Analyzing the Causes and Effects of Complexity on
Different Levels of Automobile Manufacturing
Systems
Seyedarya MirRashed, Mohammad Rostami Mehr
Volkswagen AG, Germany
seyedarya.mirrashed@volkswagen.de
Mohammad.rostami.mehr@volkswagen.de
Abstract The automobile industry is coping with the
challenges of shorter product life cycles, high vehicle variety,
shorter lead times and a fast changing market environment.
These trends increase the complexity in new product
development processes and in engineering processes of the
manufacturing systems required for new vehicles in particular.
This paper intends to analyze complexity based on two case
studies at different hierarchy levels (subsystems) explaining the
potentially remaining complexity not solved by common
approaches as well as its effects in order to provide a base for
further researches.
Keywords complexity management; complexity pattern;
system analysis; modular manufacturing system; new product
development; body in white planning
I. INTRODUCTION
Recently the automobile industry is realizing challenges
such as global competition, strict regulation, industrial
decentralization, rapid changes to technology and more
individualized customer demands resulting e.g. in numbers of
product variants. Hence a paradigm in manufacturing from
mass production to mass customization took place [1]. The
intensification of the environment increases the external
complexity and accordingly forces the adjustment of the
internal complexity in order to assure optimal performance.
The concept of complexity can be described as a situation
where an action or decision is perceived as complicated,
nontransparent, confusing and interwoven [2]. In the context
of the system terminology, a system describes a group of
related units (subsystems or elements) and their interaction in
a way enabling the entirety to fulfill a defined objective [3].
Essentially a system is considered as complex when a high
variety (number of units), connectivity (relation) and dynamic
(non-linear) as complexity characteristics are given [4].
Several fields of research are investigating possibilities
dealing with complexity by simulating a measurable paradigm
(e.g. evolutionary biology, network theory, chaos theory,
cybernetics, system theory and social science) [5]. In this
context some main frameworks such as Ashby`s law of
requisite variety [6], Kauffmans stochastic NK-model [7],
Kolmogorovs information complexity, also known as
Kolmogorov-complexity [8], and Luhmanns idea of an ideal
Volkswagen AG; PhD program
978-1-5090-1314-2/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE
Magdalena Miler-Behr, Arndt Lder
TU Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany
University of Magdeburg, Germany
internal complexity as the indeterminate relation degree of the
elements over time [5] have to be mentioned. Focalizing on
automobile manufacturing systems, with respect to new
product development (NPD) processes in a narrow sense,
various complexity drivers are established in the literature.
These can be divided into external complexities (e.g.
competition, purchase, market or consumers complexity) and
internal complexities (e.g. process, structural, technical or
product complexity) [4], [9].
Various strategies are proposed as individual concepts to
reduce or manage the complexity characteristics. Among
these, the most common methods for dealing with internal
complexity are lean management, business reengineering or
technical attempts such as variant management and
modularization [4], [9]. However, these approaches are based
on a holistic reflection of the company as a system complexity
and its co-evolution with the environment. They seem less
suited for a detailed breakdown. As shown in Fig. 1, the
approaches to deal with complexity only relate to distinct
types of complexity driver. More importantly the drivers
usually refer to a specific phase of the value-added chain
(process-oriented) and describe the complexity at a high level.
For instance variant diversity is considered as product
complexity. To be able to deal with this driver, variant
management is a proven approach [9]. But it merely applies in
the early stages of the NPD and attempts to reduce diversity.
This kind of complexity can be defined as known
complexity. If complexity cannot be completely or even
partly matched with a known driver, the corresponding
approach might not take effect as initially supposed. A
remaining complexity results that has to be explained.
complexity-driver
A B C ?
remaining complexity
X
known complexity
Companies
complexity
1 2 3 n
?
problem-solving approaches
Fig. 1. Complexity drivers and problem-solving approaches
 This paper defines remaining complexity as complexity
that might be known or partly dealt with. Furthermore it might
be dependent on the viewing level of the system (system-
oriented). While the causes and effects of complexity in one
part of the system may be known, it might behave differently
in other parts of the system. As the influence of complexity
from a holistic aspect has been a part of many studies, little
research has been done on separate levels of the system and
their specific complexity patterns [10]. The paper in hand aims
to contribute to this field. To be able to figure out remaining
complexity, two separate case studies in the context of an
actual NPD process are set up. In the first step, both studies
illustrate the complexity pattern of the viewed subsystem by
analyzing the three main characteristics (variety, connectivity
and dynamic). Secondly, they aim to detect any potential
causes and effects. In order to accomplish a detailed and
measureable setting, the case studies refer primarily to a
limited reflection (level) of the system (subsystem).
The impact of other levels (environment) is partially
included, since fully precluding this would distort the
understanding of the subsystems objective and function.
Besides level 1 (main system), each limitation step
corresponds to an element of the prior level, which itself
represents a subsystem with various elements. The process of
limitation can be performed until no other element can be
associated or no further limitation seems logical. The
consistence of each limited level lies within the composition
of its elements and the main objective.
Case study A attempts to show the complexity pattern of
an actual NPD process, by example of modular transversal
toolkit (MQB), to be Volkswagen Groups innovative strategy
to cope with new trends in the automobile sector. The MQB is
a subproject of the modular toolkit strategy, which represents
the development from the platform oriented strategy to
flexible vehicle architecture, independent of model, vehicle
size and brand [11]. As visualized in Fig. 2, the MQB (NPD
project level 3) is a subsystem of the modular toolkit
(portfolio of NPD projects level 2), which is in turn a
subsystem of the main system (Volkswagen group level 1).
Presenting case study B, being part level 4 is intended to
illustrate the complexity in a fractal of MQB. Since body in
white processes (BIW) is located on level 5 of MQB,
analyzing their complexity provides us a bright overview of
the causes and effects of complexity for a detailed level of
MQB. Both case studies are based on investigations and
evaluations (document analysis, expert discussion, monitoring
and process analysis) as well as experience on the job.
II. CASE STUDY A: THE MODULAR TRANSVERSAL TOOLKIT
Fig. 2. System overall view and limitation process
Considering the amount of identified elements, a high
number of involved stakeholders are determined. These
stakeholders are unique units and have different degrees of
influence on the system, meaning a high variety can be
assumed. Generally, a high variety affects the dynamic
character of the system [9]. This is primarily resultant in the
varying role and objective of each element and its interaction
with the environment. In addition, the non-linear behavior of
complex systems means that causes and effects of these
interactions can be time-shifted and therefore not directly
attributable. Other reasons include development projects
proceeding in parallel, with similar complexity and direct
influence on this project, the long project duration and the
general uncertainty in NPD projects.
To be able to reach further conclusions regarding
connectivity, extensive analyses are necessary. Employing a
matrix analysis the quantitative interaction as well as the
qualitative impact of the elements could be evaluated. For a
quantitative evaluation connection is used as a measure. If
any connection between the elements is existent, the
intensity level measures the degree of the connection as
high for a direct relation and intermediate for an indirect
relation, meaning another element is interposed. If no
connection is existent the intensity level is nil. For further
interpretation the results are illustrated in a scatter diagram
(Fig. 3). The 68 elements can be categorized in four quadrants
with distinct features. Elements assigned to quadrant I show
low connection and intensity rates. These can be assumed as
passive, considering their impact on the system. Quadrants II
and IV contain active elements, meaning a high connection in
combination with a low intensity or vice versa. The most
important finding includes 38 remarkable elements (56% of
the total amount) as shown in quadrant III. These have a high
connection rate combined with a high intensity.
Intensity in [%]
100
90 II III
80
70

In terms of complexity characteristics the project 60

50
complexity of the MQB can also be understood as the 40

interaction between variety, connectivity and dynamic [12]. 30

20
After a detailed examination of MQB, five main clusters could 10
I IV
be identified (project attributes, organizational structure, 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
connection
in [%]

processes, technic and business information systems), to passive elements active elements remarkable elements
which 68 elements in total are dedicated. These elements I low connection, II high/low connection, III high connection,
low intensity IV low/high intensity high intensity
constitute operative activities to achieve the projects
objectives. Fig. 3. Elements categorization- Scatter diagram
 This shows that over half of the elements in MQB are
directly linked with each other and have a heavy impact within
the subsystem. In consequence, a high connectivity can be
assumed. Overall the MQB project can be considered as a
complex subsystem. The results concur with [13], which
argues for direct context between project complexity and high
project size, variety and interdependency. Moreover the
findings point out a not immediately evident issue: an
immense information flow and diversity caused by the
interaction of the complexity patterns in MQB. While
structural, process and product complexity drivers are known;
companies, such as Volkswagen Group, have accurately
defined and implemented common solution (e.g. variant
management, modularization). Information flow and diversity
can be assumed to be level-specific, remaining complexity that
is not solved by common solution such as standardization,
modularization or general information management.
III. CASE STUDY B: THE BODY IN WHITE PLANNING PROCESS
BIW is a part of automobile production including
approximately 150 metal sheet parts which are produced in
120 assembly stations. A BIW production line normally
includes almost 2000 fixture locators and approximately 4000
welding points [14]. The number of welding points in BIW
can reach 10000 for a light commercial vehicle. The
planning process of BIW includes the responsibility for
building a body shop in order to produce a designed vehicle
in high production volumes. The BIW process is highly
connected to the other sub processes of NPD. However, due to
the involvement of several sets of connected parts with high
information flow, NPD is considered as a complex process
in much of the literature [14], [15]. Recently simultaneous
engineering has mostly been used to develop new vehicles.
