scholarly journals Why Is Product Modularity Underdeveloped in Construction?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia G. da Rocha ◽  
Lauri Koskela
Keyword(s):  
Product Modularity

Product modularity and its effects on the production process: an analysis in a bus manufacturer

2016 ◽  
Vol 88 (5-8) ◽  
pp. 2331-2343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fábio Antonio Sartori Piran ◽  
Daniel Pacheco Lacerda ◽  
Luis Felipe Riehs Camargo ◽  
Carlos Frederico Viero ◽  
Rafael Teixeira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Production Process ◽  
Product Modularity

scholarly journals Adopting Product Modularity in House Building to Support Mass Customisation

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 4919-4937 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecília Rocha ◽  
Carlos Formoso ◽  
Patrícia Tzortzopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Mass Customisation ◽  
Product Modularity ◽  
House Building

scholarly journals Product Modularity, Tolerance Management, and Visual Management: Potential Synergies

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Gravina da Rocha ◽  
Algan Tezel ◽  
Saeed Talebi3 ◽  
Lauri Koskela
Keyword(s):  
Product Modularity ◽  
Tolerance Management

DSM-Based Product Representation for Retirement Process-Based Modularity

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoxia Lai ◽  
John K. Gershenson
Keyword(s):  
Product Design ◽  
Modular Design ◽  
Design Method ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Design Methods ◽  
Process Efficiency ◽  
Modular Architecture ◽  
Product Representation ◽  
Modular Product ◽  
Product Modularity

Researchers have expanded the definition of product modularity from function-based modularity to life-cycle process-based modularity. In parallel, measures of product modularity have been developed as well as corresponding modular product design methods. However, a correct modularity measure and modular design method are not enough to realize modular product design. To apply the measure and design method correctly, product representation becomes an important aspect of modular design and imperative for realizing the promised cost savings of modularity. In this paper, a representation for retirement process-based modular design has been developed. Built upon previous representations for assembly and manufacturing-based product design, the representation includes a process similarity matrix and a process dependency matrix. The retirement process-based similarity is based on the similarity in components’ post-life intents (recycling, reuse, disposal), and either the degree of their material compatibility if the components will be recycled, or their disassembly direction or disassembly tools if they need to be disassembled from each other for retirement. Process similarity within a module leads to increased process efficiency (the elimination of non-value added tasks) from the sharing of tooling/equipment. Retirement process-based dependency is developed based on disassembly difficulty, one aspect of the physical interactions between components. Retiring components together as a module to eliminate disassembly and differential processing and reducing the disassembly difficulty between the modules can increase the efficiency of the retirement process. We have first presented which process elements we should consider for defining retirement process similarity and dependency, and then constructed the respective similarity and dependency factors tables. These tables include similarity and dependency factors, which, along with their quantifications, are used to determine a product’s modular architecture to facilitate the retirement process. Finally, a fishing reel is used to illustrate how to apply these factors tables to generate the similarity and dependency matrices that represent a product for retirement-process based modular design. Using these representations as input to the DSM-based modular design methods, we can achieve a design with a modular architecture that improves the retirement process efficiency and reduces retirement costs.

Trade-Off Analysis of System Architecture Modularity Using Design Structure Matrix

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roozbeh Sanaei ◽  
Kevin Otto ◽  
Katja Hölttä-Otto ◽  
Jianxi Luo
Keyword(s):  
Hierarchical Clustering ◽  
Clustering Algorithms ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Considerable Research ◽  
Design Structure ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Product Modularity ◽  
Modular Architectures ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of

Product modularity has been the subject of considerable research and debate in last decade. Various metrics have been proposed in design community to measure the level of modularity and various procedures have been developed to search for ideal modular architectures. These procedures are based on either manual heuristics or computer clustering algorithms. Both approaches are aimed at finding more ideal architectures by optimizing a definition of modularity. However, different desirable criteria are often in conflict with each other and improving one criteria is not feasible without a compromising effect on another. Here, we propose a procedure to find non-dominated optimal architectures where our criteria of interest are intra-cluster and extra-cluster costs. We demonstrate an approach where a designer can consider the architecture that minimizes total cost of interactions, but also allows visualization of the trade-off in increased and decreased costs when considering nearby architectures with more or less modules. An alternative approach has been to consider granularity and hierarchical clustering schemes. We also show through an example that cost optimal architectures for any choice of number of modules are not necessarily obtainable via dividing or aggregating modules, and restricting to hierarchical clustering algorithms produces non-optimal solutions at different numbers of modules.

Product modularity: Definitions and benefits

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. K. Gershenson ◽  
G. J. Prasad ◽  
Y. Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Product Modularity
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document