Mixed quantitative/qualitative method for evaluating compromise solutions to conflicts in collaborative design

Conflicts are likely to arise among participants in a collaborative design process as the inevitable outgrowth of the differing perspectives and viewpoints involved. The opportunities for conflict are magnified if many perspectives are brought to bear on a common artifact early in the design process, as in concurrent engineering or integrated engineering. Design advice tools can assist in the process of resolving these conflicts by making critiques and suggestions conveniently available to design participants, and by offering a fair means of evaluating and comparing suggested alternatives for compromise solution. In previous work we introduced a protocol based on notions of economic utility by which design advice systems can recognize conflict and mediate negotiation fairly. This protocol allowed design teams to express the desire to maximize or minimize the values of design parameters over totally ordered bounded domains of values, such as real numeric intervals. In this paper we extend this approach by allowing expressed preferences of design teams to be qualitative as well as quantitative, by allowing teams to express interest in parameters before they actually come into existence, and by relaxing many other of the earlier restrictions on the ways teams may express their preferences.

[1]  Aldo Montesano,et al.  Recent Developments in the Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory , 1986 .

[2]  Michael P. Wellman.  A computational market model for distributed configuration design , 1994, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[3]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  PACT: an experiment in integrating concurrent engineering systems , 1993, Computer.

[4]  P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? , 1991 .

[5]  John S. Gero,et al.  Artificial Intelligence in Design ’94 , 1994, Springer Netherlands.

[6]  James Bowen,et al.  Constraint-based software for concurrent engineering , 1993, Computer.

[7]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Nonlinear preference and utility theory , 1988 .

[8]  J. Bowen,et al.  Constraint logic and its applications in production: an implementation using the Galileo4 language and system , 1997 .

[9]  James Bowen,et al.  Conditional Existence of Variables in Generalised Constraint Networks , 1991, AAAI.

[10]  James Bowen,et al.  An Axiomatic Approach that Supports Negotiated Resolution of Design Conflicts in Concurrent Engineering , 1994 .

[11]  Katia Sycara,et al.  Multiagent Compromise via Negotiation , 1989, Distributed Artificial Intelligence.

[12]  Alan H. Bond,et al.  Distributed Artificial Intelligence , 1988 .

[13]  B. McCarl,et al.  Economics , 1870, The Indian medical gazette.

[14]  James Bowen,et al.  Mediating Conflict in Concurrent Engineering with a Protocol Based on Utility , 1994 .

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[16]  Les Gasser,et al.  MACE: A Flexible Testbed for Distributed AI Research , 1987 .

[17]  Charles J. Petrie,et al.  Enterprise Integration: Lessons from SHADE and PACT , 1992 .

[18]  Charles J. Petrie.  The Redux' server , 1993, [1993] Proceedings International Conference on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems.

[19]  Frederick S. Hillier,et al.  Introduction of Operations Research , 1967 .

[20]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[21]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein,et al.  Deals Among Rational Agents , 1985, IJCAI.

[22]  James Bowen,et al.  Frames, quantification, perspectives, and negotiation in constraint networks for life-cycle engineering , 1992, Artif. Intell. Eng..

[23]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  Toward a Knowledge Medium for Collaborative Product Development , 1992 .

[24]  Lee D. Erman,et al.  ABE: An Environment for Engineering Intelligent Systems , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[25]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .