Companies dealing with industrial products, such as automobiles and laptops, should develop low-cost products with long-term high performance, low environmental load, and long lifespans to achieve a sustainable society. Thus, it is necessary to realize a product architecture in which the products can be easily upgraded and repaired by encouraging various suppliers to participate in the economic sphere of the products by promoting the standardization of components through an appropriate product modularization. In conventional module design, research focuses on reducing development lead time through the common use of components and on deriving appropriate product architecture by creating a design structure matrix based on the functionality of the product. Studies have also been conducted to derive an appropriate supply chain by considering the locations of the production and assembly sites of individual modules. However, few studies have been conducted on the consistent process from the derivation of product architecture candidates to the evaluation of their supply chains. Therefore, in this study, a design structure matrix, defined from multiple perspectives related to product functionality, is used to derive architecture candidates that consider the feasibility of products. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of supply chain management and propose a method that derives product architectures that consider sustainability and their supply chains by comprehensively evaluating product architecture candidates and their supply chains based on quality, cost, lead time, and environmental load. The proposed method is applied to a modularization problem of laptops, and a design structure matrix is created from five different perspectives: size effect, contact effect, power, information, and heat, and two product architecture candidates are derived. The results of the supply chain evaluation of the derived product architectures confirm that it is possible to propose an appropriate product architecture and its supply chain combination to the designer.

1. [1] United Nations, “Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.” https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ [Accessed January 5, 2022]
2. [2] European Commission, “Circular economy action plan” https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en [Accessed March 31, 2024]
3. [3] S. Yamada, T. Yamada, S. Bracke, and M. Inoue, “Upgradable design for sustainable manufacturer performance and profitability and reduction of environmental load,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.10, No.5, pp. 690-698, 2016. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2016.p0690
4. [4] S. Yamada, S. Miyajima, T. Yamada, S. Bracke, and M. Inoue, “Decision support method for upgrade cycle planning and product architecture design of an upgradable product,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.14, No.6, pp. 919-929, 2020. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2020.p0919
5. [5] S. D. Eppinger and T. R. Browing, “Design structure matrix methods and applications,” The MIT Press, 2012.
6. [6] T. U. Pimmler and S. D. Eppinger, “Integration analysis of product decompositions,” Proc. the ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., pp. 343-351, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC1994-0034
7. [7] C. I. Gutierrez Fernandez, “Integration analysis of product architecture to support effective team co-location,” Master’s Thesis at MIT, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 1998.
8. [8] R. E. Thebeau, “Knowledge management of system interfaces and interactions for product development processes,” Master’s Thesis at MIT, System Design & Management Program, 2001.
9. [9] Institute for Engineering Design and Industrial Design, University of Stuttgart, “The design structure matrix (DSM),” https://dsmweb.org [Accessed February 19, 2025]
10. [10] F. Borjesson and K. Hölttä-Otto, “Improved clustering algorithm for design structure matrix,” Proc. the ASME IDETC/CIE, pp. 921-930, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2012-70076
11. [11] S. Shoval, “Dynamic modularization throughout system lifecycle using multilayer design structure matrices,” Procedia CIRP, Vol.40, pp. 85-90, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.062
12. [12] S. Shoval, L. Qiao, M. Efatmaneshnik, and M. Ryan, “Dynamic modular architecture for product lifecycle,” Procedia CIRP, Vol.48, pp. 271-276, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.037
13. [13] H. Nishigaki and Y. Asaga, “Modularization method based on creation of new layout structure,” Trans. of the JSME, Vol.83, No.853, Article No.17-00065, 2017 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.1299/transjsme.17-00065
14. [14] K. Fujita, “Optimization methodologies for product varity design (1st report, design optimality across multiple products and its situation),” Trans. of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Series C, Vol.68, No.666, pp. 675-682, 2002 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.1299/kikaic.68.675
15. [15] K. Fujita and H. Sakaguchi, “Optimization methodologies for product variety design (2nd report, optimization method for module commonalization),” Trans. of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Series C (in Japanese), Vol.68, No.666, pp. 683-691, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1299/kikaic.68.683
16. [16] K. Fujita and H. Yoshida, “Optimization methodologies for product variety design (3rd report, simultaneous optimization method for module attributes and module combination),” Trans. of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Series C, Vol.68, No.666, pp. 1329-1337, 2002 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.1299/kikaic.68.1329
17. [17] K. Fujita, H. Amaya, and R. Akai, “Simultaneous decision model of module commonalization and supply chain configuration for global product family design,” The Proc. of Design & Systems Conf., 2011 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmedsd.2011.21.1
18. [18] M. Toi, K. Sawai, Y. Nomaguchi, and K. Fujita, “Building a strategic-level robust optimal design methodology for integrating product family and supply chain network design,” The Proc. of Design & Systems Conf., 2018 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmedsd.2018.28.1102
19. [19] Y. Ito, K. Nasu, Y. Nomaguti, and K. Fujita, “Multi-objective optimization for simultanious design of module commonalization and supply chain configuration for global product family,” The Proc. of Design & Systems Conf., 2012 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmedsd.2012.22._2101-1_
20. [20] M. Inoue, S. Yamada, S. Miyajima, K. Ishii, R. Hasebe, K. Aoyama, T, Yamada, and S. Bracke, “A modular design strategy considering sustainability and supplier selection,” J. of Advanced Mechanical Design, Systems, and Manufacturing, Vol.14, No.2, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1299/jamdsm.2020jamdsm0023
21. [21] R. Hasebe, S. Yamada, K. Fujiwara, T. Yamada, and M. Inoue, “Decision support for product architecture and an associated supply chain considering manufacturing lead time,” The Proc. of Design & Systems Conf., Vol.30, Nos.20-14, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmedsd.2020.30.2202
22. [22] B. He, W. Wang, X. Zhu, and S. Qian, “Integrate design structure matrix with carbon footprint for product low carbon design,” Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol.56, Article No.102021, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2023.102021
23. [23] M. S. Hossain, R. K. Chakrabortty, S. Elsawah, and M. J. Ryan, “Modelling and application of hierarchical joint optimisation for modular product family and supply chain architecture,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol.126, No.3, pp. 947-971, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-11102-z
24. [24] T.-S. Gan, M. Steffan, M. Grunow, and R. Akkerman, “Concurrent design of product and supply chain architectures for modularity and flexibility: Process, methods, and application,” Int. J. of Production Research, Vol.60, No.7, pp. 2292-2311, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1886370
25. [25] S. Zhang, H. Wang, G. Li, and J. Wang, “Modeling of the resilient supply chain system from a perspective of production design changes,” Front. Eng. Manag., Vol.10, No.1, pp. 96-106, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-022-0235-z
26. [26] K. B. Zandin, “MOST^® Work measurement systems,” CRC Press, 2002.
27. [27] Y. Tanimizu, K. Amano, K. Harada, C. Ozawa, and N. Sugimura, “Multi-objective production and transportation scheduling considering carbon dioxide emissions reductions in dynamic supply chains,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.6, No.3, pp. 322-330, 2012. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2012.p0322