# Attacking the Critical Parts in Product Development

Bjørnar Henriksen, Carl Christian Røstad

► To cite this version:

Bjørnar Henriksen, Carl Christian Røstad. Attacking the Critical Parts in Product Development. 20th Advances in Production Management Systems (APMS), Sep 2013, State College, PA, United States. pp.94-102, 10.1007/978-3-642-41266-0_12 . hal-01452103

HAL Id: hal-01452103

https://inria.hal.science/hal-01452103

Submitted on 1 Feb 2017

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Attacking the Critical Parts in Product Development
## Marin Platform - Building Flexible Structural Elements for Boats

Bjørnar Henriksen¹ and Carl Christian Røstad¹

¹ SINTEF Technology and Society, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
{bjornar.henriksen, carl.c.rostad}@sintef.no

**Abstract.** The product cycle is changing, where time legs are shorter, high volume- and cash cow-phases fading. Rapid product introduction and customization are keywords, and often associated with modularization. The objective is to create a flexible product design, not requiring changes in the overall product design every time a new variant is introduced. This has been a feasible strategy for manufacturers of small boats in high-cost countries where an incremental development process is well suited for modularization. However, also more radical innovations are needed, not only change modules and product configurations but also have to develop new product platforms. We then have to deal with the critical, resource demanding processes. This conceptual paper describes how boat builders take modularization to a higher lever by attacking the critical parts in product development, i.e. the structural elements of boats.

**Keywords:** Innovation, modularization, product development, leisureboat

## 1 Introduction

At an IMS (Intelligent Manufacturing System) meeting in Zurich in 2007, leading academics and industrialists identified four major drivers for change [1]; globalization of manufacturing; extended enterprises; digital business; and innovation. The financial crisis that hit global markets from 2008 reinforced this picture. We have seen how tough market conditions are met by enterprises that try to gain new market shares by surpassing the customer's expectations, innovate and constantly establishing new market standards. The product cycle is changing, time legs are shorter, high volume- and cash cow-phases fading. Consequently the initial innovative- and product development phases of the product life cycle are getting more and more important. Companies need to find ways to reduce costs and/or gain good money in these initial stages.

The above changes are reflected in recent manufacturing paradigms such as "mass customization" introduced by Stan Davis [2]. He describes mass customization as when a large number of customers could be reached as in industrial "mass production", but at the same time be treated as in customized markets like craft production. However, product differentiation has normally resulted in higher prices than standardized products [3]. This is also the situation in the leisure boat industry (and related industries) where it has been difficult to get a higher price from more innovative and
customized products then the competitors. As a consequence strategies based on cus-
tomization, frequent product introduction and innovations must be based on resource
effective product development and production.

Modularity is a key to achieve low cost mass customization as products built
around modular architectures can be more easily varied without adding too much
complexity to the manufacturing system [4]. A modular design strategy reduces prod-
uct costs by partitioning some functions in a product architecture into component
designs that will be used in common across product models or reused in future archi-
tectures. Standardized modules allow for mass-customized products to achieve the
low cost and consistent quality associated with repetitive manufacturing [5].

It is very resource demanding to develop a completely new boat model. Instead of searching for "an optimal design for an optimal product," the objective should be to create a flexible product design, allowing product variations without requiring changes in the overall product design every time a new variant is introduced. However, even though module-based design is an efficient way of reducing product development costs, the steps for the initial overall product architecture and platforms, might be found very resource-demanding. For boat builders these costs are often related to the hull-development, inner liner and structural elements. Focusing on these critical parts in the product development process could reduce time and resources thus enabling competitive prices for customized and innovative products.

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to illustrate how modularization could be
the key for more effective (time and resources) product development and production
of boats, when focusing on the critical parts of the boats – the structural elements.

The paper is based on a R&D project involving manufacturers of leisure boats and
boats for the professional markets. The project is at an early stage and so far the activ-
ities have mainly been to develop hypothesis, challenges, and how to approach them
in concrete contexts. The project is closely related to what is happening in the compa-
nies (case studies) and the researchers aim to participate in the product development
processes in order to improve them through action research. Literature studies have
also been important for the project (and this paper) at this early stage.

