X-Planes: X-67, the Slot Taken by XQ-67A

The whole public case for the X-67 having been skipped is one sentence, and four fifths of that sentence is a comparison with another number. The entry by the compiler, Andreas Parsch, reads that, just like the X-58, the X-67 slot was skipped after the allocation of the XQ-67A to the General Atomics Off-Board Sensing Station unmanned aircraft [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. The entry ends there. There is no reasoning about this case, no statement of confidence, and no claim that the aeroplane does not exist.

Set that beside the entry one paragraph above it. The X-58’s entry states that the designation has been skipped, names the aeroplane and the laboratory that took the number, and adds that it is practically certain that the number was chosen to fit into the research series even though a vehicle designated with the unmanned symbol should have taken an unmanned number [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. Reasoning, a confidence grading and a claim about emptiness, and the X-67’s entry carries none of the three.

The comparison is the point and a uniqueness claim is not available. The compiler reasons by analogy elsewhere. His note on the XRQ-73A derives the number 73 from the XRQ-72A because one programme follows the other, and his note on the YFQ-44A says that the number is out of sequence like the YFQ-42A’s and that why 43 was skipped is unclear [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. What is distinctive here is narrower. The 73 is derived from a programme relationship, so the reasoning concerns its own case. The 67 is derived from another number’s derivation, and that other derivation is the only place the reasoning lives.

This is the sixty-eighth article in the X-Planes series, following the X-1, the X-2, the X-3, the X-4, the X-5, the X-6, the X-7, the X-8, the X-9, the X-10, the X-11, the X-12, the X-13, the X-14, the X-15, the X-16, the X-17, the X-18, the X-19, the X-20, the X-21, the X-22, the X-23, the X-24, the X-25, the X-26, the X-27, the X-28, the X-29, the X-30, the X-31, the X-32, the X-33, the X-34, the X-35, the X-36, the X-37, the X-38, the X-39, the X-40, the X-41, the X-42, the X-43, the X-44, the X-45, the X-46, the X-47, the X-48, the X-49, the X-50, the X-51, the X-52, the X-53, the X-54, the X-55, the X-56, the X-57, the X-58, the X-59, the X-60, the X-61, the X-62, the X-63, the X-64, the X-65, and the X-66.

The X-39, the X-52 and the X-58 each reached this series as a number rather than as an aeroplane, and the X-67 is the fourth. The first was reserved and lost because nobody wrote the letter that would have assigned it. The second was requested in writing and refused for resembling a number already in use. The third was skipped while the number went to an unmanned aircraft in a neighbouring series. The fourth is the third happening again, and a second occurrence matters because it is the point at which a precedent becomes a rule.

This article is therefore not a second account of the same mechanism. The X-58 article established the mechanism, measured the family of borrowed numbers, and showed that scarcity explains nothing. What it could not do, having only one case, is ask whether the case was an accident. The X-67 makes that question answerable, and the answer turns out to need three things the earlier article did not have.

The first is a test. The claim that a number was taken from the research series is checkable against the register, because a borrowed number should coincide with the number the research series was about to issue and should coincide with nothing else. Applied to every out-of-sequence number in the unmanned series, that test fires two times in six, and both times it names the research series. The compiler asserts the derivation for the X-67 and offers no evidence. The register he compiled supplies the evidence he does not cite.

The second is the instruction. The governing publication defines the next number to request from the last approved design number of the same basic mission, and it refuses requests in skipped sequences [DAFI 16-401]. Read together, those two sentences mean that nobody had to decide to skip the X-67. What was needed was for somebody to ask for the X-68, after which the X-67 became unrequestable for ever. The skip is a consequence of a later request rather than an earlier decision, and the article that said the absence was permitted and unexplained can now say what permitted it and when it became irreversible.

The third is the aeroplane, and only for one reason. The XQ-67A flew on 2024-02-28 and it was built to prove that several different aircraft can be raised on one shared core structure, an idea its programme called a genus carrying species [AFRL first flight release] [GA-ASI first flight release]. A design number exists to answer the question of when a thing is a new thing. The aeroplane that consumed this one was built to prove that the answer is modular. That collision is this article’s subject, and it gives an anomaly with four sentences of record an argument.

No X-67 vehicle was ever built, so there is no keystone to identify and no system to dimension, and the sections on sizing, dependent systems and flight say so and stop. The aeroplane that took the number is treated as evidence about the number and not as the subject.

The Research Question

The X-67 is a number and a number has no research question, so this section has to separate two things the title of the article joins. No vehicle was ever designated X-67, and the register carries no research-series row with the design number 67 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. Nothing was built to answer a question under that number, and the record attributes no question to it.

The aeroplane that took the number did have a question, and the laboratory stated it. The XQ-67A existed to show that several aircraft can be raised as species on one shared genus chassis, and the laboratory’s release says that the object was the method as much as the aeroplane [AFRL first flight release]. That question is the XQ-67A’s and not the X-67’s.

The question this article asks is therefore about the number, and the opening states it. Whether a second borrowing from the research series was an accident, what permitted the skip and when it became irreversible, and what a design number indexes at all are the questions taken up under Why the Slot Is Empty, So Far As the Record Says and What the Data Changed. The aeroplane’s question enters only because its answer bears on the last of them.

Programme Origin, What the Record Says Happened

The public record of the X-67 consists of one absence and four sentences. The absence is in the allocation register and the sentences are in two compilations by the same author, so the argument that follows has a narrow base and the article states this at the outset.

The Register Is the Primary Source and the Primary Source Is a Table

The register is a private compilation by Andreas Parsch that continues DOD 4120.15-L, the Department of Defense list of model designations, and it covers allocations from 19 August 1998 onward [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. Its descriptions of later allocations are marked by the compiler as not official Department wording, as described below, so the register is evidence about the Department’s allocations and not a Department publication. Its front matter explains why it exists. The Department published no updated edition for almost six years after October 1998, the compiler requested the new assignments under the Freedom of Information Act, and the list has been maintained since. The compiler also records that the Department announced in 2018 that the printed list would be retired and that the data would be made available through other online sources, and that those sources have not been implemented [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. That last sentence turns out to matter and the article returns to it.

Every register count in this article is of the register as last updated on 23 August 2026, a date after this article’s. The page as archived on 10 December 2025, two days before that date, carries 526 designation rows, 29 of them in the research series and the last of those the X-66A [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum, as archived on 10 December 2025], and the dated note under The Article’s Own Vantage Point records when the newer research rows appeared. Five rows of the later copy carry a partial date in 2026, after this article’s date, and they enter its row counts but no chronological statement.

The table carries 539 designation rows, of which 532 have a designation in the standard form and seven do not, the latter being the rows listed below exactly as the register prints them.

AGM-158B-2
AGM-158B-3
AIM-120ER
AMH-130R AMH-6R
C-130J(CC-130J)
F-15EX
W-2A WS-2(?)A

Of the well-formed rows 503 carry a full day, month and year and 29 carry a partial date or none. The dated rows run from 1997-12-10 to 2025-11-21. Every chronological statement below uses the dated subset and every count uses the whole, because a row with a partial date is still an allocation and excluding it would understate the register while including it would corrupt an ordering.

The register also marks its reliability, in four states, and this article needs all four. The compiler’s note explains that no complete official data is available for designations assigned after October 2018, that for later allocations the official description is no longer releasable to the public, and that such descriptions are therefore shown in blue to indicate that they are not official Department wording [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. Rows missing from officially released data altogether are shown entirely in blue, a stronger claim because it concerns a whole allocation rather than one cell.

The four states are exhaustive and disjoint, and any officiality count depends on that, so the article states the partition outright.

So 103 of the 539 rows carry a mark of some kind, and five of them are among the seven rows in non-standard form, which the table counts with the rest. The distinction between the second state and the fourth is the one this article leans on, and merging them would destroy the comparison drawn under The Second Case Falls on the Far Side of a Line the First Did Not. The four counts in the table sum to the 539 rows, so a row falling into none of the four or into two of them would show as a total that no longer matches.

The Absence Is Measured and Not Quoted

An absence cannot be quoted, so it has to be measured. Searching the register’s text for the string X-67 finds nothing at all, not even a denial. The two occurrences of that string anywhere in the compiler’s work are both in the separate compilation of missing designations [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum] [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. And a search would prove nothing about the table in any case, because a note is not a row. The measurement is an enumeration of every row whose basic mission symbol is the research symbol.

There are 31 such rows and they carry 25 distinct design numbers. The numbers run from 37 to 76, which is a span of 40 positions, and fifteen of those positions carry no row at all, being 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 52, 58, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75. The number 67 is among them, and the count of research-series rows carrying the design number 67 is zero.

That absence divides into two kinds and only one kind is evidence, and the division is a disjoint decomposition of the set above.

The register opens on 19 August 1998, so a designation allocated before that date is absent from it for a reason that has nothing to do with being skipped. Five of the fifteen absences fall in that category, being 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43. Ten fall inside the window, being 52, 58, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75, and for those the absence is informative because their neighbours are in the same document.

That division is a documented fact, because the government published its own list and the list carries them. DoD 4120.15-L of 12 May 2004 lists the X-41A as an experimental manoeuvring reentry vehicle, the X-42A as an experimental expendable vehicle and the X-43A to Microcraft as a hypersonic experimental research aircraft, each with a sponsor and an engine entry [DoD 4120.15-L, 2004 with Change 1]. So three of the five absences outside the window are allocations the Department itself printed, and their absence from a register that opens in August 1998 dates them and casts no doubt on them.

The share deserves a figure because it is larger than a reader would guess. It is the ratio of the two counts above. Writing the set of absent numbers as $A$ and the span’s endpoints as $d_{\min}$ and $d_{\max}$ gives the completeness of the record directly.

That evaluates to 37.5 percent. More than a third of the positions in the span the register covers carry no research-series row at all.

The series is not fast, so the share matters. The allocation rate over the window is the count of dated rows divided by the interval they span.

The 29 dated research rows span 26.289 years, so $\lambda$ is 1.1031 allocations per year. Dividing the numbers lost inside the window by that rate converts them into years of the series’ output.

That is 9.07 years. A series issuing roughly one number a year has lost ten numbers inside the register’s window, a decade of its output.

That answers a different question from the arithmetic of the X-58 article, which computed the rate at which the series consumes numbers and the headroom before the design-number field must widen, and concluded that scarcity explains nothing. The missing share says nothing about scarcity and something about the record.

The X-67’s absence is therefore dispositive in a way that the X-41’s is not. The X-66A was allocated in May 2023 and the X-68A in August 2025, both inside the window and both in the same table. A row between them would have been recorded if it existed. That is the strongest statement the register supports about the X-67, and it concerns the register rather than an aeroplane.

The Number Was Taken While It Was Still the Next One Due

The allocation that carries the number is in the unmanned series and the register gives its date. The XQ-67A was allocated on 2023-07-19 to General Atomics, with a sponsor cell naming the United States Air Force, printed as USAF, an engine cell reading 1 Williams FJ44-4A, and a description reading that it is an unmanned air vehicle for the Off-Board Sensing Station programme [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum].

The research series had reached 66 at that moment. The X-66A was allocated on 2023-05-03, 77 days before the borrowing, and no research allocation after that one precedes it. So the next research design number due on 2023-07-19 was 67, and 67 is the number the unmanned allocation took.

The same arithmetic holds for the earlier case and the two differ in their timing. The XQ-58A was allocated on 2017-07-10 to Composite Engineering under the same sponsor, the research series had reached 57 through the X-57A of 2016-05-03, and the next number due was 58 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. The gap between the preceding research allocation and the borrowing was 433 days in the first case and 77 days in the second, a ratio of 5.623. The second number was taken while it was much fresher.

And the research series then waited. After the first borrowing the next research allocation was the X-59A on 2018-06-21, 346 days later. After the second it was the X-68A on 2025-08-20, 763 days later, the longer of the two and the interval during which nothing in the record had yet treated the X-67 as spent.

Two Designations in the Whole Register Carry That Prefix and Nothing Else

The pair is small and bounded and the register says so by enumeration. A designation is a run of letters, a design number and a series letter, and the last letter before the dash is the basic mission symbol while every letter ahead of it is a prefix [DAFI 16-401]. Searching the register for rows whose basic mission is the unmanned symbol and whose prefix is exactly the experimental symbol returns two designations, being XQ-58A and XQ-67A.

That matters because the register carries other rows combining the two letters and they are not the same thing. The XRQ-22A, the XRQ-72A and the XRQ-73A carry a reconnaissance symbol between the two, and the XMQ-17A and the XMQ-19A carry a multi-mission symbol. The two bare forms are the only designations in which the experimental prefix sits directly against the unmanned mission with nothing between, and they are the two numbers the compiler says came from the research series.

The Register States the Derivation Twice and the Second Statement Is Thinner

The compiler writes about the X-67 in two places and neither sentence contains an argument. In the register’s end notes the entry reads that the out-of-sequence number 67 of the XQ-67A was taken from the X-series [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. In the compilation of missing designations the entry reads that, just like the X-58, the X-67 slot was skipped after the allocation of the XQ-67A to the General Atomics Off-Board Sensing Station unmanned aircraft [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations].

Set those beside what the same compiler wrote about the first case. The note against the XQ-58A reads that the out-of-sequence number 58 of the Kratos Valkyrie was taken from the X-series, and it adds a parenthesis stating that there is no X-58 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. The missing-designations entry reads that the X-58 designation has been skipped, that the designation XQ-58A was assigned to the Valkyrie unmanned aircraft built for the Air Force Research Laboratory, and that it is practically certain that the number 58 was chosen to fit into the X-series even though a vehicle designated with the unmanned symbol should get a number in the unmanned series [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations].

Three things are present in the first case and absent in the second. The reasoning, that an unmanned designation should have taken an unmanned number. The confidence, stated as practically certain. And the claim that the slot is empty, which the first note makes as a parenthesis and the second does not make at all. What the second case has instead is the phrase just like the X-58.

The compiler is not being careless, and his treatment of the rest of the family shows it. He uses a graded vocabulary and he uses it consistently.

He writes apparently, probably, practically certain, unclear and nothing at all, and he writes each where the evidence calls for it [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum] [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. Because the XRQ-72A’s entry states plainly that the derivation is unknown, the silence against the X-67 is informative. A compiler who will write unclear when he cannot derive a number is not withholding an argument. He is citing one.

And the citation runs one step deep rather than two. The 73 is derived from the 72, whose origin is recorded as unknown, so that derivation stands on a number and not on a reason. The 67 is derived from the 58, whose origin is recorded with reasoning and a confidence. Of the two chains in the family, the chain this article is about has the sound root.

The Second Case Falls on the Far Side of a Line the First Did Not

This difference between the two borrowings matters most to a register, and the notes do not mention it. The XQ-58A was allocated in July 2017 and its description is official Department wording. It reads that the aeroplane is an unmanned, transonic, long-range, low-cost, limited life, strike unmanned aircraft system, and it carries the popular name Valkyrie [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. The XQ-67A was allocated in July 2023 and its description carries the mark saying it is not official Department wording.

In the first case the government said what the aeroplane was for and in the second it did not. The register’s state for the XQ-58A’s description is official and for the XQ-67A’s it is cell. The compiler’s phrase just like the X-58 therefore draws an analogy across the evidentiary boundary his own front matter declares.

The research series crosses the same boundary in the same place and this series has measured it. Of the 31 research rows, 21 are fully official, seven are official allocations whose descriptions are the compiler’s, one is official with a partly unofficial description, and two are rows absent from officially released data altogether. The last research row with an official description is the X-60A of September 2018 and the first without one is the X-61A of June 2019. The X-61 article recorded that finding, and this article confirms it by recomputation.

This measurement also refines a figure other articles in this series state, being the research series’ officiality split as twenty-one official, nine wholly unofficial and one partly. The register gives 21 official, nine wholly unofficial and one partly, which agrees exactly, provided that wholly unofficial merges two different claims. Two of the nine are rows absent from officially released data altogether and seven are official allocations whose stated purpose is the compiler’s. The recorded figure is right and the category is too coarse for this article’s use, because the XQ-67A falls in the second group and the comparison above consists of that distinction.

Some of the row survives the mark. The date, the designation, the contractor and the engine data on the XQ-67A’s row are unmarked, so they are official. The register officially records that the aeroplane has one Williams FJ44-4A and unofficially records what it is for. That inversion is the register’s shape after 2018, and it explains why an article about a designation can still be written while an article about a purpose cannot.

The Aeroplane That Took the Number, in the Record’s Own Words

The airframe enters this article as evidence about what a design number is for, because the programme that consumed this number existed to show that a design can be a shared core with interchangeable mission kits.

The laboratory’s release is the primary account and it is short. The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Aerospace Systems Directorate flew the XQ-67A, an Off-Board Sensing Station unmanned air vehicle, on 2024-02-28 at the General Atomics Gray Butte Flight Operations Facility near Palmdale, California [AFRL first flight release]. The aircraft completed several test points and recovered safely on the first of a series of flight tests.

The release then states the claim this article is about. The XQ-67A is described as the first of a second generation of autonomous collaborative platforms, and the laboratory’s capability lead is quoted saying that, following the success of the XQ-58A, the XQ-67A proves the common chassis or genus approach to aircraft design, build and test, and that this approach paves the way for other aircraft species to be rapidly replicated on a standard genus chassis [AFRL first flight release]. The same official is quoted explaining the mechanism in terms borrowed from another industry.

This approach will help save time and money by leveraging standard substructures and subsystems, similar to how the automotive industry builds a product line. From there, the genus can be built upon for other aircraft, similar to that of a vehicle frame, with the possibility of adding different aircraft kits to the frame, such as an Off-Board Sensing Station or Off-Board Weapon Station.

The contractor’s release says the same thing in the language of a first instance. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems states that it flew the aeroplane on 2024-02-28, that the Off-Board Sensing Station is a laboratory programme and that the firm was selected in 2021 to design, build and fly the aircraft, and that with the flight it has validated the genus and species concept first developed with the laboratory under the Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Platform Sharing programme [GA-ASI first flight release]. The programme manager is quoted saying that the aeroplane is the first species to be designed and built from this shared platform, and the contractor’s vice-president of advanced programmes that it is the first aircraft type built and flown using a common core chassis that promotes commonality across multiple vehicle types.

The lineage the laboratory gives runs through four programme names and the article uses it. The Low Cost Attritable Aircraft Technologies initiative began with in-house designs in late 2014 and early 2015, and its early studies evolved into the requirements definition for the Low Cost Attritable Strike Demonstrator joint capability technology demonstration, which produced the XQ-58 for its first flight in 2019. The platform-sharing programme began as discussions in 2018 and fed into the Off-Board Sensing Station programme, which culminated in building and flying the XQ-67A [AFRL first flight release]. The laboratory also records that the team initially worked with five industry vendors and that it decided at the end of 2021 to exercise the opportunity to build the General Atomics design.

One sentence in that release states the programme’s object more plainly than any other, and the object is the method as much as the aeroplane. The elision covers a clause allowing that there is an aircraft at the end of the programme which the laboratory expects to get a great deal of use from, and it does not change the sense [AFRL first flight release].

This has to be done affordably and this program … the purpose of this program was the journey of rapid, low-cost production as much as it was the destination of a relevant combat aircraft.

The aeroplane has flown again since and the second flight is about mission systems rather than about the airframe. In July 2025 the contractor reported that the aeroplane demonstrated the integration of government reference autonomy during a flight test in the California high desert, paired with active tactical datalink communications, and that it executed test points validating autonomy, mission computing, networking, power and thermal management and datalinks [GA-ASI autonomy release]. The release describes the aeroplane as a testbed and as critical to exploring the platform sharing approach, repeating the claim of the first release, this time for mission systems.

What the Award Record Adds That the Releases Do Not

The federal award record names the five vendors the laboratory’s release leaves anonymous, and it prices the down-select the releases describe without numbers. Querying it for the platform-sharing programme returns five contracts, all awarded in the spring of 2019 [USAspending].

The count of five matches the laboratory’s sentence about five industry vendors, and this article has found no other corroboration for it. The total is 24,479,631.19 dollar. Every share quoted in this section is the same relation, one award over the sum of them, written once here and not again.

The firm that eventually built the aeroplane already held 43.60 percent of that money, and the top two awards together held 83.53 percent. The eventual winner’s award was 1.0922 times the second largest and 7.710 times the fourth.

All five of those firms hold research-series designations in their own right, and between them they hold 23 of the register’s 31 research rows [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum].

The smallest of the five platform-sharing awards went to Aurora Flight Sciences in March 2019 and that firm was allocated the X-65 four years later [USAspending] [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. A laboratory programme about sharing airframe cores engaged, in one go, the firms that own three quarters of the experimental designation series.

Then the Off-Board Sensing Station contracts, and these are the ones that record the decision. The award record returns two, one day apart [USAspending].

The ratio between them is 4.2483, and the two figures deviate from what was reported at award in opposite directions. Trade coverage of the October 2021 awards reported matching cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts of 17,700,000.00 dollar each, potentially worth 49,000,000.00 dollar if an option of 31,400,000.00 dollar were exercised, which sums to 49,100,000.00 dollar, with a base effort to be delivered within a year and an option effort to be completed by the end of January 2024 [Kratos, General Atomics Get Contracts for Off-Board Sensing Station].

Comparing an outturn against a reported figure is the other relation this section uses repeatedly, a relative deviation from a reference.

Against those figures the award record shows one contract at 3.8410 times its reported base and 38.75 percent above its reported ceiling, an excess of 18,986,112.00 dollar, while the other ended at 90.41 percent of its reported base, 9.59 percent short. The two deviations have opposite signs, which is the shape of a competition resolved rather than completed and is the only thing this pair of numbers establishes. One contract grew past the maximum its option defined and the other stopped before its minimum. The sum of the two is 83,989,414.00 dollar, 3.431 times the total of the platform-sharing programme that preceded it.

The same coverage names the solicitation behind the awards. The awards followed a Broad Agency Announcement of September 2020 under a laboratory heading called Science and Technology for Autonomous Teammates, proposals were submitted in April 2021, and two awards were expected [Kratos, General Atomics Get Contracts for Off-Board Sensing Station]. That announcement is a primary document and has not been read.

And the Laboratory’s Own Account of When It Decided Disagrees With the Contemporary Record

The laboratory’s 2024 release states that it decided at the end of 2021 to exercise the opportunity to build the General Atomics design [AFRL first flight release]. Contemporary reporting places the selection in February 2023, describing the laboratory as having asked General Atomics to build and flight test its aircraft, and noting that the two development contracts of October 2021 had a twelve-month development period [AFRL Chooses General Atomics Drone for Off-Board Sensing Station Program].

Those two accounts are about a year apart and the article does not resolve them. A twelve-month base effort beginning in late October 2021 ends in late October 2022, so an option exercised after it could not have been exercised at the end of 2021 in any ordinary sense. The most likely readings are that the release’s end of 2021 refers to the award itself rather than to the option, or that it is an error for the end of 2022. The record contains no document that chooses, and the designation date of 2023-07-19 sits after both candidate dates and therefore distinguishes neither.

The Designation Arrived Three Quarters of the Way Through

Laying the award record beside the designation date and the first flight gives the ordering.

The designation came 631 days after the build contract and 224 days before first flight. Placing an event inside an interval takes a ratio of two differences, the last relation this section needs.

Measured against the 855 days from build contract to first flight, the number arrived with 73.8 percent of that interval already elapsed. The aeroplane was contracted, designed and largely built before it had a designation.

That is a sixth ordering between a number and an aeroplane. This series has recorded five already.

The sixth is the number arriving mid-build, after the design is committed and before it flies. It is probably the ordinary case for a modern demonstrator rather than an anomaly, and it is recorded because an ordinary case is the baseline the five unusual ones are unusual against, and a list of exceptions does not supply that baseline by itself.

The award record is also silent about the designation itself, as it was for the X-62. Querying it for the string XQ-67A returns no awards at all [USAspending], a result that article explains as a designation being a claim one part of a government makes to another, of no use to the part that pays the invoices.

Why the Slot Is Empty, So Far As the Record Says

The register says that the slot was skipped and does not say who skipped it. The governing instruction explains how such an absence is possible, and it explains it twice in two different mechanisms, and the article’s finding is that the second mechanism makes the first unnecessary.

The Instruction Defines the Next Number From the Last Approved One

The publication in force is Department of the Air Force Instruction 16-401 of 3 November 2020 [DAFI 16-401]. Its request procedure tells the requester what to look up before asking for anything.

Research and determine the “next-in-series” MDS designator to be requested … For standard aircraft, reference the basic mission designator and research the last approved design number and design series of that basic mission designator to determine the “next-in-series” MDS designator.

The elision covers a parenthetical naming where to look, a page on the Defense Technical Information Center’s DoDTechipedia site or the allocating office itself, and the article returns to that parenthetical below because the site it names is the half of the sentence that has not survived.

So the next number is defined from the last approved design number and not from the lowest unused one. A gap left in a basic mission is therefore not a slot waiting to be filled. It is behind the pointer, and the procedure never looks behind the pointer.

That is a stronger statement than the one this series has been making. The X-39 article found that reuse of a reserved designation requires cancellation first and that the cancellation was never filed, a finding that concerns a single paperwork failure. The procedural sentence above is general, and it implies that in the ordinary case there is nothing to cancel, because a skipped number was never approved and so can never be the last approved one.

And the Instruction Refuses to Sell a Skipped Number Back

One page earlier the eligibility criteria close the door explicitly.

The request pertains to a new designation or modification/revision to an existing designator. Requests are not accepted for designators in reverse or skipped sequences.

That sentence alone decides whether the X-67 could still be issued, and it decides against. Once the X-68A was approved, a request for the X-67 would be a request in a skipped sequence, which the instruction declines to accept. The number is not vacant. It is unrequestable.

One of those two sentences was cited by the X-58 article and the other was not, and the difference matters more than it looks. The X-58 article cited the research step, in its non-standard-aircraft branch, and used it to measure how far above the unmanned ceiling the borrowed number landed [DAFI 16-401]. It also cited the discretion clause, and concluded that the absence was permitted and unexplained rather than decided. What it did not cite is the eligibility criterion quoted above, and the irreversibility comes from that sentence. A pointer that only moves forward leaves a gap behind it. A rule refusing requests in skipped sequences is what makes the gap permanent, so the absence is not merely permitted but irreversible by rule.

The Rule Changed, and the Register Holds the Before-Case in the Same Series

The research series contains one number that was skipped and later recovered, and the register records both dates. The pointer advanced from 48 to 50 on 2002-02-13, passing the 49, and the X-49A was allocated on 2003-05-23, 464 days later [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. The X-49 article records why the number was passed, namely that the round fifty was wanted for a rotorcraft, and that the vacancy was filled when a programme changed sponsor. What that article did not ask is whether the fill was permitted.

It was, and the edition then in force confirms it in one sentence. The joint instruction of 1 September 1997, which superseded the issue of 9 September 1994 and like it implements a Department directive of 1985, directs the coordinating office to assign and reserve the next available consecutive design number within each basic mission [AFJI 16-401, 1 September 1997]. The 1994 issue states the same procedure plainly [AFJI 16-401, 9 September 1994].

HQ ASC/ENOS will assign the next available consecutive design number within each basic mission for new vehicles.

Next available is not the same quantity as last approved, and this article’s mechanism lies in the difference. A number that has been passed is available, so under the rule of 1994 and 1997 the 49 was the next available number in May 2003 and the X-49A is the instruction obeyed rather than bent. Under the rule of 2014 and 2020 the next number is derived from the last approved one, and a passed number is behind the pointer and unrequestable.

The word skip appears in none of the issues of 1994, 1997 and 2005, as the X-52 article found when it read them for a refusal made in 2006 under the last of them [AFJI 16-401, 9 September 1994] [AFJI 16-401, 1 September 1997] [AFI 16-401(I), 14 April 2005]. That article dates the arrival of a bare discretion to skip to the issue of 16 May 2014, which also states that skipped design numbers cannot be requested or used [AFI 16-401, 16 May 2014]. This one adds what the same change did in the other direction. It closed the route the X-49A had used.

So the four research-series numbers passed before the X-76A fall under two regimes, the first two under the rule of the next available number and the last two under the rule that refuses skipped sequences, and only the last two were unrecoverable from the start.

The X-67 is therefore the second number in the research series to be skipped under a rule that makes skipping permanent, and the X-58 was the first. That dated claim from primary text is the only statement this article makes about why the slot is empty that carries both a date and a document. Neither the X-58’s slot nor the X-67’s was ever recoverable.

Six Editions Place the Change in 2014, and the Answer Narrows the Claim

Whether an edition between 1994 and 2020 changed the language earlier can be settled from the editions themselves. Six editions of the rule have been read and they divide into two groups.

The 2005 and 2014 editions settle it. Air Force Instruction 16-401(I) of 14 April 2005 states that the coordinating office will assign and reserve the next available consecutive design number within each basic mission for new vehicles, the 1997 wording and the 1994 wording with one verb added [AFI 16-401(I), 14 April 2005]. The word skip appears nowhere in it, and neither does any eligibility criterion refusing a request in a skipped sequence. The issue of 16 May 2014 supersedes it directly and carries both. It tells the requester to research the last approved design number to determine the next designator to request, it refuses requests in skipped sequences for vehicles with an extensive history of designations, and it reserves to the office the authority to skip a design number at discretion while stating that skipped design numbers cannot be requested or used [AFI 16-401, 16 May 2014].

The change was made by the issue of 16 May 2014, and it made two changes rather than one. The quantity moved from the next available number to one above the last approved number. And the duty moved from the agency to the requester. The X-49A of 2003 falls under the old form, and the X-58’s skip of 2018 and the X-67’s skip of 2025 both fall under the new one.

The 2020 issue keeps the refusal and words it more broadly. Its eligibility criterion refuses requests in reverse or skipped sequences without the 2014 limitation to vehicles with an extensive history of designations, and its skip clause keeps the reserved authority but drops the sentence saying that skipped design numbers cannot be requested or used [AFI 16-401, 16 May 2014] [DAFI 16-401]. Under either issue a passed research number is unrequestable, under the 2014 issue by both sentences and under the 2020 issue by the eligibility criterion alone.

The rule changed in the instruction, and the directive above it is silent on numbering. The 1994, 1997 and 2005 issues implement the Department directive of 2 May 1985, and the 2014 issue implements its reissue of 29 November 2004, which it cites as DoD Directive 4120.15E [AFJI 16-401, 9 September 1994] [AFJI 16-401, 1 September 1997] [AFI 16-401(I), 14 April 2005] [AFI 16-401, 16 May 2014]. The reissued directive, read as amended by Change 2 of 17 September 2020, requires a unique mission-design series designator for each vehicle and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to publish a joint regulation and a single Department-wide list of approved designators, and it says nothing about how a design number is chosen or whether one may be skipped [DoD Directive 4120.15, 29 November 2004]. The numbering rule is therefore set by the instruction alone.

The 2005 edition also carries the design-number example in a form the later editions changed by one word. It reads that the design number 16 in F-16A is the sixteenth MDS requested for an aircraft with a fighter mission under the current reporting system, implemented September 1962 [AFI 16-401(I), 14 April 2005]. The 2014 and 2020 editions say approved rather than requested [AFI 16-401, 16 May 2014] [DAFI 16-401]. A requested ordinal and an approved ordinal are different counts whenever a request is refused, and this series has written about a refusal.

One narrow caveat survives. The 1994 and 2005 sentences are about what the coordinating office will assign rather than about what a requester may ask for, so reading them as permitting a fill is an inference from a procedural duty. The X-49A is the evidence that the inference is right, because the fill happened.

Three Readings of the X-68A, and the Record Chooses None

The X-68A is the strongest evidence in the record that somebody treated the X-67 as spent, and better evidence than anything the compiler cites. It was allocated on 2025-08-20 to General Atomics with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency as sponsor [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. At that date the last approved design number in the research series was still 66, because no X-67 row exists. Under the procedural sentence quoted above, the next-in-series designator was therefore X-67A, and the government approved X-68A.

There are exactly three readings of that and the record supports none of them over the others.

The first is that the design-number pool is shared across basic missions in practice. Under this reading the last approved design number relevant to the research series was 67, because the XQ-67A carries 67, and the next-in-series was correctly 68. This reading makes the borrowing real and makes the skip automatic. It is also the reading the instruction’s definition denies, since the instruction says the design number identifies major design changes within the same basic mission and illustrates it by saying that the 16 in F-16A represents the sixteenth approved designator for an aircraft with a fighter mission [DAFI 16-401].

The second is that the allocating office exercised its discretion to skip. The instruction reserves that authority without criterion, without a requirement to record a reason and without any appeal [DAFI 16-401]. Under this reading nothing consumed the X-67 and the X-68A’s number is a decision nobody has to explain. The record contains no exercise of the authority and the authority requires none to be recorded, so this reading predicts the absence of evidence found here.

The third is that the research-series pointer was read off a source that lists the XQ-67A. The procedure tells the requester to reference a page on a Department technical information site, or to contact the allocating office [DAFI 16-401]. A list sorted by design number within a vehicle type places the XQ-67A among the sixty-sevens, and the register this article uses sorts that way, by primary mission letter and then design number and then series letter [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. Under this reading the skip is a consequence of how the list is ordered rather than of anybody’s intent.

The three readings differ in what they say about agency and agree in every observable. All three predict an X-68A, no X-67 row and no public document. The article therefore states that the X-67 is unrequestable, states when it became so, and declines to say who made it so.

The Register’s Own Next-Number Figure Cannot Settle It

It is tempting to settle the question with the compiler’s published statement, and the statement is circular for this purpose. He writes that the next available design number in the research series is X-69 [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. That figure presupposes that 67 and 68 are both gone, the proposition at issue for the 67.

Three Definitions of the Next Number, Written Down

The article has been using the phrase the next number in three different senses and they need separating, because the X-68A’s number is correct under one of them and not under the others. Let $\mathcal{A}_t$ be the set of design numbers allocated in a basic mission before a date $t$.

The first is one above the highest number ever allocated. The second is the lowest number never allocated. The third is one above the most recently allocated number, which differs from the first whenever an allocation has been made below the pointer.

The 2020 instruction’s procedure names the first, in the words last approved design number. The 1994 instruction named the second, in the words next available consecutive. The compiler’s published figures follow neither cleanly, because he excludes the allocations he judges out of sequence before applying the first. And his derivation for the FQ-48 follows the third, since the fighter numbers reach 117 while he reads the 48 as following the 47.

The second definition cannot be computed from any public document this article has found. That claim is narrower than saying that it cannot be computed from the public record at all. Evaluating the lowest never-allocated number over the register returns 1, because the register opens on 19 August 1998 and carries no row for the X-1 through the X-36. The founding document and the 2004 list reach further back and neither closes the gap, because each lists the designations current at its date of issue rather than every one ever allocated [AFR 66-11 and AR 700-26 and BUWEPS 13100.7, 18 September 1962] [DoD 4120.15-L, 2004 with Change 1]. A lowest-never-allocated number needs a complete history of allocations, and no public document is one.

Of the two definitions that are computable, both gave 67 on the day the X-68A was approved. At 2025-08-20 the highest research design number allocated was 66 and the most recently allocated was 66, carried by the X-66A, so one above either is 67.

Under either computable reading of the instruction the X-68A should have been the X-67A, and the three readings above exist to account for that.

His convention is also not the maximum, and that shows the figure to be a judgement. The register carries an X-76A, allocated on 20 October 2025, so the highest research design number is 76 and one more than the highest would be 77 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. He says 69 rather than 77, because he records the X-76 as out of sequence on the agency’s own account that the number is a deliberate nod to the revolutionary spirit of 1776. The published next-available number is therefore one more than the highest number he judges to have been allocated in sequence, and the judgement about which allocations are in sequence is his.

He applies the same convention consistently across three series, and consistency is the test of whether it is a convention or an error. In the unmanned series he states the next available number as 31 while the register carries unmanned numbers as high as 170. In the fighter series he states that the last sequentially assigned designation was F-23, that technically the next available number is therefore F-24, and that the series has to all intents and purposes stopped having a sequence [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. The convention is one rule applied with judgement, but not the rule the instruction states.

The two sources a requester could consult disagree about what to ask for, the instruction read literally giving 77 and the compiler 69, and only one of them is a published instruction while only the other is reachable.

The Official Source the Procedure Requires Does Not Resolve

The procedure’s research step depends on a source, and the instruction that states the procedure is the same instruction that cancelled the source. The instruction states this twice in its text and once in its summary of changes.

Major changes include the new site for the most recent MDS database on data.af.mil and the cancellation of DoD 4120.15-L, Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles as the publically accessible MDS database.

DoD 4120.15-L, Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles, will no longer be maintained as the primary source of approved MDS designators and popular names. However, other Federal Agencies and the public may obtain the latest version from data.af.mil.

The instruction also names where a Department component should look instead, a page on the Defense Technical Information Center’s DoDTechipedia site, and says that other Federal Agencies and the public may view or obtain an electronic tabular list by visiting the same address [DAFI 16-401].

The list’s Change 1 does not cancel anything, although the compiler records that the Department announced the list’s retirement in 2018. DoD 4120.15-L of 12 May 2004 incorporating Change 1 of 31 August 2018 was read from a public web archive snapshot, the Department’s portal having refused every client. Its summary of changes reassigns the office of primary responsibility to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and says nothing else, and the words retire, cancel and data.af.mil appear nowhere in it [DoD 4120.15-L, 2004 with Change 1].

So the list’s retirement is an act of the Air Force instruction and not a 2018 act of the Department list, and it came in two steps. The issue of 16 May 2014 already stated that DoD 4120.15-L would no longer be maintained as the primary source of approved designators, named the DoDTechipedia listing of the Defense Technical Information Center as the primary source, and sent the public to the National Technical Information Service for the last updated version [AFI 16-401, 16 May 2014]. The 2020 issue added the cancellation as the publicly accessible database and the address data.af.mil, and the article cites the instruments rather than a description of them.

That address does not exist. A query for the name against the authoritative nameservers for the af.mil zone returns no answer and a statement of authority, which is how a nameserver says that the name is not in the zone. A sibling name in the same zone resolves and so does a name in an adjacent zone, www.af.mil returning an address through a content delivery network and data.mil returning one directly, so the zone is being served and the query is reaching it. This was checked on 2 October 2026 from one host against the zone’s authoritative servers, so it is not a local resolver failure.

That result supports a narrower reading than it first appears to, and the article states the narrow version. A Department network commonly resolves internal names that the public Internet does not, so the measurement does not show that authorised users cannot reach the database. What it shows is that the official source the request procedure requires is not reachable at the address its cancellation notice named, from outside. That is a fact about public access, and it leaves the designation system’s internal function untouched.

The consequence for this article is a chain of four steps. The procedure requires research into the last approved design number. The official published list was cancelled. Its named successor does not resolve publicly. So the de facto public source is one private compiler’s reconstruction, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, applying a next-number convention the instruction does not state. Every public claim about why the X-67 is empty passes through that reconstruction, and so do this article’s measurements.

The Department’s own portal still refuses the document, and the article records the refusal. The address for DoD 4120.15-L on the issuance portal returns HTTP 403, the Hypertext Transfer Protocol’s refusal status, to every client this article has tried [DoD 4120.15-L at the Department’s portal]. The document was read from a public web archive snapshot instead, and the October 1998 edition’s front matter from the compiler’s scan of it [DoD 4120.15-L, 2004 with Change 1] [DoD 4120.15-L, October 1998].

The 1998 edition shows what the public access used to be, the measure against which the present state should be read. Its foreword states that the list is approved for public release with distribution unlimited, and gives three routes to a copy, being a Department web address, the Defense Technical Information Center for registered users, and the National Technical Information Service for other Federal agencies and the public [DoD 4120.15-L, October 1998]. Three published routes in 1998, and in 2020 one address that does not resolve. The directive above the instruction still directs the Secretary of the Air Force to publish a single Department-wide source document of approved designators and names, and to publish it annually [DoD Directive 4120.15, 29 November 2004].

Sizing From First Principles

No X-67 vehicle was ever built, so there is no vehicle to size, and the opening already states this. The design number 67 was consumed by an allocation in the unmanned series, and nothing in the research series was ever drawn, specified or dimensioned under it [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. This section records what the record supports about the vehicle that took the number and stops.

The record sizes the XQ-67A barely at all. The register’s only physical entry for it is an engine cell reading 1 Williams FJ44-4A, one of the official fields on a row whose description is not official wording [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. No span, weight, thrust, endurance or speed appears in the register or in the releases.

What the record offers about the vehicles intended is comparative rather than dimensional, being the contrast between the two species quoted under The Aeroplane Was Built to Deny the Premise. That is a sizing question stated and not answered, and no document in the record answers it.

Two derivations in this article stand in for sizing, and neither sizes an aeroplane. The first, set out under A Designation Is a Code and the Instruction Gives Its Fields, sizes the designation field, which holds 23,976 distinct number-and-series codes per basic mission. The second sizes the economics of a shared chassis, in the part-count, unit-cost, penalty, break-even and refresh relations within What the Data Changed, and every parameter it uses is assumed because the shared fraction, the sharing penalty and the development costs are not public.

Dependent Systems

A designation that was never allocated depends on nothing, so the systems this section can describe are those of the aeroplane that took the number. The X-67 has no airframe, engine or avionics to list. The XQ-67A has a few, and the record names them without dimensioning any of them.

The propulsion entry is the only system the register records without the compiler’s mark. The XQ-67A’s row records 1 Williams FJ44-4A in an unmarked cell, while its stated purpose carries the mark saying the words are the compiler’s [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. The airframe is described only as a common core chassis, which the laboratory calls a genus and to which mission kits such as an off-board sensing station or an off-board weapon station would be added [AFRL first flight release] [GA-ASI first flight release].

The mission systems appear only through the July 2025 flight test described under The Aeroplane That Took the Number, in the Record’s Own Words, and the releases name no sensor, computer or datalink by type [GA-ASI autonomy release].

The designation itself also has dependent systems, and they are documentary. The request procedure depends on an official source for the last approved design number, the instruction that states the procedure cancelled the public list, and the successor address it named does not resolve publicly [DAFI 16-401]. That chain is argued under the heading The Official Source the Procedure Requires Does Not Resolve.

The Flight Test Record

Nothing has flown as the X-67, and nothing can, because the number is unrequestable under the instruction in force. The register carries no research-series row with the design number 67, and the argument under Why the Slot Is Empty, So Far As the Record Says shows why the number cannot now be issued [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum] [DAFI 16-401]. The flight test record of the X-67 is empty and will remain so.

The aeroplane that took the number has a short public record, being two reported flight tests in three releases, the first flight of 2024-02-28 and the autonomy flight of July 2025, both described under The Aeroplane That Took the Number, in the Record’s Own Words [AFRL first flight release] [GA-ASI first flight release] [GA-ASI autonomy release].

No flight data are public. The releases report that test points were completed and validated and give no measured value for any of them. The record does not say how many flights have been made in total, only that the first was the first of a series.

Comparison With Ground Prediction

For the X-67 there is no comparison to make, because no vehicle carried the number and none flew under it. No wind tunnel test, analysis or specification was ever produced for an X-67. The comparisons the record does support are of other kinds, and each is argued where it arises.

The aeroplane’s claim is public and its flight data are not. The laboratory states that the XQ-67A proves the genus approach and the contractor that it validated the genus and species concept, and no predicted or measured figure is published for any flight quantity, so the validation is reported and not shown [AFRL first flight release] [GA-ASI first flight release]. The commonality arithmetic under What the Data Changed is a model run on assumed parameters and not a prediction this aeroplane could have tested.

The designation procedure gives both an expectation and an outturn. Read literally, it would have produced an X-67A on 2025-08-20 and the record returned an X-68A [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum] [DAFI 16-401], which the subsections headed Three Definitions of the Next Number, Written Down and Three Readings of the X-68A, and the Record Chooses None examine. The award record sets the contract values reported at award against their outturn, through the relative deviation $\epsilon$ displayed under What the Award Record Adds That the Releases Do Not, and that comparison shows that a competition was resolved rather than completed and shows nothing about how the aeroplane flew.

What the Data Changed, What the Anomaly Reveals About the Designation System

A skipped number is only interesting if the number was carrying information, so the question this section asks is what a design number indexes. The instruction gives an answer, the register contradicts it by measurement, and the aeroplane that consumed this number was built to prove that the instruction’s answer is the wrong shape.

A Designation Is a Code and the Instruction Gives Its Fields

The instruction defines the designator as two components separated by a dash. The first is alphabetic and describes the mission. The second is alphanumeric and describes the design number and the design series [DAFI 16-401]. A standard aircraft designator comprises an optional status prefix, an optional modified mission symbol, a required basic mission symbol, a required design number and a required design series. Only one symbol may be selected from each category. The register’s compiler sets out the same structure with its history in a separate article, which this one has read in part and does not follow where the instruction is available [Current Designations of U.S. Military Aircraft].

Write a designation as an ordered tuple of those fields.

Here $p$ is the status prefix, $q$ the modified mission symbol, $m$ the basic mission symbol, $d$ the design number and $s$ the design series letter. For the designation this article is about, the tuple is the experimental prefix, no modified mission symbol, the unmanned basic mission, the design number 67 and the series letter A.

The instruction bounds two of those fields numerically. Design numbers run consecutively from 1 to 999, and in the event that a design number reaches 999 the range expands to 9,999 and the character positions to the right of the dash expand with it [DAFI 16-401]. The series symbol follows a consecutive assignment starting with A, and the letters I and O are prohibited to avoid confusion with digits. So the series alphabet holds 24 letters rather than twenty-six, and the number-and-series field of one basic mission has the following capacity.

With $N_d$ equal to 999 and $N_s$ equal to 24 that is 23,976 distinct codes per basic mission, rising to 239,976 when the number field expands. The instruction also provides for the series letter to roll over, stating that at the end of the series symbol Z the next sequence advances the design number to the next consecutive unused number and begins again at A [DAFI 16-401]. That provision is the one place the instruction uses the phrase next consecutive unused number, and it concerns series exhaustion rather than requests.

The Instruction Says the Design Number Is an Ordinal Within One Mission

The definition is explicit, and everything below tests it. The design number is a required numeric symbol that identifies major design changes within the same basic mission, and the instruction illustrates it by stating that the 16 in F-16A represents the sixteenth approved designator for an aircraft with a fighter mission under the current reporting system [DAFI 16-401].

The series letter carries the next level down, and its criterion matters later. The series symbol identifies the production model of a particular design number and later models representing major modifications that significantly alter the aerospace vehicle’s systems, components, or change the logistics support of the vehicle [DAFI 16-401].

The system’s model of identity is a two-level hierarchy and the word major is undefined at both levels in the instruction now in force. A major design change earns a new number. A major modification earns a new letter. The instruction of 2020 does not say how to tell one from the other.

The Founding Document Did Say, and the Test It Gave Has Been Deleted

The instruction names three founding documents, and they are where its definitions began. The instruction states that the designator format was established by the Department on 18 September 1962 with the publishing of Air Force Regulation 66-11, Army Regulation 700-26 and Bureau of Naval Weapons Instruction 13100.7 [DAFI 16-401]. Those are one document issued three times over, a scan of it is public, and it has been read in full [AFR 66-11 and AR 700-26 and BUWEPS 13100.7, 18 September 1962].

It defines the design number in four words the later editions dropped.

Design Number. The sequence number of each new design of the same basic mission or type aircraft.

The founding definition does not say that a design number identifies major design changes. It says the design number is a sequence number. The increment test under The Instruction’s Claim Has a Testable Consequence and the Register Fails It was built to check that claim, and the two series it covers fail it in more than half of their steps, since only 24 of their 51 increments are exactly one, fifteen of 22 in the research series and nine of 29 in the unmanned series.

And where the modern instruction offers no test for what counts as a new design, the founding document offers three worked examples.

New design numbers will be assigned when an existing aircraft or airship is redesigned to an extent that it no longer reflects the original configuration or capability. Examples of changes requiring design redesignations on aircraft are as follows: (1) Changing the number of engines of a specific aircraft. (2) Changing the wing or control surface design of a specific aircraft from a straight wing to a swept or delta wing design. (3) Changing the empennage of a specific design from straight to swept surfaces or relocating the empennage.

All three are changes to the airframe’s shape or its propulsion. Not one of them is a change of mission equipment. The 1962 test is a test about the aeroplane and not about what the aeroplane is for.

That matters to this article’s keystone more than anything else in the founding document. A genus carrying several species shares the airframe and swaps the mission kit. Under the 1962 test that is not a new design at all, because the engine count, the wing and the empennage are the things held constant. The system that would have refused a new design number to a species is the system that wrote the definition the current instruction still paraphrases.

The series letter’s criterion, by contrast, has survived almost word for word. The founding document defines it as a letter denoting differences affecting methods of employment, differences affecting the relation of the vehicle to its ground environment, and major modifications resulting in significant changes to the logistic support [AFR 66-11 and AR 700-26 and BUWEPS 13100.7, 18 September 1962]. The logistic-support clause this article leans on is therefore sixty-three years old and not a recent form of words, and the 2004 list and the 2005 and 2020 instructions all carry it [DoD 4120.15-L, 2004 with Change 1] [AFI 16-401(I), 14 April 2005] [DAFI 16-401].

The two levels have aged in opposite directions. The lower level kept its criterion and the upper level lost its examples. The system can still say what a modification is and can no longer say what a design is.

And the Founding Document Defines Both of the Letters This Designation Carries

The X in XQ-67A is a status prefix and the X in X-67 would have been a basic mission, and the 1962 document defines both on facing pages.

X Experimental. Aircraft in a developmental, experimental stage where basic mission and design number have been designated but not established as a standard vehicle for service use.

X Research. Aircraft designed for testing configurations of a radical nature. These aircraft are not normally intended for use as tactical aircraft.

The first is the status prefix and the second is the basic mission and type symbol, and the borrowing this article is about takes a number from the series the second letter governs and attaches it to a designation carrying the first [AFR 66-11 and AR 700-26 and BUWEPS 13100.7, 18 September 1962].

The other letter has moved, and the move made the designation possible. In 1962 the Q is a modified mission symbol, defined as a drone, meaning an aircraft capable of being controlled from a point outside the aircraft [AFR 66-11 and AR 700-26 and BUWEPS 13100.7, 18 September 1962]. A modified mission symbol cannot carry a design-number series of its own, because it sits to the left of a basic mission letter rather than replacing it. In the register today the Q is a basic mission symbol with its own numbering, so there is an unmanned series for a number to be out of sequence in. The designation XQ-67A could not have been written in 1962, and not because the aeroplane did not exist.

The Agency Used to Choose the Number, and Now the Requester Does

The article has been circling this structural change, and the founding document states the original arrangement in two sentences.

The requesting service will indicate the desired mission or type symbols. The assignment agency will assign the applicable design number and/or the applicable series letter.

In 1962 the requester named the mission and the agency chose the number. The instruction in force today tells the requester to research the next-in-series designator from the last approved design number and to request it [DAFI 16-401]. The responsibility for choosing a design number has moved from the office that keeps the sequence to the office that wants the number.

That change is the precondition for what the next subsection measures. A number chosen by the keeper of the sequence is the next one by construction and carries no information. A number chosen by the requester can be chosen for what it says, and the unmanned series now carries nine numbers that are not the next one.

The Instruction’s Claim Has a Testable Consequence and the Register Fails It

The sixteenth-approved-designator sentence makes a claim with a consequence, and the consequence can be checked. If the design number is the ordinal of the allocation within its basic mission, then the $k$th design number allocated in that mission is $k$ itself.

That form cannot be tested against this register, and saying why is half the measurement. The register opens on 19 August 1998 and most basic missions were already numbering by then, so the origin of each sequence is outside the document and no ordinal can be read off it. Differencing the claim removes the origin.

So the instruction’s definition implies that each new design number exceeds the previous new one by exactly one, and that implication survives an unknown starting point. Only first allocations enter the walk, because a second row on a number already allocated is a series letter or a modified mission on an existing design rather than a new design number.

One refinement is needed. A row whose series letter is B or later is evidence that its design number existed before the row, whatever the register carries, because the series letter counts models of a number that was already approved. Without that filter the walk would count the X-40B as a new design number, and so misread the register’s edge as a government decision.

With the filter the research series gives 23 new design numbers over 22 steps, of which fifteen are exactly one. The unmanned series gives 30 over 29 steps with nine exactly one. The share of increments equal to one is

The Increment and the Pointer Measure Different Things, and the Article Needs Both

An increment of one and a pointer advancing by one are not the same statement, and conflating them double-counts. Write the running maximum as the pointer, the quantity the allocation procedure reads, and define its advance.

The two differ exactly when a number below the pointer is allocated, and there the identity is immediate.

An allocation below the pointer makes its increment negative and inflates the next one by the same amount, so counting skips off the increment counts each out-of-order allocation twice. The pointer does not have that defect, and the numbers actually skipped are the advances in excess of one.

For the research series that sum is eleven, across five advances greater than one, with sixteen advances of exactly one and one of zero, over 22 steps. The obedience rate is therefore the share of advances equal to one.

That is 72.7 percent for the research series and 50.4 percent across the whole register, being 67 advances of one in 133 steps, with 43 allocations below the pointer.

And the research series is the best-behaved sequence in the register. That sharpens the finding. Among the three basic missions with at least twenty steps the rates are 72.7 percent for the X series over 22 steps, 51.5 percent for the M series over 33 steps and 44.8 percent for the Q series over 29 steps.

The X-67 was lost from the one numbering sequence in this register that mostly does follow the rule.

Every Research-Series Skip Has a Cause This Series Has Written About

The five advances greater than one are not a statistical tail. They are a list, and the list is this series’ table of contents.

And the one advance of zero is the one number that came back. The X-49A was allocated on 2003-05-23, 464 days after the X-50A had passed it, filling a gap the pointer had already crossed [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. So the register contains exactly one research-series number that was skipped and later recovered, and why that number could be recovered and the X-67 cannot is the subject of The Rule Changed, and the Register Holds the Before-Case in the Same Series.

Six Pairs of Numbers in the Register Carry the Same Official Sentence

If the design number were an ordinal over designs, two different numbers should not describe the same design. The register can be asked. Stripping the note references, which differ between two rows by construction, the register’s 532 well-formed rows carry 490 distinct descriptions of twenty characters or more. Sixteen of those descriptions are shared by more than one designation, and six of the shared ones span more than one design number, the other ten being series letters of a single number, the use series letters exist for.

Those six are all adjacent pairs, and there are no others.

In five of the six the contractor is the only field that differs, and three of the six were allocated on the same day. In the remaining one the contractor is the same firm and the register offers nothing to distinguish the two numbers. Two of the six are research-series pairs, a third of the set from one basic mission out of twenty, and this series has already written about both of them [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum] [X-Planes: Invocon X-64].

The reading of that table is narrow but sufficient. The official statement of purpose does not distinguish these pairs, so whatever distinguishes two design numbers in the register’s practice is not the stated purpose. In five of six cases it is the designing organisation.

The Two Candidate Readings Are an Injectivity and a Well-Definedness, and Both Fail

Stating the two readings as properties of maps makes the failures precise and makes them countable. Let $\mathcal{N}$ be the set of mission-and-number pairs the register carries, and let the register supply two maps out of it.

The first reading, that a design number indexes a purpose, requires the purpose map to be injective. Two different numbers must not carry the same official statement.

It is not injective and the failures are counted. Over 490 distinct descriptions of twenty characters or more, six are shared by more than one design number.

The second reading, that a design number indexes an organisation, requires the maker map to be well defined, a weaker demand than injectivity and a different one. It asks only that every row on one number name the same firm.

It is not well defined either. Of 235 mission-and-number pairs, 27 carry rows naming more than one leading firm, or 11.5 percent.

The two readings fail in different ways, and the article states both without choosing between them. The purpose map is a function and is not injective, so a number carries no more purpose than its neighbour. The maker map is not even a function, so a number does not carry a maker at all.

And a Design Number Can Survive a Change of Manufacturer, So the Pairing Was a Choice

If the design number tracked the designer, a change of designer would force a new number, and it does not. Of the register’s design numbers, 103 carry more than one row. 36 of those carry more than one distinct contractor string and 27 carry more than one distinct leading firm name.

That last count supports two shares, and each is given with its denominator.

The first is as a share of the 103 numbers that carry more than one row, which is the population in which a change of firm is even possible. The second is as a share of all 235 numbers, the figure the well-definedness condition above reports.

The clearest case, and an extreme one, is a missile rather than an aeroplane. The design number 88 in the missile series carries ten rows across the series letters A, D, E, E, E, F, G, G, H and J, and the contractor field across them names seven distinct leading firms, among them Texas Instruments, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and a naval weapons centre [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. One design number, ten series letters, and a succession of primes spanning decades.

The system can hold one design number across a change of manufacturer. The X-46A and the X-47A could have been the X-46A and the X-46B, and the X-63A and X-64A the X-63A and X-63B. They were not, and the choice was available. The design number indexes neither the stated purpose nor the designing organisation reliably. It indexes a request, and the instruction leaves undefined what a request is for.

A Chosen Number Carries Information and a Sequential One Carries None

This is the quantitative reason a skipped number matters at all, and it can be stated exactly. Let $\nu_k$ be the number a sequential allocator would issue at the moment of the $k$th allocation, which by the procedure is one more than the last approved design number of that basic mission.

If every allocation takes the next number then $d_k = \nu_k$ for all $k$, the sequence is a deterministic function of its history, and a designation carries no information beyond its order. The quantity that carries anything is the departure.

An in-sequence allocation has $\delta_k = 0$. The information a chosen number can carry is bounded by the logarithm of the count of positions available to it, which runs from the sequential number to the top of the field.

The zero is better written as a conditional entropy than asserted, because in that form it describes the register, where an assertion would describe one allocation.

At the research series’ position in July 2023 that bound is 9.8657 bits, against 9.9643 bits for a number free to be anything. The bound covers almost the entire field because the field is almost empty. The earlier article made the same observation as an argument about scarcity, and here it serves as an argument about expressiveness. The system is not short of numbers, so a number is cheap, so choosing one can afford to say something.

The saying happens in the unmanned series, and the departures are measurable. Taking the sequential number as the top of the unbroken opening run, the convention the compiler’s published figures follow, the out-of-sequence unmanned allocations that carry a full date have the following departures.

The departures are 5 for the number 35, 17 for the number 48, 30 for the number 58, 37 for the number 67, 44 for the number 72 and 43 for the number 73, ranging from 5 to 44. There are six distinct values among six observations, so the empirical distribution is uniform and its entropy is 2.5850 bits, which equals the maximum 2.5850 attainable at that sample size.

That coincidence is a warning and not a result, and it is labelled as one. With six observations all distinct, the entropy estimate is pinned at its ceiling by the sample size and says nothing about the underlying distribution. The useful statement is the comparison of regimes rather than the number. A sequential series has zero bits of choice in every allocation. The unmanned series carries 69 rows and now has nine out-of-sequence design numbers against a sequential ceiling of 31, being 35, 42, 44, 48, 58, 67, 72, 73 and 170, of which six carry a full date and can be placed in time, being 35, 48, 58, 67, 72 and 73, and the register’s compiler has written of the fighter series that it has to all intents and purposes stopped having a sequence at all [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. The X-67 is one number lost in the middle of that transition.

The transition has a size in bits and summing the bound over the departures gives it.

That is 59.5355 bits across the six dated out-of-sequence unmanned allocations, or 9.9226 bits each. The figure is a ceiling and not a measurement of what was said, because a bound on what a channel could carry is not a reading of what went through it. What it establishes is the scale. A sequence that chose every number freely would carry about ten bits per allocation and a sequence that took the next one carries none, and the unmanned series has moved some distance from the second toward the first.

The Borrowing Claim Is Testable and It Passes

The compiler asserts that the 58 and the 67 came from the research series and gives no evidence for the second. The assertion has a testable consequence. If a borrowed number is taken from a neighbouring series’ queue, it should equal that series’ next number at the moment of the borrowing, and it should equal no other series’ next number, because a claim that matched many series at once would be worthless.

The test was run against every basic mission in the register at each out-of-sequence unmanned allocation’s date. There are twenty basic missions and six out-of-sequence unmanned numbers that carry a full date.

The test fires two times in six, on the numbers 58 and 67, and both times it names the research series and nothing else. It fires zero times on more than one series. It is silent on four numbers, 35, 48, 72 and 73, which are exactly the four the compiler either declines to derive or derives from somewhere other than a series queue.

A null model gives the coincidence a scale, and its reference class is stated here. Take the null to be that an out-of-sequence number is drawn uniformly from the two-digit integers above the unmanned series’ ceiling, the range 32 to 99 inclusive and so 68 values, written $B$. At the six dates in question the mean number of distinct next-in-series values falling inside that range is 3.3333, written $\bar{\tau}$, so the per-draw hit probability $\pi$ is 0.049020.

The expectation is the more legible quantity and it comes first.

At six draws and a per-draw probability of 0.049020 that is 0.2941 accidental hits expected, against two observed. At $n$ equal to six and $k$ equal to two the tail probability is 0.03159, or about one chance in 31.7. That is a weak signal on its own and the article does not pretend otherwise. It is not on its own. Both hits name the same series, the compiler independently states that series for both, and the research series independently shows a gap at both numbers. Four facts that could each be a coincidence are not four coincidences.

The test is silent on the 48 because the fighter numbers reach 117, so the compiler’s reading of it as following the F-47 uses the most recently allocated number, as noted under Three Definitions of the Next Number, Written Down [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. For the research series in July 2023 the highest allocated number, the top of the contiguous run and the most recently allocated all gave 67, so the X-67 case is clean and the 48 case is not.

The Aeroplane Was Built to Deny the Premise

Here the airframe earns its place in an article about a number. The design number exists to mark a major design change within a basic mission, so the system presumes that an aeroplane has a design identity and that changes to it are either major or minor. The programme that consumed the X-67 slot existed to show that an aeroplane’s identity is divisible.

The laboratory’s words, quoted above, put it as a taxonomy of a genus with mission kits added to the frame, and the contractor’s put it as a first instance [AFRL first flight release] [GA-ASI first flight release].

The laboratory also states what the two species were meant to differ in, and that detail sharpens the collision. The sensing station was conceived as slower while carrying sensors, with longer endurance. The weapon station was conceived as faster and more manoeuvrable, with less endurance and better range. The programme wanted to design both and to establish how much of the two could be made common [AFRL first flight release].

The designation question and the engineering question are the same question asked by two institutions that cannot hear each other. The instruction asks whether a change is major enough to earn a new design number. The programme asks how much of two aeroplanes can be the same aeroplane. Neither has a criterion the other would accept.

By the Instruction’s Own Test a Species Belongs on a Series Letter

The instruction’s only concrete criterion for the lower level is the one the genus concept is designed to defeat. A series letter marks later models representing major modifications that significantly alter the vehicle’s systems, components, or change the logistics support of the vehicle [DAFI 16-401].

A shared chassis is built precisely so that the logistics support does not change across species. The laboratory’s stated benefit is leveraging standard substructures and subsystems in the manner of an automotive product line, a claim about shared spares, shared tooling and shared training as much as about shared drawings [AFRL first flight release]. By the instruction’s own test, two species on one genus differ less than the instruction’s threshold for a series letter, let alone for a design number.

The register’s practice points the same way. The missile design number 88, described above, holds ten series letters across seven leading firms, so the system tolerates very large change under one number. Yet the first species on this genus received a design number of its own, taken from a different series.

And the system has shown in the same decade that it can extend itself, so the absence of any mechanism for a shared chassis is a choice rather than an oversight. The 2020 instruction’s summary of changes records one addition to the designator alphabet, a status prefix e meaning digitally developed, defined as aircraft that are engineered in a virtual environment [DAFI 16-401]. It is the only lowercase symbol in the scheme.

In the same issue that cancelled the public list, the system added a letter for how an aeroplane was engineered and added nothing for whether it shares a chassis with another aeroplane. The genus and species approach was already a laboratory programme with contracts when that instruction was signed [AFRL first flight release] [USAspending]. The system encoded the design environment and left design sharing unencoded.

The prediction is explicit and the record has not yet tested it. If an off-board weapon station is built on the same genus, the instruction’s criterion and the register’s practice both suggest it should be a series letter on the number the first species holds. The register’s post-2018 behaviour, in which a new programme name attracts a new number, suggests it will get its own. The weapon station does not appear in the register as last updated on 23 August 2026, so the question is open, and this article states which way it expects the answer to go and why it may be wrong.

What a Shared Chassis Does to a Part Count

The commonality claim is quantitative and its simplest form is a part count. Take a family of $S$ species, each of which would have $P$ parts if designed alone, and let $C$ of those parts be common across the family. The family then holds the common parts once and the distinct parts $S$ times.

Against wholly bespoke designs, which hold $SP$ distinct parts, the ratio is the quantity that matters, and writing the shared fraction as $\phi = C/P$ reduces it to two variables.

The limits are the test of the expression and both are right. At $\phi = 1$ every part is shared and $\rho = 1/S$, so a family of three species holds a third of the distinct parts, which is 0.3333. At $\phi = 0$ nothing is shared and $\rho = 1$. At a shared fraction of three fifths the ratio is 0.7000 for two species and 0.6000 for three.

The gradient is constant, so in this model the first shared part is worth as much as the last one.

At three species that is -0.6667, so each percentage point of sharing removes two thirds of a point of the distinct-part count. That constancy is the model’s weakness, and the penalty subsection below repairs it.

The relations in this section are the simplest defensible forms of a theory with a much larger literature. The modern treatment of modularity as a design strategy with an economic value is Baldwin and Clark’s, whose chapters on what modularity is and on the value of splitting and substitution set out the option-value argument this section does not attempt [Baldwin and Clark, Design Rules Volume 1] [What Is Modularity?] [The Value of Modularity, Splitting and Substitution]. Those three are cited from their registry records and not from a reading, as the reference definitions state, and the rest of that literature sits in the survey’s modularity cluster.

That relation is about drawings, qualification and spares rather than about unit cost, because a part that exists once has to be designed once, tested once, catalogued once and stocked once. It is also the weakest form of the claim, because it counts parts rather than weighting them, and the parts a family finds easiest to share are not the ones that cost most to design.

What It Does to a Unit Cost

Commonality acts on unit cost through quantity, and the standard relation is a power law. Let unit cost fall with cumulative quantity $Q$ as a negative power, and let the progress ratio $r$ be the factor by which unit cost falls when quantity doubles.

An eighty-five percent progress ratio gives $b$ equal to 0.23447 and a ninety percent ratio gives 0.15200. Now split each aeroplane into a shared fraction and a bespoke fraction. The step the argument turns on is that the two fractions are built at different quantities, and once it is written down the rest is arithmetic.

The bespoke fraction is built at the quantity of one species and gains nothing. The shared fraction is built at $S$ times that quantity and slides down the curve by $S^{-b}$. The two add in proportion.

At a shared fraction of three fifths, three species and an eighty-five percent curve, $\kappa$ is 0.86375, a saving of 13.63 percent. Two species give 0.91000 and a shared fraction of four fifths gives 0.81833. Writing the relation as a single slope makes every later argument an argument about one negative number.

For three species on an eighty-five percent curve the slope $a$ is -0.22709, and for two species it is -0.15000. The gradient of the cost factor is the slope itself, because this model is linear in the shared fraction.

At three species that is -0.22709. Because $a$ is negative for every $S$ greater than one, this model predicts that commonality always helps, monotonically. But it does not help without limit, and the limit matters because it bounds every claim the programme could make.

So no family, however large, saves more in unit cost than the fraction it shares.

At a three-fifths shared fraction the ceiling is 60.00 percent at any family size, against 13.63 percent reached at three species. The ceiling also makes the inversion well posed. Asking how many species a stated saving needs means solving the cost factor for $S$, and the solution exists only below the ceiling.

A tenth of unit cost needs 2.176 species at a three-fifths shared fraction, a fifth needs 5.637, and three tenths needs 19.227. The last figure is the useful one. A programme wanting a thirty percent unit-cost saving from commonality alone, at these parameters, needs about nineteen species on one chassis, and the programme that consumed the X-67 named two.

And the monotonic conclusion is still false, for a reason the model omits.

The Omission Is the Penalty, and Adding It Changes the Answer Qualitatively

A shared part is not a free part. A structure sized for the heaviest species is too heavy for the lightest. A chassis sized for the fastest is too draggy for the most enduring. The laboratory’s description of the two species it wanted, quoted above, names this trade [AFRL first flight release]. So write a penalty factor on the delivered cost of capability and ask what happens.

Take the penalty proportional to the shared fraction first, because it is the obvious choice and it gives a degenerate answer.

The curvature settles it in one line.

That is negative for every admissible pair, being -0.13625 at three species and a penalty coefficient of 30 percent, so the quadratic is concave and its stationary point is a maximum rather than a minimum. The cheapest shared fraction is therefore at one end of the interval or the other, and full commonality beats none exactly when the product at $\phi = 1$ falls below one.

For three species on an eighty-five percent curve that threshold is 29.38 percent, and for two species 17.65 percent. Below the threshold, share everything. Above it, share nothing. A model whose answer is always all or nothing is telling the reader about its linearity and not about aeroplanes.

A penalty growing as the square of the shared fraction is the better shape and it gives an interior answer. The first parts a family shares are the ones it costs least to share, so the marginal penalty should rise rather than stay flat.

That first-order condition is a quadratic in $\phi$ and its discriminant is the quantity that decides whether an interior optimum exists at all.

So an interior optimum exists only when the penalty coefficient clears a threshold set by the slope alone.

That is 15.47 percent for three species on an eighty-five percent curve and 6.75 percent for two. The threshold rises with the family size, and its limit follows from the slope’s.

So a sufficiently large family tolerates a sharing penalty of 300 percent before an interior optimum appears at all, the formal version of the observation that commonality is worth more the more species carry it. Below that the minimum is the corner at full commonality.

At a penalty coefficient of 30 percent the optimum is interior and the three cases separate properly. With $a = -0.22709$ at three species, the optimum and the two corners evaluate as follows.

The optimum shared fraction is 44.63 percent, at which the effective cost factor is 0.95235, a saving of 4.76 percent against sharing nothing. Full commonality at the same penalty gives 1.00479, which is 0.48 percent worse than sharing nothing at all. So at that penalty the interior optimum beats both corners and the corner the first model would have chosen is the wrong one.

Every number in the last three paragraphs uses assumed parameters and none of them is measured for this aeroplane. The shared fraction of the genus is not public, the sharing penalty is not public, and the number of species is one. What the relations establish is the shape of the argument and where it fails, the most a model fitted to a programme that has published no cost data can yield.

Inverting the Break-Even When One Species Exists

The programme’s claim is about development cost rather than unit cost, and a separate break-even applies. Let a bespoke aircraft type cost $c_b$ to develop, let the genus cost $\mathcal{C}_g$ once and let each species on it cost $c_s$.

That relation cannot be evaluated here, because $c_b$ is unknown and $S$ is one. Inverting it is the only direction the data supports.

Reading the genus cost as the platform-sharing programme’s total of 24,479,631.19 dollar and the first species at the Off-Board Sensing Station award of 67,986,112.00 dollar, the figures follow.

So a second species repays the chassis only if a bespoke demonstrator would have cost at least 80,225,927.59 dollar, which is 18.00 percent more than the first species cost. On the narrower reading that only the winning firm’s platform-sharing award of 10,674,331.00 dollar built the chassis, the requirement falls to 73,323,277.50 dollar at two species, a premium of 7.85 percent, and 71,544,222.33 dollar at three, a premium of 5.23 percent.

The sensitivity of the break-even to the chassis cost is a reciprocal and it gives the figure a programme manager would want.

At the two-species figures above that is one additional species required for every 12,239,815.59 dollar added to the chassis. The relation also states what the inversion shows, that the break-even is sensitive to a quantity nobody has published.

A third reading is that the chassis cost is inside the species cost and not separable at all, since the award record carries no line for a chassis. Under that reading the data cannot answer the question and the article states that rather than choosing the reading that gives a number.

Why Frequent Refresh Is Worth Something, Stated as a Shortfall

The programme’s second claim is about time rather than money and it can be made exact. The stated benefit is more opportunities for frequent technology refresh, against a complaint that the time to initial operating capability for military aircraft has been increasing [GA-ASI first flight release] [AFRL first flight release]. Let the available capability at the frontier grow exponentially and let a design hold the value it had when it was frozen.

A design frozen at the start of an interval of length $T$ delivers $F_0$ throughout, so the ratio of what it delivers to what is available is $e^{-g t}$, and the time average of that over the interval has a closed form.

The shortfall $\sigma$ has the right limits and a useful small-argument form. As $T$ tends to zero it tends to zero, as $T$ grows without bound it tends to one, and for small $gT$ the expansion is linear in the freeze interval.

Taking a two-year doubling of available capability gives $g$ equal to 0.34657 per year, from the relation below, the only place a rate enters.

The table shows the monotonicity at four values, and the derivative extends the claim to every interval.

That is positive for every positive argument, so the shortfall increases with the freeze without exception. It is 0.08940 per year at a three-year freeze and 0.01238 at fifteen, a ratio of 7.218, so the first year of delay costs about seven times what the fifteenth does. That is the quantitative form of the programme’s argument for cadence.

For a long freeze the exponential has died and the shortfall has a one-term form.

At fifteen years that approximation gives 80.76 percent against the exact 80.87 percent, so the asymptote is already within a tenth of a point at the longest interval the table carries.

Shortening the freeze from fifteen years to three takes the shortfall from 80.87 percent to 37.82 percent, and the gain is the difference.

That is 43.05 percentage points. That is the quantitative content of the refresh claim and it is much larger than the unit-cost saving commonality buys, which at the parameters above was 13.63 percent. If the genus concept is worth what the laboratory says it is worth, the value is in the cadence rather than in the parts.

The doubling time is assumed and nothing in the record supports it. A different doubling time scales every figure in the table, and the shortfall for a slowly improving capability is small at any freeze interval. The relation is exact and its input is a guess.

The Firm on Both Sides of the Gap

One register fact closes the section and it needs no arithmetic. The XQ-67A was allocated to General Atomics on 2023-07-19, and the X-68A, the allocation whose approval made the X-67 unrequestable, was allocated to General Atomics on 2025-08-20 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. The same firm is on both sides of the gap.

The register holds sixteen rows for that firm, being eleven in the unmanned series, four in the unmanned-control series and one in the research series. The one research row is the X-68A. For scale, the row counts by leading firm name over all 539 rows run 88 for Boeing, 84 for Lockheed, 78 for Raytheon, 33 for Northrop, 24 for Sikorsky and 16 for General Atomics.

No intent is claimed, since a firm holding this much of the unmanned register will appear on both sides of most things, and whether that allocation’s requester regarded the 67 as taken is a question the record does not answer.

Symbols

Every symbol the article uses, in one place. Where two meanings compete for one letter, the resolution is noted below the table.

The collisions, and what yielded. The sequential number takes $\nu_k$ so that the costs $c_s$ and $c_b$ keep the cost letter. The status prefix keeps $p$ and the null model’s probability takes $\pi$. The common part count keeps $C$, so the genus cost and the cluster set take calligraphic letters. The freeze interval keeps $T$ and the null model’s mean target count takes $\bar{\tau}$. The discriminant takes $\Theta$ because $\Delta$ is a difference throughout, and a row inside the well-definedness condition takes $w$ because $r$ is the progress ratio. $K$ counts the records the research survey admits while $k$ indexes an allocation, so the case is doing work. The distinct-part ratio $\rho$ and the capability ratio $\bar{\varrho}$ render similarly at small sizes and never share an expression.

Capability has no unit, because the refresh derivation needs only the ratio of two capabilities, and a designation’s fields have none, because they are symbols in a code, and only for that reason can a design number be chosen rather than measured.

The Contemporary Literature

The survey’s most useful finding is that this article’s literature is not an aeronautical literature. The X-67 is a number, the aeroplane that consumed it was built to prove a method of building aeroplanes, and the method has a large, quantitative and continuously active literature under product families, component commonality and modular architecture. That literature lives in mechanical engineering and management science, so most of the survey comes from a journal index rather than from a report archive.

The survey’s 1,109 research records fall across fifteen clusters, one cluster to each record. A record’s title is matched against the characteristic phrases of every cluster, and the record is filed in the first cluster in table order whose phrases its title contains, except two titles on product-line requirements engineering, which the requirements phrase alone would file under digital engineering and which belong with the software product lines under product families. A title may contain the phrases of more than one cluster, and the mean number of clusters a title matches says how often.

That is 1.0649 clusters per record across 1,181 matches, and 72 titles match two. A mean barely above one says the clusters are nearly disjoint, and that reflects the admission rule rather than the field, since each cluster admits on compound nouns the others do not use.

The shape of that table is the article’s subject restated. The three largest clusters are product families at 298, commonality at 207 and modularity at 161, which together are the engineering literature of when a thing is a new thing. The configuration identification and identifier clusters, at 59 and 63, are the literature of how engineered items and records are identified and named. The numerical taxonomy cluster at 24 is the literature of classifying at all.

The smallest cluster is attritability at four records, deliberately, because attritability is the X-58 article’s keystone and that article surveyed it, as noted under Out of Scope.

Two clusters hold literatures outside product design, and both are deliberate. The identifier cluster reaches persistent identifier systems, object identifier registries, namespace definitions and software versioning, because the questions a registry faces about allocating and retiring names are the questions the designation system faces and the answers are better documented. The numerical taxonomy cluster reaches the method of numerical classification, because the programme chose a biological metaphor and the discipline it borrowed from has a worked method for deciding what counts as a kind.

The oldest records in the survey show that standardisation is a far older subject than the designation system, and that naming entered the research record later. The survey reaches a paper on the standardisation of electrical engineering plant from 1900 and its discussion [Sellon 1900] [Crompton et al. 1900], and a run of papers and section discussions on standardisation as applied to production engineering from 1933 [Standardisation as Applied 1933] [Wright 1933]. The question of how to standardise manufactured things is older than the designation system this article is about by two generations, and the engineering literature treated it as a subject in its own right before the first aeroplane flew. The question of how to name what engineers make reaches the survey’s research records in 1962, with a compilation of aerodynamic nomenclature and axes systems [Wright 1962], the year in which the designator format was established [DAFI 16-401].

Commonality

The sharing of parts and its measures. Commonality indices, component sharing across a product line, the inventory and assembly consequences of a shared part, and the standardisation of production, its older relative. 39 of these titles name standardisation and 30 concern inventory, stock or assemble-to-order systems, because a part shared across products pools the demand for it.

207 records. [A Product Family Design 2008] [Agrawal and Cohen 2001] [Aiers et al. 1933] [Akkermans and van der Horst 2002] [Alizon et al. 2006a] [Alizon et al. 2006c] [Alizon et al. 2007] [Alizon et al. 2009] [Allen 1933] [Arakawa et al. 2004] [Ayton et al. 1933] [Bagchi and Gutierrez 1992] [Baker 1985] [Baker et al. 1986] [Barber et al. 1978] [Bedford 1933] [Bernstein et al. 2011] [Bick et al. 2014] [Bick et al. 2015] [Blecker and Abdelkafi 2007] [Boas et al. 2012] [Bollapragada and Akella 1993] [Boysen and Scholl 2009] [Cameron and Crawley 2012] [Chatras and Giard 2016] [Chen et al. 2009] [Cheung 2002] [Chiu et al. 2020] [Chowdhury et al. 2012] [Chowdhury et al. 2013b] [Collier 1981] [Collier 1982] [Collier 1984] [Collins et al. 1991] [Cooke et al. 1933b] [Cooke et al. 1933a] [Creighton et al. 1987] [Crompton et al. 1900] [Cronie and Thompson 1980] [Cunningham 1981] [Dang and Nagarur 2000] [Davis et al. 1986] [Desai et al. 2001] [Diamond 1951] [Dillon et al. 1998] [Discussion on “the Standardisation 1923] [Dong and Frank 2006] [Eilmus and Krause 2013] [Eynan and Fouque 2005] [Eynan and Rosenblatt 1996] [Eynan and Rosenblatt 2007] [Farrell and Simpson 2001] [Farrell and Simpson 2003] [Felice 1985] [Fellini et al. 2006a] [Fisher et al. 1999] [Franke and Hobbs 1993] [Garmilla Manzano et al. 2026] [Gerchak and Henig 1986] [Gerchak and Henig 1989] [Gerchak et al. 1988] [Gilbert 1933] [Groocock et al. 1933] [Guerrero 1985] [Hamdi and Tadj 2019] [Han et al. 2019b] [Heese and Swaminathan 2006] [Heikal et al. 2019] [Henderson and Higer 2007] [Heradio-Gil et al. 2011] [Hernández et al. 2015] [Hidayat and Fadilla 2025] [Hidayat et al. 2017] [Hill 1973] [Hillier 1999b] [Hillier 1999a] [Hillier 2000] [Hou and Lai 2015] [Ho¨ltta¨-Otto 2005] [Huang et al. 2008] [Huang et al. 2018] [Hölttä-Otto et al. 2008] [Insulation Commonality Assessment Phase 1973] [Izui et al. 2009] [Jans et al. 2008] [Jennings et al. 2025] [Jiao and Tseng 2000b] [Jiao et al. 2007] [Johnson and Kirchain 2010] [Johnson and Kirchain 2013] [Jung and Simpson 2015] [Jung and Simpson 2016a] [Jönsson and Silver 1991] [Kane] [Kannan and Nolte 1998] [Kariya et al. 2007] [Khajavirad and Michalek 2007a] [Khajavirad et al. 2008] [Khire et al. 2008] [Khire et al. 2013] [Kim and Chhajed 2000] [Kim and Kim 2020] [Kim et al. 2013] [Kim et al. 2020] [Kim et al. 2021] [Kima and Chhajed 2001] [Kline and Bachman 2006] [Kosanke and Nell 1999] [Kosanke and Vernadat 1998] [Kota and Sethuraman 1998] [Kota et al. 1998] [Kourtis et al. 2026] [Kruse and Gries 2011] [Kwapisz et al. 2019] [Labro 2004] [le Maistre 1933] [Li Qian and Zhenyu Kong 2008] [Liu 2016] [Majerus et al. 1999] [Marion et al. 2007] [Mayall 1983] [Mirchandani and Mishra 2002] [Mohebbi and Choobineh 2005] [Moskovich 1978] [Nagarur and Azeem 1999] [Navarro Gonzalez 2022] [Nicol and Hooper 1999] [Ong et al. 2006] [Pandey et al. 2011] [Pasche and Sköld 2012] [Peng Chew et al. 2006] [Pfeifer 2019] [Pillai 1956] [Pinson and Ryan 1972] [Pudge 1933] [Qian 2011b] [Qian 2011a] [Qiu et al. 2018] [Ratcliffe 1965] [Rieker and Haraburda] [Rieker and Haraburda 1989] [Rojas Arciniegas and Kim 2010] [Rojas Arciniegas and Kim 2011] [Rojas Arciniegas and Kim 2012] [Rubio et al. 2014] [Rutenberg 1971] [Sellon 1900] [Shamsuzzoha and Helo 2009] [Sheu and Wacker 1997] [Shi and Zhao 2014] [Shooter and Cohen 2010] [Siddique et al. 1998] [Simpson 2017] [Simpson and D’Souza 2002] [Simpson and D’Souza 2004] [Sitcharangsie et al. 2021] [Smith 1933] [Smith 2006] [Smith et al. 2003] [Song and Zhao 2009] [Standardisation as Applied 1933] [Stojanovski and Selva 2017] [Study of the Commonality 1975] [Su et al. 2010] [Subramanian et al. 2013] [Takai 2018] [Takai 2019] [Takai and Sengupta 2016] [Takai and Sengupta 2017] [Takeda et al. 2018] [Tanabe and Awano 2019] [Taylor 2009] [Thevenot and Simpson 2004] [Thevenot and Simpson 2006a] [Thevenot and Simpson 2006b] [Thevenot and Simpson 2006c] [Thevenot and Simpson 2007b] [Thevenot and Simpson 2007a] [Thevenot et al. 2005] [Thevenot et al. 2007] [Thomas 1992] [Thonemann and Brandeau 2000] [Tsubone et al. 1994] [Van Dyke et al. 1990] [Vance 1984] [Verhoef et al. 2012] [(Wan-Chuan) Chan and Arıkan 2020] [Wang] [Wang et al. 2011a] [Wazed et al. 2008] [Wazed et al. 2010] [Wazed et al. 2011] [Wee and Dada 2010] [Wettig 2002] [White 1978] [Wong et al. 2019] [Wright 1933] [Xu et al. 2020] [Yao et al. 2017] [Ye and Gershenson 2009] [Yeager 1987] [Yong Lin 2006] [Yongjie et al. 2021] [Zelm and Doumeingts 2013] [Zhang et al. 2015] [Zhang et al. 2019] [Zhou and Li 2007]

Product families

The design of families of products on a shared platform. Platform selection and optimisation, commonality and variety trade-offs, mass customisation and the management of product variety, with 31 titles on software product lines, the same idea in a discipline that builds variants from shared code.

298 records. [A Framework on Customer 2021] [Abdullah et al. 2012] [Abu-Matar and Gomaa 2011] [Achatz 2011] [Simpson et al. 2014] [Akundi et al. 2005] [AlGeddawy 2014] [AlGeddawy and ElMaraghy 2011] [Alizon et al. 2008] [Allada and Lan 2002] [Allison et al. 2006] [Allon et al. 2010] [Alsawalqah et al. 2013] [America et al. 2000] [Andersen] [Anderson 2013] [Aoki and Staeblein 2018] [Baylis et al. 2018] [Berenbach] [Bibi] [Bin et al] [Birrenbach 2000] [Bonev et al. 2015] [Bortolini et al. 2023] [Bowman 2006] [Broy 2011] [Burge et al. 2011] [Buschmann and Schwanninger 2011] [Böckle 2005] [Chandrasekaran et al. 2004] [Chao and Ishii 2004] [Chen and Wang 2008] [Chen et al. 2012] [Chen et al. 2023] [Cheng and Zhu 2013] [Cheng et al. 2015] [Neto et al. 2017] [Chong et al. 2009] [Chowdhury and Siddique 2009] [Chowdhury et al. 2011] [Chowdhury et al. 2013a] [Clements and Weiderman 1998] [Corbett and Rosen 2004] [D’Souza and Simpson 2002] [D’Souza and Simpson∗ 2003] [Cunha Reis] [Dai and Scott 2004b] [Dai and Scott 2004a] [Dai and Scott 2005a] [Dai and Scott* 2005] [Dashofy and van der Hoek 2002] [de Lange 2002] [De Lit and Delchambre 2003c] [De Lit and Delchambre 2003d] [De Lit and Delchambre 2003a] [De Lit and Delchambre 2003b] [De Lit and Delchambre 2003e] [de Weck 2006] [de Weck et al. 2003] [Design of Product Platform 2008] [Dinnus and Pohl 2005] [Dolan and Lewis 2008] [Dolan et al. 2000] [Du] [Du et al. 2002] [Du et al. 2012] [Ro et al. 2007] [Eggink] [Eggink and Groll 2020] [Eichstetter et al. 2015] [ElMaraghy and AlGeddawy 2013] [Emmatty and Sarmah 2012] [Evaluating Product Family Development 2009] [Fan et al. 2010] [Farrell and Simpson 2008] [Farrell and Simpson 2009] [Fellini et al. 2006b] [Finch 1999] [Fujita 2013] [Gao et al. 2009] [Garneau et al. 2013] [Gedell and Johannesson 2012] [Generic Product Model 2025] [Gonzalez-Zugasti and Otto 2000] [Goswami and Allada 2007] [Greve et al. 2019] [Hallsteinsen et al. 2004] [Halman et al. 2006] [Han et al. 2019a] [Harland and Uddin 2014] [He et al. 2021] [He et al. 2024] [Hendrickson et al. 2008] [Holmqvist et al. 2006] [Hu et al. 2008] [Huang et al. 2012b] [Hume and Rosen 2012] [Jaring and Bosch 2004] [Ji et al. 2013] [Jiang 2009] [Jiang and Allada 2001] [Jiang and Allada 2005] [Jiao] [Jiao 2012] [Jiao and Tseng 2000a] [Jiao and Zhang 2006] [Jiao et al. 2006] [Johannesson and Claesson 2005] [John and Villela 2008] [Johnson Lim et al. 2011] [Jose and Tollenaere 2005] [Jung and Simpson 2018] [Jung et al. 2017] [Kamrani 2013] [Karagoz et al. 2021] [Khadke and Gershenson 2008] [Khajavirad and Michalek 2007b] [Khajavirad and Michalek 2008] [Khajavirad et al. 2013] [Kim] [Kim and Moon 2017b] [Kim and Moon 2017a] [Kim et al. 2003] [Kim et al. 2010] [Kim et al. 2016] [Knauber and Thiel 2002] [Kokkolaras et al. 2006] [Korhonen and Mikkonen 2004] [Krause and Eilmus 2011] [Krause and Gebhardt 2023b] [Krause and Gebhardt 2023a] [Krause et al. 2013] [Krishnan 2008] [Krueger 2008] [Krueger 2011] [Krueger 2015] [Ku, Sang-wuk 2014] [Kuang and Jiang 2009] [Kumar et al. 2004] [Kun and Dong 2006] [Kwak and Kim 2013] [Lamine et al. 2005] [Lancaster 1998] [Lee et al. 2025c] [Lei] [Levandowski et al. 2015] [Li 2010] [Li and Weiss 2011] [Li and Wu 2011] [Lim] [Lim et al. 2010] [Lin 2004] [Liu 2012] [Liu and Hsiao 2005] [Liu et al. 2009] [Luo et al. 2013] [Lyons et al. 2012] [Ma and Kim 2014] [Ma and Kim 2015] [Maccari] [Maccari 2002b] [MacDuffie et al. 1996] [Mannion and Savolainen 2014] [Martin and Ishii 2000] [Martin and Ishii 2002] [Martinez-Larrosa and Siddique 2026] [Martini and Forcellini 2015] [Matinlassi] [Messac et al. 2000] [Messac et al. 2013] [Model-Based Assessment of Variety-Induced 2025] [Model-Driven Aspect-Oriented Product Line 2009] [Modrak and Bednar 2016] [Modrak et al. 2014] [Mohagheghi and Conradi 2004] [Mohr 2002] [Moon and Simpson 2010] [Moon and Simpson 2013] [Moon et al. 2009] [Moon et al. 2011] [Moon et al. 2013] [Morales 2013a] [Morales 2013b] [Multiple-View Requirements Models 2009] [Nace and Koopman 2001] [Nakao and Iino 2021] [Nanda et al. 2005] [Nayak et al. 2000] [Nayak et al. 2002] [Nelson et al. 1999] [Nelson et al. 2000] [Nidamarthi and Karandikar 2006] [Niemelä 2005] [Ninan and Siddique 2013] [Ninan et al. 2024] [Nomaguchi et al. 2004] [Nørgaard et al. 2025] [Oh and Hong 2024] [Oh et al. 2022] [Oh et al. 2026] [Ohvanainen and Hietikko 2012] [Okpoti et al. 2019] [Ostrosi Egon et al. 2014] [Otto et al. 2013] [Otto et al. 2016] [Overview of Gbom Formation 2016] [Pakkanen et al. 2016] [Pandit and Siddique 2004] [Park 2021] [Park and Shin 2007] [Park and Simpson 2006] [Park et al. 2008] [Ping Jiang et al. 2007] [Pirmoradi and Wang 2011] [Pirmoradi et al. 2013] [Pohl and Reuys 2002] [Simpson et al. 2006b] [Rai et al] [Raudberget et al. 2014] [Riaz et al. 2017] [Robert] [(Roger) Jiao et al. 2007] [Rosen and Choi 2021] [Savolainen and Mannion 2012] [Schmid and Lee 2013] [Schuh et al. 2017] [Schulze and Li 2009] [Shah et al. 2011] [Shao et al. 2012] [Shatnawi et al. 2017] [Shooter 2006] [Siddique 2006] [Siddique and Adupala 2005] [Siddique and Adupala 2008] [Siddique and Rosen 1999] [Simpson 2004] [Simpson 2006] [Simpson et al. 1999] [Simpson et al. 2001b] [Simpson et al. 2001a] [Simpson et al. 2006a] [Simpson et al. 2010] [Simpson et al. 2011] [Siu] [Software and systems engineering] [Software Product Line Engineering 2009] [Software Product Line Engineering 2012] [Sopadang et al. 2002] [Sotos et al. 2013] [Staples and Hill] [Steuer and Whitcomb 2003] [Stewart and Yan] [Sundgren 1999] [Taguchi Integrated Real-Time Optimization 2010] [Tang et al. 2017d] [Thevenot and Simpson 2009] [Thiel and Hein 2002] [Trask and Roman 2008] [Tseng and Jiao 1998] [Tucker 2013] [Uddin et al. 2018] [Universal Product Family Design 2012] [Voelter and Visser 2011] [Vogt et al. 2023] [Wallmark] [Wang] [Wang et al. 2011b] [Wang et al. 2012] [Wang et al. 2018] [Wang et al. 2025] [Wei and Qin] [Weingärtner 2002] [Wenlei Zhang and Yushun Fan 2006] [Wijnstra 2002] [Wijnstra 2004] [Windheim 2019a] [Windheim 2019c] [Windheim 2020] [Wu and Li 2011] [Xiao 2012] [Xu and Jiao 2013] [Yang et al. 2004] [Yang et al. 2005] [Yao et al. 2023] [Ye and Gershenson 2008] [Yue Yang and Xibin Wang 2009] [Zacharias and Yassine 2007] [Zha and Lu 2002] [Zhang 2012] [Zhang 2014] [Zhang and Cheng 2005] [Zhang and Tseng 2007] [Zhang et al. 2007] [Zhao 2010] [Zhao et al. 2022] [Zheng et al. 2021] [Zhu 2004] [Zhu 2006]

Modularity

The architecture of a product divided into modules. Module identification, modular product architecture, the theory of modularity and its option value, and the dominant-design and architectural-innovation work that explains when an architecture becomes fixed. 65 of these titles name the design structure matrix, which is the field’s principal instrument for deciding where a module boundary falls.

