I. Module Partitioning
What to look for in module partitioning? According to industry standards, the approach is as follows: Definition—National Standard GB/T 39589-2020 defines a module as an independent unit within a system that possesses specific functions and standard interfaces;
Three categories of modules—Basic modules (used by all products in a product family; identical in shape and characteristics), Common modules (used by multiple products in a family), and Specialized modules (used only for specific products to meet unique requirements); Types of modularity—Ulrich defines six types (component-exchange, component-sharing, mixed, tailor-made, bus-based, and combinatorial modularity); Partitioning logic—Functional decomposition (e.g., gripper modules, vision modules, and conveyor modules; each with clearly defined mechanical and electrical interfaces); Example—A crushing station divided into main, screening, conveying, metering/electrical control, and steel support structure modules (allowing for independent manufacturing, testing, maintenance, and upgrades); Electrical control—Power supply modules, control modules, and interface modules (akin to “Electrical LEGOs”); Evaluation—GB/T 39589-2020 “Specification for Evaluation of Modular Design of Mechanical Product Components” (covering three categories of indicators: economic benefits, environmental friendliness, and degree of modularity)—The core of module partitioning: basic modules ensure reusability, common modules optimize costs, and specialized modules cater to unique needs; the ratio of these three module types determines the solution’s cost-performance balance.
II.
Interface Specifications
What to look for in interface specifications?
Based on industry practices regarding modular interfaces, the specifications are defined as follows: three categories of interfaces—mechanical (national standard flange/threaded connections, unified fit tolerances and mounting datums, rapid assembly and interchangeability), electrical (standardized modular terminal blocks, unified voltage levels and signal type specifications), and signal (unified communication protocols); interface specifications—these are not merely module lists but the key to modularity (covering mechanical, electrical, data, thermal, sealing, and service aspects), with Interface Control Documents (ICDs) issued for every boundary, version control applied (similar to software), and interfaces “frozen” (locked); plug-and-play—guide bushing interface tolerance zones controlled within IT6, end-face perpendicularity error ≤ 0.02 mm, and support for ISO 2768-mK general machining standards (seamless integration of modules from different suppliers onto the same host platform); compatibility—standardized protocols supporting version control and compatibility (backward compatibility for progressive upgrades), combined with interface database management and module combination testing; tool-free—tool-free replacement in under 10 minutes, utilizing quick-lock interfaces; openness—open architecture APIs for integrating custom modules (a module ecosystem comprising at least eight certified modules)—interface specifications are the lifeblood of modularity: without frozen interfaces, modularity is mere talk;
ICD version control and tool-free quick-change capabilities are the baseline requirements.
III. Combination Strategy
How to select a combination strategy.
Based on industry practices in modular assembly, the strategy is defined as follows: “One Base, Multiple Configurations”—maintaining standardized configurations for universal base modules while flexibly selecting process-extension modules based on specific machine requirements (customized production via a single base with multiple configuration options); “Assembly Workflow”—a process spanning requirements analysis, base module selection, extension module matching, compatibility verification, solution optimization, and final output; “Flexible Scaling”—achieving system evolution by increasing module counts rather than expanding the overall physical scale (flexibly adding modules to build arbitrary structures that meet current needs); “Standardization Plus Customization”—developing standardized base models on a shared modular product platform, then releasing specific product models or fulfilling custom orders based on those base models (mass customization: the more standardized the foundation, the greater the potential for personalization); “Reusability”—leveraging IEC 61499 function block models and standardized physical interfaces (IEC 63278 UMI framework) to enable dynamic control logic reconfiguration and hardware plug-and-play capabilities (reducing average equipment switching time by 62% and increasing module reusability by 78%); “Critical Balance”—Deloitte research indicates that when customized SKUs exceed 25% of the total product line, total supply chain costs surpass those of standardized models by 12% to 20% (customization ratios must be kept within this critical threshold)—the core of the assembly strategy: standardize base modules, configure extension modules on demand, and keep the customization ratio below 25%—three key rules to ensure mass customization remains under control.
IV.
Benefits and Risks
What to consider regarding benefits and risks.
Based on industry modularization practices, the benefits and risks are assessed as follows: Benefits—efficiency of modular assembly for electronic control equipment increases by 50%; maintenance time is cut to one-third; delivery cycles for customized projects shrink from three months to one month (with 98% customer satisfaction); deployment costs for modular industrial computers drop by 30%; AGV hardware upgrades shift from a $45,000 replacement cost every five years to an $8,000 module swap; and downtime is reduced from 2–3 weeks to just 4 hours. Risks—non-standard interfaces (incompatibility between modules from different suppliers; spare parts monopolized by a single vendor); excessive module fragmentation (interface costs exceeding the benefits of reuse); and uncontrolled customization ratios (costs rise by 12%–20% if customization exceeds 25%). Lifecycle—guaranteed module lifecycles (e.g., UDP designs supporting 10+ years of service) and version control (backward compatibility during module iteration). Environment—metrics for assessing the environmental friendliness of modularization (module recycling and reuse). The modularization “math”—reuse rates determine savings, customization ratios determine extra costs, and interface standards determine interchangeability;
calculate these three factors clearly before finalizing the plan.
V. Solution Validation
How to select and validate the solution.
Based on industry selection practices, the approach is as follows: **Requirements List**—outline operating conditions (load types: steady, impact, reverse, misalignment; motion characteristics: continuous, oscillating, indexing, dwell/intermittent, start-stop; environment: washdown, cleanroom, abrasive dust, chemicals, humidity, temperature fluctuations; maintenance access: technician removal without disrupting alignment); **Solution Comparison**—Modular vs. Custom-built (retrofitting involves swapping modules rather than re-customizing the entire machine, enhancing flexibility and lowering costs) vs. Standardized (mass-produced parts offer low costs but poor flexibility); **Evaluation Checklist**—Open architecture (API integration for custom modules), module ecosystem (≥8 certified modules from suppliers), exchange speed (tool-free, <10 minutes), lifecycle (10+ years of service support), interface documentation (ICD version control and backward compatibility rules); **Validation**—Module exchange testing (physical testing of module swapping across versions), compatibility verification (integration testing of modules from different suppliers on the same platform), plug-and-play verification (IT6 tolerance, measured perpendicularity of 0.02 mm); **Budget**—Modular systems have slightly higher initial costs but lower retrofit/upgrade costs (hardware refreshes involve only module swaps); base decisions on 3-to-5-year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)—the modular solution must pass five key gates: operating conditions list, interface documentation, module ecosystem, module exchange testing, and TCO calculation;
the solution is viable only if it clears all five gates.
Conclusion
How should one select a modular customization solution for automation components? The conclusion is to follow a five-step selection process: segmentation, interfaces, combination, benefits, and validation.
Classification—GB/T 39589-2020 module definition (defining independent units with functional standard interfaces); categorization into basic, general-purpose, and specialized modules; Ulrich’s six modularity types; functional deconstruction (grippers, vision, conveyance); and evaluation criteria (economic benefits, environmental friendliness, and degree of modularity). Interfaces—Three standard interface types (mechanical, electrical, signal); ICD (Interface Control Document) version management and freezing; IT6 tolerance zone with 0.02mm face perpendicularity; plug-and-play capability; tool-free replacement in under 10 minutes; and an open-architecture API ecosystem supporting eight certified modules. Combination—Pairing general-purpose base modules with process-specific expansion modules (a “one base, multiple configurations” approach covering requirements analysis, base selection, expansion matching, compatibility verification, and solution optimization); increasing quantity rather than scaling up size; 78% increase in reuse rate; and managing the cost impact where customized SKUs exceeding 25% of the mix drive costs up by 12%–20%. Benefits—50% increase in assembly efficiency; maintenance time reduced to one-third; delivery cycle shortened from 3 months to 1 month; 30% reduction in deployment costs; AGV hardware costs cut from $45,000 to $8,000; downtime reduced from 2–3 weeks to 4 hours; and mitigation of risks associated with non-standard interfaces and loss of control over customization. Verification—Operational condition checklists (load, motion, environment, maintenance); comparisons between modules, complete systems, and standards; module ecosystem assessment checklists;
cross-version module swap testing; and TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) decision-making.
In summary, industry best practices for modular customization boil down to three key rules: interfaces determine viability, reuse determines cost, and customization requires defined boundaries—get these three right, and the modular solution is a guaranteed success.
