Modularity Adoption in Product Development: A Case ... - Springer Link

Modularity Adoption in Product Development: A Case Study in the Brazilian Agricultural Machinery Industry Rodrigo Mayer de Avila1, (Milton Borsato)1

Abstract. Facing a competitive and globalized market and with increasingly demanding customers, companies must constantly seek the development of practices in the development of new products. One of the current practices is the adoption of modularity. In that sense, the objective of this paper is to conduct an analysis of this practice in a Brazilian company, which manufactures agricultural machinery. The understanding of modular concept for product engineering is investigated as well as current practices adopted by the company. The applicability of modular design in current products is focused. Regarding the research method, these involve firstly a literature review followed by field research using data collected from interviews with product engineers and document analysis as source of evidence. From the results, it is possible to conclude that the adoption of modularity in the development of new products increases production flexibility, reduces product development time and provides economy of scale, with the purchase of standard components in greater volume.

Keywords Modularity; Agricultural Machinery Industry; Product Development.

1 Introduction In recent decades, the Brazilian industry of agricultural machinery has become very representative for the country. Confronting a globalized and competitive market, accelerating the pace of technological innovation with through product differentiation, the increasing demand from consumers for high quality and valueadded products, has made the development of new products become one of the 1

Milton Borsato (!) Rodrigo Mayer de Avila Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR), Brasil e-mail: [email protected] J. Stjepandic´ et al. (eds.), Concurrent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-4426-7_52, ! Springer-Verlag London 2013

609

610

R. Avila and M. Borsato

most challenging activities in organizational management. Competitive advantage is achieved by the companies through the application of methods, techniques and tools that aim on manufacturing higher quality products and at the same time reducing lead-time. As a result, companies are able to launch new products within less time. One of the possible alternatives is the adoption of modularity, introduced in the last ten years in the automotive industry, both in Brazil and abroad. Modularity is a strategy for the construction of processes and products starting from more complex subsystems, which are developed individually, but with integrated operation enabling the production of different products through a combination of subsystems (Baldwin; Clark, 1997). It is based on the principle of dividing a complex product into independent subsystems, generally smaller, whose main objectives are to make complexity manageable, to enable parallel work and to accommodate future uncertainty (Baldwin; Clark, 2004). Case studies that illustrate the use of modularity principles are more common in the automotive industry (Camuffo, 2000). However, cases in the agriculture machinery industry are scarce and therefore needed, in order to further demonstrate the potential of such an approach, even in smaller market segments. The objective of this paper is to investigate the adoption of modular design and modularity in the development of new products in the agricultural machinery industry. A case study approach is used to understand the development practices adopted by a model company and verify the applicability in the existing products. In order to achieve this goal, an object of analysis (a given product, recently developed) has been investigated due to its complexity and features. In this paper, we describe the theoretical concepts behind product development processes and modularity, and then detail the methods and research techniques adopted. Finally, the results are presented, followed by discussion and main conclusions.

2 Product Development Processes (PDP) The global dynamics of competitive markets and the increasing variety of products combined with increased demand of consumers have required the introduction of new products faster, with reduced costs and high quality. Consequently, the structure of the product development becomes an essential activity in building and sustaining competitive advantage of companies considering one of the most important activities for surviving in the market. According to Clark and Fujimoto (1991), Ulrich and Eppinger (2004) and Pugh (1990), the product development process (PDP) is the transformation of market opportunities in information to manufacture a commercial product, taking account the possibilities and technological constrains. Rozenfeld et al. (2006) suggest that developing products consists of carrying out predetermined sets of activities through which market needs, technological

Modularity Adoption in Product Development

611

possibilities, restrictions, and competitive strategies are investigated, leading to design specifications, prototyping, testing and preparation of suitable production processes, in order to allow manufacturing to produce it. Product development also involves follow-up activities after the product release for any necessary changes to those requirements, plans to discontinue the product in the market and incorporate lessons learned along the PDP. A peculiarity of the PDP in relation to other business processes is the nature of its activities, which are based on a design-build-test cycle. The four elementary steps that constitute project activities are: (i) to recognize the problem; (ii) to generate design alternatives; (iii) to analyze the feasibility of each alternative; and (iv) to determine the most appropriate solution. Therefore, integration and overlapping of activities between the phases are essential, since activities continually provide important details and therefore can influence each other’s outcomes (Clark; Fujimoto, 1991). A formal PDP increases the probability of project success by reducing risks, as project goals are agreed among all those involved. Furthermore, it establishes a planning that shows the way to be followed, defines each team member’s role and responsibilities and the measure of project progress. It also induces constant communication, direct and effective among all those involved (Romano, 2003).

3 Modularity and Modular Systems or Products Modularity is related to product architecture. It is the way functional elements are arranged in relation to physical elements. The architecture of a product can be classified as modular or integral. In integral architecture, functional elements are closely intertwined. Thus, there is great interdependence of subsystems. If a component needs to be replaced, it is necessary to have a full redesign of the product, which implies in costly redesigns. On the other hand, in modular architecture, the physical elements are responsible for a few functional elements. This strategy seeks to consider the final product as the union of more simplified subsystems (Baldwin; Clark, 1997). Thus, each module can be designed independently, with greater importance given to the definition of interfaces between modules. Modularity can be classified in three categories (Baldwin; Clark, 2000): project, process or use. Due to the scope of this paper only the project modularity will be detailed. Modularity can further be described as the possibility to easily change a product’s feature size, function or capability, to create a product family through the standardization of specifications and interfaces between modules. An example of popular product modularization is the Swatch watch, as presented by Pellegrini (2004). Swatch was able to launch a compelling product at lower costs, by applying modular design principles with a limited number of components, yet using automated assembly.

612


A modular system has the following aims (Baldwin; Clark, 1997, 2004): (i) to facilitate the management of complex products by dividing it into modules; (ii) to enable activities in parallel, since modules can be developed simultaneously; and (iii) to adapt product or production to future uncertainties and demand, as the final product can be changed by the modification of any of its modules. A modular product in considered one whose functions or capabilities can be altered by varying parts of the system. According to Pahl et al. (2005), modular products are: machines, assemblies and components that perform various global functions by combining different building blocks or modules. For Baldwin and Clark (1997), modular products are products, systems or components that perform their functions by combining different modules. On the other hand, modules are components, subsystems and mechanisms that interact with different modules resulting in different product variants. Thus, modularity allows the production of different products by combining standard components. Liang e Huang (2002) advocate that a product is modular when the component interfaces have been completely specified and standardized Developing modular products requires certain knowledge of some laws. The laws of similarity and the standard decimal-geometric numbers are mandatory (Baldwin; Clark, 1997). Figure 1 illustrates the basic building blocks set out to create a modular composition of trains. The number of items in the example presented by Pahl et al. (2005) is reduced to only three modules and the possibility of combining these modules makes it possible to create a wide range of product configurations.

Fig. 1. Basic modules of a modular tram. Source: Pahl et al., 2005

Figure 2 shows the combination of different modules in the example above, resulting in different product variants. According to Ulrich and Tung (1991), the use of standardized components to obtain a variety of products allows the classification of five types of modularity, which can be found in industrial environments, as shown in Figure 3: a. b. c.

Component sharing: when one or more alternative components are compatible with the same basic product; Component swapping: when the same component is used in other products; Fabricate to fit: when one or more standard components are attached to the group of additional components of different sizes;


d. e.

613

Bus modularity: when it is possible to join in a particular basic component different components in the same position or different positions; Sectional modularity: when it is possible to join several component to each other through standardized interfaces in order to create a structure of components.

Fig. 2. The trans of the COMBINO. Source: Pahl et al., 2005

According to Eggen (2003), a special case of modularization is one in which the platform is developed based on the range of products. An effective platform is fundamental to achieve success with a product family and serves as basis for a number of new related products. Products designed to share a common platform but have specific accessories and features requested by various consumer surveys constitute a family of products.

Fig. 3. Five different types of modularity. Adapted from Rozenfeld et al. (2006), p. 260

614


Salhieh and Kamrani (2000) have proposed that a modular project is a design technique that can be used to develop complex projects, using similar components. According to these authors, modular products satisfy various functions through the combination of different modules or building blocks. An important aspect of modularity is the creation of a base unit in which different modules can be plugged in, allowing that a wide variety of versions of the same module can be produced. For Ericsson and Erixon (1999), the product’s structure is the key to managing complexity. A good product structure can be obtained using the concept of modularity. The development of modular product design converge to many positive effects and its appropriate use has the following advantages: a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Extension the variety of products: Ulrich and Eppinger (1995) argue that products with modular design may offer greater variety without adding excessive complexity in the production system. In some cases, simplification of the design may be the best alternative, for others the objective of modularity can be gains of scale and production, reducing production costs. The strategy in this case is to divide the product design and production process on common platforms for all product family; Reduction of investments and development costs: modular designs reduce product costs by sharing functions or components that can be used in different models or product family. The costs of new products development can also be reduced by the use of common platforms and the creation of standardized components; Rapid development of technology: modularity allows great flexibility. Thus, several new combinations can be made and a great new range of products can be developed. Thus, there are advances related to the faster development of technology because the company can respond faster to market expectations; Ease of maintenance and repair: for maintenance and repair easiness is related to the fact that the modules maintain independence so that a repair can be done in a module without affecting the entire system. A solution to a specific problem in one module may have little or no interference to the others; Management of uncertainties: the flexibility provided by the modularity with the possibility of expanding the range of variation in the products, characterized as a major competitive advantage; Better integration between marketing and technical areas: for Salhieh and Kamrani (2000), modularity can provide solutions to meet the consumer's desire and they can be present in specific components or modules. Thus, the function of each component is well defined and aligned with the specifications of the technical area, which makes it easier to identify possible problems in the product.

The development of modular products does not follow a linear flow of activities, differently from conventional processes (O'Grady, 1999). In modular product development, a sequence of activities may occur in parallel. The


615

conceptual design phase includes the first three activities of a conventional process of development, i.e. customer requirements identification, general project specifications, and macro planning of the production process. Then, the detailed design stage of each individual module may proceed. Differently from conventional design, the change in some part of a modular product can be performed without need the reformulation of the entire product design (O'Grady, 1999). If using pre-existing modules, the development of new modules is necessary. This increases competitive advantage as lead-time may be reduced (Arbix; Zilbovicius, 1997; O'Grady, 1999).

4 Research Methodology In this paper, the case study approach was chosen, due to the fact that research data are qualitative and descriptive. This empirical approach allows the investigation of a contemporary phenomenon in a real context using multiple sources of evidence (Miguel, 2007). The present work has been was split into three stages: (i) literature review (PDP and modularity); (ii) selection of a proper case study; and (iii) data gathering and analysis. As noted in the introduction, the general objective of the study is to investigate the adoption of modular design and modularity in the development of new products in a Brazilian company in the agricultural machinery industrial sector. The research question rose as to how the company can use the modularity in their PDP practices. The work involved understanding how the concept of modularity in product development activities can best fit, as well as the identification of practices currently adopted by the company. The criteria to choose a proper object of study were the possibility of accessing needed data to carry out the research work, and the availability of internal documents of the organization for document analysis.

5 Results and Discussion The company chosen as the setting for the present research is a global manufacturer that operates in the agricultural machinery sector with various products, offering solutions from planting to harvesting. More specifically, we studied one of their units dedicated to the tractor business area, combines and headers. Among the products developed there, the grain header was investigated. In the recent past, the company's forecasts have indicated that the market will require high-power harvesting machines with greater capacity to harvest. Therefore increasing diversification in the composition of the header product family is demanded, especially size, which affect significantly the design of

616


chassis. In the header, the frame is the basis of all, i.e. all components are fixed on it, and it must support all existing stresses. According to the current product development policy in the studied company, each project is completely developed without considering the possibility to apply existing parts or components in new projects, which results in unnecessary development of many similar items in different products. For example, each length of header available in the market today – 20 ft (6.0 m), 25 ft (7.62 m), 30 ft (9.15 m) and 35 ft (10.7 m) - has its specific frame developed. Consequently, the number of specific items for each model is too high and their management is difficult. As mentioned by Product Engineers a relevant issue nowadays refers to the management and implementation of engineering changes, when required. Because of the similarity between models, which are distinguished only by frame length, changes must be implemented in each model individually. This procedure implies in repetitive tasks that are time consuming. Technically speaking, the product family currently manufactured by the company offers favorable conditions to implement a modular design approach, because of the high number of similar variants. As an opportunity, there is the possibility of standardization of the chassis, which could be applied to various models. Thus, there is an opportunity for the adoption of modular design, described below, to minimize the amount of existing variants, by creating modules with a higher number of standardized and interchangeable components. By means of an appropriate choice of parameters, a modular system can be proposed, thus reducing the complexity of the product, loss of valuable resources for development, reducing the number of variants and increasing both the variety of products and flexibility of production. The product includes various subsystems such as the main drive, floor, belt drive, cutter bar, shields and others. In developing these subsystems, the global product development team seeks to respect capabilities and competences of each of the major local suppliers. With the product concept defined, the aim is to develop a frame that demonstrates reliability and that meets the needs of each market segment. To do so, a CAD (Computer Aided Design) tool is used to create a 3D model of the structure, which is then used for FEA (Finite Element Analysis), which can numerically simulate the product in different situations. In the present study, the task was to propose a modular product, which could cover all existing lengths (20ft, 25ft, 30ft and 35ft) with basic blocks, but using a very limited number of frame components. In order to accomplish that, some steps have been taken, as follows: (i) analysis of the models; (ii) analysis of each frame individually; (iii) verification of the module’s length; (iv) creation of the modules; and (v) verification of the module’s assembly. Considering the smallest (20ft) and largest (35ft) lengths, it has been concluded that at least three different lengths (central, left extension and right extension) would be necessary, to be easily interchanged in order to accomplish such needs.


