A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design
Name
A comparison.pdf
Size
215.22 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
ea8e81692183977c704b245c8fe1f7c9
Author(s)
Dong, Andy
Honda, Tomonori
Ji, Haifeng
Yang, Maria C.
Date Issued
August 2010
Journal
Volume 5: 22nd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; Special Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise
Publisher
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Citation
Honda, Tomonori, Maria C. Yang, Andy Dong, and Haifeng Ji. “A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design.” Volume 5: 22nd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; Special Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise (2010).
Version
Final published version
Abstract
In design, as with many fields, the bases of decisions are generally not formally modeled but only talked or written about. The research problem addressed in this paper revolves around the problem of modeling the direct evaluation of design alternatives and their attributes as they are realized in linguistic communication. The question is what types of linguistic data provide the most reliable linguistic displays of preference and utility. The paper compares two formal methods for assessing a design team’s preferences for alternatives based on the team’s discussion: APPRAISAL and Preferential Probabilities from Transcripts (PPT). Results suggest that the two methods are comparable in their assessment of preferences. This paper also examines the nature of consistency in the way design teams consider the attributes of a design. Findings suggest that assessment of an attribute can change substantially over time.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Data, Systems, and Society
Terms of Use
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use.
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2010-29045
