IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v20y2017i2p98-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Flexibility Due to Abstraction and Decomposition

Author

Listed:
  • David A. Broniatowski

Abstract

Flexibility is a major concern in engineering design. This paper examines two complementary approaches to designing flexibility into engineering systems. One approach, based on system decomposition, emphasizes a one‐to‐one mapping between form and function, as in modular designs. The second approach decouples form from function, enabling a many‐to‐many mapping, as in layered designs. These approaches need not be mutually exclusive; rather, they can be synergistic. These claims are examined using simulated intermodal freight shipping networks. Results show that systems relying on decomposition are especially sensitive to disruptions. In contrast, systems relying on abstraction are less sensitive to disruption as long as rates of change in the environment are low; however, they are also less able to respond to unmet demand. Given enough resources, systems using both approaches can respond both to disruptions and unmet demand. Implications for system design are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • David A. Broniatowski, 2017. "Flexibility Due to Abstraction and Decomposition," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 98-117, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:20:y:2017:i:2:p:98-117
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21381
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21381?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Gamba & Nicola Fusari, 2009. "Valuing Modularity as a Real Option," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(11), pages 1877-1896, November.
    2. Erin T. Ryan & David R. Jacques & John M. Colombi, 2013. "An ontological framework for clarifying flexibility‐related terminology via literature survey," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 99-110, March.
    3. Roshanak Nilchiani & Daniel E. Hastings, 2007. "Measuring the Value of Flexibility in Space Systems: A Six‐Element Framework," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 26-44, March.
    4. Azad M. Madni, 2012. "Elegant systems design: Creative fusion of simplicity and power," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 347-354, September.
    5. Thomke, Stefan H., 1997. "The role of flexibility in the development of new products: An empirical study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 105-119, March.
    6. Adam M. Ross & Donna H. Rhodes & Daniel E. Hastings, 2008. "Defining changeability: Reconciling flexibility, adaptability, scalability, modifiability, and robustness for maintaining system lifecycle value," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 246-262, September.
    7. Ernst Fricke & Armin P. Schulz, 2005. "Design for changeability (DfC): Principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 1-1.
    8. Deng, Weibing & Li, Wei & Cai, Xu & Wang, Qiuping A., 2011. "The exponential degree distribution in complex networks: Non-equilibrium network theory, numerical simulation and empirical data," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 390(8), pages 1481-1485.
    9. David A. Broniatowski & Joel Moses, 2016. "Measuring Flexibility, Descriptive Complexity, and Rework Potential in Generic System Architectures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 207-221, May.
    10. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erica Gralla & Zoe Szajnfarber, 2016. "Characterizing Representational Uncertainty in System Design and Operations," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 535-548, November.
    2. David A. Broniatowski & Joel Moses, 2016. "Measuring Flexibility, Descriptive Complexity, and Rework Potential in Generic System Architectures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 207-221, May.
    3. Avner Engel & Tyson R. Browning, 2008. "Designing systems for adaptability by means of architecture options," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 125-146, June.
    4. David A. Broniatowski, 2018. "Building the tower without climbing it: Progress in engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 259-281, May.
    5. Inayat Ullah & Dunbing Tang & Qi Wang & Leilei Yin, 2017. "Least Risky Change Propagation Path Analysis in Product Design Process," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 379-391, July.
    6. Mohsen Jafari Songhori & Madjid Tavana & Takao Terano, 2020. "Product development team formation: effects of organizational- and product-related factors," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 88-122, March.
    7. Amrit Tiwana & Benn Konsynski & Ashley A. Bush, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 675-687, December.
    8. Haluk Yoeruer, 2020. "The Role of Platform Architecture Characteristics in Flexible Decision-Making," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(08), pages 1-28, January.
    9. Edwin C. Y. Koh, 2017. "A study on the Requirements to Support the Accurate Prediction of Engineering Change Propagation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 147-157, March.
    10. Babak Heydari & Mohsen Mosleh & Kia Dalili, 2016. "From Modular to Distributed Open Architectures: A Unified Decision Framework," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 252-266, May.
    11. Adam M. Ross & Donna H. Rhodes & Daniel E. Hastings, 2008. "Defining changeability: Reconciling flexibility, adaptability, scalability, modifiability, and robustness for maintaining system lifecycle value," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 246-262, September.
    12. Alessandro Golkar & Edward F. Crawley, 2014. "A Framework for Space Systems Architecture under Stakeholder Objectives Ambiguity," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 479-502, December.
    13. Alan MacCormack & Roberto Verganti & Marco Iansiti, 2001. "Developing Products on "Internet Time": The Anatomy of a Flexible Development Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 133-150, January.
    14. Ali A. Yassine & Luke A. Wissmann, 2007. "The Implications of Product Architecture on the Firm," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 118-137, June.
    15. Gil, Nuno & Tether, Bruce S., 2011. "Project risk management and design flexibility: Analysing a case and conditions of complementarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 415-428, April.
    16. Michel‐Alexandre Cardin & Mehdi Ranjbar‐Bourani & Richard de Neufville, 2015. "Improving the Lifecycle Performance of Engineering Projects with Flexible Strategies: Example of On‐Shore LNG Production Design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 253-268, May.
    17. Jürgen Mihm & Christoph Loch & Arnd Huchzermeier, 2003. "Problem--Solving Oscillations in Complex Engineering Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 733-750, June.
    18. Gil, Nuno, 2007. "On the value of project safeguards: Embedding real options in complex products and systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 980-999, September.
    19. Erin T. Ryan & David R. Jacques & John M. Colombi, 2013. "An ontological framework for clarifying flexibility‐related terminology via literature survey," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 99-110, March.
    20. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:20:y:2017:i:2:p:98-117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.