Modularity-based innovation strategy for the development of nautical products: case study on competitiveness and operational efficiency

Estratégia de inovação baseada em modularidade para o desenvolvimento de produtos náuticos: estudo de caso sobre competitividade e eficiência operacional

Abstract

Abstract  The nautical industry faces significant challenges in the development of serial products, requiring management methods adapted to the Product Development Process (PDP). Currently, practices are largely inherited from heavy shipbuilding, where a spiral logic of development prevails. This article aims to propose, apply, and evaluate a sequential framework specific to the sport and recreational boat sector that incorporates modularity into PDP, an approach that is still uncommon in the nautical industry but has already proven beneficial in other manufacturing domains. The study focuses on sport and leisure vessels between 30 and 40 feet in length, manufactured from composite materials such as resins and fiberglass. The research employs a qualitative approach through a single case study at a medium-sized Brazilian shipyard, with data collection based on direct observation of the manufacturing environment and document analysis of technical reports, schedules, and operational-economic indicators. As a complementary step, a systematic review aligned with PRISMA 2020 guidelines was conducted. The implementation of the framework yielded substantial gains: a reduction in the return on investment period from approximately 4 years to 2 years, an 86% reduction in raw material costs for mold manufacturing, and significant environmental improvements from reduced resource consumption and component reuse. Beyond the economic and environmental advantages, modularity also enhanced process quality by fostering a more critical and systematic assessment of management, design, and engineering decisions throughout product development.

Keywords:
Recreational craft; Modularity in the marine industry; Product family; Marine product development; Product architecture

Resumo

Resumo  A indústria náutica enfrenta desafios significativos no desenvolvimento de produtos de série, que exigem métodos de gestão adaptados ao Processo de Desenvolvimento de Produtos (PDP). Atualmente, as práticas são, em grande medida, herdadas da construção naval pesada, na qual predomina a lógica de desenvolvimento em espiral. Este artigo tem como objetivo propor, aplicar e avaliar um arcabouço sequencial específico para o setor de embarcações de esporte e recreio, que incorpora a modularidade ao PDP, abordagem ainda pouco comum no setor náutico, porém já comprovadamente benéfica em outros domínios manufatureiros. O estudo foca em embarcações de esporte e lazer entre 30 e 40 pés, fabricadas em materiais compósitos, como resinas e fibra de vidro. A pesquisa adota abordagem qualitativa, por meio de estudo de caso único em um estaleiro brasileiro de porte médio, com coleta de dados baseada em observação direta no ambiente fabril, análise documental de relatórios técnicos, cronogramas e indicadores econômicos operacionais. Como etapa complementar, foi conduzida uma revisão sistemática alinhada às diretrizes PRISMA 2020. A implementação do arcabouço gerou ganhos substanciais: redução do tempo de retorno de investimento de aproximadamente quatro anos para dois anos, redução de 86% nos custos de matérias-primas para fabricação de moldes e melhorias ambientais relevantes decorrentes da menor utilização de recursos e da reutilização de componentes. Para além das vantagens econômicas e ambientais, a modularidade também elevou a qualidade do processo, ao favorecer uma leitura mais crítica e sistemática das decisões de gestão, projeto e engenharia no PDP.

Palavras-chave:
Embarcações de esporte e recreio; Modularidade na indústria náutica; Família de produtos; Desenvolvimento de produtos náuticos; Arquitetura de produtos

1 Introduction

The nautical industry in Brazil made its most significant strides starting in the 1990s (Sebrae, 2014), when vessel production reached an industrial scale, necessitating greater professionalization of organizations, their processes, and the workforce (Moreira, 2012). This demand stemmed from Brazil's economic opening, which expanded knowledge transfer and sharing with the international market (Souza et al., 2024). However, during this same period, domestic producers faced challenges due to the availability of more technologically advanced international products (Alves, 2024), pressuring Brazilian companies to adapt their designs to compete with products of global reach (Catarina & Mathias, 2017).

Concurrently, the evolution of the country's nautical culture was observed, with shifts in consumer habits attracting a significant number of new consumers to the sector and progressively increasing demand for vessels (Barbosa, 2024). This trend was corroborated by the Brazilian Association of Boat and Equipment Builders (Acobar, 2021). According to the association, the sector recorded a 20% increase in revenue from R$ 634 million in 2019 to R$ 761 million in 2020 despite the economic contraction caused by the pandemic, during which Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell by 5%.

In this context, the nautical industry faces the challenge of maintaining its appeal to new consumers while simultaneously retaining its existing customer base in the post-pandemic period (Ministério da Saúde, 2022). This situation underscores the need for continuous innovation, quality improvements, and cost reductions factors that shape consumer perceptions of value (Moraes et al., 2024). To achieve this, it is crucial to establish a stable development and manufacturing process that is cost-effective; these conditions enable competitive pricing and reinforce albeit indirectly the pillars of environmental, social, and economic sustainability (Alejandrino et al., 2021).

Sectors that have already undergone modularization such as the automotive, electronics, major appliances, and energy industries have benefited from the pioneering application of modular techniques. These techniques have gained traction in various projects due to their adaptability throughout the product lifecycle; in this research, this set of management practices is termed "modularity" (Martinez Martin et al., 2024). Conceptually, management for modularity refers to the set of systematic activities aimed at subdividing products and product families into parts and components that can subsequently be recombined according to specific rules and situations. From a systemic perspective, modularity is essentially a strategic approach to managing complexity, whether structural, behavioral, contextual, perceptual, or temporal (Papanikolaou, 2019).

In this context, modularity presents an opportunity to steer the Product Development Process (PDP) toward economic, operational, and environmental gains. Its application throughout the development phase enables the designer to verify how the product under development integrates with existing and future product families, as well as to indirectly assess specific gains based on the sustainability triad namely, environmental, social, and economic (Scalice, 2003).

Although the spiral development method is widely adopted in naval and nautical projects, recent studies suggest that modularity can be strategically applied in traditional industries, such as the nautical sector. However, the best way to efficiently integrate it into the Product Development Process (PDP) to capture competitive, operational, and sustainability advantages remains undefined. There is, therefore, a need for systematic guidance that clarifies the organizational, technical, and market factors critical to the synergistic incorporation of modularity into development methodologies, without compromising economic performance or diverting the process from its commitment to socio-environmental responsibility (Seiler et al., 2019; Sonego et al., 2018; Echeveste, 2015). Given this gap, this study investigates how a sequential framework based on modularity can be proposed, applied, and evaluated in the development of nautical products, and considers its effects on competitiveness, sustainability, and operational efficiency. Thus, the objective of this study is to propose, apply, and evaluate a sequential framework for the modular development of nautical products.

2 Mass production

The product of ingenuity accumulated over generations; scientific management fostered the breaking down of tasks and the gradual refinement of factory routines. The standardization of products and operational movements enabled large-scale manufacturing, thereby increasing prosperity and alleviating poverty (Taylor, 1911).

With these advances, a new challenge emerged: managing the growing variety of models. Although there were fears that this diversity would compromise efficiency, experience proved otherwise. Specialization in specific standards allowed diversity and productivity to flourish concurrently. Standardization came to mean the continuous selection of the best available technical solution, with the understanding that the prevailing standard is likely to be superseded by a more suitable one. This constant renewal, driven by skilled managers, transforms the standard into a springboard for subsequent innovations (Ford, 1964).

The context that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries stemmed from a society seeking social and economic solutions one that found a model of rational organization in the natural sciences. The notion that society could be structured rationally appealed to organizations and fostered a work environment guided by scientific-organization principles (Ramos, 1949).

In the following decades, techno-productive rationality permeated industrial and business contexts, as demonstrated in the classic work *The Machine That Changed the World* by Womack et al. (1990), published in the late 20th century. Japanese industries refined the industrial context, highlighting the applicability of lean production systems particularly when compared to the performance of European and North American manufacturers of that era (Morgan & Liker, 2008).

These changes gave rise to an ecosystem conducive to the conception of new products and services, driven by transformations in management styles. Regardless of whether a product targets the general public or specific niches, organizations can benefit from product-oriented management (Muniz et al., 2020). Since the Industrial Revolution, techniques have evolved, spreading within a globalized context. This diffusion impacts business strategies, production processes, and product design approaches (Javaid et al., 2022). Against this historical and technological backdrop, the following section discusses modularity in product development and its relevance to the nautical sector.

3 Modularity in product development

In establishing the concept of modularity, Sun and Zhong (2020) define it as a set of components that can be removed from the final product as a unit without causing damage. From this perspective, the subsystems of a complex artifact can be designed and manufactured separately and subsequently connected to operate as an integrated part of the whole (Baldwin & Clark, 2014; Ulrich, 1995).

Modularity has established itself as a fundamental tool across various economic sectors (Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996), supporting cost leadership and differentiation strategies (Schilling, 2000). Its application has expanded from the automotive industry (Kolter et al., 2025; Robertson & Ulrich, 1998) to computing (Hankammer et al., 2018), machinery and equipment (Alaei et al., 2019), and major home appliances (Lima & Kubota, 2022), while also showing advances in shipbuilding (Vladimir et al., 2022) and civil engineering (Generalova et al., 2016). This approach focuses on dividing the product into standard modules, leveraging scale and the reuse of parts and assemblies to create new products (Wang et al., 2022). Another benefit lies in the ability of suppliers to deliver specific modules based on their expertise (Hossain et al., 2023; Prieto & Miguel, 2011), while the company retains production of items aligned with its own technical competencies (Carnevalli et al., 2021). Beyond its adoption across sectors, various authors define the concept of modularity in terms of product families and common elements.

According to Jung et al. (2021), modularity refers to sets of items or product families that share one or more common elements such as components, modules, and subsystems to serve different market segments (Tan et al., 2024). In this context, products should be designed to capture economies of scale and reduce costs across the family and to reduce time-to-market, while accounting for the variety of platform-based offerings (Kremer, 2013).

From a broader perspective, Modrak & Soltysova (2021) frame modularity within the context of systems engineering, characterizing it as the degree to which a system is composed of relatively independent parts, each with its own set of functionalities (Husung et al., 2021). This concept aligns with general systems theory (Tomiyama et al., 2019) and applies to technical, social, or biological systems (Lambiotte & Schaub, 2022). Accordingly, three main domains of modularity are highlighted: design, use, and production (Kubota et al., 2022).

