Decision methods for design: Insights from psychology
Decision methods for design: Insights from psychology
This work aims at stimulating constructive conversation about decision methods in engineering design by using insights from psychology. I point out that any decision method has two components: coherence, which refers to internal consistency (do design choices satisfy a logical axiom?) and correspondence, which refers to external effectiveness (does a design concept satisfy a functional requirement?). Some researchers argue for "rational" methods such as multi-attribute utility theory, whereas others argue for "heuristics" such as the Pugh process, and the coherence/ correspondence distinction can clarify this debate in two ways. First, by analyzing statements in the design literature, I argue that the debate is essentially about different strategies for achieving correspondence: Multi-attribute utility theory aims at achieving coherence with the expectation that coherence will imply correspondence, whereas the Pugh process aims at directly achieving correspondence. Second, I propose a new research question for design: "Under what conditions does achieving coherence imply achieving correspondence?"
concept generation, creativity, decision theory
Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V.
b97c23d9-8b24-4225-8da4-be7ac2a14fba
1 August 2012
Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V.
b97c23d9-8b24-4225-8da4-be7ac2a14fba
Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V.
(2012)
Decision methods for design: Insights from psychology.
Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 134 (8), [084504].
(doi:10.1115/1.4007001).
Abstract
This work aims at stimulating constructive conversation about decision methods in engineering design by using insights from psychology. I point out that any decision method has two components: coherence, which refers to internal consistency (do design choices satisfy a logical axiom?) and correspondence, which refers to external effectiveness (does a design concept satisfy a functional requirement?). Some researchers argue for "rational" methods such as multi-attribute utility theory, whereas others argue for "heuristics" such as the Pugh process, and the coherence/ correspondence distinction can clarify this debate in two ways. First, by analyzing statements in the design literature, I argue that the debate is essentially about different strategies for achieving correspondence: Multi-attribute utility theory aims at achieving coherence with the expectation that coherence will imply correspondence, whereas the Pugh process aims at directly achieving correspondence. Second, I propose a new research question for design: "Under what conditions does achieving coherence imply achieving correspondence?"
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
e-pub ahead of print date: 23 July 2012
Published date: 1 August 2012
Keywords:
concept generation, creativity, decision theory
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 438596
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/438596
ISSN: 1050-0472
PURE UUID: e9a987df-d6f3-4575-99d5-e7500f3b3e56
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 18 Mar 2020 17:30
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 03:44
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics