Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:33:57.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MODULARITY, ROBUSTNESS, AND CHANGE PROPAGATION: A MULTIFACETED RELATION

Part of: Systems Engineering and Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

S. A. Piccolo ,
S. Lehmann  and
A. M. Maier
S. A. Piccolo*
Affiliation:
DTU-Technical University of Denmark
S. Lehmann
Affiliation:
DTU-Technical University of Denmark
A. M. Maier
Affiliation:
DTU-Technical University of Denmark
*
*[email protected]

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.

Increased system robustness is one of the promises of modularity. However, research on the topic has provided conflicting findings. By generating more than 2000 system architectures, this paper shows that the relation between modularity and robustness is multifaceted: Modularity decreases topological robustness, increases robustness to change propagation, and provides economic benefits. Results here confirm the importance of modularity, enable reconciliation of opposing findings from prior research, and guides researchers and practitioners in the selection of appropriate robustness measures.

Keywords

modularityrobustnesscomplex systemsnetwork approachesdesign structure matrix (DSM)
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 2335 - 2344
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), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Ahmad, N., Wynn, D.C. and Clarkson, P.J. (2013), “Change impact on a product and its redesign process: a tool for knowledge capture and reuse”, Res. Eng. Des., Vol. 24, pp. 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0139-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, R. and Barabási, A.-L. (2002), “Statistical mechanics of complex networks”, Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 74, pp. 47–97. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, R., Jeong, H. and Barabási, A.-L. (2000), “Error and attack tolerance of complex networks”, Nature, Vol. 406, pp. 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/35019019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bagrow, J.P., Lehmann, S. and Ahn, Y.Y. (2015), “Robustness and modular structure in networks”, Netw. Sci., Vol. 3, pp. 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2015.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B., (2000), Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabási, A.-L. and Albert, R. (1999), “Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks”, Science (80-. ), Vol. 286, pp. 509–512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blondel, V.D. et al. (2008), “Fast unfolding of communities in large networks”, J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp., Vol. 2008, p. P10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braha, D. and Bar-Yam, Y. (2007), “The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product Development: Empirical and Analytical Results”, Manage. Sci., Vol. 53, pp. 1127–1145. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, D. et al. (2008), “Epidemic thresholds in real networks”, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., p. 10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1284680.1284681Google Scholar
Clarkson, P.J., Simons, C. and Eckert, C. (2004), “Predicting change propagation in complex design”, J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME, Vol. 126, pp. 788–797. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1765117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clune, J., Mouret, J.-B. and Lipson, H. (2013), “The evolutionary origins of modularity”, Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., Vol. 280, p. 20122863. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2863CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawley, E., Cameron, B. and Selva, D. (2016), System Architecture: Strategy and Product Development for Complex Systems, Pearson.Google Scholar
D'Agostino, G. et al. (2012), “Robustness and assortativity for diffusion-like processes in scale-free networks”, EPL (Europhysics Lett.), Vol. 97, p. 68006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethiraj, S.K. and Levinthal, D. (2004), “Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems”, Manage. Sci., Vol. 50, pp. 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J. and Zhang, Y. (2003), “Product modularity: Definitions and benefits”, J. Eng. Des., Vol. 14, pp. 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954482031000091068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giffin, M. et al. (2009), “Change propagation analysis in complex technical systems”, J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME, Vol. 131, pp. 0810011–08100114. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3149847Google Scholar
Gohler, S.M., Eifler, T. and Howard, T.J. (2016), “Robustness metrics: Consolidating the multiple approaches to quantify robustness”, J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME, p. 138. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034112Google Scholar
Hoedemaker, G.M., Blackburn, J.D. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (1999), “Limits to Concurrency”, Decis. Sci., Vol. 30, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01599.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölttä, K.M.M. and Otto, K.N. (2005), “Incorporating design effort complexity measures in product architectural design and assessment”, Des. Stud., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazer, D. and Friedman, A. (2007), “The network structure of exploration and exploitation”, Adm. Sci. Q., Vol. 52, pp. 667–694. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.4.667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, D.M., Jeng, A. and Deem, M.W. (2011), “The emergence of modularity in biological systems”, Phys. Life Rev., Vol. 8, pp. 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2011.02.003Google ScholarPubMed
MacCormack, A., Rusnak, J. and Baldwin, C.Y. (2006), “Exploring the structure of complex software designs: An empirical study of open source and proprietary code”, Manage. Sci., Vol. 52, pp. 1015–1030. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, A.M. et al. (2008), “Exploration of correlations between factors influencing communication in complex product development”, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl., Vol. 16, pp. 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X07084638Google Scholar
Newman, M.E.J. (2003), “The Structure and Function of Complex Networks”, SIAM Rev., Vol. 45, pp. 167–256. https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614450342480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, M.E.J. (2002), “Assortative Mixing in Networks”, Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 89, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.208701CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, M.E.J. and Girvan, M. (2004), “Finding and evaluating community structure in networks”, Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 69, p. 026113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pan, R.K. and Sinha, S. (2007), “Modular networks emerge from multiconstraint optimization”, Phys. Rev. E - Stat. Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys., Vol. 76, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.045103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, J., Newman, M.E.J. (2004), “Statistical mechanics of networks”, Phys. Rev. E - Stat. Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, Relat. Interdiscip. Top., Vol. 70, p. 13. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.066117Google ScholarPubMed
Parraguez, P. et al. (2019), “Process Modularity Over Time: Modeling Process Execution as an Evolving Activity Network”, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2019.2935932Google Scholar
Pastor-Satorras, R. et al. (2015), “Epidemic processes in complex networks”, Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 87, pp. 925–979. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, A. (2012), “The New Science of Building Great Teams”, Harv. Bus. Rev.Google Scholar
Piccolo, S.A., Lehmann, S. and Maier, A. (2018a), “Design process robustness: a bipartite network analysis reveals the central importance of people”, Des. Sci., Vol. 4, p. e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.32Google Scholar
Piccolo, S.A. et al. (2019), “Iterations as the result of social and technical factors: empirical evidence from a large-scale design project”, Res. Eng. Des., Vol. 30, pp. 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-0301-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccolo, S.A. et al. (2018b), “Changes and Sentiment: a Longitudinal Email Analysis of a Large Scale Design Project”, in: DS92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference. pp. 869–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, R. and Mahoney, J.T. (1996), “Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design”, Strateg. Manag. J., Vol. 17, pp. 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilling, M.A. (2000), “Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity”, Acad. Manag. Rev., Vol. 25, pp. 312–334. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3312918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C.M. et al. (2011), “Mitigation of malicious attacks on networks”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., Vol. 108, pp. 3838–3841. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009440108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, H.A. (1962), “The Architecture of Complexity”, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., Vol. 106, pp. 467–482.Google Scholar
Smith, R. and Eppinger, S.D. (1997), “Identifying Controlling Features of Engineering Design Iterations”, Manage. Sci., Vol. 43, pp. 276–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, M.E., Mihm, J. and Browning, T.R. (2013), “Linking cyclicality and product quality”, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag., Vol. 15, pp. 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2013.0432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steward, D.V. (1981), “The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems”, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., pp. 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, E.S., De Weck, O.L. and Chang, D. (2007), “Flexible product platforms: Framework and case study”, Res. Eng. Des., Vol. 18, pp. 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-007-0032-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1990), The principles of design, Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
Thomke, S.H. (1997), “The role of flexibility in the development of new products: An empirical study”, Res. Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00918-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”, Res. Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, H.S., Dong, A. and Tumer, I.Y. (2019), “An Analysis of Modularity as a Design Rule Using Network Theory”, J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME, Vol. 141, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, D.J. and Strogatz, S.H. (1998), “Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks”, Nature, Vol. 393, pp. 440–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/30918CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Worren, N., Moore, K. and Cardona, P. (2002), “Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: A study of the home appliance industry”, Strateg. Manag. J., Vol. 23, pp. 1123–1140. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, D.C. and Eckert, C.M. (2017), “Perspectives on iteration in design and development”, Research in Engineering Design. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0226-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yassine, A. and Braha, D. (2003), “Complex Concurrent Engineering and the Design Structure Matrix Method”, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl., Vol. 11, pp. 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/106329303034503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yassine, A. et al. (2003), “Information hiding in product development: The design churn effect”, Res. Eng. Des., Vol. 14, pp. 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-003-0036-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar