# Strategic Planning in the Digital Engineering of Smart Product-Based System of Systems Reconfiguration

Sven Forte, Sebastian Weber, Jens C. Göbel

► To cite this version:

Sven Forte, Sebastian Weber, Jens C. Göbel. Strategic Planning in the Digital Engineering of Smart Product-Based System of Systems Reconfiguration. 19th IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Jul 2022, Grenoble, France. pp.547-556, 10.1007/978-3-031-25182-5_53. hal-05420898

HAL Id: hal-05420898

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05420898v1

Submitted on 17 Dec 2025

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
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
# Strategic Planning in the Digital Engineering of Smart Product-Based System of Systems Reconfiguration

Sven Forte ID, Sebastian Weber(✉) ID, and Jens C. Göbel(✉) ID

Institute of Virtual Product Engineering (VPE), TU Kaiserslautern, Gottlieb Daimler Str. 44, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
{forte,weber,goebel}@mv.uni-kl.de

**Abstract.** Future product and service innovations are increasingly based on cross-system and cross-industry functionalities and components. As a result of the increasing connectivity and intelligence of products towards smart products, the system boundaries are also becoming increasingly fuzzy with the result that new smart product-based system of systems are emerging. In order to make these resilient and innovative in operation in the future, approaches for reconfiguring functionalities are playing an increasingly important role. For this purpose, the article presents a lifecycle-supporting method that enables the integration of dynamic external factors in the sense of strategic system of systems requirements into an existing system of systems with smart products as core components for the target-oriented reconfiguration. The focus here is on the identification and integration of dynamic external factors in terms of requirements from strategic management across the different granularity levels relevant to the system of systems. For this purpose, a multi-stage framework-model is presented which describes the strategic requirements integration at the system of systems level via a corresponding development of system of systems capabilities and their systematic break-down to functions (in sense of intended system behavior) and system logic up to the solution level in the sense of the smart product-instance. The framework supports the model-based reconfiguration based on the identified reconfiguration-need and derived reconfiguration potential from strategic management phases upstream the traditional product lifecycle management phases with the use of an associated integral System of Systems Engineering Lifecycle Management.

**Keywords:** Systems engineering · Reconfiguration · System of systems · Lifecycle management

## 1 Introduction

Products and services that were historically mostly monolithic are increasingly transforming into smart networked ecosystems with the help of steadily growing digitization [1]. Today, a large percentage of product innovation is already achieved through digitization and servitization [2]. However, increasing product intelligence and connectivity also
means that system boundaries are becoming increasingly fuzzy. On the one hand, this
enables the development of new potential business areas and market potentials; on the
other hand, however, it also requires disruptive changes within the engineering of such
smart products and the resulting smart product ecosystems, so-called smart product-
based system of systems [3]. This not only affects the instantiated products themselves,
but also their digital twins [4, 5] and the corresponding information technology man-
agement of the product models and components, as well as the context in which the
products are embedded. This is a decisive factor in the provision of cross-industry and
cross-product services and functions such as future mobility services including shared
scooters, bicycles, trains, infrastructure and other services (e.g. payment) [6, 7] or smart
home applications which can be integrated for example with vehicles, domestic objects,
gardening equipment, home automation applications in the charging and energy sector,
but also with other cross-sector services. This is where traditional engineering lifecycle
approaches (like [8] for example), which are often optimized for specific systems, reach
their limits. Contributing furthermore to preserve digital sovereignty by integrating engi-
neering phases (such as innovation and roadmapping etc.) in advance of conventional
product lifecycle management approaches, together with additional lifecycle integra-
tions of participating products in the ecosystem context in order to facilitate the holistic
development of smart product ecosystems in a comprehensive integrated model-based
and information technology sense.

