Abstract:
A method is disclosed for determining whether to develop products for potential customers. The method may involve: identifying a plurality of potential products; identifying a plurality of potential customers; assessing salability attributes of the potential products from perspectives of the potential customers to generate attribute assessments; using an input device to enable a user to input the pluralities of potential products and potential customers, as well as the attribute assessments, to a processor; using the processor to determine, for each of the potential products, and using the attribute assessments, all possible implementation combinations in which at least n of the potential customers implement the product, where n is a positive whole number; using the processor to determine the probability of each implementation combination, for each product; and using the processor to assist in determining, based upon the probability determinations, which of the potential products to develop.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
       [0001]    This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/753,889, filed on Jan. 7, 2004, presently pending. The disclosure of the above application is incorporated herein by reference. 
     
    
     FIELD 
       [0002]    The present disclosure relates to systems and methods for determining whether to develop products for potential customers, and more particularly to a system and method that uses expert opinion about product and customers to manufacture statistical information on the likelihood of use of a product by a single customer versus use by multiple customers, to assist an entity in determining how to cost effectively develop and/or manufacture the product. 
       BACKGROUND 
       [0003]    Traditional product development efforts are isolated programs that focus little effort on reusing products (e.g., hardware or software) that are developed elsewhere within a contracting company. Specifically, the situation often arises where an entity is required to reinvent (or redevelop or re-engineer) a previously developed product to tailor it for a different customer, different market, or different application. For example, consider the situation where a product is reinvented for a second customer, for example a software product originally developed for a first customer that was intended to be used with only one type of helicopter (or one helicopter Program Management Office), but where the reinvented product now performs essentially the same function as the earlier developed product but for a different use (e.g., a different type of helicopter or a different helicopter Program Management Office). Or consider the example of a product that was initially developed for a first customer that is reinvented or redeveloped with the capability to meet the needs of a plurality of different customers or different applications. In either event, the operation of reinventing or re-developing the product to meet the specific needs of one of more additional customers, or one or more additional applications, can be costly in terms of development, procurement, operation and support. In some instances if the entity had known in advance that a given product was highly likely to be used by multiple customers or in multiple applications, the better business decision, at least from a cost development standpoint for the product, may have been to initially design the product with the capability to accommodate the needs of different customers and/or to meet the needs of different applications. Such a decision would have eliminated the need to redevelop the product at a future time. However, it is often difficult or impossible for an entity to forecast the likelihood that a given product will be used by multiple customers or in multiple different applications. Thus, the entity is inclined to select the lowest initial cost approach for developing the initial product, even though such a decision may not turn out to be the most cost effective decision if the product needs to be redeveloped in the future to meet the needs of different customers or different applications. 
       SUMMARY 
       [0004]    In one aspect the present disclosure relates to a method of determining whether to develop products for potential customers. The method may comprise: identifying a plurality of potential products; identifying a plurality of potential customers; assessing salability attributes of the potential products from the perspective of the potential customers, to generate attribute assessments relating thereto; using an input device to enable a user to input the pluralities of potential products and potential customers and attribute assessments to a processor; using the processor to determine, for each of the potential products and using the attribute assessments, all possible implementation combinations in which at least n of the potential customers implement the product, where n is a positive whole number; using the processor to determine the probability of each implementation combination, for each product; and using the processor to assist in determining, based upon the probability determinations, which of the potential products to develop. 
         [0005]    In another aspect the present disclosure relates to a method for assisting in determining whether to develop products for potential customers. The method may comprise: identifying a first quantity of information relative to potential products; identifying a second quantity of information of potential customers; identifying a third quantity of information relating to a plurality of factors useful in determining a likelihood of use by a given potential customer, of a given one of the potential products; providing an input device for enabling an individual to input the first, second and third quantities of information to a processor; using the processor to transform the quantities of information from qualitative values to quantitative values to assist in determining, for each of the potential products, all possible implementation combinations in which at least “n” of the potential customers implement the product, where n is a positive whole number; using the processor, in connection with the third quantity of information and the implementation combinations, to determine a probability of each possible implementation combination; and using the processor to analyze all of the probabilities of each implementation combination and to assign a rank to each implementation combination, for each one of the potential products, the rank assisting in determining which ones of the potential products to develop. 
         [0006]    In still another aspect the present disclosure relates to a method comprising identifying a plurality of potential products; identifying a plurality of potential customers; assessing the salability attributes of the potential products from the perspective of the potential customers; inputting information using an input device relating to the potential products and the potential customers and attribute assessments to a processor; using the processor to determine, for each one of at least a plurality of the potential products and for each one of at least a plurality of the potential customers, the probability of the potential customer implementing the potential product; providing information relating to a threshold to the processor, the processor using the information to determine a location for the threshold demarcating a point separating a first quantity of the potential products to be developed and a different, second quantity of the potential products that are not to be developed; using the processor to assist in determining, based upon the processor determined probability determinations, which of the potential products to develop and to assign to the first quantity; and using the processor to provide a quantity of information relating to said first and second quantities of potential products to a display device such that said display device generates a visually readable table showing the potential products that the processor has classified in the first quantity of potential products and in the second quantity of potential products, with the first and second quantities being demarcated by the threshold. 
         [0007]    Other features and advantages will be in part apparent and in part pointed out hereinafter. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0008]    The drawings described herein are for illustration purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of the present disclosure in any way. 
           [0009]      FIG. 1  is a block diagram of one embodiment of a system in accordance with the present disclosure that may be used to carry out a method of the present disclosure; 
           [0010]      FIG. 2  is a table that may be presented on a display device of the system of  FIG. 1 , showing a prioritization for twenty-three potential products and five potential customers; and 
           [0011]      FIG. 3  is a flow diagram illustrating operations that may be performed in one aspect of the present disclosure to provide the probability information concerning the potential products and the potential customers, and the likelihood that a customer will use a potential product. 
       
    
    
       [0012]    Corresponding reference characters indicate corresponding parts throughout the several views of the drawings. 
       DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       [0013]    The present disclosure relates to a system and method for assisting a user in determining whether to develop potential products for potential customers. An example of a potential product may be a software capability. An example of a potential customer may be an entity such as a helicopter Program Management Office (“PMO”) of the U.S. military that manages specific military projects. For example, specific PMO entities may be an RAH-66 Comanche PMO, an AH-64 Apache PMO, an CH-47 Chinook PMO, an UH-60 Black Hawk PMO, or unmanned aerial vehicles PMOs. Although the exemplary products addressed in connection with the present embodiment are described herein as being software products, it is to be understood that the teachings of the present disclosure may be used with virtually any other type of product that may be developed or engineered by a given entity. Also, although the exemplary customers addressed in connection with the present embodiment are helicopter PMO entities, it is to be understood that other types of customers (e.g., users, markets, companies, countries, governments, etc.), both military related and non-military related, may be employed without departing from the scope of this invention. 
         [0014]    Development costs of a first product having a particular attribute (e.g., a particular system capability that supports its function or supports its compatibility with other systems) but developed for only a single user is often less than the development costs of a second product having the same attribute but developed for multiple users. If it is anticipated that only one user demands the attribute, then the first product should be developed to the exclusion of the second. If it is anticipated that more than one user demands the attribute, then development of the second product might be more economical. In the present example, the first product is a system capability for which a software application must be developed via a first helicopter PMO entity and the second product is a comparable system capability for which a comparable software application must be developed that can be used by the first helicopter PMO entity and by additional helicopter PMO entities. Also in the present example, the first product costs less to develop than the second product. If the only potential market for the system capability is the first helicopter PMO entity, then the better cost effective decision would be to not develop the second product should not be developed. If the potential market for the system capability includes additional helicopter PMO entities, then it is desirable to determine whether the probability of the potential market is sufficiently high to justify development of the second product instead of the first. Depending on anticipated development costs, it might be more economical to develop the second product (e.g., versatile software capable of being used by the different helicopter PMO entities) than to develop custom software for each type of helicopter. It will be understood that there can be a significant cost premium that is incurred by a manufacturer in developing software that is reusable for multiple applications or by multiple customers. The cost premium can often be approximately an additional 50% of the cost of developing non-reusable software. This premium suggests that a software application must be reused at least once for a cost benefit to occur. 
         [0015]    In a leader/follower relationship, an implementation of a capability involves two steps. First software for the capability is developed for the leader and then one or more followers reuse the software. The leader/follower relationship is referred to as “dependency”. For a follower to realize a large cost avoidance when implementing a capability: (a) the capability should first become a requirement for the follower; (b) there should be a leader to perform the original development; (c) it should be possible to schedule the follower&#39;s implementation to follow the leader&#39;s; and (d) the affordability improvements achievable through reuse should be sufficient. In other words, for a follower to implement a capability, the capability should be requirable, affordable, and schedulable. The necessity for all three criteria to be met is referred to as “conditional”. The event that the leader will implement a capability is independent of the event that any other platform will implement the capability. The event that a follower will implement a capability is independent of the event that any other follower will implement the capability. This type of problem is conveniently analyzed using Bernoulli Processes and Binomial Statistics. 
         [0016]    The event that the leader will implement a capability is independent of the event that any other platform will implement the capability. A set of all possible mutually exclusive outcomes of an experiment is called a sample space. And since there is only one leader per capability, there are only two points in the sample space: (1) the leader implements the capability; and (2) the leader fails to implement the capability. 
         [0017]    The implementation of a capability by a follower is assumed to be conditional on three things: becoming requirable, becoming affordable, and becoming schedulable (i.e., schedulable or meaning “available”). Thus, the event being sought is: 
         [0018]    EF=Follower requires the capability and can afford it and can schedule it. 
         [0019]    Probabilities are assigned to each event. The probabilities may be determined by expert opinion or by any other suitable means. The probabilities for each event may include: 
         [0020]    P(FR)=probability that the follower requires the capability; 
         [0021]    P(FA)=probability that the follower can afford the capability; 
         [0022]    P(FS)=probability that the follower can schedule the capability; 
         [0023]    The above three probabilities are conditional probabilities. The probability of the event EF is the product of the conditional probabilities: 
         [0000]        P ( EF )= P ( FR )* P ( FA )* P ( FS ) 
         [0024]    The probability P(EF) is also referred to herein as the probability of the potential customer (e.g., follower) implementing the potential product (e.g., software capability). The probability P(FR) is also referred to herein as a “requirability probability”. The probability P(FA) is also referred to herein as an “affordability probability”, and the probability P(FS) is also referred to herein as an “availability probability” (or “schedulability probability”). 
         [0025]    A set of all possible mutually exclusive outcomes of an experiment is called a sample space. In order to use a sample space to solve problems, the probabilities of each of the points of the sample space should be obtained. Each point in the sample space may be defined by dimensions that can assume the value “success” or “failure”. For example, if the experiment consists of three followers attempting to reuse a capability, then the uniform sample space is: 
         [0026]    (a) followers # 1 , # 2 , and # 3  all fail to implement the capability; 
         [0027]    (b) follower # 1  succeeds and followers # 2  and # 3  fail; 
         [0028]    (c) follower # 2  succeeds and follower # 1  and # 3  fail; 
         [0029]    (d) follower # 3  succeeds and follower # 1  and # 2  fail; 
         [0030]    (e) followers # 1  and # 2  succeed and follower # 3  fails; 
         [0031]    (f) followers # 1  and # 3  succeed and follower # 2  fails; 
         [0032]    (g) followers # 2  and # 3  succeed and follower # 1  fails; and 
         [0033]    (h) followers # 1 , # 2 , and # 3  all succeed. 
         [0034]    Each combination (b)-(h) is referred to as an implementation combination. In order to use a sample space to solve problems, the probability of each implementation combination should be obtained. Again using the example of three followers attempting to reuse a capability, the probabilities associated with the following events may be computed: 
         [0035]    EF 1 =follower # 1  requires the capability and can afford it and can schedule it; 
         [0036]    EF 2 =follower # 2  requires the capability and can afford it and can schedule it; and 
         [0037]    EF 3 =follower # 3  requires the capability and can afford it and can schedule it. 
         [0038]    The probabilities that each respective event will occur may be expressed as: 
         [0000]        P ( EF 1)= P ( FR 1)* P ( FA 1)* P ( FS 1) 
         [0000]        P ( EF 2)= P ( FR 2)* P ( FA 2)* P ( FS 2) 
         [0000]        P ( EF 3)= P ( FR 3)* P ( FA 3)* P ( FS 3) 
         [0039]    The respective probabilities of the implementation combinations are: 
         [0000]        PF 1=[1− P ( EF 1)][1 −P ( EF 2)][1 −P ( EF 3)] 
         [0000]        PF 2 =[P ( EF 1)][1 −P ( EF 2)][1 −P ( EF 3)] 
         [0000]        PF 3=[1 −P ( EF 1)][ P ( EF 2)][1 −P ( EF 3)] 
         [0000]        PF 4=[1 −P ( EF 1)][1 −P ( EF 2)][ P ( EF 3)] 
         [0000]        PF 5 =[P ( EF 1)][ P ( EF 2)][1 −P ( EF 3)] 
         [0000]        PF 6 =[P ( EF 1)][1 −P ( EF 2)][ P ( EF 3)] 
         [0000]        PF 7=[1 −P ( EF 1)][ P ( EF 2)][ P ( EF 3)] 
         [0000]        PF 8 =[P ( EF 1)][ P ( EF 2)][ P ( EF 3)] 
         [0040]    As mentioned earlier, in a reuse example the process for implementation of a capability involves two steps. First the leader successfully develops the software for the capability and then one or more followers reuse the software. As far as the followers are concerned, the criteria for reuse is that one of more followers should reuse the software. Thus, if P(B:A) is the probability of the event that one or more platforms reuse the software (event B) given that the leader has developed the software (event A), then: 
         [0000]        P ( B:A )= PF 2 +PF 3 +PF 4 +PF 5 +PF 6 +PF 7 +PF 8 
         [0041]    It is also possible to write P(B:A) using the theorem of normalcy, i.e., the sum of the probabilities of the points in the event space add up to unity. Saying that one or more platforms succeed in reusing the software is the same as saying that none of the platforms fail to reuse the software, i.e. 
         [0000]        P ( B:A )=1 −PF 1 
         [0042]    Success is defined as development by the leader and reuse by the follower, i.e., 
         [0000]        P ( A,B )= P ( A )* P ( B:A )= P ( EL )*( PF 2 +PF 3 +PF 4 +PF 5 +PF 6 +PF 7 +PF 8) 
         [0043]    The expected value of a random variable is the weighted sum of all the values of the variable, each value weighted by its probability of occurrence. The average number of instances of software reused and the likelihood that it will occur gives a measure of the value of reuse for any given capability. Consider the implementation combinations below. 
         [0044]    (a) followers # 1 , # 2 , and # 3  all fail to implement the capability; 
         [0045]    (b) follower # 1  succeeds and followers # 2  and # 3  fail; 
         [0046]    (c) follower # 2  succeeds and follower # 1  and # 3  fail; 
         [0047]    (d) follower # 3  succeeds and follower # 1  and # 2  fail; 
         [0048]    (e) followers # 1  and # 2  succeed and follower # 3  fails; 
         [0049]    (f) followers # 1  and # 3  succeed and follower # 2  fails; 
         [0050]    (g) followers # 2  and # 3  succeed and follower # 1  fails; and 
         [0051]    (h) followers # 1 , # 2 , and # 3  all succeed. 
         [0052]    As indicted above, the respective probabilities of the implementation combinations may be expressed as: 
         [0000]        PF 1=[1 −P ( EF 1)][1 −P ( EF 2)][1 −P ( EF 3)]; 
         [0000]        PF 2 =[P ( EF 1)][1 −P ( EF 2)][1 −P ( EF 3)]; 
         [0000]        PF 3=[1 −P ( EF 1)][ P ( EF 2)][1 −P ( EF 3)]; 
         [0000]        PF 4=[1 −P ( EF 1)][1 −P ( EF 2)][ P ( EF 3)]; 
         [0000]        PF 5 =[P ( EF 1)][ P ( EF 2)][1 −P ( EF 3)]; 
         [0000]        PF 6 =[   P ( EF 1)][1 −P ( EF 2)][ P ( EF 3)]; 
         [0000]        PF 7=[1 −P ( EF 1)][ P ( EF 2)][ P ( EF 3)]; and 
         [0000]        PF 8 =[P ( EF 1)][P( EF 2)][ P ( EF 3)]. 
         [0053]    The number of successes for the i th  point in the sample space is represented as “NSi”. The values that NSi may assume are 0, 1, 2, or 3. Thus, for each point in the sample space the corresponding values of NS are: 
         [0054]    NS 1 =0; 
         [0055]    NS 2 =1; 
         [0056]    NS 3 =1; 
         [0057]    NS 4 =1; 
         [0058]    NS 5 =2; 
         [0059]    NS 6 =2; 
         [0060]    NS 7 =2; and 
         [0061]    NS 8 =3. 
         [0062]    The Expected Value of the number of reuse instances may then be given by the equation: 
         [0000]        E ( NS )= NS 1 *PF 1 +NS 2 *PF 2 +NS 3 *PF 3 +NS 4 *PF 4 +NS 5 *PF 5 +NS 6 *PF 6 +NS 7 *PF 7 +NS 8 *PF 8. 
