
27
FIGURE 10, COMPLEXITY BASED ON (ZHOU, 2002)
Complexity increases with product variety. If a company wants to increase its variants that it will have to decrease interrelations and standardize elements. Modularity is tolerant of uncertainty and makes complexity manageable (Baldwin & Clark, 2002).Standardization allows for re-use in development and processes. Modules can be made to manage variety or the opposite
standardized chunks (Ulrich K. , 1995).
3.4 Module Identification method according to Eggen (2003)
Functional Decomposition is the first step for Philips towards modularity. Since modularity involves the design of functional independence, it should enable individual treatment of modules in any stage of the Product Development Process. The main goal is, thus, to lower the
aggregation level towards recognizable functions. Eggen (2003) summarizes the work of Stone et al., (1999) on the adaptation of flows through functions. This process starts with a Black box model and gradually adding detail.
In this step the complete function structure is developed. If several products have different functions they can be combined using a function diagram. In any case, the functional
decomposition can be used for defining technical solutions for each function. Some solutions can present new functional requirements. With existing products or known components, a simple function component matrix can also be used to provide insight.
As explained in paragraph 2.1there are two main streams of literature regarding modular development. On the one hand, using module heuristics, where a module is based on a set of functions, on the other hand, a module can be based on a certain driver, like recyclability or production process. This is done with the Module Identification Matrix. Eggen (2003) presents a modularization method that incorporates knowledge from both streams of literature. Bear in mind that no method is capable of delivering an ultimate solution in product development. The methodology used here, creates structure by suggesting deliverables and methods.
28 Modular heuristics
The dominant flow heuristic is used though the clustering of functions through which a ‘flow’ exists. A flow is the transportation of material, signals or energy through the product. Figure 11 demonstrates a module where the material flow dedicates the module.
FIGURE 11, DOMINANT FLOW (STONE, WOOD, & CRAWFORD, 1999)
Modular Function Deployment
The modular function deployment method involves the use of the Module Identification Matrix (MIM), in which the technical solutions are assessed against a specific set of drivers (Erixon, von Yxkull, & Arnström, 1996). As a starting point a functional component matrix is constructed for current Black Coffee Senseos. The matrix is explained in paragraph 5.3.1. In this paragraph it is also applied to Senseo.
FIGURE 12, COMPLETED MIM EXAMPLE FOR VACUUM CLEANER (EGGEN, 2003)
Generation of modular concepts.
29 Concept evaluation.
The different concepts are modular opportunities. A method to determine the most promising opportunity is introduced, the Pugh Selection matrix. The criteria used to determine the most promising opportunity are based upon the goals for the Senseo x en the possible benefits that the modular opportunity brings with it. The most promising opportunities are focus areas and are used to analyze the possible effects that modularity has on Product Lifecycle Management.
3.5
Concluding remarks30
4 Current Senseo product development
This chapter is used to describe the elements concerning the adaptation of modular development. First of all, it is necessary to understand the Senseo environment. The basics of the Senseo are discussed in paragraph 4.1. Second, since this research is long term oriented, Senseo variety is discussed in paragraph 4.2. Third, competitors and modular architecture examples are discussed in paragraph 4.3. Fourth, the current development processes show aspects of modular
development and receive attention henceforth, but also are interesting from a customization point of view. The product development process and the impact of modularity on this process are discussed in paragraph 4.4. This chapter ends with concluding remarks in paragraph 4.5. 4.1 Senseo Basics
Figure 13presents an overview of the workings of any ‘black coffee Senseo appliance’5. The knowledge provided in this paragraph will help better understand the models presented in the analysis phase.
FIGURE 13, SENSEO FLOWS – CORE FUNCTIONS
When a Senseo is turned on water is heated in the ‘Boiler’. When the water boils, the user can press a button for coffee. A this point water is pumped from the ‘Water container’ through the ‘Socket’ into the boiler, the new cold water pushes the heated water out of the boiler, through the ‘three-way valve’, into the ‘brew chamber’ and the ‘water container’. The water that flows back into the ‘water container’ is the result of the volume expansion of water when it heats up. The
5 Black coffee Senseo appliance: Standard Senseo machine, incapable of making latte or cappuccino.
31 remaining water enters the ‘brew chamber’ through a ‘distribution disc assembly’. The
“distribution disc assembly” distributes the water evenly across the ‘coffee pad’, which lies on the ‘pad holder assembly’. The then produced coffee enters the spout from the ‘pad holder assembly’ from where it drips down into the cup(s) or drip tray.
