Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T14:16:54.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modularisation Metrics – Contrasting Industrial Practice and State-of-Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

D. Lennartsson ,
D. Raudberget ,
K. Sandkuhl  and
U. Seigerroth
D. Lennartsson
Affiliation:
Jönköping University, Sweden
D. Raudberget*
Affiliation:
Jönköping University, Sweden
K. Sandkuhl
Affiliation:
Jönköping University, Sweden
U. Seigerroth
Affiliation:
Jönköping University, Sweden
*
dag.raudberget@ju.se

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.

In many industrial sectors, modularization of products and services is considered as an important contribution to increased efficiency and competitiveness. Research has developed many modularization approaches, however, there is a gap between industrial practice in modularization and state-of-research in this field, which partly is due to shortcomings in "measuring" the value and state of modularization. This papers contribution is an analysis of industrial real-world cases to contrast practice and research, and a compilation of metrics in the context of modular product design from research.

Keywords

modularisationperformance indicatorscase studyproduct familiesproduct development

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2483 - 2492
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), 2022.

References

Aguwa, C. C., Monplaisir, L. and Turgut, O. (2012) 'Voice of the customer: Customer satisfaction ratio based analysis',Expert Systems with Applications, 39(11), 10112–10119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akao, Y. and Mizuno, S. (1994) QFD: The customer-driven approach to quality planning and deployment, Asian Productivity Organization.Google Scholar
Baheti, R., & Gill, H. (2011). Cyber-physical systems. The impact of control technology, 12(1), 161–166.Google Scholar
Baker, J. (2012). The technology–organization–environment framework. Information systems theory, 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y. and Clark, K. B. (2000) Design rules: The power of modularity, MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonvoisin, J., Halstenberg, F., Buchert, T. and Stark, R. (2016) 'A systematic literature review on modular product design', Journal of Engineering Design, 27(7), 488–514.Google Scholar
Erixon, G. (1998) Modular function deployment: a method for product modularisation, Royal Inst. of Technology, Department of Manufacturing Systems, Assembly Systems Division.Google Scholar
Johannesson, H., Landahl, J., Levandowski, C. and Raudberget, D. (2017) 'Development of product platforms: Theory and methodology', Concurrent Engineering, 25(3), 195–211.Google Scholar
Liang, W.-Y., and Huang, C.-C.. 2002. “The Agent-Based Collaboration Information System of Product Development.” International Journal of Information Management 22 (3): 211–224.Google Scholar
Mustonen-Ollila, E., & Lyytinen, K. (2003). Why organizations adopt information system process innovations: a longitudinal study using Diffusion of Innovation theory. Information Systems Journal, 13(3), 275–297.Google Scholar
Otto, K., Hölttä-Otto, K., Simpson, T. W., Krause, D., Ripperda, S. and Ki Moon, S. (2016) 'Global views on modular design research: linking alternative methods to support modular product family concept development', Journal of Mechanical Design, 138(7), 071101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakkanen, J., Juuti, T., & Lehtonen, T. (2016). Brownfield Process: A method for modular product family development aiming for product configuration. Design Studies, 45, 210–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandkuhl, K., Shilov, N., Seigerroth, U. & Smirnov, A. (2022) Towards the Quantified Product – Product Lifecycle Support by Multi-Aspect Ontologies. IFAC IMS conference 2022. Tel Aviv, Israel, February 2022.Google Scholar
Shamsuzzoha, A., Helo, P., Piya, S. and Alkahtani, M. (2020) 'Modular product architecture to manage product development complexity', International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 36(2), 225–247.Google Scholar
Tjalve, E. (1976) Systematisk udformning af industriprodukter – Værktøjer for konstruktøren, Copenhagen, Denmark: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Treacy, M. and Wiersema, F. (1997) 'The discipline of market leaders: choose your customers, narrow your focus', Dominate Your Market. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2018) Case study research and applications, Sage.Google Scholar