The Pugh Controlled Convergence method: Model-based evaluation and implications for design theory

Research in Engineering Design

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 41-58

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

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^c Essent Netwerk BV   (Netherlands)

^d CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Comparative judgment; Concept selection; Decision analysis; Multi criteria decision making

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY;

ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES; BORDA COUNTS; COMPARATIVE JUDGMENT; CONCEPT SELECTION; DECISION ANALYSIS; DESIGN CONCEPTS; DESIGN THEORIES; EVALUATION MATRICES; EXECUTABLE MODELS; EXPERT OPINIONS; MATRIXES; MODEL-BASED EVALUATIONS; MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING; PUGH MATRICES;

DESIGN;

EID: 61349152313     PISSN: 09349839     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00163-008-0056-z     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Arrow KE (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York
2. AH Bechara AR Damasio 2000 Emotion, decision making, and the orbitofrontal cortex Cereb Cortex 10 3 295 307
3. Begley RL Jr (1990) Steering column concept selection for low cost and weight: transactions from the 2nd symposium on quality function deployment. QFD Institute, Ann Arbor
4. Box GEP, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley, Hoboken
5. D Buede DT Maxwell 1995 Rank disagreement: a comparison of multi-criteria methodologies J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 4 1 21
6. Czerlinski JG, Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1999) How good are simple heuristics? In: Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, the ABC Research Group (eds) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 97-118
7. Constable G, Somerville B (2003) A century of innovation: twenty engineering achievements that transformed our lives. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
8. A Diederich 1997 Dynamic stochastic models for decision making under time constraints J Math Psychol 41 260 274
9. CL Dym WH Wood MJ Scott 2002 Rank ordering engineering designs: pairwise comparison charts and Borda counts Res Eng Des 13 4 236 242
10. M Franssen 2005 Arrow's theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design Res Eng Des 16 2005 42 56
11. DD Frey CL Dym 2006 Validation of design methods: lessons from medicine Res Eng Des 17 1 45 57
12. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, the ABC Research Group (eds) (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York
13. GA Hazelrigg 1998 A framework for decision-based engineering design ASME J Mech Des 120 653 658
14. GA Hazelrigg 1999 An axiomatic framework for engineering design ASME J Mech Des 121 342 347
15. JG Johnson JR Busemeyer 2005 A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena Psychol Rev 112 4 841 861
16. KV Katsikopoulos L Martignon 2006 Naïve heuristics for paired comparisons: some results on their relative accuracy J Math Psychol 50 3 488 494
17. Khan M, Smith DG (1989) Overcoming conceptual barriers-by systematic design. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers ICED, Harrogate
18. Lewis KE, Chen W, Schmidt LC (2006) Decision making in engineering design. ASME Press, New York
19. X Li N Sudarsanam DD Frey 2006 Regularities in data from factorial experiments Complexity 11 5 32 45
20. F Limayem B Yannou 2007 Selective assessment of judgmental inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons for group decision rating Comput Oper Res 34 1824 1841
21. Miller K, Brand C, Heathcote N, Rutter B (2005) Quality function deployment and its application to automotive door design. Proc. IMecheE 219 part D: 1481-1493
22. Mistree F, Lewis K, Stonis L (1994) Selection in the conceptual design of aircraft. proc. of the 5th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on recent advances in multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Panama City, FL AIAA-94-4382-CP
23. Pahl G, Beitz W (1984) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
24. Pugh S (1981) Concept selection: a method that works. Proceeding of the international conference on engineering design ICED, Rome, Italy
25. Pugh S (1990) Total design. Addison-Wesley, Reading
26. Pugh S, Smith D (1976) The dangers of design methodology. First European Design Research Conference, Portsmouth
27. Saari DG, Sieberg KK (2004) Are partwise comparisons reliable? Res Eng Des 15:62-71
28. TL Saaty 2006 Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytical hierarchy/network processes Eur J Oper Res 168 557 570
29. Salonen M, Perttula M (2005) Utilization of concept selection methods-a survey of Finnish Industry. ASME design engineering technical conferences, Long Beach
30. MJ Scott EK Antonsson 1999 Arrow's theorem and engineering design decision making Res Eng Des 11 4 218 228
31. MJ Scott 2007 Quantifying uncertainty in multicriteria concept selection Res Eng Des 17 175 187
32. T-K See A Gurnani K Lewis 2004 Multi-attribute decision making using hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents ASME J Mech Des 126 950 957
33. A Sen 1993 Internal consistency of choice Econometrica 61 3 495 521
34. Sen A (1998) The possibility of social choice: nobel prize lecture. Trinity College, Cambridge
35. S Shimojo C Simion E Shimojo C Scheier 2003 Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference Nat Neurosci 6 12 1317 1322
36. Simion C, Shimojo S (2006) Gaze manipulation biases preference decisions. J Vis 3(9):306, 306a. http://journalofvision.org/3/9/306/ ; doi: 10.1167/3.9.306
37. J Smith H Kaufman J Baldasare 1984 Direct estimation considered within a comparative judgment framework Am J Psychol 97 3 343 358
38. RM Solow 1957 Technical change and the aggregate production function Rev Econ Stat 39 3 312 320
39. C Swoyer 1991 Structural representations and surrogative reasoning Synthese 87 393 415
40. Takai S, Ishii K (2004) Modifying Pugh's design concept evaluation methods. DETC2004-57512. ASME design engineering technical conferences, Salt Lake City, UT
41. DG Ullman 2002 Toward the ideal mechanical engineering design support system Res Eng Des 13 55 64
42. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1953) The theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton
43. A Ward JK Liker JJ Christiano DK Sobek 1995 The second Toyota paradox: how delaying decisions can make better cars faster Sloan Manage Rev 36 3 43 61
44. Yang MC (2007) Design methods, tools, and outcome measures: a survey of practitioners DETC2007-35123. Proceedings of the ASME des eng technical conferences, Las Vegas