Section 2 presents theoretical perspectives on innovation and modularization. Sec-
tion 3 presents the R&D-project while Section 4 focuses on a discussions around major
challenges in the project and how they are approached. Section 5 concludes.

2 Theoretical Perspectives

## 2.1 Innovation and Innovation Management Concepts

Innovation has been defined as the process of making changes in something estab-
lished by introducing something new [6]. In an ever-changing economic landscape,
innovation has become a key competitive factor in manufacturing. Continuous im-
provement and incremental change is not enough - companies also need to be part of
major changes. Innovation is no less important in manufacturing than any other sec-
tion of industry. Innovation in manufacturing can be either radical or incremental, but
where most organizations are involved in both types of innovations [7].
Arthur D. Little, describe five innovation management concepts on how innova-
tions could be dealt with depending on strategic contexts [8]. *Customer-based Innovation* is about profoundly involving and engaging customers to create innovative solu-
tions. In contrast to traditional innovation, *Frugal Innovation* have their basis from
lower-income, emerging markets, which are then transferred and adapted into the
more developed markets. *Proactive Business Model Innovation* focuses on developing
mechanisms enabling the generation of new, innovative business models. In *High
Speed/LowRisk Innovation* further development of approaches and tools to drive fast,
de-risked product and service innovation are focused. *Integrated Innovation* is about
taking innovation approaches from New Product Development (NPD) such as idea
management, stage gates and portfolio optimization, and applying them consistently
as an integral part of business strategy. [9]

## 2.2 Modularization Enabler for Efficient Product Development

Modularity allows part of the product to be made in volume as standard modules while product distinctiveness is achieved through combinations or modifications of modules [11]. Modularization could bridge the advantages of: (1) standardization and rationalization, (2) customization and flexibility, and (3) reducing complexity [10].

The cost effects through reduced product development lead time and volume ef-
fects from standardization are important, but there are also revenue aspects of modu-
larization: With a modular product platform structure, a set of building blocks (mod-
ules) is created with which, through different combinations, a great number of final
products can be built. Parts of the product that strategically should vary to satisfy
customer needs are well defined and separated from the parts of the product that
should be kept as common units. In this way, many variants of final products can be
handled without increasing a company's internal complexity.

Parallel development activities are possible once the interfaces between the mod-
ules have been defined, and subsequent work conforms to the established interface
specifications [14]. This reduces overall development time and resource requirements
by eliminating the time-consuming redesigns when component interfaces are not fully
defined and standardized during component development processes [13].

## 2.3 Functional Approach to Modularization

By breaking a complex product structure into smaller, manageable units, a company
can regain control of the product and the product-related activities. Modularity aims at
increasing efficiency by reducing complexity. We often find module-based design
within incremental product development, where e.g. not all innovations or "novelties"
are introduced at the same time. However, to exploit the benefits of modular product
development, it is crucial to have modularization in mind from the start of the design
process, and not only as an afterthought when all components are developed. If modu-
larity is identified and exploited in the initial conceptual or reverse engineering effort,
the immediate product design reaps benefits in several strategically important areas.
Modularity has often been about splitting up products systematically in logi-
cal/practical units and parts. Today modularization based on functionality is a com-
mon approach and methods have been introduced to cut out a module from function
structures using module heuristics [14]. These methods such as Modular Function
Deployment (MFD™), identify modules from a functional model of a product, create
rough geometric layouts and group products into families based on function [12].
Rather than a fixed product platform upon which derivative products are created
through substitution of add-on modules, this approach permits the platform itself to be
one of several possible options. After comparing function structures for common and
unique functions, rules are applied to determine possible modules. This "inverse"
process defines possible architectures. This approach increase the flexibility as it also
represents a modularization of the basic platform [16].

A systematic approach needs knowledge from people that knows customer de-
mands, service requirements, and from those producing the products. Concurrent
engineering could be a key to mobilize and capture this knowledge [15]. An important
part of the knowledge of the company is embedded in the products and reusing mod-
ules knowledge saves time and money. Also reuse of engineering specifications, test-
ing, process engineering etc, may lead to the desired effects by blurring the boundary
between knowledge management and traditional modularization [17].

