Commonality Indices in Design and Production Planning

COMMONALITY INDICES IN DESIGN AND PRODUCTION
PLANNING
Wazed, M. A. 1,2, Ahmed, S. 1 and Nukman, Y. 1

1
Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture,
University of Malaya (UM)
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology (CUET)
Chittagong 4349, Bangladesh.
Author email: awazed@gmail.com
ABSTRACT: Parts commonality is an ignored topic in most of the studies

in milieu of manufacturing resource planning. In real world manufacturing
settings, parts commonalities occur in their own ways or can be planned for
their preferred happening. The use of common components for different
products in a company is important for managing product variety and
maintaining competitiveness in this age of mass customization and supply
chain struggle. The ever-increasing intricacy in manufacturing systems has
generated a demand on global scale for more effective techniques to optimize
WKHUHVRXUFHXWLOL]DWLRQDQGWRHI¿FLHQWO\FRQWHQGZLWKSDUWVFRPPRQDOLW\
Numerous advantages of parts commonality in manufacturing systems
including reduction of costs and lead times are reported in literatures. The
main objectives of this paper are to (i) study the commonality indices in
design and production planning reported in literatures since 1980 and (ii)
some useful insights including advantages and disadvantages of using
commonality in manufacturing/production system. It is observed that in
designing a new family of products/processes or analyzing an existing family,
commonality indices can often be used as a preliminary summit. Systematic
understanding and suitable use of commonality and commonality indices
can help managing inventory levels, uncertainties and cost dimensions.
Keywords: Parts commonality, commonality index, production planning.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The underlying ideas for commonality and modularity are not really new.
As early as 1914, an automotive engineer demanded the standardization of
automobile subassemblies, such as axles, wheels and fuel feeding mechanisms
to facilitate a mix-and-matching of components and to reduce costs (Fixson,
S.K., 2007). Commonality, i.e. using the same type of component in different
ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009 1

Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
locations of product structure trees, is frequently encountered in manufacturing

industries. It has long been known that using a common component can
reduce the cost of safety stock. Basically, taking commonality into account
a manufacturer can reduce the inventory level, shorten the time for reaching
the market, decrease the set-up time, increase productivity, and improve
ÀH[LELOLW\
The commonality index is a measure of how well the product design utilizes
standardized components. A component item is any inventory item (including a
raw material), other than an end item that goes into higher-level items (Dong, M.,
DQG&KHQ))$QHQGLWHPLVD¿QLVKHGSURGXFWRUPDMRUVXEDVVHPEO\
subject to a customer order. The global nature of the markets and competition
has forced many companies to revisit their operations strategy. Companies
have moved from centralized operations to decentralized operations in order to
take advantage of available resources and to be closer to their markets.
,QWHUQDWLRQDODQWDJRQLVPLVIRUFLQJ¿UPVWRDWWDLQZRUOGFODVVPDQXIDFWXULQJ
in order to vie in global markets. Short manufacturing lead time is accepted
as the central underlying factor for successfully accomplishing world-class
manufacturing goals of on-time delivery (Blackburn, J.D., 1985), quality
6FKPHQQHU 5: 6FKRQEHUJHU 5- ÀH[LELOLW\ 6WDON *-
DQGSURGXFWLYLW\:DFNHU-*7KHOHQJWKRIPDQXIDFWXULQJOHDG
WLPHLVIUHTXHQWO\XVHGDVDPHDVXUHRID¿UP¶VFRPSHWLWLYHQHVV0DQ\IDFWRUV
FKDUDFWHUL]H WRGD\¶V PDQXIDFWXULQJ HQYLURQPHQW VXFK DV LQFUHDVHG SURGXFW
variety, intensifying global competition, changing social expectations and
rapid advancement of manufacturing technology. Manufacturing companies
¿QGWKHPVHOYHVLQDWRWDOO\FKDQJHGHQYLURQPHQWVRWKH\PXVWLPSURYHERWKRI
WKHLUSURGXFWVDQGWKHLUSURGXFWLYLW\E\PDNLQJWKHLUSURFHVVHVPRUHHI¿FLHQW
and effective to remain competitive as a matter of survival, (Salaheldin, I.S.,
and Francis, A., 1998; Towers, N., Knibbs, A., and Panagiotopoulos, N.,
2005). An important factor for improving these processes is the controlling of
production operations.
7RGD\¶V PDUNHWSODFH LV KLJKO\ FRPSHWLWLYH JOREDO DQG YRODWLOH FXVWRPHU

demands are constantly changing, and they seek wider varieties of products
at the same price as mass-produced goods. This shift in the market has
increased the need for product variety, in which variety and customization
replace standardized products. This emerging paradigm has been names as
PDVV FXVWRPL]DWLRQ ZKLFK 3LQH %- GH¿QHV DV ³$W LWV OLPLW >WKH@
mass production of individually customized goods and services.” Nowadays,
manufacturing companies need to satisfy a wide range of customer needs while
2 ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009

Commonality Indices in Design and Production Planning
maintaining manufacturing costs as low as possible, and many companies are

faced with the challenge of providing as much variety as possible for the market
ZLWKDVOLWWOHYDULHW\DVSRVVLEOHEHWZHHQWKHSURGXFWV$OWKRXJKWKHEHQH¿WV
of commonality are widely known, many companies are still not taking full
advantage of it when developing new products or re-designing the existing
ones.
A compromising decision among the product variety, customers demand

and costs should be reached to cope up with the market trend and customers
expectations, eventually for survival in business. In this paper the authors look
into the issue of commonality as a key element to achieve the products/processes
economy/safety in designing and production. As a consequence commonality
indices, which measure and help to design/manage commonality, come into its
consideration. Finally, the commonality indices reported in literatures so far is
also studied.
2.0 PERSPECTIVES OF COMMONALITY

7KH WHUP µFRPPRQDOLW\¶ UHIHUV LQ OLWHUDWXUHV DUH VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH 7KH
advantages and disadvantages of commonality are shown in Table 2.
Table 1. 'H¿QLWLRQRIFRPPRQDOLW\
Reference 'H¿QLWLRQ
Eynan $QDSSURDFKZKLFKVLPSOL¿HVWKHPDQDJHPHQWDQGFRQWURORILQYHQWRU\DQG
also reduce inventory is component commonality (Eynan,A.,1996).
Meyer and Commonality is a group of related products that share common
Lehnerd characteristics, which can be features, components, and/or subsystems. It is
a set of subsystems and interfaces that form a common structure from which
DVWUHDPRIGHULYDWLYHSURGXFWVFDQEHHI¿FLHQWO\GHYHORSHGDQGSURGXFHG
(Meyer, M.H., and Lehnerd, A.P., 1997)
Ma et. al. Component commonality generally refers to an approach in manufacturing
in which two or more different components for different end products (of
perhaps the same product family) are replaced by a common component that
can perform the function of those it replaces. (Ma. S.H., et. al. 2002)
Mirchandani Component commonality refers to a manufacturing environment where two
and Mishra or more products use the same components in their assembly. Commonality
is an integral element of the increasingly popular assemble-to-order strategy
that inventories certain critical components- typically, with long lead time
and expensive- in a generic form (Mirchandani, P., and Mishra, A.K.,
2002).

Labro Commonality is the use of the same version of component across multiple
products. It is a cost decreasing strategy in a stochastic-demand environment
because by pooling risks the total volume of the common component can be
forecasted more accurately (Labro, E., 2004).
Ashayeri and &RPPRQDOLW\ LV GH¿QHG DV WKH QXPEHU RI SDUWVFRPSRQHQWV WKDW DUH XVHG
Selen by more than one end product, and is determined for all product families
(Ashayeri, J., and Selen, W., 2005).
Therefore, Commonality is an approach in manufacturing, production and

inventory management system where different components replace by common
component(s) or same components are used for multiple products and thereby
VLPSOL¿HVWKHPDQDJHPHQWDQGFRQWURORIUHVRXUFHVDQGHDVHWKHDQDO\VLVDQG
improvement of existing products/processes or development of new products/
processes at an optimize costs. The actual measurement for commonality
FRPHV LQ YDULHW\ RI ÀDYRUV7KH\ UDQJH IURP PHDVXUHPHQWV GLUHFWO\ RQ WKH
component level to measurements in very indirect or abstract dimensions. For
example, some researchers suggest a simple fraction count: The ratio between
the total number of product design modules and the product size (Nambisan, S.,
0LNNROD-+DQG*DVVPDQQ2GHYHORSHGWKHLUPRGXODUL]DWLRQ
function based on the number of components and the degree of coupling
between them. Focusing on the interdependence between modules, Kaski T.
and Heikkila, J. (2002), construct a similar measure. Kota,S. et. al. (2000)
suggest a product line commonality index that measures the fraction of parts
which is shared across a product family relative to the parts that could have
been shared, adjusted for materials, manufacturing and assembly processes.
The most common and frequently used methods to measure commonality are
described in next section.
More and more evidences point to the pitfalls of expanding too aggressively
in component proliferation when the process is not managed well. Rapid
FRPSRQHQWSUROLIHUDWLRQJUHDWO\DIIHFWVDFRPSDQ\¶VDELOLW\WRFRPSHWHRQD
cost and time basis. It is stated that half of all overhead costs are in some way
related to the number of different parts handled (Cooper, R., and Turney, B.P.P.,
$FFRUGLQJWR2VWUHQJD05DQG2]HQ75³0DQXIDFWXUHUV
have estimated the annual administrative cost of each part number to be
$10,000 or more”. There are a number of negative effects generated by part
proliferation. They are: Excessive design effort, incresed time-to-market,
LQHI¿FLHQW PDQXIDFWXULQJ KLJKHU RYHUKHDG FRVWV HWF 7KH ZLGHO\ XVHG
and effective approach to component variety is to exploit commonality in
components.

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of commonality

3.0 COMMONALITY INDICES

Several commonality indices are found in literatures to measure that within a
IDPLO\RISURGXFWVSURFHVVHV&RPPRQDOLW\LVGH¿QHGDVWKHQXPEHURISDUWV
components that are used by more than one end product and is determined for all
product family (Ashayeri, J., and Selen, W., 2005). Within a product/process
family, commonality index is a metric to assess the degree of commonality.
It is based on different parameters like the number of common components,
component costs, manufacturing processes, etc. Several component-based
indices are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Commonality indices
3.1 Degree of commonality index

The most common measure of the degree of commonality is the average places
used for a distinct component, or the average number of parent items per
GLVWLQFWFRPSRQHQWSDUW6KHX&DQG:DFNHU*&ROOLHU'$
7KLVPHDVXUHLVNQRZQDVWKHGHJUHHRIFRPPRQDOLW\LQGH['&,,WUHÀHFWV
the average number of common parent items per average distinct component
(Eq.1):
......................................................................................... (1)
Where, = Number of immediate parent component j has over a set of end

items or product structure level(s).; d = Total number of distinct components
in the set of end items or product structure level(s); and i = The total number

of end items or the total number of highest level parent items for the product
structure level(s).
A component item is an inventory item other than an end item that goes into
KLJKHUOHYHOLWHPV$QHQGLWHPLVWKH¿QLVKHGSURGXFWRUPDMRUVXEDVVHPEO\
subject to a customer order or sales forecast. Parent item is any inventory item
WKDWKDVFRPSRQHQWSDUWV7KH'&,KDVQR¿[HGERXQGDULHVUDQJLQJEHWZHHQ
DQGȕZKHUHȕLVGH¿QHGLQ7DEOH7KHPDLQDGYDQWDJHRIWKH'&,LVLWVHDVH
of computation. However, it has two severe limitations; it is a cardinal measure
ZLWKRXW¿[HGERXQGDULHVDQGLWGRHVQRWFRQVLGHUFRPSRQHQWXVDJHE\FKDQJHV
LQGHPDQGRUTXDQWLW\SHUDVVHPEO\:DFNHU-*DQG7UHOHYHQ0,W
LVGLI¿FXOWWRHVWLPDWHWKHLQFUHDVHLQFRPPRQDOLW\ZKLOHUHGHVLJQLQJDIDPLO\
and to compare different families of products.
Different from Collier, D.A., (1981) two types of commonality indexes are
GH¿QHGE\'RQJ0DQG&KHQ))2QHLVFDOOHGFRPSRQHQWOHYHO
(denoted as CIi), which is to provide an indicator on the percentage of a
component being used in different products. The other is called product-level
(denoted as CIp). There are three variables that will affect the commonality
index. These are: number of unique components (denoted as u), number of
WRWDOFRPSRQHQWVDORQJWKHSURGXFWOLQHGHQRWHGDVFDQG¿QDOQXPEHURI
product varieties offered (denoted as n). The formula used to calculate the
component-level and product-level commonalities are shown in (Eq.2) and
(Eq.3) respectively.
.........................................................................................(2)
..................(3)
Where, ¿j= Number of component i in product j; c =The total number of

components along the product line; u= Number of unique components; n =
7KH¿QDOQXPEHURISURGXFWYDULHWLHVRIIHUHGdj = Demand of product j; and

The lower bound of the component-level CI is 0 (no commonality). The upper

bound on the degree of commonality is 1. Complete commonality results when
the total number of distinct components (u) equals one. In reality, the number
RI WRWDO FRPSRQHQWV DORQJ WKH SURGXFW OLQH LV JUHDWHU WKDQ ¿QDO QXPEHU RI
product varieties offered (i.e., c > n).
3.2 Total Constant Commonality Index

7KH7RWDO&RQVWDQW&RPPRQDOLW\,QGH[7&&,LVDPRGL¿HGYHUVLRQRIWKH
'&,:DFNHU-*DQG7UHOHYHQ0&RQWUDU\WRWKH'&,ZKLFKLVD
cardinal index (and hence an absolute increase in commonality is not possible
to measure), it is a relative index that has absolute boundaries ranging from 0
to 1 (Eq. 4). The absolute boundaries of TCCI facilitate comparisons between
product families and within a family of products during redesign.
........................................................................(4)
......................................(5)
Where:
CCi = Component commonality index for component
MaxCCi = Maximum possible Component Commonality Index for component
i=N
MinCCi = Minimum possible Component Commonality Index for component
i
P = Number of non differentiating components that can potentially be
standardized across models.
N = Number of products in the product family
ni = Number of products in the product family that have component i
f1i = Size and shape factor for component i = Ratio of the greatest
number of models that share component i with identical size and
shape to the greatest possible number of models that could have
shared component i with identical size and shape (ni).
f2i = Materials and manufacturing processes factor for component i =
Ratio of the greatest number of models that share component with
identical materials and manufacturing processes to the greatest
possible number of models that could have shared component
with identical materials and manufacturing processes (ni).
f3i = Assembly and fastening schemes factor for component i = Ratio of

the greatest number of models that share component i with identical

assembly and fastening schemes to the greatest possible number of
models that could have shared component with identical assembly
and fastening schemes (ni).
3.3 The Product Line Commonality Index

Contrary to the indices that simply measure the percentage of components that
are common across a product family (and hence penalizing families with a
broader feature mix), the Product Line Commonality Index (PCI) measures and
penalizes the differences in the non-unique components, given the product mix
.RWD66HWKXUDPDQ.DQG0LOOHU57KH3&,KDV¿[HGERXQGDULHV
that range from 0 to 100 (Eq. 5).
When PCI = 0, either none of the non-unique components are shared across
models, or if they are shared, their sizes/shapes, materials/manufacturing
processes, and assembly processes are all different. When PCI = 100, it
indicates that all the non-unique components are shared across models and
that they are of identical size and shape, are made using the same material and
manufacturing process, and the assembly and fastening methods are identical.
This index focuses on commonality that should exist between products that
share common or variant components rather than on the unique components
that differentiate the products. It provides a single measure for the entire product
family, but it does not offer insight into the commonality of the individual
products.
3.4 Percent Commonality Index

The Percent Commonality Index (%C) is based on three main viewpoints:
component viewpoint, component-component association viewpoint and
assembly viewpoint. Each of these viewpoints results in a percentage of
commonality, which can then be combined to determine an overall measurement
of commonality for a platform by using the appropriate weights for each
item Siddique, Z. et.al. The component viewpoint measures the percentage
of components of a platform that are common to different models and is the
percent commonality of components, CC (Eq. 6):
........................................(6)
The component-component connections viewpoint measures the percentage of

common connections between components, Cn (Eq. 7):

..........................................(7)
Similarly, the assembly viewpoint measures the percentage of common

assembly sequences. Two indices are used: CI, to measure the percentage
of common assembly sequences (Eq. 8) and Ca, to measure the percentage
of common assembly workstations (Eq. 9): These four values can then be
combined into an overall platform commonality measure; the weighted-sum
formulation (Eq. 10) is the most popular Siddique, Z.et.al.
.........(8)
..........................(9)
......................................(10)
Where, Ii = Importance (weighting factors) and Ci = % Commonality

as previously described.
The resulting %C ranges from 0 to 100. This index takes the manufacturing
process into consideration; moreover, it can be adapted to different strategies
XVLQJ ZHLJKWLQJ IDFWRUV 2QH GLVDGYDQWDJH LV WKDW WKH PHDVXUH LV DSSOLHG WR
each platform and not the family as a whole, which increases the computational
expense of this measure.
3.5 Commonality Index

Proposed by Martin, M.V. and Ishii, K., the Commonality Index (CI) is a
measure of unique components that is similar to the DCI proposed by Collier,
D.A., (1982 & 1981). CI ranges from 0 to 1 (Eq. 11):
.......................................................................(11)
Where, u= number of unique components; Pj = number of components in model

j; vn ¿QDOQXPEHURIYDULHWLHVRIIHUHG$KLJKHUCI is better since it indicates
that the different varieties within the product family are being achieved with
fewer unique components. The CI can be interpreted as the ratio between the
number of unique components in a product family and the total number of
components in the family.

3.6 Component Part Commonality Index

Proposed by Jia, J. and Tseng, M.M., (2000), the Component Part Commonality
Index is an extended version of the DCI that takes into account the
product volume, quantity per operation, and the cost of each component (Eq.
12):
...............................................(12)
Where
d = Total number of distinct component parts used in all the product
structures of a product family.
j = Index of each distinct component part.
Pj = Price of each type of purchased components or the estimated cost of
each internally made component part.
m = Total number of end products in a product family.
i = Index of each member product of a product family.
Vi = Volume of end product i in the family.
= Number of immediate parents for each distinct component part dj
over all the products levels of product i of the family.
= Total number of applications (repetitions) of a distinct component
part dj across all the member products in the family.
= Quantity of distinct component part dj required by the product i
The KDVµPRYLQJ¶ERXQGDULHVWKDWUDQJHIURPWRĮ7KH gives very

useful information, as it takes the cost of each component into consideration.
For instance, a very expensive component commonality throughout a family
KDVPRUHLQÀXHQFHWKDQDFRPSRQHQWWKDWLVYHU\FKHDSDQGGLIIHUHQWIURPRQH
product to another. A disadvantage in is in estimating the quantity and
cost information needed to compute the index. It is also noteworthy that this
LQGH[FDQVXEMHFWWRHUURUVLQVRPHVSHFL¿FFDVHVDFRUUHFWHGYHUVLRQRIWKH
formula is proposed in Blecker et. al. (2005).
3.7 Comprehensive metric for commonality (CMC)

