{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03255813953488372, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.329411764705882, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Over-Design Versus Redesign as a Response to Future Requirements

Though little research has been done in the field of over-design as a product development strategy, an over-design approach can help products avoid the issue of premature obsolescence. This paper compares over-design to redesign as approaches to address the emergence of future requirements. Net present value (NPV) analyses of several real world applications are examined from the perspective of manufacturers (i.e., defense contractors, automobile, pharmaceutical, and microprocessor manufactures) and customers (i.e., purchases of vehicles, televisions, cell phones, washing machines, and buildings). This analysis is used to determine the conditions under which an over-design approach provides a greater benefit than a redesign approach. Over-design is found to have a higher NPV than redesign when future requirements occur soon after the initial release, discount rates are low, initial research, and development cost or price is high, and when the incremental costs of the future requirements are low.