This approach includes the parallelization, distribution and
networking of subsets such as research and development,
planning, product management, etc. Furthermore, the CEE
(Cross Enterprise Engineering) approach has been developed
to reduce the time to production [16]. These approaches cause
high connectivity between BIW processes and other
functions of NPD, so that the outputs coming from
corresponding functions are the inevitable inputs for BIW
planning processes, and these BIW outputs are then the
required inputs for the successor processes. The intensity of
this connectivity has been increased due to the recent trend in
vehicle variance during recent decades. It is apparent that the
number of variants has an enormous impact on the
information flow. However, like in case study A, the different
functions or elements with different stakeholders and interests
connected to BIW processes cause high variety, impacting the
dynamic character of processes.
Also, considering the number of vehicle body variants,
the degree of dynamic is varied. For instance, a common
modern and flexible BIW production line can produce
eight different families of variants, assuming that these
families and their variants are not developed simultaneously
and the number of variants does not exceeded ten. In other
words Vij 80, where i is the family and j is the variant. A
good example is intelligent body assembly system (IBAS)
of Nissan [17]. To design, plan and implement such a BIW
production line the large number of connected activities
inter alia construction of metal sheet components as well as
robot programming is necessary. Since most development
of vehicle families and their variants is gradual, BIW
processes for a production line with big Vij are considered
as a highly dynamic process. For instance, the intensity of
dynamic for light commercial vehicles is enormously high
due to the fact that Vij can reach 500.
Fig. 4. Distribution of products families and variants over time
Mostly automobile manufacturers prefer first to build a
BIW line for a main family and its variants, and afterwards
add new families, Fig.4. This approach provides an
opportunity for the manufacturer to stabilize the production
line for main variants first with regard to quality and then
adjust the production line for the next variants. Then again,
although this strategy, along with other strategies such as
variant management or modularization, is useful for dealing
with high vehicle variance and corresponding complexity
(known complexity) in several subsets of NPD, it causes high
dynamism in BIW planning processes. Regarding declared
connectivity, variety and dynamic character, BIW planning
processes can be assumed as complex processes. This
complexity is so-called remaining complexity, due to the fact it
cannot be treated with available complexity management
concepts.
IV. DISCUSSION
In the context of manufacturing systems various approaches
have proven their value in coping with distinct complexity
drivers. Nevertheless, these drivers usually explain the
complexity only from a holistic point of view. A remaining
complexity in the subsystems is still present. This paper does
not seek to measure the complexity; rather it asserts that
despite the known complexity a remaining complexity exists
and cannot be remedied by common approaches. To identify
possible complexity patterns and effects, a particular reflection
from a system-oriented perspective is necessary. Therefore two
separate case studies evaluate and illustrate the complexity on
differing hierarchy levels of the main system.
The findings demonstrate a high complexity regarding the
characteristics of variety, dynamic and connectivity. First of
all, it should be mentioned that in both presented cases the
complexity patterns and all three characteristics are relatively
similar. This applies to the principle of fractals as one of the
main conclusions of chaos theory. Considering each level of
the system as a fractal during the limitation process, it displays
self-similarity relative to all scales of the systems pattern [18].
Based on this, the similar complexity pattern on differing levels
can be explained, if the requirements of complex systems
(variety, dynamic and connectivity) are fulfilled.
Yet the explored complexity affects each level in different
ways. In case study A an exceedingly high information flow
and diversity results primarily from high connectivity. As a
result of its high variety and dynamic nature, the information
itself can be time-shifted, dispersed, decentralized and made
available in the form of an independent information bundle. If
not controlled or restrained this condition can result in
information overload and a lack of transparency affecting the
overall performance [19]. On one hand, sharing a large amount
of up to date and agreed information is vital. On the other hand,
each unit generates and requires only a fraction of information
based on its role. Altogether this issue can be described as a
lack of information distribution or information logistic caused
by complexity. Information as such cannot be associated
clearly with common complexity drivers. Information
management however, may come into play with complexity
management, but in a broader sense, since it has a definite
business function. While adequate information distribution is
also a vital factor in BIW processes, in the context of the
analysis in case B it is only a part of the main issue. This
finding shows similar complexity patterns causing issues with
differing significance. In case study B the complexity patterns
lead to a high dynamic character in the planning phase with an
enormous impact on the efficiency of production plants in the
long term. Variant diversity is a known complexity driver, with
the common solution of variant management. However,
diversity combined with the complexity patterns, especially
dynamic, can cause issues that cannot be dealt with just by
utilizing variant management in the early stages of the NPD
process. The remaining complexity requires a specific solution.
Furthermore the objective of each level is expected as an
essential influence factor. While the objective of a subsystem is
oriented to accomplish the superior systems goal, it also
determines the consistency of the subsystems structure
(variety of units and there interaction). This fact might also
explain differing issues and intensification caused by similar
complexity in combination with different objectives. The
objective of the MQB is management and coordination from a
strategical perspective. Therefore a high level of
communication between the interacting units is fundamental.
The BIW refers to an operative perspective. The main objective
is building plants with reliable manufacturing processes and
providing a solid level of quality. In summary, by breaking
down the system into functional subsystems, the same
complexity pattern combined with the levels objective causes
different issues. Therefore new possible methods of resolution
are required.
V. CONCLUSION
The urge to make complexity measurable and explainable,
especially for automobile manufacturers, is a major factor for
their overall performance. This paper contributes to theory by
demonstrating that holistic approaches are insufficient to
explain causes and effects of complexity in subsystems. While
the complexity patterns are considered similar, the complexity
in combination with the subsystems peculiarities such as its
objective can result in different issues or the same issues with
different intensifications. This effect might be explained as
remaining complexity since it cannot be completely or only
partly connected with known drivers or common solutions.
Therefore adequate methods of resolution are required. The
understanding of the coherence of the operating systems
particularities and the causes and effects of its complexity is
presented in two separate case studies. From the strategical
perspective of the MQB an adaptive and consistent information
logistic is deemed crucial. From the operative perspective an
adjustable and flexible BIW process is required. These
solutions seem a worthwhile goal for further research.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Schnemann, Christoph Herrmann, Peter Greschke, Sebastian
Thiede, Simulation of matrix-structured manufacturing systems,
Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37 pp. 104112, 2015.
[2] F. Malik, Strategie des Managements komplexer Systeme- Ein Beitrag
zur Management-Kybernetik evolutionrer Systeme, tenth ed., Bern,
2008.
[3] N. Schmidt, A. Lder, Ronald Rosendahl, M. Foehr, J. Vollmar,
Characterizing Integration Approaches- Identifying Integration
Approach Candidates for Use in Industrie 4.0, 13th INDIN, UK, 2015.
[4] R- Kirchhof, Ganzheitliches Komplexittsmanagement Grundlagen
und Methodik des Umgangs mit Komplexitt im Unternehmen, DUV,
Wiesbaden, 2003.
[5] N. Luhmann, Soziale Systeme, Grundri einer allgemeinen Theorie,
six ed., Frankfurt am Main, 1996.
[6] R. Ashby, Introductton to Cybernetic, Ucs, Whdey/New York, 1956.
[7] S. Kauffman, S. Levin, Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on
rugged landscapes", Journal of Theoretical Biology 128 (1), pp. 1145,
1987.
[8] A.N. Shiryayev, The Combinatorial foundations of information theory
and the probability calculus,selected works of A.N.Kolmogorov,The
series mathematic and its application, pp208-208, 1970.
[9] C. Bliss, Management von Komplexitt, Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2000.
[10] J. Jger, A. Kluth, A. Schatz, T. Bauernhansel, Complexity patterns in
the advanced complexity management of value networks, Procedia
CIRP 17, pp. 645-650, 2014.
[11] Volkswagen AG, Revolution from the toolkit, 2012, online available:
http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/content/en/investor_relat
ions/Warum_Volkswagen/MQB.html
[12] A. Davies, I. Machenzie, Project complexity and systems integration:
Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games,
International journal of project management 32, pp. 773-790, 2014.
[13] L.-A- Vidal, F. Marle, J.-C. Bocquet, Measuring project complexity
using the Analytic Hierarchy Process", International Journal of Project
Management 29, pp. 718-727, 2011.
[14] M. Rostami Mehr, Comprehensive Analysis of Body-in-White
Processes to Classify Contributors to Geometrical Deviation,
University of applied science Emden, 2014.
[15] K. Oyama , G. Learmonth , R. Chao, Applying complexity science to
new product development: Modeling considerations, extensions, and
implications, JET-M, 35, pp. 124, 2015.
[16] S. O. Schmann, Produktentwicklung in der Automobilindustrie,
Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, 2012.
[17] N. Wemhner, Flexibilittsoptimierung zur Auslastungssteigerung im
Automobilrohbau, Shaker Verlag, 2006.
[18] W. Yackinous, Understanding complex ecosystem dynamics a
systems and engineering perspective, Elsevier, London, 2015.
[19] F. Heylighen, Complexity and information overload in society,
technological forecasting and social change, submitted, 2005.