This also comes with new kinds of uncertainties engineering has to deal with that
occur within the system of systems development phases, which for example could be
addressed by certain reconfigurability in the utilization phase and therefore do not have
been clarified deterministically in the design phase. With the help of system of systems
reconfiguration [10–12] there is the possibility of increasing the resilience of the ecosys-
tem and thus also the participating smart products. This also entails a certain conservation
of resources, which addresses sustainability in the engineering and product-usage con-
text. A central research question thereby is how smart product-based systems of systems
in operation can react and implement dynamic external influences by identifying the need
and reconfiguration potential supported by the integration of several aspects from strate-
gic management together with an appropriate reconfiguration approach. In particular,
the reconfiguration-supporting synergetic interaction between strategic management and
system of systems engineering for identification of emerging reconfiguration potential
will be discussed in more detail in the following article.

2 State of the Art

## 2.1 System of Systems Engineering Lifecycle

According to the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) a System of Systems (SoS) is “an System of Interest (SoI) whose elements are managerially and/or operationally independent systems. These interoperating and integrated collections of constituent systems usually produce results unachievable by the individual systems alone” [13]. To identify an SoS five properties according to [14] can also be applied. Those characteristics referring to the constituent systems are: independent operation
(operational independence of the component); independent management of the sub-systems (managerial independence of constituent systems); geographical distribution; emergent behavior; and evolutionary development processes. According to [14, 15] an SoS can be further classified as directed, collaborative, virtual and acknowledged SoS. A directed SoS, as focused on in this contribution due to the most common type in relation to smart product use cases nowadays, is characterized by the fact that the sub-systems retain their independence but are controlled by a central SoS management and are subordinated to the objectives of the SoS.

During the lifecycle of systems (and system of systems), a huge amount of data is generated and processed. For example, in the design phase, (strategic) requirements development, configuration management, usage data (e.g. for monitoring purposes) and reconfiguration in the usage phase. In order to provide the highest possible innovations in the manner of cross-product related functions and services for the customer through the ecosystem of individual systems, it is essential to manage and provide relevant product-related data in an efficient, structured and demand-oriented manner throughout the different lifecycles of the participating systems. For this purpose, there are various forms of lifecycle models in the literature, e.g., generic ones such as ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015 [16] with the phases of conception, development, production, use/support, and end of system. Although these can be adapted to the respective use case, they are primarily focused on a specific product or system and optimized for this purpose. For an SoS, it is necessary to consider all phases of the SoS as a system environment as well as those of the constituent systems with their own lifecycles in an integrated manner. A lifecycle approach that is specifically focused not only on SoS lifecycle management but also on the integration of smart products in the system environment is, for example, the System of Systems Engineering Lifecycle [9] with the phases SoS design (including innovation and strategic management), smart product engineering, SoS validation &

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. System of systems engineering lifecycle</figcaption></figure>
integration, SoS reconfiguration & operation, and SoS end of life, as shown in Fig. 1 below.

This approach is furthermore a bidirectional, multi-stage and supporting engineering-approach. The increasing importance of the integration of e.g. innovation and strategic management aspects with respect to the System of Interest (SoI) being developed is also shown by the V-model of VDI 2206 [17] in the revision from 2004, that originally defines the requirements definition as the starting point. The revision from 2021, the new V-model of VDI 2206 [18] however, is now defining the considerations of strategic planning and customer needs in form of business models and development-assignments, respectively, as the new entry point. And according to [3] the engineering-related information distribution associated with this is still one of the central challenges of smart lifecycle engineering in the context of smart product environments.

## 2.2 System of Systems Reconfiguration

SoS are confronted with dynamic (and disruptive) changes along their lifecycle which often cannot be considered or planned holistically at the early SoS design phases. A key challenge for SoS reconfiguration is to maintain the capabilities of the SoS, even in situations of disruptive change. The ability of a system to change is represented with reconfigurability (e.g. the extend of flexibility of a systems configuration) [19]. By the increasing number of connections between participating and associated systems within an SoS, resilience has become a relevant system property. Resilience can be described as “...the ability of the system to withstand a major disruption within acceptable degradation parameters and to recover...” [20]. Resiliency techniques are used to improve the SoS resilience to face these disruptive situations. Where dynamic reconfiguration is an adaptive resiliency technique, which focuses on responding to changes to maintain a minimum of operational capabilities [21].

