Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 39 references

Barriers to Adopting Design for Assembly in Modular Product Architecture: Development of a Conceptual Model Through Content Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Design for Assembly in modular architectures is blocked by four categories of barriers: technological, economic, regulatory, and organizational.

desk verdict Useful exploratory data on DFA-MFD barriers, but the TERO taxonomy is seeded by the research instruments rather than clearly emergent from the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17768 v1 pith:RR3N7IQS submitted 2024-11-26 cs.SE

Fabio Marco Monetti , Adam Lundström , Antonio Maffei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords modularproductarchitecturedesignforassembly(DFA)contentanalysispractitionerinterviewsfunctiondeployment(MFD)barrierstoadoptionconceptualmodelmasscustomization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper investigates why Design for Assembly (DFA) is rarely integrated when companies create modular product architectures using Modular Function Deployment (MFD). Through content analysis of a focus group and follow-up interviews with industry practitioners, the authors identify four categories of barriers: technological, economic, regulatory, and organizational (TERO). They argue that these barriers must be addressed jointly and that multidisciplinary collaboration is essential for informed decision-making in the early design phase. A sympathetic reader would care because the resulting conceptual model gives companies a structured starting point for making modular products easier and cheaper to assemble.

What carries the argument

The central object is the TERO conceptual model, a taxonomy that groups content-analysis codes into four barrier categories: Technological, Economic, Regulatory, and Organizational. It is derived inductively from a two-hour focus group with ten participants, five follow-up semi-structured interviews, and prior literature, and it serves to simplify and structure the heterogeneous challenges practitioners report. The model's function is to give companies and researchers a common vocabulary for diagnosing why DFA adoption stalls and for targeting future support tools.

What would settle it

A broad, pre-registered survey of modular product development teams in different countries and sectors that fails to reproduce the four TERO categories, or that surfaces a major barrier not fitting any of them, would directly undermine the model's claim to completeness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own terms, the central discovery is that the obstacles to integrating DFA into MFD-based modular product development are not merely technical but cluster into four named thematic groups. Technological barriers concern limits of current tools and the difficulty of embedding assembly, recyclability, and hazardous-material considerations into the architecture. Economic barriers include the cost of new technology, uncertain return on investment, and conflicting supply-chain incentives. Regulatory barriers cover compliance, data confidentiality, and emerging AI legislation. Organizational barriers include resistance to change, siloed knowledge, and inadequate training. The authors further claim that cross-functional collaboration among designers, operators, suppliers, and maintenance staff is the single most important mechanism for overcoming these barriers.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that one two-hour focus group of ten participants, mostly Swedish practitioners, plus five follow-up interviews, is enough to identify the major barriers to DFA–MFD integration across industry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the TERO model is right, companies can diagnose stalled DFA integration by locating which of the four barrier groups is active, rather than treating assembly problems as purely technical.
  • The finding that multidisciplinary collaboration is essential implies that cross-functional teams, involving operators and suppliers early, should be a standard part of MFD projects.
  • The emphasis on limited quantitative data in early MFD stages suggests that tools for estimating assembly metrics at the conceptual phase would address a recurring economic and technological barrier.
  • Regulatory concerns, especially data confidentiality and AI compliance, will become a growing constraint on AI-driven design support.
  • The model provides a basis for benchmarking and for developing targeted guides, metrics, and indices to support adoption.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • By extension, the TERO categories are likely not exclusive to MFD: any modular product development method that postpones assembly considerations could exhibit similar barrier groups, so the taxonomy may transfer to other modularization approaches.
  • The sample is concentrated among Swedish manufacturing practitioners, so the relative weight of the four barrier types probably varies by region, industry, and company size; a quantitative survey would reveal which categories dominate in other settings.
  • If multidisciplinary collaboration is the key lever, then a testable prediction is that MFD teams with formal cross-functional reviews in the conceptual phase should show measurably fewer assembly-driven design changes later.
  • The paper's claim that quantitative data are scarce in early MFD stages points to a concrete extension: instrumenting MFD projects to track when assembly metrics become available could validate the barrier and guide new tooling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper reports a qualitative, exploratory study of barriers to integrating Design for Assembly (DFA) into modular product architectures developed with Modular Function Deployment (MFD). The authors conducted a focus group with ten participants (industry practitioners, one researcher, and students) and five follow-up interviews with a subset of the practitioners, then applied content analysis to the transcripts. The results are presented as seven themes (assembly strategy, advanced technologies, collaboration, design, workforce, information and visuals, performance evaluation), which are then grouped into four barrier categories—technological, economic, regulatory, organizational (TERO)—forming a conceptual model. The paper argues that multidisciplinary collaboration is central to overcoming these barriers and frames the model as a guide for practitioners and a foundation for future research.

Significance. If the TERO taxonomy were demonstrably an emergent outcome of the content analysis, this paper would provide a useful structured vocabulary for studying DFA-MFD integration and a convenient starting point for companies. It is valuable that the authors report direct practitioner quotes, document the focus-group and interview protocols in appendices, and are transparent about generalizability, researcher bias, and review limitations. The proposed conceptual model, however, is only as strong as the evidence that the categories were derived from the data rather than imposed by the data-collection instrument and the authors' prior literature review. Because that evidence is not currently provided, the contribution remains plausibly useful but is not established by the analysis as reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theoretical background; Methodology/Data collection; Appendix B] The claim that TERO categories were 'identified through content analysis' is undercut by the design of the data-collection instrument. The text states that the authors' previous literature review 'provided the main topics of discussion for qualitative data collection,' and Appendix B's focus-group topic (2) explicitly asks about 'organizational or technical barriers,' naming two of the four categories before data collection. The interview protocol also prompts for DFX and AI considerations, which map onto the technological and regulatory categories. As a result, the TERO labels are plausibly inputs to the data-generation process rather than outputs of the content analysis. To support the stated claim, the paper should provide evidence that the coding scheme was developed independently of these labels (e.g., an open-coding phase with a codebook and a clear indication of when TERO labels were first introduced), or it should reframe the contribution as a literature-based framework whose relevance is illustrated by practitioner discussion.
  2. [Results, Conceptual model development; Table 2] The step from seven themes to four TERO categories is not documented. The paper states that 'the limitations identified through content analysis can be further grouped into four main thematic categories' but does not give the grouping rule, a crosswalk from themes (or codes) to categories, or any reliability check. The mapping is also not self-evident: Table 2 contains no theme named 'economic' or 'regulatory,' and themes such as collaboration, workforce, and information/visuals could all fall under 'organizational' or under distinct categories depending on the rule chosen. Without a coding audit trail, or at least a table showing which codes and quotes support each of the four categories, the TERO taxonomy is underdetermined by the reported analysis.
  3. [Discussion, Limitations and future work] The limitations section acknowledges generalizability and researcher bias but does not address the more specific circularity risk: the same literature review that shaped the focus-group and interview topics is later used, together with the primary data, as part of the evidence base for the conceptual model (Theoretical background; Methodology). This is a load-bearing validity concern because it directly affects whether the 'identified' categories are an empirical result. The authors should either provide a concrete mitigation (e.g., a separate confirmatory coding pass in which the TERO labels were not visible) or explicitly recharacterize the model as a synthesis of literature and illustrative practitioner insights rather than as an emergent content-analysis finding.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Methodology, Data analysis] The sentence citing '[30, 31]' as 'studies to perform content analysis' appears to be a citation error: references [30] and [31] are design-for-disassembly papers, not methodological sources on content analysis. The authors should cite [35] or another recognized content-analysis methods reference at that point.
  2. [Figures] The manuscript contains the placeholders '[Fig, 1 around here]' and '[Fig. 2 around here]' but the actual figures are not visible in the text provided; the final submission must include the figures with clear labels and sufficient resolution, since Fig. 2 is the conceptual model that the conclusions rely on.
  3. [Abstract; Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions state that the study 'identified four major categories' without hedging, which is stronger than the exploratory evidence warrants; a phrase such as 'proposes a preliminary categorization' would better match the acknowledged limitations.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

TERO taxonomy is partly seeded by the focus-group protocol and the authors' prior review, but independent themes and quotes keep the paper from being fully circular.

  1. other [Appendix B, Focus group structure, item (2); Results, 'Conceptual model development of the barriers']
    "Discussion topics (1) Challenges in selecting assembly concepts and assembly strategies in MFD (2) Organizational or technical barriers when considering assembly early in MFD ... The limitations identified through content analysis can be further grouped into four main thematic categories: Technological, Economic, Regulatory, and Organizational (TERO)."

    The abstract's central claim is that content analysis 'identified' four barrier categories (TERO). However, the focus-group protocol explicitly asked participants about 'organizational or technical barriers,' so two of the four categories are already present in the data-collection prompt. Reporting them later as findings from the analysis is therefore partly a restatement of the instrument, not an emergent discovery. The seven intermediate themes and the participant quotes give the taxonomy some independent content, but the organizational and technological categories are partially forced by the question wording.

  2. self citation load bearing [Theoretical Background, first paragraph; Results, 'Conceptual model development of the barriers'; reference [15]]
    "The previously published literature review [15] that motivated this research also provided the main topics of discussion for qualitative data collection. ... A conceptual model was developed, based on the synthesis of literature and practitioners’ insights."

    Reference [15] is the authors' own earlier review (Monetti and Maffei). It is load-bearing twice: first it defines the discussion topics that shaped the primary data, and then it is counted among the literature synthesized into the conceptual model. The model therefore partly echoes the same prior framework that structured the data collection. This is not full circularity because the model also draws on independent primary quotes and external 2022–2024 literature, but the self-citation forms a visible loop between the authors' prior review and the new conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's TERO taxonomy is not a quantitative prediction, so the strict 'fit then predict' circularity pattern is not present. However, two specific reductions weaken the claim that the categories were identified purely through content analysis. First, the focus-group protocol explicitly asks about 'organizational or technical barriers,' pre-naming two of the four output categories; the later grouping of limitations into Technological and Organizational barriers is therefore partly by construction. Second, the authors' own prior review supplied the discussion topics and is also included in the literature synthesized into the conceptual model, creating a self-citation loop. The paper is not fully circular: it presents seven distinct themes, includes substantial verbatim participant quotes, and the 2022–2024 literature plus the five interviews add independent content. The limitations section also candidly acknowledges 'researchers’ bias' and 'reliability of the findings,' which tempers the strength of the claim. The undocumented mapping from the seven themes to the four TERO categories is a transparency problem but not in itself a circular reduction. Overall, the central claim has independent support, but it is partially pre-structured by the instrument and by the authors' prior review, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical free parameters were fitted. The TERO labels are conceptual categories, not physical entities with independent falsifiable handles. The main unstated cost is the representativeness assumption about the small practitioner sample and the untested independence of the inductive coding.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption MFD, as currently practiced, does not integrate DFA early, and DFA tools are underutilized in conceptual design.
    This premise is taken from cited literature [8,15,20] and is used to frame the research question, but it is not independently tested in this study.
  • domain assumption The focus group and interview participants are representative sources of the barriers companies face when integrating DFA into MFD.
    The sample is purposive, small, and largely Swedish; Appendix A shows that students were included. The authors acknowledge limited generalizability as a limitation.
  • ad hoc to paper The inductive content analysis, with the coding system described only in outline, yields theme categories that reflect the data rather than the authors' prior framework.
    No coding protocol, inter-coder reliability check, or audit trail is reported. The focus group topics were built from the authors' own previous literature review [15], so the independence of the categories is not fully demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Barriers to Adopting Design for Assembly in Modular Product Architecture: Development of a Conceptual Model Through Content Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RR3N7IQS

@misc{pith2026241117768,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Barriers to Adopting Design for Assembly in Modular Product Architecture: Development of a Conceptual Model Through Content Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RR3N7IQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17768}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the barriers to integrating Design for Assembly (DFA) principles within modular product architectures established using the Modular Function Deployment (MFD) method -- a critical stage for deploying mass customization production while reducing costs. Despite the potential benefits of DFA, its application in modular architectures development remains underutilized, due to a mix of challenges. Through content analysis of qualitative data gathered from a focus group and interviews with industry experts and practitioners, we identified four major categories of such challenges, or barriers to adoption of DFA: technological, economic, regulatory, and organizational (TERO). Key challenges include compliance with regulatory requirements for data usage, intellectual property concerns, and limited availability of quantitative data in the initial stages of MFD. The findings reveal that multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to addressing these barriers, as it enhances informed decision making and eases the practical integration of DFA. By analyzing insights from both academic literature and industrial practice, this research develops a conceptual model that describes the main issues of applying DFA in MFD, providing a valuable guide for companies aiming to improve their modular products assembly process. Ultimately, this study provides groundwork to support industry practitioners in overcoming existing barriers, promoting more cost effective, high quality modular design processes with the inclusion of efficient assembly considerations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Design of Integrated Manufacturing Information Systems for Reconfigurability and Adaptability by Modularizing the System Architecture,

    Mollajan, A., Hamedani-KarAzmoudehfar, F., Ashofteh, A., Shahdadi, A., and Iranmanesh, S. H., 2024, “Design of Integrated Manufacturing Information Systems for Reconfigurability and Adaptability by Modularizing the System Architecture,” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 37(5), pp. 509–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2023.2228262

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    A Methodology for Production System Design Driven by Product Modelling and Analysis–Application in the Automotive Industry,

    Stief, P., Etienne, A., Dantan, J.-Y., and Siadat, A., 2023, “A Methodology for Production System Design Driven by Product Modelling and Analysis–Application in the Automotive Industry,” International Journal of Production Research, 61(4), pp. 1341–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2036382

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    T., Eppinger, S

    Ulrich, K. T., Eppinger, S. D., and Yang, M. C., 2020, Product Design and Development , McGraw- Hill Education, New York, NY

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Effects of Product Personalization: Considering Personalizability in the Product Architecture of Modular Product Families,

    Vogt, J., Woeller, L.-N., and Krause, D., 2024, “Effects of Product Personalization: Considering Personalizability in the Product Architecture of Modular Product Families,” Journal of Mechanical Design, 146(4), p. 041402. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063825

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4063825 2024

  5. [5]

    The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm,

    Ulrich, K. T., 1995, “The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm,” Research Policy, 24(3), pp. 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3 1995

  6. [6]

    Incorporating Field Effects Into Functional Product-System Architecting Methods,

    Otto, K., Hölttä-Otto, K., Sanaei, R., and Wood, K. L., 2020, “Incorporating Field Effects Into Functional Product-System Architecting Methods,” Journal of Mechanical Design, 142(4), p. 041402. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044839

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4044839 2020

  7. [7]

    Global Views on Modular Design Research: Linking Alternative Methods to Support Modular Product Family Concept Development,

    Otto, K., Hölttä-Otto, K., Simpson, T. W., Krause, D., Ripperda, S., and Ki Moon, S., 2016, “Global Views on Modular Design Research: Linking Alternative Methods to Support Modular Product Family Concept Development,” Journal of Mechanical Design, 138(7), p. 071101. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033654

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4033654 2016

  8. [8]

    Modular Function Deployment: A Method for Product Modularisation,

    Erixon, G., 1998, “Modular Function Deployment: A Method for Product Modularisation,” Doctoral thesis, The Royal Inst. of Technology, Dept. of Manufacturing Systems, Assembly Systems Division

    work page 1998

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Complexity in Engineering Design and Manufacturing,

    ElMaraghy, W., ElMaraghy, H., Tomiyama, T., and Monostori, L., 2012, “Complexity in Engineering Design and Manufacturing,” CIRP Annals, 61(2), pp. 793– 814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2012.05.001

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    How to Use the Levers of Modularity Properly—Linking Modularization to Economic Targets,

    Schwede, L.-N., Greve, E., Krause, D., Otto, K., Moon, S. K., Albers, A., Kirchner, E., Lachmayer, R., Bursac, N., Inkermann, D., Rapp, S., Hausmann, M., and Schneider, J., 2022, “How to Use the Levers of Modularity Properly—Linking Modularization to Economic Targets,” Journal...

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    An Approach to Integrate Product and Process Design Using Augmented Liaison Diagram, Assembly Sequencing, and Assembly Line Balancing,

    Takai, S., 2021, “An Approach to Integrate Product and Process Design Using Augmented Liaison Diagram, Assembly Sequencing, and Assembly Line Balancing,” Journal of Mechanical Design, 143(10), p. 102002. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4050381

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Y., Wilhelm, W

    Nof, S. Y., Wilhelm, W. E., and Warnecke, H., 2012, Industrial Assembly, Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  5. [13]

    Complexity Mapping of the Product and Assembly System,

    Samy, S. N., and ElMaraghy, H. A., 2012, “Complexity Mapping of the Product and Assembly System,” Assembly Automation, 32(2), pp. 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/01445151211212299

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Survey on Methods and Tools Utilization in Product Development with International Comparison,

    Fujita, K., Matsuo, T., and Inoue, A., 2003, “Survey on Methods and Tools Utilization in Product Development with International Comparison,” The Proceedings of Design & Systems Conference, 2003.13(0), pp. 236–239. https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmedsd.2003.13.236

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    Towards the Definition of Assembly- Oriented Modular Product Architectures: A Systematic Review,

    Monetti, F. M., and Maffei, A., 2023, “Towards the Definition of Assembly- Oriented Modular Product Architectures: A Systematic Review,” Res Eng Design. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163 - 023-00427-1

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Design for Automatic Assembly,

    Eskilander, S., 2001, “Design for Automatic Assembly,” Doctoral thesis, monograph, KTH Royal Institute of Technology. [Online]. Available: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva -

    2001

  9. [17]

    Design for Assembly—The Key to Design for Manufacture,

    Boothroyd, G., 1987, “Design for Assembly—The Key to Design for Manufacture,” Int J Adv Manuf Technol, 2(3), pp. 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02601481

    1987 doi

  10. [18]

    Design For Assembling: The Evaluation Methods Of Hitachi, Boothroyd And Lucas,

    Leaney, P. G., and Wittenberg, G., 1992, “Design For Assembling: The Evaluation Methods Of Hitachi, Boothroyd And Lucas,” Assembly Automation, 12(2), pp. 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb004359

    1992 doi

  11. [19]

    Design For Manufacture and Assembly Practitioners Manual, Version 10

    Lucas Engineering Systems Ltd, 1993, “Design For Manufacture and Assembly Practitioners Manual, Version 10.”

    1993

  12. [20]

    Investigation of the Applicability of Design for X Tools during Design Concept Evolution: A Literature Review,

    Chiu, M. C., and Okudan Kremer, G. E., 2011, “Investigation of the Applicability of Design for X Tools during Design Concept Evolution: A Literature Review,” IJPD, 13(2), p. 132. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2011.038869

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    E., 2004, Mechanical Assemblies: Their Design, Manufacture, and Role in Product Development, Oxford University Press, New York

    Whitney, D. E., 2004, Mechanical Assemblies: Their Design, Manufacture, and Role in Product Development, Oxford University Press, New York

    2004

  14. [22]

    Design for Assembly in the Product Development Process : A Design Theory Perspective,

    Egan, M. D., 1997, “Design for Assembly in the Product Development Process : A Design Theory Perspective,” Licenciate, Chalmers

    1997

  15. [23]

    Reactive Design Methodology for Product Family Platforms, Modularity and Parts Integration,

    AlGeddawy, T., and ElMaraghy, H., 2013, “Reactive Design Methodology for Product Family Platforms, Modularity and Parts Integration,” CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 6(1), pp. 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2012.08.001

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Product Family Design and Platform - Based Product Development: A State-of-the-Art Review,

    (Roger) Jiao, J., Simpson, T. W., and Siddique, Z., 2007, “Product Family Design and Platform - Based Product Development: A State-of-the-Art Review,” J Intell Manuf, 18(1), pp. 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0003-2

    2007 doi

  17. [26]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2

    Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., and Grote, K.-H., 2007, Engineering Design, Springer London, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2

    2007 doi

  18. [27]

    Defining Product Architecture During Conceptual Design,

    Allen, K. R., and Carlson-Skalak, S., 1998, “Defining Product Architecture During Conceptual Design,” Volume 3: 10th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology , American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, p. V003T03A018. https://doi.org/10....

