Craig M. Rowles

Identifying modular and integrative systems and their impact on design team interactions

The typical approach to developing complex products is to decompose the product into systems, and these into components. We introduce a new notion of system modularity based upon the way components share design interfaces across systems. Modular systems are those whose design interfaces with other systems are clustered among physically adjacent systems, whereas integrative systems are those whose interfaces are physically distributed or functionally integrative across all or most other systems. Our research method allows us to study how system modularity impacts design team interactions. Our approach is illustrated by analyzing the development of an aircraft engine.

A Network Approach to Define Modularity of Components in Complex Products

Modularity has been defined at the product and system levels. However, little effort has gone into defining and quantifying modularity at the component level. We consider complex products as a network of components that share technical interfaces (or connections) in order to function as a whole and define component modularity based on the lack of connectivity among them. Building upon previous work in graph theory and social network analysis, we define three measures of component modularity based on the notion of centrality. Our measures consider how components share direct interfaces with adjacent components, how design interfaces may propagate to nonadjacent components in the product, and how components may act as bridges among other components through their interfaces. We calculate and interpret all three measures of component modularity by studying the product architecture of a large commercial aircraft engine. We illustrate the use of these measures to test the impact of modularity on component redesign. Our results show that the relationship between component modularity and component redesign depends on the type of interfaces connecting product components. We also discuss directions for future work. DOI: 10.1115/1.2771182

A NETWORK APPROACH TO DEFINE MODULARITY OF PRODUCT COMPONENTS

We consider complex products as a network of components that share technical interfaces in order to function as a whole. Building upon previous work in graph theory and social network analysis, we define three measures of component modularity that consider how components may share direct interfaces with other adjacent components, how design interfaces may propagate to all other components in the product, and how components may act as “bridges” between other components. We calculate and interpret all three measures of component modularity by studying the actual product architecture of a large commercial aircraft engine. We illustrate how to use these measures to test their impact on component redesign. Directions for future work are discussed.Copyright

Can Informal Communication Networks Disrupt Coordination in New Product Development Projects

This paper investigates how the structure of the informal communication network that results from efforts to coordinate task interdependence between design teams in complex product development projects moderates the effect of task interdependence on interteam communication. Drawing on theoretical mechanisms from the social network and knowledge transfer literature, as well as on recent empirical advances in exponential random graphs models of social networks, we examine how the presence of a common third party in the communication network affects the likelihood of technical communication between interdependent teams designing the components of a large commercial aircraft engine. Although task interdependence has a strong and significant effect on the likelihood of communication between teams, this effect is moderated by the presence of common third parties. The nature of this moderation depends on the position of the common third party within the triadic communication structure. When the common third party seats in the middle of a communication chain between the potential source and the potential recipient of technical communication, its presence increases the likelihood of communication between these two teams. However, when the communication between the source and recipient can trigger cyclic exchanges between the three teams, the presence of the third party reduces the likelihood of communication between the two interdependent teams, increasing the risk of coordination disruptions. We discuss the implications of our findings on the literature of intraorganizational networks in new product development.