IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v7y2004i1p35-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing complex product architectures

Author

Listed:
  • David M. Sharman
  • Ali A. Yassine

Abstract

Due to the large‐scale nature of complex product architectures, it is necessary to develop some form of abstraction in order to be able to describe and grasp the structure of the product, facilitating product modularization. In this paper we develop three methods for describing product architectures: (a) the Dependency Structure Matrix (DSM), (b) Molecular Diagrams (MD), and (c) Visibility‐Dependency (VD) signature diagrams. Each method has its own language (and abstraction), which can be used to qualitatively or quantitatively characterize any given architecture spanning the modular‐integrated continuum. A consequence of abstraction is the loss of some detail. So, it is important to choose the correct method (and resolution) to characterize the architecture in order to retain the salient details. The proposed methods are suited for describing architectures of varying levels of complexity and detail. The three methods are demonstrated using a sequence of illustrative simple examples and a case‐study analysis of a complex product architecture for an industrial gas turbine. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 7: 35–60, 2004

Suggested Citation

  • David M. Sharman & Ali A. Yassine, 2004. "Characterizing complex product architectures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 35-60.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:7:y:2004:i:1:p:35-60
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.10056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.10056
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.10056?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. Tyson R. Browning, 2002. "Process integration using the design structure matrix," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 180-193.
    2. Robert P. Smith & Steven D. Eppinger, 1997. "Identifying Controlling Features of Engineering Design Iteration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 276-293, March.
    3. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, December.
    4. Pimmler, Thomas U. (Thomas Udo) & Eppinger, Steven D., 1994. "Integration analysis of product decompositions," Working papers 3690-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Kenneth G. Crowther & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2005. "Application of the inoperability input—output model (IIM) for systemic risk assessment and management of interdependent infrastructures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 323-341.
    3. Meir Tahan & Joseph Z. Ben‐Asher, 2005. "Modeling and analysis of integration processes for engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 62-77.
    4. Shawn T. Collins & Ali A. Yassine & Stephen P. Borgatti, 2009. "Evaluating product development systems using network analysis," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 55-68, March.
    5. Edouard Kujawski, 2006. "Multi‐period model for disruptive events in interdependent systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 281-295, December.
    6. Tamir Bustnay & Joseph Z. Ben‐Asher, 2005. "How many systems are there?—using the N2 method for systems partitioning," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 109-118.
    7. Ipek Kazancoglu & Yigit Kazancoglu & Emel Yarimoglu & Aysun Kahraman, 2020. "A conceptual framework for barriers of circular supply chains for sustainability in the textile industry," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 1477-1492, September.
    8. Eun Suk Suh & Noemi Chiriac & Katja Hölttä‐Otto, 2015. "Seeing Complex System through Different Lenses: Impact of Decomposition Perspective on System Architecture Analysis," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 229-240, May.
    9. M. D. Guenov & S. G. Barker, 2005. "Application of axiomatic design and design structure matrix to the decomposition of engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 29-40.
    10. Rudolf Smaling & Olivier de Weck, 2007. "Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Joseph Simpson & Mary Simpson, 2011. "Complexity reduction: A pragmatic approach," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 180-192, June.
    13. Bohdan W. Oppenheim, 2004. "Lean product development flow," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 1-1.

    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. Manuel E. Sosa & Steven D. Eppinger & Craig M. Rowles, 2004. "The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1674-1689, December.
    2. Fixson, Sebastian K. & Park, Jin-Kyu, 2008. "The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1296-1316, September.
    3. Luo, Jianxi & Triulzi, Giorgio, 2018. "Cyclic dependence, vertical integration, and innovation: The case of Japanese electronics sector in the 1990s," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 46-55.
    4. Samina Karim & Chi‐Hyon Lee & Manuela N. Hoehn‐Weiss, 2023. "Task bottlenecks and resource bottlenecks: A holistic examination of task systems through an organization design lens," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1839-1878, August.
    5. Christopher M. Schlick & Soenke Duckwitz & Sebastian Schneider, 2013. "Project dynamics and emergent complexity," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 480-515, December.
    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. M. D. Guenov & S. G. Barker, 2005. "Application of axiomatic design and design structure matrix to the decomposition of engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 29-40.
    8. Kartik Kalaignanam & Tarun Kushwaha & Anand Nair, 2017. "The Product Quality Impact of Aligning Buyer-Supplier Network Structure and Product Architecture: an Empirical Investigation in the Automobile Industry," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Luo, Jianxi, 2018. "Architecture and evolvability of innovation ecosystems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 132-144.
    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. Paulo J. Gomes & Nitin R. Joglekar, 2008. "Linking modularity with problem solving and coordination efforts," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(5), pages 443-457.
    12. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Chi-Hyon Lee & Manuela N. Hoehn-Weiss & Samina Karim, 2016. "Grouping interdependent tasks: Using spectral graph partitioning to study complex systems," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 177-191, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Tyson R. Browning & Ernst Fricke & Herbert Negele, 2006. "Key concepts in modeling product development processes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 104-128, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Manuel E. Sosa & Jürgen Mihm & Tyson R. Browning, 2013. "Linking Cyclicality and Product Quality," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 473-491, July.
    17. Manuel E. Sosa & Martin Gargiulo & Craig Rowles, 2015. "Can Informal Communication Networks Disrupt Coordination in New Product Development Projects?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1059-1078, August.
    18. Rudolf Smaling & Olivier de Weck, 2007. "Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, March.
    19. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2016. "CROSSROADS—Identifying Viable “Need–Solution Pairs”: Problem Solving Without Problem Formulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 207-221, February.
    20. Filippo Carlo Wezel & Gino Cattani & Johannes M. Pennings, 2006. "Competitive Implications of Interfirm Mobility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(6), pages 691-709, December.

    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:7:y:2004:i:1:p:35-60. 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.