Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 134 – 139

The 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering

Life Cycle Engineering and Management – Fostering the Management-

orientation of Life Cycle Engineering Activities
U. Götzea*, P. Peçasb, A. Schmidta, C. Symmanka, E. Henriquesb, I. Ribeirob, M. Schüllerc
a
Professorship of Management Accounting and Control, Technische Universität Chemnitz, 09107 Chemnitz, Germany
b
IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
c
Fraunhofer Institute for Electronic Nanosystems, Department Multi Device Integration, 09126 Chemnitz, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +4937153126160; fax: +4937153126169. E-mail address: uwe.goetze@wirtschaft.tu-chemnitz.de

Abstract

Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) is a promising approach for directing engineering activities towards sustainability. Although LCE includes not
only technical and ecological but also economic target figures, management-orientation is rather limited and issues affecting the success of
innovation processes are neglected. This is shown based on a literature review. For contributing towards closing this gap, this paper presents
suggestions to foster the market-, customer-, and supply chain-orientation of LCE: its extension by business modeling and integration with
Target Costing. Elements of these approaches are illustrated by the research activities of the Cluster of Excellence MERGE.

©©2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published B.V. This
by Elsevier B.V.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering
Keywords: Life Cycle Engineering and Management; MERGE; Business Modeling; Target Costing; Target Ecology and Cost Management

1. Introduction inclusion of economic targets is one of its characteristics [2].

Striving for sustainability becomes more and more an
imperative for all institutions and individuals in economy as
well as society. Sustainable acting implies focusing a long-
term perspective. Hence, the engineering of systems should be
directed towards the entire life cycle in order to improve their
sustainability. This is the dogma of Life Cycle Engineering
(LCE) – a concept which is defined as “engineering activities
which include: the application of technological and scientific
principles to the design and manufacture of products, with the
goal of protecting the environment and conserving resources,
while encouraging economic progress, keeping in mind the
need for sustainability, and at the same time optimizing the
product life cycle and minimizing pollution and waste” [1].
Regardless of technological progress, innovative systems
(resulting from LCE) will only be successful in terms of being
implemented in companies or established at markets if they
are economically advantageous from the point of view of the
involved institutions and decision-makers. An economic
perspective has always been considered by LCE literature: the
However, LCE was originated by engineering scientists and
the engineering perspective is dominating. A review of LCE
literature shows that the economically-oriented considerations
are mostly limited to including single economic targets in
LCE activities [2]. This goes along with the wide negligence
of other issues influencing the success of innovation processes
[3]: market-, customer-, and supply chain-orientation in terms
of assuring user benefit and economic profitability of the
system to be engineered for all relevant stakeholders, the
application of – market-oriented and other – concepts and
methods prominent in management sector (e.g., Target
Costing (TC), Knowledge Management) and issues of
leadership, culture, organization, and human resources. Only
very few publications address management topics as well:
Umeda et al. include management-related influencing factors,
options, tasks (such as coherence management, business
modeling), and methods in their framework of life cycle
development and concept of life cycle planning [4]. Not
explicitly focusing on LCE, Meier et al. discuss different
business models for industrial product-service systems [5].

2212-8271 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.240
 U. Götze et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 134 – 139
However, the first approach is not deeply elaborated in terms
of management, the second one focused on a specific type of
object. So, a negligence of management topics in LCE still
has to be stated.
This is not surprising due to the engineering focus of the
approach. However, to include these issues in LCE or to
integrate them with LCE promises a higher probability of
successful innovations generated. Hence, here it is intended to
foster the management-orientation of LCE by showing ways
for its extension by or integration with management-relevant
issues – towards a Life Cycle Engineering and Management.
Therefore, the market-, customer-, and supply chain-
orientation as important facets of management are focused.
2. LCE and its management-orientation
The following short analysis of the management-
orientation of LCE is based on a literature review conducted
by Peças et al. [2]. Firstly, they suggest a taxonomy of LCE
consisting of four levels referring to the intended type of
contribution, the theoretical foundation, the LCE activities,
and the reference objects of LCE. The activity level is
additionally divided into the dimensions decision perspective,
target perspective, tasks, methods, and information and
knowledge. Then, the taxonomy is used to give a survey on
the state-of-the-art of LCE. The results of this survey [2] shall
now be discussed from a management perspective starting
with the contribution. It was found that empirical studies are
not present in the publications analyzed. This lack of
empirical studies implies a lack of knowledge about how LCE
is performed in company practice, factors affecting its
successful operations, and existing barriers. This hinders the
design, implementation, and organization (or: management)
of LCE in companies and calls for further research activities.
The analysis of the theoretical foundation shows that only
seven publications consider management theories. This
clearly reveals that LCE concepts and methods are only
weakly substantiated by insights from the management
research area. This can be explained by the origin of the
concept; it might reflect the opinion that such insights are not
highly valuable for LCE activities. However, amongst others
findings from strategic management theory (e.g., about
success factors at the market or resource level), innovation
theory (about the design of innovation processes, barriers for
innovation success, etc.), planning and control theory (e.g.,
about the design of planning and control cycles and
activities), as well as organizational and human resource
management theory (about leadership, culture, incentive
systems, etc.) seem to be helpful for conducting LCE
activities as well as designing and organizing them. Here,
some of these findings are addressed in the context of market-
, customer-, and supply chain-orientation.
Concerning the decision perspective, most of the
publications argue from a company perspective. A supply
chain-related view is only present in two papers. This
disregards the strong influence of the supply chain
characteristics on the life cycle performance from the
company perspective as well as the fact that success of an
entire supply chain is even a prerequisite for the success of a
135
single company participating in that chain. This calls for a
stronger consideration of supply chains in LCE. Furthermore,
in LCE theory, the customers´ view is almost neglected. It is
primarily addressed by striving for product’s reliability and
serviceability design and modeling, without considering user
benefit and economic profitability of the products and
processes. Finally, market considerations and the concept of
Business Modeling (BM) are neglected as well. Summarizing,
from a management point of view LCE should be extended or
complemented by a stronger focus on markets, customers, and
supply chains.
Referring to the four tasks of LCE included in the
taxonomy, the results show a non-uniform picture with a
certain dominance of analysis/forecasting tasks. From a
management point of view, this is a hint for the necessity of a
further discussion of the tasks and the corresponding scope of
LCE. For systematic decision-making, the accomplishment of
all analyzed tasks (description and recording, analysis and
forecasting, evaluation, design, and engineering) seems to be
mandatory. This argues for conceptualizing LCE as an
integrated approach covering all these tasks (or as a well-
defined element of such an approach). Therefore, insights
from planning and control theory about the design of feed
forward and feedback cycles and available methods may be
useful. Going beyond the taxonomy, the scope of analyzed
potential tasks has been extended to leadership, organization,
coordination and control. The analysis shows that none of
these management tasks is present in LCE literature.
However, this field cannot be addressed here.
Concerning the methods, the analysis shows that there is a
considerable variety of suggested or applied methods with
Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
as the most frequently mentioned ones. Besides LCC and
LCA, methods are used or suggested in a disparate way – a
mature and integrated methodology of LCE being widely
accepted among researchers does not exist. Besides LCC,
only the related concept of life cycle value, traditional as well
as flow cost accounting approaches [6,7], methods of multi-
criteria decision making, and Quality Function Deployment
(in only one publication) have been suggested in LCE
literature. This implies the quite surprising negligence of the
well-known and established customer-oriented engineering
and management method of TC. BM as well as other
multifaceted instruments of management such as market
research, coordination approaches, incentive schemes, etc. are
also neglected Closely coupled with the application of
methods is the issue of information and knowledge.
Undoubtedly, significant information and knowledge are
indispensable prerequisites for successful LCE and making
them available is a major challenge: they refer to the entire
life cycle and LCE acts in the early life cycle phases where
typically data availability is low and uncertainty is high.
Nevertheless, knowledge management concepts such as
suggested in management literature [8] have not been
established in LCE literature so far. A corresponding
extension might be based on considerations concerning life
cycle-related (cost) management and cost knowledge
management in engineering [9,10].
136 U. Götze et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 134 – 139
3. Integrated LCE and Business Modeling
To fulfill the need of a stronger market-, customer-, and
supply chain orientation of LCE, the integration of LCE and
BM is suggested here. The basic idea of integrating both is
that at least for innovative products (as reference objects of
LCE) an early consideration of customer needs, markets, and
value chain activities is mandatory for achieving a high
probability of success. Such activities are an integral part of
BM – the systematically developing of new businesses with
all their necessary elements. Combining LCE and BM
conceptually implies that the product (or other objects) being
generated by LCE is the focal element of the new business as
well as the business model. The business model should
comprise all elements that are necessary to introduce and
establish the new product successfully at one or more markets
and, thereby, contribute to the final success of LCE activities.
The concept is visualized in Fig. 1. The left side of the
figure shows the (“conventional”) LCE activities in an
aggregate way. The right side visualizes the activities of BM,
the arrows indicate the information exchange between
different steps of LCE and BM enabling the necessary close
coupling and coordination of activities [11]. The BM process
starts with the identification of business model ideas.
Afterwards, the different elements of the business model(s)
are elaborated. Different approaches for structuring these
elements do exist [12,13,14]. Fig. 1 refers to the CANVAS
[12] with its nine elements that are considered to be necessary
for successfully establishing a business. The next step of BM
is a “strategic” evaluation of the (potential) advantageousness
of the business model(s). As Fig. 1 shows, this evaluation
might refer to the criteria that have been identified as
prerequisites of strategic success in the resource-based view
of strategic management: ability to create value (for
customers), heterogeneity/rarity, ability to prevent imitation
and substitution, and the fundamental ability to achieve a
profit [15]. This evaluation shows whether the business model
Fig. 1. Concept of integrated LCE and BM (developed on the base of [11,12])
has the potential for being successful and might also indicate
the need of further elaboration and modifications. In the last
step, a more concrete financial evaluation is conducted.
Therefore, the application of dynamic investment appraisal
methods, namely the net present value method, is
recommended here.
The integration of LCE and BM entails an effective
information exchange as well as coordination and adaption of
activities. Some interdependencies and needs of adaption are:
x Business model ideas might be the starting point of
LCE activities and products ideas vice versa.
x Some of the business model elements to be elaborated
will or might be subjects of LCE: primarily the
product but possibly also key activities and resources
– implying a corresponding flow of information as
well as the alignment of LCE activities.
x In the context of LCE, the business model should refer
to the life cycle.
x The results of the “strategic” as well as financial
evaluation may indicate the need and direction of
further LCE activities.
x Dynamic investment appraisal methods are used for
LCC as an instrument of LCE as well. Principally, the
financial evaluation of BM should either coincide or
be consistent with the part of an LCE-related
evaluation referring to the economic target dimension.
x Due to the logic of LCE with its ecological
perspective, the elaboration of the business model
elements, the evaluations, and the decision about
introducing the innovative product and the business
model should additionally take the ecological target
dimension into account (see also [16, 17]).
The integration of LCE and BM ensures that key activities
and (interests of) key partners as well as (sales, distribution,
and communication) channels are not neglected and, thereby,
 U. Götze et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 134 – 139
fosters the supply chain-orientation of LCE. Similarly, the
inclusion of customer relationships and channels implies a
stronger customer- and market orientation (by analyzing
customer needs, markets and their potentials, competitors,
etc.) [12]. Finally, insights from strategic management theory
– applied for elaborating business model elements and the
“strategic” evaluation – are made useful for LCE.
4. Target Costing as a means of LCE
Due to its principal usefulness for directing engineering
and management activities and its relevance in the industrial
context, the integration of the TC approach in or with LCE is
suggested here. This can either be done with reference to the
concept of integrated LCE and BM including TC specific
activities in the corresponding steps of LCE and BM or
without referring to BM. Here, the latter approach is regarded.
Target costing (Fig. 2) is a “cost management tool for
reducing the overall cost of a product over its entire life cycle
with the help of the production, engineering, R&D,
marketing, and accounting departments” [18: 41]. It can be
used for effective market- and cost-oriented controlling of
design specifications and production techniques over the
entire product life cycle but with a focus on the early phases.
The procedure starts with basic product planning (1). The
preparation of a basic product plan takes the company’s
product and business strategy, market trends, and the needs of
potential customers into account. Target cost determination
(2) should begin with establishing a market-oriented target
price. Then, the target cost is calculated by subtracting a
target profit margin. Afterwards, the target cost is
decomposed to functions (properties), components, and/or
parts taking customer requirements and their relevance into
account and the achievement of the resulting target cost is
evaluated (3a). In target cost achievement (3b), the product
and production processes are engineered under consideration
of the decomposed target cost. The last step (4) aims at not
exceeding the follow-up cost of a product´s life cycle [19] by
continuous improvement along the whole product life cycle.