3 Marin Platform – the R&D Project

Marin Platform is a 4-year R&D project started in 2012. The overall objective of is to radically improve the product development process focusing on the critical and re-source demanding phases related to the structural elements of the boat. The project aims to define the premises and solutions for a flexible structural platform. Focus is on design for manufacturing (DfM) and how to involve the operators (craftsmen) in improvement and development.

The project has four Norwegian industrial partners: two SMEs manufacturing leisure boats, one large partner in the professional market and one SME supplying boat-builders. The SME boat-builders operate in different markets, where one is making GRP boats in the high-end markets for speedboats 24-33 feet. The other makes GRP and aluminum utility-boats in the same size-range. They both want to use the project as an enabler for product configuring for new markets, especially the professional market for smaller boats. The large partner is a world leading company producing advanced lifeboats, davits and a range of different products for, rescue, marine service and military markets. One of the main objectives for this company is to come up with better DfM. The SME supplier is a key actor in the boatbuilding industry as it is the biggest and most important supplier of their products in the Scandinavian boatbuilding industry. The company is within the mechanical engineering industry, but still has many of the same characteristics of craft manufacturing as the other partners.

SINTEF is project coordinator and two other research partners are also contrib-
uting to the action research, The University of Agder and Inventas. The project is co-
financed by The Norwegian Research Council.
# 4 The Key Areas of Research

## 4.1 Customization and Product Development

Craft manufacturing industries such as the Norwegian leisure boat industry has been characterized by small-scale production and high levels of customization. With limited resources for R&D and investments the development processes have been incremental where changes have been carefully introduced in new or modified products. Today, the need for "news" and more radical product innovations rocks this picture.

An advantage of craft manufacturing is the involvement of the persons actually making the product, but also by the customers and has resulted in high quality and a high degree of customization. However, the extensive use of tacit knowledge when it comes to sharing design requirements and good practice, and standardization.

Marin Platform has used MFD methodologies to define customer requirements as a starting point for the innovation- and product development- process. These requirements are then prioritized and extracted into a design brief describing the new concepts, setting the direction for the product development. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model describing how customization trigger the process for developing module based design, flexible structural platforms and module based production.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. The conceptual model of Marin Platform</figcaption></figure>

At the early stages of the product development process it is important to check out the business effects of the customer requirements and new concepts. Marin Platform has conducted BEEM (BEEM: Business Effect Evaluation Methodology)-analyses in all companies to get an early picture of expected effects on; customer value; (internal) cost/efficiency; growth (new revenue streams); sustainability [18]. BEEM is based on workshops involving people from technical departments, production, market/business, and to some extent also external people (customers, suppliers and consultants). Table 1 illustrates effects on cost described by one of the companies.
<table><caption>Table 1. BEEM Marin Platform, excerpt cost effects</caption><thead><tr><th>Business outcome - Structural platform</th><th>Weight 1=low, 6= high</th><th>Stay even Score=1</th><th>Significant advance Score=3</th><th>True tech. break-through Score=9</th><th>Company target</th><th>Primary risk(s)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cost reduction associated with materials and optimisation of laminate (hull, deck etc osv)</td><td>6</td><td>20% average reduction all models</td><td>40% average reduction all models</td><td>60% average reduction all models</td><td>40% average reduction all models</td><td>* To finance a complete redesign</td></tr><tr><td>Reduced number of components new models, right use of materials (aluminum, stainless etc)</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>10%</td><td>40%</td><td>20%</td><td>* loose "design"-signature<br/>* Being to much product-oriented</td></tr><tr><td>Increase reuse of components new design</td><td>4</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td><td>75%</td><td>30%</td><td>* Being to much product-oriented<br/>* Finance the initial change</td></tr><tr><td>More efficient variant handling/tailoring</td><td>6</td><td>0% cost reduction customer handling</td><td>20% cost reduction customer handling</td><td>45% cost reduction customer handling</td><td>35% cost reduction customer handling</td><td>* Communication to customer<br/>* Coordination sales-production etc</td></tr><tr><td>Reduced development "soft" cost hull (software/drawing/spec/calculating)</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>20%</td><td>50%</td><td>30%</td><td>* Unable to develop calculation-modules<br/>* Education of personnel</td></tr><tr><td>Reduced development "hard" cost hull (physical)</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>20%</td><td>50%</td><td>30%</td><td>* Not able to develop dynamic mould<br/>* Theoretical basis for new mould</td></tr><tr><td>Number of platform-variants from each mould</td><td>6</td><td>1 platform-variant</td><td>2 platform-variants</td><td>10 platform-variants</td><td>3 platform-variants</td><td>* Not able to develop dynamic mould</td></tr><tr><td>Reduction in resources used for CE-certification new models</td><td>4</td><td>same as today</td><td>30% reduction in resources used</td><td>70% reduction in resources used</td><td>50% reduction in resources used</td><td>* More and more complex standards<br/>* Lack of competence at authorities</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.2 Flexible Structural Platform as the Basis