In recent years, Research and Development (R&D) teams have received special attention within organizations due to their role in innovation and new product launches (Anttonen, 2020). Generally, these are multidisciplinary teams focused on design and engineering (Evanschitzky et al., 2012), facing pressure from shorter development cycles and the incorporation of increasingly complex technologies (Cooper, 2016). Such pressures drive advancements in the Product Development Process (PDP), where modularity is proposed as a means to manage and reduce complexity during development (Shamsuzzoha et al., 2020). This context requires continuous organizational attention and collaboration with academia to adapt and propose methods and technologies aimed at product modularity (Martin, 2019).

Modularity has become a key concept in inventive processes (Zhang et al., 2023), serving as a relevant approach to new product development and innovation by addressing market demands and consumer expectations (Tatikonda & Montoya-Weiss, 2001). Conceptually, modularity can be understood as a significant set of components interconnected via a common interface (Parnas, 1972), which expands the configuration possibilities for the final product. These interfaces correspond to functional contact surfaces of a mechanical, electrical, and digital nature (Simionescu & Papp, 2020).

Process standardization was fundamental to the consolidation of modularity (Albrecht, 2015), enabling the scalability of products that would otherwise have been unfeasible due to low demand (Roy & Abdul-Nour, 2024). Key associated benefits include continuous linear flows within industrial processes, from design to product engineering (Anttonen, 2020).

Key advantages of modularity include faster development (Zarbi et al., 2024), reduced development costs, module reuse across different products leading to greater variety and economies of scale lower inventory and logistics costs (Christensen et al., 2005), task decoupling, component reuse, reduced assembly time, lower training requirements, easier introduction of new technologies, fewer assembly errors, and quality gains (Ethiraj & Levinthal, 2004).

The term modularity is frequently associated with product architecture, which describes how functions are allocated to the physical components of an artifact (Dahmus et al., 2001). Broadly speaking, architecture is distinguished in two main ways: integral and modular (Fixson & Park, 2008; Mikkola, 2006). Integral architecture typically concentrates functions within a single component via its interface, whereas modular architecture distributes functions across subsets, with multiple connections between components (Sonego et al., 2018).

During product development, modularity reduces strong dependencies among modules within a single artifact (Gershenson et al., 2003) and expands design thinking to foster greater interconnectivity among solutions (Lindemann et al., 2009). Consequently, the product is conceived as part of a family, promoting the visual and functional evolution of the brand identity both in the present and the future (Zhang et al., 2020). The modular structure is built upon two principles: commonality and combinability. Commonality refers to items shared across variants, whereas combinability relates to the possibility of combining components into different product configurations (Vogt et al., 2024). These principles enable the use of the same module across multiple variants and families, while also reducing the number of items managed within the supply chain (Jacobs et al., 2007; Sun & Zhong, 2020).

The state of the art is converging on modularity as an operational mechanism for the design and evolution of physical products, moving beyond the limited perspective of low-cost variety. Early in the development process, the derivation of usage-scenario-oriented modules based on real customer data gains momentum, enabling the precise definition of functions, boundaries, and interfaces, thereby reducing the need for rework in subsequent phases (Tian et al., 2025). Concurrently, co-creation with various stakeholders in the product development process (PDP) enhances the quality of architectural decisions by making value priorities explicit and guiding the configuration of modules and their physical connections, which shortens decision-making cycles (Xu et al., 2025). These trends are consolidated when variant generation is integrated into a clear verification and validation cycle following a logic similar to sequential models thereby accelerating development and increasing the predictability of modular assembly performance in the final product (Liu et al., 2025).

From a methodological standpoint, advances are evident in product partitioning techniques that combine the identification of core components with component dependency matrices encompassing structural, functional, and flow aspects alongside hierarchical clustering procedures designed to isolate strong couplings, maximize reuse, and incorporate service-life and recoverability criteria at the design stage (Wang et al., 2025). Complementing this approach, a methodological experimentation environment is proposed for planning upgradeable systems; this environment makes explicit the objectives and requirements that guide interface choices throughout the lifecycle and link modularity strategy to engineering decisions (Kuebler et al., 2025). The frontier has also shifted toward manufacturing processes; by modularizing products, modular architecture directly impacts operations mitigating the propagation of disruptions between stages and reducing assembly variability thereby upholding quality and schedule adherence during the convergence of physical modules on the line (Mollajan et al., 2025).

Within the sustainability and circular economy agenda, recent research identifies concrete barriers to incorporating environmental criteria into development such as the challenges of measuring impacts and setting priorities amidst technological uncertainty and offers decision rules for choosing between updating an existing architecture via modular upgrades and launching a new generation, thereby balancing implementation effort, expected benefits, and readiness for future technologies (Riesener et al., 2025; Zumach et al., 2025). A critical issue persists in the realm of managerial economics, as traditional costing methods tend to underestimate the systemic benefits of modularity by allocating costs solely at the product level; failing to capture effects at the subsystem and component levels throughout the lifecycle can lead to conservative decisions and the rejection of architectures that, under appropriate metrics, would reduce complexity, inventory levels, and integration effort (Nørgaard et al., 2025).

For the marine industry, this state-of-the-art approach recommends architectures featuring stable interfaces and clearly defined points of variation such as alternative powertrain options, deck and cabin modules, and electrical and HVAC systems linked to modular assembly processes and supported by metrics for reuse and upgrading. This combination tends to reduce time-to-market, facilitate regulatory compliance, and prepare the product platform for subsequent cycles of technological evolution.

4 Research method

This study adopts a qualitative approach using a single-case study design, as outlined by Yin (2011). This strategy was selected for its suitability to investigate contemporary phenomena in real-world contexts, enabling the proposal, application, and evaluation of a sequential framework for the modular development of nautical products a central theme in strategic management and organizational innovation.

The empirical unit is a medium-sized Brazilian shipyard specializing in 30- to 40-foot recreational boats made of composite materials (fiberglass and resins). It was selected for its potential to analyze the adoption of modularity, as it provides an informative context for examining strategic and operational innovations within the marine industry. The case is significant because it involves the serial production of composite-material boats, product family development, intensive mold use, the need for component reuse, and pressure to reduce time, costs, and rework during product development. These characteristics make the case particularly well-suited to examining the application of modularity in an industrial context, where architectural decisions, interfaces, molds, and platforms directly impact economic and operational performance. The findings are specific to the empirical object analyzed and do not aim to cover the full diversity of contexts within the nautical industry a scope consistent with the role of case studies as a bridge between research and practice (Råbu & Binder, 2025). Validity is analytical rather than statistical, and inferences must be interpreted in light of the case's specificities: a medium-sized Brazilian shipyard, vessels between 30 and 40 feet made of composite materials, and a post-pandemic timeframe (Drisko, 2025; Stalmeijer et al., 2024).

The results do not cover variations in shipyard size; vessel categories such as sailboats, open-sea operations, or passenger transport; alternative materials like aluminum, steel, and advanced composites; production models such as engineer-to-order, configure-to-order, and make-to-order; or regulatory frameworks from other countries or regions. However, these delimitations provide sufficient descriptive elements for the reader to assess the applicability of the findings to other contexts (Stalmeijer et al., 2024). Transferability is possible based on theoretical and contextual similarity and should be determined by the reader through a thick, critical description of the context, rather than through statistical generalization (Drisko, 2025; Stalmeijer et al., 2024).

The research employed three data collection and analysis techniques: (i) direct observation in the manufacturing environment over six months, with systematic recording in field notes; (ii) document analysis of technical reports, schedules, and economic-financial assessments related to the application of modularity, including records used to compare indicators of development time, raw material consumption for molds, and accumulated economic performance; and (iii) analytical assessment by the researchers, comparing strategic and operational decisions against the literature on modularity in product development (Sun & Zhong, 2020; Modrak & Soltysova, 2021). The documents analyzed include engineering records, project schedules, cost data, material consumption indicators, and information related to mold manufacturing. The methodological approach prioritized documentary sources and observable process evidence, without employing formal interviews as a data-collection technique. Consequently, we did not develop interview guides; instead, direct observation and document analysis were guided by a deductive analytical protocol based on the research objective and the dimensions of modularity identified in the literature: product family, interchangeability, interface management, operational efficiency, and production sustainability.

These dimensions constituted categories C1 through C5, presented in Table 1. Thus, the empirical evidence was organized by data source and subsequently grouped into analytical categories: product families, interchangeability, interface management, operational efficiency, and production sustainability. The analysis was based on the triangulation of sources including direct observation, internal documents, and analytical assessment and followed a logic of convergence derived from observable evidence (Cornelissen, 2025; Patton, 1999). Initially, the evidence was organized by source; subsequently, the data were compared to identify convergences, recurring patterns, and relationships regarding the application of modularity in product development.

Table 1
Analytical Categories of the Case Study.

Analytical Category (C)	Category Description	Primary source of evidence
Product Family (C1)	Evidence regarding product organization is based on a family, platform, and variant logic.	Engineering documents, product structure, and development records.
Communality (C2)	Identification of components, modules, molds, and solutions shared across different products.	Component lists, technical records, and model comparisons.
Interface management (C3)	Analysis of the physical, functional, and production interfaces between modules, components, and systems.	Technical drawings, design documents, and integration records.
Operational efficiency (C4)	Evidence of reductions in time, rework, costs, and development effort.	Schedules, economic indicators, and PDP tracking records.
Productive sustainability (C5)	Evidence of reduced consumption of raw materials, molds, waste, and production resources.	Material consumption data, mold records, and economic-financial indicators.

• Source: The authors.

Subsequently, this evidence was grouped into analytical categories, thereby linking the empirical findings to the dimensions of commonality, platform reuse, interface management, operational efficiency, and production sustainability. The findings indicated that modularity contributes to economic, environmental, and operational gains consistent with results reported in the literature (Jacobs et al., 2007; Jung et al., 2021) and we interpreted the indicators in light of the internal documents analyzed and the specific context of the case study.

To ensure quality and academic rigor, four fundamental criteria were observed (Saunders et al., 2019): credibility, ensured by the use of multiple sources of evidence; internal coherence, associated with the alignment between the objective, data collection procedures, and data analysis; transferability, defined by the description of the empirical context and the possibility of analytical generalization; and dependability, supported by detailed documentation of the procedures for collecting, organizing, and analyzing evidence.

These categories presented in Table 1 guide the integrated interpretation of empirical evidence and allow for linking documentary and observational data to the economic, operational, and environmental results presented in the next section.

