Loading…
Multi-attribute utility analysis in set-based conceptual design
During conceptual design, engineers deal with incomplete product descriptions called design concepts. Engineers must compare these concepts in order to move towards the more desirable designs. However, comparisons are difficult because a single concept associates with numerous possible final design...
Saved in:
Published in: | Computer aided design 2009-03, Vol.41 (3), p.214-227 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c469t-234c35fc3bb922f6f6bb3e7ba5bd76daa700cb00ac2b6c64582b0fc7e6a5144e3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c469t-234c35fc3bb922f6f6bb3e7ba5bd76daa700cb00ac2b6c64582b0fc7e6a5144e3 |
container_end_page | 227 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 214 |
container_title | Computer aided design |
container_volume | 41 |
creator | Malak, Richard J. Aughenbaugh, Jason Matthew Paredis, Christiaan J.J. |
description | During conceptual design, engineers deal with incomplete product descriptions called design concepts. Engineers must compare these concepts in order to move towards the more desirable designs. However, comparisons are difficult because a single concept associates with numerous possible final design specifications, and any meaningful comparison of concepts must consider this range of possibilities. Consequently, the performance of a concept can only be characterized imprecisely. While standard multi-attribute utility theory is an accepted framework for making preference-based decisions between precisely characterized alternatives, it does not directly accommodate the analysis of imprecisely characterized alternatives. By extending uncertainty representations to model imprecision explicitly, it is possible to apply the principles of utility theory to such problems. However, this can lead to situations of indeterminacy, meaning that the decision maker is unable to identify a single concept as the most preferred. Under a set-based perspective and approach to design, a designer can work towards a single solution systematically despite indecision arising from imprecise characterizations of design concepts. Existing work in set-based design primarily focuses on feasibility conditions and single-attribute objectives, which are insufficient for most design problems. In this article, we combine the framework of multi-attribute utility theory, the perspective of set-based design, and the explicit mathematical representation of imprecision into a single approach to conceptual design. Each of the component theories is discussed, and their combined application developed. The approach is illustrated using the conceptual design of a fixed-ratio power transmission as an example. Additionally, important directions for future research are identified, with a particular focus on the process of modeling abstract design concepts. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.004 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_901686503</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010448508001309</els_id><sourcerecordid>34255739</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c469t-234c35fc3bb922f6f6bb3e7ba5bd76daa700cb00ac2b6c64582b0fc7e6a5144e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLxDAURoMoOI7-AHdd6ar15tkWFyLiC0bc6Dok6a1k6LRjkgrz780wrl3dzTkf3EPIJYWKAlU368qZrmIATQWqAhBHZEGbui2ZauQxWQBQKIVo5Ck5i3ENAIzydkHu3uYh-dKkFLydExZz8oNPu8KMZthFHws_FhFTaU3ErnDT6HCbZjMUHUb_NZ6Tk94MES_-7pJ8Pj1-PLyUq_fn14f7VemEalPJuHBc9o5b2zLWq15Zy7G2RtquVp0xNYCzAMYxq5wSsmEWelejMpIKgXxJrg-72zB9zxiT3vjocBjMiNMcdZsjNEoCz-TVvyQXTMqatxmkB9CFKcaAvd4GvzFhpynofVS91jmq3kfVoHSOmp3bg4P51x-PQUfnMTfpfECXdDf5f-xf_OJ_yQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>34255739</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Multi-attribute utility analysis in set-based conceptual design</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Malak, Richard J. ; Aughenbaugh, Jason Matthew ; Paredis, Christiaan J.J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Malak, Richard J. ; Aughenbaugh, Jason Matthew ; Paredis, Christiaan J.J.</creatorcontrib><description>During conceptual design, engineers deal with incomplete product descriptions called design concepts. Engineers must compare these concepts in order to move towards the more desirable designs. However, comparisons are difficult because a single concept associates with numerous possible final design specifications, and any meaningful comparison of concepts must consider this range of possibilities. Consequently, the performance of a concept can only be characterized imprecisely. While standard multi-attribute utility theory is an accepted framework for making preference-based decisions between precisely characterized alternatives, it does not directly accommodate the analysis of imprecisely characterized alternatives. By extending uncertainty representations to model imprecision explicitly, it is possible to apply the principles of utility theory to such problems. However, this can lead to situations of indeterminacy, meaning that the decision maker is unable to identify a single concept as the most preferred. Under a set-based perspective and approach to design, a designer can work towards a single solution systematically despite indecision arising from imprecise characterizations of design concepts. Existing work in set-based design primarily focuses on feasibility conditions and single-attribute objectives, which are insufficient for most design problems. In this article, we combine the framework of multi-attribute utility theory, the perspective of set-based design, and the explicit mathematical representation of imprecision into a single approach to conceptual design. Each of the component theories is discussed, and their combined application developed. The approach is illustrated using the conceptual design of a fixed-ratio power transmission as an example. Additionally, important directions for future research are identified, with a particular focus on the process of modeling abstract design concepts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-4485</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2685</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.004</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Concept evaluation ; Decision-based design ; Descriptions ; Design engineering ; Mathematical models ; Multi-attribute utility theory ; Power transmission ; Representations ; Set-based design ; Specifications ; Uncertainty in design ; Utilities</subject><ispartof>Computer aided design, 2009-03, Vol.41 (3), p.214-227</ispartof><rights>2008 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c469t-234c35fc3bb922f6f6bb3e7ba5bd76daa700cb00ac2b6c64582b0fc7e6a5144e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c469t-234c35fc3bb922f6f6bb3e7ba5bd76daa700cb00ac2b6c64582b0fc7e6a5144e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27915,27916</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Malak, Richard J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aughenbaugh, Jason Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paredis, Christiaan J.J.</creatorcontrib><title>Multi-attribute utility analysis in set-based conceptual design</title><title>Computer aided design</title><description>During conceptual design, engineers deal with incomplete product descriptions called design concepts. Engineers must compare these concepts in order to move towards the more desirable designs. However, comparisons are difficult because a single concept associates with numerous possible final design specifications, and any meaningful comparison of concepts must consider this range of possibilities. Consequently, the performance of a concept can only be characterized imprecisely. While standard multi-attribute utility theory is an accepted framework for making preference-based decisions between precisely characterized alternatives, it does not directly accommodate the analysis of imprecisely characterized alternatives. By extending uncertainty representations to model imprecision explicitly, it is possible to apply the principles of utility theory to such problems. However, this can lead to situations of indeterminacy, meaning that the decision maker is unable to identify a single concept as the most preferred. Under a set-based perspective and approach to design, a designer can work towards a single solution systematically despite indecision arising from imprecise characterizations of design concepts. Existing work in set-based design primarily focuses on feasibility conditions and single-attribute objectives, which are insufficient for most design problems. In this article, we combine the framework of multi-attribute utility theory, the perspective of set-based design, and the explicit mathematical representation of imprecision into a single approach to conceptual design. Each of the component theories is discussed, and their combined application developed. The approach is illustrated using the conceptual design of a fixed-ratio power transmission as an example. Additionally, important directions for future research are identified, with a particular focus on the process of modeling abstract design concepts.</description><subject>Concept evaluation</subject><subject>Decision-based design</subject><subject>Descriptions</subject><subject>Design engineering</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Multi-attribute utility theory</subject><subject>Power transmission</subject><subject>Representations</subject><subject>Set-based design</subject><subject>Specifications</subject><subject>Uncertainty in design</subject><subject>Utilities</subject><issn>0010-4485</issn><issn>1879-2685</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtLxDAURoMoOI7-AHdd6ar15tkWFyLiC0bc6Dok6a1k6LRjkgrz780wrl3dzTkf3EPIJYWKAlU368qZrmIATQWqAhBHZEGbui2ZauQxWQBQKIVo5Ck5i3ENAIzydkHu3uYh-dKkFLydExZz8oNPu8KMZthFHws_FhFTaU3ErnDT6HCbZjMUHUb_NZ6Tk94MES_-7pJ8Pj1-PLyUq_fn14f7VemEalPJuHBc9o5b2zLWq15Zy7G2RtquVp0xNYCzAMYxq5wSsmEWelejMpIKgXxJrg-72zB9zxiT3vjocBjMiNMcdZsjNEoCz-TVvyQXTMqatxmkB9CFKcaAvd4GvzFhpynofVS91jmq3kfVoHSOmp3bg4P51x-PQUfnMTfpfECXdDf5f-xf_OJ_yQ</recordid><startdate>20090301</startdate><enddate>20090301</enddate><creator>Malak, Richard J.</creator><creator>Aughenbaugh, Jason Matthew</creator><creator>Paredis, Christiaan J.J.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090301</creationdate><title>Multi-attribute utility analysis in set-based conceptual design</title><author>Malak, Richard J. ; Aughenbaugh, Jason Matthew ; Paredis, Christiaan J.J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c469t-234c35fc3bb922f6f6bb3e7ba5bd76daa700cb00ac2b6c64582b0fc7e6a5144e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Concept evaluation</topic><topic>Decision-based design</topic><topic>Descriptions</topic><topic>Design engineering</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Multi-attribute utility theory</topic><topic>Power transmission</topic><topic>Representations</topic><topic>Set-based design</topic><topic>Specifications</topic><topic>Uncertainty in design</topic><topic>Utilities</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Malak, Richard J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aughenbaugh, Jason Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paredis, Christiaan J.J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Computer aided design</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Malak, Richard J.</au><au>Aughenbaugh, Jason Matthew</au><au>Paredis, Christiaan J.J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Multi-attribute utility analysis in set-based conceptual design</atitle><jtitle>Computer aided design</jtitle><date>2009-03-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>214</spage><epage>227</epage><pages>214-227</pages><issn>0010-4485</issn><eissn>1879-2685</eissn><abstract>During conceptual design, engineers deal with incomplete product descriptions called design concepts. Engineers must compare these concepts in order to move towards the more desirable designs. However, comparisons are difficult because a single concept associates with numerous possible final design specifications, and any meaningful comparison of concepts must consider this range of possibilities. Consequently, the performance of a concept can only be characterized imprecisely. While standard multi-attribute utility theory is an accepted framework for making preference-based decisions between precisely characterized alternatives, it does not directly accommodate the analysis of imprecisely characterized alternatives. By extending uncertainty representations to model imprecision explicitly, it is possible to apply the principles of utility theory to such problems. However, this can lead to situations of indeterminacy, meaning that the decision maker is unable to identify a single concept as the most preferred. Under a set-based perspective and approach to design, a designer can work towards a single solution systematically despite indecision arising from imprecise characterizations of design concepts. Existing work in set-based design primarily focuses on feasibility conditions and single-attribute objectives, which are insufficient for most design problems. In this article, we combine the framework of multi-attribute utility theory, the perspective of set-based design, and the explicit mathematical representation of imprecision into a single approach to conceptual design. Each of the component theories is discussed, and their combined application developed. The approach is illustrated using the conceptual design of a fixed-ratio power transmission as an example. Additionally, important directions for future research are identified, with a particular focus on the process of modeling abstract design concepts.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.004</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-4485 |
ispartof | Computer aided design, 2009-03, Vol.41 (3), p.214-227 |
issn | 0010-4485 1879-2685 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_901686503 |
source | Elsevier |
subjects | Concept evaluation Decision-based design Descriptions Design engineering Mathematical models Multi-attribute utility theory Power transmission Representations Set-based design Specifications Uncertainty in design Utilities |
title | Multi-attribute utility analysis in set-based conceptual design |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T23%3A03%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Multi-attribute%20utility%20analysis%20in%20set-based%20conceptual%20design&rft.jtitle=Computer%20aided%20design&rft.au=Malak,%20Richard%20J.&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=214&rft.epage=227&rft.pages=214-227&rft.issn=0010-4485&rft.eissn=1879-2685&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E34255739%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c469t-234c35fc3bb922f6f6bb3e7ba5bd76daa700cb00ac2b6c64582b0fc7e6a5144e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=34255739&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |