IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v10y2017i10p1622-d115284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Modularity to Reduce Complexity of Industrialized Building Systems for Mass Customization

Author

Listed:
  • Daniela D. Viana

    (Interdisciplinary Department, Campus Litoral Norte, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Tramandai 95590-000, Brazil)

  • Iris D. Tommelein

    (Project Production Systems Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1712, USA)

  • Carlos T. Formoso

    (Building Innovation Research Unit (NORIE), School of Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 90035-190, Brazil)

Abstract

It is widely known that industrialized building systems can positively impact construction projects in terms of efficiency, duration, safety, and quality. Although the use of industrialized building systems can potentially simplify the production process on-site, the complexity of the overall delivery system tends to be high, especially in engineered-to-order (ETO) environments, due to factors such as uncertainty related to goals and methods, conflicts between different trades on-site, and interdependence between supply chain members. This paper explores the concept of modularity, which has proven to be useful in different industries as a way of dealing with complex systems. The aim of this paper is to illustrate how modularity can reduce the complexity of ETO industrialized building systems, in companies that adopt a mass customization strategy. This investigation is based on two descriptive case studies on the development of modular structural steel systems for buildings that have adopted innovative beam-to-column connections. The main contribution of this research is demonstrating the need to adopt an integrated product and process-oriented conceptualization of modularity in industrialized building systems. Moreover, the comparison between the two case studies pointed out that the management of tolerances plays a key role in achieving high productivity and short lead times in structural steel building systems. This investigation also illustrates how the adoption of a limited set of modular components can be used to decouple design decisions, and standardize different types of processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniela D. Viana & Iris D. Tommelein & Carlos T. Formoso, 2017. "Using Modularity to Reduce Complexity of Industrialized Building Systems for Mass Customization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:10:p:1622-:d:115284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/10/1622/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/10/1622/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gosling, Jonathan & Naim, Mohamed M., 2009. "Engineer-to-order supply chain management: A literature review and research agenda," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 741-754, December.
    2. Cecília G. da Rocha & Carlos T. Formoso & Patrícia Tzortzopoulos, 2015. "Adopting Product Modularity in House Building to Support Mass Customisation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal, 2004. "Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 159-173, February.
    4. Alford, Dave & Sackett, Peter & Nelder, Geoff, 2000. "Mass customisation -- an automotive perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 99-110, April.
    5. Bertrand, J. W. M. & Muntslag, D. R., 1993. "Production control in engineer-to-order firms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 3-22, July.
    6. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, April.
    7. Gustav Jansson & Helena Johnsson & Dan Engstr�m, 2014. "Platform use in systems building," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1-2), pages 70-82, February.
    8. Wallace J. Hopp & Mark L. Spearman, 2004. "To Pull or Not to Pull: What Is the Question?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 133-148, August.
    9. MacCarthy, Bart & Brabazon, Philip G. & Bramham, Johanna, 2003. "Fundamental modes of operation for mass customization," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 289-304, September.
    10. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fernanda Saidelles Bataglin & Daniela Dietz Viana & Carlos Torres Formoso, 2022. "Design Principles and Prescriptions for Planning and Controlling Engineer-to-Order Industrialized Building Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Cannas, Violetta Giada & Gosling, Jonathan, 2021. "A decade of engineering-to-order (2010–2020): Progress and emerging themes," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schoenwitz, Manuel & Potter, Andrew & Gosling, Jonathan & Naim, Mohamed, 2017. "Product, process and customer preference alignment in prefabricated house building," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(PA), pages 79-90.
    2. Tian Heong Chan & Shi-Ying Lim, 2023. "The Emergence of Novel Product Uses: An Investigation of Exaptations in IKEA Hacks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2870-2892, May.
    3. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Jong Seok Lee & Mark Keil & Daniel Lunn & Dirk W. Bester, 2022. "The Empirical Reality of IT Project Cost Overruns: Discovering A Power-Law Distribution," Papers 2210.01573, arXiv.org.
    4. Glenn Hoetker & Anand Swaminathan & Will Mitchell, 2007. "Modularity and the Impact of Buyer-Supplier Relationships on the Survival of Suppliers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 178-191, February.
    5. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    6. Sandrin, Enrico & Trentin, Alessio & Forza, Cipriano, 2018. "Leveraging high-involvement practices to develop mass customization capability: A contingent configurational perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 335-345.
    7. Mohsen Jafari Songhori & Madjid Tavana & Takao Terano, 2020. "Product development team formation: effects of organizational- and product-related factors," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 88-122, March.
    8. Fabrizio Salvador & Juan Pablo Madiedo, 2021. "Enabling Globally Distributed Projects: Effects of Project Interface Match and Related Technical Experience," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(4), pages 1052-1081, April.
    9. Babak Heydari & Mohsen Mosleh & Kia Dalili, 2016. "From Modular to Distributed Open Architectures: A Unified Decision Framework," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 252-266, May.
    10. Mario Benassi, 2009. "Investigating modular organizations," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 13(3), pages 163-192, August.
    11. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Chi-Hyon Lee & Manuela N. Hoehn-Weiss & Samina Karim, 2016. "Grouping interdependent tasks: Using spectral graph partitioning to study complex systems," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 177-191, January.
    12. Amrit Tiwana, 2018. "Platform Synergy: Architectural Origins and Competitive Consequences," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 829-848, December.
    13. Fang, Edward Aihua & Wu, Qizhi & Miao, Chaowei & Xia, Jiansheng & Chen, Dezhi, 2013. "The impact of new product & operations technological practices on organization structure," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 733-742.
    14. Ng, Irene & Scharf, Kimberley & Pogrebna, Ganna & Maull, Roger, 2015. "Contextual variety, Internet-of-Things and the choice of tailoring over platform: Mass customisation strategy in supply chain management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 76-87.
    15. Nicholas Burton & Peter Galvin, 2022. "The effect of technology and regulation on the co-evolution of product and industry architecture," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(4), pages 1056-1085.
    16. Schmickl, Christina & Kieser, Alfred, 2008. "How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 473-491, April.
    17. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    18. Nuno Gil & Marcela Miozzo, 2007. "Innovation in Private Infrastructure Development Effects of the Selection Environment and Modularity," DRUID Working Papers 07-23, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    19. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    20. Gediminas Adomavicius & Jesse Bockstedt & Alok Gupta, 2012. "Modeling Supply-Side Dynamics of IT Components, Products, and Infrastructure: An Empirical Analysis Using Vector Autoregression," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 397-417, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:10:p:1622-:d:115284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.