Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes

  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper contributes toward a more formal theory and methodology for design by mathematically modeling the functional relationships between design decisions and the ultimate overall worth of a design. The conventional approach to design evaluation is limited in two respects. First, the direct measurement of attribute performance levels does not reflect the subsequentworth to the designer. Second, ad hoc methods for determining the relative importance or priority of attributes do not accurately quantify beneficial attribute tradeoffs. This information is critical to the iterative redesign process. A formal Methodology for the Evaluation of Design Alternatives (MEDA) is presented which resolves these problems and can be used to evaluate design alternatives in the iterative design/redesign process. Multiattribute utility analysis is employed to compare the overall utility or value of alternative designs as a function of the levels of several performance characteristics of a manufactured system. The evaluation function reflects the designer's preferences for sets of multiple attributes. Sensitivity analysis provides a quantitative basis for modifying a design to increase its utility to the decision-maker. Improvements in one or more areas of performance and tradeoffs between attributes which would increase desirability of a design most are identified. A case study of materials selection and design in the automotive industry is presented which illustrates the steps followed in application of the method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Altshuler, A., Anderson, M., Jones, D., Roos, D., and Womack, J., “The Future of the Automobile,” MIT Press, 1984

  2. Bard, J., “A Two-Phase Methodology for Technology Selection and System Design,”IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. EM-36, No. 1, February 1989

  3. Bohren, J.S., and Nevill, G.E., “A Methodology for Incorporating Multiple Goals in Automated Abstract Design,”Design Theory and Methodology—DTM '89 Vol. 17, 1 1989

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bodily, S.E., “The Utilization of Frozen Red Cell in Blood Banking Systems: A Decision Theoretic Approach,” Technical Report No. 94, Operations Research Center MIT, May, 1974

  5. Boothroyd, G., “Making it Simple: Design for Assembly,”Mechanical Engineering, February 1988, 28–31

  6. Boothroyd, G., and Dewhurst, P., “Design for Assembly—A Designer's Handbook,” Technical Report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, 1983

  7. Buede, D.M., and R.W. Choisser, “An Aid for Evaluators of System Design Alternatives,”Defense Management Journal, 2nd Qtr (1984), 32–38

  8. Byer, P.H., and deNeufville, R., “Choosing the Dimensions and Uncertainties of an Evaluation,” from D.W. Bunn and H. Thomas, eds.,Formal Methods in Policy Formulation. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  9. Byrne, D.M., and S. Taguchi, “The Taguchi Approach to Parameter Design,” ASQC Quality Congress Transaction, Anaheim, May 1986. pp. 168–177

  10. Chandrasekran, B., “A Framework for Design Problem-Solving,”Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1989

  11. Chang, D.C., and Justusson, J.W., “Structural Requirements in Material Substitution for Car-Weight Reduction,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper No. 760023, Warrendale, PA, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chang, D.C., Wu, K.M., and Vella, J.R., “The Regional Stiffness Requirement of Body Panels for Material Substitution Design,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper No. 841202, Warrendale, PA, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  13. Conti, T., “Process Management and Quality Function Deployment,”Quality Process, December 1989, 45–48

  14. Delquie, P., “Statistical Exploration of ‘Certainty Effects’ on Utility Assessments,” Masters thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, June 1986

  15. De Neufville, R.,Applied Systems Analysis McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dixon, J., Howe, A., Cohen, P., and Simmons, M.K., “Dominic I: Progress Towards Domain Independence by Iterative Redesign,”Proc. ASME 1987 International Computers in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Chicago, IL, July 24–26, 1987

  17. Dixon, J.R., et al, “Computer-Based Models of Design Processes: The Evaluation of Designs for Redesign,”NSF Engineering Design Research Conference, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, June 11–14, 1989

  18. Dyer, J.S., and Miles, R.F., Jr., “An Actual Application of Collective Choice Theory to the Selection of Trajectories for the Mariner Jupiter/Saturn,”Operations Research Vol. 24, No. 2 (1976), 220–244

    Google Scholar 

  19. Finger, S., and Dixon, J.R., “A Review of Research in Mechanical Engineering Design, Part I: Descriptive, Prescriptive, and Computer-Based Models of Design Processes,”Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1989

  20. Fishburn, P.C.,Utility Theory for Decision Making Wiley, New York, 1970

    Google Scholar 

  21. Golabi, K., “Selecting a Group of Dissimilar Projects for Funding,”IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. EM-34, No. 3, August 1987

  22. Hauser, J.R., and Clausing, D., “The House of Quality,”Harvard Business Review 66:3, 1988, 63–73

    Google Scholar 

  23. Howe, A., Cohen, P., and Dixon, J., “Dominic: A Domain-Independent Program for Mechanical Engineering Design,”Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1986

  24. Ishii, K., “Life-Cycle Engineering Using Design Compatibility Analysis,” Proceeding of the 1991 NSF Design and Manufacturing Systems Conference, University of Texas at Austin, January 9–11, 1991

  25. Kackar, R.N., “Off-Line Quality Control, Parameter Design, and the Taguchi Method,”Journal of Quality Technology 17:4, 1985, 176–188

    Google Scholar 

  26. Knight, W.A., and Poli, C., “A Systematic Approach to Forging Design,”Machine Design, January 24, 1985

  27. Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H.,Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs Wiley, New York, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kirkwood, C.W., “A Case History of Nuclear Power Plant Site Selection,”J. of Operational Research Society, Vol. 33, 1982

  29. Luce, R.D., and H. Raiffa,Games and Decisions Wiley, New York, 1957

    Google Scholar 

  30. Madey, G.R., and Dean, B.V., “Strategic Planning for Investment in R&D Using Decision Analysis and Mathematical Programming,”IEEE Transactions on Engineering Managements, Vol. EM-32, No. 2, May 1985

  31. Nevill, G.E., “Guiding Iterative Processes for Preliminary Design,” Proceedings of NSF Conference on Design and Manufacturing Systems Research, Arizona State University, January 8–12, 1990, SME

  32. Pignatiello, Jr., J.J., “An Overview of the Strategy and Tactics of Taguchi,”IEEE Transactions 20:3, 1988, 247–254

    Google Scholar 

  33. Poli, C., and Knight, W.A., “Design for Forging Handbook,” Technical Report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, 1984

  34. Poli, C., Escudero, J., and Fernandez, R., “How Part Design Affects Injection Molding Tool Costs,”Machine Design, November 24, 1988

  35. Savage, L.J.,The Foundations of Statistics Wiley, New York, 1954

    Google Scholar 

  36. Shah, J.J., Hsiao, D., and Robinson, R., “A Framework for Manufacturability Evaluation in a Feature Based CAD System,” Proceedings of NSF Conference on Design and Manufacturing Systems Research, Arizona State University, January 8–12, 1990, SME

  37. Sullivan, L.P., “Policy Management Through Quality Function Deployment,”Quality Progress, 1988, 18–20

  38. Sullivan, L.P., “Quality Function Deployment,”Quality Progress, 1986, 39–50

  39. Taguchi, G., Elsayed, E.A., and Hsiang, T.,Quality Engineering in Production Systems McGraw Hill, New York, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  40. Talaysum, A.T., Zia Hassan, M., and Goldhar, J.D., “Uncertainty Reduction Through Flexible Manufacturing,”IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management Vol. EM-34, No. 2, pp. 85–91, May 1987

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ting, H.M., “Aggregation of Attributes for Multiattributed Utility Assessment,” Technical Report No. 66, Operations Research Center MIT, August, 1971

  42. Thurston, D.L., “A Materials Selection Tool for Automotive Structural and Body Skin Systems,” SAE Materials Transactions 1988, no. 881303, also inDesign and Manufacturing of Off-Highway Equipment: Computer Applications, Society of Automotive Engineers No. SP-755, 1988

  43. von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O.,Theory of Games and Economic Behavior 2nd ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1947

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ward, A., and Seering, W.P., “Four Hypotheses on Mechanical Design Automation,” NSF Engineering Design Research Conference, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, June 1989, pp. 183–203

  45. Watson, S.R., and Buede, D.M.,Decision Synthesis: The Principles and Practice of Decision Analysis Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  46. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G.&C. Merriam Co., Springfield, MA, 1974

  47. Welch, R.V., and Dixon, J.R., “Extending the Iterative Redesign Model to Configuration Design: Sheet Metal Brackets as an Example,”Design Theory and Methodology—DTM '89, Vol. 17, 1989

  48. Wood, K.L., Antonsson, E.K., and Beck, J.L., “Representing Imprecision in Engineering Design—Comparing Fuzzy and Probability Calculus,”Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 1, Nos. 3/4, 1990

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Decision Systems Laboratory, Department of General Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 104 South Mathews Avenue, 61801, Urbana, IL, USA

    Deborah L. Thurston

Authors
  1. Deborah L. Thurston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thurston, D.L. A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes. Research in Engineering Design 3, 105–122 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01581343

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01581343

Keywords

Search

Navigation