0
Research Papers: Design Theory and Methodology

Architecture, Performance, and Investment in Product Development Networks

[+] Author and Article Information
Ali A. Yassine

Department of Industrial
Engineering and Management,
American University of Beirut,
Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon
e-mail: ali.yassine@aub.edu.lb

Joe Naoum-Sawaya

Ivey Business School,
Western University,
London N6G 0N1, Ontario, Canada

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received June 13, 2016; final manuscript received August 30, 2016; published online October 11, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Julie Linsey.

J. Mech. Des 139(1), 011101 (Oct 11, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: MD-16-1443; doi: 10.1115/1.4034673 History: Received June 13, 2016; Revised August 30, 2016

Firms engaging in product development (PD) face the imperative problem of allocating scarce development resources to a multitude of opportunities. In this paper, we propose a mathematical formulation to optimize PD investment or resource allocation decisions. The model maximizes the performance of a product under development, based on its architecture and the firm's available resource, by choosing the optimal resource allocation across product modules and design rules that govern the relationships between these modules. Results based on a comprehensive experiment (with various architectural patterns, escalating number of dependencies, and different problem sizes) shed light on three important hypotheses. First, product architecture affects resource allocation decisions and ultimately product performance. The second hypothesis tests whether modular or integral architectures can attain higher performance levels based on our formulation. A third hypothesis states that there is a shift in the temporal allocation of resources from design rules to individual modules, thus supporting the move from integral to modular architectures as the product evolves across multiple generations. Finally, the model and the experimental results provide design and managerial insights to both development engineers and managers. Specifically, for development engineers, the model and its analysis provide guidance for selecting the product architecture which leads to maximum performance. For development managers, the model and its analysis assist in deciding the optimal budget proportions to be allocated to modules and to design rules, given a fixed architecture and budget.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Crawley, E. , de Weck, O. , Eppinger, S. , Magee, C. , Moses, J. , Seering, W. , Schindall, J. , Wallace, D. , and Whitney, D. , 2004, “ The Influence of Architecture in Engineering Systems,” MIT Engineering Systems Monograph, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Simon, H. A. , 1965, “ The Architecture of Complexity,” Gen. Systems, 10, pp. 63–76.
Bar-Yam, Y. , 1997, Dynamics of Complex Systems, Vol. 213, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Ulrich, K. , 1995, “ The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm,” J. Res. Policy, 24(3), pp. 419–440. [CrossRef]
Barabasi, A. L. , 2002, Linked: The Science of Networks, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Newman, M. E. , 2003, “ The Structure and Function of Complex Networks,” SIAM Rev., 45(2), pp. 167–256. [CrossRef]
Baldwin, C. , and Clark, K. , 2000, Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Yu, T. L. , Yassine, A. A. , and Goldberg, D. E. , 2007, “ An Information Theoretic Method for Developing Modular Architectures Using Genetic Algorithms,” Res. Eng. Des., 18(2), pp. 91–109. [CrossRef]
Borjesson, F. , and Hölttä-Otto, K. , 2014, “ A Module Generation Algorithm for Product Architecture Based on Component Interactions and Strategic Drivers,” Res. Eng. Des., 25(1), pp. 31–51. [CrossRef]
Kalsi, M. , Hacker, K. , and Lewis, K. , 2001, “ A Comprehensive Robust Design Approach for Decision Trade-Offs in Complex Systems Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 123(1), pp. 1–10. [CrossRef]
Mihm, J. , Lock, C. , and Huchzermeier, A. , 2003, “ Problem-Solving Oscillations in Complex Engineering Projects,” Manage. Sci., 49(6), pp. 733–750. [CrossRef]
Martin, M. V. , and Ishii, K. , 2002, “ Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures,” Res. Eng. Des., 13(4), pp. 213–235.
Frenken, K. , 2006, “ A Fitness Landscape Approach to Technological Complexity, Modularity, and Vertical Disintegration,” Struct. Change Econ. Dyn., 17(3), pp. 288–305. [CrossRef]
Hölttä-Otto, K. , and de Weck, O. , 2007, “ Degree of Modularity in Engineering Systems and Products With Technical and Business Constraints,” Concurrent Eng., 15(2), pp. 113–126. [CrossRef]
Cutherell, D. , 1996, “ Product Architecture,” The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, M. Rosenau , A. Griffin , G. Castellion , and N. Anschuetz , eds., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Whitney, D. E. , 2004, “ Physical Limits to Modularity,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Paper No. ESD-WP-2003-01.03-ESD.
Yassine, A. , Falkenburg, D. , and Chelst, K. , 1999, “ Engineering Design Management: An Information Structure Approach,” Int. J. Production Res., 37(13), pp. 2957–2975. [CrossRef]
Yassine, A. , and Braha, D. , 2003, “ Complex Concurrent Engineering and the Design Structure Matrix Method,” Concurrent Eng Res. Appl., 11(3), pp. 165–176. [CrossRef]
Cohen, M. A. , Eliasberg, J. , and Ho, T. H. , 1996, “ New Product Development: The Performance and Time-to-Market Tradeoff,” Manage. Sci., 42(2), pp. 173–186. [CrossRef]
Joglekar, N. , Yassine, A. , Eppinger, S. , and Whitney, D. , 2001, “ Performance of Coupled Product Development Activities With a Deadline,” Manage. Sci., 47(12), pp. 1605–1620. [CrossRef]
Kamrad, B. , Schmidt, G. M. , and Ulku, S. , 2013, “ Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 60(2), pp. 289–300. [CrossRef]
Henderson, R. M. , and Clark, K. B. , 1990, “ Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms,” Administrative Sci. Q., 35(1), pp. 9–30. [CrossRef]
Rivkin, J. , and Siggelkow, N. , 2007, “ Patterned Interactions in Complex Systems: Implications for Exploration,” Manage. Sci., 53(7), pp. 1068–1085. [CrossRef]
Braha, D. , and Bar-Yam, Y. , 2007, “ The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product Development: Empirical and Analytical Results,” Manage. Sci., 53(7), pp. 1127–1145. [CrossRef]
Gokpinar, B. , Hopp, W. J. , and Iravani, S. M. , 2010, “ The Impact of Misalignment of Organizational Structure and Product Architecture on Quality in Complex Product Development,” Manage. Sci., 56(3), pp. 468–484. [CrossRef]
Sosa, M. , Mihm, J. , and Browning, T. , 2011, “ Degree Distribution and Quality in Complex Engineered Systems,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(10), p. 101008. [CrossRef]
Cataldo, M. , and Ehrlich, K. , 2012, “ The Impact of Communication Structure on New Product Development Outcomes,” SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York, pp. 3081–3090.
Fuge, M. , Tee, K. , Agogino, A. , and Maton, N. , 2014, “ Analysis of Collaborative Design Networks: A Case Study of Openideo,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 14(2), p. 021009. [CrossRef]
Ethiraj, S. K. , 2007, “ Allocation of Inventive Effort in Complex Product Systems,” Strategic Manage. J., 28(6), pp. 563–584. [CrossRef]
Ethiraj, S. K. , and Posen, H. E. , 2013, “ Do Product Architectures Affect Innovation Productivity in Complex Product Ecosystems,” Adv. Strategic Manage., 30, pp. 127–166.
Dong, A. , and Sarkar, S. , 2015, “ Forecasting Technological Progress Potential Based on the Complexity of Product Knowledge,” Technol. Forecasting Soc. Change, 90(Pt. B), pp. 599–610. [CrossRef]
Schilling, M. A. , 2000, “ Towards a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity,” Acad. Manage. Rev., 25(2), pp. 312–334.
Christensen, C. M. , Verlinden, M. , and Westerman, G. , 2002, “ Disruption, Disintegration and the Dissipation of Differentiability,” Ind. Corporate Change, 11(5), pp. 955–993. [CrossRef]
Fixson, S. K. , and Park, J. K. , 2008, “ The Power of Integrality: Linkages Between Product Architecture, Innovation, and Industry Structure,” Res. Policy, 37(8), pp. 1296–1316. [CrossRef]
Fine, C. H. , and Whitney, D. E. , 1999, “ Is the Make–Buy Decision Process a Core Competence?,” Logistics in the Information Age, M. Muffatto and K. Pawar , eds., Servizi Grafici Editoriali, Padova, Italy, pp. 31–63.
Langlois, R. , and Robertson, P. , 1992, “ Networks and Innovation in a Modular System: Lessons From the Microcomputer and Stereo Component Industries,” Res. Policy, 21(4), pp. 297–313. [CrossRef]
Grove, A. S. , 1996, Only the Paranoid Survive, Doubleday, New York.
Luo, J. , 2015, “ A Simulation-Based Method to Evaluate the Impact of Product Architecture on Product Evolvability,” Res. Eng. Des., 26(4), pp. 355–371. [CrossRef]
Frenken, K. , and Mendritzki, S. , 2012, “ Optimal Modularity: A Demonstration of the Evolutionary Advantage of Modular Architectures,” J. Evol. Econ., 22(5), pp. 935–956. [CrossRef]
Foster, R. , 1986, “ The S Curve: A New Forecasting Tool,” The Attacker's Advantage, Summit Books, Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 88–111.
Anderson, P. , and Tushman, M. , 1990, “ Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change,” Administrative Sci. Q., 35(4), pp. 604–633. [CrossRef]
Dutton, J. M. , and Thomas, A. , 1984, “ Treating Progress Functions as a Managerial Opportunity,” Acad. Manage. Rev., 9(2), pp. 235–247.
Allada, V. , and Lan, J. , 2002, “ New Modules Launch Planning For Evolving Modular Product Families,” ASME Paper No. DETC2002/DFM-34190.
Loch, C. H. , and Terwiesch, C. , 1998, “ Communication and Uncertainty in Concurrent Engineering,” Manage. Sci., 44(8), pp. 1032–1048. [CrossRef]
