Can Commonality Relieve Cannibalization in Product Line Design?

References

• Aaker DA. Building Strong Brands (1996) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Calcott P, Walls M. Can downstream waste disposal policies encourage upstream “design for environment”? Amer. Econom. Rev. (2000) 90(2):233–237Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calcott P, Walls M. Waste, recycling, and “design for environment”: Roles for markets and policy instruments. Resource Energy Econom. (2005) 27(4):287–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Narasimhan C, Zhang ZJ. Individual marketing with imperfect targetability. Marketing Sci. (2001) 20(1):23–41Link, Google Scholar
• Desai PS. Quality segmentation in spatial markets: When does cannibalization affect product line design? Marketing Sci. (2001) 20(3):265–283Link, Google Scholar
• Desai P, Kekre S, Radhakrishnan S, Srinivasan K. Product differentiation and commonality in design: Balancing revenue and cost drivers. Management Sci. (2001) 47(1):37–51Link, Google Scholar
• Fixson SK. Modularity and commonality research: Past developments and future opportunities. Concurrent Engrg. (2007) 15(2):85–111Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerchak Y, Magazine MJ, Gamble AB. Component commonality with service level requirements. Management Sci. (1988) 34(6):753–760Link, Google Scholar
• Heese HS, Swaminathan JM. Product line design with component commonality and cost-reduction effort. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management (2006) 8(2):206–219Link, Google Scholar
• Kim K, Chhajed D. Commonality in product design: Cost saving, valuation change, and cannibalization. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2000) 125:602–621Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kotler P. Marketing Management (2002) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Krishnan V, Gupta S. Appropriateness and impact of platform-based product development. Management Sci. (2001) 47(1):52–68Link, Google Scholar
• Lancaster K. Variety, Equity, and Efficiency: Product Variety in an Industrial Society (1979) (Columbia University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee HL, Billington C, Dasu S, Eastman C. Designing products and processes for postponement. Management of Design: Engineering and Management Perspectives (1994) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston) 105–122Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Zhang ZJ. The benefits of personalized pricing in a channel. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(1):97–105Link, Google Scholar
• Meyer MH, Lehnerd AP. The Power of Product Platforms (1997) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Moorthy KS. Market segmentation, self-selection, and product line design. Marketing Sci. (1984) 3(4):288–307Link, Google Scholar
• Moorthy KS, Png IPL. Market segmentation, cannibalization, and the timing of product introductions. Management Sci. (1992) 38(3):345–359Link, Google Scholar
• Muffatto M. Platform strategies in international new product development. Internat. J. Oper. Production Management (1999) 19(5):449–459Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussa M, Rosen S. Monopoly and product quality. J. Econom. Theory (1978) 18(2):301–317Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quelch JA, Kenny D. Extend profits, not product lines. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1994) 72(5):153–162Google Scholar
• Salvador F. Towards a product system modularity construct: Literature review and reconceptualization. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management (2007) 54(2):219–240Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanderson SW, Uzumeri V. Managing Product Families (1997) (Irwin, Homewood, IL) Google Scholar
• Shaffer G, Zhang ZJ. Competitive coupon targeting. Marketing Sci. (1995) 14(4):395–416Link, Google Scholar
• Shaffer G, Zhang ZJ. Competitive one-to-one promotions. Management Sci. (2002) 48(9):1143–1160Link, Google Scholar
• Smith PG, Reinertsen DG. Developing Products in Half the Time: New Rules, New Tools (1991) (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York) Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas JM. Communication strategies and product line design. Marketing Sci. (2004a) 23(3):304–316Link, Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas JM. Price cycles in markets with customer recognitions. RAND J. Econom. (2004b) 35(3):486–501Crossref, Google Scholar