A module configuration and valuation model for operational flexibility in ship design using contract scenarios

References

• Abbott J, Devries R, Schoenster W, Vasilakos J, Firebaugh M, Malchiodi A, Goddard C. 2003. The impact of evolutionary acquisition on naval ship design. Trans Soc Naval Arch MarEng (SNAME). 111:259–286.
   Google Scholar
• Abbott JW, Levine A, Vasilakos J. 2008. Modular/open systems to support ship acquisition strategies. Am Soc Naval Eng (ASNE) Day. 23–25.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews DJ. 2011. Marine requirements elucidation and the nature of preliminary ship design. IJME RINA. 153:23.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews DJ, Pawling R. 2004. Fast motherships-a design challenge.RINA Warship Conference; London; June 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB. 2000. Design rules: the power of modularity (Vol. 1). Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, CY, Clark KB. 2006. Modularity in the design of complex engineering systems. In: Braha, D, Minai AA, Bar-Yam Y, editors. Complex engineered systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; p. 175–205.
   Google Scholar
• Bole M. 2007. Cost assessment at concept stage design using parametrically generated production product models. International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding (ICCAS); 2007 September 18–20; Portsmouth, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Bendall HB, Stent AF. 2005. Ship investment under uncertainty: valuing a real option on the maximum of several strategies. Maritime Econ Logist. 7:19–35.
   Google Scholar
• Campagnolo D, Camuffo A. 2010. The concept of modularity in management studies: a literature review. Int J Manage Rev. 12:259–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CPLEX, IBM ILOG. 2009. V12. 1: User's manual for CPLEX. Int Bus Mach Corpor. 46:157.
   Google Scholar
• Doerry NH. 2014. Institutionalizing modular adaptable ship technologies. J Ship Prod Des. 30:126–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erikstad SO, Fagerholt K, Solem S. 2011. A ship design and deployment model for non-cargo vessels using contract scenarios. Ship Technol Res. 58:132–141.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson S, Kasprzak E, Lewis K. 2009. Designing a family of reconfigurable vehicles using multilevel multidisciplinary design optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 39:171–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregor JA. 2003. Real options for naval ship design and acquisition: a method for valuing flexibility under uncertainty [Master's thesis]. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Gu P, Hashemian M, Nee AYC. 2004. Adaptable design. CIRP Ann Manufact Technol. 53:539–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haldaman J. 2010. Study of reconfigurability and reconfigurable products for use in design [Master's thesis]. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University.
   Google Scholar
• Jiao J, Tseng MM. 1999. A methodology of developing product family architecture for mass customization. J Intell Manufact. 10:3–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koren Y, Hu SJ, Gu P, Shpitalni M. 2013. Open-architecture products. CIRP Ann Manufact Technol. 62:719–729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Xue D, Gu P. 2008. Design for product adaptability. Concurr Eng. 16:221–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcantonio RT, Sanford EG, Levine DSTAJ. 2007. Addressing the design challenges of open system architecture systems on US Navy Ships – building out of the box.MAST 2007 Conference; 2007 Nov 14–15; Genoa (Italy).
   Google Scholar
• Page J. 2012. Flexibility in early stage design of US Navy ships: an analysis of options. J Ship Product Des. 28:128–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perlitz M, Peske T, Schrank R. 1999. Real options valuation: the new frontier in R&D project evaluation? R&D Manage. 29:255–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvador F, Forza C, Rungtusanatham M. 2002. Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions. J Oper Manage. 20:549–575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqi A, de Weck OL, Iagnemma K. 2006. Reconfigurability in planetary surface vehicles: Modeling approaches and case study. J Brit Interplanet Soc. 59:450–460.
   Google Scholar
• Simon HA. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson TW. 2004. Product platform design and customization: Status and promise. AI EDAM: Artificial Intell Eng Des, Anal Manufact. 18:3–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sødal S, Koekebakker S, Aadland R. 2008. Market switching in shipping – a real option model applied to the valuation of combination carriers. Rev Fin Econ. 17:183–203.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich K. 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res Policy. 24:419–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Oers BJ. 2011. A packing approach for the early stage design of service vessels [PhD dissertation]. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Xue D, Gu P. 2015. Adaptable design of open architecture products with robust performance. J Eng Des. 26:1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar