Design of Robust New Products under Variability: Marketing Meets Design*
本文提出一种结合工程性能和消费者偏好的稳健产品设计方法，通过多目标遗传算法识别最优设计，帮助产品经理和开发团队在原型开发早期获得内外部认可，降低成本和缩短周期。
In designing consumer durables such as appliances and power tools, it is important to account for variations in product performance across different usage situations and conditions. Since the specific usage of the product and the usage conditions can vary, the resultant variations in product performance also can impact consumer preferences for the product. Therefore, any new product that is designed should be robust to these variations—both in product performances and consumer preferences. This article refers to a robust product design as a design that has (1) the best possible (engineering and market) performance under the worst‐case variations and (2) the least possible sensitivity in its performance under the variations. Achieving these robustness criteria, however, implies consideration of a large number of design factors across multiple functions. This article's objectives are (1) to provide a tutorial on how variations in product performance and consumer preferences can be incorporated in the generation and comparison of design alternatives and (2) to apply a multi‐objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) that incorporates multifunction criteria in order to identify better designs while incorporating the robustness criteria in the selection process. Since the robustness criteria is based on variations in engineering performance as well as consumer preferences, the identified designs are robust and optimal from different functional perspectives, a significant advantage over extant approaches that do not consider robustness issues from multifunction perspectives. This study's approach is particularly useful for product managers and product development teams, who are charged with developing prototypes. They may find the approach helpful for obtaining customers' buy‐in as well as internal buy‐in early on in the product development cycle and thereby for reducing the cost and time involved in developing prototypes. This study's approach and its usefulness are illustrated using a case‐study application of prototype development for a handheld power tool.