Characterizing complex product architectures

TLDR

Large‑scale complex product architectures require abstraction to describe and grasp their structure, but this abstraction can lose detail, so selecting the appropriate method and resolution is essential to retain salient details. This paper develops three methods—DSM, MD, and VD signature diagrams—for describing product architectures. Each method employs its own language and abstraction, enabling qualitative or quantitative characterization of architectures, and the three methods are illustrated with simple examples and a case study of an industrial gas turbine. The proposed methods are suited for describing architectures of varying levels of complexity and detail. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Syst Eng 7: 35–60, 2004.

Abstract

Abstract Due to the large‐scale nature of complex product architectures, it is necessary to develop some form of abstraction in order to be able to describe and grasp the structure of the product, facilitating product modularization. In this paper we develop three methods for describing product architectures: (a) the Dependency Structure Matrix (DSM), (b) Molecular Diagrams (MD), and (c) Visibility‐Dependency (VD) signature diagrams. Each method has its own language (and abstraction), which can be used to qualitatively or quantitatively characterize any given architecture spanning the modular‐integrated continuum. A consequence of abstraction is the loss of some detail. So, it is important to choose the correct method (and resolution) to characterize the architecture in order to retain the salient details. The proposed methods are suited for describing architectures of varying levels of complexity and detail. The three methods are demonstrated using a sequence of illustrative simple examples and a case‐study analysis of a complex product architecture for an industrial gas turbine. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 7: 35–60, 2004