<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Open Configuration: a New Approach to Product Customization</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Linda L. Zhang</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Xiaoyu Chen</string-name>
          <email>x.chen@ieseg.fr</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Andreas Falkner</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Chengbin Chu</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Ecole Centrale Paris (Laboratoire Genie Industriel)</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Paris</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="FR">France</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>IESEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS)</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Lille-Paris</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="FR">France</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Siemens AG Österreich</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Vienna</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="AT">Austria</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>1 State-of-the-art product configuration enables companies to deliver customized products by selecting and assembling predefined configuration elements based on known relationships. This paper introduces an innovative concept, open configuration, in order to assist companies in configuring products that correspond exactly to what customers want. Superior to product configuration, open configuration involves both predefined configuration elements and new ones in configuring customized products. As a first step, this study explains the concept of open configuration and the basic principles. It also discusses in detail the challenges involved in open configuration, such as conceptual model development, open configuration optimization, and open configuration knowledge representation.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>
        With the advancement of design and manufacturing technologies,
customers are no longer satisfied with standardized products. They
increasingly demand products that could satisfy their individual
needs. As a result, companies need to timely offer customized
products at affordable costs to survive [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. With traditional design
approaches, companies cannot efficiently develop customized
products [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2 ref3">2, 3</xref>
        ]. Product configuration has been proposed to enable
companies to deliver customized products at low costs with short
delivery times. Product configuration has been widely applied to a
variety of industries, including computer, telecommunication
systems, transportation, industrial products, medical systems and
services [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. It brings companies a number of advantages in
delivering required products. These advantages include managing
product variety [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ], shortening delivery time [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ], improving
product quality [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ], simplifying order acquisition and fulfilment
activities [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], etc.
      </p>
      <p>
        Product configuration has received much attention from
industrial and academia alike. Researchers have approached
product configuration from different perspectives and have
developed diverse methods, methodologies, approaches, and
algorithms to solve different configuration issues and problems. In
spite of the diversities among these solution tools, they are
developed based on a common assumption: the configuration
elements, such as components, modules, attributes, functions, and
their relationships are predefined. In relation to this assumption, the
products that can be configured are known in principle even if not
explicitly listable [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. In this regard, product configuration cannot
deal with such products that demand new functions and
components in addition to the predefined ones. In another word, it
cannot configure customized products in a true sense, i.e., to the
full extent that it covers all reasonable and unforeseen customer
requirements.
      </p>
      <p>This study proposes an innovative concept ‘open configuration’
in order to help companies configure such products that can meet
both predefined and unforeseen customer requirements, that is, to
meet customer requirements as complete as possible without
making too much compromise (see Section 2). In this regard, in
configuring customized products, open configuration deals with
not only the addition of new configuration elements, such as
functions, components, but also the modification of existing
configuration elements, more specifically components. Existing
component modification is to accommodate the integration of new
components with the predefined ones.</p>
      <p>In the rest of this paper, Section 2 uses a fridge configuration
example to illustrate the limitation of product configuration, i.e.,
the product configured lie in a known range in accordance with the
predefined components. Section 3 introduces the concept of open
configuration, its basic principles, and its process. Section 4 sheds
lights on the challenges involved in open configuration. We end the
paper in Section 5 by pointing out the ongoing research that we are
working on.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>PRODUCT CONFIGURATION</title>
      <p>
        As a special design activity, product configuration capitalizes on
design results, such as components, attributes and their
relationships [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref9">9, 10</xref>
        ]. It entails such a process that based on given
customer requirements, suitable components are selected from the
set of predefined component types; the selected components are
evaluated and further arranged into products according to the
configuration constraints and rules.
      </p>
      <p>Take fridge configuration as an example. Assume in this
example, there are 6 component types, including Refrigerator (R),
Freezer (F), Freezer drawer (Fd), Variable compartment (V), Base
(B), Outer casing (O). Each component type is defined by a set of
attributes (number, size, price) and each attribute can assume a
number of values. Table 1 summarizes these component types, the
attributes, and attribute values.</p>
      <p>For example, NR : (1, 2) represents the number of Refrigerators
in one fridge can be 1 or 2; SR : (small, medium, large, extra-large)
indicates the component Refrigerator has four different sizes:
small, medium, large, extra-large. Price mentioned hereinafter
states the price of the configured fridge.</p>
      <p>There are relationships among components, among attributes,
and between components and attributes. For examples,
{SR  large, NF 1} {SF  small} means if one large sized
Refrigerator and one Freezer are selected, the size of the Freezer is
small; NFd  0 {NR  2, SR  medium} states that if the component
Freezer drawer is selected then two medium Refrigerators are
required. The other relationships include: {SR  medium, NF  0} 
NR  2 ; {SF  small, SR  small} NV  1; {SR  extra-large, NF  1}
{SF  extra-large} ; {SF  extra-large} {SB  wide, SO  wide} ;
{NV 1,NF  0} {NR  1, SR  large,SV  small} ; {SR  small, NF  1} 
{SF  large} .</p>
      <p>There are four additional rules, including (1) (NR  NV  NF )  3 ,
meaning the total number of Refrigerator, Variable compartment,
and Freezer in one fridge should be no more than 3, (2)
NR  2  NV  NF  0 , indicating if two Refrigerators are selected,
the number of Freezer and Variable compartment is zero, (3)
NFd  NF  0 representing that Freezer cannot be selected together
with Freezer drawer, and (4) NFd  NV  0 indicating that Freezer
drawer cannot be selected together with Variable compartment.</p>
      <p>According to the above pre-defined components and their
relationships, only 17 fridge configurations are available as
possible solutions. While Fig. 1 shows 8 fridge configurations due
to the space issue, different positions of components in Fig. 1.c,
Fig. 1.d, Fig. 1.e, Fig. 1.f, and Fig. 1.g lead to the other 9 fridge
configurations. All customized fridges to be configured based on
customer requirements fall into this range of configuration
solutions. (Note: Fridges from the left to the right are arranged
based on the increase of price.) Take fridge f in Fig. 1 as an
example to explain the components and their attributes in the
configuration solution. This fridge configuration is represented as
FCf  {R :1,small ; V :1,small ;F :1,small ;B :1,standard ; O :1,standard} .
It has one small Refrigerator on top, one small Variable
compartment in the middle, one small Freezer at the bottom, one
standard Base, and one standard Outer casing.</p>
      <p>Suppose the requirements from a customer include a cheaper
fridge with a freezer and a large refrigerator. In accordance with
these requirements, the constraints can be modeled as
{R :1,large; NF 1; min P} . The configured fridge must satisfy these
constraints and additional rules mentioned earlier while fulfilling
the customer requirements. In this regard, the constraints
{R :1, large} and {NF  1} limit the possible choices to: {FCc , FCe} ,
i.e., the configuration solutions shown in Figs. 1.c and 1.e. The cost
constraint {min P} indicating the minimal price results in the final
solution to be FCc  {R :1,large ; F :1,small ; B :1,standard ;O :1,
standard } .</p>
      <p>As only predefined elements are involved, product
configuration fails to provide customized products in a true sense
or provides these products which can meet unforeseen customer
requirements. Take the above fridge configuration as an example.
Suppose that the requirements from another customer include any
of the following:
 a fridge consisting of only one medium refrigerator,
 a fridge consisting of 2 freezers,
 an outer casing with a special color, and
 a cheaper fridge to be moved easily and with at least one
freezer drawer.</p>
      <p>In general, the first two requirements violate some predefined
constraints (although the first one requires a new - lower - type of
outer casing as a side-effect); the last two introduce new concepts.
In more detail, the third requirement requires a new attribute value
for the component outer casing. The last one is more complex. A
part of it, i.e., being cheaper and with one freezer drawer, can be
fulfilled by the predefined functions and components, while the
rest cannot be fulfilled by the available functions, thus calling for a
new function: ‘to be movable’. This new function, in turn, needs
new components, such as ‘wheels’, ‘brakes’, etc., which are
necessary for delivering this function. Because of the lack of these
components, product configuration can provide the customer with
one of the fridges shown in Fig. 1 without satisfying all his
requirements. The customer, thus, has to accept this fridge by
making compromise (e.g., accept a cheapest fridge with a freezer
drawer, which cannot be moved easily).
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>OPEN CONFIGURATION</title>
      <p>In order to help companies configure customized products that
correspond exactly to what a customer requires, this paper puts
forward the concept of open configuration. The basic principle and
general process of open configuration are introduced below.
