**Integral approach**


In choosing either one or both two architectural approaches, we need to define the technical working principles and desired variety of features, including setting performance targets. Two indicative definitions are "the ability to repeatedly change and rearrange the components of a system in a cost-effective way" [13] and "the ability of a function of a manufacturing unit to be simply altered in a timely and cost- effective manner" [14].

The reconfigurability of a manufacturing system can be further understood in terms of certain characteristics it exhibits. Modularity is the extent to which all system components; both software and hardware are modular. Integrability is the ability in which systems and components are combined with the introduction of new technology.

### **8.1 Definition of modularity**

The term "modularity" has been widely used to suggest decoupling of construction structures, such that the more decoupled the structures of a product or system, the more modular that product or system will tend to be [15].

$$\text{Component productivity} = \frac{\text{Actual component discontinuity}}{\text{Maximum likely component discontinuity}} \tag{1}$$

Modularity is the extent in which a design system may be split into segments and merged back again. Modularization is intended to effectively redistribute total complexity throughout the system by clustering elements into chunks. A complex modular architecture with multiple modules can result in a dense architecture but should still be advantageous if system decomposability is of major importance. This primarily relates to the effectiveness of using reductionist approaches. Increasing a product's modularity enables these strategies whereas higher complexity makes reductionism less effective.

Modularity is mathematically defined as the extent at which two architectures correspond, on the contrary of intersection. The calculation of correspondence, the Correspondence Ratio (CR), is stated as [16]:

$$CR = \frac{|\text{Vi}(\mathfrak{x}) \cap \text{Vj}(\mathfrak{x})|}{|\text{Vi}(\mathfrak{x}) \cap \text{Vj}(\mathfrak{x})|} \tag{2}$$

where |X| points out the number of elements (cardinality) of group X. CR will be near to 1 if the correlation between the two modules is high, vice versa. This is a good *Electrification for Aero-Engines: A Case Study of Modularization in New Product… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109006*

way to ascertain module by module foundation, however, does not give good comparison between modules of different designs. A more reliable consideration of module correspondence for an entire product is the average CR for all modules in the product, CRoverall [16]:

$$\text{CRoverall} = \frac{\Sigma CRi}{\#Modules} \tag{3}$$

Likewise, CRoverall = 0 signifies that there is no correspondence between perspectives. CRoverall = 1 when the individual module CRs approaches 1. To convey the second attribute of modularity, reducing minor interactions, a Cluster Independence (CI) is defined [16].

$$\text{Modularity} = (\text{CRoverall}) \times (\text{CI}) \tag{4}$$

#### **8.2 Definition of modularity**

Apart from new product introduction (NPI) and managing design changes, strategic technology insertion is one of the important factors in life-cycle management. The three sections where the benefits of a specific technology begin to stagnate are:


In new product development, the critical success factors in descending order of success likelihood are Strong Market Orientation (high), Early Planning and Specification (medium), and Technical and Marketing Excellence (low).
