In this paper, the problem of selecting from among a set of alternatives using multiple, potentially conflicting criteria is discussed. A number of approaches are commonly used to make these types of decisions in engineering design, including pairwise comparisons, ranking methods, rating methods, weighted sum approaches, and strength of preference methods. In this paper, we first demonstrate the theoretical and practical flaws with a number of these commonly employed methods. We demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the various decision-making approaches using an aircraft selection problem. We then present a method based on the concept of hypothetical equivalents and expand the method to include hypothetical inequivalents. Visualization techniques, coupled with an indifference point analysis, are then used to understand the robustness of the solution obtained and determine the appropriate additional constraints necessary to identify a single robust optimal alternative. The same aircraft example is used to demonstrate the method of hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents.
Issue Section:
Technical Papers
1.
Chen
, W.
, Lewis
, K. E.
, and Schmidt
, L.
, 2000
, “Decision-Based Design: An Emerging Design Perspective
,” Engineering Valuation & Cost Analysis, Special Edition on
“Decision Based Design: Status & Promise,” 3
(1
), pp. 57
–66
.2.
Hazelrigg
, G. A.
, 1998
, “A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design
,” ASME J. Mech. Des.
, 120
, pp. 653
–658
.3.
Wassenaar
, H. J.
, and Chen
, W.
, 2003
, “An Approach to Decision-Based Design With Discrete Choice Analysis for Demand Modeling
,” ASME J. Mech. Des.
, 125
(3
), pp. 490
–497
.4.
Urban, G. L., and Hauser, J. R., 1993, Design and Marketing of New Products, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
5.
Saari
, D. G.
, 2000
, “Mathematical Structure of Voting Paradoxes. I; Pair-Wise Vote. II; Positional Voting
,” Economic Theory
, 15
, pp. 1
–103
.6.
Matheson, D., and Matheson, J., 1998, The Smart Organization, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
7.
Jetblue Airway, 2001, http://www.jetblue.com
8.
Airbus, 2001, “A330/A340 Family,” http://www.airbus.com
9.
Boeing, 2001, “
Commercial Airplane Info,” http://www.boeing.com/commercial/flash.html
10.
Saaty, T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
11.
Fukuda, S., and Matsura, Y., 1993, “Prioritizing the Customer’s Requirements by AHP for Concurrent Design,” Design for Manufacturability, ASME, 52, pp. 13–19.
12.
Davis
, L.
, and Williams
, G.
, 1994
, “Evaluating and Selecting Simulation Software Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
,” Integrated Manufacturing Systems
, 5
(1
), pp. 23
–32
.13.
Basak
, I.
, and Saaty
, T. L.
, 1993
, “Group Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
,” Math. Comput. Modell.
, 17
(4–5), pp. 101
–110
.14.
Hamalainen
, R. P.
, and Ganesh
, L. S.
, 1994
, “Group Preference Aggregration Methods Employed in AHP: An Evaluation and an Intrinsic Process for Deriving Members’ Weightages
,” European Journal of Operational Research
, 79
(2
), pp. 249
–265
.15.
Arrow, K. J., 1951, Social Choice and Individual Values, Wiley, New York.
16.
Barzilai, J., Cook, W. D., and Golany, B., 1992, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Structure of the Problem and Its Solutions,” in Systems and Management Science by Extremal Methods, F. Y. Phillips and J. J. Rousseau, eds., Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, pp. 361–371.
17.
Barzilai
, J.
, and Golany
, B.
, 1990
, “Deriving Weights From Pairwise Comparison Matrices: The Additive Case
,” Operations Research Letters
, 96
, pp. 407
–410
.18.
US News and World Report, 2003, “Graduate School Rankings,” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/rankindex.htm
19.
Peter
, H.
, and Wakker
, P.
, 1991
, “Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives and Revealed Group Preferences
,” Econom. J.
, 59
(6
), pp. 1787
–1801
.20.
Callaghan, A., and Lewis, K., 2000, “A 2-Phase Aspiration-Level and Utility Theory Approach to Large Scale Design,” ASME Design Automation Conference, Baltimore, MD, DETC00/DTM-14569.
21.
Thurston
, D. L.
, 1991
, “A Formal Method for Subjective Design Evaluation With Multiple Attributes, Research in Engineering Design
,” Res. Eng. Des.
, 3
, pp. 105
–122
.22.
Messac
, A.
, Sundararaj
, J. G.
, Tappeta
, R. V.
, and Renaud
, J. E.
, 2000
, “Ability of Objective Functions to Generate Points on Non-Convex Pareto Frontiers
,” AIAA J.
, 38
(6
), pp. 1084
–1091
.23.
Chen
, W.
, Wiecek
, M.
, and Zhang
, J.
, 1999
, “Quality Utility: A Compromise Programming Approach to Robust Design
,” ASME J. Mech. Des.
, 121
(2
), pp. 179
–187
.24.
Dennis
, J. E.
, and Das
, I.
, 1997
, “A Closer Look at Drawbacks of Minimizing Weighted Sums of Objective for Pareto Set Generation in Multicriteria Optimization Problems
,” Struct. Optim.
, 14
(1
), pp. 63
–69
.25.
Zhang
, J.
, Chen
, W.
, and Wiecek
, M.
, 2000
, “Local Approximation of the Efficient Frontier in Robust Design
,” ASME J. Mech. Des.
, 122
(2), pp. 232
–236
.26.
Watson
, S. R.
, and Freeling
, A. N. S.
, 1982
, “Assessing Attribute Weights
,” Omega
, 10
(6
), pp. 582
–583
.27.
Wu, G., 1996, “Exercises on Tradeoffs and Conflicting Objectives,” Harvard Business School Case Studies, 9-396-307.
28.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H., 1993, Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
29.
Scott, M. J., and Antonsson, E. K., 2000, “Using Indifference Points in Engineering Decisions,” in 12th ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, DETC2000/DTM-14559.
30.
Thurston
, D. L.
, 2001
, “Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis
,” ASME J. Mech. Des.
, 123
(2
), pp. 176
–182
.31.
See, T. K., and Lewis, K., 2002, “Multi-Attribute Decision Making Using Hypothetical Equivalents,” ASME Design Technical Conferences, Design Automation Conference, DETC02/DAC-02030.
32.
Yu, P.-L., 1985, Multiple-Criteria Decision Making: Concepts, Techniques and Extensions, Plenum Press, New York, Chap. 6, pp. 113–161.
33.
Keeney, R. L., 1996, Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
34.
Montgomery, D. C., 1997, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 4th ed., Wiley, New York.
35.
Atkinson, A. C., and Donev, A. N., 1992, Optimum Experimental Designs, Oxford University Press, New York.
36.
Vanderplaats, G. N., 1999, Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design, 3rd ed., Vanderplaats Research & Development, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO.
37.
Phadke, M. S., 1989, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
38.
Neider, J., Davis, T., and Woo, M., 1994, OpenGL Programming Guide, Release 1, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
39.
Gurnani, A. P., See, T. K., and Lewis, K., 2003, “An Approach to Robust Multi-Attribute Concept Selection,” ASME Design Technical Conferences, Design Automation Conference, DETC03/DAC-48707.
40.
Keeney
, R. L.
, 1976
, “A Group Preference Axiomatization With Cardinal Utility
,” Manage. Sci.
, 23
(2
), pp. 140
–145
.Copyright © 2004
by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.
