Designing a product platform architecture development model with a multi-objective approach including DFC, DFV and DFSC,Case study: Phased array antenna system

Since the development of a strong platform architecture is considered a competitive advantage for companies and is effective in improving the future generations of the product, therefore there is a need for a kind of diversified product design that simultaneously manages the costs and supply chain process and thus help to develop the architecture of the product platform. In this research, the design for vareity (DFV) method and two generational variety index (GVI) and coupling index (CI) are used to measure a product architecture and by using the quality improvement function (QFD) and the design structure matrix ( DSM), design indicators for variety are identified and ranked. Also, the DFV approach is simultaneously modeled with the categories of design for cost (DFC) and design for supply chain (DFSC) and a mathematical model applied to the development of the product platform architecture is obtained, which seeks to diversify the product and reduce costs and Supply chain process management. The case study of the current research is the phased array antenna system, in which the problem is solved using one of the new optimization techniques (LP metric) and GAMS software. After the implementation of the model, its validation was carried out and considering three objectives including the total cost and the evaluation score (competence) of the suppliers and the objective of variety and the seven main parameters of the model, sensitivity analysis and other comparisons and results. A review is provided. Regarding the comparison of the goals with each other, the findings show the inverse relationship of the total cost goal with the variety and the evaluation score goals and the direct relationship between the two variety and the evaluation score goals. Also, the results of the sensitivity analysis showed the higher effectiveness of the goal of variety among the investigated parameters, and the evaluation score (competence) of suppliers and the total cost were ranked next.