Table 1 Complexity evaluation framework...

Table 1

Complexity evaluation framework

Score	Description
Data dependency	Components that require detailed operational data are more complex to evaluate, especially when such data is missing or difficult to retrieve
1	No data required; purely visual
2	Minor static metadata
3	Partial logs needed
4	Detailed logs needed but retrievable with effort
5	High-resolution embedded data essential and often missing
Assessment effort	Assessment effort reflects the time, tools and expertise required to evaluate the component. Components requiring specialized equipment or functional are more resource-intensive than those assessable via simple visual inspection
1	Visual check, no disassembly
2	Visual check with disassembly
3	Standard functional tests
4	Specialist equipment or lab-based testing required
5	Complete teardown or destructive testing
Reuse risk	The potential consequences of reusing a degraded or non-conforming component increase complexity. High-risk require more stringent validation processes
1	Failure has negligible effect (cosmetic or redundant part)
2	Minor performance loss, non-critical system
3	Moderate function loss or reliability concern
4	Major system impairment if reused incorrectly
5	Safety, legal, or warranty-critical; failure unacceptable
Integration barriers	Components that must match exact software versions, interface dimensions or regulatory requirements introduce complexity due to the precision needed for reintegration
1	Fully compatible with current system; plug-and-play
2	Minor adjustments required
3	Known interface issues, manageable through workarounds
4	Partial incompatibility
5	Cannot be reintegrated without redesign or requalification
Knowledge codification	This dimension shifts from what needs to be known to how accessible and formalized that knowledge is. If evaluation depends on tacit, undocumented expert judgment, complexity increases. In contrast, when reuse criteria are codified in standard operating procedures (SOPs) or design rules, complexity is reduced
1	Fully documented SOPs or reuse rules exist
2	Mostly documented, minimal clarification needed
3	Partially documented, consultation with experts needed
4	Heavily reliant on tacit knowledge
5	Entirely dependent on undocumented expert judgment

Score	Description
Data dependency	Components that require detailed operational data are more complex to evaluate, especially when such data is missing or difficult to retrieve
1	No data required; purely visual
2	Minor static metadata
3	Partial logs needed
4	Detailed logs needed but retrievable with effort
5	High-resolution embedded data essential and often missing
Assessment effort	Assessment effort reflects the time, tools and expertise required to evaluate the component. Components requiring specialized equipment or functional are more resource-intensive than those assessable via simple visual inspection
1	Visual check, no disassembly
2	Visual check with disassembly
3	Standard functional tests
4	Specialist equipment or lab-based testing required
5	Complete teardown or destructive testing
Reuse risk	The potential consequences of reusing a degraded or non-conforming component increase complexity. High-risk require more stringent validation processes
1	Failure has negligible effect (cosmetic or redundant part)
2	Minor performance loss, non-critical system
3	Moderate function loss or reliability concern
4	Major system impairment if reused incorrectly
5	Safety, legal, or warranty-critical; failure unacceptable
Integration barriers	Components that must match exact software versions, interface dimensions or regulatory requirements introduce complexity due to the precision needed for reintegration
1	Fully compatible with current system; plug-and-play
2	Minor adjustments required
3	Known interface issues, manageable through workarounds
4	Partial incompatibility
5	Cannot be reintegrated without redesign or requalification
Knowledge codification	This dimension shifts from what needs to be known to how accessible and formalized that knowledge is. If evaluation depends on tacit, undocumented expert judgment, complexity increases. In contrast, when reuse criteria are codified in standard operating procedures (SOPs) or design rules, complexity is reduced
1	Fully documented SOPs or reuse rules exist
2	Mostly documented, minimal clarification needed
3	Partially documented, consultation with experts needed
4	Heavily reliant on tacit knowledge
5	Entirely dependent on undocumented expert judgment

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable