CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 1 (2009) 148–152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cirpj

Modularity concepts for the automotive industry: A critical review

J. Pandremenos, J. Paralikas, K. Salonitis, G. Chryssolouris *
Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems & Automation, Department of Mechanical Engineering & Aeronautics, University of Patras, Greece

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Modularization has been used mostly in order for the management of complex systems to be simplified.
Available online 8 November 2008 In the present paper, the major evolutions of modularity concepts are reviewed in the case of the
automotive industry. The current trend indicates that the next generation of vehicles will change from
Keywords: the integrated ‘‘unibody’’ with high production volume and low flexibility, to the modular ones of middle
Modularity to high production volume and flexibility. Typical examples of different modular design approaches are
Automotive industry presented and discussed. The paper includes the vehicle’s body design requirements that have to be met
Design in order for such a modular approach to be effective.
ß 2008 CIRP.

1. Introduction 1.1.3. Modularity in production (MIP)

The modularity concept arose mostly from the need to simplify
the management of complex systems. Its general purpose is to
decompose the complex system into constituent parts that might
break apart ‘‘naturally’’ without destroying the integrity of the
whole [1]. Baldwin and Clark [2] defined modularity as a concept
that is applied to manage complex systems, by breaking them
down into parameters and tasks that are interdependent within
and independent across the modules.
The means of modularization on the factory floor is the ability to
pre-combine a large number of components into modules and
these modules to be assembled off-line and then brought onto the
main assembly line to be incorporated into a small and simple
series of tasks [1].
In Fig. 1 is illustrated the degree of modularity, as defined by the
number of modules (N). It can be observed that the net benefit of
modularity is different depending upon whether the focus is on the
value of MID, MIU or MIP.

1.1. The three arenas of modularity 1.2. Modularity and mass customization

The three general fields where modularity could be imple-
mented include:
1.1.1. Modularity in design (MID)
In the case of a product’s modular architecture, a one-to-one
mapping takes place from the functional elements in the functional
structure to the physical components of the product and specifies
the decoupled interfaces between components.
1.1.2. Modularity in use (MIU)
Modularity in use is a consumer driven decomposition of a
product with a view to satisfying the ease of use and individuality.
The latter is intimately connected to the concept of mass
customization.
Mass customization is the capability of a firm to achieve more
variety, high volume and at the same time low cost and fast
delivery. Modularity is one of the primary means of achieving the
aforementioned mass customization requirements [3]. Several
works and case studies have been carried out in this way,
validating this relation [4–10].
In Section 2 the implementation of modularity in the
automotive industry is discussed, while in the subsequent section,
some typical automotive examples of modular approaches are
given. Furthermore, Section 4 describes the body design require-
ments that have to be met in order for such a modular approach to
be effective. Finally, conclusions are drawn and discussed.
2. Modularity in automotive industry

2.1. Definition

* Corresponding author. Automotive OEMs give the following general definition for
E-mail address: gchrys@hol.gr (G. Chryssolouris). modules: ‘‘A group of components, physically close to each other

1755-5817/$ – see front matter ß 2008 CIRP.

doi:10.1016/j.cirpj.2008.09.012
 J. Pandremenos et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 1 (2009) 148–152
Fig. 1. The effect of number of modules to the net benefit of modularity [1].
that are both assembled and tested outside the facilities and can be
assembled very simply onto the car’’ [11]. Additionally, modules
are differentiated to ‘‘body-in-white modules’’ which comprise
exclusively of structural elements and ‘‘assembly modules’’ that
contain additional elements and are introduced to the vehicle
during assembly [12]. Finally, two types of modularity are
recognized in the automotive industry:
2.1.1. Level-1 or assembly modules
The practice of shifting sub-assembly lines that manufacture
modules next to the final vehicle assembly line to separate supplier
facilities at some distance from the plant. No fundamental change
in the design or content of the module is effected in these cases.
2.1.2. Level-2 or design modules
Modules that are optimized at the final assembly level by
independent suppliers [13].
2.2. Current status
The modularity impact on the automotive industry is con-
stantly augmenting. Although the architecture in the majority of
the existing produced vehicles is still conventional, in some other
sections, the modularity concept is already applied. For instance,
the door, front-end and rear-end modules have already been
Fig. 2. From integrated unibody to modular vehicle [15].
149
outsourced to suppliers who take over their complete develop-
ment, manufacturing and supply. This approach of modularity is
mostly used for creating lean assembly by outsourcing modules
and thus, shifting the vertical range of manufacture and
responsibilities towards selected suppliers. Another type of
modularity is found in vehicles offering a combination of body
styles [14]. The latter stands for the modularity in use in the auto
industry, where consumers buy the product by mixing and
matching elements/modules (e.g., sun roofs, wheel trims, etc.) to
suit their individual needs and tastes.
According to recent studies [15], the next generation of vehicles
will change from integrated unit body or unibody of high
production volume and low flexibility, to modular ones of middle
to high production volume and flexibility. Fig. 2 is representative of
this vision.
2.2.1. Modularization approaches within the world
Modularity is not developed in the same manner in the Western
and Japanese auto industries. Western automakers are mostly
interested in MIP and consequently, in outsourcing. Their biggest
challenge is to deal with the inconsistency or conflict created
between MIP and MID. Contrarily, the Japanese automakers have
shown an inclination towards in-house MIP and have been
relatively quiet about the aggressive outsourcing adopted by
Western counterparts. Additionally, they seek to relate MID with
MIP, with main criteria, the functionality and conformance quality
of modules, assembled on in-house sub-assembly lines.
Since Western and Japanese auto industries have been
following dissimilar ways in implementing modularization, it is
obvious that their product architectures, production process
hierarchies and boundaries between in-house operations and
outsourcing could be diverse, as they emerge [16].
Furthermore, Brazil is a country where many automotive
manufacturers have established plants that work based on the
modularity concept. On this basis, two innovative production
systems have been applied by different automotive OEMs: the
‘‘modular consortium’’ and the ‘‘industrial condominium’’. In the
first case, an approach to manage production with a radical
outsourcing of some traditional automaker activities has been
tried out. The ‘‘modular consortium’’ idea consists of separating the
product into sub-assemblies (modules) which are delegated to and
entirely provided by a specific module supplier. The module
supplier has the responsibility of assembling its module directly on
the automaker’s assembly line [17]. On the other hand, in an
‘‘industrial condominium’’, the assembler completely controls the
suppliers’ location. The assembler negotiates the accrued benefits
150 J. Pandremenos et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 1 (2009) 148–152
Table 1
Product family from Volkswagen’s platform.
Brand Body style
Hatchback Sedan Estate Convertible
Audi A3 TT
VW Golf Bora Golf Golf
Seat Cordoba Toledo
Skoda Octavia Octavia Octavia
with local governments, gets the land and the infrastructure,
designs its production system thinking of the product’s ‘‘modules’’,
defines its own internal operations and the subcontracted
operations, the modules outsourced that should be produced
nearby in the condominium or in the surroundings [18].
2.3. The platform concept
There is no common definition for the platform, however, in all
cases the so called floor pan is included. The platform principle is
based on standardized components, which offer a combination of
high model variety with comparably low levels of complexity.
Furthermore, the production cost is also reduced through the
modularity offered by the shared platforms (Fig. 3).
Through the platform technology and a purposive product
family, with various body styles and brands of different prestige,
volume and price, a car manufacturer group can cover the
complete market segments, based on internal uniformity. For
instance, the Volkswagen group, leader in the platform strategy,
has created the world’s biggest selling platform and achieved a
high degree of parts commonality (65% in the case of the Golf, A3,
Seat and Skoda platform) [19]. Table 1, illustrates the product
family achieved based on this platform.
2.4. Main issues
A major problem encountered today in auto industries that
obstruct the broad implementation of modularity in vehicle
manufacturing, is the lack of integration capability of automotive
suppliers. This means that body, chassis, engine and drivetrain
produced by separate suppliers, each one with their own
specialized systems of knowledge, may not upon assembly, lead
to a workable automobile. Moreover, the modules’ cost of
Fig. 3. The platform concept [19].
Image
Coupe Pick-up Niche Premium/mass Quality/price Sport/comfort
TT Premium Quality Sport
Caddy Beetle Mass Quality Comfort
Mass Price Sport
Mass Price Comfort
maintenance or the cost of replacement is another drawback of
the modular concept. For example, the integrated ‘‘cockpit’’ or the
inner door modules may make sense from a product-design
perspective, with a payoff in weight reduction and performance
improvement. But, they may lead to higher replacement costs for
the automobile end users if one defective part necessitates the
replacement of the entire module [1].
The main disadvantages and risks connected with the
modularity approach are the following:
 A complete redesigning of the vehicle is required so as to exploit
the maximum modularity benefits. This leads to an additional
development time and cost.
 The vehicle modularity break-down could imply structure
redundancies.
 The tolerance management between modules is more difficult.
 Some specific competencies can be lost vs. suppliers [15].
3. Examples of automotive modular approaches
3.1. Fiat Tipo
Fiat with its model Tipo, is considered one of the first
automotive firms, which back in the 1980s, successfully simplified
the car’s design and assembly and maximized the opportunities for
component sharing across the Fiat marques (variants included the
Lancia Dedra/Delta, Alfa 155, Fiat Tempra). Tipo’s design and
assembly can be described as a modular approach. The Tipo model
employed a number of pre-assembled modules, namely that of the
cockpit and of a door. The majority of these modules were
internally designed, manufactured and assembled [11].
3.2. SMART
The SMART car may be characterized as the state of the art of
automotive modularity. SMART is built from pre-assembled
modules. Thus, the client has the ability to choose a particular
variant of the Smart, at the dealership, and the dealer has short
time to prepare the vehicle according to his/her specifications, by
adapting the modules that are in stock [20]. More precisely, SMART
is based on a rigid integral body frame/safety cell (called
‘‘TRIDION’’) to which such flexible body modules as doors, the
front and rear panels and (the optional glass) roof are attached. The
final buyer can customize the product by combining both colours
of the frame (black and silver) with the various colours of the body
panels. This way, the customer is given the impression of a high
level of customization, although product variation in the produc-
tion is kept to a minimum. Furthermore, outsourcing is the main
characteristic in SMART’s production, as suppliers are totally
integrated into its plant (Fig. 4) [20,21].
3.3. Citroen C3 pluriel
The production of this car is also a good representative of
today’s modular cars, offering a combination of body styles. Its
 J. Pandremenos et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 1 (2009) 148–152 151