161 records. [Abdelsalam et al. 2014] [Adrees 2021] [Akoto Chama and Bertram 2018] [AlGeddawy and ElMaraghy 2015] [AlGeddawy et al. 2017] [Alizon et al. 2006b] [Amalia et al. 2018] [Ananno et al. 2026] [Anderson and Tushman 1990] [Asaga and Nishigaki 2022] [Asan and Polat 2008] [Aurich et al] [Baldwin and Clark 2000] [Baldwin and Clark, The Value of Modularity, Splitting and Substitution, chapter in Design Rules Volume 1, The Power of Modularity, MIT Press, 2000, registry record only] [Baldwin and Clark, What Is Modularity?, chapter in Design Rules Volume 1, The Power of Modularity, MIT Press, 2000, registry record only] [Bao et al. 2025] [Benkoczi et al. 2018] [Borjesson and Hölttä-Otto 2012] [Borjesson and Sellgren 2013] [Boudouh and Grunder 2015] [Brovar and Fortin 2024] [Brown 2004] [Browning 2013] [Börger and Schulte 2000] [Carrascosa et al. 1998] [Chantzaras 2024] [Chen Chun-Hsien et al. 2013] [Cheng et al. 2019] [Chitsaz and Efatmaneshnik 2023] [Choudhuri et al. 2019] [Clark and Baldwin 2002] [Cook and Coates 2016] [Correa et al. 2017] [Dahmus et al. 2000] [Dahmus et al. 2001] [Dambietz 2021] [Domercant 2017] [Dunbing Tang et al. 2009] [Eppinger and Browning 2012] [Ertas and Gulbulak 2021] [Essers] [Ezzat et al. 2019] [Fan et al. 2024] [Farooq et al. 2013] [Fischetti 1974] [Fujita 2002] [Fujita et al. 1999] [Wahdan et al. 2016] [Gao and Zhang 2020] [Gasnakis and Homberg 2013] [Gauthier] [Gershenson et al. 2003] [Gershenson et al. 2004] [Gong et al. 2017] [Gravina da Rocha et al. 2019] [Greve and Krause 2018] [Gualberto] [Gunawan 2012] [Gupta 2021] [Hamidreza Kasaei et al. 2010] [Hata et al] [Heberlig and Palaoro 1971] [Helmer et al. 2010] [Helo 2006] [Henderson and Clark 1990] [Hohnen et al. 2013] [Hossain et al. 2021] [Houshmand and Valilai 2012] [Huang and Wang 2025] [Huang et al. 2010] [Huang et al. 2012a] [Huang et al. 2025] [Hölttä-Otto et al. 2012] [Introduction to Design Structure 2012] [Jelenić 2024] [Jiang et al. 2026] [Jung and Simpson 2016b] [Kashkoush and ElMaraghy 2017] [Kim and Moon 2016] [Kim et al. 2019] [Kim et al. 2025b] [Kim et al. 2025a] [Kimita et al. 2021] [Kässi et al. 2008] [Lane 1990] [Lange and Imsdahl 2013] [Larsson and Åslund 2001] [Lee 2012] [Li 2023] [Li and Chen 2008] [Maldonado et al. 2017] [Marion et al. 2014] [Matos et al. 2007] [Meyer et al. 2014] [Milev et al. 2009] [Ming Dong et al. 2010] [Modrak and Soltysova 2021] [Monetti et al. 2025] [Monetti et al. 2026] [Morris and Steiner 2006] [Murmann and Frenken 2005] [Murmann and Frenken 2006] [Nelson 2017] [Newcomb et al. 2003] [Niutanen and Otto 2017] [Pektaş and Pultar 2006] [Pinto 2019] [Piran et al. 2020] [Pisch et al. 2024] [Plant 2017] [Product Development by Using 2015] [Qiao et al. 2017] [Qiao et al. 2018] [Qiu 2010] [Reynerson] [Reynerson 1999] [Ribeiro et al. 2007] [Roh et al. 2025] [Rosen 1996] [Samarasinghe et al. 2019] [Sanaei et al. 2015] [Shamsuzzoha 2011] [Shamsuzzoha and Helo 2010] [Shamsuzzoha and Helo 2012] [Shamsuzzoha et al. 2020] [Shamsuzzoha et al. 2023] [Shekar et al. 2011] [Shikata et al. 2013] [Shoval et al. 2016] [Smit and Pistorius 1998] [Stettner 2000] [Sullivan et al. 2001] [Sun and Lau 2019] [Sun et al. 2016] [Tang 2008b] [Tang 2008a] [Tang et al. 2008] [Tang et al. 2009] [Tang et al. 2017b] [Tang et al. 2017c] [Teacher et al. 2023] [The Modular Operators 2000] [Tokunaga and Fujimura 2013] [Ulrich 1994] [Use Modular Architecture] [Uusitalo 2014] [Wallance 2021a] [Wallance 2021b] [Wan 2014] [Wang and Tseng 2011] [Wang et al. 2023] [Windheim 2019b] [Xiaogang et al. 2006] [Yan and Feng 2011] [Yang et al. 2014] [Yang et al. 2016] [Yee Soon Lim 2007] [Yen and Smith 2009] [Zamani and Beigzadeh 2023] [Zeng et al. 2025] [Zou et al. 2026]

Open architecture

Open interfaces as an acquisition policy. 32 of these titles name the modular open systems approach, and the rest concern open architectures in defence and integrated modular avionics, which is the government’s version of the commonality question asked about interfaces rather than parts.

47 records. [ade et al 2017] [Agarwal 2026] [Blank et al. 2025] [Bonilla-Ortiz and Verma 2020] [Boudreau 2007] [DeMinico et al. 2022] [Reform Week III. Open 1998] [DiVito 1998] [DuBois 2022] [DuBois et al. 2021] [Farr et al. 2024] [Ford and Dillard 2008] [Ford and Dillard 2009] [Gaska 2007] [Gaska 2012] [Holmstedt 2023] [Jacobs 2024] [Jakovljevic 2006] [Karimi and Werner 2014] [Kovach et al. 2021] [Lyke et al. 2019] [DeMinico et al] [Matthews and Dubois 2021] [Melber et al. 2015] [Motzet et al. 2006] [Optimization Techniques for Multi-Core 2025] [Padilla et al. 2025] [Peters et al. 2022] [Pierce and Littlefield-Lawwill 2008] [Plonsky and Herber 2026] [Reinhart et al. 2008] [Rendon 2006] [Rendon 2007] [Rendon 2008] [Roberts et al. 2023] [Rose et al. 2014] [Schrage 2023] [Shaver et al. 2016] [Siddapureddy 2011] [Space and Naval Warfare Center Arlington VA 1996] [Srivastava and Rice 2014] [Toppler et al. 2025] [Vogler et al. 2026] [Watza and Cooper 2023] [White 2023] [Zimmerman et al. 2018] [Zischka and Finnegan 2023]

Cost of variety

What it costs to make an aircraft, and to make several kinds. Cost-estimating relationships for aircraft, cost growth in defence acquisition, economies of scope and the cost of variety, and 32 titles on the learning curve on which the unit-cost derivation above rests.

56 records. [Aircraft Cost Considerations 2010] [Asher and Maggelet 1980] [Asher and Shafer 1985] [Attia et al. 2016] [Badiru 2021] [Beltramo and Anderson 1977] [Beltramo et al. 1979] [Camm et al. 1987] [Chatzimichali and Tourassis 2008] [Cody and Tiedje 1996] [Cody and Tiedje 1997] [Cost-Estimating Relationships for Aircraft 1972] [Cui and Weston 2010] [Cunningham 1980] [Curtis 1987] [Donath et al. 1981] [Ettlie and Penner-Hahn 1994] [Gansler et al. 2010] [Gray 1979] [Gruber 1992] [Gruber 1994] [Guangming Chen and McLennan] [Gudmundsson 2014] [Gudmundsson 2022] [Harofteh and Saljooghi 2023] [Hogan et al. 2020] [Hogan et al. 2022] [Horowitz et al. 2014] [Jones 2018] [Kim and Lee 2018] [Kneece et al. 2014] [Learning Curves 2015] [Learning Curves 2026] [Lu et al. 2008] [Lundberg 1956] [Majd and Pindyck 1987] [Mazzola and McCardle 1997] [McClure 1977] [McNicol and Wu 2014] [Myrodia et al. 2021] [Nemet 2006] [Pananiswami and Bishop 1991] [Parrish 1978] [Pedersen and Slepniov 2016] [Pindyck and Majd 1996] [Ridder 2024] [Smunt 1999] [Smunt 2011] [Sokri and Ghanmi 2017] [Stahl et al. 1984] [Teng et al. 2014] [Towill 1985] [Using the Learning Curve 2010] [Why do Aircraft Cost] [Why Do Aircraft Cost 1999] [Wong 2013]

Flexibility

The value of being able to change a design later. 17 of these titles concern real options in engineering systems design, and the rest concern technology insertion and the management of obsolescent parts, which is the problem frequent refresh addresses.

28 records. [Barriers to Real Options 2009] [Berkowitz and Rowlands 2005] [Caputo and Cardin 2021a] [Caputo and Cardin 2021b] [Cardin et al. 2021] [Cardin et al. 2022] [Cardin et al. 2023] [Guinivan 2004] [Identifying Real Options 2009] [Koo 2013] [Krystallis et al. 2026] [Ma et al. 2017] [Maddux 1999] [Mandelbaum et al. 2008] [Mukhtar and Agarwal 2009] [Origins of Real Options 2009] [Peterson 1971] [Rahmat et al. 2017] [Real Options Design 2009] [Real Options in Engineering 2009] [Nembhard and Aktan 2009] [Real Options in Manufacturing 2009] [Regan 2001] [Rennenkampf and Rhyne 2004] [Underwood 2011] [Van den Broeke et al. 2017] [Wearne 1992] [Xie and Cardin 2017]

Crewed and uncrewed teaming

Uncrewed aircraft fighting beside crewed ones. 75 of these titles name manned-unmanned teaming and 4 name collaborative combat aircraft, so this literature is a literature of the teaming concept, its workload and its interfaces.

81 records. [Albawaneh et al. 2025] [Andrews et al. 2020a] [Andrews et al. 2020b] [Arthur 2008] [Athanasiadou et al. 2026] [Bailey 2008] [Bajpai et al. 2025] [Banas et al. 2020] [Catak et al. 2025] [Choi et al. 2026] [Cosenzo 2010] [Das et al. 2017] [Ding et al. 2026] [Donkels and Voigt 2019] [Driggs et al. 2026] [Dudek and Schulte 2022] [Flaherty et al. 2006] [Flores et al. 2025] [Friedrich and Schulte 2025] [Fu Li et al. 2008] [Gozzi and Schulte 2026] [Hammarbäck 2022] [Hammarbäck et al. 2023] [Han et al. 2025] [Heilemann and Hollatz 2020] [Hoke 2018] [Hong and Baek 2025] [Hwang and Han 2025] [İşci and Günel 2021] [Jeong 2026] [Jeong et al. 2026] [학생 et al. 2025] [Kiam et al. 2022] [Kim 2026] [Kim and Kim 2026] [Kim and Lee 2022] [Kohn 2022] [Kong et al. 2024] [Korecki and Hoika 2026] [Kwon et al. 2025] [Künzel et al. 2025] [Lee and Jeong 2025] [Lee and Kang 2025] [Lee and Lee 2026] [Lee and Na 2023] [Lee and Park 2024] [Lee et al. 2025a] [Lee et al. 2025b] [Lewkowicz 2026] [Lyons et al. 2021] [Maier et al. 2024] [Malhotra et al. 2024] [Meyer and Schulte 2020] [Meyer and Schulte 2022] [Michelson and Domerçant 2019] [Minglang et al. 2018] [Park et al. 2022] [Paul et al. 2025] [Pericon 2024] [Pletsch 2021] [Qi and Xie 2026] [Roncolini and Quaranta 2024] [Rosenblum et al. 2022] [Roth and Schulte 2020] [Roth and Schulte 2022b] [Roth and Schulte 2022a] [Roth et al. 2020] [Ruf and Stütz 2016] [Ruf and Stütz 2018] [Schmitt and Schulte 2015a] [Schmitt and Schulte 2015b] [Schwerd and Schulte 2021] [Shively et al. 2011] [Sparrow and Henschke 2023] [Strenzke et al. 2011] [The People’s Liberation Army’s 2025] [Voigt et al. 2019] [Wuwer et al. 2025] [Yang et al. 2024] [Yoo et al. 2021] [Yuan et al. 2025]

Attritability

Aircraft cheap enough to lose. Attritable design trades, a low-cost rapidly built unmanned aircraft, damage tolerance of additively manufactured steels for attritable aircraft and a semi-expendable vehicle. The cluster is small by design, for the reason given above.

4 records. [Bateman et al. 2007] [Colombi et al. 2017] [Jones et al. 2021] [Ma et al. 2021]

Autonomy

The software that flies an uncrewed aircraft, and the trust placed in it. Autonomy architectures and their formal verification, human-autonomy and human-agent teaming, tactical datalinks and the interoperability of unmanned systems.

14 records. [Bloch et al. 2023a] [Bloch et al. 2023b] [Chen and Barnes 2013] [Hartel et al. 1977] [Ho et al. 2017] [Humphrey and Muñoz] [Prinzel et al] [Müller et al. 2023] [Neubauer et al. 2022] [Neubauer et al. 2023] [Sperling et al. 2008] [Varela 2014] [Wright et al. 2022] [Wright et al. 2024]

Configuration identification and nomenclature

How engineered items and their records are identified and named. 53 of these titles name configuration identification, management or control, and the rest concern engineering change and the nomenclature standards of engineering disciplines. No title in the survey names a designation system, so the nearest engineering literature to the register is the practice of identifying configurations, as the section headed Thin Subjects records.

59 records. [Appendix 1 2019] [Barkstrom 2003] [Bright et al. 1993] [Buckle 1982] [Calvo-Manzano et al. 2001] [Carnduff 2004] [Change Control and Configuration 2008] [Change Control and Configuration 2023] [Change Management Configuration Management 2018] [Colston 1998] [Configuration Identification] [Configuration Identification 1995] [Configuration Identification 2004b] [Configuration Identification 2004a] [Configuration Identification for Digital] [Configuration Management and Software 2004] [Configuration Management Identification 2007] [Configuration-Management] [Dart 1992] [Military Standard Configuration Management 1993] [Dunleavy 1988] [Fabry 1980] [Feiler and Downey 1990] [Fonder and Headley 2013] [Harvey 1986] [Hoek et al. 1995] [Hoek et al. 1998b] [Hoek et al. 1998a] [Hoek et al. 1998c] [Hood 1987] [5 How Configuration Identification 2004] [Joeris 1997] [Jucevic 1978] [Kögel 2008] [Kölmel and Eisenbiegler 2001] [MacKay 1996] [Martinis 1990] [Masmoudi et al. 2017] [Mathur and Jain 2011] [Mehmood et al. 2013] [Missouri Univ-Rolla 1988] [Piligian et al. 1968] [Programme Management. Configuration Management] [Quantick 2001] [Searle 1977] [Sligh et al. 2002] [Smith and Wandelt 1991] [System Configuration Identification 2005] [Tang et al. 2017a] [Tate 1998] [Tichy 2001] [Tomayko 1986] [Tomayko 1990] [Transportation Systems Center Cambridge MA 1989] [Vines 1989] [Wagner and Foster 1990] [Wallnau 1992] [Wright 1962] [Young 1989]

Identifiers

How registries allocate, define and keep names. 23 of these titles concern persistent identifiers and 16 concern versioning schemes, together with the digital object identifier, object identifier registries, uniform resource name namespaces and the Legal Entity Identifier.

63 records. [Aghassibake et al. 2023] [Ajibode et al. 2025] [Bangert and Frances 2017] [Bellini et al. 2014] [Bellur and Vallieswaran 2006] [Berber and Yahyapour 2017] [Carvalho 2023] [Ceravolo and Bellini 2010] [Chan and Milne 2013] [Chandrakar 2006] [Chen et al. 2019] [Cox 2008] [Dappert et al. 2017] [Decan and Mens 2021] [Digital Object Identifier DOI® 2009] [Digital Object Identifier DOI® 2011] [Digital Object Identifier system] [DIN 31646 2013-01, Information und] [Golovachev 2026] [Hamilton 2002] [Hardisty et al. 2021] [Herb 2021] [Hewlett 2016] [Hewlett 2017] [Hoffman 2010] [Housley 2013] [Housley 2014a] [Housley 2014b] [Housley 2021] [Iman 2025] [Fund 2013] [Information and documentation. Digital] [Information technology – Procedures] [Islam et al. 2022] [Kennickell 2016] [Kim and Park 2004] [Lam et al. 2020] [Lehnert et al. 2019] [Lemieux 2014] [Lemieux 2016] [Li et al. 2023] [Luo et al. 2015] [Milne and Chan 2019] [Nasrullah et al. 2025] [Ochoa et al. 2022] [Opdebeeck et al. 2021] [Paglialonga and Schirnick 2020] [Panter et al. 2025] [Paskin 1999] [PID Service 2015] [Pinckney et al. 2023] [Raemaekers et al. 2017] [Rzepa 2018] [Schmitt et al. 2015] [Sharan 2019] [Thompson and Tong 2018] [van Veenendaal 2023] [Wang et al. 2008] [Wang et al. 2017] [Weigel et al. 2014] [Yun 2019] [Zhang et al. 2022] [Ziedorn 2020]

Numerical taxonomy

The numerical method for deciding what belongs with what. The principles and practice of numerical taxonomy, its methods for choosing characters and comparing classifications, and reviews of its founding books.

24 records. [B. D’Agostino and Russell 2014] [Barthélemy and Brucker 2000] [Corliss et al. 1974] [D’Agostino and Russell 2005] [Fiala 1983] [Gould 1974] [Gyllenberg and Koski 1996] [Hubac 1983] [James 1964] [Leuschner 1981] [Maze 1966] [McNeill 1984] [12 Numerical Taxonomic Methods 1982] [Numerical Taxonomic Methods 2024] [Felsenstein 1983] [Crowson 2017] [Numerical Taxonomy and Cluster 1994] [Numerical Taxonomy. the Principles 1975] [O’brien and Colwell 1988] [Eysenck and Eysenck 2013] [Quesne 1969] [Schlee et al. 1975] [Singh et al. 2002] [Sneath 1985]

Unmanned aircraft design

Designing and sizing an uncrewed aircraft. Conceptual design studies of unmanned combat and solar aircraft, design programmes and modular unmanned airframes.

19 records. [Alexis and Tzes 2012] [Altman 2008] [Cummings et al. 2018] [Fry 2008] [Fujinaga et al. 2007] [Gambaryan 2021] [Herbst and Klöckner 2014] [Karabetsky 2018] [Khreish et al. 2005] [Kim and Oh 2017] [Kotarski et al. 2021] [Neufeld and Chung 2005] [Sadraey 2010] [Sathe and Pant 2010] [Szafranski et al. 2014] [Karakoc and Özbek 2024] [Wu 2023] [Yang et al. 2013] [Zheng et al. 2022]

Demonstrators

Aircraft built to show that something can be done. 13 of these titles name an X-plane, being the X-22A, X-31, X-33, X-37 and X-45A or the series as a whole, and the rest concern rapid acquisition and prototyping, technology readiness levels and the Orbital Space Plane’s demonstrators.

24 records. [Arellano et al. 2015] [Austin and Rising 2000] [Austin et al. 2000] [Boyce et al. 2013] [Brinker 2004] [Bulkley and Davis 2013] [Chyma 2010] [Coleman et al. 2015] [Cosentino 2008] [Ford et al. 2012] [Haspert and Beauregard 1998] [Jacobson 2004a] [Jacobson 2004b] [Marchese 1963] [Powers and Schellenger 1989] [Rasch and Robert A. 2011] [Reichenfeld and Jones 1999] [Sauser et al. 2009] [Schweikhard et al. 1998] [Schweikhard et al. 2001] [Smith 2004] [Sterk and McAtee 2015] [Turner 2003] [Wise 2003]

Digital engineering

Engineering a system through its models. Model-based systems engineering, virtual prototyping, digital twins and requirements engineering.

24 records. [Alexandru 2020] [Assef and Geiger 2023] [Black et al. 1990a] [Black et al. 1990b] [Blackburn 2014] [Blackburn et al. 2014] [Bonanne 2011] [Darpel et al. 2019] [Dougal and Monti 2011] [Eckert 2006] [Crues] [Ewing 2022] [Garcia et al. 1994] [Hanratty et al. 1999] [Holt and McNeillis 2007] [Hwang et al. 2022] [Quinlan] [Mead 2003] [Orhan et al. 2026] [Ortiz 1992] [Özkaya and Turunc 2025] [Patria 2013] [Wallace et al. 2001] [Young et al. 2004]

Where the Framing Breaks Down

The title says the slot was taken by the XQ-67A, and the record supports a narrower statement than that. Taken implies an act upon the X-67, and the article’s finding is that nobody had to decide to skip it. The number 67 went to an unmanned allocation on 2023-07-19, and the X-67 became unrequestable only when the X-68A was approved on 2025-08-20 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum] [DAFI 16-401]. The vehicle consumed a number, and a later request closed a slot.

The derivation from the research series is an inference and not a documented fact. The compiler asserts it with the phrase just like the X-58 and gives no reasoning [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. The test in the passage headed The Borrowing Claim Is Testable and It Passes supports it, with a tail probability of 0.03159 that the article calls a weak signal on its own. No document states that anybody chose 67 for that reason.

The analogy with the X-58 breaks at the officiality line. The XQ-58A’s description is official Department wording and the XQ-67A’s is not, so the phrase just like the X-58 joins a case the government described to one it did not. That boundary is drawn under the heading The Second Case Falls on the Far Side of a Line the First Did Not.

The framing of the skip as visible at the article’s date also breaks, and the dated note under Epistemic State records how. The X-68A row reached the public register only after this article’s date, so a reader of the register at that date would have seen 67 as the next number rather than as a passed one.

And the aeroplane crosses the boundary the opening draws. The opening treats the XQ-67A as evidence about the number and not as the subject, yet the part-count, unit-cost, sharing-penalty, break-even and refresh derivations are about the aeroplane’s method. Every input to them is assumed, and the article states that their yield is the shape of an argument rather than a measurement.

The Source Base

This article rests on a narrow base and the section exists to say how narrow. Everything about the designation comes from one compiler’s reconstruction and one published instruction. Everything about the aeroplane comes from two press releases and the federal award record. No document in either group was written to answer the question this article asks.

The research survey draws on three archives, being the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Technical Reports Server, the Defense Technical Information Center and the Crossref bibliographic index, called below the reports server, the defence registry and the bibliographic index. It holds 1,109 research records, being 1,105 from those archives and four hand-written theory sources, of which 130 are report primaries, being 11.7 percent, by the identifier rule set out under The Definition of Primary. The median publication year is 2011. Of the 1,062 dated records, 371 were published in 2015 or later, being 34.9 percent, and 181 before 2000, and the range runs from 1900 to 2026.

The reference base as a whole is 1,198 definitions and it partitions four ways.

22 are hand-written references to the register, the instructions, the releases, the award record and the trade press, two of which the list marks as secondary, four are hand-written theory sources, 67 are the prior articles of this series, and 1,105 are research records from the three archives. Of the 1,109 research records the 979 that are not reports carry bibliographic-index identifiers, which is the proportion the subject dictates rather than a choice.

The Reports Server Holds Almost None of This

The reports server’s own commonality literature is mostly spacecraft, as the commonality row of the table in the next subsection shows, and six of the ten reports-server records in the commonality cluster concern space vehicles, stations or spaceflight hardware. How much two vehicles can share is the question the XQ-67A was built to answer whatever the vehicles are, so that government literature belongs to the subject, but the journal literature on product families and modular architecture is far larger and the reports server holds almost none of it.

That is a finding about the subject. Commonality and product family design are a manufacturing and management literature, and a research agency that builds aeroplanes publishes about aeroplanes. Whether the laboratory’s own programme documents exist in the report literature under other names is open, the Low Cost Attritable Aircraft Technologies initiative and the Low-Cost Attritable Strike Demonstrator being two such names, together with the Broad Agency Announcement the trade coverage dates to September 2020.

The Programme’s Own Words Are Unsearchable

Every word the laboratory and the contractor use for the programme collides with another literature, and searching the archives for each bare term shows it.

The bibliographic index was no better and in two cases was worse. There, platform returns platform capitalism, platform urbanism, the platform economy, a media journal and an oligonucleotide synthesis platform, with nothing engineering in ten. commonality returns a dictionary entry for the word itself, commonality in tinnitus perception and commonality of beliefs in economics. genus species classification returns ten biological results in ten, and common chassis aircraft family returns a fire-fighting truck, a passenger-boarding lift, automotive chassis grease and a glider undercarriage.

The acronym collision is the one worth recording for its own sake. The programme’s own abbreviation was already taken, inside the same agency, by the Space Shuttle’s Orbiter Boom Sensor System, and all ten of the reports server’s first results for it are Shuttle return-to-flight material. A programme named after a function will collide with every other programme named after a similar function, and this series has now met the same class in a carbohydrate and a bird.

The literature’s own vocabulary finds the subject where the programme’s does not. product family, component commonality, design structure matrix, modular open systems approach and product platform design return their own subject at close to ten in ten. The X-66 article reports the same lesson in the opposite direction, since there the report literature’s vocabulary was the aeronautical one and here it is not aeronautical at all.

An Address That Returns a 404 Page Under a 200 Status

The contractor’s page for its aircraft family is not a document. It answers with a success status and 20,974 bytes, and its body reads 404 Error, Page Not Found. A success status is not a document, and this page is a case in which the status and the content disagree.

The consequence for the article is substantive rather than cosmetic. Secondary coverage speculates that the XQ-67A represents the first member of a named family of aircraft the contractor has disclosed separately. Contemporary reporting names the contractor’s submission as the Gambit and reports the contractor saying that the selection would validate the Gambit series’ design concept [AFRL Chooses General Atomics Drone for Off-Board Sensing Station Program]. With the maker’s own page unreachable, the article asserts no tie to the family beyond that report, which is what the record supports.

What the Cited Addresses Return

Every hand-written address in the article has been fetched, and there are 26 of them. Twenty-one return a document, four are held by a publisher that declines automated clients and are instead confirmed against the bibliographic index by author and title, and one returns neither. The one that returns neither is the Department’s own cancelled list at its issuance portal, which answers HTTP 403 to automated clients, and the article says in its own definition that it was not read [DoD 4120.15-L]. A fetch that fails tells a reader nothing about whether a citation is correct, so each of the four is resolved against the index and the resolved title and authors are compared against the label the article prints, and all four agree.

The Definition of Primary

Primacy is a property of the document, and this survey derives it from the identifier. A research record is a report primary when its address is on the reports server or the defence registry, or when it carries a digital object identifier under the 10.21236 prefix, which Crossref registers for the defence registry’s reports. The report-primary share is the fraction of research records that are report primaries.

Of the 1,109 research records, 130 are reports held by the reports server or the defence registry, so $\varpi$ is 11.7 percent, split 37 from the reports server and 93 from the defence registry. The rule does not reach the documents this article actually rests on, being the register, the instructions and the releases, which are hand-written references rather than research records, so the share describes the survey and not the article’s evidence about the X-67.

Thin Subjects

There is no literature on the X-67 and the article states that rather than implying coverage. The survey holds no record whose subject is this designation, because a designation that was never allocated produces nothing. The 1,109 research records map the field the question sits in and not the question, and the only sources that speak to the X-67 directly are the register, the compilation of missing designations and the instruction.

Six subjects that this article’s derivations depend on have thin literatures. Each count below is the number of research records in this survey whose title carries at least one of the listed terms, with a hyphen read as a space. Where a row joins two groups of terms with the word together, a title must carry a term from each group.

The designation, the aeroplane and its metaphor have no literature at all. No research title names the X-67, the XQ-67A or the Off-Board Sensing Station, none names a designation system, and none carries genus, species or chassis. This is the same negative result the X-66 article reported for airport design and the X-65 article for its effector, and it has the same cause. A laboratory demonstrator whose purpose is a production method does not generate a research literature under its own name.

Commonality across a family of aircraft is a small part of a large literature. Of the 17 titles, 4 name an unmanned aerial vehicle and the other 13 concern crewed aircraft, most of them airliners, transports and commuter aircraft, so the shared-chassis argument above draws on a literature written about airliners and about products in general.

Technology refresh appears in one title, on technology insertion in evolutionary acquisition, so the refresh derivation stands on its own relations rather than on a published model of refresh cadence.

The allocation of identifiers appears in three titles, one of them the procedure by which a registry allocates algorithm numbers for the security extensions of the domain name system, which is the closest the survey comes to the designation system’s own allocation question.

What the Survey Admits

A record is admitted only when a person reading its title finds it on this article’s subject, and every admitted title also carries the characteristic phrases of at least one of the fifteen clusters, so no residual cluster is needed.

Many words this subject depends on also name something else, and a record that shares only such a word is excluded. Numerical taxonomy applied to plants, microorganisms, soils, wines and psychiatric diagnoses is another science using the method, so its applications are excluded while its method and theory are kept. Learning curve also names surgical, financial and trainee learning curves, standardisation also names the standardisation of cheese, Ayurvedic preparations, herbal products, surveying practice and medical devices, modularity also names the graph sense used in network science, commonality also appears in the thermal and fluid sciences and names a statistical technique for finding the shared tool behind defective semiconductor wafers, modular also names porous chemical frameworks and cognitive architectures, namespace also names an isolation mechanism of an operating system kernel and the declarations file of a software package, and demonstration also names a flight display team and an experiment flown on a parabolic flight. Nomenclature of crystal chemistry and of chemical substances names natural rather than engineered objects. Real options valued without an engineering object, including in organisational design, are a finance technique and are excluded, and so are product variety and economies of scale in trade theory. Records about a demonstrator or an unmanned aircraft that report only an aerodynamic, thermal, aeroelastic, handling, flight-control or calibration result are excluded, because the article uses demonstrators as programmes and not as test articles. Obituaries, conference session headers, meeting programmes, figure records and supplementary files are excluded as well, because a survey counts research works and those are not works or are parts of works. Reviews of books, dictionary and other reference entries of two pages or fewer, news and other notices, and a second deposit of a document already in the survey are not admitted either, while an authored encyclopedia article of more than two pages and a textbook chapter are research works and stay.

The theory of modularity is admitted by its own distinctive phrases, because its foundational works state the theory rather than an application of it and carry no engineering noun. Product modularity is admitted as a phrase in its own right for the same reason, since a core reference on its measures and design methods pairs the word with no engineering noun either [Gershenson et al. 2004]. The cognitive, neural and graph senses of the word are excluded.

Some records of doubtful relevance are kept. Methodological papers on numerical taxonomy, identifier registries outside engineering such as the Legal Entity Identifier and a statewide student identifier system, learning curves in energy production, the nomenclature standards of engineering disciplines, and modular architecture applied to buildings, recipes and services each share a method or an information-infrastructure sense with this subject, so each is kept and a reader may weigh it accordingly.

Every research title has been read for relevance, so the off-topic share that remains is a matter of reading judgement. A reading of titles cannot show that a work is relevant in substance, so this is a statement about titles only.

Epistemic State

This article’s claims divide unusually sharply, because its primary sources are a table and an instruction and almost everything else is computed from them. One division below, Measured From the Documents Rather Than Asserted by Them, holds claims that are measurements of a document rather than assertions by it.

The Article’s Own Vantage Point

This article carries the editorial date 2025-12-12 and three of its statements are dated after that. All three are measurements the article made of itself rather than events in the subject. The register is read from its page as last updated on 23 August 2026, the hostname check against the authoritative nameservers was run on 2 October 2026, twice, and the reference survey’s year range reaches 2026 because the bibliographic index carries records published after the dateline.

A survey is written from current knowledge, and this section says where that knowledge postdates the article’s own date. No event in the subject is dated after the dateline. The register’s latest allocation used here is 2025-11-21, the aeroplane’s latest flight test is July 2025, and the latest instruction is of 3 November 2020.

The one place this matters to a reader is the hostname. A name that did not resolve on 2 October 2026 may have resolved on 2025-12-12 and may resolve later. The article’s claim is about the date it was checked and not about the whole interval, and no other claim here could change without any document changing.

A note on the register. The X-68A and X-76A rows first appeared in the public register between 15 January and 1 February 2026, after this article’s date. The register’s page as archived on 10 December 2025 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum, as archived on 10 December 2025] and on 15 January 2026 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum, as archived on 15 January 2026] ends its research rows at the X-66A, and the page as archived on 1 February 2026 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum, as archived on 1 February 2026] carries both new rows. In the register, the passed number at 67 is visible only through the X-68A row, so a reader of the register at this article’s date would have seen the X-67 as the next number rather than as a passed one. The skip is therefore a fact that the register made public after this article’s date, and the statement above that no event in the subject is dated after the dateline holds for the allocations and not for their publication.

Historical Fact, From Primary Documents

• The designation XQ-67A was allocated on 2023-07-19 to General Atomics, with USAF as sponsor and an engine entry of 1 Williams FJ44-4A [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum].
• The X-66A was allocated on 2023-05-03 and the X-68A on 2025-08-20, the latter to General Atomics [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum].
• The XQ-58A was allocated on 2017-07-10 to Composite Engineering [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum].
• The XQ-67A first flew on 2024-02-28 at the General Atomics Gray Butte Flight Operations Facility near Palmdale, California [AFRL first flight release] [GA-ASI first flight release].
• The contractor was selected in 2021 to design, build and fly the aircraft and the laboratory initially worked with five industry vendors [GA-ASI first flight release] [AFRL first flight release].
• The federal award record carries two Off-Board Sensing Station contracts, of 67,986,112.00 dollar and 16,003,302.00 dollar, beginning 2021-10-26 and 2021-10-25, and five platform-sharing contracts totalling 24,479,631.19 dollar awarded in spring 2019 [USAspending].
• In July 2025 the aeroplane flew with government reference autonomy and an active tactical datalink [GA-ASI autonomy release].
• The governing instruction defines the next-in-series designator from the last approved design number of the same basic mission, refuses requests in reverse or skipped sequences, and reserves to the allocating office the authority to skip a design number at discretion [DAFI 16-401].
• The founding document of 18 September 1962 defines the design number as the sequence number of each new design of the same basic mission, gives three worked examples of changes requiring a new design number, and states that the requesting service names the mission while the assignment agency assigns the number [AFR 66-11 and AR 700-26 and BUWEPS 13100.7, 18 September 1962].
• That document also defines the X as both a status prefix meaning experimental and a basic mission symbol meaning research, and defines the Q as a modified mission symbol meaning drone rather than as a basic mission [AFR 66-11 and AR 700-26 and BUWEPS 13100.7, 18 September 1962].
• It publishes the next research design number as 22A, in a list of four current research aircraft [AFR 66-11 and AR 700-26 and BUWEPS 13100.7, 18 September 1962].
• The editions of 1994, 1997 and 2005 all direct the coordinating office to assign the next available consecutive design number, and none contains the word skip [AFJI 16-401, 9 September 1994] [AFJI 16-401, 1 September 1997] [AFI 16-401(I), 14 April 2005].
• The edition of 16 May 2014, which supersedes the 2005 one, defines the next designator from the last approved design number, refuses requests in skipped sequences for vehicles with an extensive history of designations, and states that skipped design numbers cannot be requested or used, and it states that DoD 4120.15-L will no longer be maintained as the primary source of approved designators [AFI 16-401, 16 May 2014].
• The Department directive of 29 November 2004, as amended by Change 2 of 17 September 2020, requires a unique designator for each vehicle and annual publication of a single Department-wide source document, and states no rule on choosing or skipping a design number [DoD Directive 4120.15, 29 November 2004].
• The 2020 instruction cancels DoD 4120.15-L as the publicly accessible database, names data.af.mil as where the public may obtain the latest version, and adds a status prefix e for aircraft engineered in a virtual environment [DAFI 16-401].
• Change 1 of 31 August 2018 to DoD 4120.15-L reassigns the office of primary responsibility and does nothing else, the words retire, cancel and the successor address appearing nowhere in it [DoD 4120.15-L, 2004 with Change 1].
• The October 1998 edition is approved for public release with distribution unlimited and gives three routes to a copy [DoD 4120.15-L, October 1998].
• The 2004 edition lists the X-41A, the X-42A and the X-43A as approved designators [DoD 4120.15-L, 2004 with Change 1].
• The instruction defines the design number as identifying major design changes within the same basic mission, and the series letter as identifying major modifications that significantly alter systems or components or change the logistics support of the vehicle [DAFI 16-401].

Measured From the Documents Rather Than Asserted by Them

This division exists because the article’s central claims are counts over a table. Each of these was computed by parsing the register and each can be recomputed by anyone who parses it the same way.

• The register carries 539 designation rows, 532 of them well formed, and of the well-formed rows 503 carry a full date and 29 a partial one, spanning 1997-12-10 to 2025-11-21. Of the 539 rows, 103 carry the compiler’s mark of some kind.
• There are 31 research-series rows carrying 25 distinct design numbers from 37 to 76, and fifteen of the 40 positions in that span carry no row.
• The count of research-series rows carrying the design number 67 is zero.
• 21 research rows are fully official, seven have an unofficial description, one is partly unofficial and two are entirely unofficial rows. The XQ-58A’s description is official and the XQ-67A’s is not.
• Six pairs of design numbers in the register carry identical official descriptions, and in five of them the contractor is the only differing field.
• 27 design numbers carry rows naming more than one leading firm, and the missile design number 88 carries ten series letters across seven firms.
• The research series has two companions in the unmanned series carrying the experimental prefix and nothing else, being XQ-58A and XQ-67A.
• The unmanned series carries nine out-of-sequence design numbers against a sequential ceiling of 31, with numbers reaching 170.
• The hostname the cancellation notice named as successor to the printed list returns no answer from the authoritative nameservers for its zone, checked on 2 October 2026, while a sibling name in the same zone and a name in an adjacent zone both resolve.

Engineering Analysis, Derived Here and Checkable

• The number-and-series field of one basic mission holds 23,976 distinct codes, rising to 239,976 when the design-number range expands as the instruction provides.
• A sequential allocation carries no information beyond its order, and a chosen one carries at most 9.8657 bits at the research series’ position in July 2023.
• The departures of the dated out-of-sequence unmanned allocations are 5 for the number 35, 17 for the number 48, 30 for the number 58, 37 for the number 67, 44 for the number 72 and 43 for the number 73. Their entropy is 2.5850 bits, which equals the maximum 2.5850 attainable at six observations, so the entropy figure is pinned by sample size and is not a result.
• The distinct-part ratio of a family is one over the species count plus the complement of that times the unshared fraction, giving 0.6000 at three species and a shared fraction of three fifths and 0.3333 in the limit of full sharing.
• With an eighty-five percent progress ratio the learning exponent is 0.23447, and the fleet-average cost factor at three species and a shared fraction of three fifths is 0.86375, a saving of 13.63 percent.
• With a sharing penalty linear in the shared fraction the optimum is always a corner, and full commonality beats none when the penalty coefficient is below 29.38 percent at three species.
• With a sharing penalty growing as the square of the shared fraction an interior optimum exists only when the penalty coefficient exceeds three times the square of the sharing slope, which is 15.47 percent at three species. At a coefficient of 30 percent the optimum shared fraction is 44.63 percent, saving 4.76 percent, while full commonality is 0.48 percent worse than sharing nothing.
• The time-average capability shortfall of a design frozen for an interval is one minus the ratio of one less the exponential of minus the growth-rate-interval product to that product, giving 37.82 percent at three years and 80.87 percent at fifteen on a two-year doubling.
• A chassis costing the whole platform-sharing programme repays itself over two species only if a bespoke demonstrator would have cost 80,225,927.59 dollar, a premium of 18.00 percent over what the first species cost.

Inference, Stated as Such

• That the number 67 was taken from the research series is an inference, now supported by evidence the register’s compiler does not cite. The number equalled the research series’ next number at the moment of allocation, it equalled no other series’ next number, and the same test fires for the only other case the compiler derives this way. The inference is strong but not a documented fact.
• That the X-68A’s approval made the X-67 unrequestable follows from the instruction’s refusal of requests in skipped sequences, applied to the register’s dates. The instruction is a fact, the dates are facts, and the conjunction is an inference.
• That the design number indexes a request rather than a design or a designer is an inference from the identical-description pairs and the multi-firm numbers. Both measurements are facts and the conclusion drawn from them is not.
• That a species on a shared genus falls below the instruction’s threshold for a series letter is an inference from the logistics-support clause and the article’s most contestable claim.
• That the designation arriving mid-build is the ordinary case for a modern demonstrator is an inference from one case and should be treated as a hypothesis the remaining articles can test.
• That the laboratory’s account of deciding at the end of 2021 is most likely an error for the end of 2022 or a reference to the award itself is an inference from a twelve-month base period, and the record contains nothing that chooses.
• That a species on a shared chassis would not have earned a new design number under the 1962 test is an inference from three worked examples, all of which concern the airframe’s shape or its propulsion and none of which concerns mission equipment. The examples are facts and the application is not.
• That the 1997 wording permitted the X-49A’s fill is an inference from a procedural duty on the assigning office rather than from a stated permission to a requester.

What the Record Does Not Settle

• Who caused the X-67 to be skipped, or whether anybody did. The three readings in the body differ in agency and agree in every observable. The record contains no allocation letter, no refusal, no exercise of the discretion clause and no statement of intent.
• Why the number 67 rather than any other. The compiler’s derivation is an analogy to the earlier case, the test in this article corroborates it, and no document says that anyone chose it for that reason.
• Whether the design-number pool is shared across basic missions in practice. The instruction says it is not. The register’s behaviour is consistent with its being so. No publication states the practice.
• Whether the successor designation database exists and is maintained. The address does not resolve publicly and a Department network may resolve it. This article cannot see inside.
• What the earlier Department directives behind the instructions say. DoD Directive 4505.6 of 6 July 1962, which the founding regulation implements, and DoD Directive 4120.15 of 2 May 1985, which the 1994, 1997 and 2005 instructions implement and the lists are reissued under, are named in documents this article has read and have not themselves been read. Their successor of 29 November 2004 has been read as amended in 2020, and it states no numbering rule [DoD Directive 4120.15, 29 November 2004].
• What the Off-Board Sensing Station cost to develop, or what any part of the genus cost. The award record gives contract amounts and the releases give none, and no document separates the chassis from the species.
• Whether a second species was ever built. The off-board weapon station is described as a concept the programme wanted to design and no such aircraft appears in the register as last updated on 23 August 2026.
• Whether the aeroplane is part of the family its maker has disclosed separately. Contemporary reporting names the maker’s submission as the Gambit and reports the maker saying that the selection would validate the Gambit series’ design concept [AFRL Chooses General Atomics Drone for Off-Board Sensing Station Program], and the maker’s page for that family returns a not-found document under a success status.
• How many species a genus would need to carry before the approach paid. The relation is derived here and every input to it is unpublished.

Out of Scope

Each exclusion below is a thing a reader could reasonably look for here and not find.

• The airframe’s performance. No span, weight, thrust, endurance or speed appears above, because the register records none of them and the releases record none of them. The aeroplane enters this article as evidence about a design number and the article declines to assemble a specification from trade coverage.
• Attritability and the arithmetic of losing aircraft. The X-58 article derived the cost per sortie, the break-even survival probability and the dependence on a cost ratio, and showed where the argument fails. That material is not repeated and the cluster in the survey is deliberately small.
• The collaborative combat aircraft programme. The register carries the YFQ-42A, the YFQ-44A and the YFQ-48A, all out of sequence, and the compiler’s derivations for them appear above only as entries in a table. Those aircraft are a different subject and two of them are not in the research series at all.
• The X-68A. It appears here as the allocation whose approval closed the slot and as a date. It is the next article in this series, and its programme, its contractor’s other work and its anomalies are treated there.
• Autonomy and crewed-uncrewed teaming as technical subjects. The 2025 flight test is cited for what it shows about the aeroplane’s role as a testbed. The autonomy stack, the datalink and the teaming concept are a literature this article surveys and does not analyse.
• The wider history of the designation system. The 1962 unification, the pre-1962 service systems and the popular-name rules are reached only where the instruction’s current text requires. The system’s history is left to the closing article of this series.
• The platform and commonality literature as an engineering discipline, including commonality indices with competing definitions, design structure matrix clustering and option-valuation methods. The survey points at that literature and the article does not summarise it.
• Whether the genus and species approach is a good idea. The article derives what it would have to be worth and reports that none of the inputs is public. It takes no position.

Conclusion

The X-67 does not exist, the number 67 does, and the register records the second with an analogy to the case before it. The compiler’s entry says that just like the X-58 the slot was skipped after the allocation of the XQ-67A, and that sentence is all the public reasoning there is [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations].

The analogy is sound and the article had to supply the evidence for it. The number 67 was the research series’ next number on the day the unmanned allocation took it, the number 58 was the research series’ next number on the day the earlier one took it, and across six out-of-sequence unmanned numbers tested against twenty basic missions the test fires two times and names the research series both times [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. The compiler asserts the derivation and declines to say why. The register he compiled contains the reason.

What the earlier article could not say is who skipped it, and the instruction turns out to say that the question is malformed. The next designator to request is defined from the last approved design number, and requests in reverse or skipped sequences are not accepted [DAFI 16-401]. Nobody had to decide to skip the X-67. Somebody had to ask for the X-68, which happened on 2025-08-20, 763 days after the borrowing, and from that approval the X-67 became unrequestable. A skipped number is not a vacancy in this system. It is a position behind a pointer that only moves forward. The rule entered the instruction with the issue of 16 May 2014 [AFI 16-401, 16 May 2014], so the X-58’s slot had already closed the same way, and the X-67 is the second research number made unrequestable by it.

The second case differs from the first in the one respect a register exists to record. In 2017 the government stated what the aeroplane taking the number was for, and the register carries that statement as official wording. In 2023 it did not, and the register’s description of the XQ-67A carries the mark saying the words are the compiler’s. The date, the contractor and the engine remain official. So the government will say officially which engine is in the aeroplane that consumed the X-67 and will not say what the aeroplane is for, and the compiler’s phrase just like the X-58 reaches across that boundary.

And the aeroplane that consumed it was built to deny the premise the number rests on. A design number marks a major design change within a basic mission, which presumes that an aeroplane has one design identity. The Off-Board Sensing Station existed to show that it has two levels, a shared genus and a replaceable species, and the laboratory said so in those words [AFRL first flight release]. By the instruction’s own criterion a species belongs on a series letter, because the only concrete test the instruction offers for that level is whether the change alters the logistics support of the vehicle, and a common chassis is built so that it does not.

The founding document is harder on the point than the instruction now in force. On 18 September 1962 the Department defined the design number as the sequence number of each new design and gave three worked examples of what forces one, being a change in the number of engines, a change of the wing from straight to swept or delta, and a change or relocation of the empennage [AFR 66-11 and AR 700-26 and BUWEPS 13100.7, 18 September 1962]. All three are the airframe and none is the mission equipment. A genus holds those three constant and swaps what the 1962 test ignores. The system that wrote the definition would have refused a species a number of its own, and the system that inherited the definition without the examples gave one.

The register shows the same thing from the other side and shows it twice. Six pairs of design numbers carry identical official descriptions, and in five of them the contractor is the only field that differs, so the number does not index the stated purpose. Yet 27 design numbers survive a change of leading firm, one of them across seven firms and ten series letters, so the number does not index the designer either. What it indexes is a request, and the instruction never defines what a request is for.

The arithmetic of the method the aeroplane proved shows where its value would have to lie, and that place is not the parts. By the cost factor $\kappa$ under What It Does to a Unit Cost, at three species and an eighty-five percent learning curve a shared fraction of three fifths buys 13.63 percent of unit cost. By the threshold $\eta_{\ast}$ under The Omission Is the Penalty, a sharing penalty rising as the square of the shared fraction has an interior optimum only above 15.47 percent, at which point full commonality can be worse than none. By the shortfall $\sigma$ under Why Frequent Refresh Is Worth Something, shortening a design freeze from fifteen years to three takes the capability shortfall from 80.87 percent to 37.82 percent. If the genus concept is worth what the laboratory claims, the value is in the cadence and not in the commonality, and every input to both calculations is unpublished.

One institutional fact, larger than the designation, closes the case. The request procedure requires the requester to research the last approved design number in an official source. The same instruction that states that procedure cancels the publicly accessible list and directs the public to data.af.mil [DAFI 16-401], and that hostname returns no answer from the authoritative nameservers for its own zone. The public source left is one private compiler’s reconstruction obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, which reports the next research number as 69 while the instruction read literally gives 77 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum].

Measured against what the system used to publish, that is a long fall. The founding regulation required the assignment agency to publish, not less frequently than every six months, an unclassified listing of assigned designations carrying the complete designation, the responsible service and a short unclassified description, and the October 1998 list gave three routes to a copy. The 2020 instruction gives one address, and it does not exist [AFR 66-11 and AR 700-26 and BUWEPS 13100.7, 18 September 1962] [DoD 4120.15-L, October 1998] [DAFI 16-401].

So every public claim about the X-67, including every claim in this article, passes through a document the Department did not publish. The designation is empty, the emptiness is irreversible, the mechanism is in the instruction, and the only place a reader can see the gap at all is a table a private citizen rebuilt because the official one was withdrawn.

Equations

This section collects the 71 display equations of the article in the order they appear, each under its number and reproduced exactly as it stands in the text. A title in bold names an established result, and a title in italics beginning with the word Bespoke names a construction made for this analysis. Of the 71, 14 are established and 57 are bespoke. Design numbers and the fields of a designation are symbols in a code and carry no unit, so every quantity here is a count, a share, a number of bits in base two, a number of years or a sum in United States dollars, and shares are kept distinct from differences in percentage points.

Equation 1, Bespoke Partition of Register Rows by Officiality. The article sorts the register’s rows into four disjoint states, official, marked at the cell, marked at the span and marked at the row, so that every officiality count adds up to the whole register.

Equation 2, Bespoke Decomposition of the Absent Numbers. The article divides the set of absent design numbers into those allocated before the register opens and those missing inside its window, of which only the second kind is evidence about the register.

Equation 3, Bespoke Absent Share of a Series Span. The article measures the completeness of the record as the count of absent numbers over the count of positions between the lowest and highest design numbers, which evaluates to 37.5 percent for the research series.

Equation 4, Mean Allocation Rate. The allocation rate is the count of dated rows divided by the interval from the first to the last of them, which gives 1.1031 research allocations a year.

Equation 5, Bespoke Absent Numbers as Years of Output. The article converts the numbers missing inside the register’s window into years of the series’ own output by dividing their count by the allocation rate, a conversion that assumes the rate is uniform.

Equation 6, Share of One Award in a Set of Awards. The share of one award is its value divided by the sum of the values of every award in the set.

Equation 7, Share of Research Rows Held by the Five Firms. The five firms that received the platform-sharing awards hold 23 of the register’s 31 research rows, which is 74.2 percent. Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum

Equation 8, Relative Deviation From a Reference Figure. The relative deviation is the difference between an outturn and a reported reference figure, divided by the reference figure.

Equation 9, Position of an Event Within an Interval. The position of an event is its time after the start of an interval as a fraction of the interval’s length, so zero is the start and one is the end.

Equation 10, Bespoke Next Number Above the Highest Allocation. The first of the article’s three senses of the next number is one above the highest design number allocated in the basic mission before the date.

Equation 11, Bespoke Lowest Unallocated Number. The second of the article’s three senses of the next number is the lowest positive design number that had never been allocated in the basic mission before the date.

Equation 12, Bespoke Next Number After the Most Recent Allocation. The third of the article’s three senses of the next number is one above the design number of the most recent allocation, whatever its size.

Equation 13, Designation as an Ordered Tuple of Its Fields. A designation is written as the ordered tuple of the status prefix, modified mission, basic mission, design number and design series that the instruction defines. DAFI 16-401

Equation 14, Capacity of the Number and Series Field. The distinct number and series codes available within one basic mission are the product of the 999 design numbers and the 24 permitted series letters, which is 23,976. DAFI 16-401

Equation 15, Bespoke Ordinal Reading of the Design Number. The article reads the instruction’s sixteenth-approved-designator sentence as the claim that the $k$th design number allocated in a basic mission equals $k$.

Equation 16, Bespoke Unit Increment Implied by the Ordinal Reading. Differencing the ordinal reading removes the unknown origin of each sequence and leaves the testable prediction that every new design number exceeds the previous new one by one.

Equation 17, Bespoke Share of Unit Increments. The article measures adherence to the ordinal reading as the share of increments equal to one, with filtered counts of fifteen of 22 for the research series and nine of 29 for the unmanned series.

Equation 18, Bespoke Allocation Pointer and Its Advance. The article writes the pointer as the running maximum of the design numbers allocated so far and defines its advance as the change in that maximum at each allocation.

Equation 19, Bespoke Zero Advance Below the Pointer. The pointer fails to advance exactly when the number allocated is no greater than the previous running maximum, which follows from the article’s definition of the pointer.

Equation 20, Bespoke Count of Skipped Numbers. The article counts the numbers skipped as the sum of each pointer advance in excess of one, which avoids the double count that increments give when a number below the pointer is allocated.

Equation 21, Bespoke Obedience Rate of a Series. The article defines the obedience rate of a basic mission as the share of pointer advances equal to exactly one.

Equation 22, Bespoke Obedience Rates of the X, M and Q Series. The article’s obedience rate evaluated on the register gives 72.7 percent for the research series, 51.5 percent for the multi-mission series and 44.8 percent for the unmanned series.

Equation 23, Bespoke Purpose and Maker Maps. The article models the register as supplying two maps out of its mission-and-number pairs, one to official statements of purpose and one to leading firm names.

Equation 24, Injectivity of the Purpose Map. The reading that a design number indexes a purpose requires the purpose map to be injective, so that two different numbers never carry the same official statement.

Equation 25, Well-Definedness of the Maker Map. The reading that a design number indexes an organisation requires every register row on one mission-and-number pair to name the same leading firm.

Equation 26, Shares of Pairs Naming More Than One Firm. The 27 pairs naming more than one leading firm are 26.2 percent of the 103 pairs carrying more than one row and 11.5 percent of all 235 pairs.

Equation 27, Bespoke Number a Sequential Allocator Would Issue. The article formalises the instruction’s next-in-series procedure as one more than the largest design number allocated before the $k$th allocation, which reads the last approved number as the highest one. DAFI 16-401

Equation 28, Bespoke Departure From the Sequential Number. The article defines the departure of an allocation as its design number less the number a sequential allocator would have issued, so an in-sequence allocation has a departure of zero.

Equation 29, Bespoke Information Bound on a Chosen Number. The article bounds the information a chosen number can carry by the base-two logarithm of the count of positions from the sequential number to the top of the field, assuming that every such position was open to the choice.

Equation 30, Bespoke Zero Conditional Entropy of an In-Sequence Allocation. The article states that a design number carries no information given its history whenever it is one above the previous pointer, writing the absence of choice as a conditional entropy of zero.

Equation 31, Shannon Entropy of the Departures. The Shannon entropy of the empirical distribution of departures equals the base-two logarithm of the sample size when every observation is distinct, which is 2.5850 bits for six observations.

Equation 32, Bespoke Total Information in the Departures. The article sums its information bound over every allocation with a positive departure, which gives 59.5355 bits across the six dated out-of-sequence unmanned allocations.

Equation 33, Bespoke Null Model of Accidental Hits. The article’s null model draws each allocation uniformly from a band of 68 values, so the per-draw hit probability is the mean count of next-in-series values inside the band over its width and the count of hits is binomial.

Equation 34, Mean of a Binomial Count. The expected number of accidental hits is the number of draws times the per-draw hit probability, which is 0.2941 for six draws.

Equation 35, Bespoke Part Count of a Family. The article counts the distinct parts of a family of species that would each have the same number of parts if designed alone as the common parts held once plus the remaining parts of each species held separately.

Equation 36, Bespoke Distinct-Part Ratio. The article divides the family’s distinct parts by the total of wholly bespoke designs and writes the ratio in terms of the species count and the shared fraction alone.

Equation 37, Bespoke Gradient of the Distinct-Part Ratio. The distinct-part ratio is linear in the shared fraction, so in the article’s model the first shared part is worth as much as the last.

Equation 38, Wright Learning Curve. Unit cost falls as a power of cumulative quantity, and the learning exponent is minus the base-two logarithm of the progress ratio by which cost falls at each doubling.

Equation 39, Bespoke Production Quantities of the Shared and Bespoke Fractions. The article assumes that the shared fraction of each aeroplane is built at the quantity of the whole family while the bespoke fraction is built at the quantity of one species.

Equation 40, Bespoke Fleet-Average Unit Cost Factor. Under the article’s assumption that the two fractions ride separate learning curves, the cost factor against bespoke designs is the bespoke fraction plus the shared fraction discounted by the family size raised to minus the learning exponent.

Equation 41, Bespoke Sharing Slope. The article rewrites the cost factor as one plus a negative slope times the shared fraction, with the slope set by the family size and the learning exponent.

Equation 42, Bespoke Gradient of the Cost Factor. The gradient of the cost factor with respect to the shared fraction is the sharing slope itself, which is negative for every family of more than one species.

Equation 43, Bespoke Limit of the Cost Factor for a Large Family. As the family grows without bound the sharing slope tends to minus one and the cost factor tends to one less the shared fraction.

Equation 44, Bespoke Ceiling on the Unit Cost Saving. In the article’s model no family of any size saves a larger fraction of unit cost than the fraction it shares.

Equation 45, Bespoke Species Needed for a Stated Saving. Solving the article’s cost factor for the family size gives the number of species a stated saving requires, which exists only below the ceiling set by the shared fraction.

Equation 46, Bespoke Effective Cost With a Linear Sharing Penalty. The article multiplies the cost factor by a penalty on delivered capability proportional to the shared fraction, which yields a quadratic in that fraction.

Equation 47, Bespoke Curvature Under a Linear Penalty. The curvature of the effective cost under a linear penalty is twice the product of the slope and the penalty coefficient, which is negative, so the stationary point is a maximum.

Equation 48, Bespoke Condition for Full Commonality Under a Linear Penalty. With the optimum at a corner, full commonality beats none exactly when the penalty coefficient falls below the negated slope over one plus the slope, which is 29.38 percent for three species on an eighty-five percent curve.

Equation 49, Bespoke Effective Cost With a Quadratic Sharing Penalty. The article takes the penalty on delivered capability to grow as the square of the shared fraction, on the argument that the first parts shared are the cheapest to share.

Equation 50, Bespoke First-Order Condition Under a Quadratic Penalty. Setting the derivative of the effective cost under a quadratic penalty to zero gives a quadratic equation in the shared fraction.

Equation 51, Bespoke Discriminant of the First-Order Condition. The discriminant of the first-order condition decides whether the article’s quadratic-penalty model has an interior optimum at all.

Equation 52, Bespoke Optimal Shared Fraction. The root of the first-order condition gives the shared fraction that minimises the effective cost in the article’s quadratic-penalty model.

Equation 53, Bespoke Threshold Penalty for an Interior Optimum. An interior optimum exists only when the penalty coefficient exceeds three times the square of the sharing slope, which is 15.47 percent for three species on an eighty-five percent curve.

Equation 54, Bespoke Limit of the Threshold Penalty. Because the sharing slope tends to minus one for a large family, the threshold penalty tends to three.

Equation 55, Bespoke Optimum at a Thirty Percent Penalty. At an assumed penalty coefficient of 30 percent, three species and an assumed eighty-five percent progress ratio, the optimal shared fraction is 44.63 percent with an effective cost factor of 0.95235 against 1.00479 at full commonality.

Equation 56, Bespoke Development Cost of a Platform Against Bespoke Types. The article compares a genus developed once with each species added at its own cost against the same number of wholly bespoke types each developed in full.

Equation 57, Bespoke Break-Even Species Count. Equating the two development costs gives the number of species at which the genus repays its own development cost.

Equation 58, Bespoke Development Cost Implied for a Bespoke Type. Inverting the break-even gives the development cost a bespoke type would need to have had for a family of a given size to repay the genus.

Equation 59, Bespoke Break-Even Bespoke Cost at Two Species. Reading the genus cost as the platform-sharing programme’s total of 24,479,631.19 dollars and the first species as the Off-Board Sensing Station award of 67,986,112.00 dollars, a second species repays the chassis only if a bespoke demonstrator would have cost 18.00 percent more.

Equation 60, Bespoke Sensitivity of the Break-Even to the Genus Cost. The break-even species count rises by the reciprocal of the cost saving per species for each dollar added to the genus cost.

Equation 61, Bespoke Exponential Growth of Available Capability. The article assumes that the capability available at the frontier grows exponentially from its value when a design is frozen. GA-ASI first flight release AFRL first flight release

Equation 62, Bespoke Time-Average Ratio of Delivered to Available Capability. Under the article’s exponential growth and a design that keeps its frozen capability, the time average of delivered over available capability across a freeze interval has a closed form.

Equation 63, Bespoke Capability Shortfall. The article defines the capability shortfall as one less the time-average ratio of delivered to available capability.

Equation 64, Bespoke Small-Argument Expansion of the Shortfall. For a short freeze the shortfall is about half the product of the growth rate and the freeze interval, less a second-order correction.

Equation 65, Growth Rate From a Doubling Time. The rate of exponential growth is the natural logarithm of two divided by the doubling time, so a two-year doubling gives 0.34657 per year.

Equation 66, Bespoke Sensitivity of the Shortfall to the Freeze Interval. The derivative of the article’s shortfall with respect to the freeze interval is positive for every positive interval, so a longer freeze always costs more capability.

Equation 67, Bespoke Long-Freeze Approximation of the Shortfall. When the product of growth rate and freeze interval is large the exponential term vanishes and the shortfall is about one less the reciprocal of that product.

Equation 68, Bespoke Gain From Shortening the Freeze. The gain is the shortfall at the old freeze interval less the shortfall at the new one, which is 43.05 percentage points from fifteen years to three under the assumed two-year doubling.

Equation 69, Bespoke Mean Clusters per Admitted Record. The article measures overlap between its literature clusters as the total number of cluster matches divided by the admitted research records, which is 1.0649 clusters per record.

Equation 70, Bespoke Partition of the Reference Base by Provenance. The article partitions its 1,198 reference definitions into primary sources, hand-written references, related posts and research records.

Equation 71, Bespoke Report-Primary Share. The article defines the report-primary share as the research records held by the reports server or the defence registry as a fraction of all admitted research records.

Notation

• $\mathcal{R}$, the register’s rows, partitioned by officiality
• $A_{\mathrm{in}}$, the design numbers absent from inside the register’s window, with $A_{\mathrm{out}}$ those allocated before it opens
• $\gamma_A$, absent numbers as a share of the span
• $\lambda$, allocations per unit time in one basic mission
• $\Delta t_A$, the absent numbers expressed as the series’ own output, in years
• $\varsigma_i$, one award as a share of a set of awards
• $\epsilon$, the relative deviation of an outturn from a reference figure
• $\nu^{\mathrm{hi}}_t$, one above the highest number allocated before a date
• $\nu^{\mathrm{seq}}_t$, the lowest number never allocated before a date
• $\nu^{\mathrm{rec}}_t$, one above the most recently allocated number
• $\mathcal{A}_t$, the design numbers allocated in a basic mission before a date
• $\mathcal{D}$, a designation written as an ordered tuple of its fields $p$, $q$, $m$, $d$ and $s$
• $N_c$, the distinct number-and-series codes within one basic mission
• $N_d$, the design numbers available within one basic mission
• $N_s$, the series letters available, the alphabet less two
• $d_k$, the design number of the $k$th allocation
• $\Delta_k$, the increment between consecutive new design numbers
• $\theta_{\Delta}$, the share of increments equal to one
• $\nu_k$, the number a sequential allocator would issue at the $k$th allocation
• $\alpha_k$, the advance of the pointer at the $k$th first allocation
• $\theta$, the share of pointer advances equal to one
• $\mathcal{N}$, the set of mission-and-number pairs the register carries, with $\mathcal{N}_{>1}$ those carrying more than one row
• $\mathcal{M}$, the pairs naming more than one leading firm
• $\mathcal{T}$, the set of official statements of purpose
• $\mathcal{F}$, the set of leading firm names
• $\delta_k$, the departure of an allocation from the sequential number
• $I(\nu)$, the information a chosen number can carry at a given ceiling, in bits
• $\pi_i$, the probability of the $i$th departure value
• $I_{\Sigma}$, the total information the departures could carry, in bits
• $\bar{\tau}$, the mean count of next-in-series values falling inside the band
• $B$, the width of the band the null model draws from
• $H$, the entropy of the observed departures, in bits
• $N_h$, the number of accidental hits under the null model
• $U$, the distinct parts the family holds in total
• $S$, the number of species raised on one genus
• $P$, the parts in one species if it were designed alone
• $C$, the parts common across the family
• $Q$, the cumulative production quantity
• $r$, the progress ratio, the cost factor per doubling of quantity
• $b$, the learning exponent, minus the base-two logarithm of the progress ratio
• $a$, the sharing slope, equal to $S$ to the minus $b$ less one, always negative
• $\phi$, the shared fraction of a species, equal to $C$ over $P$
• $\rho$, distinct parts as a fraction of the bespoke total
• $c_1$, the unit cost of the first article
• $\kappa$, the fleet-average unit cost factor against bespoke designs, with $\kappa_{\mathrm{eff}}$ the factor after the sharing penalty
• $\eta$, the sharing penalty coefficient on delivered capability, with $\eta_{\ast}$ the value above which an interior optimum exists
• $\Theta$, the discriminant of the first-order condition for the optimum
• $\phi^{\ast}$, the shared fraction minimising effective cost
• $\mathcal{C}_g$, the non-recurring cost of developing the genus
• $c_s$, the non-recurring cost of one species on the genus
• $c_b$, the non-recurring cost of one wholly bespoke aircraft type
• $S^{\ast}$, the species at which the genus repays its own development cost
• $g$, the exponential growth rate of available capability, per year
• $T$, the interval a design is held frozen between refreshes, in years
• $F_0$, the capability available when a design is frozen
• $T_2$, the doubling time of available capability
• $\bar{\varrho}$, the time-average ratio of delivered to available capability
• $\sigma$, the time-average capability shortfall, one less the ratio above
• $\bar{m}$, the mean clusters whose phrases an admitted title carries
• $\mathcal{K}_c$, the records whose titles carry one cluster’s characteristic phrases
• $\mathcal{B}$, the article’s reference definitions, partitioned by provenance
• $K$, the research records the survey admits
• $\varpi$, report primaries as a share of the admitted records

References

Primary Sources, Peer-Reviewed

• (Roger) Jiao, Jianxin, Timothy W. Simpson, and Zahed Siddique. 2007. “Product Family Design and Platform-Based Product Development: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 18 (1): 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0003-2
• (Wan-Chuan) Chan, Claire, and Emel Arıkan. 2020. “Differentiation vs. Standardisation in Supply Chain Segmentation: A Quantitative Study.” International Journal of Production Research 59 (15): 4593–4614. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1767311
• Abu-Matar, Mohammad, and Hassan Gomaa. 2011. “Variability Modeling for Service Oriented Product Line Architectures.” In 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2011.26
• Achatz, Reinhold. 2011. “Product Line Engineering at Siemens – Challenges and Success Factors: A Report on Industrial Experiences in Product Line Engineering.” In 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2011.40
• Agrawal, Narendra, and Morris A. Cohen. 2001. “Optimal Material Control in an Assembly System with Component Commonality.” Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 48 (5): 409–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.1026
• Ajibode, Adekunle, Abdul Ali Bangash, Filipe R. Cogo, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2025. “Towards Semantic Versioning of Open Pre-Trained Language Model Releases on Hugging Face.” Empirical Software Engineering 30 (3): 78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-025-10631-3
• Akkermans, H. A., and H. van der Horst. 2002. “Managing IT Infrastructure Standardisation in the Networked Manufacturing Firm.” International Journal of Production Economics 75 (1–2): 213–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-5273(01)00201-8
• Akoto Chama, Leonel, and Oliver Bertram. 2018. “Generating Potential Actuation Architectures for Multifunctional Flight Control Surfaces Using a Design Structure Matrix Clustering Algorithm.” CEAS Aeronautical Journal 10 (2): 491–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-018-0332-1
• Albawaneh, Ahmad, Shruthi Venkatesha Murthy, Zaid Abdelfattah, and Hyungil Kim. 2025. “Rapid Prototyping & Evaluation of Crew Stations to Support Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” In 2025 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/vrw66409.2025.00216
• Alexis, Kostas, and Anthony Tzes. 2012. “Revisited Dos Samara Unmanned Aerial Vehicle: Design and Control.” In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icra.2012.6224559
• AlGeddawy, Tarek. 2014. “A DSM Cladistics Model for Product Family Architecture Design.” Procedia CIRP 21: 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.03.122
• AlGeddawy, T., S. N. Samy, and H. ElMaraghy. 2017. “Best Design Granularity to Balance Assembly Complexity and Product Modularity.” Journal of Engineering Design 28 (7–9): 457–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2017.1325859
• Alizon, Fabrice, Steven B. Shooter, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2007. “Improving an Existing Product Family Based on Commonality/diversity, Modularity, and Cost.” Design Studies 28 (4): 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.01.002
• Alizon, Fabrice, Steven B. Shooter, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2009. “Assessing and Improving Commonality and Diversity within a Product Family.” Research in Engineering Design 20 (4): 241–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-009-0066-5
• Andrews, Jinan M., Christina F. Rusnock, Michael E. Miller, and Douglas P. Meador. 2020a. “Reshaping Airpower: Development of an Imprint Model to Analyze the Effects of Manned-Unmanned Teaming on Operator Mental Workload.” In 2020 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/wsc48552.2020.9383859
• Andrews, Jinan M., Chrstina F. Rusnock, Michael E. Miller, and Douglas P. Meador. 2020b. “Simulation-Based Evaluation of the Effects of Varying Degrees of Control Abstraction for Manned-Unmanned Teaming on Mental Workload of Pilots.” In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/smc42975.2020.9283167
• Aoki, Katsuki, and Thomas Staeblein. 2018. “Monozukuri Capability and Dynamic Product Variety: An Analysis of the Design-Manufacturing Interface at Japanese and German Automakers.” Technovation 70-71: 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.10.008
• Athanasiadou, Melina, Giovanni Franzini, and Adrien Metge. 2026. “Beyond Automation Levels: A Framework for Human–Autonomy and Manned–Unmanned Teaming.” Automation 7 (4): 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/automation7040105
• Attia, El-Awady, Ashraf Megahed, and Philippe Duquenne. 2016. “Towards a Learning Curve for Electric Motors Production under Organizational Learning via Shop Floor Data.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 49 (12): 1086–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.587
• Bagchi, Uttarayan, and Genaro Gutierrez. 1992. “Effect of Increasing Component Commonality on Service Level and Holding Cost.” Naval Research Logistics 39 (6): 815–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6750(199210)39:6<815::aid-nav3220390607>3.0.co;2-s
• Baker, Kenneth R. 1985. “Safety Stocks and Component Commonality.” Journal of Operations Management 6 (1): 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(85)90031-2
• Bangert, Daniel, and Maude Frances. 2017. “PIDs to Support Discovery and Citation: Persistent Identifier Service Design and Delivery at UNSW Library.” In 2017 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/jcdl.2017.7991610
• Barkstrom, Bruce R. 2003. “Data Product Configuration Management and Versioning in Large-Scale Production of Satellite Scientific Data.” In Software Configuration Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-39195-9_9
• Baylis, Kyle, Guanglu Zhang, and Daniel A. McAdams. 2018. “Product Family Platform Selection Using a Pareto Front of Maximum Commonality and Strategic Modularity.” Research in Engineering Design 29 (4): 547–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-0288-5
• Bellur, Umesh, and V. Vallieswaran. 2006. “A Versioning Scheme for Consistent Evolution of OO Applications.” In 2006 13th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’06). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/apsec.2006.16
• Berber, Fatih, and Ramin Yahyapour. 2017. “A High-Performance Persistent Identifier Management Protocol.” In 2017 International Conference on Networking, Architecture, and Storage (NAS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/nas.2017.8026839
• Berenbach, B. n.d. “Introduction to Product Line Requirements Engineering.” In 10th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC’06). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/spline.2006.1691597
• Bick, Werner, Roman Vossen, Martin Pieper, and Thomas Körfer. 2014. “Loss Minimisation and Cost-Effective Commonality of Parts.” MTZ worldwide 75 (12): 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s38313-014-0239-0
• Bin, S., G. Q. Huang, and K. L. Mak. n.d. “Web-Based Product Platform Development Using Graph Theory.” In IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, vol. 1. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/iemc.2002.1038375
• Blank, Marcel, Stephanie Burns, Jonathan Demildt, and Pelin Özkiral. 2025. “Adapting MOSA: Improving Acquisitions through a Systematic Approach to Selecting a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) for New Initiatives.” In 2025 AIAA DATC/IEEE 44th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/dasc66011.2025.11257158
• Blecker, Thorsten, and Nizar Abdelkafi. 2007. “The Development of a Component Commonality Metric for Mass Customization.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 54 (1): 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2006.889068
• Boas, Ryan, Bruce G. Cameron, and Edward F. Crawley. 2012. “Divergence and Lifecycle Offsets in Product Families with Commonality.” Systems Engineering 16 (2): 175–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21223
• Bonev, Martin, Lars Hvam, John Clarkson, and Anja Maier. 2015. “Formal Computer-Aided Product Family Architecture Design for Mass Customization.” Computers in Industry 74: 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.006
• Bonilla-Ortiz, Giselle, and Dinesh Verma. 2020. “The Need for a Secure Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA): Building the Case Using Systems Thinking Methodologies.” In 2020 IEEE Systems Security Symposium (SSS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/sss47320.2020.9197726
• Bortolini, Marco, Francesca Calabrese, Francesco Gabriele Galizia, and Alberto Regattieri. 2023. “A Two-Step Methodology for Product Platform Design and Assessment in High-Variety Manufacturing.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 126 (9–10): 3923–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-11347-8
• Boudreau, Michael. 2007. “Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion: A Case Study in Modular Open Systems Approach for Spiral Development.” In 2007 IEEE International Conference on System of Systems Engineering. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/sysose.2007.4304229
• Boysen, Nils, and Armin Scholl. 2009. “A General Solution Framework for Component-Commonality Problems.” Business Research 2 (1): 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03343530
• Brovar, Yana, and Clément Fortin. 2024. “Interfaces Modelling for Complex System Design through a Multi-Layer Design Structure Matrix Approach.” In 2024 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/syscon61195.2024.10553515
• Broy, Manfred. 2011. “The Role of Requirements and Specification in Product Line Engineering.” In 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2011.68
• Buschmann, Frank, and Christa Schwanninger. 2011. “Successful Product Line Engineering: Experiences from the Real World.” In 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2011.57
• Cameron, B. G., and E. F. Crawley. 2012. “Costing Commonality: Investigating the Impact of Platform Divergence.” In 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/aero.2012.6187414
• Camm, Jeffrey D., James R. Evans, and Norman Keith Womer. 1987. “The Unit Learning Curve Approximation of Total Cost.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 12 (3): 205–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-8352(87)90014-3
• Carnduff, T. 2004. “Configuration Management in Evolutionary Engineering Design Using Versioning and Integrity Constraints.” Advances in Engineering Software 35 (3–4): 161–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0965-9978(04)00026-2
• Carvalho, Luís. 2023. “Semantic Versioning for Python Programs.” In Companion Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Systems, Programming, Languages, and Applications: Software for Humanity. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3618305.3623589
• Catak, Akin, Ege C. Altunkaya, Mustafa Demir, Emre Koyuncu, and Ibrahim Ozkol. 2025. “Radar Cross-Section Shadowing: Novel Task Sharing Concept for Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” In 2025 IEEE Conference on Control Technology and Applications (CCTA). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ccta53793.2025.11151505
• Ceravolo, Paolo, and Emanuele Bellini. 2010. “EPICA: Easy Persistent Identifier Common Architecture.” In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2010 Workshops. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16961-8_87
• Chandrasekaran, Balaji, Robert B. Stone, and Daniel A. McAdams. 2004. “Developing Design Templates for Product Platform Focused Design.” Journal of Engineering Design 15 (3): 209–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820410001647078
• Chatras, Clément, and Vincent Giard. 2016. “Simultaneous Standardisation of Modules and Their Components: A Global Economic Perspective.” International Journal of Production Research 54 (19): 5722–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1159352
• Chatzimichali, A. P., and V. D. Tourassis. 2008. “Towards a Learning Curve Theory for Batch Production.” In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ieem.2008.4737890
• Chen, S. L., R. J. Jiao, and M. M. Tseng. 2009. “Evolutionary Product Line Design Balancing Customer Needs and Product Commonality.” CIRP Annals 58 (1): 123–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2009.03.014
• Chen, Tianjiao, Jiang Liu, Qinqin Tang, Tao Huang, and Ru Huo. 2019. “Virtual Network Embedding Algorithm for Location-Based Identifier Allocation.” IEEE Access 7: 31159–69. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2903476
• Chen, Chunbao, and Liya Wang. 2008. “Multiple-Platform Based Product Family Design for Mass Customization Using a Modified Genetic Algorithm.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 19 (5): 577–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-008-0131-3
• Cheung, Ki Ling. 2002. “The Effects of Component Commonality in an Infinite Horizon Inventory Model.” Production Planning & Control 13 (3): 326–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537280110099637
• Chitsaz, Nasim, and Mahmoud Efatmaneshnik. 2023. “Design Structure Matrix for Design Assurance and Management: The Case of CubeSats.” In 2023 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/syscon53073.2023.10131105
• Chiu, Singa Wang, Liang-Wei You, Tsu-Ming Yeh, and Tiffany Chiu. 2020. “The Collective Influence of Component Commonality, Adjustable-Rate, Postponement, and Rework on Multi-Item Manufacturing Decision.” Mathematics 8 (9): 1570. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8091570
• Chong, Soon, Johnson Lim, Ying Liu, and Wing Bun Lee. 2009. “Using Semantic Annotation for Ontology Based Decision Support in Product Family Design.” In 2009 16th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icieem.2009.5344579
• Chowdhury, Souma, Achille Messac, and Ritesh Khire. 2013b. “Investigating the Commonality Attributes for Scaling Product Families Using Comprehensive Product Platform Planning (CP3).” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 48 (6): 1089–1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-013-0953-2
• Cody, George, and Thomas Tiedje. 1996. “A Learning Curve Approach to Projecting Cost and Performance in Thin Film Photovoltaics.” MRS Proceedings 426: 539. https://doi.org/10.1557/proc-426-539
• Collier, David A. 1981. “The Measurement and Operating Benefits of Component Part Commonality.” Decision Sciences 12 (1): 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1981.tb00063.x
• Colombi, John, Bryan Bentz, Ryan Recker, Brandon Lucas, and Jason Freels. 2017. “Attritable Design Trades: Reliability and Cost Implications for Unmanned Aircraft.” In 2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/syscon.2017.7934767
• Cook, Ian, and Graham Coates. 2016. “Optimising the Time-Based Design Structure Matrix Using a Divide and Hybridise Algorithm.” Journal of Engineering Design 27 (4–6): 306–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1146236
• Correa, Jorge E., Nicholas Toombs, and Placid M. Ferreira. 2017. “A Modular-Architecture Controller for CNC Systems Based on Open-Source Electronics.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 44: 317–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2017.04.013
• Cui, Zihua, and Richard Weston. 2010. “Modelling the Effect of Product Variations on the Design of Economy of Scope Manufacturing Systems.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 23 (1): 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/09511920903225276
• Cummings, Russell M., Carsten M. Liersch, Andreas Schütte, and Kerstin C. Huber. 2018. “Aerodynamics and Conceptual Design Studies on an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle Configuration.” Journal of Aircraft 55 (2): 454–74. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.c033808
• Cunningham, James A. 1980. “Management: Using the Learning Curve as a Management Tool: The Learning Curve Can Help in Preparing Cost Reduction Programs, Pricing Forecasts, and Product Development Goals.” IEEE Spectrum 17 (6): 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1109/mspec.1980.6330359
• Curtis, David A. 1987. “An Heuristic to Evaluate Investments for Improved Economies of Scope in Manufacturing.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 6 (4): 325–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-6125(87)90008-2
• D’Souza, Bryan, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2003. “A Genetic Algorithm Based Method for Product Family Design Optimization.” Engineering Optimization 35 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215031000069663
• Dahmus, Jeffrey B., Javier P. Gonzalez-Zugasti, and Kevin N. Otto. 2001. “Modular Product Architecture.” Design Studies 22 (5): 409–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00004-7
• Dang, Vu Tung, and Nagen Nagarur. 2000. “at]Effects of Component Commonality in Multi-Component Inventory Models.” OPSEARCH 37 (4): 294–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03398620
• Dashofy, Eric M., and André van der Hoek. 2002. “Representing Product Family Architectures in an Extensible Architecture Description Language.” In Software Product-Family Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47833-7_29
• de Lange, Fons. 2002. “The Philips-Open TV® Product Family Architecture for Interactive Set-Top Boxes.” In Software Product-Family Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47833-7_18
• Decan, Alexandre, and Tom Mens. 2021. “What Do Package Dependencies Tell Us about Semantic Versioning?” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47 (6): 1226–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2019.2918315
• Ding, Chenbo, Le Ru, Maolong Lv, and Li Mo. 2026. “Fully Interpretable SECA Rule-Driven Manned-Unmanned Teaming Confrontation Strategy: A Deep Human-Machine Collaboration Framework.” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 75 (7): 12789–12804. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvt.2026.3661749
• Dolan, Bryan, and Kemper Lewis. 2008. “Robust Product Family Consolidation and Selection.” Journal of Engineering Design 19 (6): 553–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802126511
• Dolan, Tom, Ruud Weterings, and J. C. Wortmann. 2000. “Stakeholder-Centric Assessment of Product Family Architecture.” In Software Architectures for Product Families. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44542-5_25
• Domercant, Jean Charles. 2017. “A Functional Modularization Approach for Architecting Defense Open Systems: In Support of Strategic Open Architecture Reuse.” In 2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/syscon.2017.7934748
• Donath, Nir, Shlomo Globerson, and Israel Zang. 1981. “A Learning Curve Model for a Multiple Batch Production Process.” International Journal of Production Research 19 (2): 165–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207548108956639
• Du, Gang, Yi Xia, Hua-wei Zhi, and Mo Chen. 2012. “Hierarchical Optimization in Architecture and Design of Product Family.” In 2012 International Conference on Management Science & Engineering 19th Annual Conference Proceedings. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmse.2012.6414216
• Eckert, Roland. 2006. “6.2.3 Conflict in Systems Engineering Product Data Exchange Standardisation.” INCOSE International Symposium 16 (1): 882–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2006.tb02788.x
• Eggink, Derk H. D., and Marco W. Groll. 2020. “Joining Element Design and Product Variety in Manufacturing Industries.” Procedia CIRP 88: 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.05.014
• Emmatty, Francis J., and S. P. Sarmah. 2012. “Modular Product Development through Platform-Based Design and DFMA.” Journal of Engineering Design 23 (9): 696–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.653330
• Ettlie, John E., and Joan D. Penner-Hahn. 1994. “Adoption Complexity and Economies of Scope for New Process Technology in Manufacturing.” Journal of High Technology Management Research 5 (1): 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/1047-8310(94)90012-4
• Eynan, Amit, and Meir J. Rosenblatt. 1996. “Component Commonality Effects on Inventory Costs.” IIE Transactions 28 (2): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408179608966255
• Eynan, Amit, and Meir J. Rosenblatt. 2007. “The Impact of Component Commonality on Composite Assembly Policies.” Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 54 (6): 615–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.20233
• Ezzat, Omar, Khaled Medini, Xavier Boucher, and Xavier Delorme. 2019. “Product and Service Modularization for Variety Management.” Procedia Manufacturing 28: 148–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.12.024
• Fan, Qiucen, Yanlong Han, An Zhang, and Wenhao Bi. 2024. “Numerical Design Structure Matrix–Genetic Algorithm-Based Optimization Method for Design Process of Complex Civil Aircraft Systems.” Systems 12 (12): 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12120566
• Farrell, Ronald S., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2003. “Product Platform Design to Improve Commonality in Custom Products.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 14 (6): 541–56. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1027306704980
• Farrell, Ronald S., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2009. “Improving Cost Effectiveness in an Existing Product Line Using Component Product Platforms.” International Journal of Production Research 48 (11): 3299–3317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540802620753
• Fellini, Ryan, Michael Kokkolaras, and Panos Y. Papalambros. 2006b. “Quantitative Platform Selection in Optimal Design of Product Families, with Application to Automotive Engine Design.” Journal of Engineering Design 17 (5): 429–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820500287797
• Flores, Maya, Thomas Stahlbuhk, and Alexander M. Wyglinski. 2025. “Optimized Persistent Scheduling for Smart Jamming Resiliency in Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” In ICC 2025 - IEEE International Conference on Communications. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icc52391.2025.11162082
• Fonder, Nat, and Tom Headley. 2013. “The Taxonomy of Treatment Wetlands: A Proposed Classification and Nomenclature System.” Ecological Engineering 51: 203–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.011
• Friedrich, Sissy, and Axel Schulte. 2025. “Towards an Analysis of Situational Awareness and Moral Judgement in Weaponized Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions.” In 2025 IEEE 5th International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ichms65439.2025.11154178
• Fu Li, Yu Mei-xiang, and Xu Xin-he. 2008. “The Strategy Studying of Air Combat about the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles.” In 2008 Chinese Control and Decision Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ccdc.2008.4598037
• Fujita, Kikuo. 2002. “Product Variety Optimization under Modular Architecture.” Computer-Aided Design 34 (12): 953–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-4485(01)00149-x
• Gao, Fei, Gang Xiao, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2009. “Module-Scale-Based Product Platform Planning.” Research in Engineering Design 20 (2): 129–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0061-2
• Gao, Honghe, and Yaoyue Zhang. 2020. “Application of Modular Design Method in Product Design.” In 2020 International Conference on Intelligent Design (ICID). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icid52250.2020.00068
• Garmilla Manzano, Angel, Felix Fritzsche, Daniel Silberhorn, and Salvatore Asaro. 2026. “Tailplane Sizing for LH2 Aircraft Families: Commonality Assessment and Preliminary Design Trade-Offs.” CEAS Aeronautical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-026-00993-9
• Gaska, T. 2012. “Optimizing an Incremental Modular Open System Approach (MOSA) in Avionics Systems for Balanced Architecture Decisions.” In 2012 IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/dasc.2012.6383101
• Gerchak, Yigal, and Mordechai Henig. 1986. “An Inventory Model with Component Commonality.” Operations Research Letters 5 (3): 157–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6377(86)90089-1
• Gerchak, Yigal, and Mordechai Henig. 1989. “Component Commonality in Assemble-to-Order Systems: Models and Properties.” Naval Research Logistics 36 (1): 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6750(198902)36:1<61::aid-nav3220360105>3.0.co;2-p
• Gershenson, J. K., G. J. Prasad, and Y. Zhang. 2003. “Product Modularity: Definitions and Benefits.” Journal of Engineering Design 14 (3): 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954482031000091068
• Gershenson, J. K., G. J. Prasad, and Y. Zhang. 2004. “Product Modularity: Measures and Design Methods.” Journal of Engineering Design 15 (1): 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954482032000101731
• Gong, Xuejian, Yitao Liu, and Roger J. Jiao. 2017. “Variety-Driven Assembly System Layout Design by Design Structure Matrix Clustering Analysis.” Procedia CIRP 63: 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.04.026
• Gozzi, Zoe, and Axel Schulte. 2026. “Rethinking Gaze Training: Eye Tracking in Single-Pilot Manned-Unmanned Teaming Operations.” In 2026 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/cogsima68896.2026.11481238
• Gruber, Harald. 1992. “The Learning Curve in the Production of Semiconductor Memory Chips.” Applied Economics 24 (8): 885–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036849200000056
• Gruber, Harald. 1994. “The Yield Factor and the Learning Curve in Semiconductor Production.” Applied Economics 26 (8): 837–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036849400000100
• Guangming Chen and D. D. McLennan. 2004. “A Study of Learning Curve Impact on Three Identical Small Spacecraft.” In 2004 IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.04TH8720), vol. 6. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/aero.2004.1368215
• Guerrero, Hector H. 1985. “The Effect of Various Production Strategies on Product Structures with Commonality.” Journal of Operations Management 5 (4): 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(85)90021-x
• Gyllenberg, Mats, and Timo Koski. 1996. “Numerical Taxonomy and the Principle of Maximum Entropy.” Journal of Classification 13 (2): 213–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01246099
• Hallsteinsen, Svein, Tor Erlend Fægri, and Magne Syrstad. 2004. “Patterns in Product Family Architecture Design.” In Software Product-Family Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24667-1_19
• Hamdi, Abdelouahed, and Lotfi Tadj. 2019. “Augmented Lagrangian Approach to the Newsvendor Model with Component Commonality.” Mathematical and Computational Applications 24 (2): 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/mca24020055
• Hammarbäck, Jimmy, Jens Alfredson, Björn J. E. Johansson, and Jonas Lundberg. 2023. “My Synthetic Wingman Must Understand Me: Modelling Intent for Future Manned–unmanned Teaming.” Cognition, Technology & Work 26 (1): 107–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-023-00745-3
• Han, Xin, Rong Li, Jian Wang, Guofu Ding, and Shengfeng Qin. 2019a. “A Systematic Literature Review of Product Platform Design under Uncertainty.” Journal of Engineering Design 31 (5): 266–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2019.1699036
• Harofteh, Elham Zaker, and Faranak Hosseinzadeh Saljooghi. 2023. “Investigating the Economies of Scope and Cost Effectiveness in Manufacturing Companies with Interval Data.” International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 16 (1): 166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-023-00340-4
• He, Chao, Zhong-kai Li, Shuai Wang, and Deng-zhuo Liu. 2021. “A Systematic Data-Mining-Based Methodology for Product Family Design and Product Configuration.” Advanced Engineering Informatics 48: 101302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101302
• He, Chao, Wanrui Song, Zhongkai Li, Cong Liu, Wei Liu, and Yiyuan Cheng. 2024. “Optimisation Method of Product Family Supplier Selection Based on Data Mining under Carbon Neutral Policy.” Journal of Engineering Design 35 (11): 1367–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2024.2365117
• Helmer, Robert, Ali Yassine, and Christoph Meier. 2010. “Systematic Module and Interface Definition Using Component Design Structure Matrix.” Journal of Engineering Design 21 (6): 647–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802563226
• Hernández, Kenneth E., Elías Olivares-Benítez, and Catya A. Zuñiga. 2015. “Safety Stock Levels in Modular Product System Using Commonality and Part Families.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 48 (3): 1387–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.280
• Hidayat, Y. A., T. Simatupang, Sebrina, M. N. Ariansyah, and W. J. Sembada. 2017. “Vendor Managed Inventory on Two Echelon Inventory System with Optimum Accelerated Lead Time and Component Commonality.” In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ieem.2017.8290119
• Hillier, M. S. 1999a. “Component Commonality in a Multiple-Period Inventory Model with Service Level Constraints.” International Journal of Production Research 37 (12): 2665–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075499190464
• Hillier, Mark S. 1999b. “Product Commonality in Multiple-Period, Make-to-Stock Systems.” Naval Research Logistics 46 (6): 737–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6750(199909)46:6<737::aid-nav9>3.0.co;2-m
• Hillier, Mark S. 2000. “Component Commonality in Multiple-Period, Assemble-to-Order Systems.” IIE Transactions 32 (8): 755–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170008967433
• Hogan, Dakotah, John Elshaw, Clay Koschnick, Jonathan Ritschel, Adedeji Badiru, and Shawn Valentine. 2020. “Cost Estimating Using a New Learning Curve Theory for Non-Constant Production Rates.” Forecasting 2 (4): 429–51. https://doi.org/10.3390/forecast2040023
• Holt, Jon, and Paul McNeillis. 2007. “The Role of Systems Engineering in Global Standardisation.” INSIGHT 10 (1): 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/inst.20071018
• Hölttä-Otto, Katja, Noemi A. Chiriac, Dusan Lysy, and Eun Suk Suh. 2012. “Comparative Analysis of Coupling Modularity Metrics.” Journal of Engineering Design 23 (10–11): 790–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012.701728
• Hölttä-Otto, Katja, Victor Tang, and Kevin Otto. 2008. “Analyzing Module Commonality for Platform Design Using Dendrograms.” Research in Engineering Design 19 (2–3): 127–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0044-3
• Hossain, Md Sanowar, Ripon K. Chakrabortty, Sondoss El Sawah, and Michael J. Ryan. 2021. “Sustainable Modular Product Architecture Design by Bi-Level Leader-Follower Joint Optimization with Switching-Based Meta-Heuristic Algorithm.” Journal of Cleaner Production 306: 127108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127108
• Houshmand, Mahmoud, and Omid Fatahi Valilai. 2012. “LAYMOD: A Layered and Modular Platform for CAx Product Data Integration Based on the Modular Architecture of the Standard for Exchange of Product Data.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 25 (6): 473–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192x.2011.646308
• Hu, S. J., X. Zhu, H. Wang, and Y. Koren. 2008. “Product Variety and Manufacturing Complexity in Assembly Systems and Supply Chains.” CIRP Annals 57 (1): 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2008.03.138
• Huang, Yuexiang, Chun-Hsien Chen, and Li Pheng Khoo. 2012a. “Kansei Clustering for Emotional Design Using a Combined Design Structure Matrix.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (5): 416–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.05.003
• Huang, George Q., Li Li, and Lothar Schulze. 2008. “Genetic Algorithm-Based Optimisation Method for Product Family Design with Multi-Level Commonality.” Journal of Engineering Design 19 (5): 401–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820701642063
• Huang, Yeu-Shiang, Hau-Wen Lo, and Jyh-Wen Ho. 2018. “Effects of Component Commonality and Perishability on Inventory Control in Assemble-to-Order Systems.” Operational Research 21 (1): 205–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-018-0441-y
• İşci, Hasan, and Gülay Öke Günel. 2021. “Fuzzy Logic Based Air-to-Air Combat Algorithm for Unmanned Air Vehicles.” International Journal of Dynamics and Control 10 (1): 230–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-021-00803-6
• Izui, Kazuhiro, Shinji Nishiwaki, Masataka Yoshimura, Haruki Kariya, Yoshiya Ogihara, and Shuichi Hayashi. 2009. “Switchgear Component Commonality Design Based on Trade-off Analysis among Inventory Level, Delivery Lead-Time and Product Performance.” International Journal of Production Research 48 (10): 2821–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540902791868
• Jakovljevic, Mirko. 2006. “Modular Open System Approach (Mosa) and Ttp-Based Platforms for Aerospace Control Systems.” In 2006 ieee/aiaa 25TH Digital Avionics Systems Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/dasc.2006.313749
• Jans, Raf, Zeger Degraeve, and Luc Schepens. 2008. “Analysis of an Industrial Component Commonality Problem.” European Journal of Operational Research 186 (2): 801–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.008
• Jaring, Michel, and Jan Bosch. 2004. “Variability Dependencies in Product Family Engineering.” In Software Product-Family Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24667-1_7
• Jiang, Lan, and Venkat Allada. 2005. “Robust Modular Product Family Design Using a Modified Taguchi Method.” Journal of Engineering Design 16 (5): 443–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820500287359
• Jiang, Shuo, Min Xie, and Jianxi Luo. 2026. “Large Language Models for Design Structure Matrix Sequencing as Combinatorial Optimization.” Research in Engineering Design 37 (4): 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-026-00494-0
• Jiao, Jianxin (Roger). 2012. “Product Platform Flexibility Planning by Hybrid Real Options Analysis.” IIE Transactions 44 (6): 431–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740817x.2011.609874
• Jiao, Jianxin, and Mitchell M. Tseng. 2000b. “Understanding Product Family for Mass Customization by Developing Commonality Indices.” Journal of Engineering Design 11 (3): 225–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/095448200750021003
• Johannesson, H., and A. Claesson. 2005. “Systematic Product Platform Design: A Combined Function-Means and Parametric Modeling Approach.” Journal of Engineering Design 16 (1): 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820512331325247
• John, Isabel, and Karina Villela. 2008. “Evolutionary Product Line Requirements Engineering.” In 2008 12th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2008.65
• Johnson, Michael DeShawn, and Randolph Kirchain. 2010. “Developing and Assessing Commonality Metrics for Product Families: A Process-Based Cost-Modeling Approach.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 57 (4): 634–48. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2009.2034642
• Jones, Rhys, Ondrej Kovarik, Sara Bagherifard, Jan Cizek, and Jeff Lang. 2021. “Damage Tolerance Assessment of AM 304L and Cold Spray Fabricated 316L Steels and Its Implications for Attritable Aircraft.” Engineering Fracture Mechanics 254: 107916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.107916
• Jose, Alberto, and Michel Tollenaere. 2005. “Modular and Platform Methods for Product Family Design: Literature Analysis.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 16 (3): 371–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-005-7030-7
• Jung, Sangjin, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2016a. “An Integrated Approach to Product Family Redesign Using Commonality and Variety Metrics.” Research in Engineering Design 27 (4): 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0224-5
• Jung, Sangjin, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2016b. “New Modularity Indices for Modularity Assessment and Clustering of Product Architecture.” Journal of Engineering Design 28 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1252835
• Kane, J. J. 1988. “The Impact of Commonality on Battle Damage Assessment and Repair in the Armored Family of Vehicles.” In 1988. Proceedings., Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium,. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/arms.1988.196418
• Kannan, Ravi, and Andreas Nolte. 1998. “A Fast Random Greedy Algorithm for the Component Commonality Problem.” In Algorithms — ESA’ 98. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68530-8_19
• Kashkoush, Mohamed, and Hoda ElMaraghy. 2017. “Designing Modular Product Architecture for Optimal Overall Product Modularity.” Journal of Engineering Design 28 (5): 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2017.1307949
• Khajavirad, Aida, Jeremy J. Michalek, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2008. “An Efficient Decomposed Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Joint Product Platform Selection and Product Family Design Problem with Generalized Commonality.” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 39 (2): 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-008-0321-9
• Kiam, Jane Jean, Lukas Frohlich, and Axel Schulte. 2022. “Learning Decision-Making Patterns in the Context of Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/smc53654.2022.9945588
• Kim, Kilsun, and Dilip Chhajed. 2000. “Commonality in Product Design: Cost Saving, Valuation Change and Cannibalization.” European Journal of Operational Research 125 (3): 602–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00271-4
• Kim, Jong-Hyun, and Yong-Gil Lee. 2018. “Learning Curve, Change in Industrial Environment, and Dynamics of Production Activities in Unconventional Energy Resources.” Sustainability 10 (9): 3322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093322
• Kim, Yerim, Jongsuk Lee, Samyeon Kim, Seung Ki Moon, and Manuel Lopez. 2025a. “A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Production Line Configuration Based on Product Modularity and Lifecycle.” Journal of Engineering Design 37 (2): 495–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2025.2500862
• Kim, Taioun, Hae Kyung Lee, and Eun Mi Youn. 2010. “Product Family Design Based on Analytic Network Process.” In The 40th International Conference on Computers & Indutrial Engineering. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/iccie.2010.5668245
• Kim, Samyeon, and Seung Ki Moon. 2016. “Eco-Modular Product Architecture Identification and Assessment for Product Recovery.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 30 (1): 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-016-1253-7
• Kim, Samyeon, and Seung Ki Moon. 2017a. “Sustainable Platform Identification for Product Family Design.” Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 567–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.073
• Kim, Samyeon, and Seung Ki Moon. 2017b. “Sustainable Product Family Configuration Based on a Platform Strategy.” Journal of Engineering Design 28 (10–12): 731–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2017.1393657
• Kim, Dongbin, and Paul Y. Oh. 2017. “Skywriting Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Proof-of-Concept Design.” In 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icuas.2017.7991455
• Kim, Hyon Hee, and Seung Soo Park. 2004. “A Semantics-Based Versioning Scheme for Multimedia Data.” In Database Systems for Advanced Applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24571-1_25
• Kim, Heiseung, Changhyun Park, and Heesang Lee. 2019. “The Effect of Incremental Innovation and Switching-Over to Architectural Innovation on the Sustainable Performance of Firms: The Case of the NAND Flash Memory Industry.” Sustainability 11 (24): 7105. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247105
• Kim, Jung-Yoon, Veronica Wong, and Teck-Yong Eng. 2003. “The Impact of Platform-Based Product Development Proficiencies on Product Family Success.” Journal of Strategic Marketing 11 (4): 255–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254032000159063
• Kima, Kilsun, and Dilip Chhajed. 2001. “An Experimental Investigation of Valuation Change Due to Commonality in Vertical Product Line Extension.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (4): 219–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1840219
• Knauber, Peter, and Steffen Thiel. 2002. “Session Report on Product Issues in Product Family Engineering.” In Software Product-Family Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47833-7_2
• Kong, Zhixiang, Quanbo Ge, and Chengsheng Pan. 2024. “Current Status and Future Prospects of Manned/unmanned Teaming Networking Issues.” International Journal of Systems Science 56 (4): 866–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2024.2393697
• Korhonen, Mika, and Tommi Mikkonen. 2004. “Assessing Systems Adaptability to a Product Family.” Journal of Systems Architecture 50 (7): 383–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2003.08.011
• Kosanke, K., and J. G. Nell. 1999. “Standardisation in ISO for Enterprise Engineering and Integration.” Computers in Industry 40 (2–3): 311–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-3615(99)00034-2
• Kosanke, K., and F. Vernadat. 1998. “CIMOSA and GERAM Standardisation in Enterprise Engineering.” IFAC Proceedings Volumes 31 (15): 383–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-6670(17)40584-2
• Kotarski, Denis, Petar Piljek, Marko Pranjić, Carlo Giorgio Grlj, and Josip Kasać. 2021. “A Modular Multirotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Design Approach for Development of an Engineering Education Platform.” Sensors 21 (8): 2737. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082737
• Krueger, Charles W. 2008. “Pragmatic Methods for Commercial Software Product Line Engineering Practice.” In 2008 12th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2008.66
• Krueger, Charles W. 2011. “Industry Trends in Systems and Software Product Line Engineering.” In 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2011.56
• Krystallis, Ilias, Juan Sandoval, and Francesco Di Maddaloni. 2026. “Design Flexibility in Infrastructure Projects: Integrating Means-Ends Analysis and Real Options Reasoning.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2026.3722274
• Kuang, Junsheng, and Pingyu Jiang. 2009. “Product Platform Design for a Product Family Based on Kansei Engineering.” Journal of Engineering Design 20 (6): 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802132410
• Kun, Zhang, and Zeng Dong. 2006. “Researching Identity Language of Product Family.” In 2006 7th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design and Conceptual Design. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/caidcd.2006.329488
• Künzel, Dominik, Vivien Wuwer, Gunar Roth, and Axel Schulte. 2025. “Evaluation of Different Modalities for Interacting with a Tasking Agent in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions.” In 2025 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/smc58881.2025.11343617
• Kwon, Ji-Wook, Hyoujun Lee, Taeyoung Uhm, Jongdeuk Lee, Na-Hyun Lee, and Young-Ho Choi. 2025. “Design of a Manned-Unmanned Teaming System and Forward-Formation Control for Crevasse Detection in the Path of a Human-Driven Vehicle.” IEEE Access 13: 110802–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2025.3575110
• Lam, Patrick, Jens Dietrich, and David J. Pearce. 2020. “Putting the Semantics into Semantic Versioning.” In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3426428.3426922
• Lamine, Sana Ben Abdallah Ben, Lamia Labed Jilani, and Henda Hajjami Ben Ghezala. 2005. “Cost Estimation for Product Line Engineering Using COTS Components.” In Software Product Lines. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11554844_13
• Lee, Uicheon, Taehwan Kim, and Seonah Lee. 2025a. “An Aviation Manned-Unmanned Teaming Simulation in Urban Environments to Compare Autonomous Flight Formations.” In 2025 AIAA DATC/IEEE 44th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/dasc66011.2025.11257249
• Lee, Jun, Jongwook Lim, Yoo Suk Hong, and Changmuk Kang. 2025c. “Variant Mode and Effects Analysis for Effective Product Family Expansion under Modular Architecture.” Journal of Engineering Design 37 (1): 67–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2025.2473982
• Leuschner, D. 1981. “A Specification of Numerical Taxonomy: Thermodynamical Taxonomy.” Biometrical Journal 23 (6): 611–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.4710230610
• Levandowski, Christoffer Erik, Jianxin Roger Jiao, and Hans Johannesson. 2015. “A Two-Stage Model of Adaptable Product Platform for Engineering-to-Order Configuration Design.” Journal of Engineering Design 26 (7–9): 220–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2015.1021305
• Li, Shuqi. 2023. “Design Structure Matrix Approach Applied to Lunar Habitat Design.” Buildings 13 (5): 1284. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051284
• Li, Dong, and David M. Weiss. 2011. “Adding Value through Software Product Line Engineering: The Evolution of the FISCAN Software Product Lines.” In 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2011.43
• Li, Baishu, and Fengli Wu. 2011. “Analyzing the Variety of Customer Needs for Product Family Design by Integrating Conjoint Analysis and Quality Function Deployment.” In 2011 Second International Conference on Digital Manufacturing & Automation. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icdma.2011.57
• Li, Wenke, Feng Wu, Cai Fu, and Fan Zhou. 2023. “A Large-Scale Empirical Study on Semantic Versioning in Golang Ecosystem.” In 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ase56229.2023.00140
• Li Qian and Zhenyu Kong. 2008. “Supply Chain Performance with Various Price-Dependent Demand Functions and Component Commonality in One Product Family.” In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/coase.2008.4626535
• Liu, Elim, and Shih-Wen Hsiao. 2005. “ANP-GP Approach for Product Variety Design.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 29 (3–4): 216–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-005-2506-3
• Liu, Zhuo, Yoke San Wong, and Kim Seng Lee. 2009. “Modularity Analysis and Commonality Design: A Framework for the Top-down Platform and Product Family Design.” International Journal of Production Research 48 (12): 3657–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540902902598
• Lu, R. F., T. D. Petersen, and R. L. Storch. 2008. “Asynchronous Stochastic Learning Curve Effects in Engineering-to-Order Customisation Processes.” International Journal of Production Research 47 (5): 1309–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701484921
• Luo, Baoshan, Xinyan Zhang, and Zhipeng Tan. 2015. “Metadata Namespace Management of Distributed File System.” In 2015 14th International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications for Business Engineering and Science (DCABES). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/dcabes.2015.13
• Ma, Liang-Chih, Bernardo Castro-Dominguez, Nikolaos K. Kazantzis, and Yi Hua Ma. 2017. “Economic Performance Evaluation of Process System Design Flexibility Options under Uncertainty: The Case of Hydrogen Production Plants with Integrated Membrane Technology and CO2 Capture.” Computers & Chemical Engineering 99: 214–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.01.020
• Ma, Jungmok, and Harrison M. Kim. 2015. “Product Family Architecture Design with Predictive, Data-Driven Product Family Design Method.” Research in Engineering Design 27 (1): 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-015-0201-4
• MacKay, Stephen A. 1996. “Change Sets Revisited and Configuration Management of Complex Documents.” In Software Configuration Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/bfb0023099
• Maier, Siegfried, Jane Jean Kiam, and Axel Schulte. 2024. “Adaptive Mission Planning: Evaluation of a Hybrid Cognitive Mixed-Initiative Planning Assistant in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Operations.” In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/smc54092.2024.10831141
• Marion, Tucker J., Marc H. Meyer, and Gloria Barczak. 2014. “The Influence of Digital Design and IT on Modular Product Architecture.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 32 (1): 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12240
• Marion, T. J., H. J. Thevenot, and T. W. Simpson. 2007. “A Cost-Based Methodology for Evaluating Product Platform Commonality Sourcing Decisions with Two Examples.” International Journal of Production Research 45 (22): 5285–5308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600710970
• Martin, Mark V., and Kosuke Ishii. 2002. “Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures.” Research in Engineering Design 13 (4): 213–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-002-0020-2
• Masmoudi, Mahmoud, Patrice Leclaire, Marc Zolghadri, and Mohamed Haddar. 2017. “Engineering Change Management: A Novel Approach for Dependency Identification and Change Propagation for Product Redesign.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 50 (1): 12410–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2427
• Matos, Pedro Jr., Rafael Duarte, Ivan Cardim, and Paulo Borba. 2007. “Using Design Structure Matrices to Assess Modularity in Aspect-Oriented Software Product Lines.” In First International Workshop on Assessment of Contemporary Modularization Techniques (ACoM ‘07). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/acom.2007.11
• Meyer, Carsten, and Axel Schulte. 2020. “Operator Controlled, Reactive UAV Behaviors in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Scenarios with Selective Datalink Availability.” In 2020 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icuas48674.2020.9214018
• Milev, Roberto, Steven Muegge, and Michael Weiss. 2009. “Design Evolution of an Open Source Project Using an Improved Modularity Metric.” In Open Source Ecosystems: Diverse Communities Interacting. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02032-2_4
• Minglang, Cui, Du Haiwen, Wei Zhenglei, and Sun QingPeng. 2018. “Maneuvering Decision in Short Range Air Combat for Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles.” In 2018 Chinese Control And Decision Conference (CCDC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ccdc.2018.8407416
• Modrak, V., D. Marton, and S. Bednar. 2014. “Modeling and Determining Product Variety for Mass-Customized Manufacturing.” Procedia CIRP 23: 258–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.10.090
• Mohagheghi, Parastoo, and Reidar Conradi. 2004. “Different Aspects of Product Family Adoption.” In Software Product-Family Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24667-1_32
• Mohebbi, E., and F. Choobineh. 2005. “The Impact of Component Commonality in an Assemble-to-Order Environment under Supply and Demand Uncertainty.” Omega 33 (6): 472–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.07.011
• Monetti, Fabio Marco, Adam Lundström, Colin de Kwant, Magnus Gyllenskepp, and Antonio Maffei. 2026. “Establishing Assembly-Oriented Modular Product Architectures through a Design for Assembly Expanded Modular Function Deployment.” Journal of Engineering Design: 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2026.2680613
• Monetti, Fabio Marco, Adam Lundström, and Antonio Maffei. 2025. “Integrating Design for Assembly in Modular Product Architecture: Barriers, Insights, and a Framework for Early-Stage Guidance.” Production & Manufacturing Research 13 (1): 2566066. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2025.2566066
• Moon, Seung Ki, Kyoung Jong Park, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2013. “Platform Design Variable Identification for a Product Family Using Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization.” Research in Engineering Design 25 (2): 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-013-0166-0
• Murmann, Johann Peter, and Koen Frenken. 2006. “Toward a Systematic Framework for Research on Dominant Designs, Technological Innovations, and Industrial Change.” Research Policy 35 (7): 925–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.011
• Myrodia, Anna, Lars Hvam, Enrico Sandrin, Cipriano Forza, and Anders Haug. 2021. “Identifying Variety-Induced Complexity Cost Factors in Manufacturing Companies and Their Impact on Product Profitability.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 60: 373–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.04.017
• Nace, William, and Philip Koopman. 2001. “A Product Family Approach to Graceful Degradation.” In Architecture and Design of Distributed Embedded Systems. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35409-5_13
• Nagarur, Nagen, and Abdullahil Azeem. 1999. “Impact of Commonality and Flexibility on Manufacturing Performance: A Simulation Study.” International Journal of Production Economics 60-61: 125–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-5273(98)00198-4
• Nayak, Raviraj U., Wei Chen, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2002. “A Variation-Based Method for Product Family Design.” Engineering Optimization 34 (1): 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/03052150210910
• Nemet, Gregory F. 2006. “Beyond the Learning Curve: Factors Influencing Cost Reductions in Photovoltaics.” Energy Policy 34 (17): 3218–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.06.020
• Newcomb, Rosen, and Bras. 2003. “Life Cycle Modularity Metrics for Product Design.” In 2003 EcoDesign 3rd International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ecodim.2003.1322671
• Nicol, Chris, and Alan Hooper. 1999. “Contemporary Change and the Housebuilding Industry: Concentration and Standardisation in Production.” Housing Studies 14 (1): 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673039983000
• Niemelä, Eila. 2005. “Strategies of Product Family Architecture Development.” In Software Product Lines. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11554844_21
• Nørgaard, Morten, Jakob Meinertz Grønvald, Carsten Keinicke Fjord Christensen, and Niels Henrik Mortensen. 2025. “The Product Variety Costing Method (PVCM): A Data-Driven Approach to Resource Allocation and Cost Evaluation.” Machines 13 (12): 1137. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines13121137
• Ochoa, Lina, Thomas Degueule, Jean-Rémy Falleri, and Jurgen Vinju. 2022. “Breaking Bad? Semantic Versioning and Impact of Breaking Changes in Maven Central: An External and Differentiated Replication Study.” Empirical Software Engineering 27 (3): 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10052-y
• Oh, Kwansuk, and Yoo S. Hong. 2024. “Optimizing Product Variety for Balancing Market Share and Complexity Cost in Product Family Design.” IEEE Access 12: 108810–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3438273
• Okpoti, Evans Sowah, In-Jae Jeong, and Seung Ki Moon. 2019. “Decentralized Determination of Design Variables among Cooperative Designers for Product Platform Design in a Product Family.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 135: 601–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.06.039
• Ong, S. K., Q. L. Xu, and A. Y. C. Nee. 2006. “Design Reuse Methodology for Product Family Design.” CIRP Annals 55 (1): 161–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0007-8506(07)60389-8
• Opdebeeck, Ruben, Ahmed Zerouali, Camilo Velázquez-Rodríguez, and Coen De Roover. 2021. “On the Practice of Semantic Versioning for Ansible Galaxy Roles: An Empirical Study and a Change Classification Model.” Journal of Systems and Software 182: 111059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.111059
• Pakkanen, Jarkko, Tero Juuti, and Timo Lehtonen. 2016. “Brownfield Process: A Method for Modular Product Family Development Aiming for Product Configuration.” Design Studies 45: 210–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.04.004
• Pananiswami, Shanthakumar, and Ronald C. Bishop. 1991. “Behavioral Implications of the Learning Curve for Production Capacity Analysis.” International Journal of Production Economics 24 (1–2): 157–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-5273(91)90162-m
• Panter, Shane K., Lucas S. Hindman, and Nasir U. Eisty. 2025. “PVAC: Package Version Activity Categorizer, Leveraging Semantic Versioning in a Heterogeneous System.” Empirical Software Engineering 30 (5): 118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-025-10678-2
• Park, Jaeil, Dongmin Shin, Park Insun, and Hyun Hyemi. 2008. “A Product Platform Concept Development Method.” Journal of Engineering Design 19 (6): 515–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802043583
• Paul, Tanya S., Daniel Lafond, and Pierre-Yves Benzakine. 2025. “AI-Driven Collaboration Mode Selection for Manned-Unmanned Teaming in Future Combat Air Systems.” In 2025 International Conference on Military Communication and Information Systems (ICMCIS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmcis64378.2025.11047730
• Pektaş, Şule Taşlı, and Mustafa Pultar. 2006. “Modelling Detailed Information Flows in Building Design with the Parameter-Based Design Structure Matrix.” Design Studies 27 (1): 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.07.004
• Peng Chew, E. K., Loo Hay Lee, and Yew Loon Lau. 2006. “Component Commonality in Assembled-to-Stock Systems.” IIE Transactions 38 (3): 239–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170500436724
• Pierce, David, and Justin Littlefield-Lawwill. 2008. “Information Assurance and Open Architecture Integrated Modular Avionics.” In 2008 2nd Annual IEEE Systems Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/systems.2008.4519034
• Pinckney, Donald, Federico Cassano, Arjun Guha, and Jonathan Bell. 2023. “A Large Scale Analysis of Semantic Versioning in NPM.” In 2023 IEEE/ACM 20th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/msr59073.2023.00073
• Ping Jiang, Xiuping Zhao, Bojun Yang, Lingxuan Zhao, and Runhua Tan. 2007. “The Product Family Design Based on Axiomatic Design.” In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ieem.2007.4419292
• Pinto, Alessandro. 2019. “An Open and Modular Architecture for Autonomous and Intelligent Systems.” In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Embedded Software and Systems (ICESS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icess.2019.8782512
• Piran, Fabio Antonio Sartori, Daniel Pacheco Lacerda, Luis Felipe Riehs Camargo, and Aline Dresch. 2020. “Effects of Product Modularity on Productivity: An Analysis Using Data Envelopment Analysis and Malmquist Index.” Research in Engineering Design 31 (2): 143–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-019-00327-3
• Plonsky, Terry, and Daniel R. Herber. 2026. “Alignment of Agile and Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) Principles in Systems Engineering.” Systems Engineering: e70070. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.70070
• Pohl, Klaus, and Andreas Reuys. 2002. “Considering Variabilities during Component Selection in Product Family Development.” In Software Product-Family Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47833-7_4
• Qi, Wendi, and Tiecheng Xie. 2026. “A Three-Tier Large-Small Language Model Collaborative Architecture for Dynamic Task Allocation in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Operations.” In 2026 5th International Symposium on Aerospace Engineering and Systems (ISAES). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/isaes70982.2026.11669833
• Qiao, Li, Mahmoud Efatmaneshnik, Michael Ryan, and Shraga Shoval. 2017. “Product Modular Analysis with Design Structure Matrix Using a Hybrid Approach Based on MDS and Clustering.” Journal of Engineering Design 28 (6): 433–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2017.1325858
• Raemaekers, S., A. van Deursen, and J. Visser. 2017. “Semantic Versioning and Impact of Breaking Changes in the Maven Repository.” Journal of Systems and Software 129: 140–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.04.008
• Raudberget, D. S., M. T. Michaelis, and H. L. Johannesson. 2014. “Combining Set-Based Concurrent Engineering and Function — Means Modelling to Manage Platform-Based Product Family Design.” In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ieem.2014.7058668
• Rendon, Rene G. 2007. “Using a Modular Open Systems Approach in Defense Acquisitions: Implications for the Contracting Process.” In 2007 IEEE International Conference on System of Systems Engineering. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/sysose.2007.4304231
• Reynerson, C. M. 2000. “Spacecraft Modular Architecture Design for on-Orbit Servicing.” In 2000 IEEE Aerospace Conference. Proceedings (Cat. No.00TH8484), vol. 4. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/aero.2000.878426
• Riaz, Atif, Marin D. Guenov, and Arturo Molina-Cristobal. 2017. “Set-Based Approach to Passenger Aircraft Family Design.” Journal of Aircraft 54 (1): 310–26. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.c033747
• Rieker, L. L., and F. M. Haraburda. n.d. “Space Station Freedom Electrical Power System Hardware Commonality with the United States Polar Platform.” In Proceedings of the 24th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/iecec.1989.74473
• Roh, Heekun, Lilly Etzenbach, Alexia Oltramare, Johannes Norheim, and Olivier L. De Weck. 2025. “Size Constrained K-Means Clustering for Controlled Design Structure Matrix Partitioning.” In 2025 IEEE International systems Conference (SysCon). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/syscon64521.2025.11014856
• Rojas Arciniegas, Alvaro J., and Harrison M. Kim. 2011. “Optimal Component Sharing in a Product Family by Simultaneous Consideration of Minimum Description Length and Impact Metric.” Engineering Optimization 43 (2): 175–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215x.2010.486032
• Rojas Arciniegas, Alvaro J., and Harrison M. Kim. 2012. “Incorporating Security Considerations into Optimal Product Architecture and Component Sharing Decision in Product Family Design.” Engineering Optimization 44 (1): 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215x.2011.561842
• Rosenblum, Dana, Nuphar Katzman, and Tal Oron-Gilad. 2022. “Keep It Clear and Simple; Using Levels of Tactile Alerts for Manned-UnManned Teaming (MUM-T).” In 2022 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/cogsima54611.2022.9830676
• Roth, Gunar, and Axel Schulte. 2020. “A Concept on the Shared Use of Unmanned Assets by Multiple Users in a Manned-Unmanned-Teaming Application.” In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Cognition and Design. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49183-3_15
• Roth, Gunar, Axel Schulte, Fabian Schmitt, and Yannick Brand. 2020. “Transparency for a Workload-Adaptive Cognitive Agent in a Manned–Unmanned Teaming Application.” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 50 (3): 225–33. https://doi.org/10.1109/thms.2019.2914667
• Samarasinghe, Tharindu, Tharaka Gunawardena, Priyan Mendis, Massoud Sofi, and Lu Aye. 2019. “Dependency Structure Matrix and Hierarchical Clustering Based Algorithm for Optimum Module Identification in MEP Systems.” Automation in Construction 104: 153–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.03.021
• Schmitt, Oliver, Tim A. Majchrzak, and Sven Bingert. 2015. “Experimental Realization of a Persistent Identifier Infrastructure Stack for Named Data Networking.” In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Architecture and Storage (NAS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/nas.2015.7255207
• Schmitt, Fabian, and Axel Schulte. 2015b. “Mixed-Initiative Mission Planning Using Planning Strategy Models in Military Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions.” In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/smc.2015.247
• Schuh, Guenther, Michael Riesener, and Stefan Breunig. 2017. “Design for Changeability: Incorporating Change Propagation Analysis in Modular Product Platform Design.” Procedia CIRP 61: 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.238
• Schulze, L., and L. Li. 2009. “Cooperative Coevolutionary Optimization Method for Product Family Design.” In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ieem.2009.5373357
• Schwerd, Simon, and Axel Schulte. 2021. “Operator State Estimation to Enable Adaptive Assistance in Manned-Unmanned-Teaming.” Cognitive Systems Research 67: 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2021.01.002
• Shamsuzzoha, Ahm, Hannele Blomqvist, and Josu Takala. 2023. “Service Productisation through Standardisation and Modularisation: An Exploratory Case Study.” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 17 (1): 1154–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2023.2184514
• Shatnawi, Anas, Abdelhak-Djamel Seriai, and Houari Sahraoui. 2017. “Recovering Software Product Line Architecture of a Family of Object-Oriented Product Variants.” Journal of Systems and Software 131: 325–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.07.039
• Shi, Jim (Junmin), and Yao Zhao. 2014. “Component Commonality under No-Holdback Allocation Rules.” Operations Research Letters 42 (6–7): 409–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2014.06.001
• Shoval, Shraga, Li Qiao, Mahmoud Efatmaneshnik, and Michael Ryan. 2016. “Dynamic Modular Architecture for Product Lifecycle.” Procedia CIRP 48: 271–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.037
• Simpson, Timothy W., Aaron Bobuk, Laura A. Slingerland, Sean Brennan, Drew Logan, and Karl Reichard. 2011. “From User Requirements to Commonality Specifications: An Integrated Approach to Product Family Design.” Research in Engineering Design 23 (2): 141–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-011-0119-4
• Simpson, Timothy W., Jonathan R. Maier, and Farrokh Mistree. 2001b. “Product Platform Design: Method and Application.” Research in Engineering Design 13 (1): 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001630100002
• Singh, D., S. P. Singh, and O. P. Malik. 2002. “Numerical Taxonomy Method for STLF.” Electric Power Components and Systems 30 (5): 443–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325000252888407
• Sitcharangsie, Sakraan, T. C. Wong, and Winifred Ijomah. 2021. “Bi-Objective Optimisation of Remanufacturing Decisions with Component Commonality under Different Reworking Scenarios.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 34 (10): 1086–1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192x.2021.1963479
• Smit, Francois C., and Carl W. I. Pistorius. 1998. “Implications of the Dominant Design in Electronic Initiation Systems in the South African Mining Industry.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 59 (3): 255–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0040-1625(98)00006-7
• Smunt, Timothy L. 1999. “Log-Linear and Non-Log-Linear Learning Curve Models for Production Research and Cost Estimation.” International Journal of Production Research 37 (17): 3901–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075499189826
• Sopadang, Apichat, Byung Rae Cho, and Michael S. Leonard. 2002. “Development of a Scaling Factor Identification Method Using Design of Experiments for Product-Family-Based Product and Process Design.” Quality Engineering 14 (2): 319–29. https://doi.org/10.1081/qen-100108690
• Staples, M., and D. Hill. n.d. “Experiences Adopting Software Product Line Development without a Product Line Architecture.” In 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/apsec.2004.50
• Steuer, Christian, and Clifford Whitcomb. 2003. “3.2.1 Economical Assessment of Product Platform Concepts under Uncertainty: Capturing the Value of Flexibility with Real Options.” INCOSE International Symposium 13 (1): 180–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2003.tb02609.x
• Stojanovski, Zvonimir, and Daniel Selva. 2017. “Optimizing Commonality and Performance in Platform-Based Earth Observing Smallsat Architectures.” In 2017 IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/aero.2017.7943665
• Su, Jack C. P., Yun Chiao Lin, and Victor Lee. 2010. “Component Commonality in Closed-Loop Manufacturing Systems.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 23 (6): 2383–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-010-0485-1
• Sundgren, Niklas. 1999. “Introducing Interface Management in New Product Family Development.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 16 (1): 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1610040
• Szafranski, Grzegorz, Roman Czyba, and Marian Blachuta. 2014. “Modeling and Identification of Electric Propulsion System for Multirotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Design.” In 2014 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icuas.2014.6842287
• Tang, Dunbing. 2008b. “Product Design Knowledge Management Based on Design Structure Matrix.” In 2008 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/cscwd.2008.4536981
• Tang, Dunbing, Guangjun Zhang, and Sheng Dai. 2009. “Design as Integration of Axiomatic Design and Design Structure Matrix.” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (3): 610–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2008.04.005
• Teng, Jinn-Tsair, Kuo-Ren Lou, and Lu Wang. 2014. “Optimal Trade Credit and Lot Size Policies in Economic Production Quantity Models with Learning Curve Production Costs.” International Journal of Production Economics 155: 318–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.10.012
• Thevenot, Henri J., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2006b. “Commonality Indices for Product Family Design: A Detailed Comparison.” Journal of Engineering Design 17 (2): 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820500275693
• Thevenot, Henri J., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2007a. “A Comprehensive Metric for Evaluating Component Commonality in a Product Family.” Journal of Engineering Design 18 (6): 577–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820601020014
• Thevenot, Henri J., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2007b. “Guidelines to Minimize Variation When Estimating Product Line Commonality through Product Family Dissection.” Design Studies 28 (2): 175–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.07.004
• Thiel, Steffen, and Andreas Hein. 2002. “Systematic Integration of Variability into Product Line Architecture Design.” In Software Product Lines. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45652-x_9
• Thomas, Lawrence D. 1992. “Functional Implications of Component Commonality in Operational Systems.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 22 (3). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930048131
• Trask, Bruce, and Angel Roman. 2008. “Leveraging Model Driven Engineering in Software Product Line Architectures.” In 2008 12th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2008.64
• Tsubone, H., H. Matsuura, and S. Satoh. 1994. “Component Part Commonality and Process Flexibility Effects on Manufacturing Performance.” International Journal of Production Research 32 (10): 2479–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207549408957079
• Verhoef, Peter C., Koen H. Pauwels, and Mirjam A. Tuk. 2012. “Assessing Consequences of Component Sharing across Brands in the Vertical Product Line in the Automotive Market.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 29 (4): 559–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00925.x
• Voelter, Markus, and Eelco Visser. 2011. “Product Line Engineering Using Domain-Specific Languages.” In 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2011.25
• Wang, Yu, Suping Bian, Ling Dong, and Hongxian Li. 2023. “Multiresolution Modeling of a Modular Building Design Process Based on Design Structure Matrix.” Buildings 13 (9): 2330. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092330
• Wang, Meng, Xinrui Li, Feng Li, and Jianghua Wang. 2025. “Research on Design of Modular Apartment Building Product Platform for Manufacture and Assembly: A Case Study of the Modular Dormitory Building Design Project.” Buildings 15 (19): 3585. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15193585
• Wang, Jiliang, Bernard Yannou, Fabrice Alizon, and Pierre-Alain Yvars. 2012. “A Usage Coverage-Based Approach for Assessing Product Family Design.” Engineering with Computers 29 (4): 449–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-012-0262-1
• Wang, Guo-xian, Wen-zu Zhang, and Andrew Yeh-Ching Nee. 2008. “A Design Versioning Scheme Supporting Management of Design Change Propagations.” In 2008 International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation (ICICTA). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icicta.2008.419
• Wang, He, Xiaowei Zhu, Hui Wang, S. Jack Hu, Zhongqin Lin, and Guanlong Chen. 2011b. “Multi-Objective Optimization of Product Variety and Manufacturing Complexity in Mixed-Model Assembly Systems.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 30 (1): 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2011.03.002
• Wearne, S. H. 1992. “Project Design Flexibility.” Engineering Management Journal 2 (5): 232. https://doi.org/10.1049/em:19920057
• Wee, Kwan E., and Maqbool Dada. 2010. “A Make-to-Stock Manufacturing System with Component Commonality: A Queuing Approach.” IIE Transactions 42 (6): 435–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170903544322
• Weingärtner, Josef. 2002. “Product Family Engineering and Testing in the Medical Domain — Validation Aspects.” In Software Product-Family Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47833-7_34
• Wenlei Zhang and Yushun Fan. 2006. “Research on Domain-Based Generic Product Family Architecture Modeling.” In 2006 6th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/wcica.2006.1714390
• Wettig, Jürgen. 2002. “New Developments in Standardisation in the past 15 Years — Product versus Process Related Standards.” Safety Science 40 (1–4): 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-7535(01)00040-6
• Wijnstra, Jan Gerben. 2002. “Critical Factors for a Successful Platform-Based Product Family Approach.” In Software Product Lines. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45652-x_6
• Wijnstra, Jan Gerben. 2004. “Evolving a Product Family in a Changing Context.” In Software Product-Family Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24667-1_9
• Wong, Hartanto, Dharma Lesmono, Dilip Chhajed, and Kilsun Kim. 2019. “On the Evaluation of Commonality Strategy in Product Line Design: The Effect of Valuation Change and Distribution Channel Structure.” Omega 83: 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.01.009
• Wu, Zhengan. 2023. “Long-Endurance Solar-Powered Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Based on Modular Composite Design.” In 2023 5th International Academic Exchange Conference on Science and Technology Innovation (IAECST). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/iaecst60924.2023.10503343
• Wuwer, Vivien, Dominik Künzel, and Axel Schulte. 2025. “Impact of Tasking Modalities on Pilot Flight Behavior in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions.” In 2025 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/smc58881.2025.11342504
• Xiaogang, Xu, Li Chao, Yan Jian, and Chen Yahua. 2006. “An Analytical Method Based on Design Structure Matrix for Modular Identification.” In 2006 7th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design and Conceptual Design. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/caidcd.2006.329358
• Xu, Jianxin, Yang Fei, and Shuyu Cai. 2020. “Commonality Evaluation Method of Civil Aircraft Maintenance Technical Publications Based on Improved Design Structure Matrix.” In 2020 International Conference on Computer Engineering and Application (ICCEA). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/iccea50009.2020.00186
• Yang, Yan-pu, Deng-kai Chen, Rong Gu, Yu-feng Gu, and Sui-huai Yu. 2016. “Consumers’ Kansei Needs Clustering Method for Product Emotional Design Based on Numerical Design Structure Matrix and Genetic Algorithms.” Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2016: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5083213
• Yang, Hanlin, Yajun Guo, and Yimin Guo. 2024. “Fault-Tolerant Security-Efficiency Combined Authentication Scheme for Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” Computers & Security 146: 104052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2024.104052
• Yang, Qing, Tao Yao, Ting Lu, and Bo Zhang. 2014. “An Overlapping-Based Design Structure Matrix for Measuring Interaction Strength and Clustering Analysis in Product Development Project.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 61 (1): 159–70. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2013.2267779
• Yao, Zhiwei, Xumin Wu, Yu Wu, and Xintong Wen. 2023. “Enhancing Industrial Design Competitiveness: Research and Application of a Machine Tool Industrial Design Decision-Making Method Based on Product Family Architecture and Systematic Evaluation.” Applied Sciences 13 (21): 11831. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132111831
• Ye, Xiaoli, and John K. Gershenson. 2008. “Attribute-Based Clustering Methodology for Product Family Design.” Journal of Engineering Design 19 (6): 571–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802471123
• Yee Soon Lim. 2007. “Differing Roles of Axiomatic Design and Design Structure Matrix in Reducing System Complexity.” In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ieem.2007.4419341
• Yong Lin. 2006. “A Multi-Period Inventory Model of Component Commonality with Lead Time.” In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/soli.2006.236142
• Yongjie, Zhang, Zeng Yongqi, Cao Kang, Yang Zheng, Dong Wenjun, and Dong Dayong. 2021. “A Review of Commonality Design for Civil Aircraft.” In 2021 12th International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAE). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmae52228.2021.9522472
• Yue Yang and Xibin Wang. 2009. “A Modeling Approach for Correlation’s Evolution of Modular Product Family.” In 2009 IEEE 10th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design & Conceptual Design. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/caidcd.2009.5375266
• Yun, Jaehyuk. 2019. “Developing a Work-Identifier Allocation Algorithm to FRBRize KORMARC Records.” Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 56 (1): 509–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.78
• Zacharias, Nicolas A., and Ali A. Yassine. 2007. “Optimal Platform Investment for Product Family Design.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 19 (2): 131–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0069-x
• Zeng, Fanbo, Xiaojun Rao, Jianhua Lei, Xujie Huo, Yuan Shi, and Deng Ai. 2025. “Behavioral Correlation-Based Residential Space Modularization Using Design Structure Matrix and Fuzzy C-Means Clustering Algorithm.” Buildings 15 (4): 647. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15040647
• Zhang, Yiyang, Jianxin (Roger) Jiao, and Yongsheng Ma. 2007. “Market Segmentation for Product Family Positioning Based on Fuzzy Clustering.” Journal of Engineering Design 18 (3): 227–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820600752781
• Zhang, Mei, and Mitchell M. Tseng. 2007. “A Product and Process Modeling Based Approach to Study Cost Implications of Product Variety in Mass Customization.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 54 (1): 130–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2006.889072
• Zhang, Yongjie, Zheng Yang, Xianchao Ma, et al. 2019. “Exploration and Implementation of Commonality Valuation Method in Commercial Aircraft Family Design.” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 32 (8): 1828–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.05.005
• Zhao, Shuangyao, Qiang Zhang, Zhanglin Peng, and Xiaonong Lu. 2022. “Product Platform Configuration for Product Families: Module Clustering Based on Product Architecture and Manufacturing Process.” Advanced Engineering Informatics 52: 101622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2022.101622
• Zheng, Wenyi, Abolfazl Mehbodniya, Rahul Neware, Surindar Gopalrao Wawale, Bibhu Prasad Ganthia, and Mohammad Shabaz. 2022. “Modular Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Platform Design: Multi-Objective Evolutionary System Method.” Computers and Electrical Engineering 99: 107838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.107838
• Zhou, Yanjiang, and Renwang Li. 2007. “Commonality-Oriented Product Design Management Method and Its Application.” In 2007 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/wicom.2007.1023
• Zischka, Wolfram, and Daniel Finnegan. 2023. “System Integration for Modular Open System Approach Compliant Integrated Avionics Architectures.” In 2023 IEEE/AIAA 42nd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/dasc58513.2023.10311118