617

Since the main drive is also a variant, the difference between single drive and double drive was taken into account. After such considerations, the basic blocks of three lengths have been proposed, as presented in Figure 4.

Fig. 4. Basic modules of header: MA – central frame; MB – right extension; MC – left extension; MD – right side sheet; and ME – left side sheet.

Module MA (central) exists in only one version, as the smallest model (20ft) must be considered as basic module for all product family. Modules MB and MC (intermediate) can be used in two lengths: 2.5ft (762mm) and 5ft (1,524 mm). They are complementary for models between 25ft and 35ft. Module MD (right hand side) is used in only one version and is required for all models. Module ME (left hand side) can be used in two versions: one for single drive (SD) and one for double drive (DD). Figure 5 (a) depicts the modules defined above.

Fig. 5. (a) Modules defined for modular headers (left). (b) Headers created as closed modular system (right).

Modules were created as an alternative to the integral architecture used today, a sort of monoblock, to enable and facilitate selection and assembly. They all have a standardized interface, which allows all modules to be bolted to each other and not

618


welded as today. Figure 5 (b) brings the proposition of a new family of headers, considering the models provided by the company in the market, using the basic modules created as reference, figure 5 (a), each member with modules of different sizes. The proposed architecture allows only three types of rational headers (three, five and seven modules), but with different sizes. These modules allow combinations with a predictable and finite number of variants. The system may be classified as a closed modular one. As a result, a summary of the application of modularity in products related to the company studied is presented in Table 1. The lines represent the models in the market today while columns present the basic modules defined in Figure 4. The intersections of rows and columns marked with an "X" indicate models and respective modules to be used to achieve a certain header length, as suggested in Figure 5 (b). Table 1. Example of modularity applied to the company’s product – Products X Modules. M1

M2

20FT SD

X

25FT SD

X

30FT SD

X

35FT SD

X

X

35FT DD

X

X

X

M3

M4

M5

X

M6

M7

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

M8

X

A simple analysis of Table 1 demonstrates how important and necessary it is to develop products that use modular components. It shows an increase in the number of repeated components, since all modules are used in at least three types of products, except for M8. Module M1 is used in all models. This facilitates the implementation of engineering changes and allows greater standardization of components. In addition, the creation of modules contributes for greater flexibility, as it is possible to create a wider range of product configurations and configurations to satisfy specific needs.

6 Conclusion and Final Remarks The benefits resulting from the adoption of modularity in product development in the case study confirm the evidence found in the existing literature: reduction of product complexity (Veloso; Fixson, 2001), reduction of the need for resources in product development (Arnheiter; Harren, 2005), increase of the size of lots of repetitive parts (Pahl et al., 2005), application of greater standardization of products, reduction of the total number of components, simplifications of the


619

implementation of changes over the product life cycle and creation of greater flexibility for adaptation (Rozenfeld et al., 2006). We also observe that the use of the modular headers can facilitate proper reaction to variable market demands, as each module can be produced, stored and adapted according to production orders. On the other hand, the adoption of modularity principles may cause conflict between different areas such as engineering and manufacturing, which must be resolved by means of approaches such as DfM (Design for Manufacturing). In this case study, it was possible to examine the possibility of application of project modularity in a real product, contributing to the overall goal established in the present research, which as to investigate the adoption of modular design and modularity in new products development in an agricultural machinery industry. The application of the proposed modular design can provide benefits such as reducing complexity, easy implementation of engineering changes, manageability of parts, higher number of common components, flexibility, adaptability, ease of manufacturing, larger lots of parts and consequent product cost reduction. Moreover, the use of a common central module for all models would facilitate the rationalization of production environments, such as the assembly line, and especially the painting cab, which are currently saturated. Another issue raised relates to the product architecture. The concept of modularity influences and modifies product structure, contrasting modular with integral architecture. Modular arrangements allow changes to be made for particular functions of the product, without necessarily affecting the design of other modules. Integral arrangements, on the other hand, demand products to be deeply, as changes may affect different functions, causing necessary changes in several related components. Moreover, it can be detected that the company has a considerable potential for implementation modularity principles. As shown in the present paper, using a modular system as a strategy for new product development the company will have advantages both in terms of time and money. The company can also create new basic blocks in order to increase or diversify the product family in the future. As a possibility for future research works the authors suggest a deeper investigation on the impact of modularity in manufacturing. Also, such investigation could provide more insights as to what changes would be necessary, considering the possibility of adopting the concept of modular design for the company.

7 References Ando, R., 2004. A modularidade e seus impactos no desenvolvimento de novos produtos e processos na indústria automotiva. Dissertação de Mestrado. Universidade de São Paulo. Arbix, G., Zilbovicius, M., 1997. Consórcio modular da VW: um novo modelo de produção? In: Arbix, G., Zilbovicius, M. De JK a FHC: a reinvenção dos carros. São Paulo: Scritta.

620


Arnheiter, E.D., Harren, H., 2005. A typology to unleash the potential of modularity. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16(7), pp.699-711. Back, N., Ogliari, A., Dias, A., Silva, J.C., 2008. Projeto Integrado de Produtos: Planejamento, Concepção e Modelagem. São Paulo: Manole. Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B., 1997. Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), pp.84-93. Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B., 2000. Design rules. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B., 2004. Modularity in the design of complex engineering systems. [online] HBS. Available at: [Accessed 21 June 2011]. Camuffo, A., 2000. Rolling out a world car: globalization, outsourcing and modularity in the auto industry. [online] MIT. Available at: [Accessed 15 June 2011]. Clark, K.B., Fujimoto, T., 1991. Product development performance: strategy, organization and management in the world auto industry. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Eggen, O., 2003. Modular product development: a review of modularization objectives as well as techniques for identifying modular product architectures, presented in a unifield model. [online] Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Available at: [Accessed 12 Jul 2011]. Ericsson, A., Erixon, G., 1999. Controlling Design Variants: Modular Product Platforms. New York: SME Press. Kamrani, A.K., Salhieh, S.M., 2000. Product design for modularity. Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Liang, W., Huang, C., 2002. The agent-based collaboration information system of product development. International Journal of Information Management, 22(3), pp.211-224. Maribondo, J.F., 2000. Desenvolvimento de uma metodologia de projeto de sistemas modulares aplicada a unidades de processamento de resíduos sólidos domiciliares. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Miguel, P., 2007. Estudo de caso na engenharia de produção: estruturação e recomendações para sua condução. Produção, 17(1), pp.216-229. O'Grady, S., 1999. The age of modularity. London: Adams and Steele Publishers. Pahl, G. et al., 2005. Projeto na Engenharia: Fundamentos do Desenvolvimento Eficaz de Produtos–Métodos e Aplicações. Traduzido do Alemão por H.A.Werner. São Paulo: Blücher. Pellegrini, A.V., 2004. O processo de modularização em embalagens orientado para customização em massa: uma contribuição para a gestão do design. Dissertação de Mestrado. Universidade Federal do Paraná. Pugh, S., 1990. Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley. Romano, L.N., 2003. Modelo de referência para o processo de desenvolvimento de máquinas agrícolas. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Rozenfeld, H. et al., 2006. Gestão de Desenvolvimento de Produtos: uma referência para a melhoria do processo. São Paulo: Saraiva. Ulrich, K., Eppinger, S., 1995. Product design and development. New York: McGraw Hill. Ulrich, K., Eppinger, S., 2004. Product design and development. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill. Ulrich, K., Tung, K., 1991. Fundamentals of Product Modularity: Issues in Design Manufacture/Integration, ASME, 39, pp.73-79. Veloso, F., Fixson, S., 2001. Make-Buy decisions in the auto industry: new perspectives on the role of the supplier as an innovator. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 67(2-3) pp.239-257. Valeri, S.G., Paranaguá, L., Rozenfeld, H., 1999. Produto Modular. [online] NUMA. Available at: . [Accessed 11 Jun 2011].