         [0063]    The expected value of the number of reuse instances can be determined for each product (e.g., for each software capability). A product developer may rank the products based on the E(N) for each product and then develop those products whose E(N) is greater than or equal to a threshold value. 
         [0064]    A second metric to break ties in E(N) might sometimes be desirable. It is believed that there is a premium to be paid for developing software that is reusable. It is believed that such premium tends to be about an additional 50% of the cost of developing non-reusable software. This premium suggests that a software application should be reused at least once for a cost benefit to occur. A measure of the probability that one or more platforms will successfully reuse the mission software, P(N≧1), may be calculated to serve as a secondary metric for ranking the products. 
         [0065]    Referring now to  FIG. 1 , a system  10  is shown in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure for carrying out the methodology described herein. The system  10  may comprise a processor  12 , which may also be a stand alone processor or part of another computer system. The processor  12  is in communication with an input device  14 , which in this example is shown as a laptop computer. It will be appreciated though that any form of input device may be used to input the various information to the processor  12 , and that such devices might comprise hand held digital devices, desktop computers, or any other component or subsystem that is suitable for inputting the information. The information may be input directly from the input device  14  as shown, or communication between the input device  14  and the processor  12  may be via a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN). One example of a wide area network would be the Internet. 
         [0066]    The system  10  further comprises a memory  16  that the processor  12  may use during the course of performing the various statistical calculations described herein. The results of the processor&#39;s  12  calculations and analysis may be transmitted to a display system  18  that may involve a computer terminal  18   a , a printer  18   b  or any other form of display device. The results of the processor&#39;s  12  calculations and analysis may also be stored for future access in a suitable magnetic storage medium  20 , for example a hard disc drive, magnetic tape or any other form of magnetic storage medium. The input device  14  may optionally be in communication with a database  22  that holds various information, such as the names of customers, products, previously determined probabilities, etc., that the user will be inputting to the processor  12 . 
         [0067]      FIG. 2  is a table showing software product prioritization for twenty-three products (e.g., software products) for five potential customers. The customers are denoted in the table as “User  1 ” through “User  5 ”. The table shown in  FIG. 2  may be generated by the processor  12  through the various calculations described above and in connection with the operations described in the following flowchart in  FIG. 3 . The table shown in  FIG. 2  may be generated by the display device  18  in response to a quantity of information supplied from the processor  12  that enables the display device  18  to display, or to print, the resulting probability information for each of the potential products and each of the potential customers. The information presented by the processor  12  may be demarcated by a threshold, indicated by the darkened line T 1  in  FIG. 2 , that separates a first quantity of information that represents those potential products that may be developed, and a second quantity of information representing those potential products that are not to be developed. Alternatively, the information shown in the table of  FIG. 2  may be stored on the magnetic storage medium  20  for future use. 
         [0068]    In the table of  FIG. 2  the five potential User&#39;s  1 - 5  may be considered as five different types of helicopters programs (i.e., as customers). The user names have been previously input to the processor  12  using the input device  14 . Similarly, the names of potential products have also been previously input to the processor  12  via the input device  14 . 
         [0069]    Under the heading “Requirability” are requirability probabilities that have been previously input by a user of the system  10  via the input device  14 . Each requirability probability in the table of  FIG. 2  is associated with one of the twenty three products and one of the five potential customers. A requirability probability is the probability that a potential customer requires a potential product. Preferably, each requirability probability is determined by expert analysis (e.g., expert opinion) and has been previously input to the processor  12  via the input device  14 . 
         [0070]    Under the heading “Affordability” are affordability probabilities. Each affordability probability in the table of  FIG. 2  is associated with one of the twenty three products and one of the five potential users (i.e., customers). An affordability probability is the probability that a potential user (i.e., customer) is willing to pay for the potential product. Preferably, each affordability probability is determined by expert analysis (e.g., expert opinion), and has been input to the processor  12  via the input device  14 . 
         [0071]    Under the heading “Schedulability” are schedulability probabilities. Each schedulability probability in the table of  FIG. 2  is associated with one of the twenty three products and one of the five potential customers. A schedulability probability is the probability that a potential product is schedulable (i.e., available for) the potential user. Preferably, each schedulability probability is determined by expert analysis (e.g., expert opinion), and has been previously input to the processor  12  via the input device  14 . 