Reflecting this procedure and the TC characteristics with
Fig. 2. Target Costing procedure [20,21]
137
view on LCE, it gets obvious that TC is life cycle-related as
well, contains a strong (life cycle) engineering element
(especially in step 3b), and considers an economic target
figure (cost). This means that nearly all of the perspectives of
LCE are included in TC as well – only the ecological base is
missing. So, there is a profound base for integration.
The potential of TC for providing a stronger management
and especially market- and customer-orientation is based on
its key aspects regarding the balance and coordination
between the engineering and management perspective and
activities, the inherent market- and customer-orientation that
is expressed by deriving target cost from target prices and
decomposing them according to customer requirements, and
finally the strict control and directing of engineering activities
to achieve market-oriented target cost and, thereby, to foster
product innovation success.
The last aspect is visualized by Fig. 3. The left part of the
figure shows a procedure model which has been suggested for
conducting life cycle-related evaluations as one of the major
LCE tasks. The right side shows a simplified TC-inspired
engineering approach. Here, in step 2 target figure outcomes
(such as target cost) are determined. In the following steps,
the engineering activities are directed to achieve these target
outcomes. The decomposition and evaluation of target figure
outcomes to functions, components, and/or parts is intended
to direct the engineering activities. For engineering,
decomposition and evaluation, modeling and analysis
activities are necessary. The result of the procedure consists
of product and production process specifications as well as
decomposed target figure outcomes.
Referring to LCE has at least two consequences for the
methodology of TC: firstly, an adequate definition and
calculation of target figures considering all relevant life cycle
phases has to be assured. If a longer time period is regarded,
static costs always imply a simplification – to avoid this
simplification and enlarge accuracy, TC has to be
“dynamized” by regarding single periods and using net
present value and cash flows as target figures [22].
Secondly, TC is an economically-oriented concept neglec-
ting the ecological perspective inherent in LCE. To exploit its
full potential for LCE, TC might be extended or adapted by
including an ecological perspective. Three ways for such an
extension or adaption have already been outlined (for a more
detailed description see [21]). Target Ecology Management
means applying TC principles to achieve ecological (instead
of cost) targets and Ecology-oriented Target Costing is
intended to consider ecological cost as a separate cost item in
TC. The most advanced approach would be a Target Ecology
and Cost Management considering ecological as well as
economic (cost) target outcomes and directing engineering
activities towards their achievement. This approach is the one
corresponding most strongly with LCE principles. However, it
implies the simultaneous consideration of at least two target
figures and is still not methodically elaborated concretely (for
first approaches see [21,25]).
Concluding, it is worth mentioning that some other
concepts and methods bearing the potential of enhancing the
market-, customer-, and supply chain-orientation of LCE do
exist: methods for analyzing and forecasting market
138 U. Götze et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 134 – 139
structures, market potentials, and competitors and for
identifying, analyzing, and forecasting customers´ needs as
well as willingness to pay and defining customers´
requirements (e.g., conjoint analysis, requirements
engineering), as a specific variant of these methods the
financial evaluation from the point of view of customers and
key partners [24,26], and, finally, Value Stream Mapping and
Design, and Supply Chain Management methods. These
methods and concepts can be applied in and independent of
the frame of TC and BM.
5. Management-orientation in the Cluster of Excellence
MERGE – the case of smart rotor blades of wind turbines
A management-oriented LCE promises to be a powerful
tool for companies striving for efficient and sustainable R&D
activities and results. However, it can also be included in the
research of academic institutions. Here, MERGE and the
resource efficient manufacturing of sensor and actuator
devices for integration into (then: “smart”) rotor blades of
wind turbines as one of its research objects are focused [27,
28]. Although MERGE is not directed at applied but at basic
research – concerning new technologies for hybrid products
and production processes in order to enhance resource
efficiency of products´ production and use phases (“bivalent
strategy”) –, economic (and ecological) considerations are
already included. They are part of interdisciplinary sub-
projects as well as overarching activities and shall contribute
to fostering innovation-orientation of research. The economic
research is primarily intended to develop methods for an early
economic evaluation of new technologies and the resulting
processes and products up to the assessment of first business
model ideas. However, the developed methods are also
applied and validated in interdisciplinary projects such as the
one directed at smart rotor blades. Thereat, the elements of
business models (see Fig. 1) that seem to be most relevant in
this research phase are addressed systematically:
Fig. 3. From life cycle-oriented evaluation to life cycle-oriented target outcome-based engineering (developed on the base of [21,23,24])
x by building up generic life cycle-related value chains
for smart rotor blades in wind turbines with their key
activities, resources, and partners (for a simplified
value chain see [27]).
x by subsequently identifying customer segments at
different stages of the value chain, analyzing the core
requirements of typical customers (being the
counterpart of value propositions) and scrutinizing the
directions of research activities against the results, and
x by developing models for the monetary assessment (on
the base of estimated revenues and costs or, more
precisely, cash inflows and outflows) of the
profitability of different sensor-actuator concepts in
different application scenarios (active flow control, ice
detection etc.), of different manufacturing strategies
and of smart rotor blades at all and applying them
from the point of view of different actors of the value
chain (e.g., see [27,28,29]). These models also allow
for calculating critical values for design objectives
such as the necessary increase of the power coefficient
of a wind turbine per monetary unit of additional costs
[27].
The calculation of a critical value for additional costs can
be seen as a first step towards TC. Nevertheless, due to the
basic research character, the hitherto results are quite generic,
rough, and uncertain. They are only intended to give impulses
for research activities – the concrete elaboration of business
models and a TC project cannot be part of basic research.
Hence, a more application-oriented research project has been
initiated by some academic institutions and companies from
different stages of the value chain. Here, technologies for
smart rotor blades enabling active flow control shall be
developed and elaborated – accompanied by a (more detailed)
parallel economic and ecological evaluation, derivation and
use of control parameters such as target cost or burdens
(according to Fig. 3), and development of business models.
However, the research in MERGE (and other related
 U. Götze et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 134 – 139
projects) also indicates the drawbacks and limitations of the
suggested concepts and methods: Lack of reliable data, the
necessity to conclude from laboratory to industrial level,
complexity of design areas and large number of alternatives,
and the challenge of constituting a common language and
understanding between interdisciplinary cooperating actors.
6. Conclusion and outlook
Starting with a short appraisal of the management-
orientation of LCE, this paper presents suggestions to foster
market-, customer-, and supply chain-orientation of LCE. For
coupling and coordination of activities of LCE and Business
Modeling, a concept of an integrated LCE and BM is
suggested. Furthermore, the integration of TC with LCE – in
order to anchor a strict control and directing of engineering
activities to achieve market-oriented targets – is discussed and
a procedure model for life cycle-oriented, target outcome-
based engineering is presented. Finally, it is shown that some
elements of the concepts and methods are already used in the
Cluster of Excellence MERGE.
Future research could concentrate on elaborating a Target
Ecology and Cost Management and utilizing further market-
oriented concepts such as Supply Chain Costing within LCE.
Besides, other hitherto neglected management issues such as
knowledge management, leadership, culture, organization,
and individual human resources for LCE should be explored.
Acknowledgments
This work was performed within the Federal Cluster of
Excellence EXC 1075 “MERGE Technologies for
Multifunctional Lightweight Structures” and supported by the
German Research Foundation (DFG). Financial support is
gratefully acknowledged.
This work was performed with partial financial support of
the Programa de Ações Luso-Alemãs of CRUP – Conselho de
Reitores das Universidades Portuguesas.
This work was performed within the programme
“PPP Portugal”, project “Life Cycle Engineering
und Management Framework” and is being
partially financial supported by the DAAD with funds of the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
References
[1] Jeswiet J. Life cycle engineering: A definition. CIRP Encyclopedia of
Production Engineering 2014;757-758.
[2] Peças P et al. Life Cycle Engineering – Taxonomy and State-of-the-art.
Procedia CIRP 2016;48:73-78.
[3] Teece DJ. Strategy, Innovation and the Theory of the Firm. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.; 2012.
[4] Umeda Y et al. Toward integrated product and process life cycle
planning-An environmental perspective. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology 2012;61(2):681-702.
[5] Meier H, Roy R, Seliger G. Industrial Product Service System -IPS2.
CIPR Annals - Manufacturing Technology 2010;59(2):607-627.
[6] Fava JA et al. Sustainable strategies using life cycle approaches. Environ
Prog 2000;19:61-64.
[7] Prox M. Material flow cost accounting extended to the supply chain –
challenges, benefits and links to life cycle engineering. Procedia CIRP
2015;29:486-491.
139
[8] Probst G, Raub S, Romhardt K. Wissen managen: Wie Unternehmen ihre
wertvollste Ressource optimal nutzen. 7th ed. Wiesbaden: Springer
Gabler; 2012 (German).
[9] Köhler S. Kostenorientiertes Wissensmanagement in den Konstruktions-
prozessen des Maschinenbaus. Chemnitz: GUC; 2012 (German).
[10] Köhler S, Bierer A, Götze U. Management of Cost Knowledge in
Product Design – Integration of Upstream and Downstream Life Cycle
Phases. In: Abramovici M, Stark R, editors. Smart Product Engineering:
Proceedings of the 23rd CIRP Design Conference. Berlin: Springer; 2013.
p. 957-967.
[11] Rehme M, Lindner R, Götze U. Perspektiven für Geschäftsmodelle der
Fahrstrombereitstellung – Wirtschaftliche Bewertung in elektromobilen
Supply Chains. In: Proff H, editor. Entscheidungen beim Übergang in die
Elektromobilität – Technische und betriebswirtschaftliche Aspekte.
Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler; 2015. p. 409-428 (German).
[12] Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Hoboken, New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
[13] Johnson MW. Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for
Growth and Renewal. Boston (Mass.): Harvard Business School; 2010.
[14] Teece DJ. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long
Range Planning 2010;43:172-194.
[15] Barney JB. Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. 4th ed. New
Jersey: Upper Saddle River; 2011.
[16] Bocken NMP et al. A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production
2014;65:42-56.
[17] Joyce A, Paquin RL. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to
design more sustainable business models. J of Clean Prod 2016;135:1474-
1486.
[18] Sakurai M. Target Costing and how to use it. J of Cost Manag,
1989,3(2):39-50.
[19] Ax C, Greve J, Nilsson U. The impact of competition and uncertainty on
the adoption of target costing. Int J of Prod Econ 2008,115:92-103.
[20] Götze U. Kostenrechnung und Kostenmanagement. 5th ed. Berlin:
Springer; 2010 (German).
[21] Bierer A, Götze U. Target costing for energy- and cost-oriented product
development. In: Neugebauer R et al., editors. Energy-related and
economic balancing and evaluation of technical systems – insights of the
Cluster of Excellence eniPROD, Auerbach: Wissenschaftliche Scripten;
2013. p. 435-450.
[22] Götze U, Linke C. Interne Unternehmensrechnung als Instrument des
marktorientierten Zielkostenmanagements – ausgewählte Probleme und
Lösungsansätze. ZP 2008;19(1):107-132 (German).
[23] Götze U, Schmidt A, Weber T. Vorgehensmodell zur Abbildung und
Analyse des Lebenszykluserfolges von Werkstoffen – Konzeption und
beispielhafte Veranschaulichung. MWT 2010;41(6):464-475 (German).
[24] Götze U et al. Integrated Framework for Life Cycle-Oriented Evaluation
of Product and Process Technologies: Conceptual Design and Case Study.
In: Henriques E et al., editors. Technology and Manufacturing Process
Selection: The Product Life Cycle Perspective. London: Springer; 2014.
p. 193-215.
[25] Günther E, Schill O, Schuh H. Berücksichtigung von Ökologie¬kosten
im Target Costing. UmweltWirtschaftsForum 2000;8(1):65-71 (German).
[26] Götze U et al. Methodik zur Analyse, Prognose und Bewertung von
innovativen Werkstoffen am Beispiel von partikelverstärkten
Aluminiummatrix-Verbundwerkstoffen (AMCs). In: Gausemeiner J,
editor. Vorausschau und Technologieplanung. Band 347 Paderborn:
Universität Paderborn Heinz Nixdorf Inst.;2015. p. 221-241 (German).
[27] Götze U et al. Life cycle-oriented analysis and evaluation of Active Flow
Control in Wind Turbines. International Journal of Condition Monitoring
and Diagnostic Engineering Management 2015;18(3):11-20.
[28] Schueller M et al. Fluidic actuators in composite structures: design,
manufacturing, and life cycle-related evaluation. In: Kroll L, editor. 2nd
International MERGE Technologies Conference. Auerbach:
Wissenschaftliche Scripten; 2015. p. 257-263.
[29] Großmann TD et al. Remote ice detection on rotor blades of wind
turbines. In: Kroll L, editor. 2nd International MERGE Technologies
Conference. Auerbach: Wissenschaftliche Scripten; 2015. p. 265-271.