Validation of engineering design alternative selection methods

Hazelrigg, George A.

doi:10.1080/0305215031000097059

Cited by 73 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hazelrigg assesses eight design alternative selection methods against the ten required properties (Hazelrigg, 2003). A summary of the results are shown in Tables 2-6.…”

Section: Properties Of a Sound Design Alternative Selection Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The opportunities for fixing any one of these eight methods are non-existent in Hazelrigg's view. (Hazelrigg, 2003).…”

Section: Properties Of a Sound Design Alternative Selection Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, this failure has led to methods that are inconsistent with the rigorous principles of decision theory, and these inconsistencies lead to several undesirable behaviors of the engineering methods (Hazelrigg, 2003).…”

Section: Yet Despite Its Long History and Wide Acceptance In Other Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to his criticism of QFD, Hazelrigg provides strong warnings about seven other popular design selection methods and about the catastrophic consequences of design engineers not using classical decision theory when structuring their design choice decisions. (Hazelrigg, 2003). (Hazelrigg, 2003).…”

Section: Design Engineers Are Exhibiting High Risk Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Measuring Perceived Risk of Pitfalls Associated with Systems Engineering Tradeoff Analyses

Cilli¹,

Parnell²,

Cloutier³

et al. 2017

EMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has recently revised the defense acquisition system to address suspected root causes of unwanted acquisition outcomes. One of the major changes in the revised acquisition system is an increased emphasis on systems engineering trade-offs made between capability requirements and lifecycle costs early in the acquisition process (Cilli, Parnell, Cloutier, & Zigh, 2015). Given that systems engineering trade-off analyses will play a pivotal role in future defense acquisition efforts, this paper takes an in-depth look at the state of systems engineering trade-off analysis capability through a review of relevant literature and a survey of systems engineering professionals and military operations research professionals involved in defense acquisition. The survey was developed to measure the perceived level of difficulty associated with compliance to the revised defense acquisition system mandate for early systems engineering trade-off analyses and to measure perceived likelihood and impact of potential pitfalls within systems engineering trade-off studies. The survey instrument was designed using Survey Monkey and was deployed through a link posted on several groups within LinkedIn, a professional social media site, and was also sent directly via email to those with known experience in this research area. Although increased systems engineering activity early in the life cycle is a compelling change for DoD, the findings of the literature review and the survey of practitioners both indicate that there is much to be done in order to position the systems engineering community for success so that the improved defense acquisition outcomes as envisioned by the architects of 2015 DoDI 5000.02 can be realized.

show abstract

“…Hazelrigg assesses eight design alternative selection methods against the ten required properties (Hazelrigg, 2003). A summary of the results are shown in Tables 2-6.…”

Section: Properties Of a Sound Design Alternative Selection Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The opportunities for fixing any one of these eight methods are non-existent in Hazelrigg's view. (Hazelrigg, 2003).…”

Section: Properties Of a Sound Design Alternative Selection Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Yet Despite Its Long History and Wide Acceptance In Other Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Design Engineers Are Exhibiting High Risk Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring Perceived Risk of Pitfalls Associated with Systems Engineering Tradeoff Analyses

Cilli¹,

Parnell²,

Cloutier³

et al. 2017

EMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of these methods are briefly reviewed subsequently and their validity is discussed by Hazelrigg (2003). The hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents method (HEIM), which is a method for multiattribute decision making under certainty and the basis for the work in this article, is also a part of this review.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robust multiattribute decision making under risk and uncertainty in engineering design

Gurnani

Lewis

2005

Engineering Optimization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the problem of choosing from a set of design alternatives based upon multiple, conflicting, and uncertain criteria is investigated. The problem of selection over multiple attributes becomes harder when risky alternatives exist. The overlap measure method developed in this article models two sources of uncertainties -imprecise or risky attribute values provided to the decision maker and inabilities of the decision-maker to specify an exact desirable attribute value. Effects of these uncertainties are mitigated using the overlap measure metric. A subroutine to this method, called the robust alternative selection method, ensures that the winning alternative is insensitive to changes in the relative importance of the different design attributes. The overlap measure method can be used to model and handle various sources of uncertainties and can be applied to any number of multiattribute decision-making methods. In this article, it is applied to the hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents method, which is a multiattribute selection method under certainty.

show abstract

Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues

MacKenzie

Bryden

Prisacari

2019

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

was a pre doctoral researcher with the Simulation, Modeling, and Decision Science program at the Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa while the research for this paper was performed. Currently, she is the Senior User Experience Design Researcher at Honeywell's Building Technologies where she leads user experience research planning and implementation. Ms. Prisacari is the founding member and current president of the ACM SIGCHI chapter in Minneapolis-St. Paul. Ms. Prisacari received a bachelor's degree in International Business and Marketing and an MBA from St. Ambrose University and a master's degree and Ph.D. in

show abstract

Validation of engineering design alternative selection methods

Cited by 73 publications

References 8 publications

Measuring Perceived Risk of Pitfalls Associated with Systems Engineering Tradeoff Analyses

Measuring Perceived Risk of Pitfalls Associated with Systems Engineering Tradeoff Analyses

Robust multiattribute decision making under risk and uncertainty in engineering design

Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About