Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:38:32.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Preliminary Proposal Towards Unambiguous Definitions for Modular Interfaces and Interactions

Part of: Product Architecture and Modularization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Lorenzo Fiorineschi  and
Federico Rotini

Abstract

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

Modularity is acknowledged to provide benefits across the whole product lifecycle. Accordingly, many literature contributions can be found about modularization methods, metrics and definitions. In particular, recent studies focused on the development of heuristic principles for exploiting modularity early in the design process. However, to design modules it is necessary to define their mutual interactions, the related interfaces and their production strategies. Concerning interfaces and interactions, this paper highlights that current definitions are often ambiguous and overlapping each other. Therefore, extracting univocal information about interfaces and interactions of existent modular products could be difficult. This could hinder the identification of comprehensive heuristic design guidelines, about how to design modules from a structural point of view. This paper proposes a new set of interface and interaction definitions, which allows to overcome the flaw observed for current ones. The proposed set and the classical one have been applied on 110 products identified on the web, showing that the new definitions allow to extract more reliable information.

Keywords

ModularityProduct architectureEarly design phasesConceptual designModular design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2941 - 2950
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) 2019

References

Allen, K.R. and Carlson-Skalak, S. (1998), “Defining product architecture during conceptual design”, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference.Google Scholar
Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B. (2006), “Modularity in the Design of Complex Engineering Systems”, in Braha, D., Minai, A.A. and Bar-Yam, Y. (Eds.), “Complex Engineered Systems Science Meets Technology”, Springer.Google Scholar
Beitz, W., Blass, E., Derhake, T., Derndinger, H.O., Ehrlenspiel, K., Franke, H.J., Gierse, F.J., et al. (1987), “VDI Guideline 2221: Systematic Approach to the Design of Technical Systems and Products (Translation of the German edition 11/1986)”, VDI Guidelines, VDI - Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1987.Google Scholar
Bonvoisin, J., Halstenberg, F., Buchert, T. and Stark, R. (2016), “A systematic literature review on modular product design”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 4828 No. March, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Cabigiosu, A., Zirpoli, F. and Camuffo, A. (2013), “Modularity, interfaces definition and the integration of external sources of innovation in the automotive industry”, Research Policy, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 662–675.Google Scholar
Campagnolo, D. and Camuffo, A. (2009), “The concept of modularity in management studies: A literature review”, International Journal of Management Reviews, available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00260.xGoogle Scholar
Chiriac, N., Hölttä-Otto, K., Lysy, D. and Suk Suh, E. (2011), “Level of Modularity and Different Levels of System Granularity”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 133 No. 10, p. 101007.Google Scholar
Eckert, C. (2013), “That which is not form: The practical challenges in using functional concepts in design”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 27 No. 03, pp. 217–231.Google Scholar
Eckert, C., Alink, T. and Ruckpaul, A. (2011), “Different notions of function : results from an experiment on the analysis of an existing product”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 22 No. 11–12, pp. 811–837.Google Scholar
Eder, W. and Hosnedl, S. (2008), “Design Engineering - A Manual for Enhanced Creativity”, CRC Press.Google Scholar
Eisenbart, B., Gericke, K. and Blessing, L.T.M. (2013), “An analysis of functional modeling approaches across disciplines”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 27 No. 03, pp. 281–289.Google Scholar
Fiorineschi, L., Rissone, P. and Rotini, F. (2014), “Investigating on the rise of modularity during the conceptual design phase”, Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN 2014, Dubrovnik - Croatia.Google Scholar
Fiorineschi, L., Rotini, F. and Rissone, P. (2015), “Conceiving modular solutions in early conceptual design activities”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Vol. 7.Google Scholar
Fixson, S.K. (2007), “What Exactly Is Product Modularity? The Answer Depends on Who You Ask”, MIT Sloan Working Paper.Google Scholar
Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J. and Zhang, Y. (2003), “Product modularity: Definitions and benefits”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 295–313.Google Scholar
Greve, E. and Krause, D. (2018), “An Assessment of Methods to Support the Design of Future Robust Modular Architectures”, International Design Conference - Design 2018, pp. 335–346.Google Scholar
Hayes, A.F. and Krippendorff, K. (2007), “Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data”, Communication Methods and Measures, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 77–89.Google Scholar
Heilemann, M., Culley, S.J., Schlüter, M. and Haase, H.-J. (2013), “Examination of Modularization Metrics in Industry”, International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED Vol. 13, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Helmer, R., Yassine, A. and Meier, C. (2010), “Systematic Module and Interface Definition Using Component Dsm”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 647–675.Google Scholar
Hölttä-Otto, K., Chiriac, N.A., Lysy, D. and Suk, E. (2012), “Comparative analysis of coupling modularity metrics”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23 No. November, pp. 790–806.Google Scholar
Hölttä-Otto, K. and De Weck, O. (2007), “Degree of Modularity in Engineering Systems and Products with Technical and Business Constraints”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 113–126.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2013), “Content Analisys: An Introduction to Its Methodology”, 3rd ed., Sage, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Maier, J.F., Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, P.J. (2016), “Model Granularity and Related Concepts”, International Design Conference- DESIGN 2016, pp. 1327–1336.Google Scholar
Mesa, J., Maury, H., Arrieta, R., Bula, A. and Riba, C. (2015), “Characterization of modular architecture principles towards reconfiguration: a first approach in its selection process”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 80 No. 1–4, pp. 221–232.Google Scholar
Meyer, M.H. and Lehnerd, A., (1997), “The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and Cost Leadership”, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, T.D. and Elgård, P. (1998), “Designing Product Families”, IPS 1998.Google Scholar
Niutanen, V. and Otto, K. (2017), “Field Isolation As a Basis for Modular Product Architecture”, ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.Google Scholar
Ostrosi, E., Stjepandic, J., Fukuda, S. and Kurth, M. (2014), “Modularity : New Trends for Product Platform Strategy Support in Concurrent Engineering”, 21th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Beijing, pp. 414–423.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K.H. (2007), “Engineering Design 3rd Ed”, Springer-Verlag London, available at:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2Google Scholar
Pil, F.K. and Holweg, M. (2004), “Linking Product Variety to Order-Fulfillment Strategies”, Interfaces, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 394–403.Google Scholar
Salvador, F. (2007), “Toward a Product System Modularity Construct : Literature Review and Reconceptualization”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 219–240.Google Scholar
Salvador, F., Forza, C. and Rungtusanatham, M. (2002), “Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 549–575.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”, Research Policy, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 419–440.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Tung, K. (1991), “Fundamentals of product modularity”, Proceedings of the 1991 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Conference on Design/Manufacture Integration, Miami FL.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. and Eckert, C. (2013), “My functional description is better!”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 27 No. 03, pp. 187–190.Google Scholar
Voordijk, H., Meijboom, B. and de Haan, J. (2006), “Modularity in supply chains: a multiple case study in the construction industry”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 600–618.Google Scholar