THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR DECISION MAKING IN ENGINEERING DESIGN

Committee on Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design

Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR DECISION MAKING IN ENGINEERING DESIGN Committee on Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study by the Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design was conducted under grant no. NSF/DMI-9908549 from the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Library of Congress Control Number XXX International Standard Book Number XXX Copies available in limited supply from: Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 202–334–3505 email: bmaed@nas.edu Additional copies are available for sale from: National Academy Press Box 285 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20055 800–624–6242 202–334–3313 (in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an advisor to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the-Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Wm A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design COMMITTEE ON THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR DECISION MAKING IN ENGINEERING DESIGN ROBERT J.EAGAN (chair), Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico BETH E.ALLEN, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis CORBETT D.CAUDILL, GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, Ohio RONALD A.HOWARD, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California J.STUART HUNTER, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER L.MAGEE, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan SIMON OSTRACH, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio WILLIAM B.ROUSE, Enterprise Support Systems, Norcross, Georgia Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design Staff CUNG VU, study director (until December 1, 2000) ARUL MOZHI, study director (from December 1, 2000) TONI MARECHAUX, board director TERI THOROWGOOD, research associate JUDY ESTEP, senior project assistant Government Liaison GEORGE HAZELRIGG, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design BOARD ON MANUFACTURING AND ENGINEERING DESIGN JOSEPH G.WIRTH (chair), Raychem Corporation (retired), Mt. Shasta, California F.PETER BOER, Tiger Scientific, Inc., Boynton Beach, Florida JOHN G.BOLLINGER, University of Wisconsin, Madison HARRY E.COOK, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign PAMELA A.DREW, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington ROBERT EAGAN, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico EDITH M.FLANIGEN, UOP Corporation (retired), White Plains, New York JOHN W.GILLESPIE, JR., University of Delaware, Newark JAMIE C.HSU, General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan RICHARD L.KEGG, Milacron, Inc. (retired), Cincinnati, Ohio JAY LEE, United Technologies Research Center, East Hartford, Connecticut JAMES MATTICE, Universal Technology Corporation, Dayton, Ohio CAROLYN W.MEYERS, North Carolina A&T University, Greensboro JOE H.MIZE, Oklahoma State University (retired), Stillwater FRIEDRICH B.PRINZ, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California JAMES B.RICE, JR., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge DALIBOR F.VRSALOVIC, Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, California JOEL SAMUEL YUDKEN, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C. TONI MARECHAUX, director

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design PREFACE Design is a process by which human intellect, creativity, and passion are translated into useful artifacts. The practice of engineering design involves not only pure and applied sciences, behavioral and social sciences, and economics but also many aspects of business and law. A designer must work effectively with a team composed of members of different disciplines and make tens or even hundreds of decisions for simple products and thousands of decisions for complex products. Tools to aid designers extend from design guides and rules of thumb that capture experience to synthetic environments that allow the designer to fly through virtual models. This study focuses on the development and use of tools and approaches for decision making in engineering design. It also examines the preparation that undergraduate students receive for applying decision analysis tools. The Committee on Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design reviewed some of the relevant literature and consulted experts to seek clarification as needed. In assessing commonly used design methodologies the committee also heard presentations about design engineering practices for a complex product (jet engine); management decisions for a commercial product (Chevrolet Corvette); and methods and tools used in risk analysis and design of a one-of-a-kind product (a space exploration vehicle). The committee, though small, brought wide-ranging expertise in economics, decision theory, academic research, and industrial practice. This diversity was valuable in deliberations and instructive in the difficulties of communicating across disciplinary areas, especially in the study of decision analysis for engineering design. Robert J.Eagan, chair Committee on Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Committee on Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design would like to thank the following individuals for their presentations: Wm A.Wulf, National Academy of Engineering; Steve Barrager, independent consultant; David Halstead, GE Aircraft Engines; John Taylor, NASA; and Greg Wyss, Sandia National Laboratories. In addition, the committee acknowledges Karen Padilla, Sandia National Laboratories, for typing several editions of the manuscript. This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets the institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Ernest R.Blood, Caterpillar Inc.; Clive L.Dym, Harvey Mudd College; Jay Lee, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee; Steven C. Lu, University of Southern California; Farrok Mistree, Georgia Institute of Technology; and David J. Vander Veen, General Motors. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of the report was overseen by George Dieter, University of Maryland, appointed by the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design CONTENTS     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   4     PRIOR STUDIES   4     THE CHANGING NATURE OF ENGINEERING DESIGN   5     CURRENT STUDY   6     REFERENCES   7 2   DECISION MAKING IN ENGINEERING DESIGN   8 3   BASIC TOOLS FOR APPLIED DECISION THEORY   12     THE DECISION BASIS   13     FRAMING   15     SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS   17 4   METHODS, THEORIES, AND TOOLS   20     CONCURRENT ENGINEERING   20     TOOLS TO OBTAIN STAKEHOLDER INPUT   22     The Pugh Method   22     Quality Function Deployment   22     Decision Matrix Techniques   24     Analytic Hierarchy Process   26     TOOLS AND METHODS TO ADDRESS VARIABILITY, QUALITY, AND UNCERTAINTY   27     Projected Latent Structure   29     Taguchi Method   29     Six Sigma   30     METHODS AND TOOLS FOR GENERATING ALTERNATIVES   30     Design Information Systems, Support Systems, And Environments   30     Triz   31     FORMAL METHODS FOR REPRESENTING DESIGN PROBLEMS   32     Engineering Design: A Synthesis Of Views   32     Suh’s Axiomatic Design   33     Yoshikawa’s General Design Theory   34     A Mathematical Framework For Engineering Design   35     DECISION MAKING IN MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND ECONOMIC FIELDS   36     Decision Making In Economics   36     Game Theory   38     SUMMARY OF METHODS, THEORIES, AND TOOLS   38     REFERENCES   41 5   IMPLICATIONS FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN EDUCATION AND RESEARCH   44     APPENDIXES   47     A ACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY 2000   49     B INVITED SPEAKERS   52     C BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS   53     D COMMITTEE USAGE   55

OCR for page R1
Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES 2–1   Decision process in the context of business and Environment   8 2–2   Decisions framed in relevant context   9 3–1   The quality of a decision   13 3–2   The problem space for characterization and decision-making   14 3–3   The decision hierarchy   15 3–4   The decision process   16 3–5   Decision diagram   16 3–6   Decision diagram for design of a dual-sport motorcycle   18 3–7   Tornado diagram   18 3–8   The decision quality spider   19 4–1   The House of Quality   23 4–2   A cascade of evaluation matrices   24 4–3   General format of the decision matrix   25 4–4   Decision matrix for access door attachment   25 4–5   Decision making in the context of variation   28 4–6   Scope of artificial intelligence in design   31 TABLES ES–1   Summary of Tools and Applications Examined   2 2–1   Framing a Decision in the Relevant Context   10 4–1   Comparison Between Concurrent Versus Linear (Serial) Engineering   21 4–2   Summary of Tools and Applications Examined   39