The configuration refers to the actual integrated constituent systems of the SoS and their interconnections [11, 22]. This configuration is used to achieve a certain SoS capability. Changes in the environment or internal misalignments can cause a degradation of SoS capabilities. To react to these changes, the SoS can reconfigure itself to withstand these disruptions and recover its capabilities. For the reconfiguration process the actual configuration represents the basis for further considerations [11].

Reconfiguration can be furthermore described as the modification of existing products to meet new requirements [23], whereby dynamic reconfiguration refers to the ability of real time adaption of the system. Further, it can be characterized as the improvement of whole product classes or enhancement of specific product instances with new functionality during their use phase [10]. In the context of an SoS two main reasons to implement a reconfiguration process can be distinguished [11]. First, the configuration has to adapt to changes (e.g. a constituent leaves the SoS or reconfigure itself) due to the managerial independence of the constituent systems. Second, because of changing requirements to which the SoS must adapt. These two reasons can occur together and should not be considered strictly separated. A necessity for the reconfiguration process of the SoS is, that the actual and intended future states are identified and changes in the architecture are expressed. Changes in the architecture affecting its composition and furthermore the communication ways of the solution elements (e.g. constituent systems). The SoS
engineering has to consider individual requirements of the constituent systems, due to
their managerial and operational independence, and their therefore limited reconfigu-
ration capability. The reconfiguration process is type-dependent in terms of behavioral
independence of the constituent systems and their willingness reconfiguration operation
(e.g. when to perform potential reconfiguration) [24]. To support these and other aspects
within the SoS reconfiguration, strategic management methods provide a good basis
for identifying and analyzing influencing factors that can support the reconfiguration
engineering of the SoS and are described in more detail in the following.

3 Integrating Strategic SoS-Requirements by Using an SoS-Specific
Reconfiguration Framework

SoS reconfiguration as part of SoS evolution often starts with the identification of external factors influencing the SoS in its target parameters. To ensure the future SoS operation in such case, the reconfiguration offers a good solution as described in Sect. 2.2. At the same time, the identification of such influencing factors as well as their engineering-specific structuring and their consistent transition in the sense of information technology into (model-based) requirements is especially in the given SoS context a major challenge. This is where strategic management has its strengths and can contribute decisive added value especially in conjunction with the engineering. For example, in the process of transferring strategic foresight analyses to downstream model-based requirements development phases in engineering. With the support of the strategic management, the SoS-influencing factors are identified and processed at the SoS top level (SoS Level 0) and converted finally into so-called strategic SoS requirements ready to be integrated in the systems models and further used by the various SoS engineering disciplines. In particular, the focus in the strategic planning is on the identification of the reconfiguration necessity. This contains four key relevant clusters: analysis, synthesis, portfolio management and potential assessment in the sense of strategic management. In the iterative and feedback-driven foresight process, external factors such as: technology drivers, political influencing factors, environmental factors, market analyses etc. are considered and transferred as input variables to the analysis phase, as shown in Fig. 2 on the left. Here the external factors are used to provide an as-is state of the actual situation in an environmental sense.

Information from the SoS itself and its environment are gathered. Among others,
one of the crucial aspects for the analysis phase is to identify important challenges and
opportunities for decision making in following lifecycle-related stages. Due to the impor-
tance of technology innovations for example in the usage phases, foresight techniques
are applied to provide initial insights and (mega-)trends into possible future use cases
(e.g. by applying delphi or scenario techniques) and thus offer added value for the devel-
opment of new services and functions within the smart product ecosystem. Key aspect
of the strategic analysis phase is to deliver a clear and common product-and portfolio-
related understanding in terms of the SoS context across the involved disciplines as a
base for following engineering phases.

The gathered and structured information in the analysis process is further used in the
synthesis process phase, where business strategies are fostered. Based on the identified
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. System of systems reconfiguration-relevant strategic planning</figcaption></figure>

as-is state from the analysis phase, a vision and goals for a to-be state are formulated. Furthermore, key attributes of the SoS and business strategies act as the foundation to formulate business models, which are getting planned and implemented (e.g. pay-by-use) and transferred accordingly with the accompanying portfolio management for integration into SoS as a strategic SoS requirement. Based on defined SoS-Goals and Strategies, needed capabilities can then be derived on the SoS level.

These SoS-(L0-)Capabilities are hereby a stage gate to the formulated target-parameters (for example the reconfiguration-necessary to maintain the targets of the SoS in terms of resiliency). From the SoS-Analysis and-Planning phases the capabilities can be planned in a timely manner to introduce them when its needed delivered and managed in the SoS Lifecycle Management especially for the configuration management of the affected solution elements in the SoS context. This is furthermore also important due to the different SoS-related lifecycle phases of the constituent systems and the lifecycle of the SoS itself. Using the SoS Engineering Lifecycle Management, the results are then made available to the SoS top level (SoS Level 0) for further derivation of the corresponding SoS-relevant systems design and expression in the SoS-architecture. For the model-based development of the SoS within the design phases as well as the reconfiguration phases the Smart Product-based System of Systems Reconfiguration Architecture Framework (Fig. 3), a framework for the description of system of systems reconfiguration and architecture was developed based on the Concept of Kaiserslautern System Concretization Model (KSKM) [25]. The KSKM was originally designed and optimized for cyber-physical systems. In addition to the different levels within an SoS and the associated granularity and abstraction levels, the framework contains the according behavior and structure description as well as the respective derivation of the corresponding artifacts from the SoS top level (SoS Level 0) to the solution element level, so-called constituent systems (SoS Level 2). These are integrated and administered in SoS lifecycle management in accordance with SoS Lifecycle Engineering Concept. Thus, the Smart Product-based System of Systems Reconfiguration Architecture Framework describes the architecture of SoS Level 0 up to the integration at solution element level to the KSKM and thus forms the possibility of a continuous development from SoS Level 0 down to the Solution Elements (e.g. constituent systems) with corresponding administration of related information by SoS lifecycle management and the constituent system lifecycles integrated as part of it.
For the SoS reconfiguration phase and the corresponding integration of dynamic requirements for reconfiguration supported by strategic management, the focus is primarily on the description and implementation of capabilities and the corresponding derivation of requirements for the solution elements. Supported by the integration of the strategic management aspects as shown in Fig. 2, the reconfiguration of the SoS in operation is initiated after the assessment of the reconfiguration potential through the targeted application of strategic management methods. These are applied to the requirements space with the use of the SoS lifecycle management and form the initial basis for the reconfiguration process in the form of strategic SoS requirements. This takes place with the expression initially in the SoS architecture. Strategic SoS requirements are then derivable from the corresponding capabilities and used to describe the SoS capabilities that will be required in the intended future SoS state. In addition, capability gap analyses are carried out in parallel to address the first issues for the current reconfiguration. Following the modeling of the capabilities, these are included in the description of the required capabilities and semantically linked with the upstream strategic SoS requirements for the purpose of system configuration traceability.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Capability-specific view of the smart product-based system of systems reconfiguration architecture framework</figcaption></figure>
Through the functional description especially for covering interoperational aspects of the future intended system state, initial simulation-ready architectural prototypes (in the sense of minimal viable products (MVP) [26]) can already be achieved. Furthermore, transferred and used with the available usage data from the digital twin context of the SoS, among other things, for initial validation and testing in the integration and validation space (Fig. 3 - right), so that finally the logical operational SoS architecture can be derived (structurally). Thus, the description required for the reconfiguration at SoS Level 0 has reached a level of maturity to address the subsystems and to serve as input for their capability development (L1 and L2). These are then mapped into the subsystem behavior as well as subsystem structure. However, this can differ considerably depending on the type and characteristics of the SoS. For instance, as the SoS moves further away from the directed type, the relationship between the subsystems can also vary in terms of their commitment and allocation. So, it can happen that on SoS Level 1 (subsystem level) only some subsystems find application and form direct relation to constituted systems. This means that not only subsystems communicate with subsystems in relationship manner. Individual subsystems also have possible direct relationships with other constituted systems outside their own subsystem. As a final step in the context of the reconfiguration-relevant architecture description, the required capabilities of the solution elements (L2-Capabilities) are described below based on the subsystem structures or (depending on the application scenario) based on the SoS Level 0 system artifacts. In this way, an SoS architecture for reconfiguration is established which also enables the semantically enriched modeling of the corresponding system levels and in this way a high level of consistency from SoS top level to solution element level (e.g. smart product instance) can be achieved in conjunction with the SoS Engineering Lifecycle Management and downstream systems modeling concepts such as KSKM (as part of a solution element) be seamlessly integrated.

# 4 Summary and Outlook

Communication and intelligence are two core aspects that allow products to evolve further and further into smart product-based system of systems. These also make it possible to bring new innovative cross-sectoral innovations to the consumers. In order to keep these ecosystems sustainably resilient and innovative in the sense of product functionalities in operation in the future, reconfiguration approaches in engineering play an increasingly important and central role. A key aspect here is the integration of strategic management processes into the SoS engineering.

The contribution describes a System of Systems Engineering Lifecycle Management driven method for integrating strategic planning aspects into the engineering of smart product-based SoS. In particular, the strategic management phases analysis, synthesis and portfolio management were considered and the integration into the downstream product-based engineering processes was discussed. Strategic management plays a major role in the identification and potential assessment of SoS-related reconfiguration processes. Since system of systems are usually long-term projects, which in most cases are undergoing significant and dynamic changes in their life cycle, it is therefore possible to operate them more resiliently and more sustainably in terms of their reconfiguration
abilities with the integration of the strategic management. For this purpose, a multi-level framework is introduced, Smart Product-based System of Systems Reconfiguration Architecture Framework, which describes the integration of the SoS-relevant strategic requirements and their model-based integration at SoS level, e.g. in the form of capabilities (L0, L1 and L2) as well as the associated system architectures up to the handover and integration to the corresponding solution elements at product-instance level. This is supported by an integral System of Systems Engineering Lifecycle Management and, in this way, also encourages the digital sovereignty in the engineering context to be maintained throughout the entire system of systems reconfiguration process.

Further research is here needed for example in supporting validation-related aspects of the reconfiguration process e.g. through the targeted application of mixed reality methods for the early validation and virtual testing of the identified reconfiguration potential. This could also support and accelerate the reconfiguration for other SoS types in the future, in addition to the directed type as focused on in this paper.

## References

1. Abramovici, M., Herzog, O.: Engineering im Umfeld von Industrie 4.0: Einschätzungen und Handlungsbedarf. Acatech Studie, Herbert Utz Verlag, München (2016)

2. Strahringer, S., Wiener, M.: Datengetriebene Geschäftsmodelle: Konzeptuelles Rahmenwerk, Praxisbeispiele und Forschungsausblick. HMD 58, 457–476 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-021-00731-1

3. Tomiyama, T., Lutters, E., Stark, R., Abramovici, M.: Development capabilities for smart products. CIRP Ann. 68(2), 727–750 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2019.05.010

4. Göbel, J.C., Eickhoff, T.: Konzeption von Digitalen Zwillingen smarter Produkte. ZWF Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb 115(special), 74–77 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3139/104.112301

5. Stark, R., Damerau, T.: Digital twin. In: Chatti, S., Tolio, T. (eds.) CIRP Encyclopedia of Production Engineering, pp. 1–8. Springer, Heidelberg (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35950-7_16870-1

6. Müller, C.: Metastudie: Die Mobilität von morgen – Eine Herausforderung für die Automobilindustrie. Whitepaper, Salesforce.com Germany GmbH, München (2020)

