Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration as Front End for Effective Space System Design

The inability to approach systematically the high level of ambiguity present in the early design phases of space systems causes long, highly iterative, and costly design cycles. A process is introduced and described to capture decision maker preferences and use them to generate and evaluate a multitude of space system designs, while providing a common metric that can be easily communicated throughout the design enterprise. Communication channeled through formal utility interviews and analysis enables engineers to better understand the key drivers for the system and allows for a more thorough exploration of the design tradespace. Multi-attribute tradespace exploration with concurrent design, a process incorporating decision theory into model- and simulation-based design, has been applied to several space system projects at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Preliminary results indicate that this process can improve the quality of communication to resolve more quickly project ambiguity and to enable the engineer to discover better value designs for multiple stakeholders. The process is also integrated into a concurrent design environment to facilitate the transfer of knowledge of important drivers into higher fidelity design phases. Formal utility theory provides a mechanism to bridge the language barrier between experts of different backgrounds and differing needs, for example, scientists, engineers, managers, etc. Multi-attribute tradespace exploration with concurrent design couples decision makers more closely to the design and, most important, maintains their presence between formal reviews.

[1]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  3.4.1 A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty and its Mitigation and Exploitation in Complex Systems , 2005 .

[2]  Deborah L Thurston Concurrent engineering in an expert system , 1993 .

[3]  K. Arrow Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[4]  Hugh McManus,et al.  Creating Advanced Architecture for Space Systems: Emergent Lessons from New Processes , 2004 .

[5]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[6]  Nathan P. Diller,et al.  Utilizing Multiple Attribute Tradespace Exploration with Concurrent Design for creating aerospace systems requirements , 2002 .

[7]  Raymond J. Sedwick,et al.  Application of multidisciplinary design optimization techniques to distributed satellite systems , 1999 .

[8]  Mark R. McCord,et al.  Lottery Equivalents: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment , 1986 .

[9]  James R. Wertz,et al.  Space Mission Analysis and Design , 1992 .

[10]  Richard de Neufville,et al.  APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: ENGINEERING PLANNING AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT , 1990 .

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

[12]  D. P. Thunnissen,et al.  Icemaker/sup TM/: an excel-based environment for collaborative design , 2003, 2003 IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.03TH8652).

[13]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Development of the Quantitative Generalized Information Network Analysis Methodology for Satellite Systems , 2001 .

[14]  Christian Kay,et al.  The Oxford English Dictionary Online , 2004, Lit. Linguistic Comput..

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

[16]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration with Concurrent Design for Space System Conceptual Design , 2003 .

[17]  Amar Gupta,et al.  A Knowledge Based Approach to Facilitate Enginering Design , 2004 .

[18]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  New Methods for Rapid Architecture Selection and Conceptual Design , 2004 .

[19]  Hugh McManus,et al.  A framework for understanding uncertainty and its mitigation and exploitation in complex systems , 2006, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[20]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  11.4.3 The Tradespace Exploration Paradigm , 2005 .

[21]  E. Antonsson,et al.  Arrow's Theorem and Engineering Design Decision Making , 1999 .

[22]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[23]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Multiattribute utility analysis in design management , 1990 .

[24]  George A. Hazelrigg,et al.  An Axiomatic Framework for Engineering Design , 1999 .