The complexity inherent in space systems necessarily requires intense expenditures of resources both human and monetary. The high level of ambiguity present in the early design phases of these systems causes long, highly iterative, and costly design cycles, especially due to the need to create robust systems that are inaccessible after deployment. This paper looks at incorporating decision theory methods into the early design processes to streamline communication of wants and needs among stakeholders and between levels of design. Communication channeled through formal utility interviews and analysis enables engineers to better understand the key drivers for the system and allows a more thorough exploration of the design tradespace. Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration (MATE), an evolving process incorporating decision theory into model and simulation-based design, has been applied to several space system projects. Preliminary results indicate that this process can improve the quality of communication to more quickly resolve project ambiguity, and enable the engineer to discover better value designs for multiple stakeholders. MATE is also being integrated into a concurrent design environment to facilitate the transfer 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 (e.g. scientists, engineers, managers, etc). MATE with Concurrent Design (MATE-CON) couples decision makers more closely to the design, and most importantly, maintains their presence between formal reviews. In addition to the development of the process itself, Dependency Structure Matrix (DSM) analysis is used to compare the structure of the MATE-CON process to that of the NASA systems engineering process to gain insights into their relative time performance.
[1]
Daniel E. Hastings,et al.
Development of the Quantitative Generalized Information Network Analysis Methodology for Satellite Systems
,
2001
.
[2]
Christian Kay,et al.
The Oxford English Dictionary Online
,
2004,
Lit. Linguistic Comput..
[3]
L. A. Goodman,et al.
Social Choice and Individual Values
,
1951
.
[4]
Karl T. Ulrich,et al.
Product Design and Development
,
1995
.
[5]
S D Eppinger,et al.
Innovation at the speed of information.
,
2001,
Harvard business review.
[6]
Leonard E. Miller,et al.
NASA systems engineering handbook
,
1995
.
[7]
R. L. Keeney,et al.
Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs
,
1977,
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.
[8]
Raymond J. Sedwick,et al.
Application of Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Techniques to Distributed Satellite Systems
,
2000
.
[9]
Robert P. Smith,et al.
A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development
,
1994
.