         [0072]    Under the heading “Probability of Reuse” are reuse probabilities. A reuse probability (or more broadly referred to as an implementation probability) is the probability that a potential customer will implement a product. In the present example, the implementation probabilities are reuse probabilities, i.e., the probability that a follower will implement a product to be developed for a leader. However, it is to be understood that the present disclosure is not limited to reuses. If a reuse situation is not involved, then the availability does not involve schedulability after a leader. The implementation (i.e., reuse) probability for a customer and a product may be expressed as the mathematical product of the requirability, affordability and schedulability (i.e., availability) probabilities of the customer and one of the products. For example, the probability that User  1  will implement Product  2  is 0.27, and is calculated by multiplying together the corresponding requirability probability (0.3), affordability probability (0.9), and availability probability (1.0). Likewise, the probability that User  5  will implement Product  3  is 0.41, and is calculated by taking the product of the corresponding requirability, affordability and availability probabilities (i.e., (0.45)(0.9)(1.0)=0.41). 
         [0073]    In  FIG. 2  two columns are under the heading “Bernoulli Analysis.” The first column includes the E(N) for each product. The second column includes the probabilities of at least one reuse P(N≧1). In the table of  FIG. 2  the products may be ranked by the processor  12  by E(N) and P(N≧1) values. The dark solid horizontal line T 1  between Products  12  and  13  represents the threshold value. Based on the threshold value, it may be determined that Products  1 - 12  should be developed and Products  13 - 23  should not be developed. 
         [0074]      FIG. 3  is a flow diagram, generally indicated at  200 , of one method of the present disclosure for determining whether to develop products, such as software products or hardware products, for potential customers, such as different types of helicopters programs. A plurality of potential products are identified at operation  202 . This identification of potential products corresponds to the column under the heading “Products” in  FIG. 2 . A plurality of potential customers are identified at operation  204 . At operation  205  the system designer assesses salability attributes of the potential products from perspectives of the potential customers to generate attribute assessments. The information from operations  202 ,  204  and  205  may be input directly to the processor  12  via the input device  14  or from the database  22 . The next operational phase, represented by dashed line  206 , is the operation of determining, for each one of at least a plurality of the potential products and for each one of at least a plurality of the potential customers, and using the attribute assessments, the probability of the potential customer implementing the potential product. As discussed above these probabilities are P(EF). The probability (P(EF)) of the potential customer implementing the potential product comprises determining the requirability, affordability and availability probabilities for the product and customer, at operation  208 , and using the processor  12  to multiply together these probabilities, as indicated at operation  210 . Alternatively, these probabilities may be determined in advance by expert analysis or any other suitable methods and supplied to the processor  12  for use with subsequent calculations. 
         [0075]    The implementation combinations (discussed in greater detail above) for each product are determined at operation  212  and the probabilities of the implementation combinations P(F) are determined by the processor  12  at operation  214 . The next operational phase  216  involves deciding, based upon probability determinations, which of the potential products to develop. The operation of deciding which of the potential products to develop may comprise using the processor  12  to combine the probabilities of the implementation combinations P(F) for each product, as indicated at operation  218 . At operation  220  the processor  12  may rank the probability combinations and output the ranked combinations to be displayed on the display terminal  18   a  or printed out in a report on the printer  18   b . At operation  222  a threshold probability combination value may be determined by the processor  12  based on previously provided data or cost parameters by a user of the system  10 . Preferably, the operation of combining the probabilities of the implementation combinations comprises using the processor  12  to determine expected value numbers E(N) for each product and/or determining the probability of at least one reuse P(N≧1) for each product. The next operation  224  involves developing the products decided at operational phase  216 . The operation of developing the products may comprise developing each product whose corresponding probability combination is equal to or greater than the threshold probability combination value (i.e., above threshold line T 1 ). 
         [0076]    Although the customers (or “users”) have been described as helicopters programs, it is to be understood that the terms “customers” and “customer” are not limited to helicopters programs, but may involve any entity or application. Also, it is to be understood that the term “products” is not limited to software products or to hardware products, but may involve any virtually any type of product that may be developed, engineered or manufactured by an entity. 
         [0077]    As various changes could be made in the above systems and methods without departing from the scope of the present disclosure, it is intended that all matter contained in the above description or shown in the accompanying drawings shall be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense. The present disclosure therefore shall be limited solely by the scope of the claims set forth below.