Decision based design shows great promise in improving the design process, but is not a panacea. The design problem of interest here is tradeoffs between conflicting objectives, particularly under uncertainty. The focus is on multiattribute utility theory. This paper describes several real limitations to utility analysis in the context of engineering design, and attempts to clear up several common misconceptions about it. The real limitations are in the initial configuration and analytic design phases, and in overcoming difficulties in group decision making. The major misconceptions relate to independence conditions, the functional form and assessment biases.
Issue Section:
Technical Papers
1.
Hazelrigg
, G.
, 1998
, “A Framework for Decision Based Design
,” ASME J. Mech. Des.
, 120
, No. 4
, pp 653
–658
.2.
Suh, N., 1988, The Principals of Design, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
3.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A., 1982, eds., Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press.
4.
von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O., 1947, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
5.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H., 1976, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley and Sons.
6.
Howard, R. A., and Matheson, J. E., eds., 1984, “The Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis,” Menlo Park, CA: Strategic Decision Group.
7.
Otto, K., and Wood, K., 2001, Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice Hall.
8.
Pugh, S., 1991, Total Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
9.
Cook, H. E., 1997, Product Management, Chapman and Hall, London.
10.
Ulrich, K., and Eppinger, S., 1995, Product Design and Development, McGraw Hill.
11.
Shah, J., 1998, “Experimental Investigation of Progressive Idea Generation Techniques in Engineering Design,” Proc. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference.
12.
Thurston
, D. L.
, 1991
, “A Formal Method for Subjective Design Evaluation with Multiple Attributes
,” Research in Engineering Design
, 3
, No. 2
, pp. 105
–122
.13.
Thurston
, D. L.
, and Locascio
, A.
, 1994
, “Decision Theory for Design Economics
,” The Engineering Economist
, 40
, No. 1
, pp. 41
–72
.14.
Saaty, T. L., 1978, “Exploring the Interface Between Heuristics, Multiple Objectives and Fuzzy Sets,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., 1.
15.
Hauser, J. R., and Clausing, D., 1988, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review, 66, No. 3.
16.
Thurston
, D. L.
, Carnahan
, J. V.
, Liu
, T.
, 1994
, “Optimization of Design Utility
,” ASME J. Mech. Des.
, 116
, No. 3
, pp. 801
–808
.17.
Thurston
, D. L.
, and Essington
, S.
, 1993
, “A Tool for Optimal Manufacturing Design Decisions
,” Manufacturing Review
, 6
, No. 1
, pp. 48
–59
.18.
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
.19.
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.
20.
Fishburn, P. C., 1970, Utility Theory for Decision Making Wiley & Sons, New York.
21.
McCord
, M.
, and deNeufville
, R.
, 1986
, “Lottery Equivalents: Reduction of the Certainty Effect in Utility Assessment
,” Management Science
, 32
, pp. 56
–60
.22.
Wan, J., and Krishnamurthy, S., 1998, “Towards a Consistent Preference Representation in Engineering Design,” Proc. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference.
23.
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
.24.
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
.25.
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
.26.
Arrow, K. J., 1951, 2nd ed. 1963, Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, NY.
27.
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
.28.
Kirkwood, C. W., 1979, “Pareto Optimality and Equity in Social Decision Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., SMC-9, No. 2.
Copyright © 2001
by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.
