Navigating the Golden Triangle: The Need to Jointly Consider Modularization and Interface Choices When Making Performance, Cost, and Schedule Tradeoffs for Complex System Development

Abstract

Decomposition is a critical enabler of complex system development, as it enables both task specialization and efficiency through parallel work. The process of decomposing involves partitioning system parameters into tightly coupled modules and managing any cross‐module coupling by designing passive interfaces or through active coordination. A rich literature has developed algorithms and tools to support this process. However, we contend that this view has placed too much emphasis on module selection, and not enough on the interaction with interface design. This perspective has significant implications for lifecycle costs and development time. To that end, this study explores how earlier consideration of interface design can create more valuable options to better navigate performance, cost, and schedule tradeoffs. Specifically, through an abstract simulation experiment, we demonstrate that (1) a sequential approach that first selects modules and then designs interfaces to support those modules, yields lower performance than an integrated approach that considers modules and supporting interfaces simultaneously; and (2) this result is even stronger when schedule and cost are considered as part of the evaluation. In other words, an integrated approach provides more options for project managers seeking to navigate the performance‐cost‐schedule tradeoff known as the golden triangle. These results emphasize the need for a decomposition aid that adopts a holistic view of the optimization problem, accounting for interface creation, intra‐organization collaboration, and valuing nonperformance measures of effectiveness.