Level of modularity and different levels of system granularity

All complex system development projects involve analysis of the system architecture. Thus far it has been assumed that there is some correct system decomposition that can be used in the architectural analysis without consideration of the sensitivity of the results to the chosen level of decomposition. We represent 88 idealized system architectures and a real complex system as a design structure matrix at two different levels of decomposition. We analyze these architectures for their degree of modularity. We find that the degree of modularity can vary for the same system when the system is represented at the two different levels of granularity. For example, the printing system used in the case study is considered slightly integral at a higher level of decomposition and quite modular at a lower level of decomposition. We further find that even though the overall results can be different depending on the level of decomposition, the direction of change toward more modular or more integral can be calculated the same regardless of the level of decomposition. We conclude that the level of decomposition can distort the results of architectural analysis and care must be taken in defining the system decomposition for any analysis.

[1]  Christoph Meier,et al.  Systematic module and interface definition using component design structure matrix , 2010 .

[2]  D. L. Parnas,et al.  On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules , 1972, Software Pioneers.

[3]  David W. Rosen,et al.  Implications of Modularity on Product Design for the Life Cycle , 1998 .

[4]  Timothy J. Kloppenborg.  Contemporary Project Management , 2008 .

[5]  Paul Clements,et al.  Software architecture in practice , 1999, SEI series in software engineering.

[6]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Integration analysis of product decompositions , 1994 .

[7]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[8]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Change Propagation Analysis in Complex Technical Systems , 2009 .

[9]  E. Rechtin,et al.  The art of systems architecting , 1996, IEEE Spectrum.

[10]  Eun Suk Suh,et al.  Reconfigurable Parallel Printing System Design for Field Performance and Service Improvement , 2010 .

[11]  Oded Maimon,et al.  The measurement of a design structural and functional complexity , 1998, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[12]  Tyson R. Browning.  The many views of a process: Toward a process architecture framework for product development processes , 2009 .

[13]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures , 2000 .

[14]  Dennis P. Miller.  Building a Project Work Breakdown Structure: Visualizing Objectives, Deliverables, Activities, and Schedules , 2008 .

[15]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  A Network Approach to Define Modularity of Components in Complex Products , 2007 .

[16]  Gregory T. Haugan.  Project Planning and Scheduling , 2001 .

[17]  John K. Gershenson,et al.  Product modularity: Definitions and benefits , 2003 .

[18]  Christopher Alexander.  Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1964 .

[19]  Qi D. Van Eikema Hommes.  Comparison and Application of Metrics That Define the Components Modularity in Complex Products , 2008 .

[20]  Fang Guo,et al.  A Comparison of Modular Product Design Methods Based on Improvement and Iteration , 2004 .

[21]  Nam P. Suh,et al.  Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications , 2001 .

[22]  Katja Hölttä-Otto,et al.  Degree of Modularity in Engineering Systems and Products with Technical and Business Constraints , 2007, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl..

[23]  P. Clarkson,et al.  Predicting change propagation in complex design , 2004 .

[24]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Identifying Modular and Integrative Systems and Their Impact on Design Team Interactions , 2003 .

[25]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Designing systems for adaptability by means of architecture options , 2008 .

[26]  Juliana Hsuan Mikkola,et al.  Managing modularity of product architectures: toward an integrated theory , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[27]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[28]  Marin D. Guenov,et al.  Requirements-Driven Design Decomposition: A Method for Exploring Complex System Architecture , 2004 .

[29]  Steven B. Shooter,et al.  Platform-Based Design and Development: Current Trends and Needs in Industry , 2006, DAC 2006.

[30]  Simon Szykman,et al.  A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts , 2002 .

[31]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  An information theoretic method for developing modular architectures using genetic algorithms , 2007 .

[32]  Robert P. Smith,et al.  A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development , 1994 .

[33]  Katja Hölttä-Otto,et al.  Estimating factors affecting project task size in product development-an empirical study , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[34]  Ali A. Yassine,et al.  Architectural Valuation using the Design Structure Matrix and Real Options Theory , 2007, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl..

[35]  Simon Li,et al.  Analysis of Decomposability and Complexity for Design Problems in the Context of Decomposition , 2005 .

[36]  Carolyn Conner Seepersad,et al.  Analysis of Product Flexibility for Future Evolution Based on Design Guidelines and a High-Definition Design Structure Matrix , 2009, DAC 2009.

[37]  Kevin Otto,et al.  Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development , 2000 .

[38]  Kosuke Ishii,et al.  Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures , 2002 .

[39]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[40]  Eun Suk Suh,et al.  Three Approaches to Complex System Decomposition , 2011 .

[41]  Katja Hölttä-Otto,et al.  Are Modular Products Larger Than Integral Products , 2007 .

[42]  Eun Suk Suh,et al.  Technology infusion for complex systems: A framework and case study , 2010 .

[43]  D. V. Steward,et al.  The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[44]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Product platform design and customization: Status and promise , 2004, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[45]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design , 2007, Syst. Eng..