5 PRISMA systematic review results

In accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021; Veroniki et al., 2025), we conducted this systematic review to identify recent studies on modularity in product development. Searches were performed on September 11, 2025, in the Scopus and Web of Science databases using the search string “modularity” AND “new product development,” covering the period from 2022 to 2025. We selected this timeframe to prioritize contemporary contributions, and the article is complemented by a narrative review of classic and seminal references predating 2022.

Thus, the systematic review served to update the recent debate, while the narrative review supported the established conceptual foundations regarding modularity, product architecture, product families, and platforms. However, it is acknowledged that the search string employed prioritizes the direct intersection between modularity and product development; consequently, it may not fully retrieve studies indexed under related terms that are part of this study's theoretical discussion such as "product family architecture," "platform-based design," "product platform," "product family engineering," and "modular product architecture."

These terms were not included in the main search string to maintain the systematic review's focus on the direct relationship between modularity and new product development, thereby avoiding an overly broad scope and reduced screening precision. A total of 170 references were identified: 81 in Scopus and 89 in Web of Science. After removing 47 duplicates, 123 titles and abstracts were screened. During this stage, we excluded 78 records because they did not address modularity applied to the product development process, showed low sectoral transferability (e.g., services or software lacking a physical artifact), or were ineligible document types (such as conference abstracts and editorials). Subsequently, 45 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 37 did not directly address the study question (Akl et al., 2024).

The final set comprised eight articles that provide the basis for comparing the development spiral with the sequential modular method and guide subsequent analytical decisions. It is worth noting that these eight articles do not represent the entire body of literature on modularity, but rather a recent subset directly associated with the chosen search terms. We integrated evidence through thematic convergence maintaining traceability of exclusions and coherence between criteria and resulted in reinforcing the validity of the synthesis and the replicability of the procedure. Figure 1 presents the applied PRISMA flowchart, documenting the process of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion.

Figure 1
PRISMA Method Flowchart. Source: (Page et al., 2021).

6 Empirical results of the case study

This section presents the empirical results of the case study, keeping them separate from the results obtained in the PRISMA systematic review. The analysis focuses on the application of the modular framework to the development of nautical products and its effects on product architecture, operational efficiency, economic performance, and production sustainability.

In the case studied, the traditional development logic aligns with the Development Spiral shown in Figure 2, which entails iterative passes through all project stages, followed by a return to the starting point for a new iteration (Ruggiero et al., 2024). The repetitive nature of the method is central to accommodating the cycle of problem identification, analysis, and corrective action formulation that enables the project to progress (Bottero & Gualeni, 2024; Shaw, 2018).

Figure 2
Vessel design spiral. Source: adapted from Bottero & Gualeni (2024).

The spiral method requires accumulated knowledge and experience on the part of the designer, as well as support from computer-aided technologies in engineering and hydrodynamics (Papanikolaou, 2022). Since the process relies on the designer's intuition and judgment, it is continuously developed and updated (Shaw, 2018). Pawłusik et al. (2020) from the Maritime Research Center in Poland criticize this method, noting that the process has remained unchanged over time, regardless of the software used or the wide range of analytical methods and processes developed. The essence of this methodology, as presented by Ameel (2020), stems from the perspective that a project is never fully complete; the designer moves closer to the objective, yet the process of doing so is non-linear (Bottero & Gualeni, 2024), creating a sense of an unfinished process amidst the infinite possibilities for product improvement across iterations (Erikstad & Lagemann, 2022). The project's endpoint remains unclear to the designer (Perez-Martinez & Perez Fernandez, 2023), given the ongoing possibility of spiraling.

6.1 Spiral method compared to the sequential modular method

Table 2 summarizes the gaps between the practices of technologically mature sectors such as automotive, aerospace, electrical and electronics, construction, and major home appliances and the practices observed in the nautical sector (Catto & Maccari, 2022; Costa & Nascimento, 2011; Duverger et al., 2024; Eljayar & Busch, 2021; Lima & Kubota, 2022; Silva & Santos, 2023; Teixeira & Nascimento, 2010). In general, the nautical sector exhibits significant gaps in its approach to the stages of product development (Kunkera et al., 2025). In contrast, mature sectors employ structured processes that emphasize product families, modularity, standardization, and the adaptability of components and their interfaces (Beibl & Krause, 2024).

Table 2
Comparison of product development process stages between the automotive and nautical sectors.

COMPARATIVE STAGES: R&D-INTENSIVE SECTOR VERSUS NAUTICAL SECTOR
DEVELOPED SECTORS		NAUTICAL SECTOR
ELEMENTS	EXAMPLE	ELEMENTS	EXAMPLE
Strategic analysis of the product family	1. Alignment with the company's mission, vision, and values;	Lack of product family and commonality governance	1. Initial spiral processes with customer requirements
(Chaymae & Abdellah, 2025)	2. Design evolution over time;	(Berschik et al., 2024b; Hattendorf, 2004; Marinha do Brasil, 2024)	(Bottero & Gualeni, 2024)
	3. Breadth of the product family. (Riasanow et al., 2021).
Goal setting based on the business environment	1. Benefits of variety with similarity	Cost Estimation	1. Cost estimate based on product design
	2. Globally marketable prices	(Alblas & Pruijn, 2024; Santos et al., 2022)	2. Motor power estimate
(George, 2025)	3. Risks and contingencies		Weight estimate
	4. Goal setting based on the customer's environment (Pakkanen et al., 2018).		(Bottero & Gualeni, 2024)
Legal Aspects	Legal product requirements;	Legal Aspects	1. NORMAN-211/DPC (2023);
(Marx & Paula, 2011; Puglieri et al., 2024; Toledo et al., 2008)	Environmental regulations;	(Matthews et al., 2024)	2. NBR 14574 (ABNT, 2012);
	Sustainability requirements;		3. ISO 12217-1 (ISO, 2013)
	(Vilochani et al., 2024)
Supply chain	1. Supply chain platform	Opportunistic supply	1. Best product price
(Silva & Leite, 2024)	2. Platform ecosystem (Jovanovic et al., 2022).	management	2. Best delivery time
		(Sohrt et al., 2025b)	(Alblas & Pruijn, 2024)
Model of the pre-existing modular system elements	1. Analysis of the existing product range to identify generic elements (internal and market-related).	Known Basic Models	1. Adoption of basic models
		(Moraes, 2017)	2. Known elements
(Henriques & Miguel, 2017)
	2. Sample of the preliminary product family description and rationale (Stylidis et al., 2020).
			(Perez-Martinez & Perez Fernandez, 2023)
Architecture: generic components and interfaces	1. Standard elements	Interfaces defined case by case.	1. Project-specific architecture;
	2. Configurable elements	(Sohrt et al., 2025a)	2. Components suitable for the project
(Inselmann et al., 2025)	3. Interchangeable elements
			(Toche et al., 2020)
	4. Parametrization (Tomiyama et al., 2019).
Module variants and customer needs	1. Generic elements vs. solution principles	Project requirements	1. Assessment of client needs
(Bagni & Marçola, 2019)	2. Solution principles vs. product variation	(Anagnostopoulos & Kaklis, 2024)	3. Construction schedule
	3. Knowledge of configurations (Sharma et al., 2022).		(Ruggiero et al., 2024)
Product family documentation	1. Product structuring	Development of the Preliminary Product Structure	1. Materials development list
(Oliveira et al., 2018)	(Husung et al., 2021)	(Anagnostopoulos & Kaklis, 2024)	(Shaw, 2018)

• Source: The authors.

The selection of elements for technologically mature sectors draws upon recent literature and seminal works on product families and modularity (Baldwin & Clark, 2014; Springer et al., 2025; Ulrich, 1995), converging on a coherent set of pillars. First, platform governance aligns the portfolio and costs with strategic direction. Next, architecture featuring standardized interfaces reduces component coupling and enables lifecycle updates. Furthermore, standardization combined with parameterization enables the generation of variants with a high degree of reuse. Finally, consistent lifecycle documentation anchored in product structures and bills of materials ensures traceability and operational discipline. Recent evidence (Monetti & Maffei, 2024), synthesized in the consulted sources, indicates tangible gains in terms of time, cost, and complexity when the architecture is conceived from the outset with an assembly-oriented approach and supported by stable interfaces effectively updating the classic logic of platforms and product families (Berschik et al., 2024a).

The nautical sector has traditionally relied on a spiral design approach and a culture of custom-built projects, where client requirements and operational constraints dictate case-by-case decisions, resulting in lower commonality across projects and greater variability. The progressive adoption of a modular development process guided by standardized interfaces and consistent documentation is identified as a pathway to consolidating interfaces and reducing rework; however, this approach still faces practical barriers within small and medium-sized enterprises in the sports and recreational boating industry (Andrews, 2024; Bottero & Gualeni, 2024; Ruggiero et al., 2024).

Although structured processes are present in both contexts, developed sectors (automotive, aerospace, electronics, and major appliances) emphasize continuous improvement routines. In contrast, the nautical sector focuses on executing projects with a distinct beginning, middle, and end (Iwańkowicz & Rutkowski, 2023) often without explicit criteria for project closure. This disparity in focus creates methodological gaps, particularly regarding the integration of modularity principles and product family management.

6.2 Framework for the development of nautical products

The proposed framework aims to incorporate a well-established modularity concept from technologically mature sectors into the nautical product development process to enhance efficiency, quality, and operational predictability. This proposal addresses the market's growing demand for total quality (Abdulkadir, 2023), given that consumers in this niche are accustomed to high standards while simultaneously demanding shorter delivery times (Das et al., 2024), requirements often linked to seasonal purchasing decisions, particularly during summer and family vacation periods.

Regarding the cost dimension, the challenge stems from market opening and easy access to imports, which drive global competition for customers (Micus et al., 2023). Such pressures have already been faced and, in part, overcome as seen in the automotive sector (Beibl & Krause, 2024). However, opportunities exist for the nautical sector to advance in the adoption of new development technologies through modularity-oriented sequential processes.

Figure 3 presents the developed framework and its stages within the context of the Product Family Strategy, assuming that senior management regards it as a key factor in new product launches (Felekoglu et al., 2024a). The process concludes with the submission of standardized documents to the project manager containing the information required by the templates specific to each phase followed by the use of a checklist to ensure full compliance with the stages. The linear form adopted inspired by practices in the automotive sector is noted by various authors as being easy to understand (Catto & Maccari, 2022). For the professional, this sequential progression clearly illustrates the transition from one phase to the next, thereby facilitating process guidance, control, traceability, and predictability.

Figure 3
Framework for the Development of Modular Nautical Products – Source: The authors.