    1998 doi

  19. [28]

    Enhancing Knowledge Management in the Engineering Design Process through a Communication Platform,

    Ugurlu, S., Grafinger, M., Gerhard, D., and Demircioglu, P., 2024, “Enhancing Knowledge Management in the Engineering Design Process through a Communication Platform,” Storga M., Skec S., Martinec T., Marjanovic D., Pavkovic N., and Skec M.M., eds., Cambridge University Press,...

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    Design for Circularity and Durability: An Integrated Approach from DFX Guidelines,

    Mesa, J. A., 2023, “Design for Circularity and Durability: An Integrated Approach from DFX Guidelines,” Research in Engineering Design, 34(4), pp. 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163- 023-00419-1

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    EXAMINING THE ROLE AND FUTURE POTENTIAL OF DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY METHODS TO SUPPORT CIRCULAR PRODUCT DESIGN,

    Formentini, G., and Ramanujan, D., 2023, “EXAMINING THE ROLE AND FUTURE POTENTIAL OF DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY METHODS TO SUPPORT CIRCULAR PRODUCT DESIGN,” Proceedings of the Design Society, Otto K., ed., Cambridge University Press, Bordeaux, FR, pp. 1735–1744. https://doi.org/10...

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    Accounting For Product End- of-Life Status in Disassembly Time Estimation Using Modified Maynard Operation Sequences,

    Formentini, G., and Ramanujan, D., 2023, “Accounting For Product End- of-Life Status in Disassembly Time Estimation Using Modified Maynard Operation Sequences,” Procedia CIRP , Guo Y. and Helu M., eds., Elsevier, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, pp. 305– 311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j....

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    Product Family Design Optimization Considering Manufacturing and Assembly Process Costs,

    Eremeev, P., De Cock, A., Devriendt, H., and Naets, F., 2024, “Product Family Design Optimization Considering Manufacturing and Assembly Process Costs,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 67(7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-024-03828-5

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    Framework for Metamodel -Based Design Optimization Considering Product Performance and Assembly Process Complexity,

    Eremeev, P., De Cock, A., Devriendt, H., and Naets, F., 2024, “Framework for Metamodel -Based Design Optimization Considering Product Performance and Assembly Process Complexity,” Simulation, 100(5), pp. 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/00375497231217301

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology,

    Braun, V., and Clarke, V., 2006, “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  26. [35]

    Inductive Content Analysis,

    Kyngäs, H., 2020, “Inductive Content Analysis,” The Application of Content Analysis in Nursing Science Research, H. Kyngäs, K. Mikkonen, and M. Kääriäinen, eds., Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6_2

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    Sustainable Product Design Factors: A Comprehensive Analysis,

    Mengistu, A. T., Dieste, M., Panizzolo, R., and Biazzo, S., 2024, “Sustainable Product Design Factors: A Comprehensive Analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 463, p. 142260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142260

    2024

  28. [37]

    Building Transparency and Trustworthiness in Inductive Research Through Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software,

    O’Kane, P., Smith, A., and Lerman, M. P., 2021, “Building Transparency and Trustworthiness in Inductive Research Through Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software,” Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), pp. 104–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119865016

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    A Validation Process for Observation Protocols: Using the Revised SMPs Look-for Protocol as a Lens on Teachers’ Promotion of the Standards,

    Bostic, J. D., Matney, G. T., and Sondergeld, T. A., 2019, “A Validation Process for Observation Protocols: Using the Revised SMPs Look-for Protocol as a Lens on Teachers’ Promotion of the Standards,” Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 11(1), pp. 69–82. https://doi.org/10...

    2019

  30. [39]

    Focus Group Methodology: A Review,

    Wilkinson, S., 1998, “Focus Group Methodology: A Review,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1(3), pp. 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874. FIGURES Fig. 1 The three phases of the research process Fig. 2 Conceptual model of the barriers to...

    1998

  31. [3128]

    [Accessed: 25-Apr-2001]

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.