Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 545–560 | Cite as

Enhancing interface adaptability of open architecture products

  • Jian Zhang
  • Gui Xue
  • HongLei Du
  • Akhil Garg
  • Qingjin Peng
  • Peihua Gu
Original Paper


Open architecture products are built with the platform and open interfaces where different add-on modules from various sources can be connected to meet individualized customers’ requirements. Since add-on modules from different vendors are interacted with the product platform through the interfaces, enhancing the interface adaptability to facilitate interactions between the platform and add-on modules is critical for the development of open architecture products. In this work, an approach of open interface modeling is proposed based on parts and their assembling relationships. The quantification of the open interface is introduced with functional, structural, manufacturing, and operational adaptabilities. The developed analytical approach can enhance the interface adaptability of open architecture products. An example is provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the developed method.


Interface design Open architecture product Adaptable design 



The supports provided by the colleagues in Shantou Institute for Light Industry Equipment Research, especially Shuangxi Wang, Guocheng Ye, and Zhuotao Zheng, for the developments of the case study are gratefully acknowledged. The authors also wish to thank the Leading Talent Project of Guangdong Province, China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 51375287, 51505269) for providing financial supports to this research.


  1. Abele E, Wörn A, Fleischer J, Wieser J, Martin P, Klöpper R (2007) Mechanical module interfaces for reconfigurable machine tools. Prod Eng Res Devel 1(4):421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altintas Y, Munasinghe W (1994) A hierarchical open-architecture CNC system for machine tools. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 43(1):349–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson S, Sellgren U (2004) Representation and use of functional surfaces. In: Proceedings of the 7th workshop on product structuring-product platform development, Chalmers University, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin C, Clark K (2006) Modularity in the design of complex engineering systems. In: Braha D, Minai A, Bar-Yam Y (eds) Complex engineered systems: science meets technology. Springer, New York, pp 175–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bettig B, Gershenson JK (2006) Module interface representation. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronsvoort WF, Noort A (2004) Multiple-view feature modelling for integral product development. Comput Aided Des 36(10):929–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen KM, Liu RJ (2005) Interface strategies in modular product innovation. Technovation 25(7):771–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng Q, Zhang G, Liu Z, Gu P, Cai L (2011) A structure-based approach to evaluation product adaptability in adaptable design. J Mech Sci Technol 25(5):1081–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung C, Peng Q (2009) Tool selection-embedded optimal assembly planning in a dynamic manufacturing environment. Comput Aided Des 41(7):501–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Andrade LFS, Forcellini FA (2007) Interface design of a product as a potential agent for a concurrent engineering environment. In: Loureiro G, Curran R (eds) Complex systems concurrent engineering. Springer, London, pp 503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engel A, Browning TR (2008) Designing systems for adaptability by means of architecture options. Syst Eng 11(2):125–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engel A, Reich Y (2015) Advancing architecture options theory: six industrial case studies. Syst Eng 18(4):396–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engel A, Browning TR, Reich Y (2016) Designing products for adaptability: insights from four industrial cases. Decis Sci. doi: 10.1111/deci.12254 Google Scholar
  14. Ferguson S, Siddiqi A, Lewis K, de Weck OL (2007) Flexible and reconfigurable systems: nomenclature and review. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrer G (2010) Open architecture, inventory pooling and maintenance modules. Int J Prod Econ 128(1):393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fletcher D, Brennan RW, Gu P (2009) A method for quantifying adaptability in engineering design. Concur Eng Res Appl 17(4):279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godthi V, Yoo JJW, Arnold CB, Simpson TW, Kumara S (2010) Product design using interface-based module description. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  18. Gu P, Slevinsky M (2003) Mechanical bus for modular product design. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 52(1):113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gu P, Hashemina M, Nee AYC (2004) Adaptable design. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 53(2):539–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gu P, Xue D, Nee AYC (2009) Adaptable design: concepts, methods, and application. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 223(11):1367–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillstrom F (1994) Applying axiomatic design to interface analysis in modular product development. Adv Des Autom 69(2):363–371Google Scholar
  22. Hu C, Peng Q, Gu P (2014) Interface adaptability for an industrial painting machine. Comput Aided Des Appl 11(2):182–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jankovic M, Holley V, Yannou B (2012) Multiple-domain design scorecards: a method for architecture generation and evaluation through interface characterization. J Eng Des 23(10–11):746–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kasarda M, Terpenny J, Inman D, Precoda K, Jelesko J, Sahin A, Park J (2007) Design for adaptability (DFAD)—a new concept for achieving sustainable design. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 23(6):727–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koren Y (2010) The global manufacturing revolution: product-process-business integration and reconfigurable systems. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koren Y, Hu SJ, Gu P, Shpitalni M (2013) Open-architecture products. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 62(2):719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li Y, Xue D, Gu P (2008) Design for product adaptability. Concur Eng Res Appl 16(3):221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lu C, Jiang J, Xu F, Zhang X, Ji S, Zhang L (2007) Research on module partition approach of small agricultural machinery based on interface restraints. Trans Chin Soc Agric Mach 38(6):57–61Google Scholar
  29. Madni AM (2012) Adaptable platform-based engineering: key enablers and outlook for the future. Syst Eng 15(1):95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin MV, Ishii K (2002) Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Res Eng Des 13(4):213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller TD, Elgard P (1998) Defining modules, modularity and modularization-evolution of the concept in a historical perspective. In: Proceedings of the 13th IPS research seminar, Aalborg University, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  32. Peng Q, Liu Y, Gu P (2014) Improvement of product adaptability by efficient module interactions. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Buffalo, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Scalice RK, de Andrade LFS, Forcellini FA (2008) A design methodology for module interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 15th ISPE international conference on concurrent engineering, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UKGoogle Scholar
  34. Siddiqi A, de Weck OL (2008) Modeling methods and conceptual design principles for reconfigurable systems. J Mech Des 130(10):101102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tseng HE, Li RK (1999) A novel means of generating assembly sequences using the connector concept. J Intell Manuf 10(5):423–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ulrich KT (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res Policy 24(3):419–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson RH (1998) Geometric reasoning about assembly tools. Artif Intell 98(1):237–279CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Xue D, Hua G, Mehrad V, Gu P (2012) Optimal adaptable design for creating the changeable product based on changeable requirements considering the whole product life-cycle. J Manuf Syst 31(1):59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yoo JJW, Kumara S, Simpson TW (2012) Modular product design using cyberinfrastructure for global manufacturing. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 12(3):031008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zeng Y (2004) Environment-based formulation of design problem. J Integr Des Process Sci 8(4):45–63Google Scholar
  41. Zhang J, Xue D, Gu P (2014a) Robust adaptable design considering changes of requirements and parameters during product operation stage. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 72(1–4):387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang J, Chen Y, Xue D, Gu P (2014b) Robust design of configurations and parameters of adaptable products. Front Mech Eng 9(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang J, Xue D, Gu P (2015) Adaptable design of open architecture products with robust performance. J Eng Des 26(1–3):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jian Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gui Xue
    • 1
  • HongLei Du
    • 1
  • Akhil Garg
    • 1
  • Qingjin Peng
    • 3
  • Peihua Gu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechatronics EngineeringShantou UniversityGuangdongChina
  2. 2.Shantou Institute for Light Industrial Equipment ResearchGuangdongChina
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations