A Framework for MCDM Method Selection

Friday, December 05, 2003

Nathan Rolander Ashley Ceci Matthieu Berdugo

Prepared for:
Dr. Farrokh Mistree & Matt Chamberlain

Georgia Institute of Technology

Abstract

This report pertains to the systematic approach to selection. This is accomplished through an augmentation of the Pahl and Beitz systematic design approach. The three phases of Pahl and Beitz addressed are clarification of task, conceptual design, and embodiment design. In addition we have included some external augmentations to support this augmented method. This developed method is then tested for utility through its application to a selection problem. This selection involves the choice of the most appropriate cooling system for Nathan Rolanders new research lab facility. This process is documented in detail as an example. Finally, learning and future directions are addressed, as is our self-grading scheme. Appendices include research summaries, and individual Q4S work for background relevance.

12/14/2004

Contents

Abstract_______________________________________________________________ 1 Contents ______________________________________________________________ 2 Glossary of Terms ______________________________________________________ 9

Section 1: Introduction ___________________________________________

Group Members ____________________________________________________ Nathan Rolander ___________________________________________________ Ashley Ceci_______________________________________________________ Matthieu Berdugo __________________________________________________

10 10 10 10 10

Team Introduction _____________________________________________________ 10

Project Introduction____________________________________________________ 11 Data Centers & Thesis _______________________________________________ 11 Project Goals _________________________________________________________ 13 Group Q4S_________________________________________________________ Nates Relation to Personal Q4S_______________________________________ Ashleys Relation to Personal Q4S_____________________________________ Matthieus Relation to Personal Q4S ___________________________________ Group Vision of 2020 ________________________________________________ Manufacturing_____________________________________________________ Information _______________________________________________________ Marketing ________________________________________________________ People ___________________________________________________________ Resources ________________________________________________________ Research & Development ____________________________________________ 13 13 13 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 17

Realization of Group Q4S Through Data Centers HVAC Selection __________ 14

PEI Diagram & Plan of Action ___________________________________________ 18

Section 2: Research of Selection Methods _______________________

21

Why Selection is Important ______________________________________________ 21 Most Important phase of design _______________________________________ 21 Incorrect Decisions __________________________________________________ 21 Finding Focus ______________________________________________________ 22 Defense of a Systematic Method _______________________________________ 23 Tools ________________________________________________________________ 25 What tools are in use today? __________________________________________ 25 12/14/2004 2

What tools will be required in the future? _______________________________ 29 Research _____________________________________________________________ 31 Methods ___________________________________________________________ Structure of a method _______________________________________________ Features __________________________________________________________ Different approaches________________________________________________ DM related Characteristics ___________________________________________ Problem related Characteristics _______________________________________ Solution related Characteristics _______________________________________ 31 31 32 35 36 36 36

Critiques___________________________________________________________ 39 Summary of findings_________________________________________________ 39

Section 3: Group Augmentation of Pahl and Beitz ______________

The Base P&B Method _______________________________________________ Planning and Clarifying the Task ______________________________________ Conceptual Design _________________________________________________ Embodiment Design ________________________________________________ Detail Design _____________________________________________________ Critical Evaluation of Base Method ____________________________________ Setting Initial Direction - Clarification of Task ___________________________ Selecting Concepts - Conceptual Design ________________________________ Selecting Layouts - Embodiment Desgin ________________________________

41 41 43 43 44 44 45 47 48 49

Critical Evaluation of Base P&B Method___________________________________ 41

External Augmentation _________________________________________________ 50 Ethics _____________________________________________________________ 50 Responsibility to Those youre working for: _____________________________ 50 Responsibility to Those youre Working With, or under: ___________________ 51 Communication _____________________________________________________ 51 Automation of Design Systems ________________________________________ Integrated Software Data Exchange ____________________________________ Integrated Hardware Communication___________________________________ Information Depots _________________________________________________ 51 52 52 52

Clarification of Task ___________________________________________________ 54 Structure of Formalized MCDM Selection Process________________________ 54 Selection Methods Requirements List___________________________________ Define Desired Objectives for Selection_________________________________ Select Evaluation Criteria ____________________________________________ DM Related Characteristics __________________________________________ Method Related Characteristics _______________________________________ Problem Related Characteristics _______________________________________ Solution Related Characteristics _______________________________________ 12/14/2004 55 55 56 57 57 58 59 3

Independence of Categories __________________________________________ 59 Justification of Criteria ______________________________________________ 60 Phase Checklist _____________________________________________________ 61 Conceptual Design _____________________________________________________ 62 Determine available Techniques _______________________________________ 62 "Whether" Decisions If you are trying to decide whether to dismiss an employee "for cause", or whether to split the company stock, or whether customers like a new package design for a product, then you have a "whether" decision. "Whether" decisions usually have binary solutions:_________________________________ 62 Selection of Appropriate MDCM Methods ______________________________ 66 Justification _______________________________________________________ 66 Construction of Matrices _____________________________________________ 67 Weighting of Characteristics__________________________________________ 67 Justification _______________________________________________________ 67 Evaluate Matrices ___________________________________________________ DM Evaluation Matrix ______________________________________________ Method Evaluation Matrix ___________________________________________ Problem Evaluation Matrix___________________________________________ Solution Evaluation Matrix___________________________________________ Justification _______________________________________________________ 68 68 68 69 69 70

Phase Checklist: Conceptual Design ___________________________________ 70 Embodiment Design____________________________________________________ 71 Analyze and Select the Technique ______________________________________ 71 Applying the Selection Technique ______________________________________ 72 Evaluation of Individual Matrices _____________________________________ 72 Sensitivity Analysis __________________________________________________ 74 Changing the highest weighting value:__________________________________ 74 Changing the top ranked MCDM method: _______________________________ 74 Phase Checklist: Embodiment Design __________________________________ 75 Detail Design _________________________________________________________ 76 Form Development __________________________________________________ Criteria Justification Form: ___________________________________________ MCDM Technique Justification Form:__________________________________ Matrix Value Scale Justification Form: _________________________________ Matrix Weighting Scale Justification Form:______________________________ Ethics _____________________________________________________________ Individual ________________________________________________________ Team ____________________________________________________________ Company _________________________________________________________ 76 76 76 76 77 77 77 78 78

Phase Checklist _____________________________________________________ 78 12/14/2004 4

Integration into Pahl and Beitz ___________________________________________ 79

Section 4: HVAC Application of Augmented Pahl and Beitz ___

81

Clarification of Task ___________________________________________________ 81 Introduction________________________________________________________ 81 Task Analysis_______________________________________________________ Determine Goals of Project___________________________________________ Geometry Constraints _______________________________________________ Heat Rejection & Flow Constraints ____________________________________ 81 81 82 83

Requirements List___________________________________________________ 84 Phase Checklist: Product Planning And Clarification of Task ______________ 86 Conceptual Design _____________________________________________________ 87 HVAC Attention Direction____________________________________________ 87 Data Center Cooling Systems _________________________________________ 87 CRAC Unit Specifications ___________________________________________ 87 Phase Checklist: Conceptual Design ___________________________________ 88 Embodiment Design____________________________________________________ 89 Selecting the MCDM Method _________________________________________ 89 1. Define the desired objectives or purposes that the MCDM techniques are to fulfill based on the requirements list for techniques. ____________________________ 90 2. Select Evaluation criteria that relate technique capabilities to objectives. _____ 90 3. List and Specify MCDM techniques available for attaining the objective of modeling the multicriterion problem on hand through the use of the method attribute tree diagram. ______________________________________________________ 92 4. Determine technique capabilities or the levels of performance of a technique with respect to the evaluation criteria be setting up and solving a multicriterion problem. _________________________________________________________________ 96 5. Construct an evaluation matrix (techniques vs criteria array), the elements of which represent the capabilities of alternative techniques in terms of the selected criteria. __________________________________________________________ 97 6. Analyze the merits of the alternative MCDM techniques and select the most satisficing technique._______________________________________________ 100 7. Application of the selected MCDM technique._________________________ The Prospective Methods:___________________________________________ PreSelection _____________________________________________________ Selection DSP ____________________________________________________ Selection-Selection DSP (and Coupled SSDSP) _________________________ The Selection ____________________________________________________ 103 103 104 105 106 107

Justification _______________________________________________________ 114 8. Verify that selection is indeed representative of the overall goal, and that it meets the established requirements set forth in the project requirements list. ________ 114

12/14/2004

9. Signing of decision by all members involved in process, ascertaining that they accept the responsibility of this decision and the resulting design path that is chosen. ________________________________________________________________ 115

Section 5: Summary of Findings ________________________________

116

Project Accomplishments_______________________________________________ 116 Review of Work to Date _____________________________________________ 116 Discussion of Discoveries ____________________________________________ 117 Limits of Augmentation _____________________________________________ 117 Hazelrigg Verification & Validation __________________________________ 117 Group Decision Arrows Theorem_____________________________________ 120 The Validation Square ______________________________________________ 122 How we would we continue __________________________________________ 123 Automation ______________________________________________________ 123

Section 6 : Self Grading _________________________________________

125

Utility and Value _____________________________________________________ 125 Learning ____________________________________________________________ 126 Project Management________________________________________________ 126 Time Management _________________________________________________ 126 Team Interactions __________________________________________________ 126 Grading Scheme______________________________________________________ 127 Grading Sheet________________________________________________________ 128 References __________________________________________________________ 129 Appendix A: Individual Visions _________________________________________ 130 Ashley Ceci______________________________________________________ 130 A0 Goals__________________________________________________________ 130 Personal Question for the Semester ___________________________________ 130 Personal World of 2020 _____________________________________________ 130 Group Project _____________________________________________________ 132 Nathan Rolander __________________________________________________ 134 A0 Goals__________________________________________________________ 134 Personal Question for the Semester ___________________________________ 134 Group Project _____________________________________________________ 134 Personal World of 2020 _____________________________________________ 136 Matthieu Berdugo _________________________________________________ 138

12/14/2004

A0 Goals__________________________________________________________ 138 Personal Question for the Semester ___________________________________ 138 Personal World of 2020 _____________________________________________ 138 Group Project _____________________________________________________ 140 Appendix B: Paper Summaries __________________________________________ 142 Hierarchical Selection Decision Support Problems in Conceptual Design Selection in the Conceptual Design of Aircraft________________________________________ 142 PreSelection _______________________________________________________ 143 Selection DSP______________________________________________________ 144 Selection-Selection DSP (and Coupled SSDSP) __________________________ 145 A Select Overview of MCDM Techniques__________________________________ 147 Selection/Decision Methods __________________________________________ 148 Choosing The Best Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Method ______________ 150 Introduction_______________________________________________________ 150 Importance of the selection problem___________________________________ 151 Alternative approaches to the selection problem_________________________ 151 Using a classification tree: __________________________________________ 151 Using an MCDM Expert System: _____________________________________ 152 Steps in the development of an MCDM expert system ____________________ 152 An interactive decision support system for multicriteria decision aid ____________ 154 A Procedure for Selection of a Multiobjective Technique with Application to Water and Mineral resources. ____________________________________________________ 156 Classification of Criteria: ____________________________________________ 156 Classification of problem: ___________________________________________ 156 Classification of the method: _________________________________________ 156 Classification of decision maker:______________________________________ 157 Importance of criteria: ______________________________________________ 157 Facts and Fictions about the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) _______________ 159 Introduction_______________________________________________________ 159 Facts & Fictions____________________________________________________ 159 Validation of Engineering Design Alternative Selection Methods ______________ 161 Introduction_______________________________________________________ 161 Arrows 4 properties of selection methods ______________________________ 161 Hazelriggs Axioms for a good selection method__________________________ 161 12/14/2004 7

Hazelriggs Analysis of 8 Methods ____________________________________ 162 Conclusions _______________________________________________________ 163 The Design of a Knowledge-Based Guidance System for an Intelligent Multiple Objective Decision Support System (IMODSS) _____________________________ 164 Introduction_______________________________________________________ 164 Characteristics of Multi-Attribute Decision Methods _____________________ 164 Determining the Multi-Attribute Decision Methods ______________________ 164 Classification of Characteristics of Multi-Attribute Decision Methods_______ 164 Questions to Determine Multi-Attribute Decision Method_________________ 165 A Procedure for Selecting MCDM Techniques for Forest Resources Management 166 Introduction_______________________________________________________ 166 Why Proper MCDM Technique Application is Important_________________ 166 Suggested General Method for Selection _______________________________ 166 Criteria for Selection _______________________________________________ 167 The MCDM Selection Matrix ________________________________________ DM related Characteristics __________________________________________ Problem related Characteristics ______________________________________ Solution related Characteristics ______________________________________ 167 167 168 168

The MCDM Selection Process ________________________________________ 168 Interpreting Results ________________________________________________ 169 Sensitivity Analysis & Final Selection__________________________________ 169 Problems _________________________________________________________ 169 Arrowss Theorem and Engineering Design Decision Making _________________ 170 Introduction_______________________________________________________ 170 Axioms of Social Choice _____________________________________________ 170 Conclusions _______________________________________________________ 171

12/14/2004

Glossary of Terms
HVAC - Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning CRAC - Computer Room Air Conditioning DSP - Decision Support Problem SRL - Systems Realization Laboratory PEI - Phases Events and Information kW- Kilowatt MCDM Multi Criteria Decision Method MODM Multi Objective Decision Method MADM Multi Attribute Decision Method

12/14/2004

Section 1: Introduction
Team Introduction
Group Members Nathan Rolander Nathan Rolander is working on this project, as it is part of his preliminary thesis research, and forms a large module of his answer to the Q4S. This group was formed from mutual interest in the goals of the project, the similar aspirations of the members, and their complementary skill sets. Ashley Ceci Ashley Ceci is working on this project in order to flesh out certain aspects of his Q4S, as well as to address some of his A0 goals. He has an interested in HVAC systems, and has worked with Nathan previously on the Egg Relocation project. Matthieu Berdugo Matthieu Berdugo has a working interested in HVAC systems, and liked the defined project goals stated in the revised project proposal created by Nathan. In a short time he has formed a strong complementary working relationship with Nathan and Ashley.

12/14/2004

10

Project Introduction
Data Centers & Thesis A Data Center is a dedicated room of computer equipment. These computers are stored in racks, and are usually servers, computational workstations, or switches for communications. The heat load of these rooms can be 200kW, hundreds of times that of a human occupied room. The computers require a cool, dry environment for best performance, and therefore require a dedicated environmental conditioning system. This system often uses as much as 40% of the power to the room just for HVAC. As the cost reaches millions of dollars per year, efficiency is of utmost concern.

[Fig 1.1] - Down-flow Data Center cooling configuration The illustration in Figure 1 depicts a typical Data Center cooling configuration, called down-flow. Here cold air (blue arrows) from the CRAC units (white units) is blown over the servers (black towers) through perforated tiles from a plenum under the raised floor. This hot air (red arrows) is drawn back into the CRAC units for conditioning. Up-flow is the same configuration flipped vertically, with the plenum flowing cold air located in the ceiling.

12/14/2004

11

The CRAC units can either cool the air directly, with an internal cooling circuit, or for very large heat loads employ external cooling circuits. These external circuits employ a refrigerant loop, with the condenser located outside of the building. The goal of Nathan's research is to develop robust Data Center layouts using experimentally validated compact models and design configuration schemes. The first stage of this research is to establish a test facility to validate the computational models that will then be used during optimization. To fit in this project with ME6101, the selection method process proposed in our group Q4S will be tested by selecting the most suitable HVAC equipment for the test Data Center. This project will therefore involve two parts; the researching of selection methods and development of a standardized selection process, and the application of this method to researched HVAC equipment and requirements for use in the experimental Data Center facility.

12/14/2004

12

Project Goals
Group Q4S The purpose of this project is to help us determine, for our specific problem of the Data Center HVAC, what the most applicable selection methods are. As with the clarification of task, conceptual design, embodiment, or detail design, there must be a process flow, or template that can be followed to make sure the user is using the appropriate selection criteria. In addition, by standardizing the selection process in such a way, it becomes easier to track and manage decisions over a geographically disperse company. There is a template that thus limits location specific variations in how things are done. With this goal in mind we established the following group Q4S: How can the P&B method be augmented to better address selection utilizing a systematic procedure enabling the selection of the most appropriate decision method for the task? Thus making all assumptions and preferences explicit to facilitate better communication and design in the distributed environment of 2020. We are going to apply things learned from this project into our individual Q4Ss rather than streamlining our individual Q4S into a group vision. This is addressed below relating each members individual Q4S to the group Q4S. Nates Relation to Personal Q4S Selection occurs throughout the Pahl and Beitz systematic method, but is not addressed directly in a systematic manner. The group Q4S is a subset of my personal Q4S; both address the customization of the design process to suit the needs of the user. Standardization and the systematic manner make the method proposed in the group Q4S beneficial to geographically dispersed design teams, as group operating differences will be removed enabling communication and understanding. Through answering the group Q4S I will have answered a large part of my individual Q4S, addressing the selection module of my augmented Pahl and Beitz process. Ashleys Relation to Personal Q4S One of the greatest factors affecting the effectiveness of communicating ideas and information over great distances, and between differing social, economic and business cultures is the differing methods used to arrive at a project direction. There are many internal biases that effect how a decision are made, when you add in the disperse network of divisions and facility groups that will be prominent in the future, the problem becomes compounded. By setting a standard method, you are able to simplify the design process, and facilitate smoother communication of ideas.

12/14/2004

13

Matthieus Relation to Personal Q4S Selection would be achieved by someone throughout his life. The process of selection lays on the choice between several alternatives that can seem more or less valuable depending of the point of view of the person. Though this project we will show how we can set up a standardized process to make a good choice in front of a problem. Realization of Group Q4S Through Data Centers HVAC Selection We will utilize the systematic selection process developed to answer the group Q4S in order to select HVAC equipment for the Data Center. The selection will be the physical realization and test of our proposed process, creating a task specific selection process employing appropriate selection methods.

12/14/2004

14

Group Vision of 2020 We completed an affinity diagram of our individual 2020 visions, then collaborated to form the six major categories, and developed this key short list for the project. These are the, per our group vision, standard issues that must be addressed for the year 2020.

People

R&D

Manufacturing

Geographically Dispersed Resources

Marketing

Information

Resources

[Fig 1.2] - Vision of 2020 Spoke & Wheel Diagram From these subsections we have addressed the following key issues:

Standardized & Modular components for multi-location manufacturing Multi-purpose manufacturing processes Information mass accumulation & sharing Local/Wide Area Network to Global Area Network Real Time virtual conferencing Central server based project & version control Globally personalized marketing & advertising

Manufacturing With manufacturing, there will need to be a standardization and modularization of component parts, machine parts and production facilities. Every physical aspect of manufacturing should be location independent; and every process step should be standardized. This will allow processes and people to become interchangeable. Standardizing selection processes become important for this system during the design of the manufacturing process. The strengths of standardized and modular manufacturing components are dispelled if the process for selecting the appropriate units can cause nonuniformity plant layouts and operations. Information Information must be readily available to anyone on the project, in real time. This requires the use of customized data pools, and specialized global networking. This will be

12/14/2004

15

must for keeping in constant contact with a dispersed work force. This will facilitate swifter and easier communication of ideas, thus allowing for disperse groups to base decisions on a global/company wide set of requirements. Versioning control will also become much more important, as youll have people in different time zones working on the same task at different times of the day. This will allow for cleaner task and project handoffs, as well as almost 24 hour working shift. By standardizing the selection process it is understood what data is available and what research needs to be completed in order to make a decision. This information rich future limits the possibility of incomplete data gathering. The mass availability of information combined with a systematic selection process enables users to apply more rigorous selection methods. Marketing Marketing needs to be handled at a global scale. No longer will items have country, or nationality specific markets. This isnt to say that individuality will be a thing of the past, but base product needs will probably become more global as far as food, transportation, basic clothing and the like. Marketing will also advance on a personal scale, through mass customized advertising. Global access to records of activities and purchases, similar to the history and cookies features on web browsers, will allow for individual advertisements directed to individuals based on their previous records. Decisions in marketing will become more important as product life cycles will shorten, and consumer fickleness and expectations will increase. This will facilitate the need for a standardized and quicker means for making product decisions. People The rise of mass communication will continue to contribute to the homogenization of cultures around the world. As groups become less isolated, they become influenced by the ideas of other cultures. Many people will become multi-lingual, speaking languages most encountered in their global workplace. For people to be effective members of a group, they must be part of as many aspects of the overall design process as possible. To that effect, meetings must also become virtual. This will limit the unintentional exclusion of certain internal, or external divisions due to distance, or time constraints. Also, the information itself should be understandable by any person in any nation that is required to work on the project (diagrams vs. text). Selection is an important part of this information that must be communicated between dispersed group members. In order for all members to understand the reasoning behind the selection, a systematic standardized process must be followed.

12/14/2004

16

Resources No longer will company resources be departmentalized. Teams and groups will be required to make faster decisions with the understanding that the footprint of effect will have a larger scale, not only affecting neighboring departments but also international divisions. Thus the networking of the future will need to be done on a global scale, through true wireless (satellite based) transmission. This will be a must for keeping in constant contact with a dispersed work group. In addition, physical resources, those substances that make up the components used in production, must become interchangeable. This will allow processes to become location independent. Research & Development The impacts of a standardized selection process on research and development will be similar to those outlined above, particularly marketing, as development life cycle will be shorter. Because research and development encompasses most of the above points, it is not necessary to readdress here.

12/14/2004

17

PEI Diagram & Plan of Action

The PEI diagram is a useful tool in which phases events and information are pictured. This diagram enables us to understand how the information generate all along the project could lead to the execution of the P&B various phases. Its a natural way of analyzing because this diagram can both represent the contain of each step of the P&B process and how the information can be used to gradually progress in the P&B design method. Meanwhile, it is also important that all these information stay close to our project goals, the representation of the year 2020 and Q4S of each member. Thats why we have first to collect the 2020 world of each member to build the general view of the team regarding the P&B method and the way this one could be augment. Then, it will be possible to generate the group Q4S: How can the P&B method be augmented to better address selection utilizing a systematic procedure enabling the selection of the most appropriate decision method for the task? Thus making all assumptions and preferences explicit sto facilitate better communication and design in the distributed environment of 2020. Thorough these weeks we must continuously tie the project Q4S to our personal Q4S and learning essays. This project is the concrete realization of the personalization and augmentation of the P&B method by using the different steps of it.

12/14/2004

18

[Fig 1.3] - Project PEI Diagram

12/14/2004

19

Clarification of Task Daily/weekly meetings scheduled depending of the need. This is the first step to get a precise idea of all the issues of the Data Center project. Meeting with Dr. Joshi and Dr. Mistree to focus on the crux o the problem concerning both the implementation of the HVAC and the P&B augmentation and personalization method Analyze of the different issues concerning the implementation of the HVAC trough the reading of the documents given by our two sponsors. This, constitute an analysis of the product and the market at small-scale. Collection and organization of all the information concerning the HVAC and the Data Center to generate a requirement list. All the wishes and demands are pictured, so that the document would be used to pick and appreciate a potential solution. Generation of a requirement list concerning the selection method. This document is the start to a deep analysis of the different selection methods and to understand how these could be developed and applied thorough the P&B design process to get the most adapted solution to a problem. Definition of the schedule and plans with all the deadlines, meetings and resources. Conceptual Design Application and representation of the requirement list concerning the choice of the HVAC through a selection method. The process of selection will rely on the expression of wishes and demands primarily listed. Potential solution must be evaluated: to be a solution of a problem will depend on the ability to suit to the function needs. The application of the selection method is a way to determine whether or not the process could be adapted and standardized to a more general design case. We have to measure the efficiency and the impact of the selection process regarding both its requirement list and the requirement list of the HVAC. Embodiment Design This phase will be oriented in the direction of the HVAC concern in order to implement it into the Data Center. Quantitative analysis of the solution chosen, product data will be dealt with. After validation of the selection process, a complete definition of the method will be needed to reach the standardization feature specified in our group Q4S. Detail Design Implementation details will be emphasized to complete the design process and the process of selection. Expression of the very last Dr. Joshi and Dr. Mistree requirements and concerns.

12/14/2004

20

Section 2: Research of Selection Methods

Why Selection is Important
Most Important phase of design The quality of a design depends very heavily on the quality of decisions made in choosing one idea or another. In the past decisions were made in an ad-hoc or empirical basis, as there were no principles or axioms which could be used as absolute foundations. [7] We believe that the quote above by Nam Suh embodies the principle of this project excellently. Decisions occur throughout the design process, each decision closing an area of the design space, and making the design more concrete as the process moves towards the final solution. The final outcome of the design is therefore heavily dependant upon the quality of decisions made during the design process. However, the Pahl and Beitz systematic design method currently does not address selection formally or systematically, although the method calls for selection at many steps in the design process. Selection is often required at the phase gates, the end of the iteration loop, and it is here vital decisions such as go/no-go or the selection of the most promising concept is chosen. If the four phase design process is highly defined, down to details on each step, the selection process also requires a rigorous and defined method. Without a defined process for selection, the foundation of the Pahl and Beitz method is weak, based on an undefined ad hoc system. We crafted our group Q4S in order to address this specific issue. Incorrect Decisions In engineering design, when bad design decisions occur, the culprit most often blamed is the poor state of information that the designer held at the time of the decision: My data were bad. However, a key assertion of this paper is that faulty decision methods are also likely causes of bad engineering design decisions. [4] Our group takes a stand that is a less extreme criticism of currently employed selection methods. However, we agree with the fundamental statement that incorrect decisions are often immediately blamed on data without consideration of the applicability of the method that was used. We believe if a decision method gives inadequate answers it is because that particular implementation of that method was flawed. Hazelrigg later agrees with this position later in his paper, when he demonstrates his matrix of selection methods and their applicability, how each method addresses his requirements for selection methods. 12/14/2004 21

One of the biggest flaws in the use of selection methods is in the arbitrary assignment of weighting and numbers to alternatives, and the arbitrary aggregation of results. These practices yield undesirable results, but were cause by the improper use of a selection method, not necessarily a fundamental flaw in the method (although this could also be true). any method that fails in a simple case has even more opportunity for failure in a complex case and, with a faulty method, failure in the complex case is practically assured. The reality is that complex engineering examples simply hide selection failures in their complexity[4] The reason that little work exists looking critically at decision methods is the mask of complexity. The complexity of engineering design selection problems, such as the number of variables in each variant comparison, hide the real problem of the method implementation, leading the engineers to believe that either selection methods simply are not applicable to their problems, or that their specific problem is flawed. This thinking compounds the problem, because it generates a lack of interest in the study of decision theory and its applicability to engineering design. Even if a design engineer attempts to determine the most appropriate method of selection for their individual situation, another problem arises. Because of the huge number of techniques available, an analyst can get confused in determining which technique to employ when confronted with a problem. This ambiguity can lead to inappropriate selection, resulting in a misleading solution and incorrect conclusions. This position is taken by the authors of [6], and they were some of the first to realize the importance of providing a structure to guide the decision maker to their appropriate method, depending upon criteria about the decision maker, problem, method, and solution. Our team believes that although we cannot solve the problem of flawed decision making methods, a system for the correct application of methods is a step in the right direction. Inappropriate selection, whatever the cause, is an irreversible waste of resources. These resources can consist of time, money, materials, and energy. It also discourages other designers from employing selection techniques, methods we are trying to defend as valuable. It is therefore imperative that study of improving both selection methods and the application of these methods be undertaken, to avoid loss of both resources and support for the field. Finding Focus Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to walk from here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the Cat. I dont care much where ______ said Alice. Then it doesnt matter which way you walk, said the Cat. ______ so long as I get somewhere, Alice added as an explanation. Oh, youre sure to do that, said the Cat, if you only walk long enough.

12/14/2004

22

[4] A key part of any design process is the use of decisions to progress to the next step and move forward with the proposed design solution. Selection is used to focus the design, but with the large-scale complex designs of today and in the future of 2020, this task is becoming increasingly difficult. Computers can be used to make selection easier as they can handle large quantities of variables and compute outcomes very quickly. However, computers require a human operator to become a human-computer cyborg, incorporating the humans tacit knowledge and ability to deal with qualitative data with the computers computational ability. During selection using soft information the lack of information means that computers are of limited use, as it is up to the human to translate their qualitative preferences into quantitative data the computer can process. The difficulties of this process were demonstrated during the selection of conceptual designs of aircraft in ME6101 selection lecture. In these situations if the humans preferences are inconsistent, it does not matter how efficient or effective the computer algorithm, the results will still be flawed. During selection involving hard information, with quantitative data available, the use of computers is simplified is key decisions are made a priori without depending on exhaustive search. This will make the operation more efficient that relying on using a brute force approach, which is limited in the number of variables it can handle. This variable upper bound is given by Bremmermans limit [5], which states the upper limit of any computer system is 270 variables in a factorial design computation, even if the entire earth was made into a computer. It is for these reasons that we cannot simply rely of the power of computers to make selection for us, and must return to decision theory and making the best use of the methods available to us. Defense of a Systematic Method Many of the same arguments given by Pahl and Beitz [1] in their defense of their systematic method are applicable to the defense of a systematic method for selection. The most applicable points taken from p. 70 are:

A deliberate step-by-step procedure ensures that nothing essential has been overlooked or ignored. If designers are expected to produce better results, then they must be given the extra time a systematic approach dements, though experience has shown that only a little extra time is needed for a stepwise procedure. Scheduling becomes more accurate if a step-by-step method is followed rigorously

Another advantage of a systematic step by step method is upgradeability. If a method framework already exists it is very easy to incorporate a new method or classification into

12/14/2004

23

the existing framework. This makes the latest developments available to the users easily, instead of them having to research all of this material on their own. The next phase of the project is to address the creation of a systematic method to follow for selection steps of the Pahl and Beitz process.

12/14/2004

24

Tools
What tools are in use today? Whether in concurrent engineering or in other multi-actor methods, the development of a product, a process or a service requires a good mastery of the decision process, on one hand, and a good control of information and systems of communication between the actors, on the other hand. In any business, the exchanged and administered information is mostly multiple, diverse, in semantics and multi-dimensional and evolutionary in time. Many actors participate in the definition of the decision processes. These processes are often the place of dysfunctions: they are often not optimized, not formalized and are not involved enough in a progress dynamics. Thus it is important to understand what methods are available, and when to use them, but, in that same vein, it is also important to realize that when selecting a method it is important to understand that the tools that make up the method are unimportant. Whats important is which method will solve the problem we are dealing with. Included in Table 2.1 below are lists of MADM and MODM methods that are currently in use. Generic stages of the MODS process are depicted in Figure 2.1. Howard (1991) identifies several phases of the process, namely: (1) defining the objectives, (2) choosing the attributes, (3) specifying the alternatives, (4) transforming the attribute scales into commensurable units, (5) assigning weights to the attributes which reflect their relative value to the decision maker, (6) selecting and applying an algorithm for ranking the alternatives, and (7) choosing an alternative. In practice this process is highly iterative. For example, the Australian Resource Assessment Commissions guide on MODS (Resource Assessment Commission 1992) reverses stages two and three. Often a decision maker finds it difficult to identify and weight objectives without first becoming closely acquainted with the alternatives. Feedback exists between the generation of objectives, weighting of objectives and identification of alternatives.

[Fig 2.1] - Generic MODM process. Feedback loops exist between the first two stages.

12/14/2004

25

The MADM processes follow a very similar path, with attributes rather than end objectives being the primary focus.

[Fig 2.2] - Schematic representation of a generic MADM process. Modified from Keeney (1982)

12/14/2004

26

[Table 2.1] - MADM and MODM processes Category Mono-criterion Methods Method
Cost Benefit Analysis Direct Notation Method Delphi Method Pairwise Comparisons Methods

Description
A technique designed to determine the feasibility of a project or plan by quantifying its costs and benefits. Method used in mechanical design and is based on the expertise of the committee who has the responsibility of making the decision. The Delphi Method is based on a structured process for collecting and distilling knowledge from a group of experts by means of a series of questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion feedback These methods consist in successively comparing the relative importance of the element i with the element j in calculating the ratio c[ij] = p[I]/p[j]. These comparisons are then put in a square matrix, at which time a weight vector is utilized to determine which element is most important.

MADM (No Information) MADM (Standard Levels) MADM (Weight Assignment)

Dominance Maximin Maximax Conjunctive

Considers that each alternative is acceptable as long as the corresponding attributes meet the minimum cutoffs.
This method evaluates an alternative on its best attribute regardless of all other attributes The method involves the solution of a set of simultaneous linear algebraic equations and is conceptually easy to understand. Simultaneously involves all participating alternatives to find their respective performances for all criteria in relation to each other With the lexicographic method, the objective functions are arranged in order of importance. Then optimization problems are solved one at a time to determine the best decision The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution: It is a method with appeals as simplicity (easy to apply) and hypotheses based approach of a problem (the best and the worst situations).

Disjunctive Direct Assignment Least Square Eigenvector Entropy MITA Lexicographic Simple Weighting TOPSIS Linear Assignment Relative Position Estimation ELECTRE AHP

MADM (Weight Given Beforehand)

Elimination and Choice Translating Reality) only provide the sorting of the alternatives (in this case, a dominance principles based ranking).

Analytic Hierarchy Process: enables a systematic approach for gathering and quantifying weights and ratings of both objective and subjective criteria in order to compare them on a common scale A problem is decomposed into a hierarchy where the alternatives are at the lowest level. This technique applies the decomposition, the comparative judgments on comparative elements and measures of relative importance through pairwise comparison matrices, which are recombined into an overall rating of alternatives.

LIMAP

12/14/2004

27

MADM (Weight to be generated) MADM (Local Utility Function) MADM (Implicit Utility Function) MODM (Efficiency solution generation) MODM (A Priori Articulation of Preference Information)

UTA

This is an implementation of MAVT where individual value functions (for each criterion) are obtained using ordinal regression. Pairwise comparisons of some alternative choices

ILUTA

EDMCM

Pairwise comparisons with some trade-off questions.

Implicit Trade-Off

In this method the decision maker specifies a trade-off among the multiple objectives. This method is also known as the e -constraint or the reduced feasible space method because the technique involves search in a progressively reduced criterion space. The original problem is converted to a new problem in which one objective is minimized subject to N 1 constraints that limit the values of the remaining objectives and the original constraints. In an ordinal ranking, no information is available regarding the magnitude of the differences between the ranked items. All that is known is that A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and so forth. Various techniques are available for converting data from an ordinal to cardinal scale. They are based on identifying quantitative weights

Ordinal

Cardinal

The cardinal approach is followed when the different objectives have different types, units or scales. Two stages are required to transform these objectives into a set of comparable scales. First, the qualitative terms are transferred into an interval scale. The decision makers should agree on the scaling procedure they use. Secondly, the values with different units are normalized.

MODM (Iteractive Progressive Articulation)

Implicit Trade-Offs Explicit Trade-Offs

In addition to these methods are those collected, or categorized, and documented by Hazelrigg: [Table 2.2] - Hazelrigg Methods Method Category Description Weighted Sum of Attributes Highly restrictive utility form demands utility independence of attributes, which is rare, and demands that utility be proportional to a measure of each attribute, thus, cannot reflect preferences of the designer. Does not account for risk and uncertainty, thus does not account for value of information. Can be validated only in rare circumstances to which it applies. Fails to distinguish between alternatives of varying risk. Analytical Hierarchy Process Highly restrictive utility form demands utility independence of attributes and other problems similar to Note 1. Formulation allows violation of Property 5 (Barzilai, 1998b). Physical Programming Allows outcomes to dictate the formulation of preferences; assumes linear independence of attributes. 12/14/2004

28

Pugh Matrix Quality Function Deployment

Seeks to construct a ranking matrix using a method that is invalid, and it makes the invalid assumption that a desirable design is comprised of design elements that are selected optimally but independently.
Fails to recognize that customer preferences cannot be determined correctly in the absence of a specific design decision, and there are particular problems when those preferences are intransitive (Hazelrigg, 1996). It imposes the preferences of the customers (incorrectly determined) on the designer. Does not account for uncertainty and risk. Considers only variability in manufacture and materials, does not include other sources of uncertainty, imposes Taguchis preference system on designer.

Taguchi Loss Function Suhs Axiomatic Design

Suhs axioms are not axioms in the mathematical sense, but instead comprise a preference system, which Suh suggests imposing on the designer. Further the method assumes functional requirements are given, which comprises a constraint imposed on the designer.
Six Sigma focuses on defects and their prevention. It does not deal with preferences beyond this.

Six Sigma

In addition to the above-mentioned tools are those that fall into the category of Decision Based Design. These include the Decision Support Problems, the formulation and solution of which provide a means for making the following types of decisions: 1. Selection: The indication of a preference, based on multiple attributes, for one among several feasible alternatives. 2. Compromise: The improvement of a feasible alternative through modification 3. Coupled or Hierarchical: Decisions that are linked Selection/Selection, Selection/Compromise, and Compromise/Compromise. All decisions made are done so based on analysis-based information hard data, insightbased soft information, or both. What tools will be required in the future? New analytic methods enabled by the capabilities of modern computers may radically transform human ability to reason systematically about the long-term future. This opportunity may be fortunate, because our world confronts rapid and potentially profound transitions driven by social, economic, environmental, and technological change. Intentionally or not, actions taken today will influence global economic development, the worlds trading system, environmental protection, the spread of epidemics, the fight against terrorism, and the handling of new biological and genetic technologies. These actions may have far-reaching effects on whether the year 2020 offers peace and prosperity or crisis and collapse. In many areas of human endeavor, it would be derelict to make important decisions without a systematic analysis of available options. Powerful analytic tools now exist to help assess risks and improve decision making in business, government, and private life, and even more advance tools will be available in the future.

12/14/2004

29

Common mistakes when making crucial decisions, like those in Table 2.3, are primary factors in the need to better understand the decision making process, and better define it for the purposes of design. [Fig 2.3] - Common mistakes when making crucial decisions Mistakes
Plunging in Frame blindness Lack of frame control Overconfidence in your judgment Shortsighted shortcuts Shooting from the hip Group failure Fooling yourself about group feedback Not keeping track Failure to audit your decision process

Description
Gathering information and reaching conclusions without thinking about the crux of the issue or how decisions like this one should be made Setting out to solve the wrong problem because your framework causes you to overlook attractive options or lose sight of important objectives Failing to define the problem in more ways than one, or being unduly influenced by the frames of others Failing to collect key factual information because of overconfidence in your assumptions and opinions Relying on rules of thumb for crucial decisions, or on the most readily available information Trying to keep straight in your head all the information relating to the decision rather than relying on a systematic procedure Assuming that a group of smart people will automatically make a good decision even without a good decision process Failing to learn from evidence of past outcomes either because you are protecting your ego or because you are tricked by hindsight Assuming that experience will make lessons available automatically Failing to create an organized approach to understanding your own decision process

12/14/2004

30

Research
Selection method is a wide subject that has been many times dealt with. All around the world some people have had to face a problem when carrying out their studies: How could they make the right decisions? Are their criteria relevant? Should they grade them? In the following paragraphs we will try to understand how far people have been to select, create or interpret a good selection method. We will see that studies are various, that they always personalize the problem and bring their own feelings in term of classification. However, a selection method is not only supposed to be accurate, it is also supposed to adapt too many case of study, to be efficient and to be adaptable. Hence, we will see that it could be useful to deal with many scientific areas such as aerospace; biology, computer science or environment. By describing these methods, we want to show that the prospects are huge in term of designing. P&B could be the very first designing process to integrate a brand-new method of selection. But we want also to show that selection methods will never stop to evolve, each year, a number of methods arise with new concepts that are said to revolutionize this field. The following paragraphs is an introduction to these concepts, the purpose is not to point the right or the wrong way to do, but only to show that diversity and modularity are features of selection methods. Methods Structure of a method Selection method is a process that implies many characteristics. It can be summarized as a box where inputs can be: a formulated problem, a list of criteria, and a list of alternative solutions. The output would be the solution found to be the best. The scheme is simple and can be represented as follow [Fig 2.4]:

12/14/2004

31

Alternatives

Problem Actions Criteria Solution

Selection Method

Decision Maker (DM)

[Fig 2.4] Selection method structure The selection method arises from a set of concepts, these concepts must be analysed considering a set of criteria, and these criteria are also ranked among themselves. Finally, the concepts would be ranked based on multiple criteria and their relative importance. A selection method can be viewed as an indication of preference based on multiple attributes, for one among several feasible alternatives; it is also a compromise as it improves a feasible alternative through modification. Features Before using a selection method, designers are meant to classify problems. Hence, they can know whether or not the selection method they were thinking of could be used. However, problems are various and classify them could be an intricate work. Before dealing with a selection method, we must nail down the entire problem, this is not a waste of time and by acting like that we would be likely to choose a pertinent method that can suit with the problem. The set of actions is what designers are likely to do to answer to the problem. A set of actions could be a continuous set of actions or a finite moderate size set of discrete actions. The set of criteria are what designers think to be important to realize or to be respected by the product. Criteria can derivate from a requirement list and cover various fields.

12/14/2004

32

They could be mathematical, quantitative or qualitative. Their importance could be gradually revealed during the study or immediately given , they could be ordered between each other, they could be assigned a weight on each of them or they could be put a function that quantify the preference from an action to another. Criteria can be numerous depending on the complexity of the problem: the more requirements and limitations there are, the more criteria are likely to be sorted and ranked following their importance. Some criteria could hence be considered as mandatory, nonmandatory, dependant to the technique of the problem or non-dependant so that the criteria would be evaluated independently for every new problem encountered. A selection method is dependant of the features of the problem, that is to say whether or not we know the capability and the limitations of the method or the method would give designers a strong or a weak solution. Would the result be consistent? What about the robustness of the method regarding parameters alteration? Is the method easy to use? What time is required to get a solution? What time is required to implement the method? The decision maker (DM) is also really important during the selection process; he can be the designer, an expert or somebody else. When asking several people to solve a problem or to choose what they are thinking to be right to do, we often realize that they would use completely different approach for solving the problem. Why? Maybe because what someone thinks to be really important could be considered secondary by someone else. Objectivity and subjectivity are the crux of the problem when choosing a solution to a problem. Even mathematical problem could be found out by using several different methods. The purpose is then to choose the most effective one, the less expensive and the easiest way to be carried out and implemented. Of course, DMs are also likely to be influenced by the fact that they should work in groups or individually (e.g. the designing of the strongest and the highest paper house in class), they could also be affected by the amount of work needed and the amount of work they can produce, the amount of time needed or available to produce an appropriate solution and the level of understanding of the decision making process that is used (need more or less background).

12/14/2004

33

Tackle the problem : ( D M ) Mathematical or decision analysis form Can be quantified or qualified Varies upon the size of the number of data, objectives, alternative systems The nature of the variables: integer or continuous

D e c i s i o n

Set of Action : Order the actions Selection of the good action(s) Arrange the actions in predefined classes Analyze the consequences of each actions

M a k e r

Set of Criteria : Mathematical, Quantitative or qualitative. Gradually or immediately revealed Ordered Weight assigned Mandatory Dependency

Selection of the method: Consistency Robustness Ease of use Time required Implementation of the method

[Fig 2.5] Selection method flowchart

12/14/2004

34

Different approaches The DSP: a step by step approach: DSP involves a hierarchical decision-making and a set of interactions between these decisions. Decision could be taken sequentially or concurrently. Basically, what could happen is a Preselection process that is in charge of selecting the most likely to succeed concepts for further development into feasible alternatives. The steps would be successively: a description of the concepts chosen and their generalized criterion, a datum as a zero standard and compare the concepts, finally, each concept would be assigned a normalized score to evaluate its merit. The DSP method includes also the interactions between generalized criteria and is likely to give the most-likely-to-succeed concepts. The selection DSP facilitates the ranking of alternatives based on multiple attributes of varying importance. The order indicates not only the rank, but also by how much one alternative is preferred to another (the weighting is important, and must have a logical backing). In the selection based DSP both science-based objective information and experience based subjective information can be used. One feature that is introduce by the DSP method is the sensitivity to changes in the attribute importance is important, especially with alternatives that score close together on the scales provided. Sensitivity analysis is required to determine the effect on the solution of small changes in the values of the relative importance and also to changes in the attribute ratings. The DSP based only on selection facilitates the ranking of multiple sets of alternatives based on multiple attributes, some of which are coupled between attributes. It arises whenever you have a system that can be decomposed into several inter-dependant subsystems that have to be selected by the designers. The Multi-Criterion-Decision-Making (MCDM) approach: MCDM (Multi-Criterion Decision-Making) techniques break up the deciding factors into 4 characteristics, related to the problem, Decision Maker (DM), the technique, and the solution. The selection of criteria is also different from what it is generally supposed to be: 1. 2. 3. 4. The characteristics of the decision maker (DM) or analyst involved The characteristics of the algorithm for solution The characteristics of the problem under consideration The nature of the obtainable satisfying solution

It is important to keep in mind that too many criteria mean that there may not be enough information readily available to fulfill them, and more work is required for the selection. An idea might be to break up the levels of criterion available, for faster simpler selection use less, and for a complex problem that is important, take more time using more criteria.

12/14/2004

35

Each of these criteria is then weighted based on the DMs view of how important it is. An important note is that all the scores and weighting of these criteria will be based on the DMs level of experience with each technique, as well as anything they research on the subject. The Multi-Criterion Decision-Making DM related Characteristics

Technique related Characteristics

DMs level of knowledge DMs desire to interface Time available DMs actual knowledge Analysts skill

CPU time required Number of parameters required Ease of use Computational burden Ability to get effective points Ease of coding

Problem related Characteristics

Solution related Characteristics

The nature of the solution may be described by its Handling of qualitative data uniqueness, reliability, and efficiency, among Finite number of alternatives (~ selection) others. Non-linear problems Problem size Consistency of results Infinite number of alternatives (~ compromise) Robustness of results Dynamic problem Usefulness of results of DM Handling of integer (quantitative) data Confidence of results Strength of effective solution Number of solutions in each alternative [Fig 2.6] MCDM Characteristics Before deciding on the appropriate method, a sensitivity analysis is required. This is done as explained in class lecture, by varying the different constants used to carry out the selection procedure. A computer would be good for this process, as it is both very important and time consuming, as the matrices must be re-computed with different weightings. Because the choices will not change, the DM does not have to be directly involved in anything except setting the algorithm up, making use of a computer ideal. Analyzing the final results for all four criterions for much sensitivity will give the final ranking of MCDM methods for that problem. In general however, the MCDM rankings are fairly robust, and order is not changed much during the sensitivity analysis

12/14/2004

36

Hazelriggs Axioms and approach for a good selection method [4] 1. The method should provide a rank ordering of candidate designs. 2. The method should not impose preferences on the designer, that is, the alternatives should be ranked in accordance with the preferences of the designer. 3. The method should permit the comparison of design alternatives under conditions of uncertainty and with risky outcomes, including variability in manufacture, materials, etc., which pervade all of engineering design 4. The method should be independent of the discipline of engineering and manufacture for the product or system in question 5. If the method recommends design alternative A when compared to the set of alternatives S={B, C, D, ...}, then it should also recommend A when compared to any reduced set SR, such as {C, D, ...} or {B, D, ...} or {D, ...}, etc. 6. The method should make the same recommendation regardless of the order in which the design alternatives are considered 7. The method itself should not impose constraints on the design or the design process. 8. The method should be such that the addition of a new design alternative should not make existing alternatives appear less favorable. 9. The method should be such that obtaining clairvoyance on any uncertainty with respect to any alternative must not make the decision situation less attractive (information is always beneficial). 10. The method should be self-consistent and logical, that is, it should not contradict itself and it should make maximum use of available information for design alternative selection.

12/14/2004

37

DSP: Preselection Process

Tackle the problem : Mathematical or decision analysis form Can be quantified or qualified Varies upon the size of the number of data, objectives, alternative systems The nature of the variables: integer or continuous

DSP: Ranking Process

D e c i s i o n

Set of Action : Order the actions Selection of the good action(s) Arrange the actions in predefined classes Analyze the consequences of each actions

Set of Criteria : Mathematical, Quantitative or qualitative. Gradually or immediately revealed Ordered Weight assigned Mandatory Dependency

M a k e r

( D M )

Application of weights

Hazelriggs Axioms for a good selection method Selection of the method: Consistency Robustness Ease of use Time required Implementation of the method

[Fig 2.7] Augmented selection method flowchart

12/14/2004

38

Critiques Selecting a method is completely subjective process. Decision maker is the key of the selection method so that from a DM to another the system chosen would be different. The solution would be to computerize the process but solutions would be hence different from software to another. All the method that have been described globally present the same aspect; they only present problems from another point of view and its hard to say which one is the most effective. For example, axioms could enhance the ease of use, its a more mathematical approach, but by doing this, we would loose some flexibility in the process. On the other hand, the MCDM owns a sensitive approach and is computer orientated, but Sensitivity analysis does not provide by how much what items were changed and does not provide limitations of algorithm. All the works tried to introduce us with new concepts and primarily goal was to show us that it could be applied on a bunch of example. But can a method be validated simply by showing it works for a variety of selection? And as we would never consider using a model of a physical system that had not been verified, why should we do the same for selection methods? Robust, accurate selection methods are required for good engineering design; current methods yield inconsistent and wrong results, even with good data. Engineering design will benefit greatly from the incorporation of decision sciences into its decision methods. Trying to point the best method doesnt always mean to get the most accurate method, sometimes designers are allowed to approximate solutions to certain extend. Hence, the best method could be the one that provide them with the cheapest solution or the fastest method. All the method doesnt include that consideration in theirs principles, designers would appreciate to notify what are their all requirements in term of time, money and accuracy. We have a mini-paradox here; we need to apply a selection method to selecting selection methods, so how do we know the method we are applying is appropriate. Summary of findings Because of the huge number of techniques available, an analyst can get confused in determining which technique to employ when confronted with a problem. This ambiguity can lead to inappropriate selection, resulting in a misleading solution and incorrect conclusions. This is very important in relation to P&B as the end of the conceptual phase involves selecting the most promising design variants. If this is done poorly, the entire design will proceed down a poor path, resulting in a weak solution. This in turn wastes time, money, resources, and energy.

12/14/2004

39

It is not that easy to determine if a method is appropriate or not, and there has been many debates over this. In some cases, a method that was thought to be inappropriate has been defended as being applicable, and successfully applied and good results have been obtained. It is still worth trying to select the best method though, as it is so important Designing the best method that could work and be the most efficient universally is idealistic. Perfection cant be reached but designers can try to shape the problem closely that they could point the most adapted method for their needs. The difficulty for the designers would then be to outline the problem with its criteria and actions. Include such a method in P&B shouldnt ruin the flexibility and the rapidity of the design process. Introducing a technique with lots of weights and matrix calculation could be too much time consuming and would require a lots of skills from the designers so that the process would use its relative ease of use.

12/14/2004

40

Section 3: Group Augmentation of Pahl and Beitz

Critical Evaluation of Base P&B Method
The Base P&B Method As stated in our group Question for the Semester, the method that we will use as a framework for augmentation is the Pahl & Beitz Systematic Design Method. In this section we will describe this method and identify the key elements utilizing the Pahl & Beitz text [1]. The Pahl & Beitz method of design is organized into four phases: 1. 2. 3. 4. Planning and Clarifying the Task Specification of task and requirements Conceptual Design Specification of principle(s) Embodiment Design Specification of layout (& construction) Detail Design Specification of production

The flow of the Pahl & Beitz process is best demonstrated using a flow chart as given in the text in figure 3.3 and shown below in [Fig 3.1]. Decision making steps are required after each phase, to determine the direction of the project and if it should continue.

12/14/2004

41

[Fig 3.1] - The base Pahl and Beitz method flowchart

12/14/2004

42

Planning and Clarifying the Task This phase sets the initial project direction, determining the goals of the project and the requirements. The main steps of this phase are: 1. Analyze the market and the company situation 2. Find and Select Product 3. Formulate a Product Proposal 4. Clarify the task 5. Elaborate a Requirements List The purpose of clarification of the task is to collect information about the requirements that have to be fulfilled by the product. [1, p. 67] The result of this phase is the specification of information in a requirements list. [1, p. 67] The following are important questions to ask when clarifying the task [1, p. 130-131]. 1. What is the problem really about? 2. What implicit wishes and expectations are involved? 3. Do the specified constraints really exist? 4. What paths are open for development? 5. What objectives is the intended solution expected to satisfy? 6. What properties must it have? 7. What properties must it not have? Conceptual Design This phase determines the principal solution of the design. The main steps of this phase are: 1. Identify essential problems 2. Establish function structures 3. Search for working principles and working structures 4. Combine and Firm up into concept variants 5. Evaluate against technical and economic criteria Completing these steps results in the principal solution. Conceptual design results in the specification of principle. [1, p. 67] It is possible that there will be several principle solution variants. [1, p. 67] A lasting and successful solution is more likely to spring from the choice of the most appropriate principles than from exaggerated concentration on technical details. [1, p. 68] 12/14/2004 43

Embodiment Design The purpose of this phase is to determine the overall layout of a technical system in line with technical and economic criteria. [1, p. 68] The main steps of this phase are: 1. Preliminary Form Design, Material Selection and Calculation 2. Select Best Preliminary Layouts 3. Refine and Improve Layouts 4. Evaluate Against Technical and Economic Criteria Completing these steps results in the preliminary layout. It is often necessary to produce several preliminary layouts to scale simultaneously or successively in order to obtain more information about the advantages and disadvantages of the different variants. [1, p. 68] After developing the preliminary layout the next steps are: 1. Eliminate Weak Spots 2. Check for Errors, Disturbing Influences and Minimum Costs 3. Prepare the Preliminary Parts List and Production and Assembly Documents Completing these steps results in the definitive layout. Detail Design The purpose of this phase is to develop the specification of production. [1, p. 69] The main steps of this phase are: 1. Elaborate Detail Drawings and Parts Lists 2. Complete Production, Assembly, Transport and Operation Instructions 3. Check all Documents Completing these steps results in the product documentation and final solution This is the phase of the design process in which the arrangement, forms, dimensions and surface properties of all the individual parts are finally laid down, the materials specified, production possibilities assessed, costs estimated and all the drawings and other production documents produced. [1, p. 69] Difficulties frequently arise from a lack of attention to detail. [1, p. 69]

12/14/2004

44

Critical Evaluation of Base Method Regardless of context or position within a given design the importance of decisions in determining the progression of a given design remains paramount. In fact it is by means of decisions that resources are committed and progress is made. It is at decision points that designers converge and interact. Finally, it is through decisions that tacit expert knowledge and designer preferences are incorporated into a given design. Considering the importance of decisions in design in general , more attention should thus be paid to the means and methods used for making them. [3] Overall we believe the Pahl & Beitz method provides an excellent design process framework. The emphasis on solution neutrality, and the development of function and working structures before embodiment and adding detail is original and effective. However, in order to address my personal Question for the Semester, to enhance the existing method and enable its use in the distributed environment of 2020 changes and augmentations must be made. However, the Pahl and Beitz systematic design method currently does not address selection formally or systematically, although the method calls for selection at many steps in the design process. Selection is often required at the phase gates, the end of the iteration loop, and it is here vital decisions such as go/no-go or the selection of the most promising concept is chosen. If the four phase design process is highly defined, down to details on each step, the selection process also requires a rigorous and defined method. Without a defined process for selection, the foundation of the Pahl and Beitz method is weak, based on an undefined ad hoc system. We crafted our group Q4S in order to address this specific issue. The base Pahl and Beitz method flowchart [1] is shown in Figure 3.2. Selection is required in the clarification of task phase, the conceptual design phase, and the embodiment design phase. The red box highlights indicate decisions made on soft qualitative information; the blue box highlights indicate decision made using hard quantitative data. This constitutes a problem because the most important decisions are made using the least amount of information. The lack of information compounds the problem of good selection. We will now analyze the Pahl & Beitz method in general and then Phase my Phase to identify what areas need to be changed or added to answer our group Question for the Semester.

12/14/2004

45

[Fig 3.2] P&B Flowchart, selection steps highlighted

12/14/2004

46

Setting Initial Direction - Clarification of Task The design decisions made at the upstream of engineering practice affect all subsequent outcomes. Fine tuning in later stages of engineering operations often have marginal effects on the total outcome, and cannot certainly negate wrong decisions made in the conceptual stage of design. [7] It is the philosophy of Farrokh Mistree, Nam Suh, and our group that the clarification of task phase, posing the question, is the most important phase of design. Because this phase sets the course for the entire design process, starting in the right direction is crucial. To quote an ancient Chinese manual of war, What is the point of starting a 1000 mile journey if you start in the wrong direction? This quote embodies the concept of how important good selection is during the clarification of task phase.

[Fig 3.3] Clarification of Task The Pahl and Beitz clarification of task phase is shown in Figure 3.3. The third step in the phase is to find and select product ideas. This selection will dictate the development direction for the entire design, the market, and what type of product will be developed. If this selection is done poorly, it does not matter how good a product is developed, if the market entry is inappropriate the product will fail and the company will suffer economically because of it. Often in industry much effort and money is spent towards researching the market situation and polling customers as to their desires and needs. All of this research time and money is wasted if the analysis and selection using this data is poorly executed. This is a principle argument of George Hazelrigg [4], who argues it is the method applicability, not the data that causes poor selection.

12/14/2004

47

Selecting Concepts - Conceptual Design

[Fig 3.4] Conceptual Design The Pahl and Beitz conceptual design phase is shown in Figure 3.4. Selection is involved in two steps in this phase; combine and firm up into concept variants, and evaluate against technical and economic criteria. The first, combining working principles into concept variants requires the selection of functions to incorporate into the design variant. If this is done poorly, then the evaluation of the variants to find the principal solution will be using inferior design variants, and will result in an inferior solution no matter what is selected. More importantly, the evaluation against technical and economic criteria is the end of the phase, and acts as the phase gate. It is based on this selection and evaluation that it is decided if the project will continue, or if it is terminated. This means that the life of the project is literally in the hands of the selection of the most promising design concept, which is in turn dependent upon the selection and combination of the working principles. This is the most common point for project termination, before the larger expense of embodiment design, involving CAD work, and prototyping and testing the design.

12/14/2004

48

Selecting Layouts - Embodiment Desgin

[Fig 3.5] Embodiment Design The first half of the Pahl and Beitz embodiment design phase is shown in Figure 3.5. This phase also has two steps that involve selection, the selection of the best preliminary layouts, and evaluation against technical and economic criteria. Selection at this phase is now based on quantitative data, and the designers have more information about the design to use in selection. This allows for the use of more complex and rigorous selection methods in both steps, but this does not necessarily mean a better selection will be made if the method is not used correctly, or is inappropriate for the task. The problem is that the most important decisions have already been made using ad hoc methods and with no structure or guidance, and so in accordance with Suhs statement, there is little that the design team can do at this stage to negate any poor selections made further upstream in the design process. Now that we had addressed the shortcomings of the base Pahl and Beitz method, we can address how we will augment it to address these in order to answer our Question for the Semester. However, before we can directly augment the Pahl and Beitz method we must form supporting augmentations that enables the utilization of our proposed augmented method.

12/14/2004

49

External Augmentation
In augmenting the existing Pahl and Beitz process, by introducing further detail to the selection process, it will also be necessary to touch on certain external components of design. These include, but are not necessarily limited to: 1. Ethics 2. Distributed Communication 3. Automation Ethics Ethics in engineering goes beyond the realm of what is demanded of you, or expected of you as a professional, but also falls into the realm of what you should do. There is a standard of care that is expected of engineers, but the idea of ethics goes beyond even that. As an employer, or as a provider of skills you have responsibilities to the people you work for (your clients), to the environment, and to the people you work with and under (i.e. your boss, or company owner). Responsibility to Those youre working for: Well-publicized instances of engineering failures are often cited in engineering education as examples of engineers negligence. The notorious failures, however, may not be as relevant as those issues that befall typical engineers in everyday life. To that effect, we must define a standard of Care, which is to be the hallmark that all engineers must be mindful of. This standard of care represents the line between negligence and unavoidable or non-negligent error. While engineers have a duty to provide their services in a manner consistent with the standards of care of their professions (whether they are Structural, Environmental, or Mechanical Engineers) an engineers service need not be perfect. Perfection, regardless of how hard you try, is impossible. This is due mainly to the amount of unknown or uncontrollable factors that are commonplace to most engineering endeavors. This is where standards become important. Engineers must understand not only the benefits gained by a select group for whom the design is intended, but also the adverse effects a choice may have on others that do not benefit, or benefit on a limited bases, from that idea. 1. Before the Challenger tragedy, some of the engineers had argued that the flight should not go forward, but the interests of supervisory management prevailed. 2. The piercing, ear-damaging noise emitted by an ambulance helps speed patients to the hospital but is not good for bystanders. 3. Similarly, the noise of an airplane speeding passengers to a destination can be injurious to people living under the flight path.

12/14/2004

50

The question becomes, where do we draw the line. How do you weight benefit against potential harm? How do we insure that choices are made in a manner that limits potential error? Responsibility to Those youre Working With, or under: The responsibility we have to those we work with, and under are a bit vaguer. Where do the responsibilities to the individual end and the responsibility to the company as a whole begin? While there is the need to produce for your employer to your utmost, anything you do cannot go against your moral code, or set of standards. This is why a welldocumented and easily accessible set of standards must be made available to all employees. They must understand, above and beyond dress code, and expected work output, what is expected of them, and the types of decisions theyll be asked to make. In addition, past company decisions should be made available, and should have an easily identifiable pattern. The question of employee retention, education, training, benefits, family balance, vacation and salary are important, but again must be weighed against the financial well being of the company. Communication Communication is a key component of decisions and the methods by which they are made today, and the future brings even more dependence on a strong communication network. With businesses horizontally distributed over differing continents, or even just within the United States, the ability to properly hand-off decisions, attributes involved in making decisions, decision based criteria, or just the underlying requirements that make up the need for a decision must be available real time to all groups involved. Automation of Design Systems Another technological development, the many automated functions associated with a new product and the control and development of these systems, will become formalized in the future. Thus deciding upon control systems will become a requirement. Artificial intelligence would fall under this category and the selection of learning parameters; awareness of the surroundings and development protocols must be addressed. We believe that an automated expert system will be not only necessary, but also commonplace in the design environment of the future. These systems can include automated selection decision templates, House of Quality template systems, or simpler templates such as the title block of a CAD schematic. The integration of these systems will allow for quick access to any design tools needed, with only the essential minimum information input from the user. This streamlines the design process further by automating much of the low level processing and calculation work, leaving the design team to work at a higher conceptual level, improving team efficiency considerably. 12/14/2004

51

The focus of our project is upon selection methods, and their implementation. Our method can be integrated into a computer template expert system, and hence become even more streamlined in the future. Another advantage of utilizing a digital computer is the integration of communication abilities. This means that distributed engineers can each fill out their template, and these can be combined to determine the overall selection with respect to all members of the group. This would allow for distributed decisionmaking, which is currently very difficult and time consuming to accomplish. Integrated Software Data Exchange The concept of a worldwide network or WAN was introduced in our design and manufacturing vision of 2020. An important aspect of this that must be addressed is the exchange and interoperability of computer data. Today there is a degree of interoperability, but this is still limited to products of similar nature (text editors or CAD programs). Said systems will need to be improved upon in the future, to limit the effects of interpretation in the area of decision making, and selection. Integrated Hardware Communication In order to keep all distributed team members operating at maximum possible efficiency, all hardware must be able to communicate effectively. This again builds off of the World Area Network concept, allowing for any electronic device to be connected to any other in the world. This will require a common communication protocol, similar to Blue Tooth that was developed recently, to allow all PDAs, cellular phones, computers, and digital notebooks to exchange data. This will allow for an engineer on a project to always have access to whatever information they need. Although most work will be done using the digital notebooks or computers, if the engineer in out of the office, they can use their PDA and still retain almost all of their functionality. Information Depots In our envisioned world of 2020 information mass accumulation and sharing will occur. Currently there are many emerging and successfully established sites that deal with the accumulation and sharing of information. This information does not have to be centrally based; rather it could be a complied list of off-site resources, such as the site LexusNexus or other research sites. We also believe that information will be stored both on central servers, such as commercial data warehouses, selling access to their information, along with subscriber or free services that are linked lists of data, operating in a similar fashion to the Napster or Gnutella sharing systems. The Global Area Network enhances the impact of these data warehouses; a satellite based global access system, allowing users to connect in any location. Therefore remote engineers will never be without any data they need, as they will have instant access at all times though their digital notebook, PDA, or mobile phone.

12/14/2004

52

Each of these areas must be addressed in the future in order to allow for easier, more efficient decision making between globally disperse working groups. This is a requirement to limit the potential for liability involved in making incorrect decisions based on poor information sharing, selection criterias, or misunderstandings in need.

12/14/2004

53

Clarification of Task
Structure of Formalized MCDM Selection Process The structure of our proposed formalized MCDM selection process is based on a similar system to the Pahl and Beitz four phase system. We have therefore followed the four phases for the development of the process, which is outlined below. 1. Define the desired objectives or purposes that the MCDM techniques are to fulfill based on the requirements list for techniques. 2. Select Evaluation criteria that relate technique capabilities to objectives. 3. List and Specify MCDM techniques available for attaining the objective of modeling the multicriterion problem on hand through the use of the method attribute tree diagram. 4. Determine technique capabilities or the levels of performance of a technique with respect to the evaluation criteria be setting up and solving a multicriterion problem. 5. Construct an evaluation matrix (techniques vs criteria array), the elements of which represent the capabilities of alternative techniques in terms of the selected criteria (obtained in step 4). 6. Analyze the merits of the alternative MCDM techniques and select the most satisficing technique. 7. Application of the selected MCDM techique. 8. Verify that selection is indeed representative of the overall goal, and that it meets the established requirements set forth in the project requirements list. 9. Signing of decision by all members involved in process, ascertaining that they accept the responsibility of this decision and the resulting design path that is chosen. Steps 1-5 constitute the problem formulation procedure, while step 6 is the implementation of the MCDM technique selection. Step 7 will not be described in this section, but see the application of the method to the HVAC selection in section 4 of this report for a full example. Steps 8-9 are post selection processes, to check the results against the original goals and to ensure that the responsibility of the decision makers is understood. After this full process has been described we will show how it fits into the Pahl and Beitz Systematic Design method as an augmentation.

12/14/2004

54

Selection Methods Requirements List The formation of a selection methods requirements list is a two-step process. First the desired objectives of the selection must be defined. This is then used to determine the selection of the evaluation criteria used to determine the most applicable selection method. This is a very important step of the process, because is the high level direction for the selection is wrong, it does not matter if the implementation of the rest of the method is perfect, it will still give a meaningless result. Define Desired Objectives for Selection The process begins at the highest level, determining the overall goals of the selection process. This will be dependent upon the stage of the design process in which this method is being applied, or if it is being used as a stand alone tool. The first task of the user is to determine what kind of problem they are faced with. Decisions break down in the following manner:

Whether Decisions Which Decisions

Whether decisions do not require any comparison with alternatives, and their outcome does not affect other issues, making them essentially independent. These kind of problems often have a yes or no answer to them, and are therefore trivial and not in the scope of this method. Which decisions do involve comparison with alternatives, and are the focus of this project. Which decisions can be sub-divided into selection decisions and compromise decisions, which is discussed in the next section. Once it is determined that the problem is a Which decision and that indeed this process is applicable the user must determine what information they have available. This is important because it is used to determine which MCDM methods can be applied to their problem. This information should be written down and stored, formalizing the problem and associated information. This is important because real world problems are in a constant state of flux, and the variables and information are continually changing. This makes selection and applying MCDM methods very difficult. Through formalizing the information and freezing it, the proposed process is applicable. Once the formalization of the problem, the writing of the goals of the selection and the information available has been completed, it is time to move to the next step, selecting the evaluation criteria.

12/14/2004

55

Select Evaluation Criteria This is the second most important step after determining the overall high-level goals of the selection. The proper determination of the applicable evaluation criteria has a larger influence on the outcome of this MCDM selection process than any other individual factor. There are a huge number of criteria that a MCDM technique can be judged on, and it is the purpose of this project to help the user select what is appropriate for their specific problem. This selection process is a Whether decision, a yes or no choice of whether the criteria listed is applicable to their problem or not. This means that the use of a selection method to select these evaluation criteria is not necessary or applicable. However, these decisions are still entirely subjective and up to the decision maker to justify their preferences. This is important, because if this justification is not documented, there is no way to determine the preferences of the decision maker and following their logic to see if an error in judgment was made. The decision maker is not entirely alone in this selection. They can also look at previous work and applications of this process to determine what criterion they should use. This is described later after each of the evaluation criteria categories has been reviewed. The criteria relating to MCDM methods involves the assumptions made by a method, its information requirements, the decision situation, the solution needed, and the attributes of the people involved making the decision. These different criteria can be sorted into the following four categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. The characteristics of the decision maker (DM) or analyst involved The characteristics of the algorithm for solution The characteristics of the problem under consideration The nature of the obtainable satisficing solution

These have been abbreviated to: 1. 2. 3. 4. DM Related Method Related Problem Related Solution Related

Each of these categories has many criteria that can be considered. However, the selection of the most relevant criteria is important, and simply using every criteria in the selection is not the best approach. This is because the more criteria used, the more information is required for the selection. This information was set during the definition of the objectives, and may not be available or will require more time in order to collect. It will also place a higher computational burden on the user of the MCDM selection process. Finally, some criteria is not applicable to specific situations. This is important because

12/14/2004

56

the method employed for the selection is not perfect, and therefore the inclusion of excess criteria can interfere with the results slightly in some cases. Through research of many papers and their references, the following list of criteria was determined, divided into the appropriate categories. This criteria is general, in the same manner as the Pahl and Beitz method. It is up to the user of the process to personalize these criteria to their specific problem. This can also include adding new criteria if there is a pertinent issue that is not covered in this list. DM Related Characteristics The DM or analyst related categories reflect the DMs level of knowledge, ability, and willingness to utilize the criteria given. The choice of these characteristics is determined by the users previous experience with each MCDM method, as well as any other opinions or previous work they can obtain in order to make judgment. The DM related criteria are unrelated to any of the other characteristics and hence can be evaluated irrespectively of the characteristics of the problem under consideration. Therefore once these characteristics have been selected, weighted, and values determined, they can be used again by that DM without recalculation for any problem. DMs level of knowledge DMs desire to interface Time available of DM DMs actual knowledge Analysts skill DM's acceptance of method's assumptions DM's ability/willingness to provide 7 preference information required by method 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 DMs preference form Method Related Characteristics The Method related characteristics are also independent of the problem characteristics. Because of the subjective nature of the selection of characteristics and their associated weights and values (discussed later) it is important that each DM or analyst construct their own personal matrix relating MCDM techniques to the Method characteristics. Again because this is problem independent this matrix can be re-used for different future selection problems. 1 2 3 4 5 CPU Time required Implementation Time required Interaction Time required Number of parameters required Ease of use

12/14/2004

57

Computational Burden Ability to get efficient points Ease of coding Ability to handle qualitative criteria Ability to choose among discrete sets of 10 alternatives 6 7 8 9 Ability to choose among continuous sets of 11 alternatives 12 Ability to solve dynamic problems Ability to solve stochastic problems 13 (uncertainty) 14 Comparison with goal point 15 Comparison with aspiration level 16 Direct comparison 17 Strongly efficient solution 18 Complete ranking (ordinal) 19 Cardinal ranking 20 Ability to handle integer variables Decision makers level of knowledge 21 required 22 Applicability to case of group decision maker 23 Compensatory (handle tradeoffs) 24 Non-compensatory (cannot handle tradeoffs) Max. Number of alternatives and attributes 25 that can be considered and evaluated 26 Domain independent 27 Type of information elicited Problem Related Characteristics Another aspect to be considered is if a particular MCDM technique can be applied to perform the desired tasks required for the problem under consideration. Selection of applicable criteria in this category is most important, and requires that most understanding and knowledge of the DM. This is strongly linked to the establishment of the goal of the selection, for example does the DM want a complete rank ordering, or only a partial one? These considerations must be made before selecting characteristics. These problem related characteristics are independent of the DM or analyst, and therefore are will remain constant even if the team or person involved with the decision changes. 1 Handle qualitative data 2 Finite number of alternatives 3 Non-linear problem 12/14/2004 58

4 Number of attributes (size of problem) 5 Infinite number of alternatives 6 Dynamic problem 7 Handle integer data 8 Number of objectives 9 Number of systems 10 Number of constraints 11 Number of variables 12 Decision makers level of knowledge 13 Time available for interaction 14 Desire for interaction 15 Confidence in original preference structure 16 Plausibility 17 Problem Type 18 Flexibility of statement of problem Solution Related Characteristics The preference of one MCDM technique over another is a function of the results obtained from the use of that technique for the problem under consideration. The nature of the solution is described primarily by its uniqueness, reliability, and efficiency. Given these solution characteristics, the Dm or analyst must also have decent knowledge of the problem under consideration, and the results they are looking for from applying the various MCDM methods. This can be obtained from assessing solutions obtained from past problem applications. If this information is not available, it would be conceivable to apply more than MCDM technique for the purpose of completing an information record for future use so that it would not have to be done again. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Consistency of results Robustness of results DM Confidence in results Strength of efficient solution Number of solutions per alternative Usefulness of results of DM

Independence of Categories As noted in each of the four criteria categories, each category is independent of the others. This independence means that a database of evaluation matrices can be established and stored for re-use, saving time for future applications of this procedure. 1. DM Related The characteristics of the DM can be established and stored for each member of a team. This complete matrix will be the same for any problem, 12/14/2004 59

and only needs to be updated when the DM feels that they have acquired more skill or experience and will re-evaluate the matrix. 2. Method Related The characteristics of the method can be stored in a database along with the descriptions and previous applications of the various MCDM methods. This means that the characteristics of the MCDM methods has already been determined and can simply be re-used for future problems. If a new MCDM method is introduced then it must have its characteristics computed and added to the matrix database. 3. Problem Related These criteria relate to the tasks required of the problem. This matrix will therefore only have to be computed once for the problem, regardless of the changing of team members or the number of people involved in the decision. The re-use of this information is limited as it is specific to the task under consideration. 4. Solution Related The solution related characteristics should be stored in the database with the method related characteristics as examples of solution characteristics for specific problems. Because these characteristics are partially dependent upon the problem, they cannot directly be re-used without judgment if the problem under consideration is similar to the problem what the matrix was evaluated for. However, examples are used to determine the values of the matrix later, and therefore the results will be useful even if not directly applicable. Justification of Criteria After the DM or team has determined the criteria they will use to evaluate and select the MCDM method for the problem this decision must be justified. This is for the purpose of being able to follow a decision, and understand why the selection occurred as it did. Because this is a subjective process, all preferences should be made explicit. In order to accomplish this our group has proposed the following sign off lists and form shown at the end of Section 3. The completion of this form ensures that all criteria have been considered, gives a brief justification of what was included or not, and a signature establishing the responsibility of the person involved with the decisions.

12/14/2004

60

Phase Checklist Using the same idea as the Pahl and Beitz systematic method, we will employ a phase gate after each section to determine that each step of the process has been completed. Phase Checklist: Clarification of Task 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Have all the group, project, market and exterior influences been analyzed? Have high-level selection ideas been discussed, and documented? Has the project task been properly clarified? Have the essential problems been abstracted? Has an elaborate criteria list been documented?

Result = A criteria list Per the summary criteria posed above, we have completed this phase of work and are now able to move on to the next phase of work.

12/14/2004

61

Conceptual Design
Determine available Techniques It must be understood that the method chosen for making a decision is not just a matter of preference, but can directly affect the outcome and can give you an entirely different result. So the question becomes, what is the right method? There is no single right method for every situation, but there is a right starting point the decision you have to make. The choice of a decision method depends on the kind of decision you are trying to make. Most decisions are "whether" decisions or "which" decisions. "Whether" Decisions If you are trying to decide whether to dismiss an employee "for cause", or whether to split the company stock, or whether customers like a new package design for a product, then you have a "whether" decision. "Whether" decisions usually have binary solutions:

Yes or no, Up or down, Guilty or innocent.

They are also called non-comparative decisions because the decision does not require comparison with similar issues or situations, and the outcome does not directly affect any other issue. Example: If you dismiss an employee for cause (a "whether" decision), the decision is unaffected by that person's performance compared with other employees, nor does it directly effect any other employee. "Which" Decisions If you are trying to decide which issue is more important, or which person should be promoted, or which skill is the most important to train, then you have a "which" decision. "Which" decisions have multiple outcomes greater than 2. They are also called comparative decisions because each outcome must be compared with all the others to decide "which" one of them is the right choice. Example: If you intend to promote 1 of 3 candidates to an executive position, each candidate must be compared with each of the others, one of whom is promoted, and 2 who are denied promotion, and may choose to leave the company. Within the realm of the which decision you have two distinct categories:

Selection decision: which can be solved with the MADM family of methods, Compromise decision: which can be solved with the MODM family of methods

In the case of the selection problem, one is making a choice between a finite number of alternatives and must choose the most relevant one, while taking into account the diverse

12/14/2004

62

attributes. Solving a compromise problem consists in taking an initial alternative and improving it through modifications. With this understanding, it is possible to steer decision makers, based on the types of situations they find themselves in:
Delphi, direct notation, pairwise comparison methods, cost benefit analysis...

Whether/Mono-criterion

Optimization Methods

Selection

MADM

Which/Multi-criteria Methods and Tools

Compromise

MODM

Other Methods

DSPT, Robust methods, Simulation methods, Cost predictive methods, FMECA, Pareto diagram, Ishikawa diagram, Value analyssi, QFD, Monte-Carlo simulation, Expert system, Fuzzy logic based methods, Statistical based methods....

[Fig 3.6] - Method & Tools Tree Diagram

12/14/2004

63

Breaking out the MADM methods provides:

Dominance No Information Maximin Maximax Conjunctive Standard levels Disjunctive Direct assignment Least square Weight assignment Eigenvector Entropy MITA MADM Lexicographic Simple Weighting TOPSIS Weight given beforehand Linear assignment Relative position estimation ELECTRE AHP Weight given beforehand LIMAP pairwise comparisons of all attributes Definition of ideal and negative ideal points Ranking of all attributes Appropriate comparisons of attributes

MADM Method Usage Tree

Pairwise comparison of all attributes

pairwise comparisons of all alternatives and attributes pairwise comparisons and ideal points Ranking of a subset of alternatives

Weight to be generated

UTA

Local utility function

ILUTA

Pairwise comparisons of some alternatives

Implicit utility function

EDMCM

Pairwise comparisons and trade-off questions

[Fig 3.7] - MADM Tree Diagram

12/14/2004

64

While the MODM methods break out as such:

Parametric

MODM Method Usage Tree

Epsilon-constraints Efficient solution generation (A posteriori articulation of preference)

Implicit trade-off

Non-inverior set generation

MOLP

Envelop

A priori articulation of preference information

Ordinal

Lexicographic Utility function

MADM

Cardinal

Ideal points

Goal programming

STEM Displaced ideal point Implicit trade-off SEMOPS ISTM Iteractive (Articiulation of preference information made progressively)

Geoffrion Interactive surrogate worth trade-off Explicit trade-off Interactive goal programming Zionts-Wallennius REISTM

[Fig 3.8] - MODM Tree Diagram

12/14/2004

65

Descriptions of the above mentioned methods can be found in Section 2b. In all of these cases, and many more, finding out whether something is important is less of an issue than identifying which is more important given our current constraints. Only the comparative methods can reliably provide us with the data for difficult comparative decisions. The reality of today's decision making is that we must work harder to ensure that our decisions are reflected in our strategies for data gathering. If we are not clear about the decisions we are trying to make from the data we gather, we will persist in asking inappropriate questions, and assembling them into inappropriate questionnaires. Selection of Appropriate MDCM Methods Following the tree diagrams given above as they branch out will give various applicable MCDM methods for the problem under consideration. This is accomplished through starting at the bottom of the tree, and determining the most appropriate branch to follow at each junction. This may result in a single method, but will most likely lead to a variety of applicable MCDM methods. This is only to be used to narrow the focus of the available MCDM techniques, not determine the method to be used, this has been tried before and found to be inappropriate in work done by MacCrimmon (1973). After the tree diagram has been used to determine the techniques applicable to the problem, the DM must determine if the techniques are applicable by the users. This is another Whether decision, and is simply if the suggested method is known and can be applied, is unknown but is worth learning, or would required too much time and resources to be considered. Justification The team or DM does not have to justify their path through the MCDM tree, it is assumed that they can determine the correct path to follow and this process is not subjective, however the selection step does require justification. After the DM or team has determined the MCDM techniques they will consider and select during the MCDM selection process this decision must be justified. This is for the purpose of being able to follow a decision, and understand why the selection occurred as it did. Because this is a subjective process, all preferences should be made explicit. In order to accomplish this our group has proposed the following sign off lists and form shown at the end of Section 3. The completion of this form ensures that all criteria have been considered, gives a brief justification of what was included or not, and a signature establishing the responsibility of the person involved with the decisions.

12/14/2004

66

Construction of Matrices After the selection of the applicable MCDM evaluation criteria and MCDM techniques from the previous two steps, the evaluation matrix can be constructed. However, before this can be completed some more details must be established to aid in the selection process. Weighting of Characteristics Every criterion in each of the four characteristics groups: DM related, method related, problem related, and solution related must be given a weight representative of its relative importance in the group. This weighting cannot be arbitrary, and must be carefully considered based on the DMs preferences and experiences, combined with evaluation of previous results of this MCDM selection process application. These weightings can use any scale the DM desires so long as it is justified and explained, however we suggest using a 1 to 5 scale as it fits the relative weighting very well. If it is determined that a finer resolution is required or that there is a larger difference of weightings are required we suggest a re-evaluation of the criteria used. This is because if some criteria are not very applicable, they should not be included rather than being given a very low weighting. An example of weighting different criteria for the method related characteristics is ease of coding versus number of parameters required. We would suggest weighting ease of coding much higher than number of parameters required because based on our experience it is much more difficult to understand and use a technique that has a complex execution and calculations than one that requires a lot of input data, which is simply more time consuming. Justification After the DM or team has determined the weightings they will apply to each of the characteristics this decision must be justified. This is for the purpose of being able to follow a decision, and understand why the selection occurred as it did. Because this is a subjective process, all preferences should be made explicit. In order to accomplish this our group has proposed the following sign off lists and form shown at the end of Section 3. The completion of this form ensures that all criteria have been considered, gives a brief justification, and a signature establishing the responsibility of the person involved with the decisions.

12/14/2004

67

Evaluate Matrices The evaluation matrices are constructed with the available MCDM selection methods along the top, and the different criteria and weighting along the left edge for each of the four criterion as shown the examples below. DM Evaluation Matrix Alternative MCDM Techniques
Criteria DMs level of knowledge DMs desire to interface Time available to DM DMs actual knowledge Analysts Skill Weight 4 3 3 2 1 1 4 9 10 9 10 2 3 9 10 7 9 3 6 10 8 8 8 4 5 8 8 10 7 5 6 5 5 9 6 6 3 7 3 6 7 7 4 8 2 5 6 8 7 9 9 10 4 9 9 8 9 8 3 10 5 6 7 7 6

The DM or analyst related criteria are meat to reflect the DMs or analysts level of knowledge and willingness to utilize these criteria. Evaluation of each of the matrix cells is made using a subjective scale of 1 to 10 that must be explicitly defined and explained. In the case above, and the system our group suggests, 1 represents the worst case, where that MCDM method does not meet the requirement at all, and 10 the best case, where the best possible performance that can be attributed to the particular technique is obtained. Method Evaluation Matrix Alternative MCDM Techniques
Criteria CPU time required No. of parameters required Ease of use Computational burden Ability to get effective points Ease of coding Weight 3 2 4 4 5 4 1 6 9 8 6 8 8 2 4 9 7 5 9 9 3 4 7 6 7 9 6 4 7 7 8 7 1 7 5 4 8 9 4 8 8 6 3 7 7 4 6 7 7 8 4 9 9 6 9 8 10 5 7 8 4 7 9 6 7 7 8 5 7 10 7 7 8 7 8 6

The method evaluation matrix represents the application of each method in relation to its use by the DM or analyst. Therefore the same scale as used in the DM related characteristics evaluation should be used to the method applicability criteria. Again this is a 1 to 10 scale with the same characteristics, 1 being the worst applicability, and 10 the 12/14/2004 68

best possible performance from a method. Because of the subjective nature of these evaluations, each DM should fill out their own version of this matrix evaluation. This is because each analyst or DM is going to consider the same methods many times and this allows for data re-use as noted previously. Problem Evaluation Matrix Alternative MCDM Techniques
Criteria Handle qualitative data Finite No. of alternatives Non-linear problem Problem size Infinite No. of alternatives Dynamic problem Handle integer data Weight 5 4 3 3 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 5 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 7 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 8 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 9 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 10 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

The problem evaluation matrix is supposed to model is a particular technique can be applied to perform certain tasks corresponding to the criteria selected. Evaluation of the applicability of the techniques with respect to the problem related criteria is made using a yes or no response. This corresponds to a 0 or 1 answer, with 0 meaning no and 1 meaning yes for computational purposes. Different scales between the matrices is acceptable because of the computational aggregation routine employed, described later. As stated previously, these responses are based on the DM and analysiss experience in applying the techniques as well as previous work done by others. Solution Evaluation Matrix Alternative MCDM Techniques
Criteria Consistency of results Robustness of results Usefulness of results to DM Confidence of results Strength of effective solution No. of solutions in each alternative Weight 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 8 8 6 7 7 9 2 6 6 7 6 9 5 3 9 9 8 8 7 7 4 7 7 5 5 2 9 5 8 7 6 5 5 7 6 10 8 9 3 4 7 7 7 7 8 6 3 3 8 4 8 8 6 3 3 9 5 9 8 5 4 4 10 7 6 6 5 5 6

12/14/2004

69

The solution evaluation matrix determines the preference of one MCDM technique over another as a function of the nature of the solution to be obtained. A subjective scale requiring definition is required again, and it is suggested that the same scale as used in the first two matrices be employed again. However, this time during the evaluation more information is required of the DM about both the methods to be employed and the problem. This is where the previous results from application of methods and their problems stored in the database can be used to aid the DM in the completion of this evaluation matrix. Justification Because completing a justification of every matrix value would be absurd, the only justification required is that of the scale utilized. The yes-no scale of the problem related evaluation matrix does not require justification or definition. If one scale is utilized for the other three matrices as shown above only one scale explanation and justification is required. This is for the purpose of being able to follow a decision, and understand why the selection occurred as it did. Because this is a subjective process, all preferences should be made explicit. In order to accomplish this our group has proposed the following sign off lists and form shown at the end of Section 3. The completion of this form ensures that all criteria have been considered, gives a brief justification, and a signature establishing the responsibility of the person involved with the decisions. Phase Checklist: Conceptual Design 1. Have appropriate MCDM techniques been identified and selected? 2. Have weights justifying the relative importance of selection criteria been applied? 3. Have the four evaluation matrices been evaluated thoroughly? Result = A complete MCDM method evaluation matrix Per the summary criteria posed above, we have completed this phase of work and are now able to move on to the next phase of work.

12/14/2004

70

Embodiment Design
Analyze and Select the Technique The sequential steps taken during this process to select MCDM processes can be lumped into two stages, problem formulation and problem solution. The previous steps comprise the problem formulation and this step is the problem solution. This is the most technically difficult but least important stage of the process, its computational burden is high but cognitive burden is low. Because the problem of selecting an appropriate MCDM technique itself is a multicriterion problem, the MCDM selection process could theoretically be applied to this problem also. However, this would create a paradoxical cyclical process, and no progress could be made. This does not mean that an arbitrary selection technique should be chosen either though. In the case of selection of MCDM techniques, the problem is fixed, and therefore once an applicable method is found it can always be applied to this selection problem. Through research we have found that the composite programming selection technique is very applicable to this selection problem. Although there are limitations to this technique as discussed by George Hazelrigg in his paper [4], it meets the needs and constraints of our selection problem. The problems Hazelrigg has identified with the programming method are: 3. The method should permit the comparison of design alternatives under conditions of uncertainty and with risky outcomes, including variability in manufacture, materials, etc., which pervade all of engineering design This is not of concern and uncertainty is not in the scope of this project, and currently very few selection methods can cope with uncertainty in decisions. 9. The method should be such that obtaining clairvoyance on any uncertainty with respect to any alternative must not make the decision situation less attractive (information is always beneficial). Again this is dealing with uncertainty. Our selection of information at the beginning of this process freezes the dynamic problem and removes uncertainty for the scope of this method. Although this is an assumption and does not accurately reflect reality, the overall application of this process is still very beneficial. Through the selection of evaluation criteria in the second step this point should be a non issue if done correctly, as only the information required will be used, and any more information should not affect the results if the choice of criteria was performed well.

12/14/2004

71

Applying the Selection Technique There are two steps to this analysis. The first is the solution of each of the four evaluation criterion matrices separately, and the second is the combination of these results into a final solution. An algorithm that fulfills this requirement well is the composite programming MCDM technique proposed by Tecle in 1988 [6]. We have augmented the process for the needs of this project. This algorithm is an extension of compromise programming (Basdossy et al. 1985), and is adapted here to perform the two level tradeoff required. Evaluation of Individual Matrices At this first level, different Lp-norms are applied to seek a compromise within each of the four criterion groups. This produces a ranking of the MCDM techniques under consideration. The Lp-norms, k for each of the k (k = 1,,4) aggregated criterion groups are:

* dik dijk Ik k = i =1 ki * ** d d ik ik
Where:

[Eq 3.1] Lp Norm Calculation

* **

dik is the maximum of dijk over alternatives j = 1,,J and dik is the minimum of dijk .

ki is the weight associated with criterion i (i = 1,,Ik) in group k (k = 1,,4).

The overall composite goal function, G for the MCDM technique selection problem can be written as:

G = k =1 kk
K

[Eq 3.2] Lp Norm Aggregation Where:

k is the average of the weighting functions in each set k

12/14/2004

72

Applying this formula and ranking an example for the DM criterion matrix yields:
MCDM Methods 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 6 3 4 7 9 5 9 5 5 7 3 6 7 8 2 9 9 8 9 8 3 6 7 7 6 3 7 7 6

Criteria DMs level of knowledge DMs desire to interface Time available to DM DMs actual knowledge Analysts Skill

Weight 4 3 3 2 1

1 4 9

2 3 9

3 6 10 8 8 8

4 5 8 8

12 2 2 5 4 7

13 4 5 6 7 5

14 4 5 6 9 8

15 9 8 8 7 6

10 10 9 10 7 9

10 9 7 6

5 10 6 4

Normalized Results 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

2.857 3.429 1.714 2.286 1.714 3.429 2.857 1.143 0.000 2.286 0.000 4.000 2.857 2.857 0.000 0.375 0.375 0.000 0.750 1.875 1.125 0.750 0.375 0.750 1.500 2.625 3.000 1.875 1.875 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.750 1.875 2.625 3.000 0.375 0.375 1.125 1.125 1.875 1.500 1.500 0.750 0.333 1.000 0.667 0.000 0.333 1.333 1.667 0.000 0.667 1.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 0.333 1.000 0.000 0.143 0.286 0.429 0.571 0.429 0.571 0.857 1.000 0.571 0.571 0.429 0.714 0.286 0.571 Value 3.565 4.946 3.417 4.214 6.369 8.940 8.845 2.750 2.792 6.482 5.321 11.304 7.946 6.851 3.071 Rank 5 7 4 6 9 14 13 1 2 10 8 15 12 11 3

After each of the four individual criteria evaluation matrices has been evaluated the overall function is computed, resulting in an overall rank ordering of all of the MCDM techniques. However this alone is not enough. A sensitivity analysis must also be conducted to determine the stability of the results, and the final results themselves must be questioned to see if they make sense.

12/14/2004

73

Sensitivity Analysis For our proposed method we suggest using a sensitivity analysis of adding 5% and 10% to the values of the top method, and then subtracting 5% and 10% and repeating. This will give a general look at the sensitivity of the top selection. However, if there is a specific criterion that has a much higher weighting than the rest, it is worth an investigation of changing the values involving that weighting to determine the effects on the overall ranking obtained at the end. Examples of this sensitivity analysis are shown below. Changing the highest weighting value:
4 Value 3.57 4.941 3.4 4.2 6.35 8.923 8.82 2.715 4.21 6.46 Rank 4 7 3 5 9 14 13 1 6 10 Value 2.85 4.083 2.98 3.63 5.92 8.066 8.11 2.429 4.082 5.89 3 Rank 2 7 3 5 10 13 14 1 6 9 3 4.339 7.03 5 Value 4.28 5.798 3.83 4.77 6.77 9.78 9.54 Rank 4 8 3 6 9 14 13 1 5 10 5.3 8 5.3 8 5.3 7 11.29 7.92 6.84 3.05 15 12 11 2 10.29 7.2 6.13 3.05 15 12 11 4 12.29 8.63 7.55 3.05 15 12 11 2

It is evident from this analysis that the top method is not dependent upon the highest weighted criterion to obtain its rank and instead is strong across all criteria. Changing the top ranked MCDM method:
10% Value Rank Value 5% Rank Value -5% Rank -10% Value Rank -15% Value Rank 3.7 5 3.63 5 3.57 5 3.57 4 3.57 4 5.018 3.69 4.43 6.66 9.025 9 7 4 6 9 14 13 4.984 3.56 4.33 6.52 8.984 8.93 7 4 6 9 14 13 4.943 3.41 4.21 6.36 8.931 8.83 7 3 6 9 14 13 4.941 3.4 4.2 6.35 8.923 8.82 7 3 5 9 14 13 4.938 3.4 4.19 6.33 8.915 8.81 7 3 5 9 14 13 3.114 1.888 6.7 5.8 2 1 10 8 2.941 2.34 6.6 5.58 2 1 10 8 2.732 3.501 6.47 5.31 1 4 10 8 2.715 4.21 6.46 5.3 1 6 10 8 2.698 4.919 6.45 5.29 1 6 10 8 11.32 15 11.31 15 11.29 15 11.29 15 11.28 15 8.11 12 8.03 12 7.93 12 7.92 12 7.9 12 6.99 11 6.93 11 6.85 11 6.84 11 6.83 11 3.55 3 3.33 3 3.06 2 3.05 2 3.04 2

This has more of an effect, adding to the top ranked method changed its ranking from first to second. However, detracting from its values did not change its ranking. This would then require more detailed consideration between the two MCDM methods to determine the overall selection. After this has been completed the overall selection has been made the method can be applied. The final steps are to then check that the applied MCDM method result meets

12/14/2004

74

the goals of the project, and makes sense. Lastly all team members involved sign any remaining documentation justifying their part in the decision process. Phase Checklist: Embodiment Design 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Have the evaluation matrices been completed thoroughly? Has the first computation routine been evaluated? Has the second aggregation routine been evaluated? Has a sensitivity analysis been completed? Do the final results make sense in regards to the overall goals and objectives of the selection?

Result = The most applicable MCDM technique for the problem Per the summary criteria posed above, we have completed this phase of work and are now able to move on to the next phase of work.

12/14/2004

75

Detail Design
Form Development As described in the preceding sections, forms have been developed such that the progress and responsibilities during the MDCM selection process can be tracked. These forms are shown below: Criteria Justification Form: Criteria Included? Explanation 9 DMs level of knowledge 9 DMs desire to interface Time available of DM Time is not an issue in this project, long term. x I accept the above as my work and the responsibilities that this incurs. Name Signature Date A. Engineer MCDM Technique Justification Form: Technique Included? Explanation 9 Composite Programming 9 Selection DSP Compromise DSP Team has no experience with technique x I accept the above as my work and the responsibilities that this incurs. Name Signature Date A. Engineer Matrix Value Scale Justification Form: Value 10 9 1 Explanation The best possible performance obtained through MCDM technique MCDM technique does not satisfy criteria at all

12/14/2004

76

Matrix Weighting Scale Justification Form: Weight 5 1 Ethics Ethics require premise, and this is always influenced by the individual values of the people involved. These values come from an individuals family, culture, religion, government, and other influences. It is design decisions involving ethical issues that distributed teams will encounter difficulties regarding cultural differences. Ethics can be implemented in a systematic design process, creating a framework for ethics in design. This is in the form of a responsibility sign-off stage, where at different points the decision makes accept the responsibility of their actions, as well as being included at the beginning of a team contract or project contract, to ensure that all members are on the same page regarding ethics. There currently is a difference in responsibility that already exists between Mechanical Engineering and Civil Engineering. If a product designed by a mechanical engineer fails, the consequences and responsibility is placed on the company that designed the product. The internal dealings of the blame then occur privately within the company. If a structure designed by a civil engineer fails, the engineer is directly responsible. Although this is compounded by large team projects, if decisions are signed off with acceptance of responsibility, failure analysis can determine those engineers responsible We feel that each team members responsibility needs to be made explicit. This will be accomplished though the signing of acceptance of responsibility. This is the acceptance of responsibility for their role in the decision, and understanding of the team and companies' responsibilities as well. This is to ensure that all engineers involved are aware of their responsibility and place throughout the project. Individual Each individual should understand that they are ultimately responsible for every decision they sign off on, every part they design, and every calculation they make. Although they are working as part of a team, though following of the sign off sheets their influence on the design can be traced. This is not meant to intimidate the engineers, but make them aware that they should take pride in their work, and that they will be recognized for it if it is of high quality and rewarded, or reprimanded if it is poor. Explanation By far most important consideration Criterion barely requires consideration

12/14/2004

77

Team It is the responsibility of the team to function as a group and ensure that all components of the design are of high quality and integrity. If a problem is traced to a groups work, they will all be held accountable, as well as the individuals responsible. This is because it is a teams job to support each other, and check each others work. If problems were able to slip though, either all members of the team were incompetent, or the group was not functioning correctly as a team, and were not supporting each other. Company The company has the overall responsibility. The company will externally deal with the consequences of the work of its engineers, however they are dealt with internally. This is important, because if a multi-million dollar lawsuit is placed on an individual engineer and their families for a work related mistake, their lives will be destroyed. It is also the companies responsibility to hire competent engineers, and to ensure that its current employees are still competent. This is again where the team support and management comes it. If the structure of the company is working correctly, incompetent work should never be part of any of the companys projects. Although this is great in theory, if a problem should occur, it is important that each employee knows where they stand, where their team stands, and how their company will deal with them. Phase Checklist Phase Checklist: Detail Design 1. Have the subjective evaluations been made explicit and formalized? 2. Have all errors, or potentials for errors been determined? Result = The justification of the selection of the most applicable MCDM technique Per the summary criteria posed above, we have completed this phase of work and are now able to move on to the next phase of work.

12/14/2004

78

Integration into Pahl and Beitz

Integrating this proposed process for selecting and applying the most applicable MCDM method can be performed at any of the highlighted steps of the Pahl and Beitz flowchart shown below in [Fig 3.6]. This flowchart represents our augmented Pahl and Beitz method, the highlighted selection steps refer to the application of the process outlined in this entire section rather than arbitrarily applying a selection method the user is familiar with.

[Fig 3.6] Pahl and Beitz Flowchart, selection steps highlighted

12/14/2004

79

This process is applicable at any phase or step because no matter if the decision is being made using hard or soft information the process is general, and will determine the most applicable method. This means that separate considerations for the different parts of the design process do not have to be made. This is the strength of the proposed method, its generality to be included as an augmentation to selection in the Pahl and Beitz design process or as a stand-alone selection tool.

12/14/2004

80

Section 4: HVAC Application of Augmented Pahl and Beitz

Clarification of Task
Introduction The purpose of this project is to develop a process for the systematic selection and application of the most appropriate MCDM technique for a given problem. The method developed has been described in detail in the previous section. We will now show the utility of this method through its application to Nathan Rolanders thesis research project. The sub-task assigned to him is the selection of HVAC equipment for a test data center facility. Because this process only involves the selection of HVAC equipment, much of the Pahl and Beitz process is not applicable. For this reason we will use the clarification of task phase to clarify the project goals and determine the requirements of the HVAC equipment to be utilized during the application of the chosen selection method. After this has been completed we will employ a limited conceptual design phase involving the research of applicable CRAC units and their specifications. The final phase will be the embodiment, where we apply the process described in Section 3 and make the final CRAC unit selection. This selection is based on the hard data that is acquired during the conceptual design phase, and therefore places this selection in the embodiment phase and not conceptual phase. Task Analysis Determine Goals of Project The goal of Nathan's research is to develop optimal Data Center layouts using experimentally validated models. The first stage of this research is to establish a test facility to validate the computational models that will then be used during optimization. To fit in this project with ME6101, the selection method process proposed in our group Q4S will be tested by selecting the most suitable HVAC equipment for the test Data Center. This forms a multi-objective selection problem, that will work well as a test of the utility of our groups proposed process and answer to your group Question for the Semester.

12/14/2004

81

Geometry Constraints To begin with we have limited space with which to place our CRAC units. Not just vertical, but horizontally we are constrained by how big our system can be. Also, we must take into account the fact that we will be simulating 28 racks. These alone will take up a great deal of space. The below layout provides a high level understanding of our geometric constraints:

16' - 1"

Down Flow

Down Flow

2' - 0"

40' - 0"

Up Flow

Up Flow

26' - 0"

Down Flow

Floor Plan

12/14/2004

Down Flow

82

Heat Rejection & Flow Constraints The CRAC units must be capable of maintaining constant room temperature of seventy two degrees Celsius under maximum possible heat load. Utilizing 28 racks @ 20kW per rack this equates to 560kW of thermal energy plus the heat load of the CRAC units themselves. There are some dynamic tolerances allowed, or plus or minus two degrees Celsius. This is to simulate the requirements of a real data center facility, where cool temperatures are required for optimal computer system performance. In addition to space requirements, data centers are usually low-people-density areas where there is little latent heat rejection. A central system for makeup air should be provided to keep the data center slightly pressurized relative to adjacent spaces. In a data center, the presence of any more than a trace of water in condensate drains is an indication of wasted energy and reduced cooling capacity. This requires the use of a dehumidifier unit, and an industry standard 45% humidity level, plus or minus ten percent. Due to the testing requirements of this project, we must also be capable of transferring between upflow, and downflow, as necessary, and on the fly. As shown in the above floor plan, this will facilitate the need for several different CRAC units, rather than just a single variety (upflow vs. downflow). A caveat of this requirement is that we must also utilize units from more than one vendor, as we have several groups supporting this project.

12/14/2004

83

Requirements List The requirements list for our HVAC, or CRAC system is included below in [Fig 4.1]. Individual requirements are organized under a set of checklist headings that cover various product attributes. Because our problem involves selecting from a variety of products, it was important to ensure no requirements of the base product were lost. This list will undergo steady growth as we determine other constraints not previously made available to us in initial meetings. The requirements list is organized with a brief problem statement and diagram at the top for identification. Within the requirements list, all requirements are listed under their respective heading and are labeled as either demands (D) or wishes (W). Demands are requirements that must be met before a given design may be accepted. Requirements that are wishes need to be considered whenever possible unless their satisfaction compromises demands or more important requirements. The manner in which various design concepts fulfill the wishes will influence the evaluation process.

12/14/2004

84

This brings us to our base requirements list for the HVAC units: ME 6101 Problem Statement: Requirements List for HVAC Schematic: Assigned 09/28/03

Select an HVAC system capable of efficiently cooling a 1,000 ft2 Data Center

Updated 10/11/03

D/W
D D D

Requirements
Geometry: Height must be no greater than 13 feet Depth must be no greater than 3.5 feet Width must be no greater than 7 feet (unless increased cooling capacity justifies) Units must be configured away from walls, to allow for servicing. Energy: As a whole, the CRAC system must be capable of cooling a 988 ft2 facility, containing 28 racks @ 20kW per rack (560kW), plus the heat distribution from the CRACs themselves (~95kW per unit), to a constant temperature of 720 + 20F. CRAC system must be capable of keeping the lab at a relative humidity of 45% + 10% Kinematics: CRAC units must be capable of Up-Flow, or Down-Flow Assembly: CRAC units must be adjustable (going form Up to DownFlow) Signals: Facility conditions must be measurable at all times. This includes temperature, humidity, air quality and peak vs. average values. Supplier: At least one unit must be utilized from the following suppliers: APC and Liebert.

Responsibility
Design Team Members

D D W D

[Fig 4.1] HVAC Requirements List

12/14/2004

85

Phase Checklist: Product Planning And Clarification of Task 1. 2. 3. 4. Have all the group, project, and exterior influences been analyzed? Have high-level selection ideas been discussed, and documented? Has the project task been properly clarified? Has an elaborate requirements list been documented?

Result = A requirements list Per the summary criteria posed above, we have completed this phase of work and are now able to move on to the next phase of work.

12/14/2004

86

Conceptual Design
HVAC Attention Direction The conceptual design phase of this project is entirely data gathering based. Our group went and researched specifications for the various CRAC units that could be utilized in the data center. Data Center Cooling Systems Data center cooling systems consist of two units, the CRAC units that are placed within the facility and a chiller that is located externally to the building supplying coolant (water or ethylene glycol) to the CRACs. This external liquid chiller is required for high heat loads, such as those required of the data center lab. No selection is required for the chiller unit. This is because there are no constraints on the selection of the chiller unit, only that it be able to supply the necessary flow volume of coolant. This means that it is a single objective selection problem, and it is trivial to select an appropriate unit from a catalog. Therefore this investigation will pertain to the selection of the interior CRAC units, which constitute a constrained multi-objective selection problem. CRAC Unit Specifications Through the literature research of various CRAC equipment given in the Appendix, the following list of CRAC unit specifications must be considered in regards to fulfilling the requirements laid out by the requirements list: 1. Manufacturing company 2. Upflow/Downflow capability 3. Cooling Specifications a. Total Cooling Capacity (kW) b. Sensible Cooling Capacity (kW) c. Flow Rate d. Pressure Drop e. Humidifier capacity f. Cooling fluid used 4. Physical Specifications a. Weight b. Height c. Length d. Depth

12/14/2004

87

Phase Checklist: Conceptual Design 4. 5. 6. 7. Have the essential problems been abstracted? Have working principles been identified? Have the principle selection variants been firmed up Have said variants been evaluate against technical and logistic criteria?

Result = A solid concept

12/14/2004

88

Embodiment Design
Selecting the MCDM Method In order to make the best selection of CRAC equipment for the data center facility, we will employ our augmented Pahl and Beitz method developed in this project. This process is outlined below. 1. Define the desired objectives or purposes that the MCDM techniques are to fulfill based on the requirements list for techniques. 2. Select Evaluation criteria that relate technique capabilities to objectives. 3. List and Specify MCDM techniques available for attaining the objective of modeling the multicriterion problem on hand through the use of the method attribute tree diagram. 4. Determine technique capabilities or the levels of performance of a technique with respect to the evaluation criteria be setting up and solving a multicriterion problem. 5. Construct an evaluation matrix (techniques vs criteria array), the elements of which represent the capabilities of alternative techniques in terms of the selected criteria (obtained in step 4). 6. Analyze the merits of the alternative MCDM techniques and select the most satisficing technique. 7. Application of the selected MCDM technique. 8. Verify that selection is indeed representative of the overall goal, and that it meets the established requirements set forth in the project requirements list. 9. Signing of decision by all members involved in process, ascertaining that they accept the responsibility of this decision and the resulting design path that is chosen.

12/14/2004

89

1. Define the desired objectives or purposes that the MCDM techniques are to fulfill based on the requirements list for techniques. This first step has already been accomplished as we are making this selection in the embodiment design process. We have also frozen the problem through researching the CRAC literature and setting the problem statement. This means that we are ready to move on to the second step. 2. Select Evaluation criteria that relate technique capabilities to objectives. We must now determine which criteria is applicable for choosing the most applicable technique for selecting the CRAC equipment. This is accomplished using the forms laid out in the previous section. Included DM Related Criteria DMs level of knowledge 9 DMs desire to interface x Time available of DM 9 DMs actual knowledge x Analysts skill x DM's acceptance of method's 9 assumptions DM's ability/willingness to provide preference information 9 required by method DMs preference form x Justification Group Project Not applicable No Analyst required

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Not applicable

Method Related Criteria Included 1 CPU Time required x 2 Implementation Time required 9 3 Interaction Time required x 4 Number of parameters required 9 5 Ease of use 9 6 Computational Burden x 7 Ability to get efficient points x 8 Ease of coding 9 Ability to handle qualitative 9 9 criteria Ability to choose among 10 x discrete sets of alternatives
11

Justification Small problem will compute instantly No interaction required

Small problem will compute instantly Not applicable

Not applicable Not applicable

Ability to choose among continuous sets of alternatives

12/14/2004

90

Ability to solve dynamic problems Ability to solve stochastic 13 problems (uncertainty)

12 14 Comparison with goal point

x x x x x x 9 x 9 9 x x x x x x

Problem is frozen initially Problem is frozen initially Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Full ranking desired

Comparison with aspiration 15 level 16 Direct comparison 17 Strongly efficient solution 18 Complete ranking (ordinal) 19 Cardinal ranking Ability to handle integer 20 variables Decision makers level of 21 knowledge required Applicability to case of group 22 decision maker Compensatory (handle 23 tradeoffs) Non-compensatory (cannot 24 handle tradeoffs) Max. no. of alternatives and attributes that can be 25 considered and evaluated by method 26 Domain independent 27 Type of information elicited

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not a huge no. of alternatives Not applicable Not applicable

Included Problem Related Criteria 1 Handle qualitative data x 2 Finite number of alternatives 9 3 Non-linear problem x 4 Number of attributes x 5 Infinite number of alternatives x 6 Dynamic problem x 7 Handle integer x 8 Number of objectives 9 9 Number of systems x 10 Number of constraints 9 11 Number of variables 9

Justification Already included Not applicable Already included Not applicable Problem Frozen Already included Not applicable

12/14/2004

91

Decision makers level of knowledge 13 Time available for interaction 14 Desire for interaction Confidence in original 15 preference structure 16 Plausibility 17 Problem Type Flexibility of statement of 18 problem
12

x x x x x x x

Already included Not applicable Group Project Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

1 2 3 4 5

Solution Related Criteria Consistency of results(2) Robustness of results(2) DM Confidence in results Strength of efficient solution Number of solutions per alternative

Included 9 9 9 x x

Justification

Not applicable Not needed

I accept the above as my work and the responsibilities that this incurs. Name Signature Nathan Rolander Ashley Ceci Matthieu Berdugo

Date

We have now selected the criteria that we will use to evaluate the selection techniques and can move on to the next step, the selection of applicable MCDM techniques. 3. List and Specify MCDM techniques available for attaining the objective of modeling the multicriterion problem on hand through the use of the method attribute tree diagram. From the beginning of our project, we realized that the choice we would need to make regarding our CRAC unit would be based on which issue, or characteristics were more important. Thus it was understood that we had a "which" decision to make. The key to the which decision, as stated in the Determine available techniques, is that it will typically have multiple outcomes greater than 2.

12/14/2004

92

Within the realm of the which decision we have, per our categorization, two distinct decision types:

Selection decision: which can be solved with the MADM family of methods, Compromise decision: which can be solved with the MODM family of methods

We dont wish to make compromises with our choice. There are distinct requirements that we have been given, and a short list of available CRAC units from which we are being asked to choose. Thus we find ourselves in the realm of the MADM family as shown below in the tree diagram in [Fig 4.2].
Whether/Mono-criterion Delphi, direct notation, pairwise comparison methods, cost benefit analysis...

Optimization Methods

Selection

MADM

Which/Multi-criteria Methods and Tools

Compromise

MODM

Other Methods

DSPT, Robust methods, Simulation methods, Cost predictive methods, FMECA, Pareto diagram, Ishikawa diagram, Value analyssi, QFD, Monte-Carlo simulation, Expert system, Fuzzy logic based methods, Statistical based methods....

[Fig 4.2] Path through Decision Method Tree Diagram At this point it was necessary to determine how the weighting of attributes would be applied. While we did have a concept of certain requirements importance, As a whole, the CRAC system must be capable of cooling a 988 ft2 facility, containing 28 racks @ 20kW per rack (560kW), plus the heat distribution from the CRACs themselves (~95kW per unit), to a constant temperature of 720 + 20F being the most important requirement, we did not have a weighting for any of the other attributes associated with the units. Thus we made the conscience decision to utilize the Weight to be generated branch of the MADM family as shown below in [Fig 4.3].

12/14/2004

93

It must be understood that while the CRACs cooling fluid, or the Chiller needs could have, or actually would have made the Selection-Selection DSP a much more desirable selection method, we were not asked to make those decision. Because this is being tackled as a two stage problem, CRAC selection and then Chiller selection, we need to select the CRAC unit that could plug into an appropriate Chiller system.

Dominance No Information Maximin Maximax Conjunctive Standard levels Disjunctive Direct assignment Least square Weight assignment Eigenvector Entropy MITA MADM Lexicographic Simple Weighting TOPSIS Weight given beforehand Linear assignment Relative position estimation ELECTRE AHP Weight given beforehand LIMAP pairwise comparisons of all attributes Definition of ideal and negative ideal points Ranking of all attributes Appropriate comparisons of attributes

MADM Method Usage Tree

Pairwise comparison of all attributes

pairwise comparisons of all alternatives and attributes pairwise comparisons and ideal points Ranking of a subset of alternatives

Weight to be generated

UTA

Local utility function

ILUTA

Pairwise comparisons of some alternatives

Implicit utility function

EDMCM

Pairwise comparisons and trade-off questions

[Fig 4.3] Path Through MCDM Technique Tree Through this we have selected the following MCDM techniques to be considered for use for the CRAC unit selection. The form below finalized the selection of the MCDM techniques that will be evaluated in the matrix performed in the next section. For this we will include some other techniques as a check to ensure that the method works for the means of evaluating the utility of the proposed method for this project. This would not have to be done in other applications of the proposed process. These methods are all given in Section 2b of this document.

12/14/2004

94

Technique Pre-Selection DSP Selection DSP Selection/Selection DSP Compromise DSP ELECTRE AHP Composite Programming Compromise Programming Simple Weighting

Included? Explanation 9 9 9 Not a compromise problem x 9 9 9 Detailed information of implementation of x method unavailable Quantity of hard information demands use of x more involved selection method

I accept the above as my work and the responsibilities that this incurs. Name Signature Nathan Rolander Ashley Ceci Matthieu Berdugo

Date

We have now determined the MCDM techniques to be evaluated and as such can more on to the weighting of the criteria in the next step of the process.