3.1</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Open configuration concept</title>
      <p>Built on top of product configuration, open configuration is to
configure customized products to meet customer requirements in a
true sense. Similar as product configuration, it utilizes design
results, selects components, and arranges the selected components
according to constraints and rules. In extension to product
configuration, it involves new component design, more specifically
the specification of functions and the selection of the
corresponding components. In addition, it deals with the
modification of the predefined components, which allows the
integration of new configuration elements.
3.2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Open configuration overview and process</title>
      <p>Open configuration involves two types of knowledge: predefined
knowledge and dynamic knowledge. Predefined knowledge relates
to predefined functions, components, and relationships; dynamic
knowledge is associated with newly defined elements. In relation
to these customer requirements, which can be fulfilled by the
predefined functions (i.e., Type Ⅰ requirements in Fig. 2), the
corresponding components are selected, while for these
requirements, which cannot be fulfilled by the predefined functions
(i.e., Type Ⅱ requirements in the figure), new functions and
corresponding components are specified. The specification of these
new configuration elements contributes to the extension of the
dynamic knowledge. The relationships among the predefined
elements and the newly defined elements are specified as well.
This specification contributes to the interaction between the
predefined knowledge and the dynamic knowledge. By respecting
the constraints embedded in both the predefined and dynamic
knowledge, all necessary components are selected, modified, and
arranged into a customized product.</p>
      <p>Type Ⅰ
requirements</p>
      <p>Type Ⅱ
requirements</p>
      <p>Predefined
knowledge
Dynamic
knowledge
Customer
requirements
Customized
products</p>
      <p>In more detail, suppose that given customer requirements are
valid, complete and do not conflict with one another. These
requirements are evaluated first to determine whether or not they
can be fulfilled by the available configuration elements (i.e.,
functions and components). According to the evaluation results,
these requirements are classified into Type Ⅰ and Type Ⅱ
requirements. Fig. 3 summarizes this process.</p>
      <p>Components
modification</p>
      <p>Components
selection
Final components
selection
Customer
requirements
evaluation</p>
      <p>Type Ⅰ
requirements
Yes</p>
      <p>All required
configuration elements
available
No
Type Ⅱ
requirements</p>
      <p>New
functions
specification</p>
      <p>New
components
specification</p>
      <p>For Type Ⅱ requirements, new functions are specified and all
possible components which can realize these functions are
subsequently determined. Also specified are the relationships
among functions, among components, and between functions and
components. This process contributes to the extension of the
dynamic knowledge. For Type Ⅰ requirements, all possible
components are selected from the predefined ones. In addition, to
be compatible with the newly introduced components, some
predefined components are modified by respecting constrains and
rules embedded in the predefined and dynamic knowledge. This
process reflects the interaction between the dynamic and
predefined knowledge. From the modified components, newly
introduced components, and selected predefined components,
suitable components are further selected for forming configuration
alternatives, which can meet customer requirements. In the
selection, consistency and compatibility evaluations might be
Components
arrangement
Configured alternatives
evaluation
Customized
products
carried out. The selected components are arranged into product
configuration alternatives by following the product structure
described in the dynamic and predefined knowledge. These
configuration alternatives are further evaluated under certain
criteria. Based on the evaluation results, the optimal one or
multiple are suggested to customers.
4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>CHALLENGES INVOLVED IN OPEN</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>CONFIGURATION</title>
      <p>In accordance with the involvement of new configuration elements,
open configuration changes the basic assumptions and reasoning
processes of product configuration. In this regard, there are a
number of potential challenges involved in open configuration.
Due to the page limitation, this paper discusses five of these
challenges, including open configuration modeling, system design
and development, open configuration solving, open configuration
optimization, and open configuration knowledge representation.
4.1</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Open configuration modeling</title>
      <p>Open configuration modeling addresses the modeling of open
configuration knowledge and the reasoning mechanism for using
the configuration knowledge. The modeling of open configuration
knowledge is to model configuration elements, constraints, and
rules. It involves two kinds of knowledge: predefined knowledge
and dynamic knowledge. A product model and corresponding
functional architectures should be developed for defining and
further classifying the two different types of knowledge. The
modeling of the reasoning mechanism is to shed light on (1) how
new functions are specified, (2) how new components are
determined, and (3) how components are selected and arranged
into products.</p>
      <p>In open configuration modeling, the components and functions
are characterized by their attributes, while the inter-connections
among the components are represented by connections and ports.
