A typology to unleash the potential of modularity

Abstract

PurposeBenefits of modularity are being limited by the lack of agreement over terminology. Neither researchers nor managers use the same typology, complicating comparisons of modular strategies.Design/methodology/approachPresents existing problem, then develops comprehensive and necessary typology. Examples illustrate practical use of the typology, and help reader understand implications on product design and future research.FindingsDevelopment of modularity typologies, including their characteristics and implications for product design and production systems, has been minimal. A well‐defined typology for soft modules exists, but literature on categorization of hard modules is limited. Most existing definitions of modularity are related to a common type called manufacturing modularity.Practical implicationsEach type of modularity is characterized by a different set of design attributes. For example, appearance, durability, and ergonomics are important for product‐use modularity, while accessibility, recycling and cost are key considerations for limited life modularity. Designers must understand these different characteristics in order to design products that address relevant customer needs such as cost, customization, serviceability and upgradeability that can give product a competitive edge in the marketplace. When developing individual modules, focus on core characteristics of that module type. When developing a multiple module type product, balance characteristics of the interdependent module types in order to ensure that the product meets customer needs.Originality/valueFour types of modularity are defined: manufacturing, product‐use, limited life and data access. New products often incorporate all four types in order to address both the needs of the customers as well as the manufacturer.