Architectural Decomposition: The Role of Granularity and Decomposition Viewpoint

  • Katja Hölttä-Otto
  • Noemi Chiriac
  • Dusan Lysy
  • Eun Suk Suh


Before any platform development, one must create the representation of the products’ architectures. Typically, one would start by decomposing the existing or proposed systems into smaller subsystems or modules. This is a critical step since the remainder of the platform development will depend on the choices made at the decomposition phase. This chapter will discuss how to decompose a product architecture. Specifically we will address the decomposition choices such as level of granularity and different decomposition viewpoints and how they affect the final resulting architecture.


Minimum Description Length Platform Development Architectural Change Product Architecture Design Structure Matrix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ariyo OO (2008) Hierarchical decompositions for complex product representation. In: International design conference, Cavtat, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin CY, Woodard CJ (2008) The architecture of platforms: a unified view. Retrieved from, Available at SSRN:
  3. Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48:292–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiriac N, Hölttä-Otto K, Suh E, Lysy D (2011a) Level of modularity at different levels of system granularity. ASME J Mech Des 133:101007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiriac N, Hölttä-Otto K, Suh E, Lysy D (2011b) Three approaches to complex system decomposition. In: Proceedings of the 13th international dependency and structure modelling conference, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahmus JB, Gonzalez-Zugasti JP, Otto KN (2001) Modular product architecture. Des Stud 22(5):409–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fellini R, Kokkolaras M, Papalambros P (2006) Commonality decisions in product family design. In: Simpson T, Siddique Z, Jiao J (eds) Product platform and product family design: methods and applications (1st edn. 2005. Corr. 2nd printing ed.). Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Fujita K (2005) Product variety optimization. In: Simpson T, Siddique Z, Jiao J (eds) Product platform and product family design: methods an applications. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  9. Guo F, Gershenson JK (2004) A comparison of modular product design methods on improvement and iteration. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences, Salt Lake City, UTGoogle Scholar
  10. Haugan GT (2002) Project planning and scheduling. Management Concepts, Vienna, VAGoogle Scholar
  11. Helmer R, Yassine A, Meier C (2010) Systematic module and interface definition using component design structure matrix. J Eng Des 21:647–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hölttä K, Otto K (2005) Incorporating design effort complexity measures in product architectural design and assessment. Des Stud 26:445–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hölttä-Otto K, Magee CL (2006) Estimating factors affecting project task size in product development-an empirical study. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 53:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hölttä-Otto K, Otto K (2005) Platform concept evaluation. In: Simpson T, Siddique Z, Jiao J (eds) Product platform and product family design. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Hölttä-Otto K, Tang V, Otto K (2008) Analyzing module commonality for platform design using dendrograms. Res Eng Des 19:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hölttä-Otto K, Chiriac N, Suh ES, Lysy D (2012) Comparative analysis of coupling modularity metrics. J Eng Des 23:10–11Google Scholar
  17. Miller DP (2008) Building a project work breakdown structure: visualizing objectives, deliverables, activities, and schedules. CRC, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Otto K, Wood K (2001) Product design: techniques in reverse engineering, systematic design, and new product development. Prentice-Hall, New York NYGoogle Scholar
  19. Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pimmler T, Eppinger S (1994) Integration analysis of product decomposition. In: Minneapolis: ASME design engineering technical conferences-6th international conference on design methodologyGoogle Scholar
  21. Sosa M, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM (2007) A network approach to define modularity of components in complex products. J Mech Des 129:118–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sosa M, Mihm J, Browning T (2011) Degree distribution and quality in complex engineered systems. J Mech Des 133:101008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steward DT (1981) The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 28:71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stone RB, Wood KL, Crawford RH (2000) A heuristic method for identifying modules in product architectures. Des Stud 21:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thevenot HJ, Simpson TW (2005) Commonality indices for assessing product families. In: Simpson T, Siddique Z, Jiao J (eds) Product platform and product family design. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Tilstra AH, Seepaersad CC, Wood KL (2009) Analysis of product flexibility for future evolution based on design guidelines and a high-definition design structure matrix. In: Design engineering technical conferences, ASME, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  27. Yu TL, Yassine A, Goldberg DE (2005) An information theoretic method for developing modular architectures using genetic algorithms. University of Illinois, Department of General Engineering. Urbana-Champlain, Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory IlliGALGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katja Hölttä-Otto
    • 1
  • Noemi Chiriac
    • 2
  • Dusan Lysy
    • 3
  • Eun Suk Suh
    • 4
  1. 1.Engineering Product DevelopmentSingapore University of Technology and DesignSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthNorth DartmouthUSA
  3. 3.Xerox CorporationWebsterUSA
  4. 4.Department of Industrial EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations