Do design decisions depend on “dictators”?

Research in Engineering Design - Tập 29 - Trang 67-85 - 2017
David A. Broniatowski1
1Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science, The George Washington University, Washington, USA

Tóm tắt

Design decisions often require input from multiple stakeholders or require balancing multiple design requirements. However, leading axiomatic approaches to decision-based design suggest that combining preferences across these elements is virtually guaranteed to result in irrational outcomes. This has led some to conclude that a single “dictator” is required to make design decisions. In contrast, proponents of heuristic approaches observe that aggregate decisions are frequently made in practice, and argue that this widespread usage justifies the value of these heuristics to the engineering design community. This paper demonstrates that these approaches need not be mutually exclusive. Axiomatic approaches can be informed by empirically motivated restrictions on the way that individuals can order their preferences. These restrictions are represented using “anigrafs”—structured relationships between alternatives that are represented using a graph–theoretic formalism. This formalism allows for a computational assessment of the likelihood of irrational outcomes. Simulation results show that even minimal amounts of structure can vastly reduce the likelihood of irrational outcomes at the level of the group, and that slightly stronger restrictions yield probabilities of irrational preferences that never exceed 5%. Next, an empirical case study demonstrates how anigrafs may be extracted from survey data, and a model selection technique is introduced to examine the goodness-of-fit of these anigrafs to preference data. Taken together, these results show how axiomatic consistency can be combined with empirical correspondence to determine the circumstances under which “dictators” are necessary in design decisions.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Ahamed AB, Mohanty SD, Avnet MS (2016) A systems perspective on mental models research: toward a shared understanding of team cognition. In: 2016 conference on systems engineering research, Huntsville, AL Anderson JR (1995) Cognitive psychology and its implications. Freeman, New York Arrow KJ (1963) Social choice and individual values. Yale University Press, New Haven Avnet MS (2015) A network-based approach to organizational culture and learning in system safety. Procedia Comput Sci 44:588–598 Avnet MS (2016) A network-based analysis of team coordination and shared cognition in systems engineering. Syst Eng 19:395–408 Avnet MS, Weigel AL (2013) The structural approach to shared knowledge: an application to engineering design teams. Hum Factors 55:581–594 Bang M, Medin DL, Atran S (2007) Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:13868–13874 Barberà S, Gul F, Stacchetti E (1993) Generalized median voter schemes and committees. Journal of Economic Theory 61:262–289 Black D (1948) On the rationale of group decision-making. J Polit Econ 56:23–34 Broniatowski DA (2017) Flexibility due to abstraction and decomposition. Syst Eng. doi:10.1002/sys.21381 Broniatowski DA, Moses J (2016) Measuring flexibility, descriptive complexity, and rework potential in generic system architectures. Syst Eng 19:207–221. doi:10.1002/sys.21351 Broniatowski DA, Weigel AL (2008) Articulating the space exploration policy–technology feedback cycle. Acta Astronaut 63:649–656 Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. MIT press, Cambridge de Caritat marquis de Condorcet MJAN (1785) Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. L’imprimerie royale Doyle JK, Ford DN (1998) Mental models concepts for system dynamics research. Syst Dyn Rev 14(1):3–29 Dym CL, Wood WH, Scott MJ (2002) Rank ordering engineering designs: pairwise comparison charts and Borda counts. Res Eng Des 13:236–242. doi:10.1007/s00163-002-0019-8 Feldman J, Richards W (1998) Mapping the mental space of rectangles. Percept Lond 27:1191–1202 Franssen M (2005) Arrow’s theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design. Res Eng Des 16:42–56 Franssen M, Bucciarelli LL (2005) On rationality in engineering design. J Mech Des 126:945–949. doi:10.1115/1.1803850 Frey DD, Herder PM, Wijnia Y, Subrahmanian E, Katsikopoulos K, Clausing DP (2009) The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Des 20:41–58 Gilbert SAB (1997) Mapping mental spaces: How we organize perceptual and cognitive information. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Unpublished Dissertation Gilbert SA, Richards W (1994) Using trajectory mapping to analyze musical intervals. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society Haston S (2014) Top five 5-inch smartphones compared. In: Mobile Geeks. http://www.mobilegeeks.com/top-5-inch-smartphones-compared/. Accessed 8 July 2016 Hazelrigg GA (1996) The implications of arrow’s impossibility theorem on approaches to optimal engineering design. J Mech Des 118:161–164. doi:10.1115/1.2826864 Hazelrigg GA (1997) On irrationality in engineering design. J Mech Des 119:194–196. doi:10.1115/1.2826235 Hazelrigg GA (1998) A framework for decision-based engineering design. J Mech Des 120:653–658. doi:10.1115/1.2829328 Hazelrigg GA (1999) An axiomatic framework for engineering design. J Mech Des 121:342–347. doi:10.1115/1.2829466 Hazelrigg GA (2010) The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Des 21:143–144. doi:10.1007/s00163-010-0087-0 Katsikopoulos KV (2009) Coherence and correspondence in engineering design: informing the conversation and connecting with judgment and decision-making research. Judgm Decis Mak 4:147 Katsikopoulos KV (2012) Decision methods for design: insights from psychology. J Mech Des 134:084504 Langan-Fox J, Code S, Langfield-Smith K (2000) Team mental models: techniques, methods, and analytic approaches. Hum Factors 42(2):242–271 Langan-Fox J, Anglim J, Wilson JR (2004) Mental models, team mental models, and performance: process, development, and future directions. Hum Factor Ergon Man 14(4):331–352 Lokuge I, Gilbert SA, Richards W (1996) Structuring information with mental models: a tour of boston. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, USA, pp 413–419 Mathy F, Feldman J (2012) What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory. Cognition 122:346–362 Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152:530–554 Miller G (1956) Human memory and the storage of information. IRE Trans Inform Theor 2:129–137 Moray N (1990) A lattice theory approach to the structure of mental models. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 327:577–583 Pugh S (1991) Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading Reich Y (2010) My method is better! Res Eng Des 21:137–142 Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ (2006) Physician decision making and cardiac risk: effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. J Exp Psychol Appl 12:179 Richards D (2001) Coordination and Shared Mental Models. Am J Polit Sci 45:259–276. doi:10.2307/2669340 Richards W (2008) Modal Inference. In: Proceedings of the AAAI symposium on “naturally inspired artificial intelligence” Richards W (2015) Anigrafs: experiments in cooperative cognitive architecture. The MIT Press, Cambridge Richards W, Bobick A (1988) Playing twenty questions with nature. In: Pylyshyn ZW (ed) Computational processes in human vision: an interdisciplinary perspective. Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, pp 3–26 Richards W, Koenderink JJ (1995) Trajectory mapping: a new nonmetric scaling technique. Perception 24:1315–1331 Richards D, McKay BD, Richards WA (1998) Collective choice and mutual knowledge structures. Advs Complex Syst 01:221–236. doi:10.1142/S0219525998000156 Richards W, McKay BD, Richards D (2002) The probability of collective choice with shared knowledge structures. J Math Psychol 46:338–351 Romney AK, Weller SC, Batchelder WH (1986) Culture as consensus: a theory of culture and informant accuracy. Am Anthropol 88:313–338 Romney AK, Boyd JP, Moore CC, Batchelder WH, Brazill TJ (1996) Culture as shared cognitive representations. PNAS 93:4699–4705 Saari DG (1994) Geometry of voting. Studies in economic theory, vol 3. Springer, New York Saari DG, Sieberg KK (2004) Are partwise comparisons reliable? Res Eng Des 15:62–71 Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26 Scott MJ, Antonsson EK (1999) Arrow’s theorem and engineering design decision making. Res Eng Des 11:218–228 Sterman JD (1994) Learning in and about complex systems. Syst Dyn Rev 10(2):291–330 Young P (1995) Optimal voting rules. J Econ Perspect 9:51–64