The modeling of the dynamic knowledge needs to take into
account the fact that new functions and components are added
based on the unforeseen customer requirements. Thus, its modeling
involves newly-added concepts, constraints, and rules. The
modeling of the predefined knowledge needs to consider these
predefined components, modified components, and their
relationships. The interaction between predefined knowledge and
dynamic knowledge needs to be modeled as well.</p>
      <p>
        Open configuration modeling is more sophisticated than
configuration modeling due to the involvement of the dynamic
knowledge. In this regard, it is interesting to see whether or not
these techniques which are suitable for modeling product
configuration (e.g., Unified Modeling Language (UML), Alloy,
and generative Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]) can be
used to model open configuration. If these techniques are feasible,
how can they be modified or adjusted to model open configuration.
If these techniques are not feasible, new modeling formalisms and
constructs are to be developed.
4.2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>System design and development</title>
      <p>System design and development for open configuration refers to
the design and development of the computer information system to
implement open configuration, i.e., open configurators. Open
configurators consist of a customer input module which deals with
customer requirements evaluation, open configuration knowledge
bases, reasoning and evaluation mechanisms, optimization and
diagnosis mechanisms, and an output module which communicates
the configuration results with users. Different from product
configurators, open configurators involve two knowledge bases: a
knowledge base for the predefined knowledge and the other for the
dynamic knowledge. Joint reasoning mechanisms between the two
knowledge bases are required, which mainly associate with
interacting and integrating elements from the two knowledge bases.
For the dynamic knowledge base, new elements design modules
are needed to develop and maintain this knowledge base. The new
elements design modules include the module for specifying new
functions with respect to the requirements, the module for selecting
new components to fulfill new functions and the module for
interfacing with the predefined elements. For the predefined
knowledge base, different from product configurators, there need
to be a modification module for modify existing components to be
compatible with the new ones.</p>
      <p>In designing and developing open configurators, the techniques
should have the ability to model dynamic knowledge and the
interaction between dynamic knowledge and predefined
knowledge. In this regard, the available system design techniques
for product configuration may need to be modified in designing
and developing open configurators.
4.3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>Open configuration knowledge representation</title>
      <p>Open configuration knowledge representation entails the effective
organization of open configuration knowledge, including the
predefined and dynamic knowledge. It logically uniforms the open
configuration knowledge and enables the utilization of the
knowledge in different configuration tasks.</p>
      <p>The representation of open configuration knowledge includes
the representation of predefined components, relationships,
constraints and rules; the representation of newly-added
components, relationships, constraints and rules; and the
representation of the constraints and relationships between
predefined knowledge and newly added knowledge. From the
experience of the knowledge representation for product
configuration, open configuration should be considered as both a
classification problem (i.e., capturing the aspects of taxonomy and
topology) and a constraint satisfaction problem (i.e., capturing the
aspects of constraints and resource balancing). Considering the
dynamic and indeterminate feature of open configuration, it might
be potentially challenging to capture different aspects of open
configuration knowledge (e.g., taxonomy, topology, constraints,
and resource balancing) in one model. Further studies may try to
design new models (or sub models to be embedded in the available
tools) separately on each aspect and joint them together to
represent the knowledge.
4.4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>Open configuration solving</title>
      <p>Open configuration solving relates to the development and
application of algorithms or other tools to solve open configuration
problems. In solving an open configuration problem, the problem
needs to be modeled first with respect to customer requirements
and configuration rules. To solve this model, algorithms need to be
developed subsequently.</p>
      <p>In the situation that customer requirements demand new
functions, the dynamic knowledge will be specified. The modeling
of open configuration problem will associate with the interaction
between the customer requirements and two types of knowledge
(predefined knowledge and dynamic knowledge). The main
difficulties are (1) the modeling of new function specification, (2)
the modeling of new components selection according to the
customer requirements, (3) and the modeling of the interaction
between new components and selected existing components. After
modeling an open configuration problem, suitable algorithms need
to be developed to solve the model. Because of the differences
between product configuration and open configuration and the
corresponding differences between a product configuration model
and an open configuration model, these algorithms, which are
suitable for product configuration solving, may not be applicable
for open configuration solving. Thus, new algorithms are to be
developed.