The pump and boiler are powered by the electricity which is regulated by the PCBA that also regulates the operations of the device. The software on the PCBA is triggered by the heat sensor of the boiler and the water level sensor besides the water container. The volume of coffee is determined through the time that the pump operates. Appendix 5 discusses the different components more thoroughly.
4.2 Senseo variety
Figure 14 provides a rough illustration of the different Senseo introductions over time. In 2001 there was only one type of Senseo. As time progressed different types where introduced, each type consisting of a range of Senseos, where a range consists of different versions, colors or other variants. In general this picture shows an increase in the amount of different types of Senseos available in the market.
32 Black coffee differentiation
Table 1 presents the differentiation in the Senseos that make only black coffee. All the Senseos in the table are available on the market except the Flavors and new Generation which were phased out this year. Form the table it is evident that in terms of technical solutions, the core components have not changed much. For example, a boiler has always been the technological solution to heat water. The boiler has been improved over the years but no other technological solution has been applied. For example a flow through heater can also heat water, no
differentiation as such has occurred.
Differentiation occurs in the secondary features and in the housing/aesthetics- combination. In early models the User Interface was also differentiated upon. However current strategies already support standardization per range. This again shows that Philips is working hard on developing more modular like architectures.
TABLE 1, DIFFERENTIATION BLACK COFFEE SENSEOS (ULRICH & EPPINGER, 2008)
Senseo II
New
Generation Flavors Viva café Quadrant Twist distribute
coffee
Adjustable height Adjustable height Adjustable height Adjustable height
Collect drips
Position cup(s) Adjustable height
User control *(in high-end versions) *Cup volume, secondary interface *Cup volume, secondary interface *or; *Cup volume, secondary interface UI including cup volume
User feedback Close lid detection Close lid detection Close lid detection Provide aesthetics All visible parts (10) aesthetic function
All visible parts (13) except:
6 dedicated parts All visible parts (15) except: - pad holder
All visible parts (15) except: - pad holder
All visible parts (17) except: - pad holder - Water container Material Finishing - Different materials - Prints - Different materials - treatments - Prints - Different materials (eco focus) - Coatings - Prints - Different materials - Coatings - Prints - Different materials - Coatings - Prints - Textures House components Support frame for boiler
Support frame for boiler
33 4.3 Examples of modularity in house and competition
To provide some proof of concept, the research looked into successful implementations of modularity in similar products, made by competitors, and implementations, made by Philips in other Philips products. This paragraph summarizes the findings.
Senseo coffee is a one of a kind product. Similar devices use ‘cups’ instead of ‘pads’ and have a different business strategy. The cup devices generally make espresso coffee with high pressure. The devices are relatively cheap where profit comes from the cup sales. Both the Senseo and the cup based devices target the same market. Furthermore they show similarities on shelf: variants differ in color, style and functionality while providing the same core function. From a modular perspective it is possible to note some degree of modularity in the product architecture. It is more difficult to assess the modularity involved in the development process.
34
FIGURE 15, ECONOMICS OF PRODUCT VARIETY BASED ON ULRICH (1995).
The figure above shows the potential of modular devices in the coffee market. Examples of how modularity can work for Senseo are best sought inside Philips. The most well-known example of modularity in Philips lies within the shaver department. The shavers are made to have a basic body on which functionality can be added. This basis body without the aesthetic cover panels is shipped in efficient boxes to late customization and packaging plants where the product is finalized. The basic bodies can be used for different shavers, providing a sort of combinatorial modularity, although not as apparent as the espresso machine. Appendix 3 provides details about how this works. The benefits are high and the development of a variant can be done by a single person.
4.4 Development process
The ‘Consumer Lifestyle business development process’ (Figure 16) is the combination of multiple processes at Philips. It incorporates the whole timeframe from ‘Consumer, Customer, Market and Supplier Environment’ to ‘Customer and Consumer’. Between these processes, the development of products occurs. This is also where the supply chain configuration is determined and product variants are developed.
Component Process Flexibility
Low High Pro d u ct ar ch itectu re In teg rated Mo d u
lar
Dolce Gusto
35
FIGURE 16, CONSUMER LIFESTYLE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - WITH FOCUS AREA
The product development process at Philips bears the name ‘Integrated Product Development (IPD)’. This process is part of the ‘Consumer Lifestyle Business Management System’ (Figure 16). This process acquires a multi-disciplinary team that develops the new product. The process ends with the volume ramp-up, after which the ‘Project end’ occurs and ‘Product lifecycle management’ takes over responsibility. This study concerns the strategy definition of the ´Technology & Function creation’, ‘Integrated Product Development (IPD)’ and ‘Supply Chain management’.
