An Approach to Robust Multiattribute Concept Selection

In this paper, we investigate and extend a method of selecting among a set of concepts or alternatives using multiple, potentially conflicting criteria. This method, called the Hypothetical Equivalents and Inequivalents Method (HEIM), has been shown to avoid the many pitfalls of already existing methods for such problems, such as pair-wise comparison, ranking methods, rating methods, and weighted sum approaches. The existence of multiple optimal sets of attribute weights based on a set of stated preferences is investigated. Using simple visualization techniques, we show that there is a range of weights that satisfy the constraints of HEIM. Depending on the attribute weights used, multiple possible alternative winners could exist. The 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.Copyright © 2003 by ASME

[1]  Wolfgang Beitz,et al.  Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach , 1984 .

[2]  Madhan Shridhar Phadke,et al.  Quality Engineering Using Robust Design , 1989 .

[3]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes , 1991 .

[4]  Shuichi Fukuda,et al.  Prioritizing the customer's requirements by AHP for concurrent design , 1993 .

[5]  J. Dennis,et al.  A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems , 1997 .

[6]  Stuart Pugh,et al.  Creating Innovative Products Using Total Design , 1996 .

[7]  George A. Hazelrigg,et al.  A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design , 1998 .

[8]  Wei Chen,et al.  Quality utility : a Compromise Programming approach to robust design , 1999 .

[9]  Judy M. Vance,et al.  Assessing the Effectiveness of Traditional and Virtual Reality Interfaces in Spherical Mechanism Design , 1999 .

[10]  Thenkurussi Kesavadas,et al.  Interactive design of a virtual factory using cellular manufacturing system , 1999, Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.99CH36288C).

[11]  H. Li,et al.  Product Design Selection Under Uncertainty and With Competitive Advantage , 2000 .

[12]  Glynn J. Sundararaj,et al.  Ability of Objective Functions to Generate Points on Nonconvex Pareto Frontiers , 2000 .

[13]  E. Antonsson,et al.  USING INDIFFERENCE POINTS IN ENGINEERING DECISIONS , 2000 .

[14]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  A 2-Phase Aspiration-Level and Utility Theory Approach to Large Scale Design , 2000 .

[15]  Xuan Chen,et al.  VISUALIZING THE OPTIMIZATION PROCESS IN REAL-TIME USING PHYSICAL PROGRAMMING , 1998 .

[16]  Wei Chen,et al.  An approach to decision-based design. , 2001 .

[17]  Eliot Winer,et al.  Visual design steering for optimization solution improvement , 2001 .

[18]  Juite Wang,et al.  Ranking engineering design concepts using a fuzzy outranking preference model , 2001, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[19]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis , 2001 .

[20]  P. A. Simionescu,et al.  New Concepts in Graphic Visualization of Objective Functions , 2002, Volume 2: 28th Design Automation Conference.

[21]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Multidimensional Visualization and Its Application to a Design by Shopping Paradigm , 2002 .

[22]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  Multiattribute decision making using hypothetical equivalents , 2002, DAC 2002.

[23]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  Visualization of multidimensional design and optimization data using cloud visualization , 2002, DAC 2002.

[24]  Christopher A. Mattson,et al.  Concept Selection in n-dimension Using s-Pareto Frontiers and Visualization , 2002 .

[25]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  System Design Through Subsystem Selection Using Physical Programming , 2003 .