|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
APPROACHES TO IMPROVE
ENGINEE RING D E S I ON
1
3:
THE NATIONAl ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
q
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council
whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and
the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences
and with regard for appropriate balance.
The report is available from the National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
5
OCR for page R3
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medirine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the
Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes
the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of
~ . .
tnglneermg.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president
of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public,
and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies
and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair,
respectively, of the National Research Council
www.national-academies~org
5
A
,
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
PREFACE
Design is a process by which human intellect, creativity, and passion are translated into
useful artifacts. The practice of engineering design involves not only pure and applied sciences,
behavioral and social sciences, and economics but also many aspects of business and law. A
designer must work effectively with a team composed of members of different disciplines and
make tens or even hundreds of decisions for simple products and thousands of decisions for
complex products. Tools to aid designers extend from design guides and rules of thumb that
capture experience to synthetic environments that allow the designer to fly through virtual
models.
Both engineering design and the ability to teach it have been the subject of many meetings,
publications, and organizations as well as any number of spirited discussions. Without doubt, the
various aspects of this issue can admirably engage both sides of our brains. The authors of this
report set out to examine the theories and techniques for decision making under conditions of
risk, uncertainty, and conflicting human values. This report attempts not only to analyze existing
tools but also to identify opportunities to establish a more rigorous fundamental basis for decision
. . . . .
making In engineering c ensign.
Decision-making tools can be useful design aids when appropriately applied. However,
because the knowledge embodied in a designer or design team to synthesize and create is
uniquely human, design cannot ever be totally automated. Decision tools and many other methods
can aid the design process by organizing knowledge and providing systematic frameworks to
enable the designer to generate new options and make intelligent choices to realize a product. The
design community can make progress only when engineering design decisions are understood
from the perspective of stakeholders in manufacturing enterprises and society. Time, effort, and
resources must be invested in understanding engineering design as it is practiced, in creating a
taxonomy to facilitate communication among the stakeholders and participants, and finally in
identifying what needs to be done to move forward.
The authors reviewed previous studies about decision making in engineering design and
consulted with a cross section of engineering design leaders in industry and academia. In
conducting the data gathering and analysis and in formulating findings and recommendations, the
authors brought wide-ranging expertise in economics, decision theory, academic research, and
industrial practice. This diversity was valuable in deliberations and instructive in the difficulties
of communicating across disciplinary areas, especially in the study of decision analysis for
. . .
englneerlng c .eslgn.
Robert J. Eagan, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Chair
Beth E. Allen, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Corbett D. Caudill, GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, Ohio
Ronald A. Howard, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
J. Stuart Hunter, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
Christopher L. Magee, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan
Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
William B. Rouse, Enterprise Support Systems, Norcross, Georgia
v
OCR for page R6
*
5
OCR for page R7
ACKNOWLED GMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their presentations: Wm A.
Wulf, National Academy of Engineering, on Engineering Education Reform; Steve Barrager,
independent consultant on Design of the Corvette; David Halstead, GE Aircraft Engines on Jet
Engine Design; John Taylor, NASA, on Design in Space Exploration; and Greg Wyss, Sandia
National Laboratories, on Risk Assessment Analysis. In addition, the authors acknowledge Karen
Padilla, Sandia National Laboratories, for typing several editions of the manuscript.
This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and
technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's
(NRC's) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid
and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as
sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets the institutional standards for objectivity,
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft
manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to
thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Ernest R.
Blood, Caterpillar Inc.; Clive L. Dym, Harvey Mudd College; Jay Lee, University of Wisconsin
at Milwaukee; Steven C. Lu, University of Southern California; Farrok Mistree, Georgia Institute
of Technology; and David J. Vander Veen, General Motors.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and
suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see
the final draft of the report before its release. The review of the report was overseen by George
Dieter, University of Maryland, appointed by the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences,
who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was
carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were
carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the
authors and the institution.
5
. .
V11
OCR for page R8
i;
5
OCR for page R9
CONTENTS
1 OVERVIEW 1
PRIOR STUDIES 1
THE CHANGING NATURE OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 2
2 DECISION MAILING IN ENGINEERING DESIGN 5
3 BASIC TOOLS FOR APPLIED DECISION THEORY --
THE DECISION BASIS .........................................................................................................................
FRAMING 12
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................
4 METHODS, THEORIES, AND TOOLS 17
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING 17
TOOLS TO OBTAIN STAI
FIGURES
FIGURES AND TABLES
2-1 Decision process in the context of business and environment
2-2 Decisions framed in relevant context
~ 1 The ~llOli - T m(O A~ricinn
10
3-2 The problem space for characterization and decision-making 11
3-3 The decision hierarchy
2_A The Amrici^m cc
3-5 Decision diagram.....................................................................................................................
3-6 Decision diagram for design of a dual-sport motorcycle 14
3-7 Tornado diagram 14
3-8 The decision quality spider
4-1 The House of Quality............................................................
4-2 A cascade of evaluation matrices
4-3 General format of the decision matrix 22
4-4 Decision matrix for access door attachment
4-5 Decision making in the context of variation.
4-6 Scope of artificial intelligence in design
3;
TABLES
2-1 Framing a Decision in the Relevant Context
26
29
7
4-1 Comparison Between Concurrent Versus Linear (Serial) Engineering 18
4-2 Summary of Tools and Applications Examined 37
q
x