McNerney, J. , Farmer, J. D. , Redner, S. , and Trancik, J. E. , 2011, “ Role of Design Complexity in Technology Improvement,” Proc. Natl Acad. Sci., 108(22), pp. 9008–9013. [CrossRef]
Smith, R. P. , and Eppinger, S. D. , 1997, “ Identifying Controlling Features of Engineering Design Iteration,” Manage. Science, 43(3), pp. 276–293. [CrossRef]
Yassine, A. , Joglekar, N. , Braha, D. , Eppinger, S. D. , and Whitney, D. , 2003, “ Information Hiding in Product Development: The Design Churn Effect,” Res. Eng. Des., 14(3), pp. 131–144. [CrossRef]
Van Wie, M. J. , Greer, J. L. , Campbell, M. I. , Stone, R. B. , and Wood, K. L. , 2001, “ Interfaces and Product Architecture,” ASME DETC and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Pittsburg, PA, Sept. 9–12, Vol. 1, pp. 9–12.
Greer, J. , 2002, “ Effort Flow Analysis: A Methodology for Directed Product Evolution Using Rigid Body and Compliant Mechanisms,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Whitney, D. E. , 2005, “ Degree Correlations and Motifs in Technological Networks,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Paper No. ESD-WP-2005-10.
Whitney, D. E. , 2008, “ Network Models of Mechanical Assemblies,” Unifying Themes in Complex Systems, Springer, Berlin, pp. 331–338.
Stellman, A. , and Greene, J. , 2005, Applied Software Project Management, O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.
McCabe, T. J. , 1976, “ A Complexity Measure,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., SE-2(4), pp. 308–320. [CrossRef]
Sosa, M. , Mihm, J. , and Browning, T. , 2013, “ Linking Cyclicality and Product Quality,” Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manage., 15(3), pp. 473–491.
Eppinger, S. D. , and Browning, T. R. , 2012, Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ağralı, S. , and Geunes, J. , 2009, “ Solving Knapsack Problems With S-Curve Return Functions,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 193(2), pp. 605–615. [CrossRef]
Meier, C. , Yassine, A. A. , and Browning, T. R. , 2007, “ Design Process Sequencing With Competent Genetic Algorithms,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 129(6), pp. 566–585. [CrossRef]
Zacharias, N. A. , and Yassine, A. A. , 2008, “ Optimal Platform Investment for Product Family Design,” J. Intell. Manuf., 19(2), pp. 131–148. [CrossRef]
Sharman, D. , and Yassine A. , 2004, “ Characterizing Complex Product Architectures,” Syst. Eng., 7(1), pp. 35–60. [CrossRef]
Valverde, S. , Cancho, R. F. , and Sole, R. V. , 2002, “ Scale-Free Networks From Optimal Design,” Europhys. Lett., 60(4), p. 512. [CrossRef]
Le, Q. , Sha, Z. , and Panchal, J. H. , 2014, “ A Generative Network Model for Product Evolution,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 14(1), p. 011003. [CrossRef]
Barabasi, A. L. , and Albert, R. , 1999, “ Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks,” Science, 286(5439), pp. 509–512. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Investment decisions and its relationship to integral-modular dynamics DSM of a product system evolution of performance, and architecture fraction of development budget spent on modules and on design rules: (a) DSM of a product system, (b) evolution of performance and architecture, and (c) fraction of development budget spent on modules and on design rules

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The eight different DSM architectures. All with the same number of total interactions: N = 12 and K = 2; NK = 24 total module interactions (Adapted from Rivkin and Siggelkow [23]): (a) random, (b) diagonal, (c) block diagonal, (d) local, (e) hierarchical, (f) dependent, (g) small world, and (h) scale free.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

ANOM (99% confidence intervals) grouped N, K, and architecture: (a) performance, (b) total investment in modules, and (c) total investment in design rules

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

ANOM (99% confidence intervals) for N and K: (a) total performance (performance), (b) total investment in modules (Alpha_tot), (c) total investment in design rules (Theta_tot), and (d) total investment in compatibility (Comp_Inv)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

ANOM (99% confidence intervals) for eight different DSM architectures: (a) mean performance, (b) total investment in modules, (c) total investment in design rules, and (d) total investment in compatibility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Performance evolution and proportion of budget spent on modules and design rules (using average values for the output of the 100 problems)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Software upgrade project DSM data (showing fij values (off-diagonal) and ci values (along diagonal))

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

ANOM (99% confidence intervals) for architecture and K, and architecture and N: (a) architecture and N interaction; (b) architecture and K interaction

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In