Fig. 6. Car body modules.

as the separable production units. These clearly defined product

boundaries also present the manufacturers with considerable
opportunities to outsource the design process and reduce the
complexity of the design activity.
Especially, in a car’s body design, three are the main
requirements that have to be considered in order for a functional
modularity to be achieved: (1) number of modules, (2) joining
sequence between modules and (3) tolerance management issues.

4.1. Number of modules

Fig. 4. The SMART plant in Hambach, France [22].

The split lines that determine the modules have to be defined

according to the assembly sequence requirements, which are state
of the art in the automotive industry. These requirements include
tolerance issues, handling of sub-assembly and accessibility for
joining. For instance, the roof rail is usually part of the roof module,
but it has to be assembled in the upper body module. This is
required to achieve stiffness for handling of the body side sub-
assembly. Therefore, the roof module split line has to be between
the roof panel and the roof rail. Similarly thinking for the other split
lines, the state of the art today proposes a split up of the five
modules in the body. These are the (1) front-end, (2) floor, (3) roof,
(4) upperbody and (5) rear-end (Fig. 6).
The main sub-elements of each module are listed in Table 2:

4.2. Joining sequence between modules

The assembly of modules should follow a specific sequence in

Fig. 5. Citroen C3 pluriel’s modularity [23].
modular roof construction, consisting of two removable arches
running the length of the body, a retractable material top, a double
floor at the rear and without a centre pillar, enables the customer
to turn it into different kinds of vehicles: saloon, convertible or
pick-up [23] (Fig. 5).
More examples of automotive modular approaches can be
found in [11,14,24–29].
4. Modular body design requirements
The modular design in general, separates the design task into
separable units, which may or may not follow the same elements
order to be feasible and at the same time fast, qualitative and
inexpensive. For the aforementioned modules’ split up, the
following sequence meets best the above requirements and is
mostly utilized in the automotive industry (Fig. 7):
f½ðFloor ! Rear endÞ ! Front end ! Upperbodyg ! Roof:
4.3. Tolerance management issues
The positioning accuracy of the modules during assembly is a
major issue that must be ensured, both for quality and stiffness
purposes. For instance, the upper body module which forms no
more closed framework requires a special attention during
assembly. For that reason, special fixtures are being developed.
Furthermore, their new joining processes and combinations,

Table 2
Sub-elements of each body module.

Front-end Floor Roof Upperbody Rear-end

Dash panel Rockers Roof panel Body side outer Rear floor
Dash cross member Panel floor Header A-pillar Rear side rail
Front side rail Seat cross member Roof bows B-pillar Back panel
Shotgun Tunnel Adapter parts C-pillar Spare wheel well
Turret housing Heel kick – Body side inner Rear lamp bracket
Cowl A-pillar inner – Roof rail –
Bumper beam – – – –
152 J. Pandremenos et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 1 (2009) 148–152
Fig. 7. Joining sequence between modules.
facilitating large gap joining (i.e., adhesive bonding) are utilized in
order to handle tolerances.
5. Conclusions
The major evolutions of modularity within the automotive
industry have been reviewed in this paper. The outsourcing of both
design and production of a vehicle’s parts is a major trend. A
primary requirement for outsourcing is modularization of both
design (MID) and production (MIP) activities so as to reduce
complexity and define clear boundaries and functions between
modules. Furthermore, modularization may also lead to the
customization of the car (MIU).
As far as the car body’s modularity is concerned, further
improvement should be accomplished in assembly and tolerance
issues so as to enable alternative modules’ split ups.
Finally, although there are a lot of successful examples, the
complete modularity integration has not become standard yet
within the automotive industry. The biggest bottleneck that has to
be surpassed is the lack of integration capability of automotive
suppliers. However, small-scale modularity can be considered as a
common practice by most of the automotive OEMs, with the
platform concept as the most representative example.
Acknowledgment
The work was partially supported by the EU funded project:
FP6-2004-NMP-NI-4-026621, Multi-FUnctional maTerials and
related prodUction technologies integRated into the Automotive
industry of the future – FUTURA’’.
References
[1] Sako, M., Murray, F., 1999, Modules in Design, Production and Use: Implica-
tions for the Global Automotive Industry, MIT IMVP Annual Sponsors Meeting
(5–7 October 1999, Cambridge, Massachusetts), .
[2] Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B., 1997, Managing in An Age of Modularity, Harvard
Business Review, 75/5: 84–93.
[3] Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Ragu-Nathan, B., 2004, Measur-
ing Modularity-Based Manufacturing Practices and Their Impact on Mass
Customization Capability: A Customer-Driven Perspective, Decision Sciences,
35/2: 147–168.
[4] Ulrich, K., 1995, The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm,
Research Policy, 24/3: 419–440.
[5] Hoek, R.I.v., Weken, H.A.M., 1998, The Impact of Modular Production on the
Dynamics of Supply Chains, International Journal of Logistics Management, 9/
2: 35–50.
[6] Duray, R., Ward, P.T., Milligan, G.W., Berry, W.L., 2000, Approaches to Mass
Customization: Configurations and Empirical Validation, Journal of Operations
Management, 18/6: 605–625.
[7] Sanchez, R., 2000, Modular Architectures, Knowledge Assets and Organiza-
tional Learning: New Management Processes for Product Creation, Interna-
tional Journal of Technology Management, 19/6: 610–629.
[8] Salvador, F., Forza, C., Rungtusanatham, M., 2002, Modularity, Product Variety,
Production Volume, and Component Sourcing: Theorizing Beyond Generic
Prescriptions, Journal of Operations Management, 20/5: 549–575.
[9] Berman, B., 2002, Should Your Firm Adopt a Mass Customization Strategy?
Business Horizons, ;(July–August)51–60.
[10] Moser, K., Müller, M., Piller, F.T., 2006, Transforming Mass Customisation From
a Marketing Instrument to a Sustainable Business Model at Adidas, Interna-
tional Journal of Mass Customisation, 1/4: 463–479.
[11] Sako, M., Warburton, M., 1999, Modularization and Outsourcing project – MIT
International Motor Vehicle Programme – Preliminary report of European
research team, MIT IMVP Annual Forum (Boston, 6–7 October 1999), .
[12] Bruggemann, C., 2006, Results report of the joint research project: Fascina-
tion Car Body Engineering – Part 2: Concept development and assessment,
in: Proceedings of the Automotive Circle International conference – Fas-
cination Automobile-Modularization (Bad Nauheim, 28–29 November
2006), .
[13] McAlinden, S.P., Smith, B.C., Swiecki, B.F., 1999, The Future of Modular Auto-
motive Systems: Where are the Economic Efficiencies in the Modular Assem-
bly Concept? Michigan Automotive Partnership Research Memorandum No. 1,
Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation, University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute.
[14] Sihn, W., Bischoff, J., Esterházy, M., 2005, Intelligent Logistics for Innova-
tive Product Technologies as Part of the EU 5-Day Car Initiative, CIRP-
38th International Seminar for Manufacturing Engineering (16–18 May
2005), .
[15] Fuganti, A., 2006, Future Evolution of Automotive Vehicle Structure, in:
Proceedings of the Automotive Circle International conference – Fascination
Automobile-Modularization (Bad Nauheim, 28–29 November 2006), .
[16] Takeishi, A., Fujimoto, T., 2001, Modularisation in the Auto Industry: Inter-
linked Multiple Hierarchies of Product, Production and Supplier Systems,
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 1/4:
379–396.
[17] Pires, S.R.I., 1998, Managerial Implications of the Modular Consortium Model
in a Brazilian Automotive Plant, International Journal of Operations & Produc-
tion Management, 18/3: 221–232.
[18] Salerno, M.S., Dias, A.V.C., 2002, Product Design Modularity, Modular Produc-
tion, Modular Organization: The Evolution of Modular Concepts, Actes du
GERPISA No. 33.
[19] Howard, M., 2000, Production and Process Technology: The Impact of Vehicle
Design on Rapid Build to Order, 3 Day Car Programme, University of Bath,
School of Management.
[20] Frigant, V., Lung, Y., 2002, Geographical Proximity and Supplying Relationship
in Modular Production, Actes du GEPRISA No. 34.
[21] Hoek, V., Remko, I., Weken, H.A.M., 2000, SMART (car) and Smart Logistics: A
Case Study in Designing and Managing an Innovative De-integrated Supply
Chain, Council of Logistics Management Case Study.
[22] Automotive Intelligence, the Web for Professionals & Car Enthusiasts website:
http://www.autointell.com/nao_companies/daimlerchrysler/smart/smart_-
plant.gif.
[23] Citroen’s website: http://www.citroen.com/CWW/en-US/RANGE/PrivateCars/
C3Pluriel/default/.
[24] Hyundai website: http://worldwide.hyundai-motor.com/.
[25] BRT Design Competition website: http://www.calstart.org/programs/brt/
archives/brt_competition_winners_what.pdf.
[26] Rheinmetall Defence website: http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/
index.php?lang=3&fid=3354.
[27] Magna International Inc. website: http://www.magna.com/magna/en/pro-
ducts/innovations/default.aspx.
[28] Magna Steyer website: http://www.magnasteyr.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-
3F57F7E5-BD1132B7/magna_steyr_internet/hs.xsl/147_3845.php.
[29] Hilfrich, E., Patberg, l., 2004, Lightweight Steel Construction in Vehicle Doors,
ThyssenKrupp Techforum (December), pp.10–13.