Editing Modularity (section)

===Modularity in technology and management===

The term {{em|modularity}} is widely used in studies of technological and organizational systems. Product systems are deemed "modular", for example, when they can be decomposed into a number of components that may be mixed and matched in a variety of configurations.<ref name="Schilling, M.A 2000">Schilling, M.A. 2000. "Towards a general modular systems theory and its application to inter-firm product modularity". ''[[Academy of Management Review]]'', Vol 25:312–334.</ref><ref>Baldwin, C. Y. & Clark, K. B. 2000. ''Design rules, Volume 1: The power of modularity'', Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.</ref> The components are able to connect, interact, or exchange resources (such as energy or data) in some way, by adhering to a standardized interface. Unlike a tightly integrated product whereby each component is designed to work specifically (and often exclusively) with other particular components in a tightly coupled system, modular products are systems of components that are "[[Loose coupling|loosely coupled]]."<ref>Orton, J. & Weick, K. 1990. "Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization". ''[[Academy of Management Review]]'', 15:203–223.</ref>

In ''The Language of New Media'', [[Lev Manovich]] proposes five "principles of new media"—to be understood "not as absolute laws but rather as general tendencies of a culture undergoing computerization."<ref>Manovich, J. 2001. ''The Language of New Media''. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.</ref> The five principles are numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding. Modularity within new media represents new media as being composed of several separate self-sufficient modules that can act independently or together in synchronisation to complete the new media object. In [[Photoshop]], modularity is most evident in layers; a single image can be composed of many layers, each of which can be treated as an entirely independent and separate entity. Websites can be defined as being modular, their structure is formed in a format that allows their contents to be changed, removed or edited whilst still retaining the structure of the website. This is because the website's content operates separately to the website and does not define the structure of the site. The entire [[World Wide Web|Web]], Manovich notes, has a modular structure, composed of independent sites and pages, and each webpage itself is composed of elements and code that can be independently modified.<ref>Bradley Dilger, Review of ''The Language of New Media'' (Kairos: http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/7.1/reviews/dilger/).</ref>

Organizational systems are said to become increasingly modular when they begin to substitute loosely coupled forms for tightly integrated, hierarchical structures.<ref name="Schilling, M.A. 1169">Schilling, M.A. & Steensma, K. 2001. "The use of modular organizational forms: An industry level analysis". ''[[Academy of Management Journal]]'', 44: 1149–1169.</ref> For instance, when the firm utilizes contract manufacturing rather than in-house manufacturing, it is using an organizational component that is more independent than building such capabilities in-house: the firm can switch between contract manufacturers that perform different functions, and the contract manufacturer can similarly work for different firms.<ref name="Schilling, M.A. 1169"/> As firms in a given industry begin to substitute loose coupling with organizational components that lie outside of firm boundaries for activities that were once conducted in-house, the entire production system (which may encompass many firms) becomes increasingly modular. The firms themselves become more specialized components. Using loosely coupled structures enables firms to achieve greater flexibility in both scope and scale.<ref name="Schilling, M.A. 1169"/> This is in line with modularity in the processes of production, which relates to the way that technological artifacts are produced. This consists of the artifact's entire value chain, from the designing of the artifact to the manufacturing and distribution stages. In production, modularity is often due to increased design modularity.<ref name=Kostakis>{{Cite journal|first=Vasilis|last=Kostakis|date=2019|title=How to reap the benefits of the 'digital revolution'? Modularity and the commons|url=http://halduskultuur.eu/journal/index.php/HKAC/article/view/228|journal=Halduskultuur: The Estonian Journal of Administrative Culture and Digital Governance|language=en|volume=20|issue=1|pages=4–19|doi=10.32994/hk.v20i1.228|s2cid=242184840 |issn=1736-6089}}</ref> The firm can switch easily between different providers of these activities (e.g., between different contract manufacturers or alliance partners) compared to building the capabilities for all activities in house, thus responding to different market needs more quickly. However, these flexibility gains come with a price. Therefore, the organization must assess the flexibility gains achievable, and any accompanying loss of performance, with each of these forms.

Modularization within firms leads to the disaggregation of the traditional form of hierarchical governance.<ref name="Miles, R.E. et al. 1997">Miles R.E., Snow, C.C., Mathews, J.A., Miles, G., & Coleman, H.J. "Organizing in the knowledge age&nbsp;— Anticipating the cellular form". ''Academy of Management Executive'' 11(4):7–20.</ref><ref name="Zenger, T.R. & Hesterly, W.S. 1997">Zenger, T.R. & Hesterly, W.S. [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Todd_Zenger/publication/228282744_The_Disaggregation_of_Organizations_Selective_Intervention_High-Powered_Incentives_and_Molecular_Units/links/0046351dda904b2cc4000000/The-Disaggregation-of-Organizations-Selective-Intervention-High-Powered-Incentives-and-Molecular-Units.pdf "The Disaggregation of Corporations&nbsp;— Selective Intervention, High-powered Incentives, and Molecular Units"]. ''Organization Science'' 8:209–222.</ref><ref name="Kuntz, L. & Vera, A. 2007">Kuntz, L. & Vera, A. 2007. [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.951.9266&rep=rep1&type=pdf "Modular organization and hospital performance"]. ''Health Services Management Research'', 20(1): 48–58.</ref> The firm is decomposed into relatively small autonomous organizational units (modules) to reduce complexity. Modularization leads to a structure, in which the modules integrate strongly interdependent tasks, while the interdependencies between the modules are weak. In this connection the dissemination of modular organizational forms has been facilitated by the widespread efforts of the majority of large firms to re-engineer, refocus and restructure. These efforts usually involve a strong process-orientation: the complete service-provision process of the business is split up into partial processes, which can then be handled autonomously by cross-functional teams within organizational units (modules). The co-ordination of the modules is often carried out by using internal market mechanisms, in particular by the implementation of [[profit center]]s. Overall, modularization enables more flexible and quicker reaction to changing general or market conditions. Building on the above principles, many alternative forms of modularization of organizations (for-profit or non-profit) are possible.<ref name=Kostakis/><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Aas|first1=Tor Helge|last2=Pedersen|first2=Per Egil|date=2013|title=The usefulness of componentization for specialized public service providers|journal=Managing Service Quality|volume=23|issue=6|pages=513–532|doi=10.1108/MSQ-10-2012-0138}}</ref> However, modularization is not an independent and self-contained organizational concept, but rather consists of several basic ideas, which are integral parts of other organizational concepts. These central ideas can be found in every firm. Accordingly, it is not sensible to characterize a firm as "modular" or as "not modular", because firms are always modular to a some degree.

Input systems, or "domain specific computational mechanisms" (such as the ability to perceive spoken language) are termed vertical faculties, and according to [[Jerry Fodor]] they are modular in that they possess a number of characteristics Fodor argues constitute modularity. Fodor's list of features characterizing modules includes the following:
# Domain specific (modules only respond to inputs of a specific class, and thus a "species of vertical faculty" (Fodor, 1996 [1983]:37)
# Innately specified (the structure is inherent and is not formed by a [[learning process]])
# Not assembled (modules are not put together from a stock of more elementary subprocesses but rather their virtual architecture maps directly onto their neural implementation)
# Neurologically hardwired (modules are associated with specific, localized, and elaborately structured neural systems rather than fungible neural mechanisms)
# Autonomous (modules independent of other modules)

Fodor does not argue that this is formal definition or an all-inclusive list of features necessary for modularity. He argues only that cognitive systems characterized by some of the features above are likely to be characterized by them all, and that such systems can be considered modular. He also notes that the characteristics are not an all-or-nothing proposition, but rather each of the characteristics may be manifest in some degree, and that modularity itself is also not a dichotomous construct—something may be more or less modular: "One would thus expect—what anyhow seems to be desirable—that the notion of modularity ought to admit of degrees" (Fodor, 1996 [1983]:37).

Notably, Fodor's "not assembled" feature contrasts sharply with the use of modularity in other fields in which modular systems are seen to be hierarchically nested (that is, modules are themselves composed of modules, which in turn are composed of modules, etc.) However, [[Max Coltheart]] notes that Fodor's commitment to the non-assembled feature appears weak,<ref name="Coltheart, M 1999">Coltheart, M. 1999. [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a6e7/4ca78a534ee2065aff78baee5b3aeed9c1e4.pdf "Modularity and cognition"]. ''[[Trends in Cognitive Sciences]]'', 3(3):115–120.</ref> and other scholars (e.g., Block<ref name="Block, N 1995">Block, N. 1995. [https://philarchive.org/archive/BLOTMA "The mind as the software of the brain"], in Smith, E. and Osherson, D. (Eds) Thinking: An invitation to cognitive science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.</ref>) have proposed that Fodor's modules could be decomposed into finer modules. For instance, while Fodor distinguishes between separate modules for spoken and written language, Block might further decompose the spoken language module into modules for [[phonetic]] analysis and lexical forms:<ref name="Coltheart, M 1999"/> "Decomposition stops when all the components are primitive processors—because the operation of a primitive processor cannot be further decomposed into suboperations"<ref name="Block, N 1995"/>

Though Fodor's work on modularity is one of the most extensive, there is other work in psychology on modularity worth noting for its symmetry with modularity in other disciplines. For instance, while Fodor focused on cognitive input systems as modules, Coltheart proposes that there may be many different kinds of cognitive modules, and distinguishes between, for example, knowledge modules and processing modules. The former is a body of knowledge that is independent of other bodies of knowledge, while the latter is a mental information-processing system independent from other such systems.

However, the data neuroscientists have accumulated have not pointed to an organization system as neat and precise as the modularity theory originally proposed originally by Jerry Fodor. It has been shown to be much messier and different from person to person, even though general patterns exist; through a mixture of neuroimaging and lesion studies, it has been shown that there are certain regions that perform certain functions and other regions that do not perform those functions.<ref>Spunt, R. P. & Adolphs, R., (2017). [http://www.bobspunt.com/papers/pdf/Spunt_Adolphs_InPress_NatRevNeurosci.pdf "A new look at domain specificity: insights from social neuroscience"]. ''Nature Reviews: Neuroscience''. {{doi|10.1038/nrn.2017.76}}</ref>