Representing function-technology platform based on the unified modelling language

References

• Alblas, A, and Wortmann, JC, The need for function platforms in engineer or order industries. Presented at Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design. Stanford, USA, 24–27 August, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Alblas, A, and Wortmann, JC, , under review. Product platforms improve R&D efficiency in science-based equipment manufacturing: evidence from a case study in microlithography. Research Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Booch, G, 1994. Object-oriented analysis and design. San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Chuma, H, 2006. Increasing complexity and limits of organization in the microlithography industry: implications for science-based industries, Research Policy 35 (3) (2006), pp. 394–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erens, F, and Verhulst, K, 1997. Architectures for product families, Computers in Industry 33 (2–3) (1997), pp. 165–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericsson, A, and Erixon, G, 1999. Controlling design variants: modular product platforms. New York: ASME; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Feitzinger, E, and Lee, HL, 1997. Mass customization at Hewlett-Packard: the power of postponement, Harvard Business Review 75 (1) (1997), pp. 116–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finger, S, and Rinderle, JR, A transformational approach to mechanical design using a bond graph grammar. Presented at Proceedings of the 1st ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference. September, Montreal, 1989, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Halman, JIM, Hofer, AP, and van Vuuren, W, 2003. Platform-driven development of product families: linking theory with practice, Journal of Product Innovation Management 20 (2) (2003), pp. 149–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmqvist, T, , (2004). Managing product variety through product architecture. PhD Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Hoover, S, and Rinderle, J, 1989. A synthesis strategy for mechanical devices, Research in Engineering Design 1 (2) (1989), pp. 87–103.
   Google Scholar
• Joskowicz, L, and Neville, D, 1996. A representation language for mechanical behavior, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 10 (2) (1996), pp. 109–116.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, MH, Sorensen, C, and Langer, G, 2001. Development of a production meta product state model, Computers in Industry 46 (2001), pp. 275–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y, and Zhang, WJ, 2004. Towards a novel interface design framework: function–behavior–state paradigm, International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 61 (3) (2004), pp. 259–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, X, et al., 2008. Manufacturing perspective of enterprise application integration: the state of the art review, International Journal of Production Research 46 (16) (2008), pp. 4567–4596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath, M, 1995. Product strategy for high-technology companies. New York: Irwin Professional Publishing; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, MH, and Lehnerd, AP, 1997. The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. New York: Free Press; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Muffatto, M, and Roveda, M, 2002. Product architecture and platforms: a conceptual framework, International Journal of Technology Management 24 (1) (2002), pp. 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neville, D, and Joskowicz, L, , 1993. A representation language for conceptual mechanism design. Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, August.
   Google Scholar
• Oxford English Dictionary, (1989). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pahl, G, and Beitz, W, 2003. Engineering design: a systematic approach. London: Springer-Verlag; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, D, and Ulrich, K, 1998. Planning for product platforms, Sloan Management Review 39 (1998), pp. 19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Rumbaugh, J, et al., 1991. Object-oriented modeling and design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Sanderson, SW, and Uzumeri, M, 1997. Managing product families. Chicago, IL: Irwin; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Sawhney, MS, 1998. Leveraged high-variety strategies: from portfolio thinking to platform thinking, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26 (1) (1998), pp. 54–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sköld, M, and Karlsson, C, 2007. Multibranded platform development: a corporate strategy with multimanagerial challenges, Journal of Product Innovation Management 24 (6) (2007), pp. 554–566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton, S, Heimbigner, D, and Osterweil, LJ, 1990. Language constructs for managing change in processes centered environments, Proceedings of the Fourth SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Development Environments. Software Engineering Notes 15 (1990), pp. 206–217.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, K, and Eppinger, S, 1995. Product design and development. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Vernadat, F, 1993. "CIMOSA: enterprise modeling and integration using a process based approach". In: Yoshikawa, H, and Goossenaerts, J, eds. Information infrastructure systems for manufacturing. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Whitney, DE, 1993. Nippondenso Co. Ltd: a case study of strategic product design, Research in Engineering Design 5 (1) (1993), pp. 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Wilhelm, B, 1997. "Platform and modular concepts at Volkswagen – their effects on the assembly process". In: Shimokawa, K, Jürgens, U, and Fujimoto, T, eds. Transforming automobile assembly. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, WZ, et al., 2008. Recent developments on product modelling: a review, International Journal of Production Research 46 (21) (2008), pp. 6055–6085.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, WJ, , Lin, Y., and Sinha, N., 2005. On the function–behavior–structure model for design. Proceedings of the 2nd CDEB Conference, CD ROM Version, 18–20 July 2005, Alberta, Canada.
   Google Scholar