The CMC appears to be more information-intensive than other indices. The
CMC is computed at the component level, but if the number of components
becomes too large, the CMC can be computed at the module level, where
each module is considered as a single entity rather than multiple components.
7KHYHQRW+-GH¿QHG&0&DV(T

..................(13)
Where,
P = Total number of components.
ni = Number of products in the product family that have component i
f1i = Ratio of the greatest number of models that share component i
with identical size and shape to the number of models that have
component i (ni)
f2i = Ratio of the greatest number of models that share component i with
identical materials to
the number of models that have component i (ni).
identical manufacturing process to the number of models that have
component i (ni).
identical assembly and fastening schemes to the number of models
that have component i (ni).
= Ratio of the greatest number of models that share component i with
identical size and shape to the greatest possible number of models
that could have shared component i with identical size and shape
schemes.
identical materials to the greatest possible number of models that
could have shared component i with identical materials.
identical manufacturing processes to the greatest possible number
of models that could have shared component i with identical
manufacturing processes.
identical assembly and fastening schemes to the greatest possible
number of models that could have shared component i with identical
assembly and fastening schemes.
Ci = = Current total cost for component i.
Cij = = Total cost for component i variant j
Qij = Quantity of component i variant j.

cij = Unit cost for component i variant j.

= = Minimum total cost for component i (obtained when

the component is common between all the products
having component i).
= = Maximum total component cost (obtained when the

component is variant in each of the products having
component i).
3.8 Other Commonality indices

Some other commonality indices are found in literatures, but they are much
PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ LQWHQVLYH DQG KHQFH GLI¿FXOW WR DSSO\ 0DUWLQ 09 DQG
,VKLL.SURSRVHGD*HQHUDWLRQDO9DULHW\,QGH[WRKHOSLGHQWLI\ZKLFK
components are likely to change over time in order to meet future market
requirements and a Coupling Index to measure the coupling between these
components. A Functional Similarity Index was introduced by McAdams, D.A.
et.al. (1999 & 2002) to assist in concept development and modular product
design. Finally, indices for measuring the Degree of Variation within a scale
based product family have also been proposed by Mattson, C.A. and Messac,
A., (2005) and Simpson et.al. (2001).
4.0 COMMONALITY AND COMMONALITY INDEX – AN

INSIGHT
&RPPRQDOLW\LVDQLQWHJUDOHOHPHQWRIDVVHPEOHWRRUGHU$72VWUDWHJ\7KLV
VWUDWHJ\ LQGHQWL¿HV FHUWDLQ FULWLFDO FRPSRQHQWV DQG VXEDVVHPEOLHV WKDW DUH
inventoried in a generic form at a higher echelon. Typically these components
are expensive and have a high manufacturing (or procurement) lead time. These
components are made-to-stock (MTS) using forecasted requirements and are
utilized as needed when the product demand materializes. Used in this manner,
common component reduce inventory costs due to risk-pooling and the optimal
DOORFDWLRQRIFRPSRQHQWLQYHQWRU+LOOLHU06*HUFKDN<et.al. 1988;
Eynan, A. and Rosenblatt, M. J., 1996). The common components also help in
delaying the point of commitment of material to an individual product and thus
LQFUHDVHWKHÀH[LELOLW\IRUPHHWLQJFXVWRPHURUGHUVSHFL¿FDWLRQV)LUPVWKXV
can deliver product variety by postponing the point of product differentiation
to manage long throughput cycles and short delivery times (Lee, H.L., and
Tang, C.S., 1997).
In previous studies (Hillier, M. S., 2002a,b; Ma, S.H. et.al.*HUFKDN

<et.al. 1988; Collier, D.A., 1982; Eynan, A. and Rosenblatt, M. J., 1996;

0F&ODLQ-2et. al.%DNHU.5WKHEHQH¿WVRIFRPSRQHQW

commonality were almost solely associated with a decrease in inventory, safety
stock and order costs due to the risk pooling effect and Jans, R. et. al. (2008),
validated the importance of the development costs and unit production costs on
the component commonality decision. Thoneman, U.W. and Brandeau, M.L.
(2000) and Mirchanda,P. and Mishra, A.K., (2002) study part commonality
in the component design and to satisfy service level constraints, respectively.
&RPPRQDOLW\ LQFUHDVH WKH ÀH[LELOLW\ RI WKH ZRUNLQSURFHVV UHGXFH VHWXS
DQGUHWRROLQJWLPHVLPSURYHRSHUDWLQJHFRQRPLHVRIVFDOHDQGVLPSOL¿HVWKH
LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ DQG UHGXFWLRQ RI SURGXFWLRQ DQG TXDOLW\ SUREOHPV &RPPRQ
components also lead to easier part number administration and improved
supplier relationships (Balakrishnan, A. and Brown, S., 1996). Commonality
helps in simplifying engineering design, in integrating the design of products
and processes and in reducing new product development time.
Commonality generally reduces the attractiveness of a product line and

ceteris paribus, leads to lower revenue. The component commonality problem
also arises as a sub-problem in multiple echelon inventory management and
stochastic MRP. In stochastic MRP problem, commonality can occur at several
OHYHOV RI WKH ELOORIPDWHULDOV %20 %DNHU . 5 )RU DQDO\WLFDO
tractability, most researchers have addressed this issue by either assuming a
deterministic setting of by studying a convergent (reverse arborescent) structure,
thus ignoring commonality. Finally, use of common components and modular
design in spare parts service reduces training costs for customer engineers and
VLPSOL¿HVGLDJQRVWLFSURFHGXUHV&RKHQ0.DPHVDQ39DQG.OHLQGRIHU
P. R. 1990). Stock-outs of critically needed components during unexpected
equipment breakdowns get reduced due to risk-pooling of the common spare
parts and thus enhance customer service level.
There is a tradeoff between product performance and commonality within any

product family (Hillier, M.S., 2002). Instead of designing new products one
at a time, which results in poor commonality/standardization and increases
costs, designing families of products, allowing cost-effective development of
D VXI¿FLHQW YDULHW\ RI SURGXFWV WR PHHW FXVWRPHUV¶ GLYHUVH GHPDQGV 7KHVH
measures and methods vary considerably in purpose and process: the nature
of the data gathered (some are extensively quantitative while some are more
qualitative), the ease of use, and the focus of the analysis. However, they all
share the goal of helping designers resolve the tradeoff between too much
commonality (i.e. lack of distinctiveness of the products) and not enough
commonality (i.e. higher production costs). In designing a new family of
products or analyzing an existing family, commonality indices are often used
as the starting point. They are intended to provide valuable information about

the degree of commonality achieved within a family and how to improve

D V\VWHP¶V GHVLJQ WR LQFUHDVH FRPPRQDOLW\ LQ WKH IDPLO\ DQG UHGXFH FRVWV
however, there have been only limited comparisons between many of these
commonality indices and their usefulness for product family (Thevenot, H. J.
and Simpson, T. W).
5.0 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Commonality is useful in more general manufacturing environments.
Common components are useful in new product development. Automobile
manufacturers use common components across model types and model years
to reduce design cost, tooling cost and manufacturing complexity. Designing
of products family is always better instead of designing a single product in
term of development, cost, variety and customers expectations. Depending on
the nature of available data, focus of analysis and ease of use these measures
and methods differ considerably in purpose and process. However, they all
share the goal of helping designers resolve the tradeoff between too much
commonality (i.e. lack of distinctiveness of the products) and not enough
commonality (i.e. higher production costs).
Component commonality issues also arise in the service sector. For

example, surgery rooms in hospitals use several equipment many of them
are very expensive. Thus the wide spread use of common components in the
manufacturing and service sectors necessitate the in-depth understanding of
commonality, its measurement and implementation process. Besides inventory
management, there are several issues, primarily in product design, that arise
as a result of using the common components and commonality indices are the
base line of understanding, designing and managing this commonality.
Product variety and demanding customers in a competitive market have

increased demand uncertainty. Despite the high investment in inventory, service
levels are often not satisfactory due to the shortage of some components required
for product assembly. Therefore, manufacturing companies are investing in
expensive enterprise-wide transactional data management systems to manage
their inventory. Software vendors are continuously enhancing the functionality
of these packages by adding mathematical models that help in determining
optimal inventory decisions. Component commonality in many circumstances
works effectively to reduce the inventory level under uncertainty.
Commonality indices are effective instruments in designing new family of

products or analyzing an existing family and very often, they are used as starting

points. They are intended to provide valuable information about the degree of
FRPPRQDOLW\DFKLHYHGZLWKLQDIDPLO\DQGKRZWRLPSURYHDV\VWHP¶VGHVLJQ
to increase commonality in the family and reduce costs.
Therefore, in designing new products/processes or analyzing and improving

existing products/processes, reducing costs and managing uncertainties, the
better understanding of commonality and commonality indices can ameliorate
the situations.
REFERENCES
)L[VRQ6.³0RGXODULW\DQGFRPPRQDOLW\UHVHDUFKSDVWGHYHORSPHQWVDQG
future opportunities,” Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications,
vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 85-111.
'RQJ0DQG&KHQ))³7KHLPSDFWRIFRPSRQHQWFRPPRQDOLW\RQLQWHJUDWHG

supply chain network performance: a state and resource-based simulation
study,” International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology, vol. 27,
pp. 397-406.
%ODFNEXUQ-'7LPHEDVHGFRPSHWLWLYHQHVV¶LQ0RRG\3(G6WUDWHJLF

Manufacturing: Dynamic New Directions for the 1990s: Dow Jones-Irwin,
Homewood, IL..
6FKPHQQHU5:³6SHHGDQGSURGXFWLYLW\´LQ%ODFNEXUQ-'(G7LPH

Based Competition: The Next Battleground in American Manufacturing:
Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
6FKRQEHUJHU5-³:RUOG&ODVV0DQXIDFWXULQJ´1HZ<RUN86$7KH)UHH

Press.
6WDON *- µ7LPH ± WKH QH[W VRXUFH RI FRPSHWLWLYH DGYDQWDJH +DUYDUG
Business Review (July-August).
:DFNHU -* ³7KH FRPSOHPHQWDU\ QDWXUH RI PDQXIDFWXULQJ JRDOV E\ WKHLU
relationship to throughput time: a theory of internal variability of production
V\VWHPV´-RXUQDORI2SHUDWLRQV0DQDJHPHQWYROQRSS
6DODKHOGLQ ,6 DQG )UDQFLV $ ³$ VWXG\ RQ 053 SUDFWLFHV LQ (J\SWLDQ
PDQXIDFWXULQJFRPSDQLHV´,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI2SHUDWLRQV 3URGXFWLRQ
Management, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 588-611.
7RZHUV 1 .QLEEV $ DQG 3DQDJLRWRSRXORV 1 ³,PSOHPHQWLQJ

PDQXIDFWXULQJ UHVRXUFH SODQQLQJ LQ D *UHHN DHURVSDFH FRPSDQ\ $ FDVH
VWXG\´,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI2SHUDWLRQV 3URGXFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQWYRO
25, no. 3, pp. 277-289.

3LQH%-³0DVVFXVWRPL]LQJSURGXFWVDQGVHUYLFHV´3ODQQLQJ5HYLHZYRO

22, no. 4, pp. 6-13.
(\QDQ$ ³7KH LPSDFW RI GHPDQGV¶ FRUUHODWLRQ RQ WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI
component commonality,” International Journal of Production Research, vol.
34, no. 6, pp. 1581-1602.
Meyer, M.H., and Lehnerd, A.P., (1997), The Power of Product Platforms: Building
9DOXHDQG&RVW/HDGHUVKLS1HZ<RUN7KH)UHH3UHVV
0D 6+ :DQJ : DQG /LX /0 ³&RPPRQDOLW\ DQG SRVWSRQHPHQW LQ
PXOWLVWDJH DVVHPEO\ V\VWHPV´ (XURSHDQ -RXUQDO RI 2SHUDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK
vol. 142, no. 3, pp. 523-538.
0LUFKDQGDQL 3 DQG 0LVKUD $. ³&RPSRQHQW FRPPRQDOLW\ PRGHOV

ZLWK SURGXFWVSHFL¿F VHUYLFH FRQVWUDLQWV´ 3URGXFWLRQ DQG 2SHUDWLRQV
/DEUR(³7KHFRVWHIIHFWVRQFRPSRQHQWFRPPRQDOLW\$OLWHUDWXUHUHYLHZ

WKURXJKDPDQDJHPHQWDFFRXQWLQJOHQV´0DQXIDFWXULQJ VHUYLFH2SHUDWLRQV
0DQDJHPHQW0 620YROQRSS¤
$VKD\HUL - DQG 6HOHQ: ³$Q DSSOLFDWLRQ RI D XQL¿HG FDSDFLW\ SODQQLQJ
V\VWHP´,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI2SHUDWLRQV 3URGXFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQWYRO
25, no. 9, pp. 917-937.
+HHVH+6DQG6ZDPLQDWKDQ-0³µ3URGXFWOLQHGHVLJQZLWKFRPSRQHQW

FRPPRQDOLW\DQGFRVWUHGXFWLRQHIIRUW´0DQXIDFWXULQJ 6HUYLFH2SHUDWLRQV
0DQDJHPHQW0 620YROQRSS
=KRX:/DQG*UXEEVWURP5:³$QDO\VLVRIWKHHIIHFWRIFRPPRQDOLW\LQ

multi-level inventory systems applying MRP theory,” International Journal
of Production Economics, vol. 90, pp. 251-263.
+LOOLHU06³8VLQJFRPPRQDOLW\DVEDFNXSVDIHW\VWRFN´(XURSHDQ-RXUQDO

RI2SHUDWLRQDO5HVHDUFKYROQRSS¤
+LOOLHU 06 ³7KH FRVWV DQG EHQH¿WV RI FRPPRQDOLW\ LQ DVVHPEOHWRRUGHU
systems with a (Q, r)-policy for component replenishment,” European Journal
RI2SHUDWLRQDO5HVHDUFKYROQRSS¤
'HVDL 0 .HNUH 6 DQG 5DGKDNULVKQDQ 6 ³3URGXFW GLIIHUQWLDWLRQ DQG
commonality in design: balancing revenue and cost drivers,” Management
Science, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 37-51.
+LOOLHU06³&RPSRQHQWFRPPRQDOLW\LQPXOWLSOHSHULRGDVVHPEOHWRRUGHU

systems,” IIE Transactions, vol. 32, pp. 755-766.
.LP . DQG &KKDMHG ' ³&RPPRQDOLW\ LQ SURGXFW GHVLJQ &RVW VDYLQJ
YDOXDWLRQ FKDQJH DQG FDQQLEDOL]DWLRQ´ (XURSHDQ -RXUQDO RI 2SHUDWLRQDO
Research, vol. 125, pp. 602-621.

7KRQHPDQQ8:DQG%UDQGHDX0/³2SWLPDOFRPPRQDOLW\LQFRPSRQHQW

GHVLJQ2SHUDWLRQV´2SHUDWLRQV5HVHDUFKYROQRSS
*HUFKDN < 0DJD]LQH 0 - DQG *DPEOH % ³&RPSRQHQW FRPPRQDOLW\
with service level requirements,” Management Science, vol. 34, no. 6, pp.
753-760.
%DNHU.50DJD]LQH0-DQG1XWWOH+/³7KHHIIHFWRIFRPPRQDOLW\

on safety stock in a simple inventory model,” Management Science, vol. 32,
no. 8, pp. 982-988.
Maskell, B.H. (1991), Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing: A

Model for American Companies: Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
%HUU\:/7DOORQ:-DQG%RH:-³3URGXFWVWUXFWXUHDQDO\VLVIRUWKH

master scheduling of assemble-to-order products,” International Journal of
2SHUDWLRQV 3URGXFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQWYROQRSS
6KHX & DQG:DFNHU * ³7KH HIIHFWV RI SXUFKDVHG SDUWV FRPPRQDOLW\ RQ
PDQXIDFWXULQJOHDGWLPH´,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI2SHUDWLRQV 3URGXFWLRQ
&ROOLHU'$³$JJUHJDWHVDIHW\VWRFNOHYHOVDQGFRPSRQHQWSDUWFRPPRQDOLW\´

Management Science, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1296-1303.
&ROOLHU'$³7KHPHDVXUHPHQWDQGRSHUDWLQJEHQH¿WVRIFRPSRQHQWSDUW

commonality,” Decision Sciences, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 85-96.
6LPSVRQ7:6HHSHUVDG&&DQG0LVWUHH)³%DODQFLQJ&RPPRQDOLW\

and Performance within the Concurrent Design of Multiple Products in a
Product Family,” Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, vol.
9, no. 3, pp. 177-190.
1DPELVDQ6³&RPSOHPHQWDU\SURGXFWLQWHJUDWLRQE\KLJKWHFKQRORJ\QHZ

ventures: The role of initial technology strategy,” Management Science, vol.
48, no. 3, pp. 382-398.
0LNNROD - + DQG *DVVPDQQ 2 ³0DQDJLQJ PRGXODULW\ RI SURGXFW
architectures: Towards an integrated theory,” IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 204-218.
.DVNL7DQG+HLNNLOD-³0HDVXULQJSURGXFWVWUXFWXUHVWRLPSURYHGHPDQG

VXSSO\FKDLQHI¿FLHQF\´,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI7HFKQRORJ\0DQDJHPHQW
vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 578-598.
.RWD 6 6HWKXUDPDQ . DQG 0LOOHU 5 ³$ 0HWULF IRU (YDOXDWLQJ 'HVLJQ
Commonality in Product Families,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 122,
no. 4, pp. 403-410.
&RRSHU 5 DQG 7XUQH\ %33 ³,QWHUQDOO\ IRFXVHG DFWLYLW\EDVHG FRVW

systems,” Measures of manufacturing excellence, Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.
2VWUHQJD05DQG2]HQ75³7KH(UQVW <RXQJ*XLGHWR7RWDO&RVW

0DQDJHPHQWSSS1HZ<RUN-RKQ:LOH\ 6RQV
:DFNHU-*DQG7UHOHYHQ0³&RPSRQHQWSDUWVWDQGDUGL]DWLRQ$QDQDO\VLV

RI FRPPRQDOLW\ VRXUFHV DQG LQGLFHV´ -RXUQDO RI 2SHUDWLRQV 0DQDJHPHQW
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 219-244.
6LGGLTXH=5RVHQ':DQG:DQJ1³2QWKH$SSOLFDELOLW\RI3URGXFW9DULHW\
Design Concepts to Automotive Platform Commonality.” pp. Paper No.
1998-DETC/DTM-5661.
0DUWLQ09DQG,VKLL.³'HVLJQIRU9DULHW\$0HWKRGRORJ\IRU8QGHUVWDQGLQJWKH
&RVWVRI3URGXFW3UROLIHUDWLRQ´SS3DSHU1R¤'(7&'70
0DUWLQ09DQG,VKLL.³'HVLJQIRU9DULHW\'HYHORSPHQWRI&RPSOH[LW\,QGLFHV
and Design Charts.” pp. Paper No. DETC97/DFM-4359.
-LDR - DQG 7VHQJ 00 ³8QGHUVWDQGLQJ 3URGXFW )DPLO\ IRU 0DVV
Customization by Developing Commonality Indices,” Journal of Engineering
Design, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 225-243.
7KHYHQRW+-DQG6LPSVRQ7:³$FRPSUHKHQVLYHPHWULFIRUHYDOXDWLQJ

component commonality in a product family,” Journal of Engineering Design,
vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 577-598.
%OHFNHU7)ULHGULFK*DQG.DOX]D%et. al³.H\0HWULFV6\VWHP%DVHG

Management Tool for Variety Steering,” Information and Management
6\VWHPVIRU3URGXFWSS1HZ<RUN6SULQJHU¶V,QWHJUDWHG6HULHVLQ
Information Systems.
Thevenot, H. J., (2006), PhD thesis: A Method for Product Family Redesign Based on
&RPSRQHQW&RPPRQDOLW\$QDO\VLV3HQQV\OYDQLD*UDGXDWH6FKRRO&ROOHJH
of Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University.
0DUWLQ 0 9 DQG ,VKLL . ³'HVLJQ IRU 9DULHW\ 'HYHORSLQJ 6WDQGDUGL]HG
and Modularized Product Platform Architectures,” Research in Engineering
Design, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 213-235.
0F$GDPV'$6WRQH5%DQG:RRG./³)XQFWLRQDO,QWHUGHSHQGHQFH

and Product Similarity Based on Customer Needs,” Research in Engineering
Design, vol. 11, pp. 1-19.
0F$GDPV'$6WRQH5%DQG:RRG./³$4XDQWLWDWLYH6LPLODULW\

Metric for Design-by-Analogy,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 124, no.
2, pp. 173-182.
0DWWVRQ &$ DQG 0HVVDF $ ³3DUHWR )URQWLHU %DVHG &RQFHSW 6HOHFWLRQ

8QGHU 8QFHUWDLQW\ ZLWK 9LVXDOL]DWLRQ´ 2SWLPL]DWLRQ DQG (QJLQHHULQJ

6SHFLDO,VVXHRQ0XOWLGLVFLSOLQDU\'HVLJQ2SWLPL]DWLRQYROQRSS
85-115.
(\QDQ $ DQG 5RVHQEODWW 0 - ³&RPSRQHQW FRPPRQDOLW\ HIIHFWV RQ
inventory costs,” IIE Transactions, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 93-104.
/HH+/DQG7DQJ&6³0RGHOLQJWKHFRVWVDQGEHQH¿WVRIGHOD\HGSURGXFW

differentiation,” Management Science, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 40-53.
0F&ODLQ-20D[ZHOO-:/DQG0XFNVWDGW$³&RPPHQWRQµ$JJUHJDWH

safety stock levels and component part commonality,” Management Science,
vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 772-773.
%DNHU . 5 ³6DIHW\ VWRFNV DQG FRPPRQDOLW\´ -RXUQDO RI 2SHUDWLRQV
-DQV5'HJUDHYH=DQG6FKHSHQV/³$QDO\VLVRIDQLQGXVWULDOFRPSRQHQW

FRPPRQDOLW\SUREOHP´(XURSHDQ-RXUQDORI2SHUDWLRQDO5HVHDUFKYRO
pp. 801-811.
%DODNULVKQDQ$DQG%URZQ6³3URFHVVSODQQLQJIRUDOXPLQXPWXEHV$Q

HQJLQHHULQJRSHUDWLRQVSHUVSHFWLYH´2SHUDWLRQV5HVHDUFKYROQRSS
7-20.
%DNHU . 5 ³&DKSWHU ,Q /RJLVWLFV RI 3URGXFWLRQ DQG ,QYHQWRU\´
5HTXLUHPHQW 3ODQQLQJ 5 . $ + * D = 3 + *UDYHV 6 & HG SS
571-627, North-Holland, Amsterdam,.
Cohen, M., Kamesan, P. V., and Kleindofer, P. R. et. al.³2SWLPL]HU,%0¶V
multi-echelon inventory system for managing service logistics,” Interfaces,
vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 65-82.
7KHYHQRW+-DQG6LPSVRQ7:³&RPPRQDOLW\,QGLFHVIRU3URGXFW)DPLO\'HVLJQ
A Detailed Comparison,” Journal of Engineering Design, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.
99-119.
7KHYHQRW + - DQG 6LPSVRQ 7 : ³$ &RPSDULVRQ RI &RPPRQDOLW\ ,QGLFHV IRU
3URGXFWIDPLO\'HVLJQ´SS3DSHU1R'(7&'$&¤

Commonality Indices in Design and Production Planning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commonality Indices in Design and Production Planning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMMONALITY INDICES IN DESIGN AND PRODUCTION

Wazed, M. A. 1,2, Ahmed, S. 1 and Nukman, Y. 1

ABSTRACT: Parts commonality is an ignored topic in most of the studies

Keywords: Parts commonality, commonality index, production planning.

ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009 1

locations of product structure trees, is frequently encountered in manufacturing

7RGD\¶V PDUNHWSODFH LV KLJKO\ FRPSHWLWLYH JOREDO DQG YRODWLOH FXVWRPHU

2 ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009

maintaining manufacturing costs as low as possible, and many companies are

A compromising decision among the product variety, customers demand

2.0 PERSPECTIVES OF COMMONALITY

ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009 3

Therefore, Commonality is an approach in manufacturing, production and

4 ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of commonality

ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009 5

3.0 COMMONALITY INDICES

Table 3. Commonality indices

3.1 Degree of commonality index

Where, = Number of immediate parent component j has over a set of end

6 ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009

Where, ¿j= Number of component i in product j; c =The total number of

ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009 7

The lower bound of the component-level CI is 0 (no commonality). The upper

3.2 Total Constant Commonality Index

8 ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009

the greatest number of models that share component i with identical

3.3 The Product Line Commonality Index

3.4 Percent Commonality Index

The component-component connections viewpoint measures the percentage of

ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009 9

Similarly, the assembly viewpoint measures the percentage of common

Where, Ii = Importance (weighting factors) and Ci = % Commonality

3.5 Commonality Index

Where, u= number of unique components; Pj = number of components in model

10 ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009

3.6 Component Part Commonality Index

The KDVµPRYLQJ¶ERXQGDULHVWKDWUDQJHIURPWRĮ7KH gives very

3.7 Comprehensive metric for commonality (CMC)

ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009 11

Ci = = Current total cost for component i.

Cij = = Total cost for component i variant j

Qij = Quantity of component i variant j.

12 ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009

= = Minimum total cost for component i (obtained when

= = Maximum total component cost (obtained when the

3.8 Other Commonality indices

4.0 COMMONALITY AND COMMONALITY INDEX – AN

In previous studies (Hillier, M. S., 2002a,b; Ma, S.H. et.al.*HUFKDN

ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009 13

0F&ODLQ-2et. al.%DNHU.5 WKHEHQH¿WVRIFRPSRQHQW

Commonality generally reduces the attractiveness of a product line and

There is a tradeoff between product performance and commonality within any

14 ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009

the degree of commonality achieved within a family and how to improve

5.0 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Component commonality issues also arise in the service sector. For

Product variety and demanding customers in a competitive market have

Commonality indices are effective instruments in designing new family of

ISSN: 1985-3157 Vol. 3 No. 1 January-June 2009 15

Therefore, in designing new products/processes or analyzing and improving

'RQJ0DQG&KHQ))  ³7KHLPSDFWRIFRPSRQHQWFRPPRQDOLW\RQLQWHJUDWHG

7RGD\¶V PDUNHWSODFH LV KLJKO\ FRPSHWLWLYH JOREDO DQG YRODWLOH FXVWRPHU

The KDVµPRYLQJ¶ERXQGDULHVWKDWUDQJHIURPWRĮ7KH gives very

In previous studies (Hillier, M. S., 2002a,b; Ma, S.H. et.al.*HUFKDN

0F&ODLQ-2et. al.%DNHU.5WKHEHQH¿WVRIFRPSRQHQW

'RQJ0DQG&KHQ))³7KHLPSDFWRIFRPSRQHQWFRPPRQDOLW\RQLQWHJUDWHG

%ODFNEXUQ-'7LPHEDVHGFRPSHWLWLYHQHVV¶LQ0RRG\3(G6WUDWHJLF

6FKPHQQHU5:³6SHHGDQGSURGXFWLYLW\´LQ%ODFNEXUQ-'(G7LPH

6FKRQEHUJHU5-³:RUOG&ODVV0DQXIDFWXULQJ´1HZ<RUN86$7KH)UHH

7RZHUV 1 .QLEEV $ DQG 3DQDJLRWRSRXORV 1 ³,PSOHPHQWLQJ

3LQH%-³0DVVFXVWRPL]LQJSURGXFWVDQGVHUYLFHV´3ODQQLQJ5HYLHZYRO

0LUFKDQGDQL 3 DQG 0LVKUD $. ³&RPSRQHQW FRPPRQDOLW\ PRGHOV

/DEUR(³7KHFRVWHIIHFWVRQFRPSRQHQWFRPPRQDOLW\$OLWHUDWXUHUHYLHZ

+HHVH+6DQG6ZDPLQDWKDQ-0³µ3URGXFWOLQHGHVLJQZLWKFRPSRQHQW

=KRX:/DQG*UXEEVWURP5:³$QDO\VLVRIWKHHIIHFWRIFRPPRQDOLW\LQ

+LOOLHU06³8VLQJFRPPRQDOLW\DVEDFNXSVDIHW\VWRFN´(XURSHDQ-RXUQDO

+LOOLHU06³&RPSRQHQWFRPPRQDOLW\LQPXOWLSOHSHULRGDVVHPEOHWRRUGHU

7KRQHPDQQ8:DQG%UDQGHDX0/³2SWLPDOFRPPRQDOLW\LQFRPSRQHQW

%DNHU.50DJD]LQH0-DQG1XWWOH+/³7KHHIIHFWRIFRPPRQDOLW\

%HUU\:/7DOORQ:-DQG%RH:-³3URGXFWVWUXFWXUHDQDO\VLVIRUWKH

&ROOLHU'$³$JJUHJDWHVDIHW\VWRFNOHYHOVDQGFRPSRQHQWSDUWFRPPRQDOLW\´

&ROOLHU'$³7KHPHDVXUHPHQWDQGRSHUDWLQJEHQH¿WVRIFRPSRQHQWSDUW

6LPSVRQ7:6HHSHUVDG&&DQG0LVWUHH)³%DODQFLQJ&RPPRQDOLW\

1DPELVDQ6³&RPSOHPHQWDU\SURGXFWLQWHJUDWLRQE\KLJKWHFKQRORJ\QHZ

.DVNL7DQG+HLNNLOD-³0HDVXULQJSURGXFWVWUXFWXUHVWRLPSURYHGHPDQG

2VWUHQJD05DQG2]HQ75³7KH(UQVW <RXQJ*XLGHWR7RWDO&RVW

:DFNHU-*DQG7UHOHYHQ0³&RPSRQHQWSDUWVWDQGDUGL]DWLRQ$QDQDO\VLV

7KHYHQRW+-DQG6LPSVRQ7:³$FRPSUHKHQVLYHPHWULFIRUHYDOXDWLQJ

%OHFNHU7)ULHGULFK*DQG.DOX]D%et. al³.H\0HWULFV6\VWHP%DVHG

0F$GDPV'$6WRQH5%DQG:RRG./³)XQFWLRQDO,QWHUGHSHQGHQFH

0F$GDPV'$6WRQH5%DQG:RRG./³$4XDQWLWDWLYH6LPLODULW\

8QGHU 8QFHUWDLQW\ ZLWK 9LVXDOL]DWLRQ´ 2SWLPL]DWLRQ DQG (QJLQHHULQJ

/HH+/DQG7DQJ&6³0RGHOLQJWKHFRVWVDQGEHQH¿WVRIGHOD\HGSURGXFW

0F&ODLQ-20D[ZHOO-:/DQG0XFNVWDGW$³&RPPHQWRQµ$JJUHJDWH

-DQV5'HJUDHYH=DQG6FKHSHQV/³$QDO\VLVRIDQLQGXVWULDOFRPSRQHQW

%DODNULVKQDQ$DQG%URZQ6³3URFHVVSODQQLQJIRUDOXPLQXPWXEHV$Q