An evaluation of the pugh controlled convergence method

2007 Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, DETC2007

Volumn 3 PART A, Issue , 2008, Pages 193-203

  Frey, Daniel D ^a   Wijnia, Ype ^b   Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos ^c   Herder, Paulien M ^d   Subrahmanian, Eswaran ^e   Clausing, Don P ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b Essent Netwerk BV   (Netherlands)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^d DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^e CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

(N-1) CRITERION; ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES; BORDA COUNT; CONVERGENCE (MATHEMATICS); DESIGN CONCEPTS; DESIGN THEORIES; DESIGN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY; EVALUATION MATRICES; EXECUTABLE MODELS; EXPERT OPINION; INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES; INTERNATIONAL DESIGNS; MICRO AND NANO SYSTEMS; PUGH MATRICES; TECHNICAL CONFERENCES;

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; COMPUTER NETWORKS; COMPUTERS; ENGINEERING; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; MICROFLUIDICS; MICROSENSORS; NANOSYSTEMS; SET THEORY; TECHNOLOGY;

CONVERGENCE OF NUMERICAL METHODS;

EID: 44849092795     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1115/DETC2007-34758     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Box, G. E. P., and N. R. Draper, 1987, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
2. Czerlinski, J., G. Gigerenzer, G., and D. G. Goldstein, 1999, "How good are simple heuristics?," In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 97-118), Oxford University Press, New York.
3. Constable, G. and B. Somerville, 2003, A Century of Innovation: Twenty Engineering Achievements That Transformed Our Lives, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
4. Diederich, A., 1997, "Dynamic Stochastic Models for Decision Making Under Time Constraints," Journal of Mathematical Psychology 41. 260-274.
5. Franssen, M., 2005, "Arrow's theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design," Research in Engineering Design 16 (2005), 42-56.
6. Frey, D. D., and C. Dym, 2006, "Validation of Design Methods: Lessons from Medicine", Research in Engineering Design 17(1)45-57.
7. Gigerenzer, G., P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart, Oxford University Press, New York.
8. Hazelrigg, G. A., 1996, "The Implications of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem on Approaches to Optimal Engineering Design," ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 118, pp. 161-164.
9. Hazelrigg, G.A., 1998, "A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design," ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 120, pp. 653-658.
10. Hazelrigg, G.A., 1999, "An Axiomatic Framework for Engineering Design," ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 121, pp. 342-347.
11. Johnson, J. G. and J. R. Busemeyer, 2005, "A Dynamic, Stochastic, Computational Model of Preference Reversal Phenomena," Psychological Review 112 (4) 841-861.
12. Khan, M., and D. G. Smith, 1989, "Overcoming Conceptual Barriers -By Systematic Design," Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers ICED, Harrogate, UK.
13. Li, X., N. Sudarsanam, and D. D. Frey, 2006, "Regularities in Data from Factorial Experiments," Complexity 11(5)32-45.
14. Pahl, G., and W. Beitz, 1984, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
15. Pugh, S., 1981, "Concept Selection: A Method That Works" Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design ICED, Rome, Italy.
16. Pugh, S., 1990, Total Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
17. Pugh. S., and D. Smith, 1976, "The Dangers of Design Methodology," First European Design Research Conference, Portsmouth, UK.
18. Saari, D. G., and K. K. Sieberg, 2006, "Are Partwise Comparisons Reliable?," Research in Engineering Design 15: 62-71.
19. Salonen, M. and M. Perttula, 2005, "Utilization of Concept Selection Methods -A survey of Finnish Industry," ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Long Beach, CA.
20. Scott, M. J. and E. K. Antonsson, 1999, "Arrow's Theorem and Engineering Design Decision Making," Research in Engineering Design 11(4):218-228.
21. Sen, Amartya, 1993, "Internal Consistency of Choice," Econometrica 61(3):495-521.
22. Sen, Amartya, 1998, "The Possibility of Social Choice," Nobel Prize Lecture, Trinity College, Cambridge, UK.
23. Smith, J, H. Kaufman, and J. Baldasre, 1984, "Direct Estimation Considered within a Comparative Judgment Framework, American Journal of Psychology 97(3)343-58.
24. Solow, R. M., 1957, "Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function," The Review of Economics and Statistics 39(3): 312-320.
25. Swoyer, Chris, 1991, "Structurql Representations and Surrogative Reasoning," Synthese 87:393-415.
26. Takai, S., and K. Ishii, 2004, "Modifying Pugh's Design Concept Evaluation Methods," DETC2004-57512, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Salt Lake City, UT.
27. von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern, 1953, The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
28. Ward, A, J. K. Liker, J. J. Christiano, and D. K. Sobek, 1995, "The Second Toyota Paradox: How Delaying Decisions Can Make Better Cars Faster," Sloan Management Review 36(3):43-61.