The processes are described continuously and detailed at the bottom of the diagram using action verbs that indicate what must be performed at each stage. The output of each phase serves as the input for the next. The exception is phase 1, designated “Nautical Product Family Strategy,” which is grounded in the company’s strategic plans, mission, vision, and values.

6.3 Practical application of modularity using the framework

The process, based on the framework, guides the project manager, R&D coordinator, designers, drafters, and engineers in implementing senior management's directives for new product development and defining their scope within the market context (Falahat et al., 2023).

Development teams must align with strategic objectives and consider them throughout execution to ensure adherence to the market strategy, on time delivery, and the consistent incorporation of modular features into the process and product (Li & Chen, 2024). Guidelines regarding product modularity and planned interfaces must be incorporated into the project requirements and explicitly stated in the respective project charter. The project sponsor must serve as the primary driver of the modular concept, fostering a sense of responsibility across the team and ensuring adherence to the goals established in the requirements and other product documentation (Felekoglu et al., 2024b).

The project manager must promote the pursuit of modularity and common interfaces (Askhøj, 2021) by developing the knowledge needed to support their team. Their analyses must take the project's macro-objective into account during day-to-day decision-making, fostering the habit of identifying modules and their respective interfaces. The team should record the insights gained for each module, the interfaces, and the developed product in the lessons learned section (Choi, 2022).

Monitoring the stages of the framework should be carried out collaboratively, with representatives from sales, marketing, production, and project management contributing to the application, evaluation, and adjustment of the process (Silva et al., 2013). Figure 4 presents six nautical product models defined for modular development, along with their corresponding base modules and base components.

Figure 4
Product models based on modular platforms. Source: the authors.

The acronyms shown in Figure 4 refer to the following modules and interfaces.:

• BM1: Base Module 01, hull assembly;

• BM2: Base Module 02, deck assembly;

• CML1-1: Components Module Level 1, part 01, Hardtop (HT);

• CML1-2: Components Module Level 1, part 02, Stern Platform;

• CML1-3: Components Module Level 1, part 03, Roof and Windshield Assembly;

• CML1-4: Components Module Level 1, part 04, Inboard engine;

• CML1-5: Components Module Level 1, part 05, Outboard Motors;

  - P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P1: product identifiers 1 - 6.

The proposed architecture underpins the construction of a product family comprising components organized across multiple levels. Base modules are added to introduce functionality and variation in expression across products, consistent with the product family literature (Hsuan & Hansen, 2007). The architectural configuration encompasses components ranging from level 1 and level 2 up to 'n' levels, combining common modules and interchangeable components where specified; this enables the creation of reconfigurable families that are adaptable to customer needs and market changes.

6.4 Economic and environmental benefits

For the longitudinal economic analysis, we compared the behavior of investment, accumulated margin, and operating balance between traditional single-product development and the modular, product-platform-based approach. The results indicated an approximate 50% reduction in the investment payback period dropping from around four years in the traditional model to less than two years in the modular approach over the 2015–2021 analysis period. In Figure 5, Year 1 was adopted as the initial time reference (t0) for the longitudinal analysis. No significant external changes were identified during the evaluation period that could, in isolation, account for the economic gains observed in the study.

Figure 5
Payback using a product development platform. Source: the authors.

The economic analysis was conducted based on the six products included in the study, comparing traditional single-product development with a modular product family strategy. The figures presented cover the 2015–2021 period and are expressed in nominal values, without adjustment for inflation. A production rate of six to ten units per month was assumed, based on the capacity observed in the case study. A comparison of the approaches highlights that the return-on-investment period is a significant indicator of the economic benefits of modularity. This reduction in the payback period is crucial for organizations (Lacey et al., 2004), as it accelerates the realization of economic results (Knudsen et al., 2023). Another notable aspect is the flexibility afforded by modularity, which provides the agility and readiness to respond to market demands (Machado & Moraes, 2010), thereby facilitating timely product launches and adaptation to diverse competitive contexts.

During the Product Family Strategy phase, it is recommended that the company establish a time horizon to serve as a basis for developing product families and their respective platforms (Yao et al., 2023). This planning enables anticipation of design trends and efficient resource allocation. The cost reduction illustrated in Table 3 is demonstrated using actual data from the case study, comparing the single-product development model with the modular approach based on platforms, blocks, and standardized interfaces.

Table 3
Reduction in the use of raw materials.

ITEM	MODULAR PLATFORM		SINGLE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
	PRODUCT FAMILY		PRODUCT TO PRODUCT
	DESCRIPTION	LAMINATED AREA OF THE PART (m2 x kg)	DESCRIPTION	LAMINATED AREA OF THE PRODUCT (m2 x kg)
BM-1	HULL + STRINGER	522.96	BOAT 37" HT INBOARD MOTOR	1,595.17
BM-2	DECK	277.68	BOAT 37" HT OUTBOARD MOTOR	1,633.46
CML1-1	HARD TOP (HT)	240.70	BOAT 36" TARGA INBOARD MOTOR	1,531.37
CML1-2	STERN PLATFORM	51.45	BOAT 36" TARGA OUTBOARD MOTOR	1,569.65
CML1-3	TARGA + ROOF	115.80	BOAT 34" TARGA INBOARD MOTOR	1,276.14
CML1-5	STERN PLUG	67.55	BOAT 34" TARGA OUTBOARD MOTOR	1,314.42
TOTAL		1,276.14	TOTAL	8,920.21
COST PER SQUARE METER OF LAMINATE x R$1,000.00		R$ 1,276,140.00	COST PER SQUARE METER OF LAMINATE x R$1,000.00	R$ 8,920,210.00
VALUE OF RAW MATERIAL COST REDUCTION			R$ 7,644,070.00
PERCENTAGE OF RAW MATERIAL COST REDUCTION			86%

• ^*
  Note: Values are expressed in Brazilian reais (BRL).
• Source: the authors

The comparison includes costs associated with raw material consumption in the manufacture of six products developed using the traditional single product approach and contrasts them with those for products developed based on a modular product family logic. For this comparison, the costs of raw materials used in mold manufacturing were considered, including the key composite inputs utilized in the process under analysis.

In the analyzed set, the application of modularity resulted in an 86% reduction in the costs of raw materials used to manufacture the molds for the nautical products under study. We interpreted the result using the analytical categories of commonality, platform reuse, and interface management, which we identified through document analysis and direct observation in the case study.

The comparison evaluated the six products featured in the study, contrasting the development of each vessel with that of a shared modular platform. Key composite materials used in mold fabrications, such as resins, fiberglass, gelcoat, and auxiliary materials, were included in the analysis. In the traditional model, total estimated consumption was 8,920.22 m² of equivalent laminate, whereas the modular approach required 1,276.14 m², resulting in an estimated reduction of R$ 7,644,078.60 in raw material costs for the process analyzed. These figures represent the accumulated cost over the period under review and demonstrate that reusing modules, blocks, and components with a common interface reduced the need to manufacture separate molds for each product in the family.

Reducing the consumption of resins and fiberglass is crucial for alleviating pressure on natural resources. Optimizing the manufacturing process through modularity also minimizes waste generation (Psarommatis et al., 2025). In the case analyzed, this environmental benefit is directly linked to the reduced need for laminating new molds, the lower volume of composite materials used, and the reuse of previously developed modular structures. Furthermore, modularity tends to lower energy consumption due to reduced raw material processing and the decreased need to manufacture new molds for each individually developed product.

The relationship between modularity and sustainability stems from specific product architecture decisions. In the case analyzed, the analytical categories of commonality, mold reuse, and interface management demonstrated that the standardization of hull and deck modules, mold reuse, the definition of common interfaces between components, and the potential for future upgrades without a complete redesign of the vessel contributed to reducing raw material consumption, waste volume, and the need for production rework. Thus, the observed environmental benefit results not only from a quantitative reduction in materials but also from the adoption of an architectural logic that extends the technical lifespan of the platforms, reduces development redundancies, and improves the predictability of engineering and production decisions.

7 Discussion of results and implications of modularity

Empirical results indicate that modularity has altered not only the physical architecture of products but also the economic and organizational logic of the product development process. A longitudinal analysis covering the 2015–2021 period reveals consistent differences between traditional and modular development. Based on economic and financial records and operational indicators from the case study, we observed that traditional development requires recurring annual investments for each new model (Table 03). In contrast, the modular approach concentrates effort at the outset and generates a sustained stream of gains in subsequent years. In the case analyzed, the accumulated investment for the traditional method totaled 8.80 million reais, compared to 2.56 million for the modular family-based strategy. Over the same period, the accumulated margin rose from 16.83 million under the traditional approach to 37.96 million under the modular approach. These figures indicate that the platform and standardized interfaces shift the economic burden to the family's initial cycle and, from that point on, reinforce predictability, speed, and margin stability over time. This pattern aligns with the logic of industrial platforms, where architectural governance by product families tends to reduce development lead times, variability, and complexity.

We achieved the integration between the review and the case study through analytical convergence. The literature highlighted product families, commonality, standardized interfaces, platform reuse, and complexity management dimensions that guide the empirical analysis. In the case studied, the sharing of modules, molds, and interfaces was associated with a reduction in recurring investments, raw material consumption, and the investment payback period.

The economic comparison between the traditional and modular methods presented in Table 4 was conducted under the same assumptions regarding production volume, time horizon, and cost structure to ensure comparability between scenarios. The figures were treated as nominal values ​​and aggregated over the 2015–2021 period. Using these assumptions allowed for a comparison of the two development models under equivalent conditions, drawing on documentary records from the case study. This scope reinforces the analytical nature of the comparison and avoids interpreting the results as financial projections generally applicable to the entire sector. The findings should be viewed as evidence from the specific case analyzed and as a basis for analytical generalization, rather than as statistical estimates applicable indiscriminately to other shipyards.

Table 4
Longitudinal analysis of the traditional versus the modular process.

Year	t	Traditional Product Development System			Modular Product-Family System			Investment Difference: Traditional Minus Modular
		Product Investment	Product Margin	Product Net Balance	Product-Family Investment	Product-Family Margin	Product-Family Net Balance
2015	t0	-1.37	0.00	-1.37	-1.62	0.00	-1.62	0.25
2016	t1	-1.37	1.31	-0.05	-0.48	2.63	2.15	-0.89
2017	t2	-1.30	2.63	1.33	-0.47	5.26	4.79	-0.83
2018	t3	-1.30	3.72	2.42	0.00	8.16	8.16	-1.30
2019	t4	-1.16	4.81	3.65	0.00	8.16	8.16	-1.16
2020	t5	-1.16	5.99	4.83	0.00	8.16	8.16	-1.16
2021	t6	-1.16	7.17	6.02	0.00	8.16	8.16	-1.16
Total 2015–2021		-8.80		16.83	-2.56		37.96	-6.24

• Note: Values are expressed in thousands of Brazilian reais (BRL).
• Source: The authors.

From a practical standpoint, the data suggests three implications for management. The first is to treat interfaces as strategic assets. When stabilized and documented from the outset, they reduce rework, simplify integration between modules, and enable suppliers to take on entire subsystems with less technical uncertainty a view supported by evidence of improved project industrialization when modularity guides standards, solution language, and design heuristics, as reported by Alonso Fernández et al. (2024) and Hijazi et al. (2025). The second implication is that the time and quality gains observed after the initial investment peak mirror industry reports indicating that modular approaches shorten cycles, improve repeatability, and elevate the average delivery standard by normalizing assemblies and control routines (Zohourian et al., 2025).

The third point is that the margin curve by family demonstrates how the platform transforms each new model into an exercise in recombination rather than a development from scratch; this explains the persistence of positive balances in the modular portfolio from 2018 onwards, including a stable annual level of 8.16 million. The results also have theoretical implications, indicating that modularity shifts the unit of analysis from the individual product to the product family. In this arrangement, architecture and interfaces cease to be isolated engineering decisions and instead function as mechanisms for portfolio governance and complexity reduction. The product family becomes the unit for cost and performance planning, and critical choices shift from individual parts to interfaces.

Recent literature on product architecture shows that this shift alters the nature of decision-making, as component coupling is no longer resolved on a case-by-case basis but is instead mediated by cross-cutting family-level rules, with cumulative effects on cost, development time, and reliability (Berschik et al., 2024b; Rice et al., 2024; Roy & Abdul-Nour, 2024).

The results should be interpreted in light of the specific characteristics of the analyzed case, including the shipyard's size, the type of vessel produced, the materials used, and the production context observed during the study period. The gains identified should not be viewed as automatic consequences of adopting modularity. Realizing them depends on the organization's capacity to manage interfaces, maintain integrated documentation, and coordinate supplier participation effectively. When these mechanisms are insufficient, the expected benefits regarding cost, time, and development predictability may be compromised (Donmez & Norheim-Hansen, 2024).

8 Conclusion

The objective of this article was to propose, apply, and evaluate a sequential framework for the modular development of nautical products. The results demonstrate that integrating modularity into the Product Development Process through a structured sequence of stages, shared platforms, and standardized interfaces constitutes a viable alternative to isolated product development driven by spiral logic. In the case analyzed, the framework facilitated product-family-organized development, enhanced architectural flexibility, and made design, engineering, and production decisions more predictable.

In the analyzed set, adopting modularity yielded economic and operational advantages, including cost reductions and improved predictability in the product development process (PDP). Furthermore, modularity enhanced organizational agility and market responsiveness, facilitating timely product launches and adaptation to diverse competitive environments.

The study proposes modularity as a strategy for companies in the nautical sector, offering the potential for competitive positioning in globalized markets. Developing product families from initial planning to defining product architecture facilitates adaptation to future demands, anticipation of design trends, and efficient resource allocation.

The observed results are directly associated with the empirical context analyzed specifically, a medium-sized Brazilian shipyard specializing in composite-material sport and leisure vessels (30 to 40 feet in length) during the post-pandemic period. Consequently, transferring these results to other segments of the nautical industry such as commercial vessels, large ships, and sailboats requires technical, production-related, and organizational adaptations.

The system architecture, based on standardized platforms and interfaces, helped formalize the requirements for the product family and established a clear path forward. The practical implementation of this approach yielded a functional structure that guided the development of modular portfolios in the nautical industry.

As a theoretical contribution, the study demonstrates that the product family can serve as a unit for architectural, economic, and operational planning, while interfaces coordinate development. As a practical contribution, the framework guides managers and R&D teams in defining platforms, modules, and shared components, thereby enhancing the traceability and predictability of product portfolios.

In summary, modularity represents a promising strategy for the nautical industry by enabling rapid adaptation to market changes while maintaining competitiveness. Its effectiveness, however, depends on strategic planning, efficient execution, and supplier base management, including the selection and development of partners capable of delivering standardized modules and interfaces.

From an environmental perspective, the contribution to waste reduction begins during the product development process itself with a reduced need for prototypes for engineering tests and extends to the mold construction phase, as fewer molds are required, thereby lowering initial raw material consumption. This effect stems from the standardization of key modules, the reuse of molds, the definition of common interfaces, and the ability to upgrade components in the future without needing to redesign the vessel completely. From an industrial production standpoint, waste tends to be lower because operators become familiar with and skilled at the modules they build and assemble, thereby raising quality standards.

Theoretical replication using multiple cases or broader sectoral studies is recommended to enhance external validity and to engage with product development approaches that integrate technological and prototyping maturity such as aligning technology readiness levels with prototyping readiness levels in integrative product development (Rehberg & Brem, 2025).

Under these circumstances, it is necessary to establish a timeframe for developing product families and their platforms, as well as to select and develop suppliers capable of delivering standardized modules and interfaces. Modularity requires an initial investment to create modular elements and establish a collaborative ecosystem. Therefore, future research could delve deeper into comprehensive financial analysis considering indicators such as payback period, net present value, internal rate of return, and sensitivity analysis to more accurately assess the feasibility, risks, and expected returns of investing in modular platforms. Multi-case studies involving companies of various sizes, construction materials, and vessel categories are also recommended, alongside investigations linking modularity to interface management and frugal innovation, thereby broadening understanding of modularity's limits and possibilities across different contexts within the nautical industry.

Overall, the research also highlighted circumstantial effects associated with modularity, such as horizontal integration of the logistics chain; reduced storage footprints leading to space savings and improved asset management; spontaneous module swapping by consumers, offering potential business opportunities and environmental impact reductions; and the emergence of a secondary market for parts alongside a demand for greater component traceability. These impacts also open avenues for future research to evaluate their contributions to the sector, including implications for governance, after-sales services, circularity, and warranty policies regarding modular product portfolios.

Acknowledgements

This study was financed in part by the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Brazil-CAPES).

Statement on Data Availability

The data used and/or analyzed during the development of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author(s) and may be shared in accordance with applicable ethical and confidentiality standards.

Financial support:

This work did not receive specific funding from institutions or organizations in the public, private, or nonprofit sectors.

How to cite:

Souza, E., Reckziegel, R., Santos, A. M., & Sellin, N. (2026). Modularity-based innovation strategy for the development of nautical products: case study on competitiveness and operational efficiency. Gestão & Produção, 33, e5625. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2026v33e5625

References

• Abdulkadir, K. (2023). Total quality as an effective tool for achieving customer satisfaction, patronage, productivity gains and sustainability in organizations. Studies in Economics and Business Relations, 4(2), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.48185/sebr.v4i2.893
  » https://doi.org/10.48185/sebr.v4i2.893
• ABNT. (2012). ABNT NBR 14574-2012: Embarcações de recreio Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://www.normas.com.br/visualizar/abnt-nbr-nm/20687/abnt-nbr14574-embarcacoes-de-recreio-em-plastico-reforcado-com-fibra-de-vidro-requisitos-para-construcao
  » https://www.normas.com.br/visualizar/abnt-nbr-nm/20687/abnt-nbr14574-embarcacoes-de-recreio-em-plastico-reforcado-com-fibra-de-vidro-requisitos-para-construcao
• Acobar. (2021). Setor náutico vive um período de crescimento Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://nautica.com.br/presidente-da-acobar-eduardo-colunna/
  » https://nautica.com.br/presidente-da-acobar-eduardo-colunna/
• Akl, E. A., Khabsa, J., Iannizzi, C., Piechotta, V., Kahale, L. A., Barker, J. M., McKenzie, J. E., Page, M. J., & Skoetz, N. (2024). Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 387, e079183. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-079183 PMid:39562017.
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-079183
• Alaei, N., Kurvinen, E., & Mikkola, A. (2019). A methodology for product development in mobile machinery: case example of an excavator. Machines (Basel), 7(4), 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines7040070
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/machines7040070
• Alblas, G., & Pruijn, J. (2024). Are current shipbuilding cost estimation methods ready for a sustainable future? A literature review of cost estimation methods and challenges. International Shipbuilding Progress, 71(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISP-230009
  » https://doi.org/10.3233/ISP-230009
• Albrecht, D. D. (2015). Product standardization and product design modularity: a case study of motorola and the mobile handset marke. Social Science Research Network, 2649668, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2649668
  » https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2649668
• Alejandrino, C., Mercante, I., & Bovea, M. D. (2021). Life cycle sustainability assessment: lessons learned from case studies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 87, 106517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106517
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106517
• Alonso Fernández, I., Panarotto, M., Isaksson, O., Krusell, T., & Kero, T. (2024). Reconciling platform vs. Product optimisation by value-based margins on solutions and parameters. Journal of Engineering Design, 35(10), 1311-1338. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2024.2396200
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2024.2396200
• Alves, A. C. (2024). The cost of missions: lessons from Brazilian shipbuilding. In M. Henrekson, C. Sandström & M. Stenkula (Eds.), Moonshots and the new industrial policy: questioning the mission economy (pp. 169-189). Switzerland: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49196-2_10
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49196-2_10
• Ameel, S. (2020). Designing product-service systems: a boat sharing platform. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/946/058/RUG01-002946058_2021_0001_AC.pdf
  » https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/946/058/RUG01-002946058_2021_0001_AC.pdf
• Anagnostopoulos, G., & Kaklis, P. (2024). Naval ship design-process analysis through dynamic social networks. Ship Technology Research, 71(2), 190-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09377255.2023.2250648
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09377255.2023.2250648
• Andrews, D. (2024). The expanding scope of ship design practice. In International Marine Design Conference (pp. 1-29). Delft: TU Delft OPEN Publishing.https://doi.org/10.59490/imdc.2024.905
  » https://doi.org/10.59490/imdc.2024.905
• Anttonen, C. (2020). Modular design architecture: accelerating product design processes through modularity. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/44806
  » https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/44806
• Askhøj, C. (2021). Implementing modular product architectures in mid-sized companies. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/253915459/PhD_Thesis_Christoffer_Askh_j.pdf
  » https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/253915459/PhD_Thesis_Christoffer_Askh_j.pdf
• Bagni, G., & Marçola, J. A. (2019). Avaliação da maturidade do processo de S&OP em uma empresa de material de escrita: um estudo de caso. Gestão & Produção, 26(1), e2094. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x2094-19
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x2094-19
• Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2014). Design rules: the power of modularity Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Barbosa, J. W. D. Q. (2024). Segmentação turística: conceitos e realidades. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo, 18, 2826. https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v18.2826
  » https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v18.2826
• Beibl, J., & Krause, D. (2024). Comparison of product concepts in terms of modularity and flexibility in the automotive industry. Proceedings of NordDesign, 2024, 88-95. https://doi.org/10.35199/NORDDESIGN2024.10
  » https://doi.org/10.35199/NORDDESIGN2024.10
• Berschik, M. C., Laukotka, F. N., Züfle, M., & Krause, D. (2024a). Supporting modular product family representations by methodically utilising meta-models. Proceedings of the Design Society, 4, 2513-2522. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.254
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.254
• Berschik, M. C., Zuefle, M., Laukotka, F. N., & Krause, D. (2024b). Product family engineering along the life cycle – research aspects to cope with variability in advanced systems. Design Science, 10, e27. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2024.21
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2024.21
• Bottero, M., & Gualeni, P. (2024). Systems engineering for naval ship design evolution. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(2), 210. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12020210
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12020210
• Carnevalli, J. A., Georges, M. R. R., Benedicto, S. C. D., & Sousa, J. E. R. (2021). Análise da correlação do lean manufacturing com produtos modulares. Exacta, 19(2), 432-455. https://doi.org/10.5585/exactaep.2021.11316
  » https://doi.org/10.5585/exactaep.2021.11316
• Catarina, A. S., & Mathias, E. (2017). Mapeamento do mercado náutico de lazer de Santa Catarina. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://www.even3.com.br/anais/5simep/43368-mapeamento-do-mercado-nautico-de-lazer-de-santa-catarina
  » https://www.even3.com.br/anais/5simep/43368-mapeamento-do-mercado-nautico-de-lazer-de-santa-catarina
• Catto, S. L., & Maccari, E. A. (2022). A utilização da metodologia ágil em projetos do segmento industrial automotivo. Connection Scientific Journal, 5(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.51146/csj.v5i1.53
  » https://doi.org/10.51146/csj.v5i1.53
• Chaymae, B., & Abdellah, E. B. (2025). Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: enhancing efficiency via product family optimization. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing, 9(2), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9020039
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9020039
• Choi, J. O. (2022). Lessons learned during the early phases of a modular project: a case study of UNLV’s Solar Decathlon 2020 Project Retrieved in 2025, July 6, fromhttps://oasis.library.unlv.edu/fac_articles/943/
  » https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/fac_articles/943/
• Christensen, W. J., Germain, R., & Birou, L. (2005). Build-to-order and just-in-time as predictors of applied supply chain knowledge and market performance. Journal of Operations Management, 23(5), 470-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.10.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.10.007
• Cooper, R. G. (2016). Agile–Stage-Gate Hybrids: The Next Stage for Product DevelopmentBlending Agile and Stage-Gate methods can provide flexibility, speed, and improved communication in new-product development. Research Technology Management, 59(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2016.1117317
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2016.1117317
• Cornelissen, J. P. (2025). The problem with propositions: theoretical triangulation to better explain phenomena in management research. Academy of Management Review, 50(2), 342-365. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0297
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0297
• Costa, D. D. D., & Nascimento, P. T. D. S. (2011). A gestão do desenvolvimento de produtos na indústria de materiais de construção. RAC. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 15(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552011000100002
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552011000100002
• Dahmus, J. B., Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., & Otto, K. N. (2001). Modular product architecture. Design Studies, 22(5), 409-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00004-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00004-7
• Das, S., Mallick, B., & Das, S. (2024). From Concept to Market: Integrating Customer Needs in Product Development. Journal of The Institution of Engineers, 105(6), 1643-1652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40032-024-01127-y
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s40032-024-01127-y
• Donmez, M., & Norheim-Hansen, A. (2024). Unlocking effective coordination: a knowledge-based multilevel perspective on supplier integration into product development. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 60(2), 22-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12317
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12317
• Drisko, J. W. (2025). Transferability and generalization in qualitative research. Research on Social Work Practice, 35(1), 102-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315241256560
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315241256560
• Duverger, E., Aubry, A., Levrat, E., & Arista, R. (2024). Early concurrent engineering in the aerospace industry supported by a Digital Thread framework. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 58(19), 510-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.09.263
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.09.263
• Echeveste, M. S. (2015). Seleção de métodos para modularização no desenvolvimento de produtos: revisão sistemática. Production, 26(2), 476-487. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.138413
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.138413
• Eljayar, A., & Busch, J. S. (2021). Agile-stage-gate approach: exploratory research on the structure, roles, and responsibilities. Athens Journal of Technology & Engineering, 8(1), 39-90. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajte.8-1-3
  » https://doi.org/10.30958/ajte.8-1-3
• Erikstad, S. O., & Lagemann, B. (2022). Design methodology state-of-the-art report. In SNAME 14th International Marine Design Conference (pp. D031S000R001). Alexandria, VA: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. https://doi.org/10.5957/IMDC-2022-301
  » https://doi.org/10.5957/IMDC-2022-301
• Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. (2004). Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems. Management Science, 50(2), 159-173. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0145
  » https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0145
• Evanschitzky, H., Eisend, M., Calantone, R. J., & Jiang, Y. (2012). Success factors of product innovation: an updated meta‐analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(S1), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00964.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00964.x
• Falahat, M., Chong, S. C., & Liew, C. (2023). Navigating new product development: uncovering factors and overcoming challenges for success. Heliyon, 10(1), e23763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23763 PMid:38226274.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23763
• Felekoglu, B., Durmusoglu, S. S., Maier, A. M., & Moultrie, J. (2024a). Walking the managerial tightrope: top management involvement in product innovation projects. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(3), 742-774. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-08-2021-0408
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-08-2021-0408
• Felekoglu, B., Durmusoglu, S. S., Maier, A. M., & Moultrie, J. (2024b). Walking the managerial tightrope: top management involvement in product innovation projects. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(3), 742-774. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-08-2021-0408
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-08-2021-0408
• Fixson, S. K., & Park, J.-K. (2008). The power of integrality: linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure. Research Policy, 37(8), 1296-1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.026
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.026
• Ford, H. (1964). Os princípios da prosperidade. Rio de Janeiro: Freitas Bastos.
• Generalova, E. M., Generalov, V. P., & Kuznetsova, A. A. (2016). Modular buildings in modern construction. Procedia Engineering, 153, 167-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.098
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.098
• George, B. (2025). Towards purposeful strategic planning: a mixed research synthesis across disciplines. Long Range Planning, 58(4), 102563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2025.102563
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2025.102563
• Gershenson, J. K., Prasad, G. J., & Zhang, Y. (2003). Product modularity: definitions and benefits. Journal of Engineering Design, 14(3), 295-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954482031000091068
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/0954482031000091068
• Hankammer, S., Jiang, R., Kleer, R., & Schymanietz, M. (2018). Are modular and customizable smartphones the future, or doomed to fail? A case study on the introduction of sustainable consumer electronics. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 23, 146-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2017.11.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2017.11.001
• Hattendorf, J. B. (2004). The evolution of the U.S. Navy’s Maritime Strategy, 1977-1986: defense technical information center Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/newport-papers/35/
  » https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/newport-papers/35/
• Henriques, F. E., & Miguel, P. A. C. (2017). Adoção da modularidade em produto e em produção na indústria automotiva: uma análise comparativa em projetos de veículos com participação da engenharia brasileira. Gestão & Produção, 24(1), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x341-15
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x341-15
• Hijazi, A. A., Das, P., Li, Y., Moehler, R. C., & Maxwell, D. W. (2025). A contingency approach to platform implementation: platform types, attributes, and value chain integration. Building Research and Information, 0(0), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2025.2510270
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2025.2510270
