A Comparison of Practical and Computational Approaches to Design Modular Product Architecture for Products with Medium Complexity: A Case Study on Computer Numerical Control Machine

  • Ayushman Choudhuri
  • Pankaj Upadhyay
  • Abhishek YevalkarEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 134)


A typical methodology for product architecture design of complex products using Design Structure Matrix (DSM) uses a “bottom-up” approach where an algorithm suggests the ideal cluster of components. In the current research, we use a manual “top-down” approach to generate a modular product architecture for medium complexity product. We used a typical computational tool called IGTA for the “bottom-up” approach but found that the algorithm does not produce results which are practically applicable. A manual approach based on critical observation of the functional diagram of the product, product interactions, and verification of the modules using a Design Structure Matrix is more suitable. The paper compares the results of both approaches for the same product architecture considering a case study of a moving gantry based double-actuated Computer Numerical Control (CNC) milling machine. It is reported that manual “top-down” approaches are more suitable for medium complexity products than algorithmic bottom-up approaches.


Product modularity Product architecture CNC milling machine Design structure matrix IGTA 


  1. 1.
    Sharman, D.M., Yassine, A.A.: Characterizing complex product architectures. Syst. Eng. 7, 35–60 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eppinger, S.D., Pimmler, T.U., Eppinger, S.D.: Integration analysis of product decompositions. ASME Des. Theory Methodol. Conf., 343–351. Minneap., no. Sept 1994 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dahmus, J.B., Gonzalez-Zugasti, J.P., Otto, K.N.: Modular product architecture. Des. Stud. 22(5), 409–424 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Browning, T.R.: Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 48(3), 292–306 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ulrich, K.: The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res. Policy 24(3), 419–440 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borjesson, F., Hölttä-Otto, K.: Improved clustering algorithm for design structure matrix. In: Volume 3: 38th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B, p. 921 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tuholski, S.J., Tommelein, I.D.: Design structure matrix implementation on a seismic retrofit. J. Manag. Eng. 26(3), 144–152 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J., Zhang, Y.: Product modularity: measures and design methods. J. Eng. Des. 15(1), 33–51 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonvoisin, J., Halstenberg, F., Buchert, T., Stark, R.: A systematic literature review on modular product design. J. Eng. Des. 27(7), 488–514 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thebeau, R.E.: 2001B, Matlab Program Code. Available at
  11. 11.
    Jung, S., Simpson, T.W.: New modularity indices for modularity assessment and clustering of product architecture. J. Eng. Des. 28(1), 1–22 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jiao, J.R., Simpson, T.W., Siddique, Z.: Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. J. Intell. Manuf. 18(1), 5–29 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayushman Choudhuri
    • 1
  • Pankaj Upadhyay
    • 2
  • Abhishek Yevalkar
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Manipal Institute of TechnologyManipalIndia
  2. 2.Indian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations