modularity in design: how the building blocks of design influence the structure of industries...
TRANSCRIPT
Modularity in Design: How the Building Blocks of Design Influence the Structure of Industries
Carliss Y. BaldwinHarvard Business School
Presented at MIT Media Lab “Building Blocks” SymposiumOctober 21, 2003
Slide 2 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
Three Points
Modularity in Design is a financial force– that can change the structure of an industry.
Value and Cost of Modularity– it can increase financial value, – but it is NOT free.
What is Modularity in Design?– How to map it, measure it.
Slide 3 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
5055
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
YearSIC Code or Company
The Market Value of the Computer IndustryBy sector, 1950-1996 in constant 1996 US dollars
Slide 4 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
The Market Value of the Computer IndustryBy sector, 1950-1996 in constant 1996 US dollars
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Slide 5 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
Modularity is powerful, but… NOT always a good thing. I advocate—
– rigorous mapping, measurement, and analysis of modularity
– Not blind adoption Its virtues:
– Makes complexity managable– Enables parallel work– “Welcomes experimentation” – —> Creates Options
Slide 6 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
Types of Modularity
Modular in Design– Modern computers– Eclectic Furniture (not “modular” furniture)– Recipes in a cookbook
Modular in Production– Engines and Chassis– Hardware and software– NOT chips, NOT a cookbook
Modular in Use– “Modular” furniture, bedding– Suits and ties – Recipes in a cookbook
Slide 7 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
Modularity-in-Design Creates Design Options
System Before Modularization System after Modularization
System DesignOption Rules
Option Option
Option Option
Option Option
OptionSplit options, decentralize decisions,fragment control Evolution
Design Options are ValuableHow Valuable?
Ask a financial economist…
Slide 9 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
What is the value of…
Splitting a design into J modular building blocks…and
Running multiple experiments (K of them) on each of the modules… and
Choosing the “best of breed” of each module… and
Combining the best modular building blocks to arrive at the system?
Slide 10 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
Robert C. Merton
“Theory of Rational Option Pricing”, – Written for— MIT PhD thesis, 1971; – Published in— Bell Journal of Economics and
Management Science, 1973; – Awarded— Nobel Prize in Economics, 1997
“A portfolio of options is worth more than the option on a portfolio.”
Slide 11 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
What is the value of… Splitting a design into J
modular building blocks…and
Running multiple experiments (K of them) on each of the modules… and
Choosing the “best of breed” of each module… and
Combining the best modules to arrive at the system?
Going from one big indivisible block….
To many smaller
building blocks
Where each building block is a (little) option
That gets recombined with others in a (large) portfolio
The Basic Framework of our Model of Modular Design Process
Stages Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
TimeLine
Create Implement Test,
Task Task Integrate,
Structure & Structure Evaluate
Design Rules for Modules System
What Actually Happens
Actions Choose Carry out Test results &
operators tasks Exercise options
Events Splitting "The Wheel Spins" Economic
Substituting value is revealed;
Augmenting Best outcomes
Excluding are selected
Inverting
Porting
Mathematical Representation
Benefits A payoff in An outcome is drawn The value corresponding
the form of from the distribution to the outcome of the
a random of the random variable. random variable
variable is is revealed; where
chosen. options exist, the best
outcomes are selected.
X X → X ( , 0)max X
Costs Cost of Cost of Cost of
designing implementing testing and
task task integration
structure structure
Basis of Highest Highest Highest
Choice Net Option Net Option Value Value given
Value given task structure outcomes and tests
Slide 11 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2001
Slide 13 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
The Value of Splitting and Substitution
5
9
13
17
2125
1
7
13
19
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Value
No. of ModulesNo. of Experiments
Slide 14 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
When and if it arrives…
Modularity in design is
compelling, surprising and dangerous…
Slide 15 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
5055
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
YearSIC Code or Company
The Market Value of the Computer IndustryBy sector, 1950-1996 in constant 1996 US dollars
Slide 16 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
IBM System/360 The first modular computer design IBM did not understand the option value it
had created Did not increase its inhouse product R&D Result: Many engineers left
– to join “plug-compatible peripheral” companies San Jose labs —> Silicon Valley
“Compelling, surprising, dangerous”
What is Modularity?
We can “see it” via a Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Map
Slide 18 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
. x x x x xx . x x x x x x x x x
Drive x x . x x xSystem x x x . x x x x x x x x
x x . xx x x x . x x x
x x x . x xx x x . x x x x
x x x . x x x x xMain x x x . x x xBoard x x x x x x x x . x x x x x
x x x x x . x xx x x x x x . x x x
x x x . x
x x x . x x xx x x x . x x x x
LCD x x x . x xScreen x x x x . x x x
x x x x x x x . x x xx x x . x
x x x x . x x x xx x x . x x x x
x x x x x . x x xPackaging x x x x . x x
x x x x x . x xx x x x . x x
x x x x x .x x x x x .
Graphics controller on Main Board or not?If yes, screen specifications change;If no, CPU must process more; adopt different interrupt protocols
Design Structure Matrix Map of a Laptop Computer
Slide 19 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
Design Structure Matrix Map of a Modular System
. x x x xx . x x
Design x . x x Design Rules Task GroupRules x x . x
x x x .x . x x x
x x . x x xDrive x x x x . xSystem x x x x x . x x Hidden Modules
x x x . x many Task groupsx x x x .
x . x xx x x x x . x x
x x . x x x xMain x x x x x . x xBoard x x x x x x x . x x
x x x x x . xx x x x x x . x
x x x x x .x x . x x x
x x x . x x xLCD x x x . xScreen x x x x x . x x
x x x x x . xx x x x x x .
x x . x x x xx x x . x x x x
x x x . x x xPack- x x x x x x . x xaging x x x . x x
x x x x x . x xx x x x x .
x x x x x x .x x x x x x . x x x x
System x x x x x x x x . x x System Testing x x x x x x x x x . x x x Integration& Integ- x x x x x x x x x x x x and Testingration x x x x x x x x . x Task Group
x x x x x x x x x x x .
A “modularization” (splitting) of a complex design goes from Map A to Map B
Via Design Rules, which specify
Architecture, Interfaces and Module Tests, that provide
Encapsulation and Information Hiding.
The Costs of Modularity
Slide 22 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
. x x x x xx . x x x x x x x x x
Drive x x . x x xSystem x x x . x x x x x x x x
x x . xx x x x . x x x
x x x . x xx x x . x x x x
x x x . x x x x xMain x x x . x x xBoard x x x x x x x x . x x x x x
x x x x x . x xx x x x x x . x x x
x x x . x
x x x . x x xx x x x . x x x x
LCD x x x . x xScreen x x x x . x x x
x x x x x x x . x x xx x x . x
x x x x . x x x xx x x . x x x x
x x x x x . x x xPackaging x x x x . x x
x x x x x . x xx x x x . x x
x x x x x .x x x x x .
Graphics controller on Main Board or not?If yes, screen specifications change;If no, CPU must process more; adopt different interrupt protocols
Every important cross-module interdependency must be addressed via a design rule.
This is costly
Costs eat up the option value
Modularization may not pay
Slide 23 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
Experiments are also costly, thus each module has a unique “value profile”.
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
No. of Experiments
Value Profile of a Sun Microsystems Workstation circa 1992
The Perils of Modularity
Slide 25 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
IBM Personal Computer Highly modular architecture IBM outsourced hardware and software Controlled one high-level chip (BIOS) and the
manufacturing process
Then Compaq reverse-engineered the BIOS chip Taiwanese lowered manufacturing costs
By 1990 IBM was seeking to exit the unprofitable PC marketplace!
Slide 26 © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2003
Compaq vs. Dell Dell did to Compaq what Compaq did to IBM…
Dell created an equally good machine, and Used process modularity to reduce its production,
logistics and distribution costs and increase ROIC– Negative Net Working Capital
– Direct sales, no dealers
By 1990 Compaq was seeking to exit the unprofitable PC marketplace!
“Modularity-in-design is not good or bad. It is important and it is costly. And dangerous to ignore.”
Just remember—
“Compelling, surprising, dangerous…”
Thank you!