Comparison of Modular Measurement Methods Based on Consistency Analysis and Sensitivity Analysis

Abstract

Most modularity measures center on quantifying dependencies with components external to modules. Some modularity measures include an accounting of component similarity. What is measured as dependencies and similarities varies by measure and by context. Additionally, there is some subjectivity in the measures. Noticeably, the measures lack rigorous verification and validation. There is also a lack of quantitative comparison among the various measures. This research highlights the consistencies among the measures of modular product design and attempts to select a single measure for use in future applications. A list of eight alternative modularity measures was developed from available literature. The goal was to compare these measures to find the most representative measure with high similarity to the mainstream of all measures but also with a high sensitivity to changes in modularity. Our hypothesis is that, since many measures look somewhat similar, we are looking for one measure that is in agreement with most measures and therefore performs reliably; it should also be significantly more sensitive. Similarity was defined via consistency analysis — similar measurements rank the different product modularities in the same sequence. Sensitivity was compared by slightly changing the product architecture of example products and then quantifying which measures are more sensitive to these changes. Analysis was based on 11 products: a Fisher-price Chatter Radio, a Proctor Silex automatic drip coffeemaker, a Johnson fishing reel with pre-spooled line, a Sunbeam home hair trimmer, a Farberware ice cream scoop, a Regent halogen clamp lamp, a Bell classic portable bicycle pump, a Pur faucet mount water filter, an ANCO premium wiper blade, a Kodak single-use camera, and an Adhesive Tech mini glue gun.

Comprehensive Product Platform Planning (CP3) for a Modular Family of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

“…Several other well known methods exist in modular PFD, such as presented by Stone et al [14], Dahmus et al [15], Guo et al [16], Jose et al [17], Kalligeros et al [18], Saron et al [19], Yu et al [20], and [21].…”

Comprehensive Product Platform Planning (CP3) Framework: Presenting a Generalized Product Family Model

“…Comparisons of methods for modularizing product architectures can be found in Ref. [15]. The instantiation task level is composed of the following two phases (i) Variable quantification: To develop modules across models by quantifying variables against acceptable ranges of specifications, and (ii) Combinatorial selection: To develop models by selecting practical combination from feasible ones.…”

“…Therefore, the direct cost of manufacturing all products is given by (substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (10))…”

9.3.1 A Vector Approach to Assessing Modularity

“…Gershenson et al (Gershenson 2004) reviewed the literature and summarized various methods for measuring modularity through 2004. Guo et al (Guo and Gershenson 2003) extended the concept and compared the various modularity measures based on consistency and sensitivity analyses. Several methods have been proposed since 2004 by Mikkola (Mikkola 2007), Hölttä-Otto (Hölttä-Otto 2007), and Sosa et al (Sosa 2007).…”