On the Use of Utility Theory in Engineering Design

被引:27
|
作者
Abbas, Ali E. [1 ]
Cadenbach, Andrea H. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Southern Calif, Ctr Interdisciplinary Decis & Eth, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
[2] Univ Missouri, Coll Business Adm, Logist & Operat Management Dept, St Louis, MO 63121 USA
来源
IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL | 2018年 / 12卷 / 02期
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Engineering design; multiattribute utility; systems design; utility theory; value-based design; DECISION-MAKING; SELECTION; SYSTEMS; COST; TOOL; METHODOLOGY; UNCERTAINTY; INCENTIVES; FRAMEWORK; MODEL;
D O I
10.1109/JSYST.2016.2602562
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Multiattribute utility theory has a long history of application in engineering and systems design. These applications rely almost exclusively on two types of utility functions: the additive and multiplicative forms. The foundations of utility theory, however, do not place restrictions on the functional form of the utility function, meaning that many methods of representing preferences remain unexplored in systems design. This paper reviews the literature on applications of utility theory in design to bring light to potential new directions for research and to clarify a few subtle misapplications of utility theory. These misuses include the failure to distinguish between direct and indirect value attributes, the use of probability as an attribute, treating costs from different sources differently, and restricting the functional form of utility. This paper introduces a value-based approach that is based on the creation of a deterministic value function for design and the assignment of a 1-D utility function over the value measure. We use a conceptual and numeric example to illustrate the greater flexibility of this approach. We also present the concept of utility transver-sality in engineering design. We show that several criticisms of utility theory that have appeared in the engineering design literature are actually criticisms of these artificial limitations and that these limitations are overcome by the value-based approach.
引用
收藏
页码:1129 / 1138
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] USE OF COMPUTERS IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN
    NICHOLAS, DC
    ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND DESIGN, 1971, 14 (01): : 17 - &
  • [22] USE OF HUMAN ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DESIGN
    ROGERS, JG
    ARMSTRONG, R
    HUMAN FACTORS, 1977, 19 (01) : 15 - 23
  • [23] Strategic use of engineering and design information
    Novak, R
    HYDROCARBON PROCESSING, 2002, 81 (12): : 17 - 17
  • [24] Use of Engineering Mathematics for Ship Design
    Fragassa, Cristiano
    dos Santos, Elizaldo Domingues
    de Camargo, Felipe Vannucchi
    JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 2019, 7 (10)
  • [25] ON THE USE OF ACTIVE LEARNING IN ENGINEERING DESIGN
    Yi, Ren
    Papalambros, Panos Y.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASME INTERNATIONAL DESIGN ENGINEERING TECHNICAL CONFERENCES AND COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION IN ENGINEERING CONFERENCE 2012, VOL 3, PTS A AND B, 2012, : 89 - 98
  • [26] Garment Design and Engineering for Hospital Use
    Carvalho, Miguel
    Fontes, Liliana
    Edelman, Elazer
    Santos, Jorge
    ADVANCES IN ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN (AHFE 2017), 2018, 588 : 939 - 950
  • [27] AUSTRIAN THEORY OF MARGINAL USE AND OF ORDINAL MARGINAL UTILITY
    MCCULLOCH, JH
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR NATIONALOKONOMIE-JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1977, 37 (3-4): : 249 - 280
  • [28] THE CREATION OF DESIGN MODULES FOR USE IN ENGINEERING DESIGN EDUCATION
    Foster, Garrett
    Holland, Micah
    Ferguson, Scott
    Deluca, William
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASME INTERNATIONAL DESIGN ENGINEERING TECHNICAL CONFERENCES AND COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION IN ENGINEERING CONFERENCE, VOL 7, 2012, : 23 - 36
  • [29] Engineering and design - Protein design: theory and practice - Editorial overview
    Regan, L
    Jackson, SE
    CURRENT OPINION IN STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY, 2003, 13 (04) : 479 - 481
  • [30] Design theory: a foundation of a new paradigm for design science and engineering
    Armand Hatchuel
    Pascal Le Masson
    Yoram Reich
    Eswaran Subrahmanian
    Research in Engineering Design, 2018, 29 : 5 - 21