TOWARD AN EARLY-PHASE CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM DESIGN RISK-INFORMED DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK

Current methods of risk analysis conducted during the early phases of complex system design do not give a clear voice to the customer or design engineer when considering engineering risk attitude in the dynamic shaping of early-phase conceptual design trade study outcomes. The existing methods either collect risk information following the completion of a conceptual design thus treating risk as an afterthought during trade studies, make risk-informed decisions prior to the conduction of trade studies thus artificially constraining the design space, or do not consider risk at all. This paper proposes a risk-informed decision making framework that offers a new, meaningful way of accounting for risk during trade studies, informs design decisions during trade studies with pertinent risk information, and takes into account risk attitude of the design engineer or customer when risk-informed decisions are made. Risk is elevated to the same level of importance as other system level variables in trade studies and risk-based decisions are made by individual subsystem engineers through the lens of risk appetite. Several previously developed methods of risk trading, assessing engineering risk attitude, and making risk-informed decisions based upon engineering risk attitude using utility theory are synthesized into the risk-informed decision-making framework. Implementation methods for trade studies being performed by groups of people and automatically by computers are presented. Sensitivity of the framework to input variable variation is examined. A spacecraft example is employed to demonstrate the usefulness of the framework. This paper provides a novel framework for risk-informed design decisions made within trade studies that are based upon engineering risk attitudes in early phase conceptual design.© 2012 ASME

[1]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  TOWARD CONSIDERING RISK ATTITUDES IN ENGINEERING ORGANIZATIONS USING UTILITY THEORY , 2012 .

[2]  T.J. Mosher,et al.  The Space Systems Analysis Laboratory: Utah State University's new concurrent engineering facility , 2004, 2004 IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.04TH8720).

[3]  Knut I. Oxnevad.  Concurrent design approach for designing space telescopes and instruments , 1998, Astronomical Telescopes and Instrumentation.

[4]  G. Karpati,et al.  The integrated mission design center (imdc) at nasa goddard space flight center , 2003, 2003 IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.03TH8652).

[5]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  A risk-informed decision making framework accounting for early-phase conceptual design of complex systems , 2012 .

[6]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  Risk attitudes in risk-based design: Considering risk attitude using utility theory in risk-based design , 2012, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[7]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration as Front End for Effective Space System Design , 2004 .

[8]  B. Danette Allen,et al.  Collaborative Mission Design at NASA Langley Research Center , 2005 .

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

[10]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  On Measuring Engineering Risk Attitudes , 2013 .

[11]  Robert Stone,et al.  The risk in early design method , 2009 .

[12]  Joy S. Nichols,et al.  Advanced Approach to Concept and Design Studies for Space Missions , 1999 .

[13]  Martin S. Feather,et al.  Intertwining Risk Insights and Design Decisions , 2006 .

[14]  Miroslaw J. Skibniewski,et al.  DECISION CRITERIA IN CONTRACTOR PREQUALIFICATION , 1988 .

[15]  B. Melton,et al.  Concurrent Engineering Applied to Space Mission Assessment and Design , 1999 .

[16]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[17]  Martin S. Feather,et al.  Optimizing the Design of Spacecraft Systems using risk as currency , 2002 .

[18]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  The function-failure design method , 2005 .

[19]  Peter McNamee,et al.  Decision Analysis with SUPERTREE , 1987 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[21]  Michael Stamatelatos,et al.  A PROPOSED RISK-INFORMED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR NASA , 2006 .

[22]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  A Graph-Based Fault Identification and Propagation Framework for Functional Design of Complex Systems , 2008 .

[23]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  Toward Understanding Collaborative Design Center Trade Study Software Upgrade and Migration Risks , 2010 .

[24]  Jan Osburg,et al.  A Collaborative Design Environment to Support Multidisciplinary Conceptual Systems Design , 2005 .

[25]  R. Wheeler,et al.  The NASA Exploration Design Team: blueprint for a new design paradigm , 2005, 2005 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[26]  R. Edelson.  Team Z, A Rapid Reaction Approach to Mission Operations System Design and Costing , 2000 .

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

[28]  Joseph A. Aguilar,et al.  The Aerospace Corporation’s Concept Design Center , 1998 .

[29]  S. Wall.  The Use of Concurrent Engineering in Space Mission Design , 2000 .

[30]  Ronald A. Howard,et al.  Decision analysis: practice and promise , 1988 .

[31]  R. Shishko,et al.  The Proliferation of PDC-Type Environments in Industry and Universities , 2000 .

[32]  Ale Smidts,et al.  Assessing the Construct Validity of Risk Attitude , 2000 .