Degree of Modularity in Engineering Systems and Products with Technical and Business Constraints

Abstract

There is consensus that modularity has many benefits from cost savings due to increased commonality to enabling a higher variety of products. Full modularity is, however, not always achievable. How engineering systems and products whose design is heavily influenced by technical constraints, such as weight or size limitations, tend to exhibit rather integral architectures is shown in this study. For this, two metrics are defined on the basis of a binary design structure matrix (DSM) representation of a system or product. The non-zero fraction (NZF) captures the sparsity of the interrelationships between components between zero and one, while the singular value modularity index (SMI) captures the degree of internal coupling, also between zero and one. These metrics are first developed using idealized canonical architectures and are then applied to two different product pairs that are functionally equivalent, but different in terms of technical constraints. Empirical evidence is presented that the lightweight variant of the same product tends to be more integral, presumably to achieve higher mass efficiency. These observations are strengthened by comparing the results to another, previously published, modularity metric as well as by comparing sparsity and modularity of a set of 15 products against a control population of randomly generated architectures of equivalent size and density. The results suggest that, indeed, some products are inherently less modular than others due to technological factors. The main advantage of SMI is that it enables analysis of the degree of modularity of any architecture independent of subjective module choices.

Keywords

complexity modularity system engineering.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ulrich, K.T. (1995). The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm, Research Policy, 24(3): 419—441.

Suh, N.P. (2000). Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 528.

Whitney, D.E. (2004). Mechanical Assemblies: Their Design, Manufacture, and Role in Product Development, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 544.

Boeing, L.R. — BWB technical paper.

Ericsson, A. and Erixon, G. (1999). Controlling Design Variants, New York: ASME Press, p. 146.

Fujita, K. and Yoshida, H. (2004). Product Variety Optimization Simultaneously Designing Module Combination and Module Attributes, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 12(2): 105—118.

Jiao, R. , Huang, G. and Tseng, M. (2004). Concurrent Enterprising for Mass Customization , Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 12(2): 83—88.

Brabazon, P. and MacCarthy, B. (2004). Virtual-Build-to-Order as Mass Customization Order Fulfillment Model, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 12(2): 155—165.

Newcomb, P.J. , Bras, B. and Rosen, D.W. (1998). Implications of Modularity on Product Design for the Life Cycle, Journal of Mechanical Design, 120(3): 483—490.

10.

Pimmler, T.U. and Eppinger, S.D. (1994). Integration Analysis of Product Decompositions, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, pp. 343—351, Minneapolis, MN.

11.

Stone, R.B. , Wood, K.L. and Crawford, R.H. (2000). A Heuristic Method for Identifying Modules for Product Architecture, Design Studies, 21(1): 5—31.

12.

Zamirowski, E.J. and Otto, K.N. (1999). Identifying Product Family Architecture Modularity Using Function and Variety Heuristics, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Las Vegas, NV.

13.

Holtta, K. and Salonen, M. (2003). Comparing Three Modularity Methods, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Chicago, IL.

14.

Kusiak, A. and Huang, C. (1996). Development of Modular Products, IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging and Manufacturing Technology, Part A, 19(4): 523—538.

15.

Aarnio, J. (2003). Modularization by Integration: Creating Modular Concepts for Mechatronic Products, PhD Thesis, Tampere University of Technology.

16.

Braha, D. (2002). Partitioning Tasks to Product Development Teams , ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences , Montreal, Canada.

17.

Sosa, M.E. , Eppinger, S.D. and Rowles, C.M. (2003). Identifying Modular and Integrative Systems and Their Impact on Design Team Interactions, Journal of Mechanical Design, 125, Part 2: 240—252.

18.

Browning, T.R. (2001). Applying the Design Structure Matrix to System Decomposition and Integration Problems: A Review and New Directions, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48(3): 292—306.

19.

Eppinger, S.D. (2001). Innovation at the Speed of Information, Harvard Business Review, 79(1): 149—158.

20.

Fixson, S.K. and Clark, J.P. (2002). On the Link Between Modularity and Cost — Methodology to Assess Cost Implications of Product Architecture Differences , IEEE International Engineering Management Conference (IEMC 2002). Cambridge, UK, pp. 131—136.

21.

Gonzalez-Zugasti, J.P. and Otto, K.N. (2000). Platform-Based Spacecraft Design: A Formulation and Implementation Procedure, IEEE Aerospace Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 455—463.

22.

Whitney, D.E. (2004). Physical Limits to Modularity, Working Paper, ESD-WP-2003-01.03-ESD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division.

23.

Cutherell, D. (1996). Product Architecture, In: Rosenau, M. , Griffin, A. , Castellion, G. and Anschuetz, N. (eds), The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 217—235.

24.

Benini, L. and de Micheli, G. (1999). System-Level Power Optimization: Techniques and Tools, Int. Symp. Low-Power Electronics Design , pp. 288—293, San Diego, CA.

25.

Kazman, R. , Barbacci, M. , Klein, M. , Carrière, S. J. and Woods, S.G. (1999). Experience with Performing Architecture Tradeoff Analysis, International Conference on Software Engineering, Los Angeles, CA.

26.

Bass, L. , Clements, P. and Kazman, R. (2003). Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.

27.

Dong, Q. and Whitney, D. (2001). Designing a Requirement Driven Product Development Process, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences , Pittsburgh, PA.

28.

Guo, F. and Gershenson, J.K. (2004). A Comparison of Modular Product Design Methods on Improvement and Iteration, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Salt Lake City, UT.

29.

Holtta, K. , Suh, E.S. and de Weck, O. (2005). Tradeoff Between Modularity and Performance for Engineered Systems and Products, International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED05), Melbourne, Australia.

30.

Antoulas, A.C. , Sorensen, D.C. and Zhou, Y. (2002). On the Decay Rate of Hankel Singular Values and Related Issues, Systems and Control Letters, 5(46): 323—342.

31.

Holtta, K. (2002). Identifying Common Modules for Collaborative R&D , Meeting on Production and Operations Management, San Francisco, CA.

32.

Holtta, K. and Otto, K. (2003). Incorporating Design Complexity Measures in Architectural Assessment, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences , Chicago, IL.

33.

Otto, K. and Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

34.

Smaling, R. and de Weck, O.L. (2007). Assessing Risks and Opportunities of Technology Infusion in System Design, Systems Engineering, 10:1.

35.

Van Wie, M.J. , Greer, J.L. , Campbell, M.I. , Stone, R.B. and Wood, K.L. (2001). Interfaces and Product Architecture, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh, PA.