On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules

TLDR

Modularization enhances system flexibility, comprehensibility, and reduces development time, but its effectiveness depends on the criteria used to partition the system into modules. The study presents a system design problem and compares conventional and unconventional decompositions. The authors discuss the criteria guiding decomposition and outline an alternative implementation that mitigates inefficiencies associated with conventional module definitions. Unconventional decompositions offer distinct advantages, yet when a module is defined as one or more subroutines they can be less efficient—a drawback that the proposed alternative implementation addresses.

Abstract

This paper discusses modularization as a mechanism for improving the flexibility and comprehensibility of a system while allowing the shortening of its development time. The effectiveness of a “modularization” is dependent upon the criteria used in dividing the system into modules. A system design problem is presented and both a conventional and unconventional decomposition are described. It is shown that the unconventional decompositions have distinct advantages for the goals outlined. The criteria used in arriving at the decompositions are discussed. The unconventional decomposition, if implemented with the conventional assumption that a module consists of one or more subroutines, will be less efficient in most cases. An alternative approach to implementation which does not have this effect is sketched.