Arrow’s theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design

Arrow’s theorem poses limits to the translation of the different preference orders on a set of options into a single preference order. In this paper, I argue, against opinions to the contrary, that Arrow’s theorem applies fully to multi-criteria decision problems as they occur in engineering design, making solution methods to such problems subject to the theorem’s negative result. Discussing the meaning and consequences for engineering design, I review the solution methods to such problems presented in the engineering design literature in the light of the theorem. It appears that underlying such methods is a mix-up of two fundamentally different problem definitions, as the theory of multi-attribute preferences, which is often presented as an adequate approach for engineering design, in fact fails to address the Arrowian multi-criteria problem. Finally, I suggest ways how engineering design might adopt results from discussions of Arrow’s theorem elsewhere in resolving its multi-criteria decision problems.

[1]  K. Arrow A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare , 1950, Journal of Political Economy.

[2]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[3]  Kenneth O. May,et al.  A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision , 1952 .

[4]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Utility theory for decision making , 1970 .

[5]  A. Sen,et al.  Collective Choice and Social Welfare , 2017 .

[6]  A. Tversky,et al.  Foundations of Measurement, Vol. I: Additive and Polynomial Representations , 1991 .

[7]  Andreu Mas-Colell,et al.  General Possibility Theorems for Group Decisions , 1972 .

[8]  D. Osborne,et al.  IRRELEVANT ALTERNATIVES AND SOCIAL WELFARE , 1976 .

[9]  David Schmeidler,et al.  Aggregation Procedure for Cardinal Preferences: A Formulation and Proof of Samuelson's Impossibility Conjecture , 1977 .

[10]  H. Young,et al.  A Consistent Extension of Condorcet’s Election Principle , 1978 .

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

[12]  Aanund Hylland Aggregation Procedure for Cardinal Preferences: A Comment , 1980 .

[13]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making , 1986 .

[14]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Engineering design methods , 1989 .

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

[16]  Stuart Pugh,et al.  Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering , 1991 .

[17]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Multiattribute optimal design of structural dynamic systems , 1992 .

[18]  C. V. Starkey Engineering Design Decisions , 1993 .

[19]  P. Anand,et al.  Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk. , 1993 .

[20]  N. F. M. Roozenburg,et al.  Product design: Fundamentals and methods , 1996 .

[21]  George A. Hazelrigg,et al.  The Implications of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem on Approaches to Optimal Engineering Design , 1996 .

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

[23]  C. Dym,et al.  Rank ordering engineering designs: pairwise comparison charts and Borda counts , 2002 .