project platyus

7/27/2019 Project Platyus

1/12

8/13/13 IBS Case Studies

27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp 1/12

IBSCampuses

Date: 13/08/2013 Time: 13:01:13

IPD/0002

IBS Case Development Center

Project Platypus Mattels Unconventional Toy Development Process

This case study w as written by Subhadip Roy , Professor, Department of Marketing, IBS Hyderabad. It is intended to be used as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrateither effective or ineffective handling of a management situation. The case was compiled from published sources.

License to use for IBS Campuses

Sem-III, Class of 2012-2014

2010, IBS Case Development Center. All rights reserved.

To order copies, call +91-08417-236667/68 or write to IBS Case Development Center, IFHE Campus, Donthanapally, Sankarapally Road, Hyderabad 501 504, Andhra Pradesh, Indemail: [email protected]

www.ibscdc.org

IPD/0002

Project Platypus Mattels Unconventional Toy Development Process


2/12



Were a toy company, but we werent playing enough. [1]

To really shift thinking you need to shift environments. [2]

If you put a bunch of creative thinkers in the right environment and drop the job titles, youll discover amazing creativity. [3]

Ivy Ross , Senior VP Worldwide, Girls Design and

Development, Toy Giant Mattel

THE TOY BUSINESS

Global toy industry was worth $60 billion as per 2003 estimates. The US toy industry accounted for a third of the toy

business. The industry has been in the grip of change caused by rapid changes in tastes and preferences of children.Power Rangers [4] were the rage during the early 1990s. New trends had arrived by the late 1990s. In 1998, BeanieBabies [5] sold out within minutes of hitting retailers shelves. By 1999, the Pokemon series of toys, cards and games(from Japans Nintendo) became popular. Children were turning away from traditional favourites in favour of electronic video games and interactive computer software. The product life cycle for many toys was very short: the

birth, growth, maturity and decline stages lasted only a couple of years. Huge turnover in the product line was typicalof the industry. For example, US toy maker, Mattel (a world leader in toy business like compatriot Hasbro Inc.), hashad to change as much as 80 percent of its product line every year. [6] By 1999, the market had become dynamicand unpredictable and companies needed to respond fast.

Mattel led the industry in the design, manufacture and marketing of toys and family products (that included family-oriented entertainment products such as Adventures with Barbie: Ocean Discovery). The company had itsworldwide headquarters in El Segundo, California. Mattel had been selling its wares in over 150 nations, having over 25,000 employees. The company had its manufacturing units in China, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia and Thailand. Thetoy giant had signed license agreements with third parties. Such licenses allowed Mattel to use trademarks, charactersor inventions of the licensor in its product lines. Mattels vision has been to be The Worlds Premier Toy Brands Today and Tomorrow.

Barbie, the most popular fashion doll ever introduced, was from Mattel. The fashion doll appeared for the first time in1959. The Barbie doll line expanded over the years. Barbie led Mattel to the forefront of the toy industry andfascinated generations of young girls. Barbie started its television marketing in the 1960s. Most women in the US,

below 50 years of age, have played with Barbie dolls as kids and later collected a vintage Barbie as an adult. Mattel, brilliantly marketed Barbie collectibles to this collectible community. The company has sold over a billion Barbies since1959, making it the best-selling fashion doll in almost every major market across the globe. As of December 6th2001, Barbie commanded a 90% market share of the fashion doll industry. [7] Barbie fetched Mattel an estimated $2

billion in annual revenue as of 2001.

MATTELS CONCERNS

We (Mattel company) are such a machine in terms of what we deliver on an annual basis that it doesnt allow time tothink[8], remarked Adrienne Fontanella, president of the Mattel Girls Division. The companys established brandssuch as Barbie and Hotwheels required hundreds of new product introductions every year with the result that Mattel,like other big toy companies, had few resources left to develop new toy categories or brands. I have 450 people whowork for me. Everyone is busy all the time practically 24/7 just growing our existing brands. No one has time to

become truly immersed in the possibilities [9], said Ivy Ross (Ross) senior vice president worldwide, Girls Design andDevelopment, Mattel (Annexure I). This was not just Mattels case. There was little by way of originality in an industrywhere usually everyone copies everybody elses ideas. [10] CEO, Eckert himself admitted that he spent less than1% of his time on product development. Changes in consumer behaviour accounted for much of Mattels failure tomeet revenue projections. [11] By Eckerts own admission, Mattels customers were zero to eight years oldcan

be very fickle. And unforgiving. [12] For instance, little girls stopped playing with Barbie dolls at a younger age than before. This phenomenon often called age compression in industry circles, could make a huge difference to Mattels bottom line, given that Mattels Barbie doll accounted for 29% [13]of Mattels revenues and an estimated 40% of
http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn13http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn12http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn11http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn10http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn9http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn8http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn7http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn6http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn5http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn4http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn3http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn2http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn1


3/12



profits in 1999. Mattels revenues fell $500 million short of projections promised to investors. Again, the 1990switnessed an increasing recognition of the centrality of womens empowerment [14]. Barbie lost favour with girls in thelate 1990s because the company failed to pick up on the girl-empowerment trend. The fashion doll came under firefrom feminists on occasions. For them Barbie was a tangible representation of the sexism of society. Feminists have

been critical of Barbies unrealistic body shape, which in their view made young girls go crazy, become anorexic [15]and run out and get breast implants to be like her. [16] Mattel struggled to move beyond products such as Barbie bycreating an innovative and original product. With flat sales through the first half of 1999, Jill Barad, chairman and chief executive, Mattel, was under pressure to prove that she could deliver the goods through that holiday season. In 2000,Mattel suffered a $430 million loss. In February 2000, Mattels Board of Directors ousted Barad. Robert Eckert took over as chairman and CEO, in May 2000.

Toy designers, copywriters and model makers at Mattel worked as different departments in a compartmentalisedmanner. There was not enough collaboration and interaction. Baton passing [17] prevailed. For instance, the marketingdepartment would pass on the business objectives to the design department. The designers there would create thevisual and then pass it on to engineering hands who would in turn pass it on to the packaging section. Each onecompeted with the other and worked in silos. [18] Designers needed to let colleagues from other departments into their design process and not try to own it. [19] A toy touched so many hands before its eventual release, with the resultthat the original idea behind the toy was often lost.

The cubicles encouraged competitiveness and protectiveness. A typical corporate setting was like a narrow box withinwhich the employees operated. The rigid ambience did not allow the employees to dabble with new ideas. For employees to develop new ideas and roll out innovative toys, they had to move out of the rigid corporate setting. The

potential of the employees lay untapped. For one, an employee might not realise his true skill/ potential as there was

never a platform (in the company) for him to try and discover what he was good at. Again, when a company employeehas performed in a certain way for a number of years, it is hard to think differently. The findings of Mattels in-housefocus groups suggested that Mattel employees were looking for a flexible environment to work in. They also longedfor the freedom to design outside the box.

CREATING A NEW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY FOR MATTEL

Mattel responded rapidly to the new trends in consumer behaviour by changing existing product lines and expandinginto new markets through a series of acquisitions (including the Pleasant Company that made the popular line of dolls

based on historical characters and books for older girls aged seven to twelve, in 1998) and through product changesand innovations. To create new brands, Mattel needed a recurring product development process with emphasis onopen idea sharing.

Ross looked up the definition of platypus (Annexure II) and it said, an uncommon mix of different species. [20]Ross project with its uncommon mix of cross-functional employees on board was dubbed Project Platypus. Thetitle signified the unusual nature of the creative sessions. It was an unconventional product team with the mission of developing a new hit in a new market. [21] Project Platypus was a toys skunk works (Annexure III) that broughttogether a dozen people from various parts of the company marketing, licensing, engineering for 12-week stints. [22]

Project Platypus was basically about being able to think in an imaginative way and understand the sociology and psychology behind childrens play patterns [23] , Adrienne Fontanella said. It stimulated designers to think differently,move the creative process closer to the consumer, and create new opportunities for growth.

Initially, the Human Resource Department at Mattel was sceptical about Project Platypus. They felt that employeeswould be unwilling to return to their normal jobs at the end of the project. The first Project Platypus session concludedin December 2001. Ello, (Annexure IV) a whimsically-shaped construction set for girls [24] emerged from thissession. Ello was a hybrid toy: part toy construction set and part craft kit. Mattel called it a creation system for 5-to-10-year-old girls. In Ello, the traditional bricklike blocks (typical of construction sets) were replaced by colourfulcartoonish panels, balls, miniature flowers and other quirky pieces that could be interchanged to build houses,furniture, people, pets, necklaces just about everything. The Platypus team made a formal presentation to senior managers wherein they addressed everything concerning their creation, Ello, from profit and loss projections andmarketing plan to line extensions. The team recommended that Ello be launched as a brand. The $19.95 Ello hit themarket by the end of 2002 and was received well by the market (Exhibit I).
http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn24http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn23http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn22http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn21http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn20http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn19http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn18http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn17http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn16http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn15http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn14


4/12



PROJECT PLATYPUSThe first Project Platypus lasted three months. Ivy assembled an interdisciplinary team consisting of designers, modelmakers, copywriters, child psychologists and various other departments. By assembling a product team from variousdepartments, Ross encouraged employees to stretch beyond their jobs, apply skills that they did not ordinarily use,and even discover new talents. Innovation, for her, consisted in exploring new possibilities, not realities. The Project

began with 15-20 of these members taking a three-month (the maximum period for which companies could typicallyspare their employees) break from their routine jobs. Their co-workers willingly covered for them while they attendedthe Project, fully knowing that they would also get a chance to attend the project at some later date.

Nothingsparksnewidealikeanewenvironment [25] and to really shift thinking, you have to shift environments. [26]The team members, leaving their jobs and titles behind, moved to the venue of Project Platypus: a 2000 square feet

building (resembling a playground) across the street from the Mattel headquarters in El Segundo, California. Thishelped to distance these employees from the distractions of their old job with Mattel. Typically, the manager and

subordinate relationship would be greatly affected by the location, layout of offices and the manner in which the twowere separated. The studio was dramatically different from the companys design center. It had an extra high ceiling,grass-coloured carpet and a red door bearing the definitions of platypus. Beanbag chairs and foam cubes littered thefloor. The employees felt like they were airdropped into a totally new locale. Ross felt that the setting with such highceilings sans walls encouraged regular exchange of ideas, spurred creativity and out-of-the-box thinking. Unliketraditional officescapes where workers sat in cubicles or desks at desktop computers with little mobility, here thedesks came with wheels to encourage spontaneous collaboration.

They were not given any deadlines typical of companies. All they were told was that in 12 weeks time they had todevelop a new opportunity for Mattel that doesnt yet

exist.[27] At the close of the project they were required to conceive and develop just about everything related to thisnew opportunity, ranging from the business plan to product packaging, etc. To start with, for the first two weeks the

participants were not required to do anything. As Ross put it if you want to get milk out of a cow, you have to give ittime to graze. [28]

Experts were brought in from outside. Employees could listen to these voices from outside the company. One of theseexperts, a Jungian analyst, spoke on the patterns and archetypes related to toys (Exhibit II).

Since the project centered on a construction set toy, architects were roped in to speak on building design. An experton improv-comedy (a kind of improvisational theater without formal script wherein the actors created the dialogue andaction and incorporated suggestions from the audience) was also present. Improv-comedy (Annexure V) reportedlyenhanced group thinking. The improvisational artist asked team members to throw a stuffed bunny at their colleaguesas a way to release inhibitions that stifled the process of sharing ideas.
http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn28http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn27http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn26http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn25


5/12



Normal company environments gave employees the best equipment and environment to work with but left them withlittle time for what-ifs (suppositional and exploratory questions). Ross seemed to have a way out. Employees could beurged into imaginative exploration through feeding their soul, their mind and creating an environment that each of themcan grow in. [29] Brain expert, Jeffrey Thomson recorded team members as they hummed collectively, a processdesigned to measure their brainwave frequencies. Having listened to these frequencies, Thomson isolated one of theseand incorporated it into a musical soundtrack. All through the three-month session, the group would listen to the tapeas a way to achieve group brain synchronicity. [30] Members were made to sit in special recliners [31] and listen tomusic.

