A formal approach to handling conflicts in multiattribute group decision making

Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference

Volumn 1, Issue , 2004, Pages 583-592

  See, Tung King ^a   Lewis, Kemper ^a  

^a State University of New York   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; PROBLEM SOLVING;

ENGINEERING DESIGN; GROUP DECISION MAKING; HYPOTHETICAL EQUIVALENTS AND INEQUIVALENTS METHOD (HEIM); MULTIATTRIBUTE PROBLEMS;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 14044268241     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1115/detc2004-57342     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Saaty, T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill.
2. Marston, M. and Mistree, F., 1998, "An Implementation of Expected Utility Theory in Decision Based Design." ASME Design Technical Conference, Design Theory and Methodology, DETC98-DTM-5670.
3. Green, P. E., and Srinivasan, V., 1990, "Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice," Journal of Marketing, 54(4), pp. 3-19.
4. Davis, J. H., 1996, "Group Decision Making and Quantitative Judgments: A Consensus Model," Understanding Group Behavior, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 35-39.
5. Crott, H. W., Szilvas, K. and Zuber J. A., "Group Decision, Choices Shift, and Polarization in Consulting, Political and Local Political Scenarios: An Experimental Investigation," Organization Behavior and Human Decision Process, 49, pp. 22-41.
6. See, T.K., Gurnani, A., and Lewis, K., 2004, "Multi-Attribute Decision Making Using Hypothetical Equivalents," ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, to appear.
7. Gurnani, A. P., See, T.K. and Lewis, K., 2003, "An Approach to Multiattribute Concept Selection," ASME Design Technical Conferences, Design Automation Conference, DETC02/DAC-48707.
8. Gurnani, A., and Lewis, K. 2004, "An Approach to Robust Decision Making in Multidisciplinary Selection Problems Under Uncertainty," to appear in the 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, AIAA-2004-4472.
9. Hazelrigg, G.A., 1996, "The Implications of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem on Approaches to Optimal Engineering Design," Journal of Mechanical Design, 118, pp 161-164.
10. Dym, C. L., Wood, W. H. and Scott, M. J., 2002, "Rank Ordering Engineering Designs: Pairwise Comparison Charts and Borda Counts," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 236-242.
11. Scott J. M. and Antonsson, E. K., 1999, "Arrow's Theorem and Engineering Design and Decision Making," Research in Engineering Design, 11(4), pp. 218-229.
12. Arrow, K. J., 1951, Social Choice and Individual Values, New York, Wiley & Sons.
13. Keeney, R. L., 1976, "A Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility," Management Science, 23(2), pp. 140-145.
14. Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H., 1993, Decision with Multiple Objectives, Cambridge University Press, pp 523-526.
15. Harsanyi, J.C., 1955, "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, 63, pp. 309-321.
16. Saari, D. G., 1999, "Explaining all three-alternative voting outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, 87(2), pp. 313-355.
17. Airbus, 2001, "A330/A340 Family", http://www.airbus.com
18. Boeing, 2001, "Commercial Airplane Info", http://www.boeing. com/commercial/
19. Saari, D.G., 2000, "Mathematical Structure of Voting Paradoxes. I; Pair-wise Vote. II; Positional Voting," Economic Theory, 15, pp. 1-103.
20. Meyer, D. A., 2000, "The Complexity of Voting," Complex System and Policy Analysis: New Tools for a New Millennium, Arlington, VA.
21. th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Management, pp. 73-79.
22. Peter, H. and Wakker, P., 1991, "Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives and Revealed Group Preferences," Econometrica Journals, 59(6), pp. 1787-1801.
23. Matheson, D. and Matheson, J., 1998, The Smart Organization, Harvard Business School Press.
24. D'Ambrosio, B. 2002, "Bayesian Methods for Collaborative Decision-Making," Robust Decisions Inc. White Paper.
25. Wan, J. and Krishnamurty, S., 2001, "Learning-Based Preference Modeling in Engineering Design Decision-Making," ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 123, pp 191-198.
26. Messac, A., 1996, "Physical Programming: Effective Optimization for Computational Design," AIAA Journal, 34(1), pp. 149-158.
27. Thurston, D.L., 2001, "Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design with Utility Analysis," ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 123(2), pp. 176-182.
28. Yu, P-L, 1985, Multiple-Criteria Decision Making: Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions, Plenum Press, New York.
29. nd Edition, Prentice Hall, pp. 1-16.
30. Keeney, R.L., 1996, Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making, Harvard University Press.
31. Chen, W. and Wassenaar, H. J., 2003, "An Approach to Decision-Based Design With Discrete Choice Analysis for Demand Modeling," Journal of Mechanical Design, 125, pp. 490-497.
32. Callaghan, A. and Lewis, K., 2000, "A 2-Phase Aspiration-Level and Utility Theory Approach to Large Scale Design," ASME Design Automation Conference, Baltimore, MD, DETC00/DTM-14569.
33. Thurston, D. L., 1991, "A Formal Method for Subjective Design Evaluation with Multiple Attributes," Research in Engineering Design," 3, pp. 105-122.
34. Keeney, R. 1977, "The Art of Assessing Multiattribute Utility Function," Organization Behavior Human Performance, 19, pp. 267-310.
35. NIST/SEMATECH, 2000, e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, Section 5.5.2.1. D-Optimal Designs, http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook
36. Messac, A., Sundararaj, J. G., Tappeta, R. V. and Renaud, J. E., 2000, "Ability of Objective Functions to Generate Points on Non-Convex Pareto Frontiers," AIAA Journal, 38(6), pp. 1084-1091.