Modularity. The new MEMS adheres to the CMS definition of a modular, flexible approach to systems development, including the use of open interfaces and exposed APIs; the separation of business rules from core programming; and the availability of business rules in both human and machine-readable formats. The commitment to formal system development methodology and open, reusable system architecture is extremely important in order to ensure that CHFS can more easily change and maintain systems, as well as integrate and interoperate with a clinical and administrative ecosystem designed to deliver customer-centric services and benefits. The definition of Modularity is breaking down systems requirements into the lowest component parts and still be functional. It is expected that the new system should be developed as part of an SOA. Modularity also helps address the challenges of customization. Baseline web services and capabilities can be developed for and used by anyone, with exceptions for specific business processes handled by a separate module that interoperates with the baseline modules. With modularity, changes can be made independently to the baseline capabilities without affecting how the extension works. By doing so, the design ensures that future iterations of software can be deployed without breaking custom functionality.
Modularity. The MServe framework is based on several well established components: • Web framework Django • Web server Apache2 or Lightty • Database MySQL, • Job scheduler Celery • Message broker RabbitMQ Several of those components can be easily replaced by other ones with a similar functionality.
Modularity. LTFSArchiver is a module itself thought to be integrated easily in a wider system like for example a Media Asset Management System. API are driven by http protocol, are easy and well documented thus allowing effective integration in a distributed environment.
Modularity. Especially for megaprostheses, the ability to mix and match components is crucial for intraoperative flexibility.
Modularity. Mass customization requires modular architectures to achieve economies of scale and scope (Xxxxxxx et al., 2006). Defining modular components that are configurable into different varieties of a service and its service agreement allows individuality, cost reduction and reduced delivery times (XxXxxxxxxx et al., 1994). In literature, different types of modularity have been distinguished to provide customized end products (Pine, 1993; Xxxxxx & Xxxx, 1991; Xxxxx et al., 2000): swapping (switch options), bus (add to existing base), mix (combine while using unique identity), sectional (arrange to a unique pattern), cut-to-fit (alter dimensions before combining) and sharing (design around common base unit) modularity. Due to the intangibility of services, the characteristics of bus and mix modularity as well as those of cut-to-fit and sharing modularity may be combined. Based on that, we adopt these types to the modularity range of intangible service agreements and differentiate between swapping, option, sectional and sharing modularity as shown in Figure 1a. The commitment swapping modularity represents the possibility to switch between variants of a commitment. One of the variants has to be chosen. A typical example is the choice between defined service levels like “silver” versus “gold”. An option modularity allows adding additional commitments to an existing agreement base. Additional commitment modules are selectable from a list of options. The selection of an additional commitment like for example a 24/7 support will influence the service as a whole. Some of those optional commitments can be added several times with different parameters. The sectional modularity focuses on arranging commitment modules to a new service agreement. Consider the arrangement to commit daily reports and continuous monitoring. Commitment- arrangements may either be restricted by predefined combining rules or be allowed unrestrictedly. The latter allows more efficient designing of new service agreements but lacks certainty that such a new agreement would be able to be provisioned based on standardized processes. The commitment sharing modularity is used to design a new service agreement with preferably many identical commitments. They are uniquely designed around a base unit of common commitments. For example the same definition of a service transfer point may be reused in different service agreements. Following Xxxxx et al. (2000) the above described types of modularity can be cla...
Modularity. The NOMAD platform prototype has been built, based on the SOA-oriented modular architecture, thus components follow a loosely-coupled approach to connect to each other. Specific results on the modularity tests will be provided in the final prototype, due M30.
Modularity. The concept of modularity has gained increasing attention in the management and IS literature (Benbya and XxXxxxxx 2006; Xxxxxxxxx 2000). Modularity has been identified as both a degree of system robustness to internal reconfigurations (Xxxxx and Kumaraswamy 1995) and the degree to which the components of a system can be separated and recombined (Xxxxxxxxx 2000). Xxxxxxxxx’x definition of modularity as a continuum describes the degree to which a system's components can be separated and recombined, and it refers to the degree to which the "rules" of the system architecture enable (or prohibit) the mixing and matching of components” (Xxxxxxxxx 2000). Hence, modularity is a function of the degree of separability of components and the degree of recombination of the system. Simon (1962) introduced the concept of modular design. He argued that systems consist of “nearly disposable subunits” that are mostly independent form top- down control and interdependencies from other subunits. In other words, components are autonomous and agnostic to their functional context, the system and the external environment in which they operate. Both the conditions of autonomy and agosticity of the components serve as necessary conditions for the system to evolve faster and toward stable, self-generating configurations. Modularity also creates flexibility. Flexibility encompasses various meanings that include both temporal and intentional dimensions (Xxxxx 1991). Service orientation encompasses several instances of flexibility. First, it creates versatile systems that ex-ante can create offensive capabilities. This capability is based on the ability to modify the systems by exchanging components. Resilience is the second meaning of flexibility that is relevant to service orientation. Because the components are designed to only minimally rely on other components, the system can operate despite the temporal loss of individual components. Service oriented systems are designed for modularity. Thus, service oriented systems provide the benefit of modularity to firms’ IT architectures and overall reconfigurability.