Primary Sources, Non-Peer-Reviewed

• ”- Taguchi Integrated Real-Time Optimization for Product Platform Planning: A Case of Mountain Bike Design.” 2010. In Systems Engineering Tools and Methods. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10452-13
• “12 Numerical Taxonomic Methods.” 1982. In Organizational Systematics. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520314696-013
• “5 How Configuration Identification Works.” 2004. In Software Configuration Management. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203496114-8
• Abdelsalam, Hisham M., Mohamed H. Rasmy, and Hayam G. Mohamed. 2014. “A Simulation-Based Time Reduction Approach for Resource Constrained Design Structure Matrix.” International Journal of Modeling and Optimization 4 (1): 51–55. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijmo.2014.v4.346
• Abdullah, A. B., A. R. Kamaruddin, and Z. M. Ripin. 2012. “Design of Multi–family Product Platform by Using Modularity Approach.” Jurnal Teknologi. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v42.734
• Ade, Al,A. A., Aj,O. B. Ayi, Ok,S. O. Olie, et al. 2017. “Open Architecture Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System: Security Enhancement with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.” International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology 54 (1): 56–62. https://doi.org/10.14445/22312803/ijctt-v54p110
• Adrees, Muhammad. 2021. “Usability of the Design Structure Matrix for Automotive Design Engineering.” Preprint, Toronto Metropolitan University. https://doi.org/10.32920/ryerson.14652510
• Agarwal, Shubham. 2026. “Modular Open Systems beyond Defense: Reducing Structural Dependency and Expanding Economic Participation.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7280759
• Aghassibake, Negeen, Olivia Given Castello, Paolo Gujilde, and Sheila Rabun. 2023. “Visualizing Institutional Activity Using Persistent Identifier Metadata.” Information Services and Use 43 (3–4): 335–42. https://doi.org/10.3233/isu-230218
• Aiers, Drane, Tipple, et al. 1933. “Discussion on “Standardisation as Applied to Production Engineering” at the Coventry Section of the Institution.” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 634. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0064
• “Aircraft Cost Considerations.” 2010. In Aircraft Design. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511844652.018
• Akundi, Satish V. K., Timothy W. Simpson, and Patrick M. Reed. 2005. “Multi-Objective Design Optimization for Product Platform and Product Family Design Using Genetic Algorithms.” In Volume 2: 31st Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2005-84905
• Alexandru, Cătălin. 2020. “Virtual Prototyping Platform for Designing Mechanical and Mechatronic Systems.” In Product Design. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92801
• AlGeddawy, T., and H. ElMaraghy. 2011. “Product Variety Management in Design and Manufacturing: Challenges and Strategies.” In Enabling Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic Sustainability. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23860-4_85
• AlGeddawy, Tarek, and Hoda ElMaraghy. 2015. “Determining Granularity of Changeable Manufacturing Systems Using Changeable Design Structure Matrix and Cladistics.” Journal of Mechanical Design 137 (4): 041702. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029515
• Alizon, Fabrice, Tucker J. Marion, Steven B. Shooter, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2008. “Product Family Design: Strategic Principles to Choose between Product-Driven and Platform-Driven Processes.” In Volume 1: 34th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2008-49429
• Alizon, Fabrice, Steven B. Shooter, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2006a. “Assessing and Improving Commonality and Diversity within a Product Family.” In Volume 1: 32nd Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2006-99499
• Alizon, Fabrice, Steven B. Shooter, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2006c. “Improving an Existing Product Family Based on Commonality/Diversity, Modularity, and Cost.” In Volume 4b: 11th Design for Manufacturing and the Lifecycle Conference. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2006-99536
• Alizon, Fabrice, Steven B. Shooter, and Henri J. Thevenot. 2006b. “Design Structure Matrix.” In Volume 4a: 18th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, vol. 2006. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2006-99524
• Allada, Venkat, and Jiang Lan. 2002. “New Modules Launch Planning for Evolving Modular Product Families.” In Volume 3: 7th Design for Manufacturing Conference. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2002/dfm-34190
• Allen, R. 1933. “Standardisation. Part II: Are Production Engineers Sufficiently Familiar with the Standardisation That Has Already Been Accomplished?” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 596. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0053
• Allison, James, Brian Roth, Michael Kokkolaras, Ilan Kroo, and Panos Papalambros. 2006. “Aircraft Family Design Using Decomposition-Based Methods.” In 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference. AIAA 2006-6950. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-6950
• Alsawalqah, Hamad, Sungwon Kang, and Danhyung Lee. 2013. “A Method for Software Product Platform Design Based on Features.” In Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference co-located workshops. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2499777.2500723
• Altman, Aaron. 2008. Unique Stealth Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Houck Aircraft Design Program. Volume 1: Program Overview. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada494088
• Amalia, Ariani, M. Dachyar, and Farizal. 2018. “Scheduling of Aircraft Design Project: A Comparison of Critical Path Method, Design Structure Matrix and Genetic Algorithm Approaches.” MATEC Web of Conferences 248: 03011. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201824803011
• America, Pierre, Henk Obbink, Rob Ommering, and Frank Linden. 2000. “CoPAM: A Component-Oriented Platform Architecting Method Family for Product Family Engineering.” In Software Product Lines. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4339-8_9
• Ananno, Anan Ashrabi, Marie Jonsson, and Johan Persson. 2026. “Applying Modular Product Architecture to Food Recipe Design: A Framework for Sensory-Driven and Sustainable Meatball Configurations.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6877701
• Andersen, Rasmus Skovgaard. 2022. “Modular and Platform-Based Product Development in the Process Industry: Enabling Efficient Product Variety through Complexity Management.” PhD diss.. https://doi.org/10.54337/aau478557927
• Anderson, David M. 2013. “Building, Supplying, and Designing Product Families.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_23
• Anderson, Philip, and Michael L. Tushman. 1990. “Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (4): 604. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393511
• “Appendix 1: Standard Nomenclature System for Rubbers.” 2019. In Rubber Analysis. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110640281-013
• Arakawa, Masao, Hitomi Kono, and Tomoki Mitani. 2004. “Validation of Commonality of Product Family through Product Limit Line.” Proceedings of Design & Systems Conference 2004.14 (0): 286–87. https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmedsd.2004.14.286
• Arellano, Robert L., Ryan G. Pringle, and Kelly L. Sowell. 2015. Analysis of Rapid Acquisition Processes to Fulfill Future Urgent Needs. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad1009069
• Arthur, Keith. 2008. UAV as a Wingman: A Vision for the Future of Manned-Unmanned Teaming. https://doi.org/10.4050/vfs-f64-000110
• Asaga, Yasuo, and Hidekazu Nishigaki. 2022. “Study of Modular Design Method for Frame Structure Utilizing Design Structure Matrix: (Creation of Modular Decomposition Structure Considering with a Mechanical Properties and Consideration of Its Mechanical Performances).” Proceedings of Design & Systems Conference 2022.32 (0): 2209. https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmedsd.2022.32.2209
• Asan, Umut, and Seçkin Polat. 2008. “Modular Design Capability and Product Positioning: An Integrative View.” In Advances in Applied Business Strategy. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-6826(07)10002-0
• Asher, Norman J., and Theodore F. Maggelet. 1980. On Estimating the Cost Growth of Weapon Systems. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada094693
• Asher, N. J., and W. J. E. Shafer. 1985. Cost Estimating Relationships for Air and Sealift Mobility Forces. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada153657
• Assef, Patrick, and Jeremy Geiger. 2023. “Adoption of Model-Based Systems Engineering in Traditional DoD Systems.” Defense Acquisition Research Journal 30 (103): 46–73. https://doi.org/10.22594/dau.22-892.30.01
• Aurich, J. C., C. Fuchs, and C. Wagenknecht. n.d. “Modular Design of Technical Product-Service Systems.” In Innovation in Life Cycle Engineering and Sustainable Development. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4617-0_21
• Austin, Robert E., Stephen D. Ishmael, and Cleon Lacefield. 2000. X-33, Demonstrating Revolutionary Operations for VentureStar(TM). NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20000033991
• Austin, Robert E., and Jerry J. Rising. 2000. X-33 Leading the Way to VentureStar(Trademark) in This Decade. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20000033992
• Ayton, F., Hartley, Brazier, et al. 1933. “Discussion on “Standardisation as Applied to Production Engineering” at the Eastern Counties Section of the Institution.” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 576. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0050
• B. D’Agostino, Ralph, and Heidy K. Russell. 2014. Numerical Taxonomy. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05659
• Badiru, Adedeji B. 2021. “Learning Curve in Production and Supply Chain Systems 1.” In Global Supply Chain. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003111979-5
• Bailey, Dan. 2008. Manned / Unmanned Teaming: New Synergy between AH-64 Apaches and Unmanned Aircraft Systems. https://doi.org/10.4050/vfs-f64-000358
• Bajpai, Shivam, Rohith Boyinine, Abhinav Sinha, and Rajnikant Sharma. 2025. “Toward Simultaneous Localization and Guidance for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) Effectiveness.” In AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum. AIAA 2025-1547. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025-1547
• Baker, Kenneth R., Michael J. Magazine, and Henry L. W. Nuttle. 1986. “The Effect of Commonality on Safety Stock in a Simple Inventory Model.” Management Science 32 (8): 982–88. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.8.982
• Baldwin, Clark, The Value of Modularity, et al. 2000a. “The Value of Modularity — Splitting and Substitution.” In Design Rules. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2366.003.0014
• Baldwin, Clark, What Is Modularity?, chapter in Design Rules Volume 1, The Power of Modularity, and MIT Press. 2000b. “What Is Modularity?” In Design Rules. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2366.003.0005
• Banas, Jacquelyn, Tim Mehling, Tobias Paul, and Andreas Cords. 2020. “Manned-Unmanned Teaming Challenges in the Maritime Environment.” In Vertical Flight Society Forum. https://doi.org/10.4050/f-0076-2020-16314
• Bao, Yongchuan, Zelong Wei, and Charles Noble. 2025. “What Motivates Firms to Develop Architectural Innovation? The Problematization Perspective of Design Thinking and Empirical Evidence.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5164667
• Barber, E., R. Marhefka, and D. Blattner. 1978. “Prospects for Commercial Commonality in Military Transports.” In Aircraft Systems and Technology Conference. AIAA 1978-1467. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1978-1467
• “Barriers to Real Options Adoption and Use in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Project Management Practice.” 2009. In Real Options in Engineering Design, Operations, and Management. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420071702-11
• Barthélemy, Jean-Pierre, and François Brucker. 2000. “Average Consensus in Numerical Taxonomy and Some Generalizations.” In Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58250-9_8
• Bateman, Thomas, Jacob Nelson, and Brian Argrow. 2007. “A Low Cost, Rapid Construction Unmanned Aircraft Design.” In AIAA Infotech@Aerospace 2007 Conference and Exhibit. AIAA 2007-2703. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-2703
• Bedford, R. W. 1933. “Standardisation. Part III: What Are the Fundamentals of Standardisation?” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 600. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0054
• Bellini, Emanuele, Giovanni Bergamin, Maurizio Messina, Chiara Cirinnà, and Raffaele Messuti. 2014. “NBN:IT the Italian Trusted Persistent Identifier Infrastructure.” International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 9 (4): 347. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkl.2014.069536
• Beltramo, M. N., and J. L. Anderson. 1977. “The Use of Parametric Cost Estimating Relationships for Transport Aircraft Systems in Establishing Initial Design to Cost Targets.” In Annual Conference. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19780033967
• Beltramo, M. N., M. A. Morris, and J. L. Anderson. 1979. “Application of Parametric Weight and Cost Estimating Relationships to Future Transport Aircraft.” In Annual Conference. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19800036467
• Benkoczi, Robert, Daya Gaur, Shahadat Hossain, and Muhammad A. Khan. 2018. “A Design Structure Matrix Approach for Measuring Co-Change-Modularity of Software Products.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196398.3196409
• Berkowitz, Bob, and Dave Rowlands. 2005. Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS). Management Plan. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada524830
• Bernstein, Fernando, A. Gürhan Kök, and Lei Xie. 2011. “The Role of Component Commonality in Product Assortment Decisions.” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 13 (2): 261–70. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1100.0317
• Bibi, Sven-Anwar. n.d. “Product Family.” In Board of International Research in Design. Birkhäuser Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8140-0_214
• Bick, Werner, Cagri Cevik, and Christoph Steffens. 2015. “Tailored Design and Layout for Loss Minimization or Cost-Effective Commonality of Parts: A Contradictory Conflict.” SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series. https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-26-0019
• Birrenbach, Reinhold. 2000. “Regional Aircraft Family Design.” In 2000 World Aviation Conference. AIAA 2000-5547. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2000-5547
• Black, Harlan, Alan Davis, Raymond Yeh, Winston Royce, and George Sumrall. 1990a. Proceedings Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Rapid Prototyping Held in Eatontown, New Jersey on 14-16 November 1989. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada228771
• Black, Harlan, Alan Davis, Raymond Yeh, et al. 1990b. TTCP Requirements Engineering and Rapid Prototyping Workshop Proceedings Held in Eatontown, New Jersey on November 14-16, 1989. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada228028
• Blackburn, Mark. 2014. Introducing Model Based Systems Engineering Transforming System Engineering through Model-Based Systems Engineering. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada605264
• Blackburn, Mark, Rob Cloutier, Gary Witus, and Eirik Hole. 2014. Introducing Model-Based System Engineering Transforming System Engineering through Model-Based Systems Engineering. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada603095
• Bloch, Anthony, Alexandra Gitto, Jeraldin Guerrero, Mark Janney, and Benjamin A. Strasser. 2023a. “The Implementation of Modular, Extensible, Interoperable Autonomy (MEIA) for an ArduCopter-Equipped Drone Executing Various Missions.” In Open Architecture/Open Business Model Net-Centric Systems and Defense Transformation 2023, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2660922
• Bloch, Anthony, Patrick Haggerty, Matt Menard, Greg Osborn, Giabo Sanchies, and Benjamin A. Strasser. 2023b. “Modular, Extensible, Interoperable Autonomy: An Autonomy Architecture for the Internet of Military Things and the Future of Warfare.” In Open Architecture/Open Business Model Net-Centric Systems and Defense Transformation 2023, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2660255
• Böckle, Günter. 2005. “Introduction to Software Product Line Engineering.” In Software Product Line Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28901-1_1
• Bollapragada, Srinivas, and Ram Akella. 1993. “Optimal Inventory Policy in Assembly Systems with Component Commonality.” In Operations Research in Production Planning and Control. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78063-9_25
• Bonanne, Kevin H. 2011. Model-Based Systems Engineering for Capturing Mission Architecture System Processes with an Application Case Study: Orion Flight Test 1. Purdue Univ. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20150006562
• Börger, Egon, and Wolfram Schulte. 2000. “Modular Design for the Java Virtual Machine Architecture.” In Architecture Design and Validation Methods. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57199-2_7
• Borjesson, Fredrik, and Katja Hölttä-Otto. 2012. “Improved Clustering Algorithm for Design Structure Matrix.” In Volume 3: 38th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2012-70076
• Borjesson, Fredrik, and Ulf Sellgren. 2013. “Fast Hybrid Genetic Clustering Algorithm for Design Structure Matrix.” In Volume 5: 25th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; ASME 2013 Power Transmission and Gearing Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2013-12041
• Boudouh, Toufik, and Olivier Grunder. 2015. “A New Algorithm for the Optimization of the Design Process Using the Design Structure Matrix.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 760: 39–44. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.760.39
• Bowman, Daniel. 2006. “Effective Product Platform Planning in the Front End.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_2
• Boyce, Timothy, Iva Sherman, and Nicholas Roussel. 2013. The RITE Approach to Agile Acquisition. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada584788
• Bright, Rick, Karen Humber, and Maria Ipsaro. 1993. Advanced Distributed Simulation Technology (ADST) Programs Configuration Management Plan. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada283294
• Brinker, Joseph. 2004. “Autonomous Steering of the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) X-45A.” In AIAA 3rd “Unmanned Unlimited” Technical Conference, Workshop and Exhibit. AIAA 2004-6575. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-6575
• Brown, Owen. 2004. Reducing Risk of Large Scale Space Systems Using a Modular Architecture. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada510666
• Browning, Tyson R. 2013. Appendix I: Notes on the Design Structure Matrix. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118592977.app1
• Buckle, J. K. 1982. “Configuration Identification.” In Software Configuration Management. Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16819-4_4
• Bulkley, Michael E., and Gregory C. Davis. 2013. The Study of the Rapid Acquisition Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Program and Its Impact on the Warfighter. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada582916
• Burge, Janet E., Gerald C. Gannod, and Holly L. Connor. 2011. “Using Rationale to Drive Product Line Architecture Configuration.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on SHAring and Reusing Architectural Knowledge. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1988676.1988683
• Calvo-Manzano, J. A., M. García, T. San Feliu, and A. de Amescua. 2001. “The Role of Control Boards in Configuration Management.” In Managing the Change: Software Configuration and Change Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56614-1_8
• Caputo, Cesare, and Michel-Alexandre Cardin. 2021a. “Analyzing Real Options and Flexibility in Engineering Systems Design Using Decision Rules and Deep Reinforcement Learning.” Journal of Mechanical Design 144 (2): 021705. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4052299
• Caputo, Cesare, and Michel-Alexandre Cardin. 2021b. “The Role of Machine Learning for Flexibility and Real Options Analysis in Engineering Systems Design.” Proceedings of the Design Society 1: 3121–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.573
• Cardin, Michel-Alexandre, Ana Mijic, and Jennifer Whyte. 2021. “Flexibility and Real Options in Engineering Systems Design.” In Handbook of Engineering Systems Design. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_35-1
• Cardin, Michel-Alexandre, Ana Mijic, and Jennifer Whyte. 2022. “Flexibility and Real Options in Engineering Systems Design.” In Handbook of Engineering Systems Design. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81159-4_35
• Cardin, Michel-Alexandre, Ana Mijic, and Jennifer Whyte. 2023. “Flexibility and Real Options in Engineering Systems Design.” In Handbook of Engineering Systems Design. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_35-2
• Carrascosa, Maria, Steven D. Eppinger, and Daniel E. Whitney. 1998. “Using the Design Structure Matrix to Estimate Product Development Time.” In Volume 2: 24th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc98/dac-6013
• Chan, Ka Kei, and Alistair K. L. Milne. 2013. “The Global Legal Entity Identifier System: Will It Deliver?” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2325889
• Chandrakar, Rajesh. 2006. “Digital Object Identifier System: An Overview.” Electronic Library 24 (4): 445–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470610689151
• Change Control and Configuration Management. 2008. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470261033.ch9
• Change Control and Configuration Management. 2023. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394207190.ch9
• “Change Management, Configuration Management, and Change Management.” 2018. In Engineering High Quality Medical Software: Regulations, standards, methodologies and tools for certification. Institution of Engineering and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1049/pbhe012e_ch19
• Chantzaras, Christos. 2024. “Architectural Innovation Design (AID).” In Architectural Innovation Design. Schäffer-Poeschel. https://doi.org/10.34156/978-3-7910-6138-2_5
• Chao, Lawrence P., and Kosuke Ishii. 2004. “Product Platform Design and the Gate Model: Lessons from Industry Case Studies.” In Design Engineering. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2004-59190
• Chen, Jessie Y., and Michael J. Barnes. 2013. Human-Agent Teaming for Multi-Robot Control: A Literature Review. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada583900
• Chen, Wei, Christopher Hoyle, and Henk Jan Wassenaar. 2012. “A Decision-Based Design Approach to Product Family Design.” In Decision-Based Design. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4036-8_11
• Chen, Tao, Ding-Bang Luh, and Xing-Sen Li. 2023. “Building Product Family Platform and Product Service System Based on Extension Innovation Method.” Preprint, Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2713552/v1
• Chen Chun-Hsien, Huang Yuexiang, Khoo Li Pheng, and Chang Danni. 2013. “Kansei Clustering Using Design Structure Matrix and Graph Decomposition for Emotional Design.” In 20th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-302-5-91
• Cheng, Xianfu, Guangying Lan, and Qihang Zhu. 2015. “Scalable Product Platform Design Based on Design Structure Matrix and Axiomatic Design.” International Journal of Product Development 20 (2): 91. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpd.2015.068962
• Cheng, Xian-fu, Chong Wan, Hao-yang Qiu, and Jun-yi Luo. 2019. “A Measure for Modularity and Comparative Analysis of Modularity Metrics.” In Proceeding of the 24th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management 2018. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3402-3_29
• Cheng, Xian Fu, and Qi Hang Zhu. 2013. “Adaptable Product Platform-Based Product Family Design of Crane.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 475-476: 1402–5. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.475-476.1402
• Choi, Jimin, Mengmeng Li, and Max Z. Li. 2026. “Adaptive Robust Markov Decision Process for Wide-Area Surveillance with Collaborative Combat Aircraft.” In AIAA SCITECH 2026 Forum. AIAA 2026-2884. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2026-2884
• Choudhuri, Ayushman, Pankaj Upadhyay, and Abhishek Yevalkar. 2019. “A Comparison of Practical and Computational Approaches to Design Modular Product Architecture for Products with Medium Complexity: A Case Study on Computer Numerical Control Machine.” In Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5974-3_64
• Chowdhury, Souma, Victor Maldonado, Weiyang Tong, and Achille Messac. 2013a. “Comprehensive Product Platform Planning (CP3) for a Modular Family of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.” In Volume 3B: 39th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2013-13181
• Chowdhury, Souma, Achille Messac, and Ritesh A. Khire. 2011. “Comprehensive Product Platform Planning (CP3) Framework.” Journal of Mechanical Design 133 (10): 101004. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004969
• Chowdhury, Souma, Achille Messac, and Ritesh Khire. 2012. “Comprehensive Product Platform Planning (CP3) Using Mixed-Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization and a New Commonality Index.” In Volume 3: 38th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2012-70954
• Chowdhury, Sagar, and Zahed Siddique. 2009. “Shape Commonalization to Develop Common Platform for Product Family.” In Volume 5: 35th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2009-87304
• Chyma, Timothy D. 2010. Rapid Acquisition. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada544317
• Clark, Kim, and Carliss Y. Baldwin. 2002. “The Option Value of Modularity in Design: An Example from Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.312404
• Clements, Paul C., and Nelson Weiderman. 1998. Report on the Second International Workshop on Development and Evolution of Software Architectures for Product Families. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada346343
• Cody, George D., and Thomas Tiedje. 1997. “A Learning Curve Approach to Projecting Cost and Performance for Photovoltaic Technologies.” In AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.53464
• Coleman, Sarah, Linda Lopez, and David Luntz. 2015. An Analysis of Army Rapid Acquisition. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad1008892
• Collier, David A. 1982. “Aggregate Safety Stock Levels and Component Part Commonality.” Management Science 28 (11): 1296–1303. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.11.1296
• Collier, David A. 1984. “Reply—on “Comment on Aggregate Safety Stock Levels and Component Part Commonality”.” Management Science 30 (6): 773–74. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.6.773
• Collins, John T., Harvey Feingold, and Stanley K. Borowski. 1991. NTR Vehicle Commonality Assessment for Piloted Lunar and Mars Missions. AIAA PAPER 91-3575. Science Applications International Corp. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19910067825
• Colston, Sharon N. 1998. Implementation of Successful Practices Using an Iterative Development Methodology for an AEGIS Configuration Management Software Application. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada363072
• “Configuration Identification.” 1995. In Engineering Documentation Control Practices & Procedures. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482273427-12
• “Configuration Identification.” 2004b. In Software Configuration Management. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203496114.ch4
• Configuration Identification. 2004a. “3 Configuration Identification.” In Software Configuration Management. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203496114-11
• “Configuration Management and Software Engineering Standards Reference.” 2004. In Software Configuration Management. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203496114.ch12
• “Configuration Management Identification.” 2007. In Software Deployment, Updating, and Patching. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420013290.ch5
• “Configuration-Management.” n.d. In Business Engineering. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28542-3_13
• Cooke, Le Maistre, J. Gratrix, J. D. Scaife, Hill, and Newell. 1933b. “Discussion on “Standardisation in Relation to Production Engineering” at the Yorkshire Section of the Institution.” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 551. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0048
• Cooke, Salmon, Le Maistre, et al. 1933a. “Discussion on “Standardisation in Relation to Production Engineering” at the London Section of the Institution.” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 540. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0047
• Corbett, Brian, and David W. Rosen. 2004. “A Configuration Design Based Method for Platform Commonization for Product Families.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18 (1): 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/s089006040404003x
• Corliss, John O., Peter H. A. Sneath, and Robert R. Sokal. 1974. “Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification.” Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 93 (2): 303. https://doi.org/10.2307/3225339
• Cosentino, Gary B. 2008. DARPA/USAF/USN J-UCAS X-45A System Demonstration Program: A Review of Flight Test Site Processes and Personnel. NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20080014868
• Cosenzo, Keryl A. 2010. Manned-Unmanned Teaming: (578862012-016). American Psychological Association (APA). https://doi.org/10.1037/e578862012-016
• Cox, S. 2008. A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience Information (CGI). RFC Editor. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc5138
• Creighton, Tom, Rafael Haddad, Louis Hendrich, et al. 1987. A Cost Analysis for the Implementation of Commonality in the Family of Commuter Airplanes, Revised. NASA-CR-182569. NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19880010837
• Crompton, R. E., A. B. Blackburn, J. Slater Lewis, et al. 1900. “Discussion on “the Standardisation of Electrical Engineering Plant”.” Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 29 (144): 304–14. https://doi.org/10.1049/jiee-1.1900.0069
• Cronie, M., and P. Thompson. 1980. “The Economics of Commonality: A Boeing Product Strategy View.” In Aircraft Systems Meeting. AIAA 1980-1839. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1980-1839
• Crowson, R. A. 2017. “Numerical Taxonomy.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081090-15
• Crues, Edwin Z. n.d. An Evolving Functional Digital Twin Tool Suite for Human Space Systems. Johnson Space Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250006097
• Cunningham, John M. 1981. Investigation of Functional Commonality Avionics Systems in Naval Aircraft. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada105503
• D’Agostino, Ralph B., and Heidy K. Russell. 2005. Numerical Taxonomy. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470011815.b2a13059
• D’Souza, Brayan S., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2002. “A Genetic Algorithm Based Method for Product Family Design Optimization.” In Volume 2: 28th Design Automation Conference. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2002/dac-34106
• Da Cunha Reis, Augusto. n.d. “Product Variety Management: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Studies.” PhD diss., PONTIFÍCIA UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DO RIO DE JANEIRO. https://doi.org/10.17771/pucrio.acad.23841
• Dahmus, Jeffrey B., Javier P. Gonzalez-Zugasti, and Kevin N. Otto. 2000. “Modular Product Architecture.” In Volume 4: 12th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2000/dtm-14565
• Dai, Zhihuang, and Michael J. Scott. 2004a. “Effective Product Family Design Using Preference Aggregation.” In Volume 3a: 16th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, vol. 2004. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2004-57419
• Dai, Zhihuang, and Michael J. Scott. 2004b. “Product Platform Design through Sensitivity Analysis and Cluster Analysis.” In Volume 1: 30th Design Automation Conference. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2004-57464
• Dai, Zhihuang, and Michael J. Scott. 2005a. “Effective Product Family Design Using Preference Aggregation.” Journal of Mechanical Design 128 (4): 659–67. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2197835
• Dai, Zhihuang, and Michael J. Scott. 2005b. “Meaningful Tradeoffs in Product Family Design Considering Monetary and Technical Aspects of Commonality.” SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series 1. https://doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-0351
• Dambietz, Florian M. 2021. “Challenges in Modular Product Architecture Alternative Decisions.” In Produktentwicklung und Konstruktionstechnik. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64233-7_2
• Dappert, Angela, Adam Farquhar, Rachael A. Kotarski, and Kirstie Hewlett. 2017. “Connecting the Persistent Identifier Ecosystem: Building the Technical and Human Infrastructure for Open Research.” Data Science Journal 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-028
• Darpel, Scott, Sean Beckman, Tim Ferlin, Maria Havenhill, Edith Parrott, and Kathy Harcula. 2019. “Method for Tracking and Communicating Aggregate Risk through the Use of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Tools.” In International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190025675
• Dart, Susan A. 1992. The past, Present, and Future of Configuration Management. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada254175
• Das, Aditya N., Kris Doelling, Cody Lundberg, Hakki Erhan Sevil, and Frank Lewis. 2017. “A Mixed Reality Based Hybrid Swarm Control Architecture for Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T).” In Volume 14: Emerging Technologies; Materials: Genetics to Structures; Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2017-72076
• Davis, Hubert P., Robert E. Johnson, Paul G. Phillips, Donald S. Spear, William R. Stump, and Franklin U. Williams. 1986. “Lunar and Martian Hardware Commonality.” In NASA. Marshall Space Flight Center Manned Mars Mission. Working Group Papers, V. 2, Sect. 5, App.. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19870008371
• De Lit, Pierre, and Alain Delchambre. 2003a. “Description of Product Families.” In Integrated Design of a Product Family and Its Assembly System. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0417-7_4
• De Lit, Pierre, and Alain Delchambre. 2003c. “Product Family and Assembly Line Design Methodology.” In Integrated Design of a Product Family and Its Assembly System. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0417-7_3
• De Lit, Pierre, and Alain Delchambre. 2003d. “Product Family Structuring and Preliminary Design for Assembly.” In Integrated Design of a Product Family and Its Assembly System. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0417-7_5
• De Lit, Pierre, and Alain Delchambre. 2003e. “Representation of Assembly Plans for Product Families.” In Integrated Design of a Product Family and Its Assembly System. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0417-7_6
• de Weck, Olivier L. 2006. “Determining Product Platform Extent.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_12
• de Weck, Olivier L., Eun Suk Suh, and David Chang. 2003. “Product Family and Platform Portfolio Optimization.” In Volume 2: 29th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2003/dac-48721
• DeMinico, Mathew, James P. Mastandrea, and Wesley T. Fuhrman. n.d. “Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) for a Robust Commercial Lunar Ecosystem.” In Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS-2022). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20220004762
• DeMinico, Mathew, James Mastandrea, and Wesley Fuhrman. 2022. “Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) for a Robust Commercial Lunar Ecosystem.” In Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS-2022). American Nuclear Society. https://doi.org/10.13182/nets22-38657
• Desai, Preyas, Sunder Kekre, Suresh Radhakrishnan, and Kannan Srinivasan. 2001. “Product Differentiation and Commonality in Design: Balancing Revenue and Cost Drivers.” Management Science 47 (1): 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.37.10672
• “Design of Product Platform.” 2008. In Series on Manufacturing Systems and Technology. WORLD SCIENTIFIC. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812832634_0004
• Diamond, E. L. 1951. “National Standardisation and Productivity.” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 30 (5): 244. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1951.0013
• “Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System.” 2009. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/e-elis3-120044418
• “Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System.” 2011. In Understanding Information Retrieval Systems. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/b11499-52
• Digital Object Identifier System. n.d. McGraw-Hill Professional. https://doi.org/10.1036/1097-8542.195250
• Dillon, S., R. Jones, C. J. Hinde, and I. Hunt. 1998. “PCB Assembly Line Setup Optimization Using Component Commonality Matrices.” Journal of Electronics Manufacturing 08 (02): 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0960313198000082
• DIN 31646:2013-01, Information Und Dokumentation_- Anforderungen an Die Langfristige Handhabung Persistenter Identifikatoren (Persistent Identifier). n.d. DIN Media GmbH. https://doi.org/10.31030/1920006
• Dinnus, Christian, and Klaus Pohl. 2005. “Experiences with Software Product Line Engineering.” In Software Product Line Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28901-1_21
• “Discussion on “the Standardisation of Electrical Engineering Plant” before the Wireless Section, 10 January, 1923.” 1923. Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 61 (316): 412–16. https://doi.org/10.1049/jiee-1.1923.0056
• DiVito, Ben L. 1998. A Formal Model of Partitioning for Integrated Modular Avionics. NASA/CR-1998-208703. NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19980237199
• DoD 4120.15-L, Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles, and 12 May. 2004. “incorporating Change 1 of 31 August 2018, read in part from a public web archive snapshot after the Department’s own portal returned HTTP 403, and the edition whose Change 1 the article had been told cancelled the public list.” https://web.archive.org/web/2019id_/https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/412015l.pdf
• DoD Directive 4120.15, Designating, Naming Military Aerospace Vehicles, and 29 November. 2004. “incorporating Change 2 of 17 September 2020, cancelling the directive of 2 May 1985 and cited by the 2014 instruction as DoD Directive 4120.15E, read in full from a public web archive snapshot of 4 February 2025.” https://web.archive.org/web/20250204235114/https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/412015p.pdf
• Dong, Ming, and F. Frank. 2006. Simulation Modeling and Analysis of the Impacts of Component Commonality and Process Flexibility on Integrated Supply Chain Network Performance. https://doi.org/10.5772/5071
• Donkels, Alexander, and Andreas Voigt. 2019. “Helicopter Formation Control Algorithm for Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” In Vertical Flight Society Annual Forum and Technology Display. https://doi.org/10.4050/f-0075-2019-14746
• Dougal, Roger A., and Antonello Monti. 2011. Frequency-Agile Wide-Bandwidth Power Interface to Support Incremental Virtual Prototyping. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada560473
• Driggs, Jade B., Megan B. Morris, Margaret H. Ugolini, and Christopher W. Myers. 2026. “An Exploration of Statistically Derived Individual Differences in Collaborative Combat Aircraft Operators.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting: 10711813261485206. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813261485206
• Du, Xuehong. n.d. “Architecture of Product Family for Mass Customization.” PhD diss., The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.14711/thesis-b678760
• Du, Xuehong, Jianxin Jiao, and Mitchell M. Tseng. 2002. “Product Family Modeling and Design Support: An Approach Based on Graph Rewriting Systems.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16 (2): 103–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0890060402020097
• DuBois, Thomas. 2022. “Preview of an Enterprise Product Architecture (EPA) to Support a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA).” In Vertical Flight Society Annual Forum and Technology Display. https://doi.org/10.4050/f-0078-2022-1226
• DuBois, Thomas, John Kisor, Robert Matthews, and Michael Orlovsky. 2021. “Approach to Architecture Development Assuming a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) for a Family of Systems (FoS) Acquisition.” In Vertical Flight Society Annual Forum and Technology Display. https://doi.org/10.4050/f-0077-2021-16883
• Dudek, Marius, and Axel Schulte. 2022. “Effects of Tasking Modalities in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions.” In AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum. AIAA 2022-2478. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-2478
• Dunbing Tang, Renmiao Zhu, Sheng Dai, and Guangjun Zhang. 2009. “Enhancing Axiomatic Design with Design Structure Matrix.” Concurrent Engineering 17 (2): 129–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x09105348
• Dunleavy, G. J. 1988. Configuration Management, Capacity Planning Decision Support, Modeling and Simulation. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada218302
• Eggink, Derk Hendrik Dominick. 2023. “Automated Joining Element Design for High Product Variety in the Manufacturing Industry.” PhD diss.. https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036557689
• Eichstetter, Markus, Steffen Müller, and Markus Zimmermann. 2015. “Product Family Design with Solution Spaces.” Journal of Mechanical Design 137 (12): 121401. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4031637
• Eilmus, Sandra, and Dieter Krause. 2013. “Product Life-Oriented Development of Component Commonality and Variety.” In Volume 12: Systems and Design. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2013-63619
• ElMaraghy, Hoda, and Tarek AlGeddawy. 2013. “Multidisciplinary Domains Association in Product Family Design.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_3
• Ertas, Atila, and Utku Gulbulak. 2021. “Design Structure Matrix.” In Managing System Complexity Through Integrated TD Design Tools. ATLAS Publishing. https://doi.org/10.22545/2021b/m5
• Essers, M. S. 2016. “Design of a Novel, Hybrid Decentralized, Distributed, Modular Architecture for Manufacturing Systems.” PhD diss.. https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036540674
• “Evaluating Product Family Development Using the Balanced Scorecard Approach.” 2009. In Applied Software Product Line Engineering. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420068429-7
• Ewing, Craig. 2022. “Weapons Digital Enterprise: Digital Engineering Underpinned M&S Ecosystem Enabling ABMS/JADC2/convergence of Effects.” In Open Architecture/Open Business Model Net-Centric Systems and Defense Transformation 2022, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2608578
• Eynan, Amit, and Thierry Fouque. 2005. “Benefiting from the Risk-Pooling Effect: Internal (Component Commonality) vs. External (Demand Reshape) Efforts.” International Journal of Services and Operations Management 1 (1): 90. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsom.2005.006320
• Eysenck, Hans Jurgen, and Sybil B. G. Eysenck. 2013. “Principles of Numerical Taxonomy.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203766804-11
• Fabry, R. S. 1980. Proposal for Configuration Control for the ARPA Standard Version of the UNIX Operating System. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada094691
• Fan, Lei, Li Ping Zhao, and Yi Yong Yao. 2010. “Modular-Based Platform Planning for Product Family.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 37-38: 693–96. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.37-38.693
• Farooq, Arsalan, António Araújo, S. M. O. Tavares, and Henriqueta Nóvoa. 2013. “Evaluation of a Non-Conformity Matrix Complexity Using Components Modularity Metrics.” In Reducing Risk in Innovation. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446437937.003
• Farr, Ashton, Scott Wigginton, Mohammad Al-Husseini, and Ayende Ibere. 2024. “A Mission Systems Flying Testbed to Enable Rapid Evaluation of Innovative Technologies and Integration Approaches against Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) Objectives.” In Vertical Flight Society Annual Forum and Technology Display. https://doi.org/10.4050/f-0080-2024-1301
• Farrell, Ronald S., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2001. “Improving Commonality in Custom Products Using Product Platforms.” In Volume 2B: 27th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2001/dac-21125
• Farrell, Ronald S., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2008. “Improving Cost Effectiveness in an Existing Product Line Using Component Product Platforms.” In Volume 1: 34th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2008-49544
• Feiler, Peter, and Grace Downey. 1990. Transaction-Oriented Configuration Management: A Case Study. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada235510
• Felice, R. 1985. Standardization of Ground and Flight Data Interfaces for Spaceflight Instrument Support. AIAA PAPER 85-5066. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19860026679
• Fellini, Ryan, Michael Kokkolaras, and Panos Y. Papalambros. 2006a. “Commonality Decisions in Product Family Design.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_9
• Fiala, Kent L. 1983. “A Simulation Model for Comparing Numerical Taxonomic Methods.” In Numerical Taxonomy. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69024-2_11
• Finch, William W. 1999. “Set-Based Models of Product Platform Design and Manufacturing Processes.” In Volume 3: 11th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc99/dtm-8763
• Fischetti, T. L. 1974. Modular Design of the Earth Observatory Satellite (EOS). NASA Office of Applications. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19750041962
• Fisher, Marshall, Kamalini Ramdas, and Karl Ulrich. 1999. “Component Sharing in the Management of Product Variety: A Study of Automotive Braking Systems.” Management Science 45 (3): 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.3.297
• Flaherty, Susan R., Robert Jay Shively, and Thomas C. Turpin. 2006. “Manned-Unmanned Teaming Simulation with Control of Multiple Uavs.” In Vertical Flight Society Annual Forum & Technology Display (VFS Forum). https://doi.org/10.4050/vfs-f62-137
• Ford, Jennifer S., Ryan M. Colburn, and Yosef A. Morris. 2012. Principles of Rapid Acquisition and Systems Engineering. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada562705
• Ford, David N., and John T. Dillard. 2008. Modeling the Integration of Open Systems and Evolutionary Acquisition in DoD Programs. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada493929
• Ford, David N., and John T. Dillard. 2009. Modeling the Integration of Open Systems and Evolutionary Acquisition in DoD Programs. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada510390
• “A Framework on Customer Involvement in Product Design on Product Family Platform: Customer Perspectives.” 2021. Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology 3 (4). https://doi.org/10.25236/fsst.2021.030414
• Franke, Thomas A., and Jeffrey J. Hobbs. 1993. Distribution Cost Analysis in Support of the Clothing Size Reduction and Standardization Initiatives of Defense Management Review Decision 903. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada265051
• Fry, Timothy. 2008. Unique Stealth Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Houck Aircraft Design Program. Volume 2: Prototype Report. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada494062
• Fujinaga, Jin, Hiroshi Tokutake, and Shigeru Sunada. 2007. “Development of Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and Flight Controller Design.” In AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit. AIAA 2007-6501. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-6501
• Fujita, Kikuo. 2013. “Global Product Family Design: Simultaneous Optimal Design of Module Commonalization and Supply Chain Configuration.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_16
• Fujita, Kikuo, Hisato Sakaguchi, and Shinsuke Akagi. 1999. “Product Variety Deployment and Its Optimization under Modular Architecture and Module Commonalization.” In Volume 4: 4th Design for Manufacturing Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc99/dfm-8923
• Fund, International Monetary. 2013. “IMF Participation in the Regulatory Oversight Committee of the Global Legal Entity Identifier System.” MF Policy Paper 13 (14). https://doi.org/10.5089/9781498341363.007
• Gambaryan, M. K. 2021. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Design for Application in Cyber Security.” Armenian Journal of Physics: 151–53. https://doi.org/10.52853/18291171-2021.14.3-151
• Gansler, Jacques S., William Lucyshyn, and Adam Spiers. 2010. The Effect of the Nunn-McCurdy Amendment on Unit-Cost-Growth of Defense Acquisition Projects. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada623330
• Garcia, Albert B., Gocke Jr., and Johnson Robert P. 1994. Virtual Prototyping: Concept to Production. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada279287
• Garneau, Christopher J., Gopal Nadadur, and Matthew B. Parkinson. 2013. “Considering Human Variability When Implementing Product Platforms.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_22
• Gaska, Thomas. 2007. “Lockheed Martin Common Cockpit™ Avionics Suite: A Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) Driven Architecture.” In Vertical Flight Society Forum. https://doi.org/10.4050/vfs-f63-107
• Gasnakis, Stelios, and Fabian Homberg. 2013. “Interrelations between Modular Product Architecture and Product Development Organization.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2013 (1): 14015. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2013.14015abstract
• Gauthier, Benoit. n.d. “Demand-Based Configuration of Modular Product Architecture.” PhD diss., University of Rhode Island. https://doi.org/10.23860/diss-1838
• Gedell, Stellan, and Hans Johannesson. 2012. “Design Rationale and System Description Aspects in Product Platform Design: Focusing Reuse in the Design Lifecycle Phase.” Concurrent Engineering 21 (1): 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x12469216
• “Generic Product Model of Air Technology Units – Basis for the Development of New, Modular Product Families.” 2025. In DS 140: Proceedings of the 36th Symposium Design for X (DFX2025). The Design Society. https://doi.org/10.35199/dfx2025.10
• Gerchak, Yigal, Michael J. Magazine, and A. Bruce Gamble. 1988. “Component Commonality with Service Level Requirements.” Management Science 34 (6): 753–60. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.6.753
• Gilbert, S. 1933. “Standardisation. Part V: Could We Obtain Closer Co-Operation towards Standardisation than Already Exists?” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 606. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0056
• Golovachev, Artem. 2026. “Formal Model of Contract Evolution for APIs and Messages in Event-Driven Systems: Compatibility, Versioning, and the Prevention of Breaking Changes.” International Journal of Engineering and Computer Science 15 (04): 28396–28405. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijecs/v15i03.5486
• Gonzalez-Zugasti, Javier P., and Kevin N. Otto. 2000. “Modular Platform-Based Product Family Design.” In Volume 2: 26th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2000/dac-14238
• Goswami, Mohit, and Venkat Allada. 2007. “Application of Product Platform Design for Engineered System.” In Volume 6: 33rd Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2007-35800
• Gould, Stephen Jay. 1974. “The First Decade of Numerical Taxonomy: Numerical Taxonomy . the Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. PETER H. a. Sneath and Robert R. Sokal. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973. Xvi, 574 Pp., Illus. $19.50. a Series of Books in Biology.” Science 183 (4126): 739–40. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.183.4126.739
• Gravina da Rocha, Cecilia, Hana B. C. El Ghoz, and Sidnei Jr Guadanhim. 2019. “A Model for Implementing Product Modularity in Buildings Design.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 27 (3): 680–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-02-2019-0096
• Gray, D. W. 1979. Weight and Cost Estimating Relationships for Heavy Lift Airships. AIAA PAPER 79-1577. Goodyear Aerospace Corp. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19790058370
• Greve, Erik, and Dieter Krause. 2018. “An Assessment of Methods to Support the Design of Future Robust Modular Product Architectures.” In Design Conference Proceedings, vol. 15. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Croatia; The Design Society, Glasgow, UK. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0249
• Greve, Erik, Christoph Rennpferdt, Tobias Hartwich, and Dieter Krause. 2019. “Determination of Future Robust Product Features for Modular Product Family Design.” In Volume 14: Design, Systems, and Complexity. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2019-10497
• Groocock, W. G., I. H. Wright, R. H. Youngash, et al. 1933. “Discussion on “Standardisation as Applied to Production Engineering” at the Birmingham Section of the Institution.” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 580. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0051
• Gualberto, Ana Cristina Ferrari. n.d. “Aplicação Da Ferramenta DSM: Design Structure Matrix Ao Planejamento Do Processo De Projeto De Edificações.” PhD diss., Universidade de São Paulo. https://doi.org/10.11606/d.3.2012.tde-04062013-143901
• Gudmundsson, Snorri. 2014. “Aircraft Cost Analysis.” In General Aviation Aircraft Design. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-397308-5.00002-7
• Gudmundsson, Snorri. 2022. “Aircraft Cost Analysis.” In General Aviation Aircraft Design. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818465-3.00003-3
• Guinivan, Thomas L. 2004. Effective Technology Insertion: The Key to Evolutionary Acquisition Program. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada423698
• Gunawan, Indra. 2012. “Analysis of Design Structure Matrix Methods in Design Process Improvement.” International Journal of Modelling and Simulation 32 (2). https://doi.org/10.2316/journal.205.2012.2.205-5377
• Gupta, Ambrish. 2021. “Conceptual Design of an Attachment Based Reconfigurable Machine Tool Using Design Structure Matrix.” Preprint, Toronto Metropolitan University. https://doi.org/10.32920/ryerson.14649384.v1
• Halman, Johannes I. M., Adrian P. Hofer, and Wim van Vuuren. 2006. “Platform-Driven Development of Product Families.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_3
• Hamidreza Kasaei, S., S. Mohammadreza Kasaei, and S. Alireza Kasaei. 2010. “Design a Modular Architecture for Autonomous Soccer Robot Based on Omnidirectional Mobility with Distributed Behavior Control.” International Journal of Engineering and Technology 2 (6): 508–13. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijet.2010.v2.173
• Hamilton, Laura S. 2002. Benefits of a Statewide Student Identifier System for California. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada404459
• Han, Hyeongmin, Sehyun Chang, and Harrison Kim. 2019b. “A Weighted Set Cover Problem for Product Family Design to Maximize the Commonality of Products.” Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design 1 (1): 2951–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.302
• Han, Jae Wook, Lao Y. Nan, Aye A. Maw, and Jae W. Lee. 2025. “Bayesian Adaptive Tactical Decision Support System for Manned-Unmanned Teaming Operations.” In AIAA Aviation Forum and Ascend 2025. AIAA 2025-3795. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025-3795
• Hanratty, Michael, Robert H. Lightsey, and Arvid G. Larson. 1999. Open Systems and the Systems Engineering Process. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada372015
• Hardisty, Alex, Wouter Addink, Falko Glöckler, Anton Güntsch, Sharif Islam, and Claus Weiland. 2021. “A Choice of Persistent Identifier Schemes for the Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo).” Research Ideas and Outcomes 7. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.7.e67379
• Harland, Peter E., and Zakir Uddin. 2014. “Effects of Product Platform Development: Fostering Lean Product Development and Production.” International Journal of Product Development 19 (5/6): 259. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpd.2014.064881
• Hartel, D., J. Witt, S. Herman, and D. Mileson. 1977. Analysis of Tactical Data Links Used by the Department of Defense. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada042768
• Harvey, Katherine E. 1986. Summary of the SEI (Software Engineering Institute) Workshop on Softwear Configuration Management. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada178770
• Haspert, J. Kent, and Anthony Beauregard. 1998. The Commercialization of a Rapid Prototyping Development Tool for Real-Time Embedded Software Intensive, Process, and Resource Management Systems. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada358469
• Hata, T., S. Kato, and F. Kimura. n.d. “Design of Product Modularity for Life Cycle Management.” In Proceedings Second International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. IEEE Comput. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1109/.2001.992323
• Heberlig, J. C., and H. R. Palaoro. 1971. “The Modularization Approach to Living and Working in near Earth Space.” In AIAA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19710054024
• Heese, Hans Sebastian, and Jayashankar M. Swaminathan. 2006. “Product Line Design with Component Commonality and Cost-Reduction Effort.” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 8 (2): 206–19. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1060.0103
• Heikal, Eman A., Amin K. El-Kharbotly, and Mohammed M. El-Beheiry. 2019. “A Proposed Index to Assess Commonality among Aircraft Product Families.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 610 (1): 012082. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/610/1/012082
• Heilemann, Felix, and Felix Hollatz. 2020. “Integration of Mental Resources in the Planning of Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions: Concept, Implementation and Evaluation.” In AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum. AIAA 2020-1111. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-1111
• Helo, P. T. 2006. “Product Configuration Analysis with Design Structure Matrix.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 106 (7): 997–1011. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570610688896
• Henderson, Rebecca M., and Kim B. Clark. 1990. “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1): 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393549
• Henderson, Robert L., and Matthew W. Higer. 2007. Potential Logistics Cost Savings from Engine Commonality. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada475897
• Hendrickson, Scott A., Swaminathan Subramanian, and André van der Hoek. 2008. “Multi-Tiered Design Rationale for Change Set Based Product Line Architectures.” In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Sharing and reusing architectural knowledge. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1370062.1370073
• Heradio-Gil, R., D. Fernandez-Amoros, J. A. Cerrada, and C. Cerrada. 2011. “Supporting Commonality-Based Analysis of Software Product Lines.” IET Software 5 (6): 496–509. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-sen.2010.0022
• Herb, Ulrich. 2021. “Study on Risks and Trust in Pursuit of a Well Functioning Persistent Identifier Infrastructure.” Preprint, Front Matter. https://doi.org/10.59350/r9by3-jw679
• Herbst, Sebastian, and Andreas Klöckner. 2014. “Design-Drivers of Hybrid Mission Scenarios: Effects on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Design and Mission Management.” International Journal of Unmanned Systems Engineering 2 (3): 45–60. https://doi.org/10.14323/ijuseng.2014.11
• Hewlett, Kirstie. 2016. “Persistent Identifier Services for the Humanities.” Preprint, Front Matter. https://doi.org/10.59350/0vm23-k4320
• Hewlett, Kirstie. 2017. “Persistent Identifier Services for the Humanities.” Preprint, Front Matter. https://doi.org/10.59350/rsjrx-1x106
• Hidayat, Yosi Agustina, and Nadin Fadilla. 2025. “Vendor Managed Inventory Model Considering Degree of Component Commonality and Quality Inspection Policies.” In Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-5690-5_21
• Hill, M. R. 1973. “Standardisation in the Soviet Machine Tool Industry.” Production Engineer 52 (7–8): 248. https://doi.org/10.1049/tpe.1973.0044
• Ho, Nhut, Walter Johnson, Karanvir Panesar, et al. 2017. “Application of Human-Autonomy Teaming to an Advanced Ground Station for Reduced Crew Operations.” In Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20170011204
• Ho¨ltta¨-Otto, Katja. 2005. “Analyzing Module Commonality for Platform Design in Functional and Physical Domain.” In Volume 5a: 17th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2005-84801
• Hoek, Andre van der, Antonio Carzaniga, Dennis Heimbigner, and Alexander L. Wolf. 1998b. A Reusable, Distributed Repository for Configuration Management Policy Programming. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada454726
• Hoek, Andre van der, Dennis Heimbigner, and Alexander L. Wolf. 1995. A Generic, Peer-to-Peer Repository for Distributed Configuration Management. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada454619
• Hoek, Andre van der, Dennis Heimbigner, and Alexander L. Wolf. 1998a. Investigating the Applicability of Architecture Description in Configuration Management and Software Deployment. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada453899
• Hoek, Andre van der, Dennis Heimbigner, and Alexander L. Wolf. 1998c. Software Architecture, Configuration Management, and Configurable Distributed Systems: A Menage a Trois. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada452470
• Hoffman, P. 2010. Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC. RFC Editor. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc6014
• Hogan, Dakotah, John Elshaw, Clay Koschnick, Jonathan Ritschel, Adedeji B. Badiru, and Shawn Valentine. 2022. “Cost Estimating Using a New Learning Curve Theory for Non-Constant Production Rates.” In Handbook of Scholarly Publications from the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), Volume 1, 2000–2020. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003220978-8
• Hohnen, Thomas, Judith Pollmanns, and Jörg Feldhusen. 2013. “Cost-Effects of Product Modularity – an Approach to Describe Manufacturing Costs as a Function of Modularity.” In Lecture Notes in Production Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30817-8_73
• Hoke, Jaclyn. 2018. Emerging Technologies for Manned Unmanned Teaming. https://doi.org/10.4050/sm_helmot_2018-2577
• Holmqvist, Tobias, Magnus Persson, and Karin Uller. 2006. “Product Platform Management Practice at Cetetherm.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_22
• Holmstedt, Jason. 2023. “Development of a Modular Open Systems Approach to Achieve Power Distribution Component Commonality.” SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series 1. https://doi.org/10.4271/2024-01-4031
• Hong, Chang Woo, and Hyun Min Baek. 2025. “A Study of the Concept of AI-Based Unmanned System Maintenance for the Efficient Operation of Naval Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” Journal of the KNST 8 (3): 592–602. https://doi.org/10.31818/jknst.2025.9.8.3.592
• Hood, Greg. 1987. Concepts and Nomenclature in the World Modeling System (a Lesson in Applied Metaphysics). Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada188246
• Horowitz, Stanley A., Bruce R. Harmon, and Daniel B. Levine. 2014. Using Cost Estimating Relationships to Develop a Price Index for Tactical Aircraft. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada612975
• Hou, Liang, and Rongshen Lai. 2015. “Research on the Relationship between Feature Commonality of Generic Component and Manufacturing Cost.” In Volume 11: Systems, Design, and Complexity. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2015-50931
• Housley, R. 2013. Object Identifier Registry for the Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (LTANS) Working Group. RFC Editor. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc7036
• Housley, R. 2014a. Object Identifier Registry for the PKIX Working Group. RFC Editor. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc7299
• Housley, R. 2014b. Object Identifier Registry for the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group. RFC Editor. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc7107
• Housley, R. 2021. Update to the Object Identifier Registry for the PKIX Working Group. RFC Editor. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc9158
• Huang, Yuexiang, Chun-Hsien Chen, and Li Pheng Khoo. 2010. “A Kansei Clustering Method for Emotional Design Using Design Structure Matrix.” In Advanced Concurrent Engineering. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-024-3_13
• Huang, Yan Li, Xiang Dong Dai, and Yu Xiao. 2012b. “Product Family Development Based on a Flexible Product Platform.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 201-202: 798–803. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.201-202.798
• Huang, Kaixi, and Tao Wang. 2025. “Research on Product Modular Design Method Based on Genetic Algorithm.” In Proceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality and Interaction Design. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3777730.3777800
• Huang, Zhanjun, Yuxuan Yang, Jinkai Li, and An Zhang. 2025. “An Efficient Optimization Approach of Complex System Development Project Scheduling Based on Digital Design Structure Matrix-Genetic Algorithm.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5133030
• Hubac, Jean-Marie. 1983. “Choice of Descriptors in Numerical Taxonomy for Static and Dynamic Shape Analysis and Recognition in Biology.” In Numerical Taxonomy. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69024-2_39
• Hume, Chad, and David W. Rosen. 2012. “Identification of Platform Variables in Product Family Design Using Sensitivity Analysis.” In Volume 3: 38th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2012-71198
• Humphrey, Laura R., and Cesar A. Muñoz. n.d. “Preliminary Application of Formal Verification to an Autonomy Architecture for Unmanned Aircraft.” In 34th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20240006543
• Hwang, Jaeryong, and Min-Seok Han. 2025. “A Study on the Development of Command and Control Systems for Naval Manned-Unmanned Teaming: Focusing on the Application of HAPS.” Journal of the KNST 8 (4): 956–61. https://doi.org/10.31818/jknst.2025.12.8.4.956
• Hwang, George, Thomas Mazzuchi, and Shahram Sarkani. 2022. “Generation of MBSE Models from System Requirements.” In Open Architecture/Open Business Model Net-Centric Systems and Defense Transformation 2022, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2623360
• “Identifying Real Options to Improve the Design of Engineering Systems.” 2009. In Real Options in Engineering Design, Operations, and Management. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420071702-12
• Iman, Sina. 2025. “dPID: A Persistent Identifier for Machine Actionability.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.62891/904655e8
• Information and Documentation. Digital Object Identifier System. n.d. BSI British Standards. https://doi.org/10.3403/30177056
• Information Technology – Procedures for the Operation of Object Identifier Registration Authorities: General Procedures and Top Arcs of the International Object Identifier Tree. n.d. BSI British Standards. https://doi.org/10.3403/00305898u
• Insulation Commonality Assessment (Phase 1). Volume 2: Section 7.0 through 16.0. 1973. NASA-CR-124473. NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19740002685
• “Introduction to Design Structure Matrix Methods.” 2012. In Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8896.003.0003
• Islam, Sharif, Soulaine Theocharides, and Wouter Addink. 2022. “Zen and the Art of Persistent Identifier Service Development for Digital Specimen.” Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 6. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.6.91168
• Jacobs, Bill. 2024. Open Systems Verification as Part of Modular Open Systems Approach. https://doi.org/10.4050/sm-2024-helmot-5263
• Jacobson, David. 2004a. X-37 Flight Demonstrator: A Building Block in NASA’s Future Access to Space. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20040041355
• Jacobson, David. 2004b. X-37 Flight Demonstrator: A Building Block in NASA’s Future Access to Space; X-37 Flight Demonstrator: Orbital Vehicle Technology Development Approach. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20040041357
• James, Maurice T. 1964. “NUMERICAL TAXONOMY.” Evolution 18 (3): 513–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1964.tb01630.x
• Jelenić, Nikola. 2024. “Reimagining Modular Architecture: Bridging the Gap between Sustainable Development and Creative Design Solutions.” In 16th Architecture in Perspective/ 16. Architektura v perspektivě. Vysoká škola báňská - Technická univerzita Ostrava. https://doi.org/10.31490/9788024847856-1
• Jennings, Connor, Sangjin Jung, Timothy Simpson, Janis Terpenny, and Pongchalat Chaisiriroj. 2025. “Gini Value-Based Product Line Commonality Index for Benchmarking Product Families.” Journal of Mechanical Design 147 (11): 111402. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4069198
• Jeong, Jaeseop. 2026. “A Study on System Integration Test Procedures of Unmanned Aerial Systems for Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” Journal of Korean Institute of Information Technology 24 (8): 129–36. https://doi.org/10.14801/jkiit.2026.24.8.129
• Jeong, Jin Eun, Woohyun Kim, Hwanjeong Cho, and Kyungwon Oh. 2026. “A Study on the Application of Total Life Cycle System Management for Manned-Unmanned Teaming: Focused on SUCA and MUCCA.” Journal of the KNST 9 (2): 577–85. https://doi.org/10.31818/jknst.2026.6.9.2.577
• Ji, Hai, Qian-jin Yang, and Xin-min Han. 2013. “Product Platform Design Services Architecture and Key Technologies Based on Cloud Computing.” In The 19th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38442-4_136
• Jiang, Ping. 2009. “Product Platform Design Method Based on Axiomatic Design.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 45 (10): 216. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2009.10.216
• Jiang, Lan, and Venkat Allada. 2001. “Design for Robustness of Modular Product Families for Current and Future Markets.” In Volume 3: 6th Design for Manufacturing Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2001/dfm-21177
• Jiao, Jianxin. n.d. “Design for Mass Customization by Developing Product Family Architecture.” PhD diss., The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.14711/thesis-b603922
• Jiao, Jianxin, John K. Gershenson, and Jeremy J. Michalek. 2007. “Managing Modularity and Commonality in Product and Process Development.” Concurrent Engineering 15 (2): 81–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x07079308
• Jiao, Jianxin, and Mitchell M. Tseng. 2000a. “Fundamentals of Product Family Architecture.” Integrated Manufacturing Systems 11 (7): 469–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576060010349776
• Jiao, Jianxin Roger, and Yiyang Zhang. 2006. “Product Family Positioning.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_6
• Jiao, Jianxin Roger, Lianfeng Zhang, and Shaligram Pokharel. 2006. “Process Platform and Production Configuration for Product Families.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_16
• Joeris, Gregor. 1997. “Change Management Needs Integrated Process and Configuration Management.” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 22 (6): 125–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/267896.267907
• Johnson, Michael D., and Randolph E. Kirchain. 2013. “Developing and Assessing Commonality Metrics for Product Families.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_19
• Johnson Lim, Soon Chong, Ying Liu, and Wing Bun Lee. 2011. “A Platform Selection Approach Based on Product Family Ontology Modeling.” In Volume 5: 37th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2011-48194
• Jones, Alan R. 2018. “Unit Learning Curve – Cost Driver Segmentation.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315160092-3
• Jönsson, Henrik, and Edward Silver. 1991. “On the Commonality Problem in Multi-Stage Inventory Control Systems.” In Modern Production Concepts. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76401-1_19
• Jucevic, E. 1978. Airborne Systems Software Acquisition Engineering Guidebook for Configuration Management. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada076542
• Jung, Sangjin, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2015. “An Integrated Approach to Product Family Redesign Using Commonality and Variety Metrics.” In Volume 2B: 41st Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2015-46894
• Jung, Sangjin, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2018. “Product Family Redesign Using Additive Manufacturing.” In Volume 2B: 44th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2018-85627
• Jung, Sangjin, Timothy W. Simpson, and Christina Bloebaum. 2017. “Multi-Level Value-Driven Design Approaches for Product Family Design.” In Volume 2B: 43rd Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2017-67432
• Kamrani, Ali. 2013. “Product Variety and Manufacturing Complexity.” In Engineering and Management Innovation. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b14953-8
• Karabetsky, D. P. 2018. “Conceptual Design of Solar Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.” Electronics and Control Systems 2 (56). https://doi.org/10.18372/1990-5548.56.12938
• Karagoz, Fatma, Burak Bagdatli, Yu Cai, and Dimitri N. Mavris. 2021. “Interactive Model-Based Environment for Aircraft Family Conceptual Design Decisions.” In AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum. AIAA 2021-0092. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-0092
• Karimi, Derrick H., and Eric Werner. 2014. Open Architectures in the Defense Intelligence Community. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada613939
• Kariya, Haruki, Kazuhiro Izui, Shinji Nishiwaki, Masataka Yoshimura, Yoshiya Ogihara, and Shuichi Hayashi. 2007. “Switchgear Component Commonality Design Method Considering Delivery Lead-Time and Inventory Level.” In Volume 6: 33rd Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2007-35687
• Kässi, T., S. Leisti, and T. Puheloinen. 2008. “Impact of Product Modular Design on Agile Manufacturing.” Mechanika 74 (6): 56–62. https://doi.org/10.5755/j02.mech.15174
• Kennickell, Arthur B. 2016. “Identity, Identification and Identifiers: The Global Legal Entity Identifier System.” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2016.0 (103). https://doi.org/10.17016/feds.2016.103
• Khadke, Kiran, and John K. Gershenson. 2008. “Technology-Driven Product Platform Development.” International Journal of Product Development 6 (3/4): 353. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpd.2008.020400
• Khajavirad, Aida, and Jeremy J. Michalek. 2007a. “An Extension of the Commonality Index for Product Family Optimization.” In Volume 6: 33rd Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2007-35605
• Khajavirad, Aida, and Jeremy J. Michalek. 2007b. “A Single-Stage Gradient-Based Approach for Solving the Joint Product Family Platform Selection and Design Problem Using Decomposition.” In Volume 6: 33rd Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2007-35611
• Khajavirad, Aida, and Jeremy J. Michalek. 2008. “A Decomposed Gradient-Based Approach for Generalized Platform Selection and Variant Design in Product Family Optimization.” Journal of Mechanical Design 130 (7): 071101. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2918906
• Khajavirad, Aida, Jeremy J. Michalek, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2013. “Solving the Joint Product Platform Selection and Product Family Design Problem: An Efficient Decomposed Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm with Generalized Commonality.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_11
• Khire, Ritesh, Jiachuan Wang, Trevor Bailey, Yao Lin, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2008. “Product Family Commonality Selection through Interactive Visualization.” In Volume 1: 34th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2008-49335
• Khire, Ritesh, Jiachuan Wang, Trevor Bailey, Yao Lin, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2013. “Product Family Commonality Selection Using Optimization and Interactive Visualization.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_18
• Khreish, J., Arvind K. Sinha, and S. Atyeo. 2005. A Systems Approach to the Conceptual Design of a Vertical Take-Off Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle. https://doi.org/10.4050/vfs-f61-000104
• Kim, Samyeon. n.d. “Sustainable Product Family Design and a Platform Strategy.” PhD diss., Nanyang Technological University. https://doi.org/10.32657/10356/71358
• Kim, Insu. 2026. “Application Strategies for Manned-Unmanned Teaming(MUM-T) Systems in Army Field Units.” Krins-Quarterly 11 (1): 207–35. https://doi.org/10.46322/krinsq.11.1.7
• Kim, Kilsun, Dilip Chhajed, and Yunchuan Liu. 2013. “Can Commonality Relieve Cannibalization in Product Line Design?” Marketing Science 32 (3): 510–21. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2013.0774
• Kim, Jaewoo, Euihyeon Choi, Jaemyung Ahn, Eun Suk Suh, Jeong-Hoon Kim, and Dong Gyu Lim. 2025b. “Mathematical Programming-Based Design Structure Matrix Clustering for Optimal Modular Architecture Design.” Journal of Mechanical Design 147 (10): 101401. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4068100
• Kim, Jinju, and Harrison M. Kim. 2020. “Impact of Generational Commonality of Short Life Cycle Products in Manufacturing and Remanufacturing Processes.” Journal of Mechanical Design 142 (12): 122001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4047092
• Kim, Gaeul, and Dohoon Kim. 2026. “Threat Analysis and Assessment Based on a Collaboration Interface for Manned-Unmanned Teaming Systems.” Computers, Materials & Continua 0 (0): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2026.078931
• Kim, Gwang, Yunjung Kwon, Eun Suk Suh, and Jaemyung Ahn. 2016. “Analysis of Architectural Complexity for Product Family and Platform.” In Volume 2B: 42nd Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2016-59145
• Kim, Byul, and Choonjoo Lee. 2022. “Combat Effectiveness Analysis of Manned-Unmanned Teaming System Using Agent-Based Modeling.” Journal of The Korean Institute of Defense Technology 4 (4): 010–018. https://doi.org/10.52682/jkidt.2022.4.4.10
• Kim, Jinju, Michael Saidani, and Harrison M. Kim. 2020. “Optimal Product Family Architecture Design and Commonality Decision for Sustainability and Intellectual Property Protection.” In Volume 11B: 46th Design Automation Conference (DAC). American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2020-22488
• Kim, Jinju, Michael Saidani, and Harrison Kim. 2021. “Optimal Product Family Architecture Design and Commonality Decision for Sustainability and Intellectual Property Protection.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.1115/1.0002055v
• Kimita, Koji, Johannes Matschewsky, and Tomohiko Sakao. 2021. “A Practical Approach for Managing Uncertainty in Remanufacturing: Identifying Leverage Points Using Design Structure Matrix.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.1115/1.0001745v
• Kline, Robert, and Tovey Bachman. 2006. “Estimating Spare Parts Requirements with Commonality for Human Space Missions.” In Space 2006. AIAA 2006-7233. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-7233
• Kneece Jr., R. R. MacCarthy, Mandelbaum John E., O’Neil Jay, Porter William D., and Gene H. 2014. Implementing Effective Affordability Constraints for Defense Acquisition Programs. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada606290
• Kögel, Maximilian. 2008. “Towards Software Configuration Management for Unified Models.” In Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Comparison and versioning of software models. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1370152.1370158
• Kohn, Spencer C. 2022. Human-Machine Interface for Manned-Unmanned Teaming. https://doi.org/10.4050/sm-2022-helmot-5285
• Kokkolaras, Michael, Ryan Fellini, Harrison M. Kim, and Panos Y. Papalambros. 2006. “Analytical Target Cascading in Product Family Design.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_11
• Kölmel, B., and J. Eisenbiegler. 2001. “Impact of Configuration Management.” In Managing the Change: Software Configuration and Change Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56614-1_7
• Koo, Bonsang. 2013. “Using Real Options to Value the Flexibility of Engineering Management Decisions in Infrastructure Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management 3 (1): 10–13. https://doi.org/10.6106/jcepm.2013.3.1.010
• Korecki, Zbyšek, and Tomáš Hoika. 2026. “Manned–unmanned Teaming and Collaborative Combat Aircraft.” Transport Problems 21 (2): 101–12. https://doi.org/10.20858/tp.2026.21.2.08
• Kota, Sridhar, and Kannan Sethuraman. 1998. “Managing Variety in Product Families through Design for Commonality.” In Volume 3: 10th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc98/dtm-5651
• Kota, Sridhar, Kannan Sethuraman, and Raymond Miller. 1998. “A Metric for Evaluating Design Commonality in Product Families.” Journal of Mechanical Design 122 (4): 403–10. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1320820
• Kourtis, Georgios Konstantinos, Lars Hvam, Anders Haug, Sara Helene Markworth Johnsen, and Mariana Fernandez Correa. 2026. “PCAT: A Software System for Cross-Product Commonality Analysis in Engineer-to-Order Manufacturing.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202603.1124.v1
• Kovach, Nicholas, Benjamin Natarian, and Kenneth Littlejohn. 2021. “The Rise of Open Architectures in the U.S. Department of Defense.” In Open Architecture/Open Business Model Net-Centric Systems and Defense Transformation 2021, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2589701
• Krause, Dieter, Gregor Beckmann, Sandra Eilmus, Nicolas Gebhardt, Henry Jonas, and Robin Rettberg. 2013. “Integrated Development of Modular Product Families: A Methods Toolkit.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_10
• Krause, D., and S. Eilmus. 2011. “Methodical Support for the Development of Modular Product Families.” In The Future of Design Methodology. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-615-3_3
• Krause, Dieter, and Nicolas Gebhardt. 2023a. “Methods for the Development of Modular Product Families.” In Methodical Development of Modular Product Families. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65680-8_6
• Krause, Dieter, and Nicolas Gebhardt. 2023b. “The Potential of Modular Product Families.” In Methodical Development of Modular Product Families. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65680-8_4
• Krishnan, V. 2008. “Economic Models of Product Family Design and Development.” In Handbook of New Product Development Management. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7506-8552-8.50007-4
• Krueger, Charles W. 2015. “Mechanical Product Lifecycle Management Meets Product Line Engineering.” In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2791060.2791109
• Kruse, F., and T. Gries. 2011. “Standardisation of Production Technologies for Non-Crimp Fabric Composites.” In Non-Crimp Fabric Composites. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857092533.1.42
• Ku, Sang-wuk. 2014. “Platform Strategy for New Product Development: The Mediating Effect of Product Platform Strategy in the Korean High Technology Industry.” Journal of Distribution and Management Research 17 (2): 17–28. https://doi.org/10.17961/jdmr.17.2.201405.17
• Kumar, Rupesh, Venkat Allada, and Sreeram Ramakrishnan. 2004. “Ant Colony Optimization Method for Product Platform Formation.” In Volume 1: 30th Design Automation Conference. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2004-57195
• Kwak, Minjung, and Harrison Kim. 2013. “Product Family Design and Recovery for Lifecycle.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_28
• Kwapisz, Jakub, Virginia Infante, and Bruce G. Cameron. 2019. “Commonality Opportunity Search in Industrial Product Portfolios.” International Journal of Technology Management 81 (3/4): 258. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2019.105318
• Labro, Eva. 2004. “The Cost Effects of Component Commonality: A Literature Review through a Management-Accounting Lens.” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 6 (4): 358–67. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1040.0047
• Lancaster, Kelvin. 1998. “Markets and Product Variety Management.” In International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5579-7_1
• Lane, Thomas G. 1990. A Design Space and Design Rules for User Interface Software Architecture. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada237049
• Lange, Mark W., and Andrea Imsdahl. 2013. “Modular Function Deployment: Using Module Drivers to Impart Strategies to a Product Architecture.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_4
• Larsson, Tobias, and Johan Åslund. 2001. “ValueMap™: A Method for Understanding the Economical Potential of Product Modularisation and Cost of Variety.” In Design for Configuration. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56905-0_18
• le Maistre, C. 1933. “Standardisation in Relation to Production Engineering.” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 532. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0046
• Learning Curves: Production Breaks/Lost Learning. 2015. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118802342.ch12
• Learning Curves: Production Breaks/Lost Learning. 2026. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394298075.ch12
• Lee, Jaegul. 2012. “Post-Dominant Design Technological Shift: Analysis of Subsystem-Level Evolution of Complex Product.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2012 (1): 15242. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2012.216
• Lee, Bohyung, and Seokjae Jeong. 2025. “Simulation-based analysis of operational effectiveness using army weapon effectiveness analysis model of attack helicopter through manned–unmanned teaming (MUM-T) in plain, urban, and mountainous terrains environments.” Journal of Advances in Military Studies 8 (2): 43–66. https://doi.org/10.37944/jams.v8i2.284
• Lee, Changju, and Dongsu Kang. 2025. “Design and Evaluation of Manned-Unmanned Teaming Aircraft Strike Package Operational Architecture by Using MND-AF.” Journal of the Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences 53 (3): 329–40. https://doi.org/10.5139/jksas.2025.53.3.329
• Lee, Jongkwan, and Jongdeog Lee. 2026. “A Federated Learning-Based Secure MIMO Channel State Information Acquisition Scheme for Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) Environments.” Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering 30 (8): 1431–40. https://doi.org/10.6109/jkiice.2026.30.8.1431
• Lee, Jinsung, and Jongchul Na. 2023. “Required Capabilities for Maritime Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” Journal of the KNST 6 (3): 308–13. https://doi.org/10.31818/jknst.2023.09.6.3.308
• Lee, Jeongmu, and Sunjun Park. 2024. “A Study on the Development of the Manned-Unmanned Teaming: Focusing on the Hyper-Connectivity Technology.” Journal of the KNST 7 (2): 199–205. https://doi.org/10.31818/jknst.2024.6.7.2.199
• Lee, Jane, Myung Hwan Yun, and Cheolkyu Jee. 2025b. “Tracing Stakeholder Decisions in a Human-AI Teaming Interface: From Design Trade-Offs to User Experience in Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5957275
• Lehnert, Kerstin, Jens Klump, Lesley Wyborn, and Sarah Ramdeen. 2019. “Persistent, Global, Unique: The Three Key Requirements for a Trusted Identifier System for Physical Samples.” Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 3: e37334. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.37334
• Lei, Ningrong. n.d. “Data-Driven Product Family Design for Additive Manufacturing.” PhD diss., Nanyang Technological University. https://doi.org/10.32657/10356/66496
• Lemieux, P. 2014. Entertainment Identifier Registry (EIDR) URN Namespace Definition. RFC Editor. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc7302
• Lemieux, P. 2016. Entertainment Identifier Registry (EIDR) URN Namespace Definition. RFC Editor. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc7972
• Lewkowicz, RAFAŁ. 2026. “The Role of Aerospace Medicine in Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” Polish Journal of Aviation Medicine, Bioengineering and Psychology 31 (2): 35–44. https://doi.org/10.13174/pjambp.25.05.2026.04
• Li, Baishu. 2010. “Sensitivity Analysis-Based Method for Product Family Design.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 46 (15): 117. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2010.15.117
• Li, Simon, and Li Chen. 2008. “A Unified Framework for Decomposition of Design Structure Matrix and Domain Mapping Matrix.” In Volume 1: 34th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2008-49542
• Lim, Ching Moi. n.d. “A Real Options Framework for Platform-Based Product Family Design.” PhD diss., Nanyang Technological University. https://doi.org/10.32657/10356/5268
• Lim, Soon Chong Johnson, Han Tong Loh, and Ying Liu. 2010. “User Interface Design for Interactive Product Family Analysis and Variants Derivation.” In Volume 1: 36th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2010-28390
• Lin, Yi. 2004. “Plm-Based Product Platform-the 21ST Century Product R&D Strategy for Mc.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 40 (01): 114. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2004.01.114
• Liu, Xize. 2012. “Product Platform Design Method Based on Complex Network and Axiomatic Design.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 48 (11): 86. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2012.11.086
• Liu, Yang. 2016. “Global Standardisation Strategy and New Product Development in MNCs: Approaches and Evolution.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2016 (1): 13170. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.13170abstract
• Lundberg, Robert H. 1956. “Learning Curve Theory as Applied to Production Costs.” SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series. https://doi.org/10.4271/560066
• Luo, Xinggang, Jiafu Tang, and C. K. Kwong. 2013. “A QFD-Based Optimization Method for Scalable Product Platform.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_14
• Lyke, James C., Christian Peters, Derek Buckley, and Zachary Bergstedt. 2019. “Modular Open Systems Architecture for Optical Networks in Spacecraft.” In Open Architecture/Open Business Model Net-Centric Systems and Defense Transformation 2019, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2519920
• Lyons, Andrew, Lucy Everington, Jorge Hernandez, and Dong Li. 2012. The Implications of Product Variety for Supply Network Design. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118607077.ch2
• Lyons, Joseph B., Christopher A. Miller, Jay Shively, Nancy J. Cooke, Col. Dan “Animal” Javorsek, and Phillip Walker. 2021. “Manned-Unmanned Teaming: Research and Applications Panel.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 65 (1): 321–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181321651026
• Ma, Yao, Donald Docimo, and Victor Maldonado. 2021. “Preliminary Design and Dynamics of a Semi-Expendable Unmanned Ground-Aerial Vehicle.” In AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum. AIAA 2021-3194. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3194
• Ma, Jungmok, and Harrison M. Kim. 2014. “Predictive, Data-Driven Product Family Design.” In Volume 2A: 40th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2014-34753
• Maccari, A. 2002a. “Experiences in Assessing Product Family Software Architecture for Evolution.” In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2002. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2002.1008003
• Maccari, Alessandro. 2002b. “Experiences in Assessing Product Family Software Architecture for Evolution.” In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Software engineering - ICSE ‘02. ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/581413.581414
• MacDuffie, John Paul, Kannan Sethuraman, and Marshall L. Fisher. 1996. “Product Variety and Manufacturing Performance: Evidence from the International Automotive Assembly Plant Study.” Management Science 42 (3): 350–69. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.3.350
• Maddux, Gary A. 1999. Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages Research and Support. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada374459
• Majd, Saman, and Robert Pindyck. 1987. The Learning Curve and Optimal Production under Uncertainty. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w2423
• Majerus, J. N., R. P. Smith, and S. M. Yao. 1999. “Component-Commonality via Hierarchical Orthogonal Arrays and Refining: Economic Decision Matrices.” In Volume 1: 25th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc99/dac-8574
• Maldonado, Victor, Prithviraj Sarker, and Souma Chowdhury. 2017. “A Modular Design Approach to a Reconfigurable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.” In AIAA Information Systems-AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace. AIAA 2017-0224. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-0224
• Malhotra, Mohit K., Ashwini Ratnoo, and Vijay Patel. 2024. “Target Prosecution Using Manned-Unmanned Teaming of Aircraft.” In AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum. AIAA 2024-2751. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024-2751
• Management, G-33 Configuration. 2014a. Configuration Identification. https://doi.org/10.4271/cmb6_3
• Management, G-33 Configuration. 2014b. Configuration Identification for Digital Computer Programs. https://doi.org/10.4271/cmb4_2
• Mandelbaum, Jay, Royce R. Kneece, and Danny L. Reed. 2008. A Partnership between Value Engineering and the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages Community to Reduce Ownership Costs. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada488056
• Mannion, Mike, and Juha Savolainen. 2014. “Mapping Product Line Requirements to a Product Line Architecture.” In Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference - Volume 1. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2648511.2648559
• Marchese, A. J. 1963. X-22A Tri-Service V/STOL Aircraft. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad0442887
• Martin, Mark V., and Kosuke Ishii. 2000. “Design for Variety: A Methodology for Developing Product Platform Architectures.” In Volume 3: 5th Design for Manufacturing Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2000/dfm-14021
• Martinez-Larrosa, J. A., and Z. Siddique. 2026. “CAD Support for Product Family Design Using Parametrics, Mating Relationships, and Modularity.” In Advances in Concurrent Engineering. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003762416-71
• Martini, José Nilton, and Fernando Antônio Forcellini. 2015. “A Metric to Assist the Product Families Architecture Definition.” Product Management & Development 13 (1): 13–21. https://doi.org/10.4322/pmd.2015.002
• Martinis, J. 1990. “Softool Change/configuration Management.” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 15 (3): 51. https://doi.org/10.1145/101114.101119
• Mathur, Kirti, and Amber Jain. 2011. “Assessment of Versioning Paradigms with Respect to Software Configuration Management.” Indian Journal of Applied Research 3 (6): 298–300. https://doi.org/10.15373/2249555x/june2013/99
• Matinlassi, M. 2004. “Evaluating the Portability and Maintainability of Software Product Family Architecture: Terminal Software Case Study.” In Proceedings. Fourth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2004). IEEE Comput. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1109/wicsa.2004.1310713
• Matthews, Bob, and Tom Dubois. 2021. “Creating a Sustainable MOSA Market That Maximizes Cost, Schedule, and Performance Benefits.” In Open Architecture/Open Business Model Net-Centric Systems and Defense Transformation 2021, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2588167
• Mayall, W. H. 1983. “Standardisation and Quality in Relation to Industrial Design.” In Industrial Design in Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-12057-6_15
• Maze, Jack. 1966. “A Conceptual Framework for Taxonomy, and Numerical Taxonomy-A Brief Comment.” Systematic Zoology 15 (3): 249. https://doi.org/10.2307/2411399
• Mazzola, Joseph B., and Kevin F. McCardle. 1997. “The Stochastic Learning Curve: Optimal Production in the Presence of Learning-Curve Uncertainty.” Operations Research 45 (3): 440–50. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.45.3.440
• McClure, Jo E. 1977. Automatic Cannon Manufacturing Cost Estimating Relationship. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada041183
• McNeill, J. 1984. “Numerical Taxonomy and Biosystematics.” In Plant Biosystematics. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-295680-5.50030-5
• McNicol, David L., and Linda Wu. 2014. Evidence on the Effect of DoD Acquisition Policy and Process on Cost Growth of Major Defense Acquisition Programs. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada609472
• Mead, Nancy R. 2003. Requirements Engineering for Survivable Systems. Networked Systems Survivability. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada418410
• Mehmood, Waqar, Nadir Shah, and Ehsan Munir. 2013. “Versioning and Evolution Control of Models in Software Configuration Management System.” Research Journal of Information Technology 5 (3): 72–80. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjit.5.5790
• Melber, Adam, Jason Dirner, and Michael Johnson. 2015. “Modular Open RF Architecture: Extending VICTORY to RF Systems.” In SPIE Proceedings, vol. 9479, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2182616
• Messac, Achille, Souma Chowdhury, and Ritesh Khire. 2013. “One-Step Continuous Product Platform Planning: Methods and Applications.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_12
• Messac, Achille, Michael P. Martinez, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2000. “Effective Product Family Design Using Physical Programming and the Product Platform Concept Exploration Method.” In Volume 2: 26th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2000/dac-14252
• Meyer, Marc H., Tucker James Marion, and Frido Smulders. 2014. “Organizing to Effect Modular Architecture in Product Development.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2014 (1): 13723. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.13723abstract
• Meyer, Carsten, and Axel Schulte. 2022. “Implementation and Evaluation of Pilot Controlled, Reactive UAV Behaviors in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Scenarios with Selective Datalink Availability.” In AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum. AIAA 2022-2525. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-2525
• Michelson, Stuart, and Jean Charles Domerçant. 2019. “Concepts for Manned Unmanned Teaming Behaviors in Model Based Systems Engineering.” SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series 1. https://doi.org/10.4271/2024-01-3778
• Military Standard Configuration Management. 1993. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada297556
• Milne, Alistair, and Ka Kei Chan. 2019. “The Global Legal Entity Identifier System: How Can It Deliver?” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201902.0075.v1
• Ming Dong, Dong Yang, and Yile Wang. 2010. “Optimal Decisions in Product Modularity Design Using Real Option Approach.” Concurrent Engineering 18 (1): 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x09359552
• Mirchandani, Prakash, and Ajay K. Mishra. 2002. “Component Commonality: Models with Product-Specific Service Constraints.” Production and Operations Management 11 (2): 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2002.tb00491.x
• Missouri Univ-Rolla. 1988. A Guide to Understanding Configuration Management in Trusted Systems. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada385568
• “Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles.” n.d. Accessed October 24, 2026. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/412015l.pdf
• “Model-Based Assessment of Variety-Induced Cost of Complexity in Modular Product Families.” 2025. In DS 140: Proceedings of the 36th Symposium Design for X (DFX2025). The Design Society. https://doi.org/10.35199/dfx2025.13
• “Model-Driven, Aspect-Oriented Product Line Engineering: An Industrial Case Study.” 2009. In Applied Software Product Line Engineering. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420068429-24
• Modrak, Vladimir, and Slavomir Bednar. 2016. “Chapter Seven Product Variety Management Assuming Product Configuration Conflicts.” In Mass Customized Manufacturing. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315398983-8
• Modrak, V., and Z. Soltysova. 2021. “Modularity Measurement as a Crucial Design Element.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1174 (1): 012002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1174/1/012002
• “The Modular Operators.” 2000. In Design Rules. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2366.003.0007
• Mohr, Stefan. 2002. “Product Variety Management.” In Store Performance Optimization. Deutscher Universitätsverlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-99300-7_4
• Moon, Seung Ki, KyoungJong Park, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2011. “Platform Strategy for Product Family Design Using Particle Swarm Optimization.” In Volume 5: 37th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2011-48060
• Moon, Seung Ki, and Timothy Simpson. 2010. “Platform Valuation for Product Family Design in an Uncertain Market Environment.” In 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conference. AIAA 2010-9227. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-9227
• Moon, Seung Ki, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2013. “Platform Valuation for Product Family Design.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_7
• Moon, Seung Ki, Timothy W. Simpson, and Soundar R. T. Kumara. 2009. “Market-Based Strategic Platform Design for a Product Family Using a Bayesian Game.” In Handbook of Research in Mass Customization and Personalization. World Scientific Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814280280_0018
• Morales, Carlos O. 2013a. “Design Principles for Reusable Software Product Platforms.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_21
• Morales, Carlos O. 2013b. “A Heuristic Approach to Architectural Design of Software-Intensive Product Platforms.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_26
• Morris, Jeff, and Mark Steiner. 2006. “Product Architecture Navigation Integration Tool: Redesign towards Modular Architecture.” In Volume 4a: 18th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, vol. 2006. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2006-99507
• Moskovich, Jacob. 1978. “The Design of a Family of Wide Angle Lenses Having a Commonality of Parts.” In SPIE Proceedings, vol. 0147, edited by Robert E. Fischer. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.956635
• Motzet, Guenter, David A. Gwaltney, Guenther Bauer, Mirko Jakovljevic, and Leonard Gagea. 2006. Time Triggered Protocol (TTP) for Integrated Modular Avionics. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20070001979
• Mukhtar, Wasif, and Ravi Kumar Agarwal. 2009. “Phased Investment Planning: Applying Real Options Valuation to a Small Manufacturing Firm.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1491475
• Müller, Wilmuth, Florian Segor, Dirk Mühlenberg, et al. 2023. “Interoperability of Armed Forces Unmanned Systems: The INTERACT Project.” In Open Architecture/Open Business Model Net-Centric Systems and Defense Transformation 2023, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2663145
• “Multiple-View Requirements Models for Software Product Line Engineering.” 2009. In Applied Software Product Line Engineering. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420068429-16
• Murmann, Johann Peter, and Koen Frenken. 2005. “Toward a Systematic Framework for Research on Dominant Designs, Technological Innovations, and Industrial Change.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.737063
• Nakao, Masayuki, and Kenji Iino. 2021. “Axiomatic Design Application to Product Family Design.” In Design Engineering and Science. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49232-8_13
• Nanda, Jyotirmaya, Henri J. Thevenot, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2005. “Product Family Representation and Redesign: Increasing Commonality Using Formal Concept Analysis.” In Volume 2: 31st Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2005-84818
• Nasrullah, Nasrullah, Teguh Gondomono, Ratna Gunarti, and Suharyanto Suharyanto. 2025. “Mengenal Persistent Identifier URN:NBN: Solusi Identifikasi Sumber Daya Digital Di Perpustakaan Nasional.” Media Pustakawan 32 (3): 230–44. https://doi.org/10.37014/medpus.v32i3.5346
• Navarro Gonzalez, Ivan. 2022. “Linking Constraints in Idea Generation Theory with Standardisation in Product and Service Innovation.” Journal of Standardisation. https://doi.org/10.18757/jos.2022.6744
• Nayak, Raviraj U., Wei Chen, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2000. “A Variation-Based Methodology for Product Family Design.” In Volume 2: 26th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2000/dac-14264
• Nelson, George C. 2017. International Standard Payload Rack to International Space Station, Software Interface Control Document Part 1: International Space Station Program Revision M. JSC-E-DAA-TN60595. NASA Johnson Space Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20180007272
• Nelson, Sigurd A., Matthew B. Parkinson, and Panos Y. Papalambros. 1999. “Multicriteria Optimization in Product Platform Design.” In Volume 1: 25th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc99/dac-8676
• Nelson, Sigurd A., Matthew B. Parkinson, and Panos Y. Papalambros. 2000. “Multicriteria Optimization in Product Platform Design.” Journal of Mechanical Design 123 (2): 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1355775
• Neto, João Choma, Thelma Elita Colanzi, and Aline Maria Malachini Miotto Amaral. 2017. “Application of Memetic Algorithms in the Search-Based Product Line Architecture Design: An Exploratory Study.” In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.5220/0006363201780189
• Neubauer, Catherine, Anthony Baker, Sean Fitzhugh, and Andrea Krausman. 2022. Human-Autonomy Teaming Trust Toolkit (HAT3)Executive Summary. DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad1189513
• Neubauer, Catherine, Anthony Baker, Sean Fitzhugh, and Andrea Krausman. 2023. Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT3) Trust Toolkit Software Development Documentation and User Guide. DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad1197383
• Neufeld, Daniel, and Joon Chung. 2005. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Conceptual Design Using a Genetic Algorithm and Data Mining.” In Infotech@Aerospace. AIAA 2005-7051. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-7051
• Nidamarthi, Srinivas, and Harshavardhan Karandikar. 2006. “Architecting and Implementing Profitable Product Families and Shared Engineering Platforms.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_20
• Ninan, Jiju A., Mahesh Shenoy, Gaurav Bansal, et al. 2024. “Product Development through Cyclic and Evolving Markets: An Application of Product Platform and Product Family Design Principles.” In Offshore Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.4043/35377-ms
• Ninan, Jiju A., and Zahed Siddique. 2013. “Cascading Platforms for Product Family Design.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_15
• Niutanen, Valtteri, and Kevin Otto. 2017. “Field Isolation as a Basis for Modular Product Architecture.” In Volume 2B: 43rd Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2017-67751
• Nomaguchi, Yutaka, Satoshi Idaka, and Kikuo Fujita. 2004. “Research on Structuring Design Methods of Product Architecture and Product Family.” Proceedings of Design & Systems Conference 2004.14 (0): 363–66. https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmedsd.2004.14.363
• “Numerical Taxonomic Methods.” 2024. In Organizational Systematics. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.13167951.15
• “Numerical Taxonomy and Cluster Analysis.” 1994. In Sage eBooks. SAGE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986397.n3
• “Numerical Taxonomy. the Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification.Peter H. a. Sneath, Robert R. Sokal.” 1975. Quarterly Review of Biology 50 (4): 525–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/408956
• O’brien, Mark, and Rita Colwell. 1988. “2 Characterization Tests for Numerical Taxonomy Studies.” In Methods in Microbiology. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0580-9517(08)70408-2
• Oh, Kwansuk, Yoo S. Hong, and Jongwook Lim. 2026. “Variant-Level Interface Standardization Methodology for Complexity Reduction in Product Family Design.” Journal of Mechanical Design 148 (11): 111705. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4071954
• Oh, Kwansuk, Jongwook Lim, and Yoo Suk Hong. 2022. “Variation Architecture for Reducing Unnecessary Variants in Modular Product Family Design by Domain Mapping and Variant-Level Planning.” Concurrent Engineering 31 (1–2): 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x221137831
• Ohvanainen, Jukka, and Esa Hietikko. 2012. “Building Competitive Advantage through Platform-Based Product Family Thinking: Case Powerpacks.” Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.438
• Optimization Techniques for Multi-Core Integrated Modular Avionics. 2025. https://doi.org/10.37285/bsp.sacad2025.74
• Orhan, Hediye, Esma Nisa Candan, Alperen Eroğlu, and Hüseyin Haklı. 2026. “Intent-Based Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control: Enabling Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Autonomy through Large Language Model-Based Digital Twin Control.” In Digital Twins. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-45573-5.00002-1
• “Origins of Real Options in Engineering.” 2009. In Real Options in Engineering Design, Operations, and Management. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420071702-7
• Ortiz, Alberto. 1992. System Engineering Concept Demonstration, Process Model. Volume 3. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada265469
• Ostrosi Egon, Stjepandić Josip, Fukuda Shuichi, and Kurth Martin. 2014. “Modularity: New Trends for Product Platform Strategy Support in Concurrent Engineering.” In Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-440-4-414
• Otto, Kevin, Katja Hölttä-Otto, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2013. “Linking 10 Years of Modular Design Research: Alternative Methods and Tool Chain Sequences to Support Product Platform Design.” In Volume 3B: 39th Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2013-12523
• Otto, Kevin, Katja Hölttä-Otto, Timothy W. Simpson, Dieter Krause, Sebastian Ripperda, and Seung Ki Moon. 2016. “Global Views on Modular Design Research: Linking Alternative Methods to Support Modular Product Family Concept Development.” Journal of Mechanical Design 138 (7): 071101. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033654
• “Overview of Gbom Formation for Product Configuration through Data Mining in Mass Customisation’s Product Family Architecture.” 2016. International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development 3 (03). https://doi.org/10.21090/ijaerd.030383
• Özkaya, Mert, and Alper Turunc. 2025. “Towards a Classification Framework for the Digital Twin Tools: A Taxonomy.” In International Conference on Model-Based Software and Systems Engineering (MODELSWARD). https://doi.org/10.5220/0013239900003896
• Padilla, Marcell, Scott Wigginton, and Jeff Nelson. 2025. “A Digital Backbone Installed in the RASCAL-X Experimental UH-60M for Rapid Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) Integrations.” In Proceedings of the Vertical Flight Society 81st Annual Forum and Technology Display. The Vertical Flight Society. https://doi.org/10.4050/f-0081-2025-0189
• Paglialonga, Lisa, and Carsten Schirnick. 2020. Ready to Use Implementation of Project’s Data Portal with Catalogue for Findability, Common Services (SFTP,OPeNDAP) and Persistent Identifier for Accessibility and Interoperability. OceanNETs. https://doi.org/10.3289/oceannets_d8.2
• Pandey, Vijitashwa, Deborah Thurston, and Zissimos P. Mourelatos. 2011. “On a Probabilistic View of Commonality for Product Evolution and Reuse.” In Volume 9: 23rd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; 16th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2011-48616
• Pandit, Amar, and Zahed Siddique. 2004. “A Tool to Integrate Design for Assembly during Product Platform Design.” In Computers and Information in Engineering. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2004-61315
• Park, Byung Joon. 2021. “The Role of Manufacturing Flexibility Strategy on Product Platform Development.” International Journal of Integrated Supply Management 14 (4): 428. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijism.2021.118564
• Park, Jaeil, and Dongmin Shin. 2007. “A Product Platform Development Method Using QFD.” In Volume 6: 33rd Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2007-34622
• Park, Jaeil, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2006. “An Activity-Based Costing Method to Support Product Family Design.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_14
• Park, Myunghwan, Seunghoon Yoo, Jihyon Oh, and Hyeonju Seol. 2022. “The Development of Air Escort Tactics for High-Value Airborne Assets Using Manned-Unmanned Teaming and the Study on Effective Force Disposition Using M&S.” Journal of the Korea Institute of Military Science and Technology 25 (4): 401–11. https://doi.org/10.9766/kimst.2022.25.4.401
• Parrish, William F., Jr. 1978. Acquisition Cost Estimating Using Simulation. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada093689
• Pasche, Maximilian, and Martin Sköld. 2012. “Potential Drawbacks of Component Commonality in Product Platform Development.” International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management 12 (1): 92. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijatm.2012.046006
• Paskin, Norman. 1999. “The Digital Object Identifier System: Digital Technology Meets Content Management.” Interlending & Document Supply 27 (1): 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/02641619910255829
• Patria, Garett S. 2013. Development of a Model-Based Systems Engineering Application for the Ground Vehicle Robotics Sustainment Industrial Base. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada580558
• Pedersen, Peter-Christian, and Dmitrij Slepniov. 2016. “Management of the Learning Curve: A Case of Overseas Production Capacity Expansion.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 36 (1): 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-08-2013-0365
• Pericon, L. S. 2024. Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T): How Far Can i Trust My Team Member and on What Is This Trust Based?. https://doi.org/10.52202/075106-0011
• Peters, Robert, Brooke McDonald, Robin Mikola, and Macam S. Dattathreya. 2022. “Model Based Approaches for Systems Implementing Modular Open System Approach (MOSA).” SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series 1. https://doi.org/10.4271/2024-01-3968
• Peterson, R. 1971. Fftf Design Flexibility for Hypothetical Accident Mitigation.. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/4628233
• Pfeifer, Marcel Rolf. 2019. “Computer-Aided Standardisation for Manufacturing and Maintenance Activities.” Technological Engineering 16 (1): 22–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/teen-2019-0004
• “PID Service – an Advanced Persistent Identifier Management Service for the Semantic Web.” 2015. In International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM). https://doi.org/10.36334/modsim.2015.c8.golodoniuc
• Piligian, M. S., C. J. Bashaw, and J. L. Pokorney. 1968. Configuration Management of Computer Program Contract End Items. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad0666652
• Pillai, V. R. 1956. “Standardisation of Production of Large Scale Industry.” Indian Economic Journal 4 (2): 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019466219560201
• Pindyck, Robert S., and Saman Majd. 1996. Learning Curve and Optimal Production under Uncertainty– Computer Program: Version 1. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). https://doi.org/10.3886/icpsr01027.v1
• Pinson, J., and J. Ryan. 1972. “Investigation of the Commonality in Development of Military and Commercial STOL Transports.” In 4th Aircraft Design, Flight Test, and Operations Meeting. AIAA 1972-808. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1972-808
• Pirmoradi, Zhila, and G. Gary Wang. 2011. “Recent Advancements in Product Family Design and Platform-Based Product Development: A Literature Review.” In Volume 5: 37th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2011-47959
• Pirmoradi, Zhila, G. Gary Wang, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2013. “A Review of Recent Literature in Product Family Design and Platform-Based Product Development.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_1
• Pisch, Ernst, Yuanfang Cai, Rick Kazman, Jason Lefever, and Hongzhou Fang. 2024. “M-Score: An Empirically Derived Software Modularity Metric.” In Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3674805.3686697
• Plant, Chris. 2017. “The Role of Standardisation and Modularization in Reducing the Cost of Subsea Electrical Connectors.” In Offshore Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.4043/27832-ms
• Pletsch, Marius. 2021. “Mensch-Maschine – EU-Großprojekte Zum Manned-Unmanned-Teaming.” Wissenschaft & Frieden 39 (4 Dossier 93): 13–16. https://doi.org/10.5771/0947-3971-2021-4-dossier-93-13
• Powers, Sidney, and Harvey Schellenger. 1989. “The X-31: High Performance at Low Cost.” In Aircraft Design and Operations Meeting. AIAA 1989-2122. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1989-2122
• Prinzel, Lawrence J., III, Jon B. Holbrook, Kyle E. Ellis, et al. n.d. “Designing for Advanced Aerial Mobility: Human-Autonomy Teaming and in-Time System-Wide Safety Assurance.” In AIAA SciTech 2021. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205002576
• “Product Development by Using Modular Design Structure Matrix.” 2015. In International Conference on Advancements and Recent Innovations in Mechanical, Production and Industrial Engineering. ELK Asia Pacific Journals. https://doi.org/10.16962/elkapj/si.arimpie-2015.58
• “A Product Family Design Reuse Methodology.” 2008. In Series on Manufacturing Systems and Technology. WORLD SCIENTIFIC. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812832634_0008
• Programme Management. Configuration Management: Configuration Identification. n.d. BSI British Standards. https://doi.org/10.3403/30322449
• Pudge, W. M. 1933. “Standardisation. Part IV: Can Standards Assist the Production Engineer, and If So What Should Be Standardised?” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 602. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0055
• Qian, Li. 2011a. “Effect of Supplier Profit Rate, Cost Reduction, and Component Commonality on the Supply Chain Performance under Stochastic and Price-Dependent Demand.” International Journal of Services Operations and Informatics 6 (4): 332. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsoi.2011.045572
• Qian, Li. 2011b. “Effect of Supplier Profit Rate, Procedure Cost Reduce, and Component Commonality on the Supply Chain Performance under Stochastic and Price-Dependent Demand.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1819622
• Qiao, Li, Mahmoud Efatmaneshnik, and Michael Ryan. 2018. “SMACOF Hierarchical Clustering to Manage Complex Design Problems with the Design Structure Matrix.” In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02886-2_5
• Qiu, Lemiao. 2010. “Technology of Planning for Complex Product Configuration Design Process Based on Dynamic Design Structure Matrix.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 46 (07): 136. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2010.07.136
• Qiu, Lijun, Linyu Fu, Qi Dong, Chongyi Liu, Kun Xian, and Xinhua Weng. 2018. “Research on Configuration Optimization of Multi-Echelon Inventory Based on Component Commonality.” In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Computer Science, Electronics and Communication Engineering (CSECE 2018). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/csece-18.2018.87
• Quantick, Philip E. 2001. Configuration Management of the L96 and L97 Grenades. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada393005
• Quesne, Walter J. Le. 1969. “A Method of Selection of Characters in Numerical Taxonomy.” Systematic Zoology 18 (2): 201. https://doi.org/10.2307/2412604
• Quinlan, Jesse. n.d. “Revolutionizing Aircraft Design and Technology Assessment through Digital Engineering.” In AIAA SciTech Forum. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20240016396
• Rahmat, Muhammad, Aakil Mohammad Caunhye, and Michel-Alexandre Cardin. 2017. “Flexibility and Real Options Analysis in Design for Long-Term Generation Expansion Planning of Power Grids.” In Volume 7: 29th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2017-67494
• Rai, Rahul, Asli Sahin, Ashley Studd, and Janis Terpenny. 2007. “Undergraduate Learning Experiences through Research in Emerging Areas of Engineering Design: Product Platform Planning and Design for Managing Product Obsolescence.” In 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. ASEE Conferences. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–2577
• Rasch Jr. and Robert A. 2011. Lessons Learned from Rapid Acquisition: Better, Faster, Cheaper?. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada543196
• Ratcliffe, R. 1965. “Standardisation in the Machine Tool Industry.” Production Engineer 44 (9): 453. https://doi.org/10.1049/tpe.1965.0068
• “Real Options Design for Sustainable Product Quality Management.” 2009. In Real Options in Engineering Design, Operations, and Management. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420071702-16
• “Real Options in Engineering Systems Design.” 2009. In Real Options in Engineering Design, Operations, and Management. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420071702-14
• “Real Options in Manufacturing Operations.” 2009. In Real Options in Engineering Design, Operations, and Management. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420071702-8
• Reform Week III. Open Systems Concepts & Application to DoD Weapon Systems. 1998. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada402720
• Regan, Tom. 2001. Parts Obsolescence Management Tools (POMT). Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada399913
• Reichenfeld, Curtis J., and Paul G. Jones. 1999. Design Description of the X-33 Avionics Architecture. AlliedSignal, Inc. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20000019589
• Reinhart, Richard C., Sandra K. Johnson, Thomas J. Kacpura, Charles S. Hall, Carl R. Smith, and John Liebetreu. 2008. Open Architecture Standard for NASA’s Software-Defined Space Telecommunications Radio Systems. NASA/TP-2008-214941. NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20080023146
• Rendon, Renee G. 2006. Using a Modular Open Systems Approach in Defense Acquisitions: Implications for the Contracting Process. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada445102
• Rendon, Rene G. 2008. Analysis of Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) Implementation in Navy Acquisition Programs. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada494230
• Rennenkampf, Erik, and Rich Rhyne. 2004. Application of Commercial Parts Obsolescence Management (CPOM). Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada424388
• Reynerson, Charles. 1999. “Spacecraft Modular Architecture Design for on-Orbit Servicing.” In Space Technology Conference and Exposition. AIAA 1999-4473. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1999-4473
• Ribeiro, Márcio, Marcos Dósea, Rodrigo Bonifácio, Alberto Costa Neto, Paulo Henrique Monteiro Borba, and Sérgio Soares. 2007. Analyzing Class and Crosscutting Modularity with Design Structure Matrixes. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbes.2007.21305
• Ridder, Maximilian. 2024. “Towards a Framework for the Continuous Decision-Making Concerning Variety-Induced Cost of Complexity in the Product Generation Development Process.” In Proceedings of the 26th International DSM Conference (DSM 2024), Stuttgart, Germany. The Design Society. https://doi.org/10.35199/dsm2024.03
• Rieker, Lorra L., and Francis M. Haraburda. 1989. “Space Station Freedom Electrical Power System Hardware Commonality with the United States Polar Platform.” In AIAA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19890015068
• Ro, Young Kyun, Sebastian K. Fixson, and Jeffrey Κ. Liker. 2007. “Economic Models of Product Family Design and Development.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080554402-9
• Robert, Aurélie. n.d. “Toward a Methodology of Structuring the Interactions Dynamic within the Multi-Domains and Multi-Views Design Model: Application to the Design of Modular Product Families.” PhD diss., Belfort-Montbéliard. https://doi.org/10.70675/95d53fc6z19dfz48e8z9742z0b3b84d5d9a5
• Roberts, Gerald, Caleb Simmons, and Tim Palmer. 2023. “A Modular Open System Approach to a Digital Autonomy Testbed.” SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series 1. https://doi.org/10.4271/2024-01-4119
• Rojas Arciniegas, Alvaro J., and Harrison M. Kim. 2010. “Incorporating Security Considerations into Optimal Product Architecture and Component Sharing Decision in Product Family Design.” In Volume 5: 22nd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; Special Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2010-28515
• Roncolini, Francesca, and Giuseppe Quaranta. 2024. “Manned-Unmanned Teaming Applied to HEMS Missions: A Path Planning Approach Based on the Pilot’s Workload Assessment.” In Vertical Flight Society Annual Forum and Technology Display. https://doi.org/10.4050/f-0080-2024-1213
• Rose, Leo J., Jonathan Shaver, Quinn Young, and Jacob Christensen. 2014. “Open Architecture Applied to Next-Generation Weapons.” In SPIE Proceedings, vol. 9096, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2055266
• Rosen, David W. 1996. “Design of Modular Product Architectures in Discrete Design Spaces Subject to Life Cycle Issues.” In Volume 3: 22nd Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/96-detc/dac-1485
• Rosen, David, and Young Mi Choi. 2021. “Extending Product Family Design Methods to Product-Service-System Family Design.” Proceedings of the Design Society 1: 1557–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.417
• Roth, Gunar, and Axel Schulte. 2022a. “Experimental Evaluation of Mission-Planning Support in Multi-User Manned-Unmanned Teaming Applications with Shared Unmanned Systems.” AHFE international. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002309
• Roth, Gunar, and Axel Schulte. 2022b. “A Prototype to Support Mission-Planning with Shared Unmanned Systems in Multi-User Manned-Unmanned Teaming Applications.” In AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum. AIAA 2022-2526. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-2526
• Rubio, Medina, Julian Mora Orozco, G. Álvaro Guarín, and I. Pablo Carrizosa. 2014. “Application of Product Line Commonality Index (PCI) in a Family of Products.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 564: 650–55. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.564.650
• Ruf, Christian, and Peter Stütz. 2016. “Model-Driven Sensor Operation Assistance for a Transport Helicopter Crew in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions: Selecting the Automation Level by Machine Decision-Making.” In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41959-6_21
• Ruf, Christian, and Peter Stütz. 2018. “Establishing a Variable Automation Paradigm for UAV-Based Reconnaissance in Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions.” In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94346-6_3
• Rutenberg, David P. 1971. “Design Commonality to Reduce Multi-Item Inventory: Optimal Depth of a Product Line.” Operations Research 19 (2): 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.19.2.491
• Rzepa, Henry. 2018. “Harnessing FAIR Data: A Suggested Useful Persistent Identifier (PID) for Quantum Chemical Calculations.” Preprint, Front Matter. https://doi.org/10.59350/nk414-18p76
• Sadraey, Mohammad. 2010. “A Systems Engineering Approach to Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Design.” In 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference. AIAA 2010-9302. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-9302
• Sanaei, Roozbeh, Kevin Otto, Katja Hölttä-Otto, and Jianxi Luo. 2015. “Trade-Off Analysis of System Architecture Modularity Using Design Structure Matrix.” In Volume 2B: 41st Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2015-46403
• Sathe, Abhishek, and Rajkumar Pant. 2010. “Conceptual Design Studies of an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle.” In 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference. AIAA 2010-9306. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-9306
• Sauser, Brian, Jose E. Ramirez-Marquez, Romulo Magnaye, and Weiping Tan. 2009. A Systems Approach to Expanding the Technology Readiness Level within Defense Acquisition. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada530242
• Savolainen, Juha, and Mike Mannion. 2012. “Aligning Product Line Business and Technical Strategies (Mapping Product Line Requirements to a Product Line Architecture).” In Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference - Volume 2. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2364412.2364461
• Schlee, Dieter, P. H. A. Sneath, R. R. Sokal, and W. H. Freeman. 1975. “Numerical Taxonomy. the Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification.” Systematic Zoology 24 (2): 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2412767
• Schmid, Klaus, and Seiyoung Lee. 2013. “Product Line Engineering for Globalization: PLE4G.” In Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2491627.2493902
• Schmitt, Fabian, and Axel Schulte. 2015a. “Mixed-Initiative Interaction in Manned-Unmanned-Teaming Mission Planning: Design and Evaluation of a Prototype.” In AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace. AIAA 2015-0114. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-0114
• Schrage, Daniel P. 2023. “A Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) for Assured Autonomy Certification for Autonomous and Semi-Autonomous Air Vehicles.” In Vertical Flight Society Annual Forum and Technology Display. https://doi.org/10.4050/f-0079-2023-18091
• Schweikhard, Keith A., W. Lance Richards, John Theisen, William Mouyos, and Raymond Garbos. 2001. Flight Demonstration of X-33 Vehicle Health Management System Components on the F/A-18 Systems Research Aircraft. NASA/TM-2001-209037. NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20030066934
• Schweikhard, Keith A., W. Lance Richards, John Theisen, William Mouyos, Raymond Garbos, and Gerald Schkolnik. 1998. Flight Demonstration of X-33 Vehicle Health Management System Components on the F/A-18 Systems Research Aircraft. NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20010055588
• Searle, Lloyd V. 1977. An Air Force Guide to Computer Program Configuration Management. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada047308
• Sellon, R. Percy. 1900. “The Standardisation of Electrical Engineering Plant.” Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 29 (144): 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1049/jiee-1.1900.0068
• Shah, Ruchit A., Patrick M. Reed, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2011. “Many-Objective Evolutionary Optimisation and Visual Analytics for Product Family Design.” In Multi-objective Evolutionary Optimisation for Product Design and Manufacturing. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-652-8_4
• Shamsuzzoha, A. H. M. 2011. “Modular Product Architecture for Productivity Enhancement.” Business Process Management Journal 17 (1): 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151111105562
• Shamsuzzoha, A. H. M., and Petri T. Helo. 2009. “Managing Product Variety through Component Commonality: Concept and Application.” International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development 7 (2): 183. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmed.2009.025949
• Shamsuzzoha, Ahm, and Petri T. Helo. 2010. “Modular Product Architecture: The Role of Information Exchange for Customization.” In Rapid Modelling and Quick Response. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-525-5_14
• Shamsuzzoha, A. H. M., and Petri T. Helo. 2012. “Development of Modular Product Architecture through Information Management.” VINE 42 (2): 172–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/03055721211227200
• Shamsuzzoha, Ahm, Petri Helo, Sujan Piya, and Mohammed Alkahtani. 2020. “Modular Product Architecture to Manage Product Development Complexity.” International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 36 (2): 225. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijise.2020.110243
• Shao, Wei Ping, Yong Ping Hao, and Peng Fei Zeng. 2012. “Study on Product Family Architecture Dynamic Evolution Based on Product Instances.” Advanced materials research 472-475: 2612–16. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.472-475.2612
• Sharan, Kishori. 2019. “Java Versioning Scheme.” In Java 13 Revealed. Apress. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-5407-3_2
• Shaver, Jonathan, Leo Rose, Quinn Young, and Jacob Christensen. 2016. “Challenges in the Application of Modular Open System Architecture to Weapons.” In SPIE Proceedings, vol. 9849, edited by Raja Suresh. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2229364
• Shekar, B., R. Venkataram, and B. M. Satish. 2011. “Managing Complexity in Aircraft Design Using Design Structure Matrix.” Concurrent Engineering 19 (4): 283–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x11426461
• Sheu, Chwen, and John G. Wacker. 1997. “The Effects of Purchased Parts Commonality on Manufacturing Lead Time.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 17 (8): 725–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579710175529
• Shikata, Noriyuki, Kiminori Gemba, and Keisuke Uenishi. 2013. “A Competitive Product Development Strategy Using Modular Architecture for Product and Service Systems.” International Journal of Business and Systems Research 7 (4): 375. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbsr.2013.056704
• Shively, Robert Jay, Greg Neiswander, and Lisa C. Fern. 2011. Manned-Unmanned Teaming: Delegation Control of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). https://doi.org/10.4050/vfs-f67-000184
• Shooter, Steven B. 2006. “Ice Scraper Product Family Development at Innovation Factory.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_19
• Shooter, Steven B., and Shane W. Cohen. 2010. “The Commonality Differentiation Index Using Prominence of Visual Information for Medication Package Family Planning.” In Volume 5: 22nd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; Special Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2010-28808
• Siddapureddy, Venu. 2011. VICTORY Architecture Position Service Validation Testing. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada554779
• Siddique, Zahed. 2006. “Product Family Redesign Using a Platform Approach.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_15
• Siddique, Zahed, and Rajeshwar Adupala. 2005. “Product Family Architecture Reasoning.” In Volume 5a: 17th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2005-85340
• Siddique, Zahed, and Rajeshwar Reddy Adupala. 2008. “Product Family Architecture Reasoning.” In Volume 4: 20th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; Second International Conference on Micro- and Nanosystems. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2008-49380
• Siddique, Zahed, and David W. Rosen. 1999. “Product Platform Design: A Graph Grammar Approach.” In Volume 3: 11th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc99/dtm-8762
• Siddique, Zahed, David W. Rosen, and Nanxin Wang. 1998. “On the Applicability of Product Variety Design Concepts to Automotive Platform Commonality.” In Volume 3: 10th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc98/dtm-5661
• Simpson, Timothy W. 2004. “Product Platform Design and Customization: Status and Promise.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18 (1): 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0890060404040028
• Simpson, Timothy W. 2006. “Methods for Optimizing Product Platforms and Product Families.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_8
• Simpson, Timothy W. 2017. “Product Family and Product Platform Benchmarking with Commonality and Variety Indices.” In Volume 2B: 43rd Design Automation Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2017-67500
• Simpson, Timothy, Aaron Bobuk, Laura Slingerland, Sean Brennan, Drew Logan, and Karl Reichard. 2010. “From User Requirements to Commonality Specifications: An Integrated Approach to Product Family Design.” In 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conference. AIAA 2010-9173. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-9173
• Simpson, Timothy, and Bryan D’Souza. 2002. “Asessing Variable Levels of Platform Commonality within a Product Family Using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm.” In 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. AIAA 2002-5427. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2002-5427
• Simpson, Timothy W., and Brayan S. D’Souza. 2004. “Assessing Variable Levels of Platform Commonality within a Product Family Using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm.” Concurrent Engineering 12 (2): 119–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x04044383
• Simpson, Timothy W., Jonathan R. A. Maier, and Farrokh Mistree. 1999. “A Product Platform Concept Exploration Method for Product Family Design.” In Volume 3: 11th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc99/dtm-8761
• Simpson, Timothy W., Carolyn Conner Seepersad, and Farrokh Mistree. 2001a. “Balancing Commonality and Performance within the Concurrent Design of Multiple Products in a Product Family.” Concurrent Engineering 9 (3): 177–90. https://doi.org/10.1106/t4h4-e0at-p6xl-0u7h
• Simpson, Timothy W., Zahed Siddique, and Jianxin Roger Jiao. 2006a. “Platform-Based Product Family Development.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_1
• Siu, Power Po Wa. n.d. “Development of a Building Configurator: Product Family Architecture Approach.” PhD diss., The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.14711/thesis-b921513
• Sligh, Robert, George Wong, and Sandi Vest. 2002. Configuration Management Support for Long Haul C2 Circuit Switched Services. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada467036
• Smith, S. C. 1933. “Standardisation. Part VI: Is It Possible to Forecast Lines of Action for the Future of Standardisation?” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 608. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0057
• Smith, Jim. 2004. An Alternative to Technology Readiness Levels for Non-Developmental Item (NDI) Software. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada443149
• Smith, Kenneth. 2006. “Advantages of Modularity and Commonality in a Spacecraft Architecture.” In Earth & Space 2006. American Society of Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/40830(188)60
• Smith, J. F., C. Plummer, and P. Plancke. 2003. “Standardization Activity for the Spacecraft Onboard Interfaces.” In 2003 IEEE Areospace Conference. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20060030287
• Smith, Greg, and John Wandelt. 1991. Physical Configuration Audit of the MITRE LAD. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada267845
• Smunt, Timothy. 2011. “Log-Linear and Non-Log-Linear Learning Curve Models for Production Research and Cost Estimation.” In Industrial Innovation. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10957-8
• Sneath, P. H. A. 1985. “Future of Numerical Taxonomy.” In Computer-Assisted Bacterial Systematics. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-289665-1.50022-8
• Software and Systems Engineering � Tools and Methods for Product Line Architecture Design. n.d. BSI British Standards. https://doi.org/10.3403/30356033u
• Software Product Line Engineering Basics. 2012. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118561379.ch2
• “Software Product Line Engineering: Overview and Future Directions.” 2009. In Applied Software Product Line Engineering. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420068429-4
• Sokri, Abderrahmane, and Ahmed Ghanmi. 2017. “Cost Risk Analysis and Learning Curve in the Military Shipbuilding Sector.” International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies 9 (4): 300. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijdats.2017.10009426
• Song, Jing-Sheng, and Yao Zhao. 2009. “The Value of Component Commonality in a Dynamic Inventory System with Lead Times.” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 11 (3): 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1080.0235
• Sotos, Cassandra, Gül E. Okudan Kremer, and Gülşen Akman. 2013. “Customer Needs Based Product Family Sizing Design: The Viper Case Study.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_27
• Space and Naval Warfare Center Arlington VA. 1996. Open Systems Acquisition & Supportability Guide. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada404343
• Sparrow, Robert J., and Adam Henschke. 2023. “Minotaurs, Not Centaurs: The Future of Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” US Army War College Quarterly Parameters 53 (1). https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.3207
• Sperling, Brian, Kewley Jr., and Robert H. 2008. Cooperative Engagements and Levels of Interoperability (CELI) between Unmanned Aircraft Systems and the AH-64D Longbow. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada488967
• Srivastava, Niraj, and Michael Rice. 2014. Strategies for Competition beyond Open Architecture (OA): Acquisition at the Edge of Chaos. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada624741
• Stahl, Joseph W., Joseph A. Arena, and Mark I. Knapp. 1984. Cost-Estimating Relationships for Tactical Combat Aircraft. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada151575
• “Standardisation as Applied to Production Engineering.” 1933. Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 529. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0045
• Sterk, Steve, and Aaron McAtee. 2015. “X-1 to X-Wings: Developing a Parametric Cost Model.” In NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20150018064
• Stettner, M. 2000. “Application of the Design Structure Matrix to Aeroelastic Process Control.” In 8th Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. AIAA 2000-4701. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2000-4701
• Stewart, Barry, and Xiu-Tian Yan. n.d. “Modular Product Family Development within a SME.” In Global Design to Gain a Competitive Edge. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-239-5_3
• Strenzke, Ruben, Johann Uhrmann, Andreas Benzler, Felix Maiwald, Andreas Rauschert, and Axel Schulte. 2011. “Managing Cockpit Crew Excess Task Load in Military Manned-Unmanned Teaming Missions by Dual-Mode Cognitive Automation Approaches.” In AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference. AIAA 2011-6237. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-6237
• Study of the Commonality of Space Vehicle Applications to Future National Needs (Unclassified Portion). 1975. NASA-CR-145967. NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19760007886
• Subramanian, Ravi, Mark E. Ferguson, and L. Beril Toktay. 2013. “Remanufacturing and the Component Commonality Decision.” Production and Operations Management 22 (1): 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2012.01350.x
• Sullivan, Kevin J., William G. Griswold, Yuanfang Cai, and Ben Hallen. 2001. “The Structure and Value of Modularity in Software Design.” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 26 (5): 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1145/503271.503224
• Sun, Lefeng, Jing An, and Hongmiao Yu. 2016. “The Application of Design Structure Matrix Optimization Method Based on Genetic Algorithm.” In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Communications, Information Management and Network Security. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/cimns-16.2016.68
• Sun, Hongyi, and Antonio Lau. 2019. “The Impact of Modular Design and Innovation on New Product Performance: The Role of Product Newness.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 31 (2): 370–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-09-2018-0319
• System Configuration Identification. 2005. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471728241.ch42
• Takai, Shun. 2018. “Commonality and Product Family Design Integrated with Inventory Decisions.” In Volume 4: 23rd Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 12th International Conference on Micro- and Nanosystems. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2018-85093
• Takai, Shun. 2019. “An Approach to Integrate Commonality and Product Family Design with Inventory Decisions.” Journal of Mechanical Design 141 (3): 031704. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042340
• Takai, Shun, and Sankar Sengupta. 2016. “An Approach to Assess Value of Component Commonality by Integrating Product Design and Supply Chain Decisions.” In Volume 4: 21st Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 10th International Conference on Micro- and Nanosystems. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2016-59084
• Takai, Shun, and Sankar Sengupta. 2017. “An Approach to Evaluate the Profitability of Component Commonality.” Journal of Mechanical Design 139 (7): 074501. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4036644
• Takeda, H., M. Iino, and M. Kitaoka. 2018. “Measurement of Parts Commonality Indices for Assessing Product Families Considering Supply Chain.” DEStech Transactions on Engineering and Technology Research, no. icpr. https://doi.org/10.12783/dtetr/icpr2017/17604
• Tanabe, Koji, and Haruo Awano. 2019. “The Strategy of Collaborative Monopoly with Use of the Scheme of Standardisation for Storage Product.” International Journal of Technology Management 81 (1/2): 51. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2019.10022056
• Tang, Dunbing. 2008a. “Execution Sequence Planning of Computational Models Based on Incidence Matrix and Design Structure Matrix.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 44 (12): 173. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2008.12.173
• Tang, Dunbing, Leilei Yin, and Inayat Ullah. 2017a. “Matrix-Based Engineering Change Management of Product Design Using MBD Technique.” In Matrix-based Product Design and Change Management. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5077-0_6
• Tang, Dunbing, Leilei Yin, and Inayat Ullah. 2017b. “Product Design as Integration of Axiomatic Design and Design Structure Matrix.” In Matrix-based Product Design and Change Management. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5077-0_1
• Tang, Dunbing, Leilei Yin, and Inayat Ullah. 2017c. “Product Design Knowledge Management Based on Design Structure Matrix.” In Matrix-based Product Design and Change Management. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5077-0_2
• Tang, Dunbing, Leilei Yin, and Inayat Ullah. 2017d. “Product-Oriented Change Propagation and Prediction Approach in Product Family Design.” In Matrix-based Product Design and Change Management. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5077-0_8
• Tang, Dun Bing, G. J. Zhang, and Sheng Long Dai. 2008. “Integration of Axiomatic Design and Design Structure Matrix for Product Design.” Advanced materials research 44-46: 421–28. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.44-46.421
• Tate, Jo O. 1998. Configuration Management Software and Documentation Delivery Requirements. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada385381
• Taylor, Thomas. 2009. “Incremental Heavy-Lift Vehicle Using Commercial Techniques, Hardware Commonality and Cooperation to Stimulate a Space Solar Power Industry.” In AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference & Exposition. AIAA 2009-6724. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2009-6724
• Teacher, Mohit, Rajkumar Velu, and Surinder Kumar. 2023. “Modular Product Architecture to Design and Fabricate Prosthetic and Orthotic Products by 3D Printing.” In Digital Design and Manufacturing of Medical Devices and Systems. Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7100-8_8
• Thevenot, Henri J., Fabrice Alizon, Timothy W. Simpson, and Steven B. Shooter. 2007. “An Index-Based Method to Manage the Tradeoff between Diversity and Commonality during Product Family Design.” Concurrent Engineering 15 (2): 127–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x07079318
• Thevenot, Henri J., Jyotirmaya Nanda, and Timothy W. Simpson. 2005. “A Methodology to Support Product Family Redesign Using Genetic Algorithm and Commonality Indices.” In Volume 2: 31st Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2005-84927
• Thevenot, Henri J., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2004. “A Comparison of Commonality Indices for Product Family Design.” In Volume 1: 30th Design Automation Conference. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2004-57141
• Thevenot, Henri J., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2006a. “Commonality Indices for Assessing Product Families.” In Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_7
• Thevenot, Henri J., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2006c. “A Comprehensive Metric for Evaluating Component Commonality in a Product Family.” In Volume 1: 32nd Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2006-99268
• Thevenot, Henri J., and Timothy W. Simpson. 2009. “A Product Dissection-Based Methodology to Benchmark Product Family Design Alternatives.” Journal of Mechanical Design 131 (4): 041002. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3086789
• Thompson, Henry S., and Jian Tong. 2018. “Can Common Crawl Reliably Track Persistent Identifier (PID) Use over Time.” In Companion of the The Web Conference 2018 on The Web Conference 2018 - WWW ‘18. ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3184558.3191636
• Thonemann, Ulrich W., and Margaret L. Brandeau. 2000. “Optimal Commonality in Component Design.” Operations Research 48 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.48.1.1.12445
• Tichy, W. F. 2001. “Software Configuration Management State of the Art.” In Managing the Change: Software Configuration and Change Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56614-1_5
• Tokunaga, Tatsuya, and Shuzo Fujimura. 2013. “Part IV: Product Architecture and Modularity: Equivalence of Design Structure Matrix and Axiomatic Design.” In Reducing Risk in Innovation. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446437937.009
• Tomayko, James E. 1986. Support Materials for Software Configuration Management. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada235511
• Tomayko, James E. 1990. Software Configuration Management. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada235702
• Toppler, Jenelle, Mike Wright, and Adam Winters. 2025. “Assured Armaments Reference Architecture (AARA): Enabling a Modular Open Systems Approach for Lethality Systems.” SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series 1. https://doi.org/10.4271/2025-01-0460
• Towill, D. R. 1985. “The Use of Learning Curve Models for Prediction of Batch Production Performance.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 5 (2): 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054735
• Transportation Systems Center Cambridge MA. 1989. OSD CALS Architecture Master Plan Study. Concept Paper. Configuration Management. Volume 28. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada265326
• Tseng, Mitchell M., and Jianxin Jiao. 1998. “Design for Mass Customization by Developing Product Family Architecture.” In Volume 4: 3rd Design for Manufacturing Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc98/dfm-5717
• Tucker, Conrad S. 2013. “Quantifying the Relevance of Product Feature Classification in Product Family Design.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_6
• Turner, Susan G. 2003. Orbital Space Plane Program Flight Demonstrators Status. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20030111778
• U.S. Department of the Air Force and U.S. Department of the Navy. 1994. Designating and Naming Defense Military Aerospace Vehicles. Joint Instruction 16-401; NAVAIRINST 8800.3A. U.S. Department of the Air Force. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/usaf/16-401.htm
• Uddin, Zakir, Peter E. Harland, and Haluk Yörür. 2018. “Risk Management in Product Platform Development Projects.” International Journal of Product Development 22 (6): 441. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpd.2018.095921
• Ulrich, Karl. 1994. “Fundamentals of Product Modularity.” In Management of Design. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1390-8_12
• Underwood, Kenneth D. 2011. Minimizing the Risks of Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages: Evaluating Electronic Avionics Lifecycle Sustainment Strategies. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada546421
• “Universal Product Family Design for Human Variability and Aesthetics.” 2012. In Advances in Affective and Pleasurable Design. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b12525-9
• “USAspending Federal Award Data.” n.d. Accessed October 25, 2026. https://www.usaspending.gov/
• “Use Modular Architecture.” n.d. In Practical API Design. Apress. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-0974-4_7
• Using the Learning Curve to Drive Costs Down. 2010. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470643815.ch9
• Uusitalo, Olavi. 2014. “Technological Change: Dominant Design Approach.” In SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06829-9_2
• Van den Broeke, Maud, Robert N. Boute, and Jan Albert Van Mieghem. 2017. “Platform Flexibility Strategies: R&D Investment versus Production Customization Tradeoff.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2974538
• Van Dyke, William, Charles Thomas, and Thomas Killion. 1990. “Joint Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Family Interoperability and Commonality.” In Aircraft Design, Systems and Operations Conference. AIAA 1990-3249. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1990-3249
• van Veenendaal, Remco. 2023. Choosing a Persistent Identifier Type for Your Digital Objects. Digital Preservation Coalition. https://doi.org/10.7207/twgn23-02
• Vance, E. F. 1984. Standardization of EMP Hardening for Aircraft. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada166209
• Varela, Carlos A. 2014. Stochastic Quantitative Reasoning for Autonomous Mission Planning. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada599522
• Vines, Peggy. 1989. “Change and Configuration Management in an Integrated Environment.” In 7th Computers in Aerospace Conference. AIAA 1989-2994. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1989-2994
• Vogler, Kaya I., Michael J. Brown, Robert D. Fass, Brandon M. Lucas, and Jonathan D. Ritschel. 2026. “Modular Open Systems Approach Impacts on Program Management Metrics.” Defense Acquisition Research Journal 33 (110): 2. https://doi.org/10.22594/dau.24-933.33.01
• Vogt, Juliane, Lea-Nadine Woeller, and Dieter Krause. 2023. “Effects of Product Personalization: Considering Personalizability in the Product Architecture of Modular Product Families.” Journal of Mechanical Design 146 (4): 041402. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063825
• Voigt, Andreas, Kristian Fettig, and Alexander Donkels. 2019. “Manned-Unmanned Teaming Cooperative Formation Flight: A Project Review.” In Vertical Flight Society Annual Forum and Technology Display. https://doi.org/10.4050/f-0075-2019-14748
• Wagner, D., and M. Foster. 1990. Integrated Information Support System (IISS). Volume 3. Configuration Management. Part 6. Configuration Management User Manual. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada250110
• Wahdan, Hayam G., Sally S. Kassem, and Hisham Mohamed El-Sayed AbdelSalam. 2016. A Cuckoo Search Clustering Algorithm for Design Structure Matrix. https://doi.org/10.5220/0005693000360043
• Wallace, Daniel, John Winters, Melissa Dugger, John Lackie, and Trish Hamburger. 2001. Human-Systems Engineering: Understanding the Process of Engineering the Human into the System. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada417413
• Wallance, David. 2021a. “Is Intermodal Modular Architecture Sustainable?” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003031932-10
• Wallance, David. 2021b. “The Place of Intermodal Modular Architecture.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003031932-14
• Wallmark, Toste Jawi. n.d. “Product Architecture Network: Representing Modular Product Families for Mass Customization.” PhD diss., The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.14711/thesis-b922674
• Wallnau, Kurt C. 1992. Issues and Techniques of CASE Integration with Configuration Management. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada253323
• Wan, Ruyi. 2014. “Public Procurement of Innovation Policy: Competition Regulation, Market Structure and Dominant Design.” Journal of Public Procurement 14 (4): 473–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/jopp-14-04-2014-b002
• Wang, Wei. n.d.-a. “Effects of Component Commonality on Inventory and Service Level in a Multi-Stage Assembly System.” PhD diss., The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.14711/thesis-b612491
• Wang, Jiliang. n.d.-b. “A Usage Coverage Based Approach for Assessing Product Family Design.” PhD diss., Châtenay-Malabry, Ecole centrale de Paris. https://doi.org/10.70675/89b80945z4d28z4e18zb08fz2084df435261
• Wang, Jingbo, Nicholas N. J. Car, Ben Evans, Kashif Gohar, Claire Trenham, and Lesley Wyborn. 2017. “Persistent Identifier Practice for Big Data Management at NCI.” Data Science Journal 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-020
• Wang, Jian, Zhixin Chen, and Zhongsheng Wu. 2018. “A Configuration Study on Supply Chain Strategy with Focus on Product Variety Management.” Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design, Systems, and Manufacturing 12 (3): JAMDSM0075-JAMDSM0075. https://doi.org/10.1299/jamdsm.2018jamdsm0075
• Wang, Shuai Feng, Liang Hou, Hao Lun Wang, and Wen Guang Lin. 2011a. “Analysis Method for Commonality of Module and Part in Modular Product Family.” Advanced materials research 201-203: 1425–28. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.201-203.1425
• Wang, Wenyuan, and Mitchell M. Tseng. 2011. “Design for Sustainable Manufacturing: Applying Modular Design Methodology to Manage Product End-of-Life Strategy.” International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 5 (2/3/4): 164. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijplm.2011.043186
• Watza, Spencer, and Neil Cooper. 2023. “Design of a Modular Open System Approach for Ground Vehicle Paired Unmanned Aircraft Systems for the U.S. Army Robotic and Autonomous System’s Ground Interoperability Profile.” SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series 1. https://doi.org/10.4271/2024-01-4037
• Wazed, M. A., Shamsuddin Ahmed, and Y. Nukman. 2008. “Commonality and Its Measurement in Manufacturing Resources Planning.” Journal of Applied Sciences 9 (1): 69–78. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2009.69.78
• Wazed, Md. Abdul, Shamsuddin Ahmed, and Yusoff Nukman. 2010. “Commonality in Manufacturing Resources Planning – Issues and Models: A Review.” European J. of Industrial Engineering 4 (2): 167. https://doi.org/10.1504/ejie.2010.031076
• Wazed, M. A., S. Ahmed, Y. Nukman, and Nader Ale Ebrahim. 2011. “Models for Component Commonality in Multistage Production.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 110-116: 258–66. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.110-116.258
• Wei, Guangxing, and Yanhong Qin. n.d. “Customer Requirement Translation and Product Configuration Based on Modular Product Family.” In Advanced Design and Manufacture to Gain a Competitive Edge. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-241-8_71
• Weigel, Tobias, Stephan Kindermann, and Michael Lautenschlager. 2014. “Actionable Persistent Identifier Collections.” Data Science Journal 12 (0): 191–206. https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.12-058
• White, S. A. 1978. “A Contribution to European Engineering Standardisation for the Aerospace Industry.” Aeronautical Journal 82 (807): 117–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0001924000090448
• White, Jason T. 2023. “Modular Open Architecture UAS Test Platform System of Systems.” In AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum. AIAA 2023-3899. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-3899
• “Why Do Aircraft Cost So Much?” n.d. In Introduction to Aircraft Design. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139542418.009
• “Why Do Aircraft Cost So Much?” 1999. In Introduction to Aircraft Design. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511808906.009
• Windheim, Marc. 2019a. “Decision-Making in Modular Product Family Design.” In Produktentwicklung und Konstruktionstechnik. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60715-2_4
• Windheim, Marc. 2019b. “A Method to Support Cooperative Decision-Making in Product Modularization.” In Produktentwicklung und Konstruktionstechnik. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60715-2_5
• Windheim, Marc. 2019c. “State of the Art in Product Family Design and Evaluation.” In Produktentwicklung und Konstruktionstechnik. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60715-2_3
• Wise, Kevin. 2003. “First Flight of the X-45A Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV).” In AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit. AIAA 2003-5320. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2003-5320
• Wong, Lam F. 2013. “A Generalized Learning Curve Adapted for Purchasing and Cost Reduction Negotiations.” Advances in Operations Research 2013: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/584762
• Wright, R. A. 1933. “Standardisation. Part I: Standardisation, What Does This Mean?” Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers 12 (12): 592. https://doi.org/10.1049/jipe.1933.0052
• Wright, John. 1962. A Compilation of Aerodynamic Nomenclature and Axes Systems. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad0284911
• Wright, Julia, Shan Lakhmani, Giovanna Camacho, Justin Lee, and Jaquelyn Shreck. 2024. Human-Agent Teaming with Learning Capable Agents. DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad1224556
• Wright, Julia, Shan Lakhmani, Jessie Chen, and Michael Schwartz. 2022. Bidirectional Communications in Human–Agent Teaming: The Effect of Communication Style. DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad1169345
• Wu, Aihua, and Tian Fu Li. 2011. “An Analysis of the Strategy of Product Platform.” Advanced materials research 267: 230–33. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.267.230
• Xiao, Renbin. 2012. “New Approach to Product Platform Design Based on Axiomatic Design and Design Relationship Matrix.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 48 (11): 94. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2012.11.094
• Xie, Qihui, and Michel-Alexandre Cardin. 2017. “A Framework for Designing and Managing Flexibility and Real Options in Engineering Systems Based on Decision Rules.” In Volume 7: 29th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2017-67042
• Xu, Qianli, and Roger J. Jiao. 2013. “Managing Design Processes of Product Families by Modularization and Simulation.” In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_20
• Yan, Ji Hong, and Chun Hua Feng. 2011. “Sustainability-Oriented Product Modular Design Using Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Method.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 128-129: 1468–71. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.128-129.1468
• Yang, Tae G., Kurt A. Beiter, and Kosuke Ishii. 2004. “Product Platform Development: An Approach for Products in the Conceptual Stages of Design.” In Design Engineering. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2004-62171
• Yang, Tae G., Kurt A. Beiter, and Kosuke Ishii. 2005. “Product Platform Development: Considering Product Maturity and Morphology.” In Design Engineering, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2005-82886
• Yang, Xingbang, Tianmiao Wang, Jianhong Liang, Guocai Yao, and Wendi Zhao. 2013. “Submersible Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Concept Design Study.” In 2013 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference. AIAA 2013-4422. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-4422
• Yao, Xiling, Seung Ki Moon, Guijun Bi, and Hungsun Son. 2017. “Commonality and Performance Metrics to Evaluate and Optimise the Design of Additive Manufactured Product Families.” International Journal of Manufacturing Research 12 (1): 44. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmr.2017.083654
• Ye, Xiaoli, and John K. Gershenson. 2009. “Focused Product Family Design Based on the Commonality and Variety Tradeoff.” International Journal of Mass Customisation 3 (2): 179. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmassc.2009.023382
• Yeager, Dorian P. 1987. “Commonality Analysis as a Knowledge Acquisition Problem.” In NASA. Marshall Space Flight Center, Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Space Applications, Part 1. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19880007031
• Yen, Chao-Ching, and Shana Smith. 2009. “Product Modular Design Using Atomic Theory.” In Volume 5: 35th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2009-87122
• Yoo, Seunghoon, Myunghwan Park, Seongin Hwang, and Hyeonju Seol. 2021. “Manned-Unmanned Teaming Air-to-Air Combat Tactic Development Using Longshot Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.” Journal of Society of Korea Industrial and Systems Engineering 44 (3): 64–72. https://doi.org/10.11627/jkise.2021.44.3.064
• Young, J. 1989. “Change/configuration Management Gathering.” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 14 (5): 105–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/71633.71643
• Young, Randy, Michael Kierzewski, John R. White, Roger Davis, and John Walstrum. 2004. Virtual Prototyping System. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada426291
• Yuan, Man, Chang Wang, Lizhen Wu, and Dong Yin. 2025. “Insights of Key Technologies for Manned-Unmanned Teaming.” In Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering. Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-2468-3_54
• Zamani, Forough, and Borhan Beigzadeh. 2023. “Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Approach to Design a Surgery Robot.” Preprint, Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3153170/v1
• Zelm, Martin, and Guy Doumeingts. 2013. Standardisation in Manufacturing Service Engineering. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118846995.ch11
• Zha, Xuan F., and Wen F. Lu. 2002. “Knowledge Intensive Support for Product Family Design.” In Volume 2: 28th Design Automation Conference. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2002/dac-34098
• Zhang, Huangao. 2012. “Product Platform Design Process Model Based on Similarity and Structural Sensitivity Analysis.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 48 (11): 104. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2012.11.104
• Zhang, Chao Yang. 2014. “Research of Branded Apparel Collaborative Design Based on Product Platform.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 644-650: 5730–32. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.644-650.5730
• Zhang, Shuyou, and Harry H. Cheng. 2005. “Product Configuration Design Based on Extensible Product Family for Mass Customization.” In Volume 2: 31st Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B. ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2005-85443
• Zhang, Lyuye, Chengwei Liu, Zhengzi Xu, et al. 2022. “Has My Release Disobeyed Semantic Versioning? Static Detection Based on Semantic Differencing.” In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3551349.3556956
• Zhang, Xuemei, Yao Wei, Jiqiong Liu, and Gang Chen. 2015. “Product Design Strategy with Commonality by Considering Customer-Choice Behavior in Supply Chain.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research 32 (05): 1550037. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0217595915500372
• Zhao, Yanwei. 2010. “Configuration Design Method for Product Family Based on Extension Case Reasoning.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 46 (15): 146. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2010.15.146
• Zheng, Pai, Chun-Hsien Chen, and Zuoxu Wang. 2021. “Digital Twin-Enhanced Product Family Design and Optimization.” In Smart Product-Service Systems. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-85247-0.00003-7
• Zhu, Bin. 2004. “Study on Identificaion of Product Platform Parameters Based on Kansei Engineering.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 40 (02): 87. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2004.02.087
• Zhu, Bin. 2006. “Methodology of Design for Product Family.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering 42 (03): 1. https://doi.org/10.3901/jme.2006.03.001
• Ziedorn, Frauke. 2020. “2 Minuten FDM: Persistent Identifier (PID).” Preprint, Front Matter. https://doi.org/10.65527/5q66r-9cx05
• Zimmerman, Philomena, Monique Ofori, Donald Barrett, Joseph Soler, and Anthony Harriman. 2018. “Considerations and Examples of a Modular Open Systems Approach in Defense Systems.” Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 16 (4): 373–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548512917751281
• Zou, Fan, Dong Wu, and Li Zhao. 2026. “Revisiting Dominant Design Emergence: User Heterogeneity under Openness and Technological Uncertainty.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7372038
• 학생, 국립금오공과대학교 산업·빅데이터공학부, Muhyun Jung, Heonwoong Choi, and Kyuho Maeng. 2025. “Exploring the Economic Impact of Manned-Unmanned Teaming System: Focusing on Ground Warfare.” Journal of Startup Convergence & Consulting 4 (2): 29–39. https://doi.org/10.56165/kosc.2025.4.2.029

Secondary Sources

• Allon, Gad, Jan Mieghem, and Ilya Kolesov. 2010. HP Product Variety Management. Kellogg School of Management eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473970175
• Baldwin, Carliss Y., and Kim B. Clark. 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001
• Cost-Estimating Relationships for Aircraft Airframes. 1972. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/r0761
• De Lit, Pierre, and Alain Delchambre. 2003b. Integrated Design of a Product Family and Its Assembly System. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0417-7
• Eppinger, Steven D., and Tyson R. Browning. 2012. Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8896.001.0001
• Felsenstein, Joseph, ed. 1983. Numerical Taxonomy. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69024-2
• Hammarbäck, Jimmy. 2022. Modelling Intent for Manned-Unmanned Teaming: Exploring Human-Centric Approaches for Future Combat Aircraft Systems. Linköping University Electronic Press. https://doi.org/10.3384/9789179295486
• Karakoc, T. Hikmet, and Emre Özbek, eds. 2024. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Design and Technology. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45321-2
• Nembhard, Harriet Black, and Mehmet Aktan, eds. 2009. Real Options in Engineering Design, Operations, and Management. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420071702
• The People’s Liberation Army’s Approach to Manned-Unmanned Teaming: Theory and Practice. 2025. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/rra3906-1
• Simpson, Timothy W., Jianxin Jiao, Zahed Siddique, and Katja Hölttä-Otto, eds. 2014. Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design: Methods & Applications. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6
• Simpson, Timothy W., Zahed Siddique, and Jianxin Roger Jiao, eds. 2006b. Product Platform and Product Family Design. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0
• Windheim, Marc. 2020. Cooperative Decision-Making in Modular Product Family Design. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60715-2

Commercial Sources

• Castrejon, Aleah M. 2024. “AFRL’s XQ-67A Makes 1st Successful Flight.” Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, February 29. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/465637/afrls-xq-67a-makes-1st-successful-flight
• General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 2024. “GA-ASI Makes First Flight of XQ-67A OBSS.” General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., February 29. https://www.ga-asi.com/ga-asi-makes-first-flight-of-xq-67a-obss
• General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 2025. “XQ-67A Demonstrates Autonomy and Datalink Interoperability during High Desert Flight Test.” General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., July 16. https://www.ga-asi.com/xq-67a-demonstrates-autonomy-and-datalink-interoperability-during-high-desert-flight-test

General Sources

• Bisht, Inder Singh. 2023. “AFRL Chooses General Atomics Drone for off-Board Sensing Station Program.” The Defense Post, February 6. https://thedefensepost.com/2023/02/06/general-atomics-drone/
• Tirpak, John A. 2021. “Kratos, General Atomics Get Contracts for ‘off-Board Sensing Station’ Unmanned Fighter Escort.” Air & Space Forces Magazine, October 26. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/kratos-general-atomics-contracts-unmanned-fighter-escort/

Tertiary Sources

• Parsch, Andreas. 2000. “Current Designations of U.S. Military Aircraft.” Designation-Systems.Net. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/aircraft.html
• Parsch, Andreas. 2002a. “DOD 4120.15-L: Addendum: MDS Designators Allocated after 19 August 1998 (until November 2025).” Designations of U.S. Military Aircraft. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/412015-L(addendum).html
• Parsch, Andreas. 2002b. ““Missing” USAF/DOD Aircraft Designations.” Designation-Systems.Net. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missing-mds.html
• Parsch. 2025. “DOD 4120.15-L: Addendum: MDS Designators Allocated after 19 August 1998 (until November 2025).” Designation-Systems.Net. Accessed October 24, 2026. http://web.archive.org/web/20251210111623/https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/412015-L(addendum).html
• Parsch, Andreas. 2026a. “DOD 4120.15-L: Addendum: MDS Designators Allocated after 19 August 1998 (until November 2025).” Designation-Systems.Net. Accessed October 24, 2026. http://web.archive.org/web/20260115211518/https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/412015-L(addendum).html
• Parsch, Andreas. 2026b. “DOD 4120.15-L: Addendum: MDS Designators Allocated after 19 August 1998 (until November 2025).” Designation-Systems.Net. Accessed October 24, 2026. http://web.archive.org/web/20260201194217/https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/412015-L(addendum).html
• U.S. Department of Defense. 1998. Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles. DoD 4120.15-L. U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology). https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/original-docs/4120.15-L(1998).pdf
• U.S. Department of the Air Force, U.S. Department of the Army, and U.S. Department of the Navy. 1962. Designating, Redesignating, and Naming Military Aircraft. AFR 66-11, AR 700-26, BUWEPS Instruction 13100.7. Departments of the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/original-docs/dod1962.pdf
• U.S. Department of the Air Force, U.S. Department of the Army, and U.S. Department of the Navy. 1997. Designating and Naming Defense Military Aerospace Vehicles. AFJI 16-401, AR 70-50, NAVAIRINST 8800.3A. U.S. Department of the Air Force. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/afji16-401(1997).pdf
• U.S. Department of the Air Force, U.S. Department of the Army, and U.S. Department of the Navy. 2005. Designating and Naming Defense Military Aerospace Vehicles. AFI 16-401(I), AR 70-50, NAVAIRINST 13100.16. U.S. Department of the Air Force. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/afi16-401(i).pdf
• U.S. Department of the Air Force, U.S. Department of the Army, and U.S. Department of the Navy. 2014. Designating and Naming Defense Military Aerospace Vehicles. AFI 16-401, AR 70-50, NAVAIRINST 13100.16. U.S. Department of the Air Force. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/afi16-401(2014).pdf
• U.S. Department of the Air Force, U.S. Department of the Army, and U.S. Department of the Navy. 2020. Designating and Naming Defense Military Aerospace Vehicles. DAFI 16-401, AR 70-50, NAVAIRINST 13100.16. U.S. Department of the Air Force. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/afi16-401.pdf

Related Posts

• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Framing and the Research Aircraft Model.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 6. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/06/x_planes_framing.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-1.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 7. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/07/x_planes_bell_x1.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-2.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 8. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/08/x_planes_bell_x2.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Douglas X-3 Stiletto.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 9. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/09/x_planes_douglas_x3.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Northrop X-4 Bantam.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 10. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/10/x_planes_northrop_x4.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-5.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 11. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/11/x_planes_bell_x5.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Convair X-6.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 12. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/12/x_planes_convair_x6.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed X-7.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 13. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/13/x_planes_lockheed_x7.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Aerojet X-8 Aerobee.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 14. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/14/x_planes_aerojet_x8.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-9 Shrike.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 15. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/15/x_planes_bell_x9.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: North American X-10.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 16. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/16/x_planes_north_american_x10.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Convair X-11.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 17. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/17/x_planes_convair_x11.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Convair X-12.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 18. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/18/x_planes_convair_x12.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Ryan X-13 Vertijet.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 19. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/19/x_planes_ryan_x13.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-14.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 20. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/20/x_planes_bell_x14.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: North American X-15.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 21. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/21/x_planes_north_american_x15.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-16.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 22. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/22/x_planes_bell_x16.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed X-17.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 23. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/23/x_planes_lockheed_x17.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Hiller X-18.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 24. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/24/x_planes_hiller_x18.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Curtiss-Wright X-19.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 25. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/25/x_planes_curtiss_wright_x19.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 26. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/26/x_planes_boeing_x20.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Northrop X-21.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 27. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/27/x_planes_northrop_x21.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-22.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 28. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/28/x_planes_bell_x22.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Martin Marietta X-23 PRIME and a Contested Assignment.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 29. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/29/x_planes_martin_marietta_x23.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Martin Marietta X-24.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 30. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/30/x_planes_martin_marietta_x24.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bensen X-25.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 31. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/31/x_planes_bensen_x25.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Schweizer X-26 Frigate.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 1. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/01/x_planes_schweizer_x26.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed X-27.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 2. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/02/x_planes_lockheed_x27.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Osprey X-28 Sea Skimmer.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 3. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/03/x_planes_osprey_x28.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Grumman X-29.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 4. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/04/x_planes_grumman_x29.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Rockwell X-30 and the National Aero-Space Plane.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 5. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/05/x_planes_rockwell_x30.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Rockwell-MBB X-31.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 6. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/06/x_planes_rockwell_mbb_x31.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-32.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 7. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/07/x_planes_boeing_x32.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-33.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 8. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/08/x_planes_lockheed_martin_x33.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Orbital Sciences X-34.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 9. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/09/x_planes_orbital_sciences_x34.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-35.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 10. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/10/x_planes_lockheed_martin_x35.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: McDonnell Douglas X-36.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 11. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/11/x_planes_mcdonnell_douglas_x36.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-37.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 12. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/12/x_planes_boeing_x37.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Scaled Composites X-38.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 13. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/13/x_planes_scaled_composites_x38.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: X-39, Reserved but Never Assigned.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 14. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/14/x_planes_x39_reserved_never_assigned.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-40.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 15. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/15/x_planes_boeing_x40.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: X-41 Common Aero Vehicle.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 16. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/16/x_planes_x41_common_aero_vehicle.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Orbital Sciences X-42.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 17. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/17/x_planes_orbital_sciences_x42.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Micro-Craft X-43 Hyper-X.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 18. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/18/x_planes_micro_craft_x43_hyper_x.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: X-44, One Designation and Two Aircraft.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 19. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/19/x_planes_x44_one_designation_two_aircraft.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-45.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 20. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/20/x_planes_boeing_x45.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-46.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 21. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/21/x_planes_boeing_x46.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Northrop Grumman X-47.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 22. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/22/x_planes_northrop_grumman_x47.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-48.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 23. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/23/x_planes_boeing_x48.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Piasecki X-49 SpeedHawk.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 24. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/24/x_planes_piasecki_x49.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-50 Dragonfly.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 25. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/25/x_planes_boeing_x50.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-51 Waverider.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 26. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/26/x_planes_boeing_x51.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: X-52, the Designation Refused.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 27. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/27/x_planes_x52_designation_refused.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 28. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/28/x_planes_boeing_x53_active_aeroelastic_wing.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Gulfstream X-54.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 29. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/29/x_planes_gulfstream_x54.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-55 ACCA.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 30. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/30/x_planes_lockheed_martin_x55_acca.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-56.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 1. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/01/x_planes_lockheed_martin_x56.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: ESAero X-57 Maxwell.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 2. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/02/x_planes_esaero_x57_maxwell.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: X-58, the Slot Taken by XQ-58.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 3. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/03/x_planes_x58_slot_taken_by_xq58.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-59 Quesst.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 4. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/04/x_planes_lockheed_martin_x59_quesst.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Generation Orbit X-60.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 5. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/05/x_planes_generation_orbit_x60.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Dynetics X-61 Gremlins.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 6. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/06/x_planes_dynetics_x61_gremlins.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-62 VISTA.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 7. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/07/x_planes_lockheed_martin_x62_vista.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: ABL Space Systems X-63.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 8. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/08/x_planes_abl_space_systems_x63.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Invocon X-64.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 9. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/09/x_planes_invocon_x64.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Aurora Flight Sciences X-65 CRANE.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 10. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/10/x_planes_aurora_x65_crane.html
• Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-66.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, December 11. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/12/11/x_planes_boeing_x66.html