Clarifying the debate on selection methods for engineering: Arrow's impossibility theorem, design performances, and information basis

Research in Engineering Design

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 3-10

  Jacobs, Johannes F ^a   Van De Poel, Ibo ^b   Osseweijer, Patricia ^a,c  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^c KLUYVER CENTRE FOR GENOMICS OF INDUSTRIAL FERMENTATION   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CIVIL ENGINEERING; INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING;

AGGREGATION OF PREFERENCES; ARROW'S THEOREM; DECISION METHOD; DESIGN PERFORMANCE; ENGINEERING DESIGN; INFORMATION BASIS; PERFORMANCE MEASURE; SELECTION METHODS;

DESIGN;

EID: 84891879194     PISSN: 09349839     EISSN: 14356066     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00163-013-0160-6     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Akao Y (2004) Quality function deployment: integrating customer requirements into product design. Productivity Press, New York
2. Arrow KJ (1950) A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. J Polit Econ 58:328-346. doi: 10.1086/256963
3. Baron J, Spranca M (1997) Protected values. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 70:1-16. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1997.2690 (Pubitemid 127340862)
4. Blackorby C, Donaldson D, Weymark JA (1984) Social choice with interpersonal utility comparisons: a diagrammatic introduction. Int Econ Rev 25:327-356. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2526200
5. Bouyssou D, Marchant T, Perny P (2009) Social choice theory and multicriteria decision aiding. In: Bouyssou D, Dubois D, Pirlot M, Prade H (eds) Decision-making process: concept and method. ISTE Ltd., London, pp 741-770
6. D'Aspremont C, Gevers L (1977) Equity and the informational basis of collective choice. Rev Econ Stud 44:199-209. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2297061
7. Deschamps R, Gevers L (1978) Leximin and utilitarian rules: a joint characterization. J Econ Theory 17:143-163. doi: 10.1016/0022-0531(78)90068-6
8. Eggert RJ (2005) Engineering design. Pearson Education, New Jersey
9. Franssen M (2005) Arrow's theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design. Res Eng Des 16:42-56. doi: 10.1007/s00163-004-0057-5 (Pubitemid 41604352)
10. Frey DD, Herder PM, Wijnia Y, Subramanian E, Katsikopoulos K, Clausing DP (2009) The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Des 20:41-50. doi: 10.1007/s00163-008- 0056-z
11. Frey DD, Herder PM, Wijnia Y, Subramanian E, Katsikopoulos K, de Neufville R, Oye K, Clausing DP (2010) Research in engineering design: the role of mathematical theory and empirical evidence. Res Eng Des 21:145-151. doi: 10.1007/s00163-010-0085-2
12. Hammond PJ (1976) Equity, Arrow's conditions, and Rawls' difference principle. Econometrica 44:793-804. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1913445
13. Hauser J, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harv Bus Rev 66:63-74. doi: 10.1225/88307
14. Hazelrigg GA (1996) The implications of Arrow's impossibility theorem on approaches to optimal engineering design. J Mech Des 118:161-164. doi: 10.1115/1.2826864 (Pubitemid 126664033)
15. Hazelrigg GA (1999) An axiomatic framework for engineering design. J Mech Des 121:342-347. doi: 10.1115/1.2829466
16. Hazelrigg GA (2010) The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Des 21:143-144. doi: 10.1007/s00163-010-0087-0
17. Hylland A (1980) Aggregation procedure for cardinal preferences: a comment. Econometrica 48:539-542. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1911117
18. Kalai E, Schmeidler D (1977) Aggregation procedure for cardinal preferences: a formulation and proof of Samuelson's impossibility conjecture. Econometrica 45:1431-1438. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1912309
19. Katsikopoulos KV (2009) Coherence and correspondence in engineering design: informing the conversation and connecting with judgment and decision-making research. Judgm Decis Mak 4:147-153. http://journal.sjdm.org/ cck/cck.pdf
20. Katsikopoulos KV (2012) Decision methods for design: insights from psychology. J Mech Des 134:084504.1-084504.4. doi: 10.1115/1.4007001
21. Keeney RL (2009) The foundations of collaborative group decisions. Int J Collab Eng 1:4-18. doi: 10.1504/IJCE.2009.027438
22. Lowe AJ, Ridgway K (2000) Optimization impossible? The importance of customer segmentation in quality function deployment. Qual Prog 33:59-64. http://www.asq.org/data/subscriptions/qp/2000/0700/qp0700lowe.pdf
23. May KO (1952) A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica 20:680-684. doi: 10.2307/1907651
24. Pahl G, Beitz W (2005) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer, London
25. Pugh S (1991) Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley, Harlow
26. Pugh S (1996) Creating innovative products using total design. Addison-Wesley, Reading
27. Reich Y (2010) Editorial: is my method better? Res Eng Des 21:137-142. doi: 10.1007/s00163-010-0092-3
28. Roberts KWS (1980) Interpersonal comparability and social choice theory. Rev Econ Stud 47:421-446. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2297002
29. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York
30. Scott MJ, Antonsson EK (1999) Arrow's theorem and engineering design decision making. Res Eng Des 11:218-228. doi: 10.1007/s001630050016
31. Sen A (1977) On weights and measures: informational constrains in social welfare analysis. Econometrica 45:1539-1572. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1913949
32. Sen A (1986) Chapter 22: social choice theory. In: Arrow KJ, Intriligator MD (eds) Handbook of mathematical economics, vol III. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1073-1181. doi: 10.1016/S1573-4382(86)03004-7
33. Sen A (1995) Rationality and social choice. Am Econ Rev 85:1-24. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117993
34. Stevens SS (1946) On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103:677-680. doi: 10.1126/science.103.2684.677
35. Tetlock PE (2003) Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends Cogn Sci 7:320-324. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9 (Pubitemid 36818926)
36. Tsui K, Weymark JA (1997) Social welfare orderings for ratio-scale measurable utilities. Econ Theory 10:241-256. doi: 10.1007/s001990050156 (Pubitemid 127113078)
37. Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2008) Product design and development. McGraw-Hill, New York
38. Van de Poel I (2007) Methodological problems in QFD and directions for future development. Res Eng Des 18:21-36. doi: 10.1007/s00163-007-0029-7 (Pubitemid 46677528)
39. Van Gorp AC (2005) Ethical issues in engineering design: safety and sustainability. Simon Stevin Series in the Philosophy of Technology, Delft
40. Vincenti WG (1992) Engineering knowledge, type of design, and level of hierarchy: further thoughts about what engineers know. In: Kroes P, Bakker M (eds) Technological development and science in the industrial age. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 17-34