Product Decomposition

Decomposition is widely used as a basis for exploiting concurrency in Integrated

Product and Process Development (IPPD).
A product can be decomposed in a number of ways:
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)
Function-based decomposition (FuD)
Engineering Functions
Manufacturing Functions
Activity-based decomposition (AcD)
 Product Decomposition
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)

Complexity of products and

processes, present in a system,
forces a product manufacturer to
look for product and process
breakdown structures.
This breakdown is necessary to
exploit any inherent concurrency so
the individual tasks can be
overlapped (run in parallel).
PhD decomposition is one way to
achieve this parallelism (see figure
below)
 Product Decomposition
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)

Typical decomposition scenarios of a PhD are:

A. Perspective
B. Hierarchy
C. Multiplicity
D. Alternatives
E. Characteristics or Aspects
F. Projects
 Product Decomposition
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)
A. Perspective: A design problem usually involves multiple perspectives.
At the highest level, different work groups can work in parallel on separate
competing perspective of product life-cycle concerns usually required for
product evaluation or assessment.
These perspectives include the intellectual process of commonality or class
hierarchy between different family of products:
Size-wise (large, medium, or small)
Model-wise (sporty, coupe, or luxury)
Engine-wise (4-cylinders, 6-cylinders, 8-cylinders)
One common perspective used during organization and management of
information is a combination of size, usage and marketing perspectives.
This, for the automotive industry has transpired into a triad spanned by three
axes (see the figure).
 Product Decomposition
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)
A. Perspective: A design problem usually involves multiple perspectives.

A Three-dimensional Concurrent Triad (Automobile Manufacturing Example)

 Product Decomposition
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)
B. Hierarchy: The physical product or the product system may be divided into
several logical hierarchical blocks or classes depending on its complexity.
The advantage of this logical division is that different people can work in parallel
in these different hierarchical blocks.
If separate teams are assigned to each class and subclass, they can work
concurrently.
Next three figures show a product breakdown structure (PtBS) examples for:
- Automotive class
- Aircraft class
- Helicopter class
 Product Decomposition
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)
B. Hierarchy: The physical product or the product system may be divided into
several logical hierarchical blocks or classes depending on its complexity.

Example: Areas of Concurrency in an Automotive Top-Down Decomposition

 Product Decomposition
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)
B. Hierarchy: The physical product or the product system may be divided into
several logical hierarchical blocks or classes depending on its complexity.

Example: Areas of Concurrency in an Aircraft Top-Down Decomposition

 Product Decomposition
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)
B. Hierarchy: The physical product or the product system may be divided into
several logical hierarchical blocks or classes depending on its complexity.

Example: Areas of Concurrency in a Helicopter Top-Down Decomposition

 Product Decomposition
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)
C. Multiplicity: Within each different hierarchical group, for example, a part or a
component group, multiple parts or components going into the final product
may be worked upon simultaneously (see figure below).
A decomposed element
of a PtBS tree can be a
quantified set.

Tree Structure Branching Showing Multiplicity

 Product Decomposition
Physical-based decomposition (PhD)
D. Alternatives: Within one hierarchy level, a group of designers guided by its
hierarchy leader more work on several alternative ideas in parallel.
E. Characteristics or Aspects: Each alternative idea may involve integrating some
life-cycle aspects, that is, validating output through compliance from multiple
characteristic views where each characteristic view may represent a different life-
cycle aspect.
Sub-teams from different disciplines and background may be needed to support
these aspects and they can work in parallel on each characteristic view.
D. Projects: Multiple projects, such as predictive analyses, fault tree analysis, failure
modes and effect analysis (FMEA), may be required to evaluate product
compliance to functional specifications.
Many analysis sub-teams may be working in parallel to determine the integrity of
the design with respect to the specifications.
 Product Decomposition
Function-based decomposition (FuD)
The function-based decomposition is similar to physical-based decomposition.
In FuD, the breakdown distribution is based on decomposing the product into a
functional hierarchy.
Similar to PhD, in FuD product comprises a number of functional sub-systems,
each of which further consists of a number of functional components.
Instead of identifying decomposed sets by their physical name like in PhD, in FuD
functional names are given to the decomposed sets.
A functional decomposition for a software is shown in the next figure.
 Product Decomposition
Function-based decomposition (FuD)

Functional Decomposition of a Software Product

 Product Decomposition
Activity-based decomposition (AcD)
Here, the product is decomposed into several activities instead of supporting
functions or a number of physical parts.
Activity-based Costing (ABC) is an example of an activity based decomposition.
Specification decomposition can be considered as another example of AcD.
Highly effective CE teams convert important customer requirements into
specifications.
A set of customer requirements is first converted into high level specifications.
These specifications are then decomposed into a set of low level specifications
first in the functional space, then into another set of low level specifications in
the physical space.