• Hossain, M., Chakrabortty, R. K., Elsawah, S., & Ryan, M. J. (2023). Modelling and application of hierarchical joint optimisation for modular product family and supply chain architecture. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 126(3–4), 947-971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-11102-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-11102-z
• Hsuan, J., & Hansen, P. K. (2007). Platform development: implications for portfolio management. Gestão & Produção, 14(3), 453-461. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2007000300003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2007000300003
• Husung, S., Weber, C., Mahboob, A., & Kleiner, S. (2021). Using model-based systems engineering for need-based and consistent support of the design process. Proceedings of the Design Society, 1, 3369-3378. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.598
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.598
• Inselmann, P., Beibl, J., & Krause, D. (2025). Appropriate consideration of interfaces in product development. Procedia CIRP, 136, 254-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2025.08.045
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2025.08.045
• ISO. (2013). ISO 12217-1:2013: Small craft Stability and buoyancy assessment and categorization. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://committee.iso.org/home/tc188?utm_source
  » https://committee.iso.org/home/tc188?utm_source
• Iwańkowicz, R., & Rutkowski, R. (2023). Digital twin of shipbuilding process in shipyard 4.0. Sustainability (Basel), 15(12), 9733. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129733
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129733
• Jacobs, M., Vickery, S. K., & Droge, C. (2007). The effects of product modularity on competitive performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(10), 1046-1068. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710820620
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710820620
• Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Suman, R., & Gonzalez, E. S. (2022). Understanding the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in improving environmental sustainability. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.01.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.01.008
• Jovanovic, M., Sjödin, D., & Parida, V. (2022). Co-evolution of platform architecture, platform services, and platform governance: expanding the platform value of industrial digital platforms. Technovation, 118, 102218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102218
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102218
• Jung, S., Simpson, T. W., & Bloebaum, C. L. (2021). Value-driven design for product families: a new approach for estimating value and a novel industry case study. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 63(4), 2009-2033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02836-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02836-5
• Knudsen, M. P., von Zedtwitz, M., Griffin, A., & Barczak, G. (2023). Best practices in new product development and innovation: results from PDMA’s 2021 global survey. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 40(3), 257-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12663
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12663
• Kolter, M., Grunow, M., Kolisch, R., & Stäblein, T. (2025). Strategic workforce and project planning for engineering automotive production systems: tackling the transition to electric vehicles. International Journal of Production Research, 63(3), 1105-1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2024.2371097
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2024.2371097
• Kremer, O. (2013). Analysis of modularity implementation methods from an assembly and variety viewpoints. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 66(9–12), 1959-1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4473-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4473-9
• Kubota, F. I., Cauchick-Miguel, P. A., Hsuan, J., & Lacerda, D. P. (2022). Modularity in design and production relationships: a field study in two automakers. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 123(5–6), 1589-1606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10262-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10262-8
• Kuebler, M., Gruetzner, J. L., Düser, T., & Albers, A. (2025). Designing a method-testbed for planning upgradeable mechatronic systems An interview study. Proceedings of the Design Society, 5, 1315-1324. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2025.10145
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2025.10145
• Kunkera, Z., Runje, B., Tošanović, N., & Hadžić, N. (2025). Lean Tools Implementation Model in Shipbuilding Processes Under Conditions of Predominantly Custom Production. Machines (Basel), 13(4), 260. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines13040260
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/machines13040260
• Lacey, J., Machado, M. F., Rodrigues, M. P., & Costa, N. C. A. Jr. (2004). Estimativa do custo de capital próprio de pequenas empresas através do CAPM. Revista Alcance, 11(2), 1-2.
• Lambiotte, R., & Schaub, M. T. (2022). Modularity and dynamics on complex networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774116
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774116
• Li, X., & Chen, Y. (2024). How does management control affect new product development performance? A research methodology with OLS and fsQCA. Sustainability (Basel), 16(24), 10973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410973
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410973
• Lima, M. B., & Kubota, F. I. (2022). A modular product design framework for the home appliance industry. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 120(3-4), 2311-2330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-08896-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-08896-9
• Lindemann, U., Maurer, M., & Braun, T. (2009). Structural complexity management: an approach for the field of product design. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87889-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87889-6
• Liu, P. S., Chin, J. F., Ab-Samat, H., & Xie, Z. P. (2025). Digital variant design V-model for rapid product development. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 139(3), 2103-2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-025-15982-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-025-15982-1
• Machado, A. G. C., & Moraes, W. F. A. (2010). Um framework para a Customização em Massa. Revista Alcance, 17(3), 295-311.
• Marinha do Brasil. (2024). Sistemas computacionais aplicados à gestão de ciclo de vida de meios navais. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://repositorio.marinha.mil.br/handle/20.500.14867/847932
  » https://repositorio.marinha.mil.br/handle/20.500.14867/847932
• Martin, D. M. (2019). Unpacking product modularity: Innovation in R & D teams. Tilburg: CentER, Tilburg University.
• Martinez Martin, D., De Leeuw, T., & Haefliger, S. (2024). Two dimensions of product modularity and innovation: the case of R&D teams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 34(6), 1044-1084. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtae037
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtae037
• Marx, Â. M., & Paula, I. C. D. (2011). Proposta de uma sistemática de gestão de requisitos para o processo de desenvolvimento de produtos sustentáveis. Production, 21(3), 417-431. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132011005000041
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132011005000041
• Matthews, N., Joiner, K. F., & Smith, W. F. (2024). Stability assessment of a catamaran using sea trials. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(8), 1436. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12081436
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12081436
• Micus, C., Weber, M., Böttcher, T., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2023). Data-driven transformation in the automotive industry: the role of customer usage data in product development. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2023/11/
  » https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2023/11/
• Mikkola, J. H. (2006). Capturing the degree of modularity embedded in product architectures. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(2), 128-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00188.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00188.x
• Ministério da Saúde. (2022). Fim estado de Emergência em Saúde Pública por conta da Covid-19 no Brasil. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2022/maio/apos-dois-anos-chega-ao-fim-estado-de-emergencia-em-saude-publica-por-conta-da-covid-19-no-brasil
  » https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2022/maio/apos-dois-anos-chega-ao-fim-estado-de-emergencia-em-saude-publica-por-conta-da-covid-19-no-brasil
• Modrak, V., & Soltysova, Z. (2021). Development of the modularity measure for assembly process structures. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4900748
  » https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4900748
• Mollajan, A., Thomson, V. J., & Iranmanesh, S. H. (2025). Engineering management and modular design: a path to robust manufacturing processes. Processes (Basel, Switzerland), 13(1), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13010160
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13010160
• Monetti, F. M., & Maffei, A. (2024). Towards the definition of assembly-oriented modular product architectures: a systematic review. Research in Engineering Design, 35(2), 137-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-023-00427-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-023-00427-1
• Moraes, A. A. (2017). Metodologia de suporte ao projeto informacional e conceitual de embarcações de recreio a motor de pequeno porte. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/177592/346864.pdf?sequence=1
  » https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/177592/346864.pdf?sequence=1
• Moraes, A. A., Silva, L. C. D., Tancredi, T. P., & Ferreira, C. V. (2024). Support methodology to the informational and conceptual design of small recreational powerboats. Human Factors in Design, 13(25), 165-186. https://doi.org/10.5965/2316796313252024165
  » https://doi.org/10.5965/2316796313252024165
• Moreira, M. R. T. (2012). A Construção Naval no Brasil: sua gênese, desenvolvimento e o atual panorama da retomada do setor – 1990-2010 (Tese de doutorado). Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/100450?show=full
  » https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/100450?show=full
• Morgan, J. M., & Liker, J. K. (2008). Sistema Toyota de desenvolvimento de produto: integrando pessoas, processo e tecnologia. Porto Alegre: Bookman Editora.
• Muniz, A., Irigoyen, A., Corrêa, D., & Targino, R. (2020). Jornada Ágil do Produto: unindo práticas e frameworks para capacitar Donos do Produto (Product Owners) e Gerentes de Produtos (Product Managers) com foco no fluxo de valor entregue ao cliente. Rio de Janeiro: Brasport.
• Nørgaard, M., Grønvald, J. M., Christensen, C. K. F., & Mortensen, N. H. (2025). How traditional costing methods hinder the development of modular product architectures. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 15(11), 6307. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15116307
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/app15116307
• NORMAN-211/DPC (2023). Normas da Autoridade Marítima para atividades e esporte e recreio. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://www.marinha.mil.br/sites/default/files/atos-normativos/dpc/normam/normam-211.pdf
  » https://www.marinha.mil.br/sites/default/files/atos-normativos/dpc/normam/normam-211.pdf
• Oliveira, P. S. G. D., Helleno, A. L., Silva, D. D., Lopes, M. D. S., Campos, F. C. D., & Picchiai, D. (2018). Proposição do modelo PLM-PV3G para a gestão do ciclo de vida de produtos. Gestão & Produção, 25(4), 935-947. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x0225-18
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x0225-18
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 372(71), n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 PMid:33782057.
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
• Pakkanen, J. T., Juuti, T. S., & Lehtonen, T. A. (2018). Value creation mechanisms in product variety development In Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference (pp. 623-632). Zagreb: University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0240
  » https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0240
• Papanikolaou, A. (2019). A holistic approach to ship design: optimisation of ship design and operation for life cycle. Cham: Springer International Publishing.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02810-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02810-7
• Papanikolaou, A. D. (2022). Holistic approach to ship design. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(11), 1717. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10111717
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10111717
• Parnas, D. L. (1972). On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM, 15(12), 1053-1058. https://doi.org/10.1145/361598.361623
  » https://doi.org/10.1145/361598.361623
• Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1189-1208. PMid:10591279.
• Pawłusik, M., Szłapczyński, R., & Karczewski, A. (2020). Optimising rig design for sailing yachts with evolutionary multi-objective algorithm. Polish Maritime Research, 27(4), 36-49. https://doi.org/10.2478/pomr-2020-0064
  » https://doi.org/10.2478/pomr-2020-0064
• Perez-Martinez, J., & Perez Fernandez, R. (2023). Material and production optimization of the ship design process by introducing CADs from early design stages. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(1), 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11010233
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11010233
• Prieto, E., & Miguel, P. A. C. (2011). Adoção da estratégia modular por empresas do setor automotivo e as implicações relativas à transferência de atividades no desenvolvimento de produto: um estudo de casos múltiplos. Gestão & Produção, 18(2), 425-442. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2011000200015
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2011000200015
• Psarommatis, F., May, G., & Azamfirei, V. (2025). Product reuse and repurpose in circular manufacturing: A critical review of key challenges, shortcomings and future directions. Journal of Remanufacturing, 15(2-3), 273-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13243-025-00153-y
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s13243-025-00153-y
• Puglieri, F. N., Ferreira, M. B., Farrapo, A. C. Jr., Piekarski, C. M., & Silva, D. A. L. (2024). How to consider life cycle thinking into ISO 14001? A step-by-step method for small and medium-sized companies and a case study in waste management. Gestão & Produção, 31, e8723. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2024v31e8723
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2024v31e8723
• Råbu, M., & Binder, P.-E. (2025). The Single Case Study is a Crucial Bridge between Research and Practice. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 55(2), 119-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-024-09658-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-024-09658-2
• Ramos, A. G. (1949). An introduction to the history of the rational organization of work. Brasília, DF: Conselho Federal de Administração. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://admlivros.adm.br/produto/uma-introducao-ao-historico-da-organizacao-racional-do-trabalho/
  » https://admlivros.adm.br/produto/uma-introducao-ao-historico-da-organizacao-racional-do-trabalho/
• Rehberg, L., & Brem, A. (2025). Bridging the gap: linking prototyping and technology readiness levels for integrative product development. Creativity and Innovation Management, 34(1), 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12633
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12633
• Riasanow, T., Jäntgen, L., Hermes, S., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2021). Core, intertwined, and ecosystem-specific clusters in platform ecosystems: analyzing similarities in the digital transformation of the automotive, blockchain, financial, insurance and IIoT industry. Electronic Markets, 31(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00407-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00407-6
• Rice, S. E., Sannar, B. C., McKinnon, S. A., Humphrey, T. M., Mattson, C. A., Sorensen, C. D., & Anderson, M. L. (2024). Product architecture strategies and effects matrices for early evaluation and selection of product architectures. Design Science, 10, e41. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2024.18
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2024.18
• Riesener, M., Keuper, A., Schulz-Isenbeck, T., & Schuh, G. (2025). Concept for product architecture evolution planning in the context of circular economy. Procedia CIRP, 136, 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2025.08.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2025.08.009
• Robertson, D., & Ulrich, K. (1998). Planning for product platforms. Sloan Management Review, 39(266), 19-31.
• Roy, M.-A., & Abdul-Nour, G. (2024). Integrating modular design concepts for enhanced efficiency in digital and sustainable manufacturing: a literature review. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 14(11), 4539. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14114539
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/app14114539
• Ruggiero, L., Piccioni, M., & Bionda, A. (2024). Assessing yacht design processes: a comparison of traditional and integrated methodologies. Proceedings of the Design Society, 4, 713-722. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.74
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.74
• Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171107
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171107
• Santos, E., Lisboa, I., & Eugénio, T. (2022). The financial performance of family versus non-family firms operating in nautical tourism. Sustainability (Basel), 14(3), 1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031693
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031693
• Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
• Scalice, R. K. (2003). Desenvolvimento de uma família de produtos modulares para o cultivo e beneficiamento de mexilhões. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://repositorio.ufsc.br/xmlui/handle/123456789/85872
  » https://repositorio.ufsc.br/xmlui/handle/123456789/85872
• Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312-334. https://doi.org/10.2307/259016
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/259016
• Sebrae. (2014). Estudo do Setor Náutico de Santa Catarina Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://bibliotecas.sebrae.com.br/chronus/ARQUIVOS_CHRONUS/bds/bds.nsf/393d3e203c23b3d975f3cae415488454/%24File/5747.pdf
  » https://bibliotecas.sebrae.com.br/chronus/ARQUIVOS_CHRONUS/bds/bds.nsf/393d3e203c23b3d975f3cae415488454/%24File/5747.pdf
• Seiler, F. M., Greve, E., & Krause, D. (2019). Development of a configure-to-order-based process for the implementation of modular product architectures: a case study. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1(1), 2971-2980. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.304
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.304
• Shamsuzzoha, A., Helo, P., Piya, S., & Alkahtani, M. (2020). Modular product architecture to manage product development complexity. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 36(2), 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISE.2020.110243
  » https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISE.2020.110243
• Sharma, A., Keshari, A., Swadhin, S., Gokhale, R. S., & Tiwari, M. K. (2022). AI-Powered Cyberinfrastructure Platform for Modular Electric Vehicle Product Design: conceptual framework and architecture. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(10), 400-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.426
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.426
• Shaw, R. (2018). Art amid science: retaining the role of “the designer’s eye” in innovative performance yacht design. Journal of Sailing Technology, 3(01), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5957/jst.2018.01
  » https://doi.org/10.5957/jst.2018.01
• Silva, A. L. D., Lombardi, G. H. V., & Pimenta, M. L. (2013). Alinhamento interfuncional: um estudo exploratório sobre os pontos de contato entre marketing, logística e produção. Gestão & Produção, 20(4), 863-881. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2013000400008
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2013000400008
• Silva, J. D. S., & Leite, M. S. A. (2024). Analysis of a supply chain in the ceramic sector: a look at business processes. Gestão & Produção, 31, e12021. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2024v31e12021
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2024v31e12021
• Silva, T., & Santos, C. (2023). Challenges of product modularization methods in smes: lessons learned from a manufacturer of rigid inflatable boats. Proceedings of the Design Society, 3, 847-856. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.85
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.85
• Simionescu, A., & Papp, A. (2020). Introducing modularity strategy in new products development. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, fromhttps://siar.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/RoJAE-26_2-v2.pdf
  » https://siar.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/RoJAE-26_2-v2.pdf
• Sohrt, M., Blinkenberg, W., & Mortensen, N. H. (2025a). Shared product architectures for engineering-to-order buyers and suppliers: insights from a case study. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 15(17), 9357. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179357
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179357
• Sohrt, M., Blinkenberg, W., Mortensen, N. H., Haug, A., & Hvam, L. (2025b). A method for modelling business-critical architecture decisions in engineer-to-order companies. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 15(4), 1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15041998
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/app15041998
• Sonego, M., Echeveste, M. E. S., & Galvan Debarba, H. (2018). The role of modularity in sustainable design: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 196-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.106
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.106
• Souza, G., Gaetani, R., & Mestieri, M. (2024). More trade, less diffusion: technology transfers and the dynamic effects of import liberalization. Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/working-papers/2024/2024-20
  » https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/working-papers/2024/2024-20
• Springer, V., Randhawa, K., Jovanović, M., Ritala, P., & Piller, F. T. (2025). Platform design and governance in industrial markets: charting the meta-organizational logic. Research Policy, 54(6), 105236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105236
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105236
• Stalmeijer, R. E., Brown, M. E. L., & O’Brien, B. C. (2024). How to discuss transferability of qualitative research in health professions education. The Clinical Teacher, 21(6), e13762. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13762 PMid:38497107.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13762
• Stylidis, K., Wickman, C., & Söderberg, R. (2020). Perceived quality of products: a framework and attributes ranking method. Journal of Engineering Design, 31(1), 37-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2019.1669769
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2019.1669769
• Sun, Y., & Zhong, Q. (2020). How modularity influences product innovation: the mediating role of module suppliers’ relationship-specific investments. Management Decision, 58(12), 2743-2761. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2019-0837
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2019-0837
• Tan, T., Mills, G., & Papadonikolaki, E. (2024). Exploring multidimensional modularity: strategies to reduce complexity in design activities. Journal of Management Engineering, 40(3), 05024002. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-5596
  » https://doi.org/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-5596
• Tatikonda, M. V., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation: the influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development performance. Management Science, 47(1), 151-172. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.151.10669
  » https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.151.10669
• Taylor, F. W. (1911). Princípios de Administração Científica (9. ed.). Rio de Janeiro: LTC.
• Teixeira, J. C., & Nascimento, C. R. (2010). Uma defesa à Triangulação Metodológica e ao Multiparadigmatismo nas Pesquisas em contraposição a resistências enfrentadas: uma análise dos anais do Enanpad de 2009 Retrieved in 2025, July 6, from https://arquivo.anpad.org.br/diversos/down_zips/53.zip
  » https://arquivo.anpad.org.br/diversos/down_zips/53.zip
• Tian, P., Yang, Q., Han, Y., Jiang, B., Zou, X., & Yao, T. (2025). Developing scenario-oriented function modules in new product development projects based on big data-driven approach. International Journal of Production Research, 63(20), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2025.2501162
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2025.2501162
• Toche, B., Pellerin, R., & Fortin, C. (2020). Set-based design: a review and new directions. Design Science, 6, e18. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.16
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.16
• Toledo, J. C. D., Silva, S. L. D., Mendes, G. H. S., & Jugend, D. (2008). Fatores críticos de sucesso no gerenciamento de projetos de desenvolvimento de produto em empresas de base tecnológica de pequeno e médio porte. Gestão & Produção, 15(1), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2008000100011
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2008000100011
• Tomiyama, T., Lutters, E., Stark, R., & Abramovici, M. (2019). Development capabilities for smart products. CIRP Annals, 68(2), 727-750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2019.05.010
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2019.05.010
• Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24(3), 419-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3
• Veroniki, A. A., Hutton, B., Stevens, A., McKenzie, J. E., Page, M. J., Moher, D., McGowan, J., Straus, S. E., Li, T., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Colquhoun, H., Godfrey, C., Smith, M., Tufte, J., Logan, S., Catalá-López, F., Tovey, D., Franco, J. V. A., Chang, S., Garritty, C., Hartling, L., Horsley, T., Langlois, E. V., McInnes, M., Offringa, M., Welch, V., Pritchard, C., Khalil, H., Mittmann, N., Peters, M., Konstantinidis, M., Elsman, E. B. M., Kelly, S. E., Aldcroft, A., Thirugnanasampanthar, S. S., Dourka, J., Neupane, D., Well, G., Akl, E., Wilson, M., Soares-Weiser, K., & Tricco, A. C. (2025). Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses and scoping reviews and development of guidelines for rapid reviews: A scoping review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 23(3), 517-526. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00308 PMid:39829235.
  » https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00308
• Vilochani, S., Borgianni, Y., McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. A. (2024). An investigation into the extent to which sustainable product development practices are implemented in manufacturing companies. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 50, 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.07.022
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.07.022
• Vladimir, N., Bakica, A., Perčić, M., & Jovanović, I. (2022). Modular approach in the design of small passenger vessels for mediterranean. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10010117
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10010117
• Vogt, J., Woeller, L.-N., & Krause, D. (2024). 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
  » https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063825
• Wang, S., Li, Z., He, C., Liu, D., & Zou, G. (2022). Core components-oriented modularisation methodology for complex products. Journal of Engineering Design, 33(10), 691-715. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2022.2143702
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2022.2143702
• Wang, S., Song, Y.-F., Zou, G.-Y., & Man, J.-X. (2025). Module partition of mechatronic products based on core part hierarchical clustering and non-core part association analysis. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 15(5), 2322. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052322
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052322
• Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., Roos, D., Ferro, J. R., & Manzano, T. M. (1990). A Máquina que Mudou o Mundo: Baseado no Estudo do Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2. ed.). Porto Alegre: The Bookman.
• Xu, Q., Su, Z., & Wei, J. (2025). Valuing every voice: study on the mechanism of collaborative innovation with ordinary consumers from the digital enablement perspective. Journal of Digital Management, 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44362-025-00004-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s44362-025-00004-7
• Yao, Z., Wu, X., Wu, Y., & Wen, X. (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 (Basel, Switzerland), 13(21), 11831. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132111831
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/app132111831
• Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guilford.
• Zarbi, H., Mansour, S., & Mosadegh, H. (2024). Modularity and new product performance: the role of new product development speed and task uncertainty. Journal of Engineering Design, 35(12), 1575-1596. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2024.2396193
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2024.2396193
• Zhang, H., Feng, L., Wang, J., Zhu, T., & Jin, L. (2023). Investigating product innovation pathway from a modular standpoint: A case study of large aircraft assembly line. Heliyon, 10(1), e23356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23356 PMid:38163204.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23356
• Zhang, H., Qin, S., Li, R., Zou, Y., & Ding, G. (2020). Progressive modelling of feature-centred product family development. International Journal of Production Research, 58(12), 3701-3723. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1634295
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1634295
• Zohourian, M., Pamidimukkala, A., Kermanshachi, S., & Almaskati, D. (2025). Modular construction: a comprehensive review. Buildings (Basel, Switzerland), 15(12), 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15122020
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15122020
• Zumach, K., Wehrend, S., & Krause, D. (2025). Challenges in addressing sustainability within product development. Proceedings of the Design Society, 5, 901-910. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2025.10104
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2025.10104

Editor-in-Chief

Pedro Munari

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  28 Sept 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  06 July 2025
• Reviewed
  03 May 2026
• Accepted
  29 July 2026