The IPD starts with the review of the commercial brief from the business, which includes the ‘Value Proposition House’, ‘Commercial Requirements’, ‘Voice of Consumer Tree’, ‘Packaging Brief’ and ‘Sustainability requirements’. The IPD activities will result in a list of product
requirements, samples, data, documentation and finally a commercially released product.
FIGURE 17, IPD PHASES, MILESTONES & GATES
36 completely taken of the market. The main activities of PLM indicate the changes in the lifecycle including product variant introductions.
PLM projects are initiated by changes in all possible areas. Some examples of changes in the supply chain are; supplier change, components, availability and quality. The market can also ask for new colors, prints or materials. In any case, one of the following projects can be started:
Commercial Changes; Cost Reductions; Quality Improvements;
Supply Chain Management Changes.
These projects start with the generation of a ‘Change Request’ and end with a released manufacturing process and an updated ‘Device Master Record and Design History Files’. An overview of the Product Lifecycle Management process can be found in 0. For modularity the focus lies on the commercial changes that create variety to the customer.
4.4.1 Modular Product development management for Senseo
What will change in the development process with the implementation of modular principles? The benefits presented in the previous chapters will not be the result of a subsequent set of decisions resulting from this research. Although Philips shows many similarities in its IPD process with modular development, there are still areas that require attention. Next will be discussed how Philips can apply its development process management for Senseos to achieve a more modular focused development. The ‘Modular Approach of Product Development
Management’ (Ulrich K. , 1995) is used to discuss the different aspects of management. Figure 18 presents a summary of these aspects.
FIGURE 18, MODULAR PRODUCT DE VELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SUMMERY – BY (ULRICH K. , 1995)
The decision to develop a modular product is highly dependable upon the amount of varieties a company wants to offer. Definition of the amount of variety should become part of the initial
37 Concept development stage, which means that concepts should entail all desired variety that Philips wants to offer. For now the focus areas for modularity are identified; on a larger scale, further along in the development, Philips should look into all variants. Philips can also look at the variants delivered in the past and projects currently running within the departments. For example: smartphone-use, new material-finishing, recycling opportunities, milk frothing etc. Add-ons by external parties can also be considered. Deciding upon which variety to deliver includes the variety that occurs with serving different markets. The core components differ and components like the UI and PCBA can be country specific. For example the Senseo Lynx was initially not developed for Argentina and Brazil, but right after the launch it was decided otherwise. The device now needs redesign to cope with the difference in voltage. A design capable of reaching both markets was not considered, while it was more expensive to make. During the system design phase, focus lies on the system architecture. Functional elements are mapped against components. Because the planning and variety is known, the emphasis in the system level design will be on standards and protocols associated with the interfaces between components. At this stage Philips should therefor also define how the aesthetic function of the Senseo will be connected to the device, acknowledging interrelations between components involved in variety. With the clear definition of these protocols, development efforts can be devised more easily to specialists. This last step is already present at Philips; the open development environment seems to allow for speedy discussion between the architect and specialists. The result of these measures is that the detailed design and component developments can become more independent and management of these developments can become less frequent and involves more focus on achieving the individual performance measures. Philips will be able to test components individually for the range of desired variants, thereby tackling risks for Product Lifecycle Management early in the development. The final phase of testing and refining the products should then become much more a task of checking for unanticipated interactions, other than tuning the product to achieve the desired output as a whole.
4.4.2 Supply chain and modularity
38 products. This means that, for example, the PP (plastic) is purchased in bulk for Senseos,
vacuums, steamers etc.
FIGURE 19, SUPPLYCHAIN CONFIGURATIONS FOR M ASS CUSTOMIZATION (SALVADOR, RUNGTUSANATHAM, & FORZA, 2004)
4.5 Concluding remarks
39
5 Application of modular identification methods on Senseo
How is the modular development methodology applied to Senseo? Paragraph 5.1 discusses the input for the methods used. The input is the x proposition substantiated with historic data from other Black Coffee Senseos. Paragraph 5.2 shows how the functional decomposition can help provide understanding about the relations between functions in black coffee Senseos. Paragraph 5.3 and 5.4 present the two methods used to define modules; the Functional Module Deployment (FMD) and Module Heuristics (MH). Figure 20 shows the process that is described in this chapter. First modules are identified using the two methods for module identification; module heuristics and modular function deployment. The two methods suggest four modular
opportunities, in the figure depicted as simple symbols and discussed in paragraph 5.5. The four opportunities are assessed using the Pugh matrix in paragraph 5.6. A comparison is made
regarding the opportunities based on criteria from Philips regarding Senseo and possible
advantages and disadvantages of modularity from literature. The result is an identified focus on two of the four opportunities. These two are named modular focus areas for Philips and the impact is discussed in separated cases (chapters 6 & 7).
FIGURE 20, FOCUS AREA IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
40
5.2 Functional Decomposition
From the proposition it is clear that the Senseos x is a black coffee Senseos. The vast amount of elements, components and technical solutions are already defined or available from past Senseo designs. The core functions, for example are still the same. For explanatory purposes the
functional decomposition will start with the, in literature, suggested black box model (Stone, Wood, & Crawford, 1999). Figure 21 depicts the Senseo as a black box with its main function described as making black pad Senseo coffee.
FIGURE 21, SENSEO - BLACK BOX
A different aggregation level depicts the sub-functions that together deliver the core function. The same flows can still be identified, as shown for material and energy in Figure 22. The functional decomposition is based on the current Black Coffee Senseos
FIGURE 22, SENSEO FUNCTION STRUCTURE FOR THE FLOW MATERIAL AND ENERGY
One should understand that it is possible to further divide the sub-function into more detailed functions. For example ‘supply water’ can also include the check whether there is water, in other words ‘water level indication’. Differentiating Aesthetics: this is the differentiating function for
Make black pad Senseo coffee
Hand, cup(s), pad & water UI control
Heat, noise, human force Hand, cup(s), pad, steam & coffee
Full coffee cup(s), UI signal
Energy flow Material flow Signal flow
Heat water Brew coffee Transport water Supply coffee Distribute coffee Collect drips Position cups Power device Regulate electricity User
control Energy flow
41 the customer. It is the function determining the coloring/look of the device. The Framing/housing function should at least keep all components in place.
In the next section the ‘Modular Function Deployment method’ and ‘Heuristic approach to modularity development’ are used to identify modular focus areas.
5.3 Modular Function Deployment
The goal is to create a model from which modules can be identified. Before such a model can be created understanding about the functions is required. This case uses historic data from black coffee Senseos. The function component matrix is very specific in depicting the technological solutions to functions (Fixson, 2005). For this case, function component matrixes were made of all black coffee Senseo appliances. This provides understanding about the technical solutions and interrelations used so far.
TABLE 2 FUNCTION COMPONENT MATRIX SENSEO 2
42
FIGURE 23, FUNCTION-COMPONENT ALLOCATION MAP SENSEO II AND FLAVORS
Figure 23 presents the function-component allocation maps of Senseo II and Flavors. A more modular architecture can be identified by a more down-left orientation of the plotted points. Appendix 8 shows the results of the other black Senseo coffee makers. The new Senseo Swift (lynx) is even more integrated. The least modular function is in every case the aesthetic function in combination with the housing function. This is as expected since almost every housing part supports differentiating aesthetics.
5.3.1 Module Identification Matrix
The Modular function deployment (MFD) method developed by Erixon (1998) is integrated in the methodology for modular product development (Eggen, 2003). The module indication matrix (MIM) is a tool that structures the analysis of how a function is carried towards the drivers to form a module. The tools question the function carries in respect to a set of general module drivers.
The functional decomposition is conducted using the function component matrix and
differentiation table. The learning’s from these methods can be applied in the Module indication matrix? The technical solutions or functions are mapped against the modularity drivers.
Explanation of the drivers can be found in
Table 3 (page 44). The MIM matrix is a way to do a broad focus evaluation of the product were the drivers listed in the left column are linked to different moments in the lifecycle. The sub-functions, or component drivers, listed horizontally are considered to be integrated into a module. Component drivers with some or a few similar drivers are to be considered (Holmqvist & Persson, 2003) as modules. In this case the functions are used, not components or
43
FIGURE 24, MODULE IDENTIFICATION MATRIX (MIM)6
Figure 24 shows the completed MIM. The model works as follows: the function carries are rated in regards to the respective driver (“blank”= non-existent, “”= weak, “”= average and “”= high); points are related to each rating, respectively 0, 1, 3 & 9; the sum of all ratings is placed in the “Weight of Driver” row. The highest scoring functions, indicated using the ‘’ symbol, are the more interesting functions for modularity. Functions scoring very high are modular
opportunities and relatively high score functions, showing the same results horizontally, can be combined into a module.
Horizontally certain modules can be identified: the function drivers concerned with the brewing process show similar results. The aesthetic function scores highest. This is also the most
differentiating function. It is thus suggested to make a module out of the differentiating aesthetic function and the brewing function. The power device and regulation of electricity show similar results, but the scores are not that high. The heat water function also scores high. This function, however, is already treated as a module; the boiler module. Philips could only look into reducing the interrelations with the boiler further but there is no opportunity identified to change the current module.
44
TABLE 3 MODULARITY DRIVERS (EGGEN, 2003) COMPLEMENTED WITH SUPPLY CHAIN DRIVERS
Product development and design
Carryover This is a part that is unlikely to change during the lifecycle of the product platform
Technology evolution
Parts that require changes due to customer demand or shifts in technology. Adaptive interfaces are suggested to accommodate for these parts. Planned product
changes
Parts that Philips intents to change because for example a technology is not ready yet, or more proof of success is required
Variance
Different specifications
These parts handle variation. One can look at functions or the parts affected by for example the voltages in different countries. Styling Aesthetic parts, color variations and high or low end materials. Production
Common unit Parts that are the same for every product. Process and/or
organization
Parts that are processed the same way. For example all molded parts.
Quality Separate testing Parts that can be tested if put together, before the whole product is assembled.
Purchase Supplier availability
The modules that can be purchased from external suppliers
After sales
Service and maintenance
Parts that require maintenance or service could form a module that can be easily extracted.
Upgrading The parts that are upgraded by the consumer during the individual lifecycle of a single product
Recycling Recyclable materials can be clustered together into a recycling module that can be removed at the end of the individual lifecycle of a product.
5.4 Heuristic approach to modularity development
The heuristic approach starts with the functional decomposition (Paragraph 5.2). Instead of building modules based on drivers, the modules are based on the functional flows of the system. The knowledge gained during the analysis of the whole range of black coffee Senseos, used in the previous paragraph, is used here again, although this time more profound. This more detailed decomposition is presented in Figure 25. Dotted lines are placed around functions that are
45
FIGURE 25, HEURISTICS MODULE IDENTIFICATION OF FLOWS THROUGH FUNCTIONS
For the identification of modular oppertunities, one looks at the constantness of flows through a set of functions. In essence, a part with a steady stream could be considerd modular. The core functions depicted in the middle from left to right, are very much integrated with the other streams and therefor not modular. If one conciders the learnings from the MIM matrix, and looks at the functions concerned with the brewing process, a more steady stream can be identified. No energy flow is involved here and only the material flow remains part of this chunk. The isolation of the energy flow is probably most easily recognised, at the bottom left. The functions
concerned with the brewing pinciples shows the same flows, this is the second modular chunk that is identified. Finaly the functions concerend with the driptray show similar flows. This has been recognised by Philips since the newest Senseo device has a more modular driptray
assembly. This method clearly only focusses on more dynamic components concerned with supplying the primary function. The housing and differentiating aesthetics are automaticly disregarded. Figure 26 displays the product schematic (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008) of a black coffee Senseo with secondary functions added and modular opportunities displayed.
46
FIGURE 26, PRODUCT SCHEMATIC
The used methodology suggests, treating the components involved in brewing form as a module. This is already done to some extent, referring to what is called the brew chamber. However, the component is currently in only a few ways re-used. For new designs the frame needs to be reinvented. Furthermore, the brew chamber currently is undergoing differentiation through coloring or printing. The modular opportunity suggests, redesigning the brew chamber as a core component, which means that the core components of the brew chamber should not be afflicted by design decisions when new variants are developed. In designing the brew chamber, it should be designed as a minimal core function, testable as a whole with exclusion of as much
47 5.5 Identified modules
So far this chapter applied two different methods to analyze the Senseo. These are: Module Function Deployment and Module heuristic. The two methods are very different, but have the same goal, which is to identify modular opportunities. There is a difference in the information each method provides. The MFD method challenges the user to think outside the current devices. It also challenges the user to focus on the long term, because the heuristic method, on the other hand, really looks into the physical structuring of the product and its use. The method identifies module candidates by the combining components that steer different types of flow through the appliance and process of using it. This method provided insight into the primary functions, discovering a possible new form of modularity in the brew chamber. However, it is focused on the core functions and their use. Supporting functions and possible variety and differentiation are not part of the process. Combining the knowledge gained through these methods with the
knowledge four modular opportunities where identified, and are presented in Figure 27.
FIGURE 27, MODULAR OPPERTUNITIES
Regarding the used methods the following can be said: the methodology proved capable in delivering modular focus areas. Complete modular concepts require more development effort: the methodology used here in this early stage did allow for the making of a first step. The MIM method lets the user think outside the box. However, filling the matrix is more challenging than literature suggests (Eggen 2003). In this case (16 function) x (12 drivers) = 192 points of discussion. Different drivers and functions require knowledge possessed by different engineers. Discussion with the involved engineers proved valuable; however, different people perceive the scoring differently. Completing the matrix proved time consuming and the heuristic approach proved easier. However, the focus on the core function left out all body and differentiating
Picture unfinished Brew function