The sound was said to cause vibrations that permeated the whole body. The vibrations were set at a frequencydesigned to put the participants in theta state, one of the four categories of brainwaves. Theta state was a positive statewherein it was possible to disengage mentally from the task on hand and engage in free-flowing idea generation,unrestrained by either guilt or censorship.

Rapid-fire storytelling (Annexure VI) was yet another activity. One person in the group would start off a story, OnSaturday night, Dr Field The story would unfold with each team member taking turns to add a line, phrase or even

just a word to the story. This served as a means of sharing experiences. Such shared experiences bound the grouptogether. It was an exercise in building on the others ideas, (be it half-baked ones) rather than judging them or whatcould be worse, ridiculing them. Team members even shared stories of their fears and frustrations. There was even a

joint group cry.

The idea wall (a 40-by-10 foot wall of chalkboard) in the studio was another open idea-sharing exercise. Projectdirector, David Kuehler [32] called it, a common desk for 12 brains. It all began when someone in the team got on aroll and an idea for a toy was born. He would walk up to the idea wall and scribble his idea of a toy on it. For instance, one member would sketch an inflatable house and put it up on the idea wall. Suddenly everyone else wouldrealise he/she had some brilliant idea on hand. No one owned the idea. Yet everyone was present at its inception, felta sense of ownership and worked as hard as he/she could to make this idea tick. Another group member would havea brain wave on what material to use to put the house together. He/she would scribble it in the corner of the sketch.Another designer would fasten an orange sticker on the drawing. It was his/her way of telling the group that the sketchneeded to be more juicy. Ross believed in letting ideas grow organically and come to fruition in this manner. Fiveweeks into the project and much ahead of schedule, the wall was covered with 33 toy ideas. [33]

Platypus (that of effectively breaking down hierarchy and encouraging collaboration amongst participants).

In the past, Ross would wonder, We are a toy company, but we were not playing enough. [34] Hence, someseemingly playful but intellectually stimulating activities formed part of the project. One such activity (aiming to releasethe participants from inhibitions that stifled the idea-sharing process) consisted in throwing a stuffed bunny at acolleague. Still another activity designed to stimulate imagination involved devising a method to prevent an egg from

breaking when dropped from 14 feet. The winner in this case came up with an egg bungee cord.

Participants talked to parents and called on schools. They were encouraged to visit the Labrea tarpits and even zoosand come back with a fresh perspective. The experience at Coach (Manhattan, US-headquarters of specialty leather goods and custom fabrics) told Ross that fresh ideas often sprang from the study of things unrelated to the project on
http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn34http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn33http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn32http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn31http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn30http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn29


6/12



hand. While at Coach her design team saw how a door opened and an idea came to them like a flash. Can youimagine a handbag opening like that? [35]

To resolve conflicts in the group, Ross brought in a mediator who asked team members to sit back, join arms andrepeat: All of your truth is welcome here. Ross herself graduated from innovator to facilitator spurring her teamscreativity.

Ross also brought in a group of girls to enable the toy makers to see first-hand how girls played with pipe cleaners,cardboard and other basic supplies. The girls went about constructing rooms and house, but only after they hadfigured out what was going on in a house. They started with a narrative. They also made jewellery and characters.They went on to tell stories about the world they had thus created. By the end of the year, the project team unveiled ahybrid toy: Ello.

PROJECT PLATYPUSS MATTELS RECURRING TO DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Ross did not want the project to end with the return of the participants to their office. She wanted them to share their experiences with their colleagues. On a trip to Seattle, Joyce Kim (a participant at the Project) led her fellow designersin a platypi group- storytelling exercise. Ross wanted members to pass on their energy, passion and what they hadlearned to the other employees through such exercises. Such diffusion of ideas, she believed, would transform Mattelsculture. There were signs suggesting that the project was taking an effect on Mattels corporate culture. Departmentswere increasingly resorting to the storytelling technique with their designers. People were being encouraged not to

judge others ideas. Mattels Boys Division had reportedly put up feedback walls. Employees were keenly awaitingtheir turn to join the Project. In fact there was a waiting list of such employees. The company proposed to conductthree such sessions the following year. Ross felt that if these Platypus sessions resulted in a new brand a year for Mattel, then it could be considered a success. CEO, Eckert observed, Project Platypus is an impressive example of how we can find exciting ways to inspire creativity and empower our people. [36] Ivy Ross was amused to find thatAll around her, the platypuses are starting to multiply. [37]
http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn37http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn36http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftn35


7/12




8/12




9/12




10/12




11/12



[1] Salter Chuck, Ivy Ross is Not Playing Around, www.fastcompany.com/online/64/ross.html, October 2002

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Popular character from Bandai of Japan. On June 21st 1999, Mattel was reportedly considering a marketing, salesand product development alliance with Bandai. Under the agreement, Mattel would market Bandai products in the USand Latin America

[5] Westmont, Illinois-based Ty Inc. made Beanie Babies. A Beanie Baby was typically a stuffed animal filled with plastic pellets

[6] Toy Story, http://www.cio.com, May 15th 2002

[7] Mattel Implements Microsoft Technologies, www.microsoft.com, December 6th 2001

[8] Bannon Lisa, Toymakers having fun? Now thats a novel concept,www.southcoasttoday.com, June 9th 2002

[9] Ivy Ross is Not Playing Around, op.cit.

[10] Christopher Byrne, long-time toy industry analyst and Contributing Editor, Toy Report and Toy Wishes, quoted
http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref10http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref9http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref8http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref7http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref6http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref5http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref4http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref3http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref2http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref1


12/12


in Ivy Ross is Not Playing Around, www.fastcompany.com, October 2002

[11] Mattel Recharges its Batteries, www.nyse.com, 2000

[12] Ibid.

[13] As of July 2003, Barbie accounted for about one-third of the company revenue.

[14] Womens empowerment has five components: womens sense of self-worth; their right to have and to determinechoices; their right to have access to opportunities and resources; their right to have the power to control their ownlives, both within and outside the home; and their ability to influence the direction of social change to create a more justsocial and economic order, nationally and internationally

[15] AnorexiaNervosa is a serious eating disorder, primarily among teens and women in their early twenties, that ischaracterised by a pathological fear of weight gain leading to faulty eating patterns, malnutrition and usually excessiveweight loss.

[16] Dusty Rhoades, She Must Have Converted, www.dusty.booksnbytes.com, 2003

[17] Bannon Lisa, Toymakers having fun? Now thats a novel concept, www.southcoasttoday.com, June 9th 2002

[18] Silo is a trench, pit, or a tall cylinder (of wood or concrete), usually sealed to exclude air and used for making andstoring silage.

[19] Womack David, Project Platypus: An Interview with Ivy Ross, http://gain.aiga.org, March 6th 2003


[21] Ibid.

[22] Mattel Recharges its Batteries, op.cit.

[23] Toymakers having fun? Now thats a novel concept, op.cit.

[24] Palmeri Christopher, Mattels New Toy Story, www.businessweek.com, November 18th 2002


[26] Ibid.

[27] Project Platypus: An Interview with Ivy Ross, op.cit.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Project Platypus: An Interview with Ivy Ross, op.cit.

[30] The coincidental occurrence of events and especially psychic events (as similar thoughts in widely separated persons or a mental image of an unexpected event before it happens).

[31] A chair with an adjustable back and footrest

[32] Actor,director and engineer, David Kuehler worked for Disney and Sundance Film Centers before Ross hiredhim as director of Project Platypus.

[33] The Japanese Tea Ceremony, www.holymtn.com, February 16th 2001

[34] Salter Chuck,Ivy Ross, www.myneweconomy.com, November 2002

[35] Ibid.

[36] Annual Report 2002, www.mattel.com


Exit
http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref37http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref36http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref35http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref34http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref33http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref32http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref31http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref30http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref29http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref28http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref27http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref26http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref25http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref24http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref23http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref22http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref21http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref20http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref19http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref18http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref17http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref16http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref15http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref14http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref13http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref12http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/Sem3_2013/IPD0002.asp#_ftnref11

project platyus

Documents