4.5</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-12">
      <title>Open configuration optimization</title>
      <p>During each step of open configuration, optimal functions,
components and structures need to be specified from a number of
alternatives. The dynamic feature of open configuration increases
the degree of difficulty in optimizing the new functions, new
components, and the interaction between new components and
predefined ones. In this regard, an explicit optimization mechanism
needs to be developed.</p>
      <p>In accordance with the open configuration process discussed
earlier, the optimization mechanism should evaluate the
configuration elements at three levels. In the first level, the
mechanism should evaluate all the possible function alternatives
for fulfilling Type II requirements and decide on the optimal ones.
This optimization might be based on, e.g., the performance and
completeness of these function alternatives. In the second level, the
mechanism should evaluate all the possible component alternatives
for delivering the determined new functions and decide on the
optimal ones. This optimization may take into account, e.g., the
compatibility among the new components and the interaction with
predefined components. In the third level, the mechanism should
evaluate all the product configuration alternatives and decide on
the optimal ones. This optimization may consider, e.g., product
reliability.
5</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-13">
      <title>CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>In response to the limitation of product configuration, this paper
proposed open configuration to help design customer-driven
product in a true sense. It introduced the concept and process of
open configuration. It also discussed several challenges involved in
open configuration. Currently, we are working on the formulation
of open configuration. In the formulation, new components,
relationships among new components, and relationships between
new components and existing components will be defined and
modeled. This formulation is to rigorously define open
configuration and shed light on the reasoning behind open
configuration.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Heiskala</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.S.</given-names>
            <surname>Paloheimo</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Tiihonen</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Mass customization of services: benefits and challenges of configurable services,
          <fpage>206</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>221</lpage>
          , Proceedings of Frontiers of e-Business Research, Tampere, Finland,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Sabin</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Weigel</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Product configuration frameworks-a survey'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications</source>
          ,
          <volume>13</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>42</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>49</lpage>
          , (
          <year>1998</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Schmitt</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Bergmann</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Applying case-based reasoning technology for product selection and customization in electronic commerce environments</article-title>
          ,
          <fpage>42</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>48</lpage>
          ,
          <source>Proceedings of the 12th International Bled Electronic Commerce Conference</source>
          , Bled, Slovenia,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Trentin</surname>
          </string-name>
          , E. Perin, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Forza</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Product configurator impact on product quality'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>International Journal of Production Economics</source>
          ,
          <volume>135</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>850</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>859</lpage>
          , (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Forza</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Salvador</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Managing for variety in the order acquisition and fulfilment process: the contribution of product configuration systems'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>International Journal of Production Economics</source>
          ,
          <volume>76</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>87</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>98</lpage>
          , (
          <year>2002a</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Haug</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Hvam</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.H.</given-names>
            <surname>Mortensen</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>The impact of product configurators on lead times in engineering-oriented companies'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing</source>
          ,
          <volume>25</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>197</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>206</lpage>
          , (
          <year>2011</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Trentin</surname>
          </string-name>
          , E. Perin, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Forza</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Overcoming the customizationresponsiveness squeeze by using product configurators: Beyond anecdotal evidence'</article-title>
          , Computers in Industry,
          <volume>62</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>260</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>268</lpage>
          , (
          <year>2011</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Forza</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Salvador</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Product configuration and inter-firm coordination: an innovative solution from a small manufacturing enterprise'</article-title>
          , Computers in Industry,
          <volume>49</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>37</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>46</lpage>
          , (
          <year>2002b</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Mittal</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Frayman</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Towards a generic model of configuration tasks</article-title>
          ,
          <fpage>1395</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1401</lpage>
          ,
          <source>Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence</source>
          , Detroit, USA,
          <year>1989</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Brown</surname>
          </string-name>
          , 'Defining configuration',
          <source>Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing</source>
          ,
          <volume>12</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>301</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>305</lpage>
          , (
          <year>1998</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Falkner</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Haselböck</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G. Schenner, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Schreiner</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Modeling and solving technical product configuration problems'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing</source>
          ,
          <volume>25</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>115</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>129</lpage>
          , (
          <year>2011</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>