Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Deborah L. Thurston

Decision Systems Laboratory, University of Illinois, 104 S. Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801e-mail: thurston@uiuc

J. Mech. Des 123(2), 176-182 (Jul 01, 1999) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1363610 History: Received July 01, 1999
Copyright © 2001 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Hazelrigg,  G., 1998, “A Framework for Decision Based Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 120, No. 4, pp 653–658.
Suh, N., 1988, The Principals of Design, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A., 1982, eds., Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press.
von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O., 1947, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H., 1976, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley and Sons.
Howard, R. A., and Matheson, J. E., eds., 1984, “The Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis,” Menlo Park, CA: Strategic Decision Group.
Otto, K., and Wood, K., 2001, Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice Hall.
Pugh, S., 1991, Total Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Cook, H. E., 1997, Product Management, Chapman and Hall, London.
Ulrich, K., and Eppinger, S., 1995, Product Design and Development, McGraw Hill.
Shah, J., 1998, “Experimental Investigation of Progressive Idea Generation Techniques in Engineering Design,” Proc. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference.
Thurston,  D. L., 1991, “A Formal Method for Subjective Design Evaluation with Multiple Attributes,” Research in Engineering Design, 3, No. 2, pp. 105–122.
Thurston,  D. L., and Locascio,  A., 1994, “Decision Theory for Design Economics,” The Engineering Economist, 40, No. 1, pp. 41–72.
Saaty, T. L., 1978, “Exploring the Interface Between Heuristics, Multiple Objectives and Fuzzy Sets,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., 1 .
Hauser, J. R., and Clausing, D., 1988, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review, 66 , No. 3.
Thurston,  D. L., Carnahan,  J. V., Liu,  T., 1994, “Optimization of Design Utility,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 116, No. 3, pp. 801–808.
Thurston,  D. L., and Essington,  S., 1993, “A Tool for Optimal Manufacturing Design Decisions,” Manufacturing Review, 6, No. 1, pp. 48–59.
Tian,  Y. Q., Thurston,  D. L. and Carnahan,  J. V., 1994, “Incorporating End-Users’ Attitudes Towards Uncertainty into an Expert System,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 116, No. 2, pp. 493–500.
Nogal, A. M., Thurston, D. L., and Tian, Y. T., 1994, “Meta-Level Reasoning in the Iterative Design Process,” Proc. ASME Winter Annual Meeting on Design Automation.
Fishburn, P. C., 1970, Utility Theory for Decision Making Wiley & Sons, New York.
McCord,  M., and deNeufville,  R., 1986, “Lottery Equivalents: Reduction of the Certainty Effect in Utility Assessment,” Management Science, 32, pp. 56–60.
Wan, J., and Krishnamurthy, S., 1998, “Towards a Consistent Preference Representation in Engineering Design,” Proc. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference.
Allais,  M., 1953, “Le Comportemente de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulates et axiomes de l’ecole americaine,” Econometrica, 21, pp. 503–46.
Thurston,  D. L., and Liu,  T., 1991, “Design Evaluation of Multiple Attribute Under Uncertainty,” Systems Automation: Research and Applications, 1, No. 2, pp. 143–159.
Thurston,  D. L., Crawford,  C. A., 1994, “A Method for Integrating End-User Preferences for Design Evaluation in Rule-Based Systems,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 116, No. 2, pp. 522–530.
Arrow, K. J., 1951, 2nd ed. 1963, Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Hazelrigg,  G., 1996, “The Implications of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem on Approaches to Optimal Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 118, No. 2, pp. 161–164.
Kirkwood, C. W., 1979, “Pareto Optimality and Equity in Social Decision Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., SMC-9 , No. 2.


Grahic Jump Location
Creativity generates turnbuckle configuration
Grahic Jump Location
Traditional analysis predicts how fatigue performance improves as diameter increases
Grahic Jump Location
Test to determine if X1 is utility independent of X2
Grahic Jump Location
Test of additive independence condition between X1 and X2
Grahic Jump Location
Traditional analysis predicts how weight worsens as diameter increases
Grahic Jump Location
Utility function identifies diameter resulting in best combination of weight and fatigue resistance




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In