Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs

Kamrad, Bardia; Schmidt, Glen M.; Ülkü, Sezer

doi:10.1109/tem.2012.2211362

Cited by 26 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Kamrad et al. () examined the value of modularly upgradeable products via an economic model. In the face of rapid product improvements, the user may either buy an all‐new product, or upgrade a particular module(s) of an existing product to bring the product up to par or near par with a new product.…”

Section: Discussion and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A modularly upgradeable design “may isolate improving components from more stable ones and thereby enable an upgrade via replacement of only the improving module(s)” (Kamrad et al. , p. 289). A modularly upgradeable product may be pleasing to users because the respective product retains some value (Kamrad et al.…”

Section: Discussion and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A modularly upgradeable product may be pleasing to users because the respective product retains some value (Kamrad et al. , Ülkü et al. ) and can be brought up‐to‐date without significant cost.…”

Section: Discussion and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An area for future study is the use of these three aspects to define other types of modularity such as “modularity‐in‐use” (Kamrad et al. ) or supply chain modularity.…”

Section: Discussion and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Product Modularity, Process Modularity, and New Product Introduction Performance: Does Complexity Matter?

Vickery

Koufteros

Dröge

et al. 2016

Production and Operations Management

111

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modularity has the potential to impact various facets of new product introduction performance including product development lead time, frequency of new product introduction, on time introduction and product innovation. The impact of modularity on new product introduction performance, however, may vary for different levels of product and process complexity. This study empirically investigates relationships between perceptual measures of product modularity, process modularity, and new product introduction performance and explores whether an objective product/process complexity measure moderates these relationships. Using survey‐based methodology we probe both manufacturers of technically simple products and technically complex products. Hierarchical regression models are used to test hypotheses concerning the main effects of product and process modularity and the effects of their interactions with complexity on new product introduction performance. The results show that the main effect of product modularity was positive and its interaction with complexity was disordinal and negative, suggesting that the positive effect of product modularity on new product introduction performance is dampened when complexity is high. For process modularity, only the interaction effect (positive) was statistically significant and it was also disordinal in nature. Thus, the effect of process modularity on new product introduction performance is heightened when complexity is high. The implications of these findings are discussed and more specific theoretical and managerial implications are delineated by examining the impacts of these main and interaction effects on individual measures of new product introduction performance (frequency of new product introduction, product development lead times, product innovation, and on‐time product launch).

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An area for future study is the use of these three aspects to define other types of modularity such as “modularity‐in‐use” (Kamrad et al. ) or supply chain modularity.…”

Section: Discussion and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Product Modularity, Process Modularity, and New Product Introduction Performance: Does Complexity Matter?

Vickery

Koufteros

Dröge

et al. 2016

Production and Operations Management

111

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conversely, components that are less likely to change in the future (i.e., those with small O C ) are especially attractive to merge into larger modules when they have significant interface costs. Kamrad, Schmidt, and Ülkü () expected modularity to be more valuable in products with heterogeneous rates of technological change in its components. Therefore, products composed of components with heterogeneous rates of technological change should typically have higher M* than products composed of components with homogenous rates of technological change .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing Products for Adaptability: Insights from Four Industrial Cases

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing products that are more easily adaptable to future requirements can increase their overall value. Product adaptability is largely determined by choices about product architecture, especially modularity. Because it is possible to be too modular and/or inappropriately modular, deciding how and where to be modular in a cost‐effective way is an important managerial decision. In this article, we gather data from four case studies to model effects of firms’ product architecture decisions at the component level. We optimize an architecture adaptability value (AAV) measure that accounts for both the benefits of more architecture options and the costs of interfaces. The optimal architecture prompted each firm to rearchitect an existing product to increase its expected future profitability. Several insights emerged from the case evidence during this research. (i) Although decomposing an architecture into an increasing number of modules increases product adaptability, the amount of modularity is an insufficient predictor of the adaptability value of a system. AAV, which also accounts for interface costs, provides an improved measure of appropriate modularity. (ii) Managers can influence the path of architectural evolution in the direction of increased value. This influence may diminish but does not disappear as products become more mature. Also, modularity and innovations coevolved, as the new modularizations suggested by AAV optimization prompted and guided searches for further innovations. (iii) When presented with the concepts of options, interface costs, and AAV, the firms’ designers and managers were initially skeptical. However, in each case, the modelers were able to rearchitect an actual product not only with increased AAV by our model (theoretical improvement) but also with actual future benefits for their firm. Postproject reports from each firm confirmed that the AAV modeling and optimization approaches were indeed helpful, equipping them to increase the adaptability, cost‐efficiency, lifespan, and overall value of actual products. The evidence suggests that firms can benefit from designing products for adaptability, but that how they do so matters. This study expands our understanding of modularity and adaptability by illuminating managerial decisions and insights about appropriate approaches to each.

show abstract

Optimizing module upgrade decisions to maximize profits

Yassine

Khoury

2020

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With rising market competition, organizations unceasingly strive to improve product offerings by adopting a modular product architecture. Modular product development (PD) is concerned with decisions to upgrade product modules that improve product value by enhancing one or several critical-to-value (CTV) attributes. CTV attributes are, in turn, controlled by the (technical) design decisions made at the module level. Here, an optimization model is presented to help PD managers choose the optimal subset of module upgrades from a large set of potential upgrades to maximize profits. The model is unique in considering the influences of the product architecture and product value on the selection of optimal modular upgrades. While some CTV attributes are discrete in nature, signifying the existence or absence of a product feature, others are continuous over a given range so that the level of desired improvement needs to be specified. The model can be used for both types (discrete and continuous) of attributes. The model is validated using a case study of a small-sized solar water-heating manufacturer. The case study demonstrates the complexity of modular PD decisions, regardless of the size of the investment project, and the effectiveness of the proposed model in the realization of potential profits.

show abstract

Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs

Cited by 26 publications

References 22 publications

Product Modularity, Process Modularity, and New Product Introduction Performance: Does Complexity Matter?

Product Modularity, Process Modularity, and New Product Introduction Performance: Does Complexity Matter?

Designing Products for Adaptability: Insights from Four Industrial Cases

Optimizing module upgrade decisions to maximize profits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About