Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-6mft8 Total loading time: 0.175 Render date: 2021-10-18T18:17:52.967Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

CURRENT TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF PRODUCT MODULARISATION – A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Kai G. Mertens*
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology - Institute of Management Accounting and Simulation
Christoph Rennpferdt
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology - Institute of Product Development and Mechanical Engineering Design
Erik Greve
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology - Institute of Product Development and Mechanical Engineering Design
Dieter Krause
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology - Institute of Product Development and Mechanical Engineering Design
Matthias Meyer
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology - Institute of Management Accounting and Simulation
*
Mertens, Kai G., Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Management Accounting and Simulation, Germany, kai.mertens@tuhh.de

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Product modularisation continuously draws attention of scholars and practitioners since it supports organizations and industries to sustain in high product and service variety at reasonable costs and greater flexibility. This paper aims at revealing current trends and developments in the field of product modularisation by identifying the intellectual structure using a bibliometric review. Our sample accrues 1,366 publications from 2016 up to 2020 across disciplines while using bibliometric coupling composes a network. Analysing the network on similarities, we can not only find clusters of servitisation, closed-loop supply chains, and platform collaboration, because we also identify three trends of digital innovation, sustainability, and platform eco-systems. An analysis of authors currently indicates less integrated communities, which do not entirely refer to each other despite the similarity in their research. Collectively, the study suggests a timely update of current scholar activities and discussions in the field of product modularisation.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Bonvoisin, J., Halstenberg, F., Buchert, T. & Stark, R. 2016. A systematic literature review on modular product design. Journal of Engineering Design, 27, 488514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1166482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börner, K., Chen, C. & Boyack, K. W. 2005. Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 179255. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyack, K. W. & Klavans, R. 2010. Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 23892404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caputo, A., Marzi, G. & Pellegrini Massimiliano, M. 2016. The Internet of Things in manufacturing innovation processes: development and application of a conceptual framework. Business Process Management Journal, 22. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2015-0072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. & Elmquist, M. 2016. Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25, 3857. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenamor, J., Rönnberg Sjödin, D. & Parida, V. 2017. Adopting a platform approach in servitization: Leveraging the value of digitalization. International Journal of Production Economics, 192, 5465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. & Song, M. 2019. Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews. PLoS One, 14, 125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223994Google ScholarPubMed
Colfer, L. J. & Baldwin, C. Y. 2016. The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25, 709738. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colledani, M., Silipo, L., Yemane, A., Lanza, G., Bürgin, J., Hochdörffer, J., Georgoulias, K., Mourtzis, D., Bitte, F., Bernard, A. & Belkadi, F. 2016. Technology-based Product-services for Supporting Frugal Innovation. Procedia CIRP, 47, 126131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. P. 2016. The Group Dynamics of Interorganizational Relationships: Collaborating with Multiple Partners in Innovation Ecosystems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, 621661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216649350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmaraghy, H. & Elmaraghy, W. 2016. Smart Adaptable Assembly Systems. Procedia CIRP, 44, 413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fargnoli, M., Haber, N. & Sakao, T. 2018. PSS modularisation: a customer-driven integrated approach. International Journal of Production Research, 57, 40614077. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1481302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfield, E., Malin, M. V. & Small, H. 1983. Citation data as science indicators. Essays of an Information Scientist. https://doi.org/10.1.1.15.4233Google Scholar
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P. & Hultink, E. J. 2017. The Circular Economy – A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gmür, M. 2003. Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57, 2757. 10.1023/a:1023619503005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauke, J., Lorscheid, I. & Meyer, M. 2017. Recent Development of Social Simulation as Reflected in JASSS Between 2008 and 2014: A Citation and Co-Citation Analysis. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobides, M. G., Macduffie, J. P. & Tae, C. J. 2016. Agency, structure, and the dominance of OEMs: Change and stability in the automotive sector. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 19421967. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeihoonian, M., Kazemi Zanjani, M. & Gendreau, M. 2016. Accelerating Benders decomposition for closed-loop supply chain network design: Case of used durable products with different quality levels. European Journal of Operational Research, 251, 830845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.052Google Scholar
Jeong, B., Wang, H., Oguz, E. & Zhou, P. 2018. An effective framework for life cycle and cost assessment for marine vessels aiming to select optimal propulsion systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 111130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. & Moon, S. K. 2017. Sustainable platform identification for product family design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 567581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. & Moon, S. K. 2019. Eco-modular product architecture identification and assessment for product recovery. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 30, 383403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-016-1253-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, D. & Gebhardt, N. 2018. Methodische Entwicklung modularer Produktfamilien - Hohe Produktvielfalt beherrschbar entwickeln, Germany, Berlin, Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremer, G. E., Haapala, K., Murat, A., Chinnam, R. B., Kim, K.-Y., Monplaisir, L. & Lei, T. 2016. Directions for instilling economic and environmental sustainability across product supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 20662078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, G., Li, K., Zhao, D. & Mao, C. 2017. Business Model Innovation and Its Drivers in the Chinese Construction Industry during the Shift to Modular Prefabrication. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33, 04016051. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løkkegaard, M., Mortensen, N. H. & Hvam, L. 2018. Using business critical design rules to frame new architecture introduction in multi-architecture portfolios. International Journal of Production Research, 56, 73137329. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1450531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, B. R. 2012. The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41, 12191239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, K. G. 2020. Measure and manage your products costs right – Using an extended axiomatic design for measuring and managing the costs of products. Hamburg University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.15480/882.2888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M., Zaggl, M. & Carley, K. M. 2011. Measuring CMOT's intellectual structure and its development. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 17, 134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-010-9076-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, S. K. & Simpson, T. W. 2014. Platform Valuation for Product Family Design. In: SIMPSON, T. W., JIAO, J. R., SIDDIQUE, Z. & HÖLTTA-OTTO, K. (eds.) Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design - Methods & Applications. Germany, Heidelberg: Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_7Google Scholar
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A. & Song, M. 2017. Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. Mis Quarterly, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, K., Holtta-Otto, K., Simpson, T. W., Krause, D., Ripperda, S. & Moon, S. K. 2016. Global Views on Modular Design Research: Linking Alternative Methods to Support Modular Product Family Concept Development. Journal of Mechanical Design, 138, 16. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oztemel, E. & Gursev, S. 2020. Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 31, 127182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-018-1433-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piran, F. a. S., Lacerda, D. P., Camargo, L. F. R., Viero, C. F., Dresch, A. & Cauchick-Miguel, P. A. 2016. Product modularization and effects on efficiency: An analysis of a bus manufacturer using data envelopment analysis (DEA). International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raasch, C., Lee, V., Spaeth, S. & Herstatt, C. 2013. The rise and fall of interdisciplinary research: The case of open source innovation. Research Policy, 42, 11381151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.01.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R. & Hohberger, J. 2016. A Bibliometric Review of Open Innovation: Setting a Research Agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33, 750772. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripperda, S. 2019. Methodische Unterstützung zur kostenbasierten Auswahl modularer Produktstrukturen, Germany, Hamburg, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvador, F. 2007. Toward a Product System Modularity Construct: Literature Review and Reconceptualization. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54, 219240. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2007.893996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, R. & Mahoney, J. T. 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 6376. 10.1002/smj.4250171107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabrooke, L. & Wigan, D. 2017. The governance of global wealth chains. Review of International Political Economy, 24, 129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2016.1268189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, T. W., Jiao, J., Siddique, Z. & Hölttä-Otto, K. 2014. Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design, USA, NY, New York, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjödin, D. R., Parida, V., Leksell, M. & Petrovic, A. 2018. Smart Factory Implementation and Process Innovation. Research-Technology Management, 61, 2231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1471277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, H. & Sweeney, E. 1985. Clustering the science citation index® using co-citations. Scientometrics, 7, 391409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonego, M., Echeveste, M. E. S. & Galvan Debarba, H. 2018. The role of modularity in sustainable design: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 196209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, W. & Sakao, T. 2017. A customization-oriented framework for design of sustainable product/service system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 16721685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolio, T., Bernard, A., Colledani, M., Kara, S., Seliger, G., Duflou, J., Battaia, O. & Takata, S. 2017. Design, management and control of demanufacturing and remanufacturing systems. CIRP Annals, 66, 585609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2017.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torraco, R. J. 2005. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ülkü, M. A. & Hsuan, J. 2017. Towards sustainable consumption and production: Competitive pricing of modular products for green consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 42304242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eck, N. J. V. & Waltman, L. 2009. How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 16351651. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21075Google Scholar
Van Eck, N. J. V. & Waltman, L. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vickery, S. K., Koufteros, X., Dröge, C. & Calantone, R. 2016. Product Modularity, Process Modularity, and New Product Introduction Performance: Does Complexity Matter? Production and Operations Management, 25, 751770. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, D., Du, G., Jiao, R. J., Wu, R., Yu, J. & Yang, D. 2016a. A Stackelberg game theoretic model for optimizing product family architecting with supply chain consideration. International Journal of Production Economics, 172, 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J. J., Li, J. J. & Chang, J. 2016b. Product co-development in an emerging market: The role of buyer-supplier compatibility and institutional environment. Journal of Operations Management, 46, 6983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2016.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, Y., Stecke, K. E. & Li, D. 2017. The evolution of production systems from Industry 2.0 through Industry 4.0. International Journal of Production Research, 56, 848861. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1403664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

CURRENT TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF PRODUCT MODULARISATION – A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

CURRENT TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF PRODUCT MODULARISATION – A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

CURRENT TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF PRODUCT MODULARISATION – A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *