1 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Master thesis
Msc Technology & Operations Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and
Business June 23, 2014
Cor Jonker S2234041
Modularity Usage:
Successful implementation of product modularity
2 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Abstract
The increase of personalized customer demands and increased level of competition forces companies to adjust their production to become more flexible and innovative. Product modularity is found to give solutions to deal with this. Modularity can be implemented by usage of frameworks and Modularity Drivers. This research contains a case study to investigate how R&D managers and engineers can improve gaining insights into the degree of modularity of their products and opportunities for architectural improvements. The aim of the case study is to contribute to the available literature. The case study provides insights in modularity implementation with usage of a modularity framework and Modularity Drivers. These insights will be compared with modularity implementation and usage without a modularity framework and Modularity Drivers by the
engineering department of a company to indicate the differences. In the case study two products of GeesinkNorba with three variants each are investigated.
This research showed that the framework of Fixson (2005) and the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) are a good combination for gaining insights into the degree of product modularity and
opportunities for architectural improvements. The case study of this research has indicated that both methods complement to each other. The case study also indicated that overviews of; product
variants, differences in mount pieces and left right variants of components have to be added to the framework of Fixson (2005) to give a complete view of the situation. This research provides and implements a new adjusted methods of the Module Indication Matrix of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) that has indicated different module candidates compared to the normal method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999). By making use of the framework of Fixson (2005), Ericsson & Erixon (1999) and the extra steps suggested by this research, a stepwise method for gaining insights into the degree of product modularity and opportunities for improvements that can be used by R&D managers and engineers is provided. This stepwise method is one of the main contributions that this research provides.
Key words:
Product modularity, modularity framework, Modularity Drivers, product variety.
3 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Content
Abstract 2
Preface 6
1. Introduction 7
2. Theoretical background 9
2.1 Modularity 9
2.2 Reasons for implementing modularity 10
2.3 Negative effects/difficulties of modularity 11
2.4 Interactions 12
2.5 Product families 12
2.6 RAAK PAM Projects 12
2.7 Modularity framework 12
2.8 Modularity Drivers Ericsson & Erixon (1999) 13
2.9 Modularity Drivers Perdok (2006) 13
2.10 Function assigning 13
3. Scope of the research 14
4. Conceptual model 15
5. Research question’s 16
6. Methodology 17
6.1 Introduction 17
6.2 Steps 18
6.3 Data collection methods 20
7. The GeesinkNorba case, parts, functions & components analysis 21
7.1 Introduction 21
7.2 Overall Functions of the tailgate. 21
7.3 Components of the tailgates of the garbage trucks 22
7.4 Function per component of the tailgates 22
7.5 Components shaped by the engineering department 24
8. Modules analysis 25
8.1 Introduction 25
8.2 Function-Component Allocation GPM III 25
8.3 FCA Matrices GPM III 26
8.4 FCA Maps GPM III 27
8.5 Interface matrices GPM III 28
8.6 Interface standardization GPM III 29
4 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
8.7 Product Architecture Maps GPM III 30
8.8 Function-Component Allocation GPM IV 31
8.9 FCA Matrices GPM IV 31
8.10 FCA Maps GPM IV 32
8.11 Interface matrices GPM IV 32
8.12 Interface standardization GPM IV 32
8.13 Product Architecture Maps GPM IV 33
8.14 Components GPM III vs. GPM IV 34
9. Modularity Drivers analysis 36
9.1 Introduction 36
9.2 Modularity Drivers in literature 36
9.3 Modularity Drivers treated in the GeesinkNorba case 36
9.4 Drivers method 37
9.5 Module Indication Matrix 37
9.6 Module Driver profile 38
9.7 Interface matrices 38
9.8 Modules 38
9.9 Ericsson & Erixon (1999) function carriers replaced by functions 40
10. Analysis of Results 43
10.1 Introduction 43
10.2 Analysis of modules 43
10.3 Analysis of Drivers 44
10.4 Analysis of the combination of methods 44
10.5 Mount pieces 46
11 Recommendations 48
11.1 Recommendations for GeesinkNorba 48
11.2 Recommendations for R&D managers and engineers 49
12. Discussion 51
13. Conclusion 52
References 54
Figures and tables 56
Appendix I: Fixson (2005) 58
Appendix II: Ericsson & Erixon (1999) and Perdok (2006) 64
Appendix III: Background information products GeesinkNorba 68
Appendix IV: Tailgate components 70
5 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Appendix V: Function Component Allocation 71
Appendix VI: FCA Matrices 73
Appendix VII: FCA Maps 75
Appendix VIII: Interface matrices 77
Appendix IX: Product Architecture Maps 78
Appendix X: Modularity Driver profile and interface matrices 80
6 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Preface
This Master thesis is the final work of my master Technology & Operations Management at the University of Groningen. The goal of this research was to create a method to get insights for engineers and managers on how to implement and measure the degree of product modularity and contribute to the literature about this. These insights were gathered from a case study at
GeesinkNorba B.V. in Emmeloord, the Netherlands.
Getting insights in the situation at GeesinkNorba and understanding the production process was quite complex sometimes. I would like to thank Kees Pruim and Max Hartman from GeesinkNorba for offering me a graduation place and for their time and support during this research. There was a good balance between supplying me with required data and letting me struggle to collect it. I really enjoyed working on this research at GeesinkNorba.
Applying the methods was quite challenging for me, especially because of the limited available literature and examples of the used methods. Even though the methods appeared to be very useful.
During this research I investigated six different trucks while in my proposal I planned to investigate two trucks. I also added an adjusted method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) and a universal stepwise method for gaining insights into the degree of product modularity and indicating opportunities for improvements. This extra work was not planned beforehand and it made it impossible to meet the word count limit that was set. Jannes Slomp helped me a lot dealing with this problem, extra work and gave me the opportunity to exceed the word count limit. For help dealing with these methods and support during the complete process, I would like to thank my supervisor Jannes Slomp. I would also like to thank my initial co-assessor Jasper Veldman for his time, support, attendance during meetings and feedback during this research. For taking over the tasks as co-assessor for the last week of my research, I would like to thank Dirk Jan Kamann for his willingness and time.
Groningen, June 2014
7 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
1. Introduction
Recently companies struggle with the increase of customers demanding new and personalized products (Lau et al., 2011; Krikke et al., 2004). In order to be able to fulfill these personalized product demands, companies are trying to design technologies that make this possible (Pil & Cohen, 2006).
Another important aspect for companies is the ability to be competitive, therefore companies have to monitor their environment to be able to react quickly on opportunities (Pil & Cohen, 2006). In order to react quickly on customer demands, deliver high product variety, be innovative and do this while minimizing cost, product modularity is found to offer important opportunities for dealing with these challenges (Fixson, 2005; Lau et al., 2011; Pil & Cohen, 2006; Gershenson et al., 2004).
This research contains a case study performed at GeesinkNorba. GeesinkNorba produces garbage trucks and sells these truck internationally. This means different countries, different markets and different customer demands. Because of these differences in customer demand, flexibility is very important to easily fulfill these customer demands. GeesinkNorba want to improve its
innovativeness, being able to react more quickly on customer demands and improve their production process.
This aim of GeesinkNorba is consistent with the aim of the RAAK PAM (Product Architecture Mapping) project of the HAN (University of applied sciences) and that’s why GeesinkNorba has decided to participate in this project. The RAAK PAM project focuses on the usage of modularity in their participating companies who want to decrease the time that it takes for these companies to come up with new products and make their associated companies more innovative (MKB RAAK project, 2012). This because the more innovative the product is, the better the performance of the product (Tidd et al., 2001). The results of the RAAK PAM plan should give insights of modularity usage which can be used for all associated companies (MKB RAAK plan, 2012).
Modular products are products build up from subassemblies called modules (Pil & Cohen, 2006;
Krikke et al., 2004; Gershenson et al., 2004). The modules can be adjusted separately without
changing the overall structure and the other modules, which makes targeted design changes possible (Pil & Cohen, 2006). This method makes it possible to adjust certain modules to customer demands without changing the complete structure of the product. This adjustability per module results in an increased variety of end products to the customer without changing the complete end product and decreases costs of customization (Gershenson et al., 2004).
GeesinkNorba is introducing a new type of garbage truck and states that they already tried to implement modularity as much as possible compared to the predecessor of this new type of garbage truck. They state that they formed components which they call modules. GeesinkNorba want to know if they correctly made use of modularity, are the formed components actually modules and should they make more use of modularity principles. To find out which Modularity Drivers are
already used and handled by GeesinkNorba, the components used by GeesinkNorba for the new type of garbage truck will be compared with its predecessor. The aim of this research is to indicate the already handled Modularity Drivers and to advise GeesinkNorba on which Modularity Drivers they should focus more. The current used components will be tested on the framework for implementing modularity of Fixson (2005) and according to the Modularity Drivers of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) and Perdok (2006). The framework of Fixson (2005) requires insights in the functions and sub-functions of components. To get these insights the function deployment method of Pahl et al. (2007) is used.
According to Gershenson et al. (2004) there is not a universal accepted systematic method for usage
of modularity. Fixson (2005) developed a modularity method and he provides a framework for
8 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Understanding the limitations of this research
Understanding the contribution of this research to SME companies and the RAAK PAM project Understanding the contribution of this research to GeesinkNorba
Understanding the contribution of the case study to the literature Understanding the case study
Reading guide
Understanding the theoretical background and aim of this research Understanding this complete research
Purpose: Suggestion to read:
Complete document Chapter 2
Results, Analysis, Limitations and Recommendations Chapter 10 till the References Chapter 3 till Chapter 11 Chaper 10 and Conclusion Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 Section 11.2 and Conclusion Chapter 12
Table 1.1: Reading guide
getting insights into the degree of modularity. He also indicates that usage of the framework in different industries and more data points are needed to test his framework. This research will provide an implementation of the framework which will provide new data points for Fixson´s (2005) framework and investigates if the framework gives sufficient insights into the degree of product modularity in practice. This research also investigates the usage of the framework of Fixson (2005) in combination with the Modularity Drivers of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) to see if they contribute to each other and provide insights that can be universally used by SME companies associated with the RAAK PAM plan. Therefore two clear contributions of this research can assigned. The case study provides new data of implementation of the framework of Fixson (2005) in combination with the Modularity Drivers method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) and it provides a recommendation for usage of these methods for SME companies associated with the RAAK PAM plan. So this research provides a literature contribution and a practical contribution.
For selective reading, a reading guide is given below in Table 1.1
9 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
2. Theoretical background
One of the aims of this research is to validate the scientific methods uses in this research and if necessary indicate untreated aspects. The contribution for GeesinkNorba is to indicate if they correctly made use of product modularity and if opportunities for improvement can be identified.
Another aim is to create a method to make use of these scientific methods for SME companies associated with the RAAK PAM plan. The scientific methods investigated should provide insights for R&D managers and engineers into the degree of modularity used and opportunities for
improvements. Before composing the research questions, literature research has to be performed. In 2.1 the concept of modularity is discussed, followed by 2.2 where the background reasons for making use of modularity are treated. 2.3 treats the negative effects of modularity usage, 2.4 treats the topic, interactions. 2.5 gives information about product families and 2.6 gives insights in the RAAK PAM project which is related to the GeesinkNorba case, After that, 2.7 treats the modularity framework, followed by 2.8 and 2.9 that treat Modularity Drivers. This chapter concludes with 2.10 that treats a function assigning method.
2.1 Modularity
According to the dictionary, the definition of modularity can be described as ‘’the use of individually distinct functional units, as in assembling an electronic or mechanical system’’ (Dictionary.com, 28-2- 2014). Ericsson & Erixon (1999) define modularity as ‘’having two characteristics: 1) similarity between the physical functional architecture of the design, and 2) minimization of the degree of interaction between physical components’’. Literature is consistent with this definition. Modular products are products build up from subassemblies called modules (Pil & Cohen, 2006; Krikke et al., 2004; Gershenson et al., 2004). The modules can be adjusted separately without changing the overall structure and the other modules (Pil & Cohen, 2006). Russell (2012) described modularity as ‘’ A modular system consists of smaller parts (modules) that fit together within a predefined system architecture’’. He also points out the importance of ‘’interchangeable components (or modules) that could be recombined within a predefined system architecture’’.
According to Fixson (2005) in the last years the focus of manufacturing firms to be competitive lies on the manufacturing itself, especially on the design of products and the design of the process. He points out that these developments are the result of the increase of variety of customer demands and customized products. He also states that products not only compete at the level of quality, variety and price but also at the level of availability. So it is completely production process orientated which is supported by Starr (1965). These developments force companies to focus on their products and process designs but to maintain competitive they should not increase costs much. Companies should find methods for ‘’delivering increased product variety while maintaining mass production efficiency to fulfill customer demands’’ (Fixson, 2005). To make this possible Fixson (2005) explains and focuses on the use of modularity by manufacturing firms. Fixson (2005) provides a framework to measure the degree of product modularity which will be treated in section 2.7 in more detail.
Ericsson & Erixon (1999) developed a Modularity Function Deployment method. They state that this method could help companies to implement modularity and they indicate that several companies who used their Modularity Function Deployment method have achieved good results.
Lau et al. (2011) give three product component features of modularity, separateness, specificity and
transferability. They describe separateness as ‘’ the degree to which a product can be disassembled
and recombined into new product configurations without loss of functionality’’. They describe
specificity as ’’ the degree to which a product component has a clear, unique, and definite product
function with its interfaces in the product system’’ and transferability as ‘’ the degree to which
10 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Figure 2.1: Truck Combiframe (RAAK PAM plan, 2012)
product components in a product system can be reused by another system’’. Fixson (2005) refers to Ulrich’s (2005) definition of a modular architecture and an integral architecture:
‘’A modular architecture includes a one-to-one mapping from functional elements to physical components of the product, and specifies the de-coupled interfaces between components’’.
‘’An integral architecture includes a complex (non one-to-one) mapping from functional elements to physical components and/or coupled interfaces between components’’.
In this research we use the above mentioned descriptions of modularity and define the following characteristics of modularity
Modular products are products build up from subassemblies called modules (Pil &
Cohen, 2006; Krikke et al., 2004; Gershenson et al., 2004).
The modules can be adjusted separately without changing the overall structure and the other modules (Pil & Cohen, 2006). Therefore one-to-one component function allocation is important.
Example of modularity
As illustrated in Figure 2.1 there is Truck 1 without a combiframe and a Truck 2 with a combiframe.
This combiframe module can be assembled to different trucks and different bodies can be assembled again on the combiframe. This makes it possible to assemble a high variety of bodies on trucks while every body on the truck without a combiframe has to be adjusted to be assembled to the truck itself.
So because of the usage of the combiframe module, every body can be assembled on the truck and it is easier to deliver product variety. In this example Truck 2 is more modular than Truck 1 because of the interface standardization which is one of the aspects of modularity.
2.2 Reasons for implementing modularity
There is a lot of literature about why companies should make use of modularity. There are a few different insights and different benefits of usage of modularity. Some benefits of product modularity are also described by the Modularity Drivers of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) and Perdok (2006). For these benefits of product modularity see section 2.9, 2.10 and for detailed information see Appendix II The following reasons/benefits in literature are given.
Improved flexibility
According to Russell (2012) the aim of modularity is to increase flexibility.
Improved product variety
According to Fixson (2005), modularity improves the variety of products made available to the
customers. When using modules, a lot of variants can be made because of different module
combinations.
11 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Reduces service and manufacturing times
Because of easy changeability of modules, broken modules can be replaced easily and service times will be decreased. Also manufacturing times can be decreased because of the easier assembly with usage of modules.
Improved new product development time
Because when developing new products based on changing customer demands, adjustments can be made per module without influencing the other modules, new products can be developed and made available to the customers much faster. This could give a competitive advantage and high customer service levels because companies can react quickly to the market, which is indicated by Ulrich (1995) Improved outsourcing options
Outsourcing options are improved because certain modules can be outsourced very easy as long as the connectivity with other modules is maintained.
Quality
Modularity improves the quality of products because modules can be fine-tuned separately when normally a complete product has to be tested now just adjusted modules can be tested (Ulrich, 1995).
Inventory
Modularity can reduce inventory costs because by using the same components for multiple variants, the amount of different components decreases and the amount of inventory needed also increases.
Decrease of work diversity
Because the amount of different components has decreased, the amount of different components that has to be produced also decreases. This could reduce the required amount of equipment and skills of employees.
2.3 Negative effects/difficulties of modularity
This section will give insights in negative effects of making use of modularity. This because modularity not only has benefits and the negative effects should also be identified.
Costs
By making use of the same components for different variants it could be possible that components become more expensive than the components used before making use of the same components for different variants. Modularity could increase the costs because options are added to the modules that are not always used, to be applicable for different variants. Also implementation of modularity results in costs for the company that have to be gained back later.
Effort
Developing and forming of modules is time consuming. Especially identifying the interfaces could be a difficult part of implementing modularity. According to Sanderson & Uzumeri (1995) ‘’the product family evolution may have been restricted if clear and robust physical interfaces are not developed and defined carefully’’ (Jiao et al., 2007). Therefore the interfaces are treated in this research.
Competition
According to Mikkola & Gassmann (2003), Modularity makes it easier for competitors to copy
products. They also indicate that modular products make it easier for component suppliers to enter
the market. So modularity can harm the market position
12 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
2.4 Interactions
Modularity is about minimizing interactions between components. Newcomb et al. (1996) indicate that ‘’modularity is to separate a system into dependent parts or modules that then can be treated as logical units (Jiao et al., 2007)’’. According to Ulrich (1995) ‘’modules are identified in such a way that between-module (inter-module) interactions are minimal whereas within-module (infra-module) interactions may be high, therefore, decomposition is the main concern of modularity’’ (Jiao et al., 2007). This minimization of interactions is consistent with the framework of Fixson (2005).
2.5 Product families
According to Meyer & Lehnerd (1997) ‘’a product family refers to a set of similar products that are derived from a common platform and yet possess specific features/functionality to meet particular customer requirements’’ (Jiao et al., 2007). According to Jiao et al. (2007) ‘’each individual product within a product family, i.e., a family member, is called a product variant or instance’’. They state that ‘’while a product family targets a certain market segment, each product variant is developed to address a specific subset of customer needs of the market segment’’. Important in this research is the contribution of Erens & Verhulst (1997), they state that ‘’all product variants share some
common structures and product technologies, that form the platform of the product family’’ (Jiao et al., 2007). This commonalities are important for the formation of modules and therefore for the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999)
2.6 RAAK PAM Projects
The RAAK PAM project focuses on implementing Modularity at the associated SME companies in order to improve the innovativeness of these SME Companies. The RAAK PAM project suggests to make use of the modularity framework of Fixson (2005) and the Modularity Drivers method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999). The idea of the RAAK PAM project is to investigate the modularity opportunities at some associated companies, share the results with all associated companies to share the gained knowledge. GeesinkNorba is one of the associated SME companies of the RAAK PAM project and this is the where the case study of this research is performed
2.7 Modularity framework
According to Gershenson et al. (2004) there is no universal systematic method to measure the degree of product modularity, implement modularity and shape modules. In their research they compare different methods and conclude that all methods have their own strong characteristics and limitations. Most of the treated methods of the comparative research of Gershenson et al. (2004) are also taken into account in the article of Fixson (2005) and the RAAK PAM project also focuses on the framework of Fixson (2005). The framework of Fixson (2005) however has some shortcomings and therefore it will be used in combination with the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) to handle these shortcomings. The framework of Fixson (2005) for example does not treat the benefits/reasons behind modularity and also does not form actual modules. This is treated by Ericsson & Erixon (1999). Because modularity researches at SME companies for the RAAK PAM plan have to be comparable, there will be made use of the framework of Fixson (2005). Because this framework is used, a detailed description of the method is and its features will be given in Appendix I and a short description is provided below.
Fixson (2005) developed a framework to measure the degree of modularity. He makes use of earlier
work of Ulrich (1995) and developed the Function-Component-Allocation method (FCA) and he
combines this with a method to map interfaces between components.
13 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Supplier available Service and maintenance Upgrading
Recyling
Drivers Ericsson & Erixon (1999)
Purchase After sales
Carryover
Technology evolution Planned product changes Different specification Styling
Common unit
Process and/or organization Product
development and design
Variance Production
Quality Separate testing
Short delivery terms Parallel development
Drivers Perdok (2006)
Accessibility Move ability Parallel assembly
Ericsson & Erixon (1999) Ericsson & Erixon (1999) Fixson (2005)
Fixson (2005) Pahl et al. (2007)
Description of usage: Method:
Identifying the functions of the investigated products and components Getting insights in the level of product modularity and identifying opportunities for improvements of the investigated products
Identifying Modularity Drivers used and opportunities for improvements Identifying module candidates
Theory usage
Table 2.2: Modularity Drivers Perdok (2006) Table 2.1: Modularity Drivers Ericsson & Erixon (1999)
Table 2.3: Theory used during this research
Fixson (2005)´s framework consist of 2 dimensions, the Function Component Allocation Scheme and the interface characteristics with standardization which will be explained by some examples from his article in Appendix I.
2.8 Modularity Drivers Ericsson & Erixon (1999) As indicated, the RAAK PAM plan suggests the usage of the framework of Fixson (2005) and the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) to handle the shortcomings of Fixson (2005). Ericsson & Erixon (1999) have developed the MFD (Modular Function Deployment) method which provides Modularity Drivers. These Drivers support to make decisions about diversity, assemblability, life cycle and re-usability (Ericsson & Erixon, 1999). Ericsson &
Erixon (1999) state that ‘’ the concept of Modularity Drivers gives a direct link between the design requirements on a module and its manufacturing system’’. The method gives companies the opportunity to specify their own special grounds and design corresponding modules in
a systematic way (Ericsson & Erixon, 1999). Because the Modularity Drivers of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) are used in this research, the Drivers are shown below in Table 2.1 and they are explained in detail in Appendix II.
2.9 Modularity Drivers Perdok (2006)
The master thesis of Perdok (2006) adds Modularity Drivers to the Drivers indicated by Ericsson & Erixon (1999). Perdok (2006) has indicated
specific Drivers for each department involved in the MFD process. The Drivers of Perdok’s (2006) can be found in Table 2.2 and detailed information about Modularity Drivers can be found in Appendix II.
2.10 Function assigning
The framework of Fixson (2005) that will be applied in this research requires component lists with indications of functions and sub functions of these components. Fixson (2005) needs a components function assigning but does not give a method to do so. Pahl et al. (2007) give a systematic method with guidelines to indicate the functions and sub-functions of the product and components. They start with the overall function of the product that is investigated and after that they indicate which sub-functions are needed for fulfilling this main function step by step until all functions and sub- functions are indicated. When these steps are finished, the functions are assigned to components.
This method will be used in this research.
The theory that is going to be used during this research is shown in Table 2.3 below. This table
indicates which method is used for what purpose during this research
14 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Type GPM III GPM III GPM III GPM IV GPM IV GPM IV
GEC GCB GCB
Garbage trucks investigated Variant
GCB Split Lift GEC GCB Split Lift
Figure 3.1: Tailgate (geesinknorba.com)
Table 3.1: Garbage trucks investigated
3. Scope of the research
In this research the framework of Fixson (2005), the Modularity Drivers method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999), the Modularity Drivers of Perdok (2006) and the function deployment method of Pahl et al. (2007) are applied on products of GeesinkNorba. This case study will focus on the new type of garbage truck of GeesinkNorba the
‘’GPM IV’’ and its predecessor the ‘’GPM III’’. The usage of modularity of these two types will be tested, looking at
the tailgates of these trucks. The tailgate is the part on the back of the garbage trucks as shown in Figure 3.1. This research will not take the complete parts list of the tailgates into account, only the parts of the body of the tailgates, hydraulics etc. are not taken into account because this would make it too complex. Three variants of the ‘’GPM III’’ and ‘’GPM IV’’ are investigated. These three variants are responsible for 80% of the sales of GeesinkNorba.
First the ‘’GPM III’’ is investigated focusing on modularity to compare these results later on with the components of the ‘’GPM IV. This because GeesinkNorba looked at the ‘’GPM III’’ for designing the
‘’GPM IV’’, they investigated where on the ‘’GPM III’’ modularity could be used for designing and implementing this in the new ‘’GPM IV’’. In some way, the ‘’GPM IV’’ is a ‘’GPM III’’ with modularity applied. So to compare what GeesinkNorba has done on modularity to what they should have done according to the literature, the same type of truck should be investigated as GeesinkNorba has done.
Applying modularity methods of the literature on the ‘’GPM IV’’ and comparing this with the results of what GeesinkNorba has done would give unusable results because they looked at the ‘’GPM III’’.
Therefore this research will first investigate the ‘’GPM III’’.
As mentioned before, three variants of the ‘’GPM III’’ and three variants of the ‘’GPM IV’’ are
investigated. This because looking at only one variant would not give a good view about the diversity of components needed. Taken more variants into account will give a better view, because that will give insights in the amount of different components needed for assembling different variants and if this amount of different components will decrease after making use of modularity. The three variants that will be investigated in this research are the GCB Split Lift, GEC and GCB for the GPM III and for the new GPM IV garbage trucks. More detailed information about GeesinkNorba and the variants can be found in Appendix III
Even though the three variants mentioned are all GPM III’s, they have different parts like the bin catchers, covers guides and lifting frames. Trucks can have more than one type of lifting device mounted on the steel construction lift of the tailgate.
During this research six different trucks are investigated and these are indicated in Table 3.1.
15 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Figure 4.1: Conceptual model
4. Conceptual model
This conceptual model must be read from the left side to the right side. First the components required for assembling the tailgates have to be identified, followed by function assigning of the components. After that, the formed components by the engineering department and the components by the framework are compared and the gap will be indicated. After that, the
Modularity Drivers according to the literature are compared with the Modularity Drivers used by the engineering department of the company and the gap will be indicated. These insights should support giving recommendations about modularity implementation and usage.
Co m p o n ent s o f th e t ail gate s o f th e garb ag e t ru ck
Modularity implemented by
engineering department/companies
Modularity according to Fixson’s (2005)
framework Modularity Drivers according to Ericsson &
Erixon (1999)
Modularity implementation
and usage recommendations Modules
Drivers
Modules Drivers
Drivers GAP
Modules Function Deployment GAP
according to Pahl et al.
(2007)
16 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
5. Research question’s
Main research question:
How to improve gaining insights for R&D managers and engineers into the degree of modularity of their products and opportunities for architectural improvements?
Sub questions:
1) Which components are included in the tailgates of the garbage trucks?
2) Which functions are assigned to components of the tailgates according to the method of Pahl et al. (2007)?
3) Which components are shaped by the engineering departments of the companies themselves with the aim of modularity?
4) Which product modularity opportunities do the framework of Fixson (2005) and the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) provide?
5) Which differences between product modularity usage by companies, Fixson’s (2005) method and Ericsson & Erixon’s (1999) method can be identified?
6) Which Modularity Drivers can be found in literature?
7) Which Modularity Drivers are treated by companies themselves?
8) Which Modularity Drivers are untreated by companies themselves?
17 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Step number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Data collection components GPM III Step name
Results analysis Evaluation Writing the report Methodology steps
Module indication GPM IV with Ericsson & Erixon (1999) GPM IV modularity drivers treated investigation Literature research modularity drivers
GPM IV application of Fixson (2005) Function assigning GPM IV
Data collection components GPM IV GPM III application of Fixson (2005) Function assigning GPM III
Table 6.1: Methodology steps
6. Methodology
6.1 Introduction
This research is based on a case study performed at GeesinkNorba. GeesinkNorba is part of the RAAK PAM project and tries to improve its innovativeness by making use of modularity. The engineering department already tried to make use of modularity when designing the new type of garbage truck that GeesinkNorba produces. The aim of this research is to contribute to the literature by combining the framework of Fixson (2005) with the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) and indicate possible shortcomings. With the results of this, a universal stepwise method should be created that can be used to get insights into the degree of modularity of products and opportunities for architectural improvements. The aim for GeesinkNorba is to find out if they correctly made use of product modularity. The reason why a case study is used, is because a case study makes it possible to investigate the natural setting of a phenomenon and observing the actual practice of it (Karlsson, 2009: 164). Another reason why a case study is applied in this research is because a case study approach lends itself to investigate a subject that is not completely understood yet and variables are still unknown, this is exactly the case at the GeesinkNorba case (Karlsson, 2009: 164). According to Karlsson (2009), case studies are suitable for theory testing and theory extension and in this research existing scientific methods are tested and tried to further develop these scientific methods.
Therefore a case study is a very appropriate research methods in this case.
In this research the modules formed by the engineering department of GeesinkNorba are tested and compared with the modularity framework of Fixson (2005) and the Modularity Drivers of Ericsson &
Erixon (1999) and Perdok (2006). The scope of the research consists of the tailgate of the new type of
garbage truck of GeesinkNorba the ‘’GPM IV’’ and its predecessor the ‘’GPM III’’. Therefore insights
are needed in the current situation at GeesinkNorba. How is modularity used and what is already
been done at GeesinkNorba? These are how and what questions and these are specifically suitable to
be answered with usage of a case study (Karlsson, 2009: 164). The case study makes it possible to use
a combination of research methods, there will be made use of interviews’, computer data about the
components and observations at the production facility (Karlsson, 2009: 176). The steps of this
research are shown in Table 6.1. These steps are explained in more detail in section 6.2.
18 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
6.2 Steps
The steps where this research consists of are explained in detail below. Also the research question and sub-research questions that they treat are indicated, just as the relationships with other research steps.
Step1
The first step of the research is data collection of the GPM III garbage trucks, investigating which components are needed to assemble a ‘’tailgate’’ of a garbage truck of GeesinkNorba. This is done by making use of SolidWorks, part lists and observations at the productions facility.
This is required for answering sub question 1) Which components are included in the tailgates of the garbage trucks? The results of step 1 are required for steps 2, 3, and 10 because step 1 indicates which components of the GPM III are investigated.
Step 2
The second step is to indicate the functions and sub functions of the components of the tailgates of the GPM III trucks. These functions and sub functions are needed for the framework of Fixson (2005).
This will be done by semi structured open interviews, data of component descriptions and observations.
This is required for answering sub question 2) Which functions are assigned to components of the tailgate according to the method of Pahl et al. (2007)? The results of step 2 are required for step 3 because function indication is required for usage of the framework of Fixson (2005).
Step 3
The third step is to use the data of step 1 and step 2 about the components and functions of the tailgates of the GPM III’s and apply these in the modularity framework of Fixson (2005). This will indicate how modular components of the tailgates are and where there are opportunities for improvements according to the literature. This step will contain a lot of literature review and application of the framework.
This is required for answering sub question 4) Which product modularity opportunities do the framework of Fixson (2005) and the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) provide?
The results of step 3 are required for step 10, because in step 10 these modules are compared with components formed by the engineering department of GeesinkNorba of step 6.
Step 4
The fourth step is to find out which components are already formed by the engineering department of GeesinkNorba for the ‘’GPM IV’’. This to find out if there is a difference compared to the
components of the ‘’GPM III’’ found in step 1, which might indicate the focus on modularity at the new ‘’GPM IV’’. These components will be compared later on. To find out which components are already implemented and if these components are modules, interviews with the engineering department, observations and computer data will be used
This is required for answering sub question 3) Which components are shaped by the engineering departments of the companies themselves with the aim of modularity?
The results of step 4 are required for step 5, 6, 7, 8 and in step 10 these components are compared
with modules of Fixson (2005) of step 3.
19 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Step 5
The fifth step is to indicate the functions and sub functions of the components of the tailgates of the
‘’GPM IV’’ trucks. These functions and sub functions are needed for the framework of Fixson (2005).
This will be done by semi structured interviews, data of component descriptions and observations, this can be difficult because the GPM IV is not finished yet.
This is required for answering sub question 2) Which functions are assigned to components of the tailgate according to the method of Pahl et al. (2007)? The results of step 5 are required for step 6 because function indication is required for usage of the framework of Fixson (2005)
Step 6
The sixth step is to use the data of step 4 and step 5 about the components and functions of the tailgates of the ‘’GPM IV’s’’ and apply these in the modularity framework of Fixson (2005). This will indicate how modular components of the tailgates are and where there are opportunities for improvements according to the literature. This step will contain a lot of literature review and application of the framework.
This is required for answering sub question 4) Which product modularity opportunities do the
framework of Fixson (2005) and the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) provide? The results of step 6 are required for step 10, because in step 10 the results are compared with the results of step 3.
Step 7
The seventh step is to investigate which Modularity Drivers should have been treated according to Ericsson & Erixon (1999) and Perdok (2006).
This is required for answering sub question 6) Which Modularity Drivers can be found in literature?
The results of step 7 are required for step 8 and step 10, because in step 10 these Drivers are compared with Drivers used at GeesinkNorba of step 8.
Step 8
The eight step is to use the data of step 4 and step 7 in combination with interviews to investigate which Modularity Drivers are treated at the production facility of GeesinkNorba, looking at the Modularity Drivers given by Ericsson & Erixon (1999) and Perdok (2006) for the ‘’GPM IV’’.
This is required for answering sub question 7) Which Modularity Drivers are treated by companies themselves? The results of step 8 are required for step 10, because in step 10 these Drivers are compared with Drivers found in literature in step 7.
Step 9
The ninth step is to make use of the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) to see which modules should be formed based on the Drivers scores.
This is required for answering sub question 4) Which product modularity opportunities do the
framework of Fixson (2005) and the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) provide? The results of step 9 are required for step 10, because in step 10 the results are compared with the results of step 6.
Step 10
The tenth step is the results section. The results of step 3 are compared with the results of step 6 to
find out which implemented components already have a modular architecture and which
20 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
implemented components can still be made more modular. The results of step 6 are compared and combined with the results of step 9 to see which modules should have been formed in the
GeesinkNorba case. The results of step 7 are compared with the results of step 8 to indicate which Modularity Drivers are treated and which Modularity Drivers still have to be treated.
This is required for answering sub questions 4) Which product modularity opportunities do the framework of Fixson (2005) and the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) provide? 5) Which differences between product modularity usage by companies, Fixson’s (2005) method and Ericsson & Erixon’s (1999) method can be identified? And 8) Which Modularity Drivers are untreated by companies themselves? The results are required for step 11 where they are evaluated.
Step 11
The eleventh step is to evaluate the results. What were the differences between the modularity implementation of the engineering department and the results of the methods of the literature.
This is required for answering the main question of this research:
How to improve gaining insights for R&D managers and engineers into the degree of modularity of their products and opportunities for architectural improvements?
Step 12
The twelfth step is to write the report and to process the data and give answer to the main research question
6.3 Data collection methods
Interviews: Semi structured interviews with open questions to get detailed information.
Documents: Data analysis of component lists and component drawings in SolidWorks.
Others: Observations at the production facility.
Literature research.
21 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Operators
Containerswith
garbage Collect
garbage from
Empty containers
Figure 7.1: Function of the tailgate
7. The GeesinkNorba case, parts, functions & components analysis
7.1 Introduction
First the function assigning method of Pahl et al. (2007) is used to get insights into the functions of the tailgates. After the main function is indicated, sub-functions of the tailgates are indicated. After these steps, the components needed for assembling the tailgates of the GPM III GCB Split Lift, GPM III GEC and the GPM III GCB are investigated. This step is followed by indicating the functions of the components while keeping the main functions of the tailgates in mind. The method of Pahl et al.
(2007) gives the functions of the tailgate that are fulfilled by the components and therefore gives an indication of what specific functions are assigned to the components. For example a rave flap not only has influence on the garbage collection but also on the operators. When the functions of the components are indicated they are assigned to overall functions of the tailgate to see their functions in the product. After that, the three variants of the new GPM IV are investigated.
The following sub research questions are answered in this chapter:
1) Which components are included in the tailgates of the garbage trucks?
Treated in section 7.3 and 7.5
2) Which functions are assigned to components of the tailgates according to the method of Pahl et al. (2007)?
Treated in section 7.2 and 7.4
3) Which components are shaped by the engineering departments of the companies themselves with the aim of modularity?
Treated in section 7.5
7.2 Overall Functions of the tailgate.
The function assigning method of Pahl et al. (2007) is used in this research to support the identification of the functions of the components. Pahl et al. (2007) suggest to start with an investigation of the Technical Functions of the tailgates. This is done to get insights in the requirements needed to fulfill the main function of the tailgate that is, ‘’collect garbage from containers’’. After that, more detailed functions and sub-functions are indicated.
As shown in Figure 7.1 the main function ‘’collect garbage from containers’’ needs ‘’operators’’ to get the containers to the truck/tailgate and needs ‘’containers with garbage’’ as input for the system.
These two factors are needed to fulfill the main function and to achieve the output ‘’empty
containers’’
22 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Number Components ↓
1 Tailgate steel contruction 2 Steel contruction lift 3 Bin catch
4 Cover guide 5 Rave flap 6 Adapter arm 7 Footboard 8 Ornamental plates 9 Roof cover tailgate 10 Lifter side barrier 11 Lifting frame 12 Dust curtain 13 Lifting arm 14 ETB arm
Collect garbage from container
Lift container Transport
operators
Operators Containers
with garbage
Empty
container
Figure 7.2: Function structureAs shown in Figure 7.2 the functions that make the tailgate useable/practical are added in the
structure. The footboards of the tailgate provide a travel position for the operators. They do not have to go to the cabin of the truck but can stay on the tailgate of the truck while traveling at low speed, to be able to stay close to the workplace of these operators. The tailgate also has the function of lifting containers upside-down so the operators do not have to do this by hand. The main functions of the tailgate are now clear and in section 7.3 the components of the tailgates and functions of the tailgate are used to indicate which functions and sub-functions the components have. Components can have more than one function.
7.3 Components of the tailgates of the garbage trucks
The components that can be identified as required for assembling the tailgates of the three GPM III variants are shown in Table 7.1. An overview of how these
components look like and where on the tailgate they are located can be found in Appendix IV. Different
components for different variants exist so this table doesn´t mean that all three variants can be assembled with 12 components. These differences in components are treated in section 8.14.
7.4 Function per component of the tailgates
In Table 7.2 the components of the tailgates and their functions are shown. There are a few differences between components included in the different variants. These differences are shown in Table 7.3 that indicates which functions of components are not assigned to the specific variants. In Table 7.4 the functions that make the tailgate fulfill its main function are assigned to ‘’collect garbage from container’’. The functions that make the tailgate practical and safe to use for the operators are assigned to the ‘’usability improvement/practical function’’. And the combination of all the functions that make the product sellable to the ‘’market competitive function’’ that also focuses on the optical design (the looks of the tailgate).
Table 7.1:
Components tailgate GPM III
23 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Components ↓ Functions
Connect press mechanism
Connect lifting devices Connect to body
Collect garbage and guide it to the body Connect ETB arm
Connect lifting frame and adapter arms Connect rave flap
Bin catch Stop containers and prevent overhanging too far.
Cover guide Open bin covers
Protect operators, closed system Making the system appropiate for garbage collection other than containers Collect garbage and guide it to the body Lift and tilt containers
Locking a container while emptying Footboard Provide a travel position for operators.
Design
Protect against dust and water Design
Protect against dust and water
Lifter side barrier Protect operators againts walking into the mechanism
Lift and tilt containers
Locking a container while emptying Dust curtain Protect operators against dust
Lift and tilt containers
Locking a container while emptying Ornamental plates
Rave flap
Tailgate steel contruction
GPM III GCB Split Lift, GEC and GCB
Adapter arm
Lifting frame Steel contruction lift
Roof cover tailgate
Lifting arm Connect lifting frame with steel construction lift
ETB arm
Number Function
1Lift and tilt containers
2 Locking a container while emptying 3 Open bin covers
4 Making the system appropiate for garbage collection other than containers 5 Collect garbage and guide it to the body
6 Stop containers and prevent overhanging too far.
7 Connect lifting frame with steel construction lift 8 Connect press mechanism
9 Connect lifting devices 10 Connect to body 11 Connect ETB arm
12 Connect lifting frame and adapter arms 13 Connect rave flap
14 Provide a travel position for operators.
15 Protect against dust and water 16 Protect operators, closed system
17 Protect operators againts walking into the lifting mechanism 18 Protect operators against dust
19 Design
Overall functions
Competitive product Functional
machine Collect
Garbage
Variant Deviations of the component list Has no ETB arm
Has no lifter side barrier Has no dust curtain Has no lifter side barrier Has no dust curtain Has no ETB arm
Steel construction lift only has the function ''connect lifting frame and adapter arms'' and ''connect rave flap''
GCB Split Lift
Steel contruction lift only has te function connect ''lifting frame GEC
GCB
Table 7.2: Components and Functions of the tailgates Table 7.3: Variant component deviations
Table 7.4: Functions and overall functions
24 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Number Components ↓ 1 Tailgate steel contruction 2 Steel contruction lift 3 Bin catch
4 Cover guide 5 Rave flap 6 Adapter arm 7 Footboard 8 Roof cover tailgate 9 Lifter side barrier 10 Lifting frame 11 Dust curtain 12 Lifting arm 13 ETB arm
Table 7.5: Components tailgate GPM IV
7.5 Components shaped by the engineering department
The indicated components of the GPM III are also the components used in the GPM IV. Shapes of the components can be changed, but the components of the tailgate of the GPM III are still the
components used in the GPM IV, except for the ornamental plates because these are not used anymore. An overview of how these components look like and where on the tailgate they are located can be found in Appendix IV.
The components shaped by the engineering department for the GPM IV are shown in Table 7.5.
The components and functions indicated in this chapter will be used to apply the framework of
Fixson (2005) in chapter 8 to indicate the degree of product modularity and opportunities for
improvements.
25 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
Components ↓ Connection Functions
Connect press mechanism Connect lifting devices Connect to body
Connect rave flap
Open bin covers
Protect operators, closed system
Design
Protect against dust and water
Protect operators against dust Locking a container while emptying
Protect operators againts walking into the lifting mechanism
Lifting arm Connect lifting frame with steel
construction lift GPM III GCB Split Lift
Cover guide Tailgate steel contruction
Adapter arm
Roof cover tailgate Footboard
Ornamental plates
Collect garbage and guide it to the body
Stop containers and prevent overhanging too far.
Making the system appropiate for garbage collection other than containers
Provide a travel position for operators.
Bin catch
Steel contruction lift
Rave flap
Lift and tilt containers Connect lifting frame and adapter arms
Lifter side barrier
Lifting frame
Dust curtain
8. Modules analysis
8.1 Introduction
Chapter 8 is about implementation of the framework of Fixson (2005). Section 8.1 till 8.8 are about the GPM III and section 8.8 till 8.14 are about the GPM IV. In section 8.14 the standardization of the components of the GPM III and GPM IV are compared.
The following sub research question is answered in this chapter:
4) Which product modularity opportunities do the framework of Fixson (2005) and the method of Ericsson & Erixon (1999) provide?
All the sections of this chapter support to get insights required for answering this sub research question. Also data from chapter 9 is needed for answering this sub research question.
8.2 Function-Component Allocation GPM III
The first step is to provide insights in the functions of the components of the tailgates and assigning the functions to the components. These component function allocations according to the method of Fixson (2005) for the GPM III GCB Split Lift is given below in Table 8.1. The function component allocations of the GPM III GEC and GPM III GCB can be found in Appendix V. As shown in Table 8.1, there are components that have more than one function. There are also components that have the same functions. The different colors used in Table 8.1 do not indicate differences but they are used to make it easier to follow the arrows when they cross other arrows on their path.
Table 8.1: GPM III GCB Split Lift Functions & Components
26 Modularity Usage: Successful implementation of product modularity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 Connect press mechanism 1 1 4
2 Connect lifting devices 1 1 4
3 Connect to body 1 1 4
4 Collect garbage and guide it to the body 1 1 2 6
5 Connect lifting frame and adapter arms 1 1 2
6 Connect rave flap 1 1 2
7
Stop containers and prevent
overhanging too far. 1 1 1
8 Open bin covers 1 1 1
9 Protect operators, closed system 1 1 3
10
Making the system appropiate for garbage collection other than containers
1 1 3
11Lift and tilt containers 1 1 1 2 2
12 Locking a container while emptying 1 1 1 2 2
13 Provide a travel position for operators. 1 1 1
14 Design 1 1 2 2
15 Protect against dust and water 1 1 2 2
16
Protect operators againts walking into
the lifting mechanism 1 1 1
17 Protect operators against dust 1 1 1
18
Connect lifting frame with steel
construction lift 1 1 1
Function count 4 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1
Index 2
GPM III GCB Split Lift
Dust curtain
Adapter arm Footboard Ornamental plates Roof cover tailgate Lifter side barrier
Tailgate steel contruction Steel construction lift Bin catch Cover guide Lifting frame
Rave flap
Functions Lifting arm
Components
Index 1
8.3 FCA Matrices GPM III
In section 8.2 the components and their functions were allocated for the GPM III Split Lift, now the FCA matrix of this tailgate is conducted and shown in Table 8.2. This FCA matrix is conducted to calculate the Index 1 and Index 2 values that are needed for the following step. The FCA Matrices of the GPM III GEC and GPM III GCB can be found in Appendix VI.
As shown in Table 8.2 the tailgate steel construction for example has four functions. Therefore the function count indicates a four. The function collect garbage and guide it to the body is a function of the tailgate steel construction and a function of the rave flap therefore the Index 1 value is 2. These two components also have four other functions, connect press mechanism, connect lifting devices, connect to body, protect operators / closed system and making the system appropriate for garbage collection other than containers. Therefore the Index 2 value is a six, because the total number of related functions is six.
Table 8.2: GPM III GCB Split Lift FCA Matrix
↑