The product development of leisureboats has been characterized by a lack of well-defined phases, roles, resource control, documentations etc. The product development is so resource demanding that even the prototype has to be sold to a customer. The (first) customer is often highly involved in the development process making design freeze to an irrelevant term and could overshadow the general customer requirements.

One of the consequences of this diffuse process is that the required structural elements have been added to the design at a very late stage - sometimes as "trial and error". Even though the result of this process has been boats of high quality, the products could be even better with another approach to the structural solutions. For certain a more resource efficient way to develop them is needed.

One of the ways Marin Platform aim to improve the product development process is to introduce more systematic approaches such as MFD. MFD has the following basic steps: (1) design requirements, (2) identification of functions that fulfill the demands and their corresponding technical solutions, (3) technical solutions are analyzed regarding their reasons for being modules, (4) module concepts are then generated and the interface relations of the modules derived are evaluated. In the final step, (5) a specification is established for each module.

For boats and other complex marine products there are to a standards and requirements issued by regulatory bodies (EU-standards), classification agencies or key customers that could limit modularity options within critical areas such as interfaces/connections of modules. However, these requirements when captured in the initial step (1) of the MFD process could also indicate options in functionality and modules.

Table 2 illustrates design requirements for a boat that is to be designed and developed both for the leisure- and professional market (rescue boat).
<table><caption>Table 2. Excerpt design requirements</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Customer/market requirements</th><th rowspan="2">Weight<br>1=low, 10=high</th><th colspan="10">Basic functionality</th></tr><tr><th>7</th><th>7</th><th>5</th><th>9</th><th>9</th><th>9</th><th>8</th><th>7</th><th>5</th><th>5</th><th>7</th><th>7</th><th>9</th><th>8</th><th>8</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MOB 6-10 meters: waterjet for the rane</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Freefall 16-21 meters</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>MOB: 22-36 persons</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Freefall: 16-40 persons</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Configurable for: cruise, cargo and tankers,<br>as well as police/amb./military/etc. and</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Quality (doc) according to North see/Solas</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Transparent production process</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Alternative material: alum. GRP</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Good interfaces with davit-undrainable</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Flexible solutions for production (capacity)</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Certified before customer takeover</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Technolog vs robustness</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Solutions for surveillance/self-testine</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Easy to operate</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Effective testorogram</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Be used in different climat zones</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Produced in Europe</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>"Safety" feeling for people/passengers</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Structural elements are critical in the development of boats and Marin Platform focus on how structures could be developed more efficiently and be the premises for the rest of the product development. The idea is that once the basic requirements of the boats are defined (Table 2) and described in the design brief, the structural performance should quickly be developed through structural modules. Structural modules could be; (part of) inner liners; stringers; windows/doorframes etc. Research activities in Marin Platform will conduct stress-strength analysis of these elements to understand how they could represent modules in flexible structural platforms. It requires extensive data collection, testing and simulations to develop algorithms/models for different configurations and structural platforms.

## 4.3 Module Based Design and Production

The structural platform defined through structural modules represents the "room to maneuver" for the rest of the module based design process. The basic design requirements are taken into account in the structural platform, and the rest of the modularization process will focus on optimization of modules and functionality for example through the MFD-steps.

The modularization represents to some extent constraints for the customization but could also give a clearer picture of the opportunities and choices for customers. The positive effects on product development time and -cost are expected to more than offset the negative effects. However, to realize and exploit business effects described in the BEEM exercise, Marin Platform also involves production and other functional units in the conceptual model for product development (Figure 1). This implies standardization of processes but also continuous improvement. Concurrent engineering is a key for a broad and structured involvement [15]:
* increased role of manufacturing process design in product design decisions

* formation of cross-functional teams to accomplish the development process

* focus on the customer during the development process

* use of lead time as a source of competitive advantage

A significant part of concurrent engineering is that the individual employee is given much more say in the overall design process due to its collaborative nature. Modularization is also important for the people in the production since it to a large extent is about DfM and standardization of production. Knowledge about these aspects will often be found at the shop floor.

# 5 Conclusion

Innovations and high speed product development is more and more important in manufacturing industries. Customization and flexibility have for many companies been the strategic response to challenging competitive situations. Modularization has been launched as an enabler for customization and resource effective product development and production. These ideas and strategies have also been adapted by boat builders that have traditionally been characterized by craftsmanship.

Marin Platform is a 4-year research project where boat builders and suppliers together with research institutes focus on the critical parts in product development – the structural elements. The project aims to develop modules that could "easily" be put together into different structural platform for boats. This is difficult as it requires research in fields such as material technology, hydrodynamics, and dynamic stress-strength analysis.

There is a risk for not finding the "right" answers, but also for not being able to develop prototypes and physical manifestations of the research. The research project started in 2012 and so far the activities have mainly been preliminary analysis. However, this initial phase has already shown that we are on the right track where modularization is important for customization and mass customization strategies. We are also more confident that to optimize the effects of modularization we have to attack the most critical and difficult parts in the product development, which for the boat builders are the structural elements.
References

1. O'Sullivan, D., Rolstadås, A., and Filos, E. (2011). Global education in manufac- turing strategy. Journal of Intelligent manufacturing, 22(5) pp 663 – 674.

2. Davis, S. (1987). Future Perfect, Reading: Addison-Wesley

3. Du, X. and Tseng, M.M. (1999). Characterizing CustomerValue for Product Cus- tomization, Proceedings of the 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Con- ference, Las Vegas 1999

4. Ulrich, Karl T., Eppinger, Steven D. (1995) Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

5. Duray, R., Ward, P.T., Milligan, G.W, and Berry, W.L. (2000). Approaches to mass customization: configurations and empirical validation, Journal of Operations Management, 18, 605-625

6. Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., and Nelson, R.R. (2005). The Oxford handbook of innovation. London: University Press

7. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

8. Eagar, R., van Oene, F., Boulton, C., Roos, D., and Dekeyser, C. (2011). The future of innovation management: The next 10 years. Prism 1. Arthur D. Little. http://www.adlittle.com/prism-articles.html?&no_cache=1&view=379

9. Hart, S.J. (2008). New product development, in Baker, J.M. and Hart, S.J. (eds) The marketing book (6th edition), Elsevier UK

10. Ericsson, A. and Erixon, G. (1999). Controlling Design Variants: Modular Prod- uct Platforms. ASME press, NY, USA

11. Duray, R, (2004). Mass Customizers use of inventory, planning techniques and channel management. Production Planning & Control Vol. 15, no. 4, 412-421.

12. Ericsson, A. and Erixon, G. (1999). Controlling Design Variants: Modular Prod- uct Platforms. ASME press, NY, USA.

13. Sanchez, R.(2002). Using modularity to manage the interactions of technical and industrial design. Design Management Journal. 2 (2002) 8

14. Stone, R.B., (2000). A heuristic method for identifying modules for product ar- chitectures. A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Design Studies, 21, 5-31

15. Jo, H. H., Parsaei, H. R. and Sullivan, W. G. (1993). Principles of concurrent en- gineering. in Chapman and Hall, Concurrent Engineering: Contemporary Issues and Modern Design Tools. New York, 3-23.

16. Dahmus, J.B., Gonzales-Zugasti, J.P, and Otto, K.N., (2001). Modular product ar- chitecture, Design Studies 22 (5),409-425

17. Sanchez, R. and Mahoney, J.T. (1996). Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design. IEEE Engineering Manage- ment Review. Reprint from Strategic Management, vol. 17, special issue Dec. John Wiley & Sons Limited.

18. Henriksen, B. and Røstad, C.C. (2010). Evaluating and Prioritizing Projects – Set- ting Targets. The Business Effect Evaluation Methodology BEEM. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Volume 3 (2): 275-291