Modular architecture principles – MAPs: a key factor in the development of sustainable open architecture products

Figures & data

Figure 1. Modularization role in mass customization and personalization. Adapted from (Koren et al. 2015).

Table 1. Key differences between, mass customization and mass personalization. Adapted from (Koren et al. 2015), (Hu et al. 2011) .

Topic	Mass Customization	Personalization
Product Architecture	Modular	Modular & Open Platform
Product Built	Product built with different options	Customer designed and modification capability in use stage Choose among offered Products
Customer’s Role	Choose from offered options	Involved in Final Product Design
Goal of the manufacturing paradigms	Economy of Scope	Value Differentiation
Desired Product Characteristics	Variety	Efficacy
Sustainability Scope	Lifecycle of Product	Lifecycle of Product Gamma

Table 2. Sustainability impacts of personalization.

Required Tasks	Sources	Sustainability Impacts
Increase of variety of parts	Market (Customers in the market of one)	Increase of: Manufacturing materials consumption Energy consumption Emissions Waste materials Complexity of end-of-life (EOL) Stage Management Increase of demand for material production
Increase of the number of products	Market (Market Segment Sizes)
Specific modules required during the use stage	Customer (Customer wishes)
Increase of variety of miscellaneous requirements	Customer (Additional requirements)
Reduction of ramp-up time between product family versions	Market & Companies (Accelerated Consumption Culture)

Table 3. Functional ranging MAPs (Mesa et al. 2015).

MAP	General Scheme	Description
Adjustment		A single module provides adjustment to reach different adaptation levels within a working range.
Stacking		Several identical modules can connect with each other in a stack structure to provide stepped increases respect to one parameter.
Cut to Fit		Modules with different levels in a particular parameter can be replaced by each other. The level variation it is centered in one specific module.
Size Range		A set of modules can vary in one or more parameters. The modules carry out the same function in different levels.

Table 4. Functional variety MAPs (Mesa et al. 2015).

MAP	General Scheme	Description
Component Sharing		Varied platforms share a common module to create different product variants.
Component Swapping		A set of modules with different functionalities can connect to a base component or platform through the same interface.
Widening		A unique composed module is employed to satisfy all the variations existent within the product variants
Narrowing		The minimum standard module is shared with all the product variants in which there are more components involved.
Sectional		A set of modules can connect to others in different configurations to provide configurations with different functionalities.

Table 5. Examples of MAP implementation in products.

MAP	Example	Description
Adjustment	Adjustable Wrench	Adjustable wrench replaces a family of wrenches. Instead of changing between wrenches, the adjustable wrench can increase or decrease the size of the jaw.
Stacking	Silos by Stacking	Stacking modules can achieve different operational sizes. In this case, the same common and constructive unit can be used for generating several sizes of silos.
Cut to Fit	Plotters	The use of cut to fit allow to construct several sizes of Plotters, the lateral and supporting components are the same in each configuration.
Size Range	Bicycle Product Family	Size ranging in bicycles provide a particular and complete product variant for each required size. The functionality is the same and varies according to the user growth.
Component Sharing	GoPro® & configurations	The GoPro® camera can be adapted to different systems to achieve its functionality to particular scenarios. The function for the shared module (the camera) is the same; the variation is concentred in external components.
Component Swapping	Mixer	The mixer can develop its function using interchangeable sets of blades, the form and size of the output material depend on the set of blades installed. All the sets of blades are connected through the same interface and joint method.
Widening	Swiss Knife	The Swiss Knife® can integrate many different functions in a unique product variant. In the example shown, the product provides knife, scissor, and sandpaper tool. This product variant mixes three products in one.
Narrowing	Handheld Rig	The showed handheld rig, and the light and monitor accessories can be integrated with the main core component, in this case, the camera. The possible configurations provide flexibility according to the needs of the user.
Sectional	Multiconfiguration Byke (UPSTART 2016)	The Multiconfiguration Byke® is a product able to configure in at least three user configurations and an additional transporting array. The configurations are achieved using the same core set of modules.

Figure 2. Lifecycle comparison between modular and open architecture products. Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b) correspond to stages for modular product and stages for open architecture product respectively.

Figure 3. Lifecycle advantages of MAPs in modular and open architecture products.

Table 6. Sustainability benefits, impacts, and limitations of MAPs.

MAP	Benefits and Advantages	Sustainability Enhancements	Limitations
Adjustment	A single product can replace a set of products with different performance levels respect to a function.	The potential reduction of consumption of resources (Materials, and Energy) in the manufacturing and final disposal stages.	High Functional centralization, all the resources are focused on a single product; the reliability of the product is critical.
Stacking	The user through the stacking of components can construct a set of products with different performance levels respect to a function.	Reduction of consumption of resources (Materials and Energy) in the manufacturing and final disposal stages. A stacking module can be used in different product variants through the same connection interface.	Functional centralization, the stacking modules are useless when they are not working in the product construction. The ranging is just achieved in discrete intervals or stepped values.
Cut to Fit	The user through the exchange of specific modules in which the ranging is focused can construct a set of products with different performance levels respect to a function.	Reduction of consumption of resources (Materials and Energy) in the manufacturing and final disposal stages. A cut-to-fit module can be used in different product variants through the same connection interface.	Functional centralization, the cut-to-fit modules are useless when they are not working in the product construction. The ranging is just achieved in specific values; it is necessary to define the values of variation previously.
Size Range	A set of products is developed at different levels or scales. Each product with its modules is established for each level.	Reduction of consumption of resources (Materials and Energy) in the manufacturing and final disposal stages.	The use of different components carries more complex manufacturing and final disposal processes.
Component Sharing	A set of products shares the same module, which can be integrated using a standard interface. The functionality can share with many or all product variants.	Reduction of consumption of resources (Materials and Energy) in the manufacturing and final disposal stages. The common module can work in different product variants.	Only a product can employ each sharing module at a time.
Component Swapping	Specific modules with particular functions are designed for integrating different products though	Reduction of consumption of resources (Materials and Energy) in the manufacturing and final disposal stages. The common module can work in various product variants.	Only a product can employ each swapping module at a time.
Widening	All the possible functional variations are integrated into the same product.	Reduction of consumption of resources (Materials and Energy) in the manufacturing and final disposal stages.	High Functional centralization, all the resources are focused on a single product; the reliability of the product is critical.
Narrowing	All the possible functional variations are established around a same minimum sharing component. Additional functional modules can be added in each product variant.	Reduction of consumption of resources (Materials and Energy) in the manufacturing and final disposal stages.	High functional centralization, all the resources are focused on a single product; the reliability of the product is critical.
Sectional	Product variants (associated with product configurations) are achieved through the reconfiguration of constructive modules.	Reduction of consumption of resources (Materials and Energy) in the manufacturing and final disposal stages. The definition of configurations requires very conscious design, the selection of interfaces is critical.	All modules are essential; all the configurations depend on the same set of modules. If one module it is not working this can affect the performance of the product in different configurations.

Table 7. MAPs respect reusability, modular independence, and family product replacement.

MAP	Category	Reusability	Modular Independence	Family Product Replacement
Adjustment	Functional ranging	Limited	No	Yes
Stacking		Yes	Yes	Yes
Cut to Fit		Yes	Yes	Limited
Size Range		No	Yes	No
Component Sharing	Functional variety	Yes	Yes	Yes
Component Swapping		Yes	Yes	Yes
Widening		No	No	Yes
Narrowing		Yes	No	Yes
Sectional		Limited	No	Yes

Figure 4. Implementation of strategies and involved actors.

Table 8. Evaluation of proposed strategies for sustainability based on MAPs.

Strategy	Implications and Challenges	Evaluation tools
Reuse of Modules	- The conception of reuse (of products or modules) from early design stages as a key issue during the design process.	- Indicators for the reuse of modules. - Indicators for measuring the Refurbishing and Remanufacturing potential
Robust Selection and Evaluation of MAPs	- Lifecycle analysis in the selection and hierarchy or modular architecture principles - Definition of selection criteria oriented to sustainability along the whole lifecycle of modules	- Methodological approaches and selection algorithms - Holistic indexes and characterization of MAPs according to the type of industry
Common Interface Design	- Unification and standardization of interfaces and joints. Particularly between different suppliers or manufactures.	- Indicators to measure the easiness for Assembly and Disassembly - Indicators to measure the exchangeability of modules
Actions for Corporate Responsibility	- Company’s policies to promote the inverse supply chain of products - Benefits to users involved in the recycling and updating of products in exchange for previous models or series	- Corporate indicators about the circularity of raw material and used product catchment.
Actions for User Responsibility	- Implementation of persuasive design in the product architecture - Cultural background and civism	- Surveys about the product perception regarding sustainability - Corporate indicators about used product catchment

Table 9. Some existing approaches to enable the comprehension of the strategies for sustainability.

Strategy	Author	Approach
Reuse of Modules	(Kimura F., Kato, Hata, & Masuda, 2001)	Inverse Manufacturing
	(Mutha and Pokharel 2009)	Reverse Logistics and network analysis
	(Gu, Hashemian, and Nee 2004)	Adaptable Design
Robust Selection and Evaluation of MAPs	(Mesa et al. 2015)	Characterization of modular architecture principles
	(Dahmus, Gonzalez-Zugasti, and Otto 2001)	Method to define product architecture
	(Fujita 2002)	Computational Optimization
Common Interface Design	(Kyoung-Yun, Manley, and Yang 2006)	Ontology-based methodology
	(Chung-Shing 2009)	Web-based methodology
Actions for Corporate Responsibility	(Orlitzky, Siegel, and Waldman 2011)	Review of theoretical approaches
	(Kovács 2008)	Study based on responsibility in the supply chain
Actions for User Responsibility	(Gifford and Nilsson 2014)	Review of concern and behavior
	(Kollmuss and Agyeman 2010)	Barriers to pro-environmental behavior

Koren, Y., M. Shpitalni, P. Gu, and S. Hu. 2015. “Product Design for Mass-Individualization.” Procedia CIRP - 25th Design Conference Innovative Product Creation 36: 64–71.

 Google Scholar

Hu, S., J. Ko, L. Weyland, H. ElMaraghy, T. Lien, Y. Koren, … M. Shpitalni. 2011. “Assembly System Design and Operations for Product Variety.” CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 60 (2): 715–733. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2011.05.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mesa, J., H. Maury, R. Arrieta, A. Bula, and C. Riba. 2015. “Characterization of Modular Architecture Principles Towards Reconfiguration: A Firts Approach in Its Selection Process.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 80 (1): 221–232. doi:10.1007/s00170-015-6951-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

UPSTART. (2016, 05). “News from the Entrepreneurship Community in Singapore.” START-UPS:Singaporean engineer builds the world’s first multi-configuration bicycle with help from ACE Start-up Grant(3). Retrieved 10 May 2017. http://www.upstartnews.sg/archive/03/05.html

 Google Scholar

Kimura, F., S. Kato, T. Hata, and T. Masuda. 2001. “Product Modularization for Parts Reuse in Inverse Manufacturing.” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 50 (1): 89–92. doi:10.1016/S0007-8506(07)62078-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mutha, A., and S. Pokharel. 2009. “Strategic Network Design for Reverse Logistics and Remanufacturing Using New and Old Product Modules.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 56 (1): 334–346. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2008.06.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gu, P., M. Hashemian, and A. Nee. 2004. “Adaptable Design.” CIRP Annals 53 (2): 539–557. doi:10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60028-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dahmus, J., J. Gonzalez-Zugasti, and K. Otto. 2001. “Modular Product Architecture.” Design Studies 22 (1): 409–424. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00004-7.

 Google Scholar

Fujita, K. 2002. “Product Variety Optimization under Modular Architecture.” Computer-Aided Design 34 (12): 953–965. doi:10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00149-X.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kyoung-Yun, K., D. Manley, and H. Yang. 2006. “Ontology-Based Assembly Design and Information Sharing for Collaborative Product Development.” Computer-Aided Design 38 (12): 1233–1250. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2006.08.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chung-Shing, W. 2009. “Web-Based Modular Interface Geometries with Constraints in Assembly Models.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 56 (4): 1675–1686. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2008.10.018.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Orlitzky, M., D. Siegel, and D. Waldman. 2011. “Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sus.” Business & Society 50 (1): 6–27. doi:10.1177/0007650310394323.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kovács, G. 2008. “Corporate Environmental Responsibility in the Supply Chain.” Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15): 1571–1578. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gifford, R., and A. Nilsson. 2014. “Personal and Social Factors that Influence Pro-Environmental Concern and Behaviour: A Review.” International Journal of Psychology 49 (3): 141–157. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2010. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior?” Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 239–260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401.

 Google Scholar