7. ACATECH: Transformation der Mobilität (acatech HORIZONTE), München (2021)

8. Eigner, M., Koch, W., Muggeo, C.: Modellbasierter Entwicklungsprozess cybertronischer Systeme – Der PLM-unterstützte Referenzentwicklungsprozess für Produkte und Produktionssysteme. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55124-0

9. Forte, S., Göbel, J.C., Dickopf, T.: System of systems lifecycle engineering approach integrating smart product and service ecosystems. Proc. Des. Soc. 1, 2911–2920 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.552

10. Savarino, P., Abramovici, M., Göbel, J.C., Gebus, P.: Design for reconfiguration as fundamental aspect of smart products. Procedia CIRP 70, 374–379 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir2018.01.007

11. Petitdemange, F., Borne, I., Buisson, J.: Design process for system of systems reconfigurations. Syst. Eng. 24(2), 69–82 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21567

12. Forte, S., Dickopf, T., Weber, S., Göbel, J.C.: Towards sustainable systems reconfiguration by an IoT-driven system of systems engineering lifecycle approach. In: 29th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering 2022 (LCE 2022), Leuven, Belgium, 04–06 April 2022 (2022). Procedia CIRP 105, 654–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.109
13. Walden, D.D., Roedler, G.J., Forsberg, K., Hamelin, R.D., Shortell, T.M.: Systems Engineering Handbook. A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities. INCOSE-TP-2003-0

14. Maier, M.W.: Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Syst. Eng. 1(4), 267–284 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6858(1998)1:4<267::AID-SYS3>3.0.CO;2-D. 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2015). 9781118999400

15. Dahmann, J.S., Baldwin, K.J.: Understanding the current state of US defense systems of systems and the implications for systems engineering. In: 2nd Annual IEEE Systems Conference, 7–10 April 2008, pp. 1–7. IEEE (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSTEMS.2008.4518994

16. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288: International Standard - Systems and software engineering – System life cycle processes, Piscataway, NJ, USA. IEEE (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD. 2015.7106435

17. VDI 2206:2004-06: Design methodology for mechatronic systems. Beuth Verlag (2004)

18. VDI/VDE 2206:2021-11: Development of mechatronic and cyber-physical systems (2021)

19. Fornari, G., de Santiago Júnior, V.A.: Dynamically reconfigurable systems: a systematic literature review. J. Intell. Rob. Syst. 95(3-4), 829–849 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-018-0921-6

20. Haimes, Y.Y.: Modeling complex systems of systems with phantom system models. Syst. Eng. 15, 333–346 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21205

21. Bodeau, D., Brtis, J., Graubart, R., Salwen, J.: Resiliency techniques for systems-of-systems extending and applying the Cyber Resiliency Engineering Framework to the space domain. In: 7th International Symposium on Resilient Control Systems, ISRCS 2014, pp. 1–6 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISRCS.2014.6900099

22. Kossmann, M., Samhan, A., Odeh, M., Qaddoumi, E., Tbakhi, A., Watts, S.: Extending the scope of configuration management for the development and life cycle support of systems of systems—an ontology-driven framework applied to the enceladus submarine exploration lander. Syst. Eng. 23(3), 366–391 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21532

23. Männistö, T., Soininen, T., Tiihonen, J., Sulonen, R.: Framework and conceptual model for reconfiguration (1999)

24. Petitdemange, F., Borne, I., Buisson, J.: Assisting the evolutionary development of SoS with reconfiguration patterns. In: Bahsoon, R., Weinreich, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops, pp. 1–7. ACM, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2993412.3004845

25. Eigner, M., Dickopf, T., Apostolov, H.: Interdisziplinäre Konstruktionsmethoden und -prozesse zur Entwicklung cybertronischer Produkte – Teil 2/Interdisciplinary Design Methods and Processes to Develop Cybertronic Products – Part 2. Konstruktion 71, 69–75 (2019). https://doi.org/10.37544/0720-5953-2019-01-02-69

26. Ries, E.: What is the Minimum Viable Product (2009). http://venturehacks.com/articles/minimum-viable-product. Accessed 22 Feb 2022