12/14/2004

95

4. Determine technique capabilities or the levels of performance of a technique with respect to the evaluation criteria be setting up and solving a multicriterion problem. We must now establish weightings of each of our selected criterion in the four categories. This weighting and justification is completed using the forms given in the previous section. First we must define our weighting scale: Weight 5 4 3 2 1 Explanation By far most important consideration Criterion deserves more attention than the rest Criterion is of average importance Criterion does not bare much effect on the selection Criterion barely requires consideration

Applying the weights to the selection criteria: DM Related Criteria 1 DMs level of knowledge 2 Time available of DM DM's acceptance of method's 3 assumptions DM's ability/willingness to 4 provide preference information required by method Method Related Criteria Implementation Time required Number of parameters required Weight 4 3 3 2

Weight 2 2 4 4 4 5 4 3

1 2

3 Ease of use 4 Ease of coding 5

Ability to handle qualitative criteria Ability to handle integer variables Decision makers level of knowledge required

6 Complete ranking (ordinal) 7 8

12/14/2004

96

1 2 3 4

Problem Related Criteria Finite number of alternatives Number of objectives Number of constraints Number of variables

Weight 4 3 3 2 Weight 3 4 4

Solution Related Criteria 1 Consistency of results 2 Robustness of results 3 DM Confidence in results

I accept the above as my work and the responsibilities that this incurs. Name Signature Nathan Rolander Ashley Ceci Matthieu Berdugo

Date

With the weightings established we can now move to the next step of construction and calculation of the evaluation matrices. 5. Construct an evaluation matrix (techniques vs criteria array), the elements of which represent the capabilities of alternative techniques in terms of the selected criteria. First we must create acronyms for the MCDM methods to be evaluated. Technique Pre-Selection DSP Selection DSP Selection/Selection DSP ELECTRE AHP Composite Programming Acronym PS-DSP S-DSP SS-DSP ELEC AHP CP

12/14/2004

97

Next we must define the scale we are using to evaluate the MCDM techniques with regard to the criteria. Value 10 5 1 Explanation The best possible performance obtained through MCDM technique MCDM technique fulfils criterion at a satisfactory level MCDM technique does not satisfy criteria at all

This scale is used to populate the matrices with the exception of the problem related criteria which is filled using a 0-1 scale indicating yes or no.
MCDM Techniques Weight S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC AHP CP DM Related Criteria DMs level of knowledge 4 4 3 9 9 5 9 Time available of DM 3 9 9 10 8 6 3 DM's acceptance of method's 3 assumptions 10 10 8 9 7 7 DM's ability/willingness to provide 2 preference information 9 7 8 8 7 7

1 2 3 4

Method Related Criteria Weight S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC AHP CP Implementation Time required 2 6 4 4 10 6 7 Number of parameters required 2 9 9 7 5 7 7 Ease of use 4 8 7 6 7 7 6 Ease of coding 4 6 5 7 8 8 8 Ability to handle qualitative criteria 4 8 9 9 4 5 7 Complete ranking (ordinal) 5 8 9 6 7 7 8 Ability to handle integer variables 4 9 7 8 8 7 6 Decision makers level of 8 knowledge required 3 10 9 8 3 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Problem Related Criteria Finite number of alternatives Number of objectives Number of constraints Number of variables Weight S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC AHP CP 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 Weight S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC AHP CP 3 8 9 7 5 5 6 4 8 9 7 8 5 4 4 6 8 6 4 6 6

1 2 3 4

Solution Related Criteria 1 Consistency of results 2 Robustness of results 3 DM Confidence in results

12/14/2004

98

I accept the above as my work and the responsibilities that this incurs. Name Signature Nathan Rolander Ashley Ceci Matthieu Berdugo

Date

We have now completed the evaluation matrices and are ready to more to the next step, analyzing the data and establishing the most applicable MCDM technique.

12/14/2004

99

6. Analyze the merits of the alternative MCDM techniques and select the most satisficing technique. Applying the composite programming method given in the previous section yields the following results.
Normalized Results S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC AHP 3.33 4.00 0.00 0.00 2.67 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.86 1.71 0.00 0.00 Value 3.76 Rank 3 0.00 2.00 6.43 4 2.00 1.00 3.00 2 1.00 1.00 2.86 1 3.00 2.00 9.38 6 AHP 1.33 1.00 2.00 0.00 3.20 3.33 2.67 1.71 4 AHP 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 4 AHP 3.00 3.20 2.00 8.20 5 CP 0.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 8.00 5 CP 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.00 1.60 1.67 4.00 1.71 3 CP 4.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 7.00 6 CP 2.25 4.00 2.00 8.25 6

S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC 1.33 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.67 4.00 1.33 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 4.00 1.67 0.00 5.00 3.33 0.00 2.67 1.33 1.33 0.00 Value 6.47 Rank 1 0.43 11.10 2 0.86 15.52 5 3.00 6

15.67 15.25 14.98

S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Value 0.00 Rank 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 6.00 5

S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC 0.75 0.00 1.50 3.00 0.80 0.00 1.60 0.80 2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 Value 3.55 Rank 2 0.00 1 5.10 3 7.80 4

12/14/2004

100

The aggregation of there results into a final ranking as given in the method yields the following ranking.
S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC AHP Composite Value 145.40 268.93 Overall Rank 1 3 2 4 6 CP 5

228.10 298.38 867.11 853.47

This results in the following results. Technique Pre-Selection DSP Selection DSP Selection/Selection DSP ELECTRE AHP Composite Programming Rank 3 1 2 4 6 5

Sensitivity Analysis
We conducted the sensitivity analysis as suggested in our proposed method. WE first dropped the weighting of the highest weighted values to determine if these factors were alone determining the rank. We changed the following weightings: 1. DMs Level of Knowledge from 4 to 3 2. Complete Ranking (Ordinal) from 5 to 4 3. Finite Number of Alternatives from 4 to 3 These were the top weighted criteria in each category. Recalculating the results gave the following final ranking. Original Ranking:
S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC AHP Composite Value 145.40 268.93 Overall Rank 1 3 2 4 6 CP 5 228.10 298.38 867.11 853.47

Devalued Weights Ranking:

Composite Value 106.80 218.21 Oveall Rank 1 3 211.40 281.36 762.74 791.49 2 4 5 6

This result shows that the leading selection of Selection DSP actually increases its lead over the other methods. This indicates that the method is strong over all criteria and not just a few that were heavily weighted.

12/14/2004

101

We next dropped the leading selections values by 5% and 10% Original Ranking:
S-DSP PS-DSP SS-DSP ELEC AHP Composite Value 145.40 268.93 Overall Rank 1 3 2 4 6 CP 5 228.10 298.38 867.11 853.47

+5%
Composite Value 75.19 Overall Rank 1 261.29 3 245.85 337.41 793.42 801.77 2 4 5 6

-5%
Composite Value 173.71 201.11 Overall Rank 1 3 185.13 244.36 738.20 788.82 2 4 5 6

-10%
Composite Value 256.83 175.46 Overall Rank 4 2 142.70 183.75 700.42 785.70 1 3 5 6

This shows that adding 5% to the Selection DSPs evaluation scores massively increases its lead. It is also still the preferred method with 5% subtracted from its score. It requires a subtraction of 10% to the Selection DSPs score to remove it from its leading position. This shows that the results are fairly robust and that the Selection DSP technique should be applied for the selection of the HVAC equipment for the Data center. For the purposes of this project we will also discuss the second two runner up methods, Selection/Selection DSP and Pre-Selection DSP.

12/14/2004

102

7. Application of the selected MCDM technique. Prior to documenting the procedures by which the final decision was made, it is first necessary to have a basic understanding of the method that is to be used. For the purposes of our selection needs, we have decided to make use of the Selection DSP. The reasoning for this is provided in the previous section, but a brief synopsis will be included here. The Prospective Methods: This summary pertains to the Selection DSP, and Selection-Selection DSP (used when multiple selection DSPs need to be integrated). In addition, there is a brief summary of the pre-selection, or preliminary selection DSP method that must take place prior to either the Selection, or Selection-Selection DSPs being performed. While there are also Selection-Compromise DSPs and Compromise-Compromise DSPs, those were not covered in any level of detail in either of these articles. The formulation and solution of DSPs provides a means for making the following types of decisions: 1. Selection: The indication of a preference, based on multiple attributes, for one among several feasible alternatives. 2. Compromise: The improvement of a feasible alternative through modification 3. Coupled or Hierarchical: Decisions that are linked Selection/Selection, Selection/Compromise, and Compromise/Compromise. All decisions made are done so based on analysis-based information hard data, insightbased soft information, or both. It must be understood that the outcome of either of the methods mentioned above is simply to provide support for human judgment in design synthesis. The technique for applying the above is based on the following assertions: 1. The design involves a series of decisions, some of which may be made sequentially and others that must be made concurrently (coupled). 2. Design involves hierarchical decision-making and the interaction between these decisions must be taken into account (unless a decision is being made on a single attribute). 3. Design productivity can be increased through the use of analysis, visualization and synthesis in complementary roles. 4. The technique that supports human decision making ideally must also be: a. Process-based and discipline-independent b. Suitable for solving open problems, and c. Must facilitate self-learning

12/14/2004

103

For our project, we will be looking at a DSP PreSelection process, the Selection DSP and the Selection-Selection DSP. PreSelection The PreSelection, or preliminary selection DSP is to be formulated and solved when a decision is to be based on experience-based soft information. This is the method of selecting the most likely to succeed concepts for further development into feasible alternatives. This can be used regardless of whether you wish to continue on an utilize the Selection DSP, or one of the combined Selection/Compromise DSPs. The DSP for such a preliminary problem should be set up as follows: Given: Identify: Capture: Rank: A set of concepts The principal criteria influencing selection, and the relative importance of the criteria. Experience-based knowledge about the concepts with respect to a datum and establish criteria. The concepts in order of preference based on multiple criteria and their relative importance.

The problem is developed using the following steps: 1. Describe the concepts and provide acronyms. In our case wed take each of the CRAC units we are choosing between, explain what they do, what they are, who makes them, and any appropriate characteristics. Once that is done wed give them an acronym to use throughout the rest of the selection process. 2. Describe each generalized criterion; provide acronyms and weighting constants for the specific criteria. Some general criteria may be safety, performance, economics and market standing (how well the product sells vs. others). Under each general criteria there may be several more specific criteria such as: a. Safety: i. Simplicity ii. Reliability b. Economics i. Cost ii. Power matching iii. Technology 3. Choose a datum with which all other concepts will be compared. For example, take the first CRAC choice, and set it as the zero standard. It will act as the initial datum. It is sometimes best to select as the datum the concept, in our case the CRAC system, that you perceive to be the best, or the worst. 4. Compare the concepts, with the end result captured in a table, and an accurate record of why you scored each criterion for each concept they way you did (most important).

12/14/2004

104

5. Evaluate the merit function for each concept within each generalized criterion (i.e. Safety, performance, economics and market standing). The Score for each concept, as well as its Normalized Score (i.e. the merit function value) for each of the concepts with respect to the generalized criterion. 6. Include interactions between generalized criteria. This is the weighting of each of the generalized, high-level criteria. It is sometimes best to create a scenario where each of the individual generalized criteria is given the highest weight, thus having it dominate the others. Then create a final scenario where you weight the criteria based on the best estimate of the relative importance of each criteria. The hope is that one concept, (i.e. one CRAC unit) comes up as the best alternative each time. At this point it might be necessary to readdress Part 3, and choose a separate datum. From there you follow through each step again, each time recording which concept was the best. 7. Post solution analysis: Determine the most-likely-to-succeed concepts. This is done by not only choosing the winners of each cycle through steps 3-6, but also by selecting possibly the second and third finisher in each respective cycle. Note: It has been found that youll need a minimum of 5-7 datums (i.e. cycles through steps 3-6) for problems involving 10-15 concepts. The number of datums stays around 7 or 8 for problems involving many more than 15 concepts. Selection DSP The selection DSP facilitates the ranking of alternatives based on multiple attributes of varying importance. The order indicates not only the rank, but also by how much one alternative is preferred to another (the weighting is important, and must have a logical backing). In the selection based DSP both science-based objective information and experience based subjective information can be used. The DSP for such a problem is set up as follows: Given: Identify: Rate: Rank: A set of feasible alternatives. The principal attributes influencing selection, as well as the relationship between those attributes and their relative importance. The alternatives with respect to each attribute. The feasible alternatives in order of preference based on attributes and their relative importance.

The problem is developed using the following steps: 1. Describe the alternatives and provide the acronyms. This is similar to Step 1 for preliminary selection DSP, but there should be fewer concepts involved. At this point you should only be dealing with the most-likely-to-succeed alternatives. 2. Describe each attribute, specify the relative importance of the attributes and provide acronyms. This is a more detailed list, and you dont tend to have generalized categories. For the CRACs, these attributes may be size (height,

12/14/2004

105

3.

4. 5. 6.

width, depth), weight, up flow vs. down flow, stability, power matching, cooling capacity, fouling (cost of maintenance based on cooling fluid used) and corrosion (material needed to prevent corrosion based on coolant used). Specify the scales, rate the alternatives with respect to each attribute and normalize them. This can be done through a ratio scale (for size and cooling capacity), a composite scale (for Power Matching), or just a rating scale with justification (Simplicity of use may be on a scale of 1 10, 1 being very simple to operate, and 10 being very difficult). Normalize the ratings. This is done through a series of equations that I wont go into in this summary. Evaluate the merit function for each alternative. The merit function values are calculated using another equation, and make use of the values obtained in step 4. Perform post-solution sensitivity analysis. This is where you determine if work arounds could alter the scores of individual alternatives. It is also important to determine if an attribute that an alternative scored low on is something easily fixed. If an item scores poorly because it is too large, is it possible to decrease the bulkiness in some way, thus negating this negative.

Sensitivity to changes in the attribute importance is important, especially with alternatives that score close together on the scales provided. Sensitivity analysis is required to determine the effect on the solution of small changes in the values of the relative importance and also to changes in the attribute ratings. This is done by: 1. Picking the best and second best alternatives for further analysis 2. Increasing and decreasing the relative importance of each attribute (a standard is +- 5%). 3. Compute revised merit 4. Accept or re-evaluate based on the above results. Selection-Selection DSP (and Coupled SSDSP) The selection-selection DSP facilitates the ranking of multiple sets of alternatives based on multiple attributes, some of which are coupled between attributes. It is performed the same as with a Selection DSP, but there is a need to follow the selection DSP steps for each differing sets of alternatives. An example for CRACs might be the need to decide between the CRAC units, as well as the coolant fluid type. A coupled selection-selection DSP arises whenever you have a system that can be decomposed into several inter-dependant subsystems that have to be selected by the designer. An example of an inter-dependant subsystem may be the fouling (cost of maintenance based on cooling fluid used) and corrosion (material needed to prevent corrosion based on coolant used) attributes mentioned above. They are related, or coupled because the cost of maintenance of the CRAC unit is dependant on the cooling fluid used, as well as the corrosion protection material (something that protects against water may be cheaper than something that protects against another fluid, and the amount of anticorrosion material is dependant on the CRAC unit you choose.)

12/14/2004

106

The steps are the same as for a selection-selection DSP, but you add in a secondary steps to Step 6 listed in the Selection DSP. 6b. Create an array of ratings for the coupling attributes. This is done by creating an S dimensional array, were S represents the number of selection problems (CRAC and cooling fluid) coupled by the attributes under consideration (fouling and corrosion). For each attribute, the array contains the ratings for all possible combinations of the alternatives corresponding to all the coupled selection DSPs. 6c. Formulate and solve the coupled selection-selection problem. The Selection Our decision was to be based on the following information provided by APC, one of our potential vendors (Please see table on next page). While not all of these attributes are associated with a requirement, they must each be taken into account. In addition, the concept of upflow vs. downflow is a non-issue, as each unit comes in both, with the choice having no effect on other attributes. This was important as well require an equal number of each unit type in order to properly test the effects of upflow vs. downflow in our control room. We also found through our research that numerous units will be required in order to meet our cooling needs. Thus it is not for one single unit to fill our needs, but number of machines working in parallel. At this point, due to the need for several units to meet our specified requirements, our group contemplated utilizing the Compromise DSP, rather than the selection DSP. This decision made some sense, as we would be making a final selection on the best set of products, working in unison, rather than on an individual unit. But, in the end, we decide to make use of the Selection DSP, as an exterior attribute could be added that dealt with the total number of units used, with the most preferred option being a limited number of units. This exterior attribute had the requirement that each unit used to fill the 540kW cooling capacity must be of a single type per Vendor (i.e. one model from APC and one model from Liebert) with no mixing of models, as this may skew our desired results, and adversely effect our control conditions. Another concept that must be taken into account prior to moving forward was that each vendor would be responsible for half of the overall cooling needs of our facility. This was the best way we could handle our utilization of two vendors, and our cooling capacity requirements within the scope of this project.

12/14/2004

107

APC documentation:

Physical Characteristics

Electrical Data (@440v) Depth mm 840.00 840.00 840.00 840.00 840.00 840.00 840.00 840.00 840.00 840.00 840.00 840.00 889 889 Humidifier (Capacity Kg/hr) 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70

Compa ny

Model

Upflow/ Downflow Fluid U/D

Specs.

COOLING Flow Pressure CAPACITY - Total Sensible Rate Drop (kW) (kW) (L/s) (kW) (kPa) 123 kW 129.60 93.60 5.60 6.40 7.80 8.90 4.30 4.90 5.90 6.80 4.1 4.6 5.6 6.4 4.3 3.6 153.80 195.80 190.30 244.87 90.30 115.10 112.40 146.20 83.4 106.2 100 131.7 172 124

Weight (kg) 710.00 800.00 870.00 960.00 710.00 800.00 870.00 960.00 710.00 800.00 870.00 960.00

Height (mm) 1830.00 1830.00 1830.00 1830.00 1830.00 1830.00 1830.00 1830.00 1830.00 1830.00 1830.00 1830.00 2207 2207

Length (mm) 2440.00 2440.00 3050.00 3050.00 2440.00 2440.00 3050.00 3050.00 2440.00 2440.00 3050.00 3050.00 1800 1800

FLA

WSA MOP

44.00 55.00 60.00 44.00 55.00 60.00 55.60 69.50 70.00 55.60 69.50 70.00 44.00 55.00 60.00 44.00 55.00 60.00 55.60 69.50 70.00 55.60 69.50 70.00 44.00 55.00 60.00 44.00 55.00 60.00 55.60 69.50 70.00 55.60 69.50 70.00 24.60 30.80 30.00 24.60 30.80 30.00

APC

NetworkAIR CW, CRAC, U/D 60Hz U/D U/D NetworkAIR CW, CRAC, U/D 60Hz U/D U/D U/D U/D

U/D

80F DB, 67F WB Chilled (26.7C DB, 19.4C 175 kW Water WB) 50% RH 210 kW 123 kW 75F DB, 62.5F WB Chilled (23.9C DB, 16.9C 175 kW Water WB) 50% RH 210 kW 123 kW 140 kW 140 kW

140 kW

147.30 103.60 178.60 120.60 204.30 140.30 97.90 11.30 83.00 92.30

135.30 106.60 155.60 124.90 94 106.3 127.6 147.6 92.6 72.8 87.3 97 111 130.6 73.3 64.6

APC

APC APC APC

NetworkAIR CW, CRAC, U/D 60Hz U/D U/D U/D

75F DB, 61F WB Chilled (23.9C DB, 16.1C 175 kW Water WB) 45% RH 210 kW Chilled 80F DB, 65F WB, Water 45%RH Chilled 75F DB, 61F WB, Water 45%RH

[Table 4.1] APC CRAC specifications

12/14/2004

108

Now to the selection itself: Given: Identify: The above list of alternatives The best APC model type to meet our requirements (assuming that only half of the cooling requirement need be meet, as the other half must be meet by the Liebert units.) The alternatives with respect to each attribute. The feasible alternatives in order of preference based on attributes and their relative importance.

Rate: Rank:

The problem is developed using the following steps: 1. Describe the alternatives and provide the acronyms. At this point you should only be dealing with the most-likely-to-succeed alternatives. Acronym
806793 8067103 8067120 8067140 756293 7562103 7562120 7562140 756193 7561103 7561120 7561140 806573 756164

Description
80F DB, 67F WB (26.7C DB, 19.4C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 93.6) 80F DB, 67F WB (26.7C DB, 19.4C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 103.6) 80F DB, 67F WB (26.7C DB, 19.4C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 120.6) 80F DB, 67F WB (26.7C DB, 19.4C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 140.3) 75F DB, 62.5F WB (23.9C DB, 16.9C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 83.6) 75F DB, 62.5F WB (23.9C DB, 16.9C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 92.3) 75F DB, 62.5F WB (23.9C DB, 16.9C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 106.6) 75F DB, 62.5F WB (23.9C DB, 16.9C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 124.9) 75F DB, 61F WB (23.9C DB, 16.1C WB) 45% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 87.3) 75F DB, 61F WB (23.9C DB, 16.1C WB) 45% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 97) 75F DB, 61F WB (23.9C DB, 16.1C WB) 45% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 111) 75F DB, 61F WB (23.9C DB, 16.1C WB) 45% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 130.6) 80F DB, 65F WB, 45%RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 73.3) 75F DB, 61F WB, 45%RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 64.6)

[Table 4.2] APC CRAC Acronyms

12/14/2004

109

2. Describe each attribute, specify the relative importance of the. This is a more detailed list, and you dont tend to have generalized categories. For the purposes of this table, the following weights will be applied: 10 - This attribute is of the utmost importance 5 - This attribute is important 1 - This attribute is of minimal importance N/A This attribute is of no importance, and thus wont be analyzed Criteria
Cooling Capacity Number of Units Required Geometry: Height Geometry: Weight Geometry: Length Geometry: Depth UpFlow vs. DownFlow Assembly Signals Supplier

Description
As a whole, the sum of the units of a specific type must be capable of cooling 270kW This deals with the number of units utilized, and it is preferred that the number stay under 4 The CRAC units must be able to fit into the required area The CRAC units must be of a weight that will not collapse the raised floors of our test room The CRAC units must be able to fit into the required area The CRAC units must be able to fit into the required area Due to the upflow vs. downflow having no effect on the other attributes, and the need to have an equal number of both upflow and downflow units, this is no longer a necessary attribute It will not be necessary to alternate between upflow and downflow We must be able to monitor the machinery, as well as the room dynamics We are only dealing with APC at this point

Importance
10 10 5 5 5 5 N/A N/A 5 N/A

[Table 4.3] APC CRAC Criteria

12/14/2004

110

3. Specify the scales, rate the alternatives with respect to each attribute and normalize them. This can be done through a ratio scale (for size and cooling capacity), a composite scale (for Power Matching), or just a rating scale with justification (Simplicity of use may be on a scale of 1 10, 1 being very simple to operate, and 10 being very difficult). Once this is done we will normalize the scores.
Concepts Criteria
Cooling Capacity Score Normalized Score Number of Units Required Score Normalized Score Geometry Height Weight Length Depth Score Normalized Score Signals Score Normalized Score Overall Scores and Ranks Sum of Scores Ranks
0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0.75 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 4 0.25 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0.75 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 4 0.25 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0.75 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 4 0.25 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0.75 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0.75 0 0 1 806793 8067103 8067120 8067140 756293 7562103 7562120 7562140 756193 7561103 7561120 7561140 806573 756164 -3 -3 0.25 3 3 0.66 -2 -2 0.5 3 3 0.66 -1 -1 0.75 3 3 0.66 0 0 1 2 2 1 -3 -3 0.25 4 4 0.33 -3 -3 0.25 3 3 0.66 -2 -2 0.5 3 3 0.66 -1 -1 0.75 3 3 0.66 -3 -3 0.25 4 4 0.33 -3 -3 0.25 3 3 0.66 -2 -2 0.5 3 3 0.66 -1 -1 0.75 3 3 0.66 -3 -3 0.25 4 4 0.33 -4 -4 0 5 5 0

2.91 2

2.91 2

2.66 3

3 1

2.58 4

2.66 3

2.41 5

2.41 5

2.58 4

2.66 3

2.41 5

2.41 5

2.33 6

1.75 7

Initial Datum

[Table 4.4] APC CRAC Weighting and Normalization 4. Compare the concepts.

Cooling Capacity: It is desired to have a higher capacity unit; therefore you are required to use less of them. In addition, by having a higher sensible cooling capacity, your variance has less of an effect. Number of Units Required: The scoring for this attribute is done based on number of units required. Due to the fact that there is a minimum-cooling requirement, its necessary to round the number of units required up (i.e. if 2 units produce 260kW of cooling capacity, then an additional unit will be required for the remaining 10kW). The
12/14/2004 111

highest score for this is for a CRAC unit that requires the lowest number of additional units to meet the cooling needs.

Geometry: Due to size restrictions, the desire is to get a unit that is as small as possible. In addition, the units will need to be as light as possible. Signals: Each unit had equal signal capability, thus this became an insignificant attribute.
5. Evaluate the merit function for each alternative. Due to the weighting provided, and by eliminating attributes that will no longer effect, by merging attributes that will have a similar effect, we are able to come up with the final weighting scale: Criteria
Cooling Capacity Number of Units Required Geometry

Description
As a whole, the sum of the units of a specific type must be capable of cooling 270kW This deals with the number of units utilized, and it is preferred that the number stay under 4 The CRAC units must be able to fit into the required area

Importance
10 10 5

Using this we can come up with a number of scenarios where we attribute relative importance to each criteria, as long as Cooling Capacity and Number of Units have relatively similar importance, and their importance is greater than that (by approximately 2X) then we can begin determining which CRAC unit fits our needs. Criteria One
Cooling Capacity Number of Units Required Geometry
0.4 0.4 0.2

Two

Scenario Number Three

0.35 0.45 0.2 0.35 0.35 0.3

Four
0.45 0.35 0.2

By utilizing these weighted importance scales, its possible to create our importance matrix. The Initial Datum concept is again highlighted. Concept One
806793 8067103 8067120 8067140 756293 7562103 7562120 7562140 756193 7561103 7561120 7561140 806573 756164 0.564 0.614 0.614 0.8 0.432 0.514 0.514 0.564 0.432 0.514 0.514 0.564 0.382 .015

Two
0.5845 0.622 0.6095 0.8 0.436 0.5345 0.522 0.5595 0.436 0.5345 0.522 0.5595 0.386 0.15

Scenario Number Three

0.6185 0.631 0.5685 0.7 0.503 0.5435 0.481 0.4935 0.503 0.5435 0.481 0.4935 0.428 0.225

Four
0.5435 0.606 0.6185 0.8 0.428 0.4935 0.506 0.5685 0.428 0.4935 0.506 0.5685 0.378 0.15

12/14/2004

112

The above results can be normalized, and that would make for easier comparison, but at this point its not necessary. There is no second choice even remotely close to that of 8067140. 6. Perform post-solution sensitivity analysis. This is where you determine if work arounds could alter the scores of individual alternatives. It is also important to determine if an attribute that an alternative scored low on is something easily fixed. If an item scores poorly because it is too large, is it possible to decrease the bulkiness in some way, thus negating this negative. As it stands now, there are no attributes that we can alter in any way. The geometry of these CRAC units is set, and any changes may affect their performance. Based on the above analysis, it would be in our best interest to begin detailed analysis of the:

8067140: 80F DB, 67F WB (26.7C DB, 19.4C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 140.3)

unit provided by the APC group. Our analysis of the Liebert units are unnecessary, as they have a model comparable to this one, providing the same capability, while also being smaller that the unit provided by APC. Thus we will make a simple selection of the:

80F DB, 67F WB (26.7C DB, 19.4C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 144)

This unit has a net weight of 890 kg, a height of 1700mm, a length of 3000mm and a depth of 840mm. Thus it meets are needs well, and 2 of such a unit will meet our needs perfectly. Thus our end requirements will be 2 upflow and 2 downflow units of type {80F DB, 67F WB (26.7C DB, 19.4C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 140.3)} from APC and two upflow and two downflow units of type {80F DB, 67F WB (26.7C DB, 19.4C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 144)} from Liebert.

12/14/2004

113

Justification 8. Verify that selection is indeed representative of the overall goal, and that it meets the established requirements set forth in the project requirements list. To show the utility of the selected CRAC equipment we will evaluate them against the original HVAC requirements list [Fig 4.4]. Our final selection was 2 upflow and 2 downflow units of type {80F DB, 67F WB (26.7C DB, 19.4C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 140.3)} from APC and two upflow and two downflow units of type {80F DB, 67F WB (26.7C DB, 19.4C WB) 50% RH (Sensible Cooling Capacity: 144)} from Liebert. ME 6101 Problem Statement: Requirements List for HVAC Assigned 09/28/03

Select an HVAC system capable of efficiently cooling a 1,000 ft2 Data Center Met D/W Requirements Requirement?
9 9 9
D D D Geometry: Height must be no greater than 13 feet Depth must be no greater than 3.5 feet Width must be no greater than 7 feet (unless increased cooling capacity justifies) Units must be configured away from walls, to allow for servicing. Energy: As a whole, the CRAC system must be capable of cooling a 988 ft2 facility, containing 28 racks @ 20kW per rack (560kW), plus the heat distribution from the CRACs themselves (~95kW per unit), to a constant temperature of 720 + 20F. CRAC system must be capable of keeping the lab at a relative humidity of 45% + 10% Kinematics: CRAC units must be capable of Up-Flow, or Down-Flow Assembly: CRAC units must be adjustable (going form Up to DownFlow) Signals: Facility conditions must be measurable at all times. This includes temperature, humidity, air quality and peak vs. average values. Supplier: At least one unit must be utilized from the following suppliers: APC and Liebert.

9 9 X 9 9

D D W D

[Fig 4.4] HVAC Requirements List

12/14/2004

114

Inspection of the requirements list shows that our final selection has met the requirements established at the beginning of the project. The only wish not met, the possibility of using a single unit for upflow and downflow configurations was not possible to meet as no such unit exists. However, this was only a wish because of simplicity, as long as the center is capable of providing both upflow and downflow capabilities the needs have been met. We therefore surmise that our selection process has utility for this project and similar selection problems. 9. Signing of decision by all members involved in process, ascertaining that they accept the responsibility of this decision and the resulting design path that is chosen. The signatures of responsibility have been tracked throughout the decision making process. This is the final acceptance of the selection of the CRAC units for use in the data center facility. I accept the above as my work and the responsibilities that this incurs. Name Signature Nathan Rolander Ashley Ceci Matthieu Berdugo Date

12/14/2004

115

Section 5: Summary of Findings

Project Accomplishments
In the previous two sections we have discussed our augmented Pahl and Beitz method, and applied it to a research project to determine its utility. In this section we will discuss our findings further, explore the limitations of our proposed method, and propose how we would continue this work further. Review of Work to Date In this project we have: 1. Framed the context of our group Question for the Semester, in the form of our group vision of 2020. 2. Defined our group Question for the Semester, to be answered through the completion of this project. 3. Described how the completion of this group project fits in with the greater research project as a whole. 4. Discussed the formation of the team, its goals, as well as the individual members goals and Questions for the Semester, and how this project will help them achieve these. 5. Planned out the workflow process and tasks for the project during the semester. 6. Defined requirements for our group augmented Pahl and Beitz method. 7. Developed our augmentation to the Pahl and Beitz method in the form of a systematic process for selecting and applying MCDM methods, answering our group Question for the Semester. 8. Defined a requirements list for the project, the selection of HVAC equipment for the data center lab facility. 9. Applied this augmented Pahl and Beitz method to the research problem, selecting the most appropriate HVAC equipment for the data center lab facility. 10. Checked the Utility of this selection and the method against the project requirements list. We will now: 11. Critically evaluate out augmented Pahl and Beitz method 12. Discuss lessons learned 13. Discuss future directions for this project

12/14/2004

116

Discussion of Discoveries Initially this project was presenting more questions than solutions during the research stages. We desicovered there were several forms of papers, those that proposed methods for selection of MCDM methods, those that discussed available methods, and critiques of various methods and systems. Every critique paper we read presented a new point of view, new arguments, and usually no direction for a solution. The various method papers either attempted a limited classification of different MCDM methods, or discussed the implementation of a computer program to select methods, without details of its implementation. Most of these papers discussing methods had a weak foundation for the implementation of their method, and very few details were given other than a high level discussion. This led to a mid project confusion point, where we had many papers evaluated, but no answers. It was when we integrated the various aspects of the papers that we agreed upon that a solution began to take shape. We knew that this was not going to be a permanent fix to the problems outlined in the aggregation paradox lecture or in the papers such as Hazelriggs validation paper, but it would be a good start. We understood that as long as we were aware of the various method limitations, and made all assumptions and preferences explicit, many of the common problems with decision making, particularly evaluation of a decision, would be eliminated. This led us to our final posing of the group Question for the Semester, augmenting a well-established foundation using all of the information we had acquired and integrated into a useful process for selection. Limits of Augmentation We acknowledge that our proposed method is not a solution to the problems associated with selection and decision making. This was made clear to us during our research of selection and decision processes for this project. It is for this reason that we have created a tool that simply works with the limitations of the available methods today, and makes the user acknowledge these limitations. Hazelrigg Verification & Validation One of the best criticisms of current selection methods was put form by George Hazelrigg [4]. Hazelrigg argues that decision theory and optimization are closely linked. Currently, selection works like optimization, maximize f(x) subject to g(x)<0. This does not take into account where f(x) came from, or the constraints. These are the axioms of selection methods, and if they are wrong, it does not matter how good the selection or optimization routine, you are starting in the wrong direction. This is what we hoped to shed some light on, even though we know we cannot solve it, but simply make people aware of this limitation. Hazelrigg also argues that all decisions are made under uncertainty, and all traditional selection methods do not take this into account. However, this is out of the scope of our project to attempt to solve, just recognize it. These problems can be addressed with a 12/14/2004

117

mathematical framework for methods, but this is an involved process. Hazelriggs intent is to call attention to the need to incorporate previous work done in the decision sciences over the last 300 years, and apply them to engineering design methods. Hazelrigg bases many of his arguments on Arrows theorem, proposed by economist Kenneth Arrow [11]. Arrows four proposed properties of selection methods are: 1. Transitivity if the group prefers x to y to z, then the survey should yield the preference that x is preferred to z 2. Unanimity if every member of the group prefers x to y, then the survey should obtain the result that x is preferred to y. 3. Independence of irrelevant alternatives the survey should determine the preference of x over y or of y over x based on only the groups preferences between x and y, and it should not be influenced by preferences for other alternatives. 4. Dictatorship the survey should not be such that whenever individual n in the group prefers x over y, the survey result is always x over y, regardless of the preferences of other individuals in the group. Hazelrigg then states how Arrow then showed that there is no way all 4 of these can be satisfied, as such all survey methods have some flaw, there is no universally correct methodology. For this reason we never intended to find a universal best selection method, but chose to find the most applicable for the problem under consideration working within the limitations of the method and its assumptions. Hazerigg also provides his requirements list for selection methods, presented below.

1. The method should provide a rank ordering of candidate designs. 2. The method should not impose preferences on the designer, that is, the alternatives should be ranked in accordance with the preferences of the designer. 3. The method should permit the comparison of design alternatives under conditions of uncertainty and with risky outcomes, including variability in manufacture, materials, etc., which pervade all of engineering design 4. The method should be independent of the discipline of engineering and manufacture for the product or system in question 5. If the method recommends design alternative A when compared to the set of alternatives S={B, C, D, ...}, then it should also recommend A when compared to any reduced set SR, such as {C, D, ...} or {B, D, ...} or {D, ...}, etc. 6. The method should make the same recommendation regardless of the order in which the design alternatives are considered 7. The method itself should not impose constraints on the design or the design process. 8. The method should be such that the addition of a new design alternative should not make existing alternatives appear less favorable. 9. The method should be such that obtaining clairvoyance on any uncertainty with respect to any alternative must not make the decision situation less attractive (information is always beneficial).

12/14/2004

118

10. The method should be self-consistent and logical, that is, it should not contradict itself and it should make maximum use of available information for design alternative selection.
Hazelrigg applies his 10 properties to 8 traditional selection methods, and gives reasons for their weaknesses. He selected these 8 as almost all selection methods are derivatives or sub-sets of these methods, or are popular in industry today. Design Alternative Selection Method Weighted Sum of Attributes Analytical Hierarchy Process Physical Programming Pugh Matrix Quality Function Deployment Taguchi Loss Function Suhs Axiomatic Design Six Sigma 1 x x x x x x x x 2 x Property (from the above list) 3 4 5 6 7 8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o x o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 10 x x x x

o : method meets the designated property x : method meets property under restrictive conditions - : method does not meet property

Weighted Sum of Attributes - Highly restrictive utility form demands utility independence of attributes, which is rare, and demands that utility be proportional to a measure of each attribute, thus, cannot reflect preferences of the designer. Does not account for risk and uncertainty, thus does not account for value of information. Can be validated only in rare circumstances to which it applies. Fails to distinguish between alternatives of varying risk. Analytical Hierarchy Process - Highly restrictive utility form demands utility independence of attributes and other problems similar to Note 1. Formulation allows violation of Property 5 (Barzilai, 1998b). Physical Programming - Allows outcomes to dictate the formulation of preferences; assumes linear independence of attributes. Pugh Matrix - Seeks to construct a ranking matrix using a method that is invalid, and it makes the invalid assumption that a desirable design is comprised of design elements that are selected optimally but independently. Quality Function Deployment - Fails to recognize that customer preferences cannot be determined correctly in the absence of a specific design decision, and there are particular problems when those preferences are intransitive (Hazelrigg, 1996). It imposes the preferences of the customers (incorrectly determined) on the designer. Does not account for uncertainty and risk.

12/14/2004

119

Taguchi Loss Function - Considers only variability in manufacture and materials, does not include other sources of uncertainty, imposes Taguchis preference system on designer. Suhs Axiomatic Design - Suhs axioms are not axioms in the mathematical sense, but instead comprise a preference system which Suh suggests imposing on the designer. Further the method assumes functional requirements are given, which comprises a constraint imposed on the designer. Six Sigma - Six Sigma focuses on defects and their prevention. It does not deal with preferences beyond this.
Hazelriggs conclusions that are useful to us are:

Simply showing a method works for a variety of selection cannot validate the method. Validation can only be completed mathematically. Ease of use my have to be sacrificed in order to obtain mathematically rigorous and verifiable selection methods. We would never consider using a model of a physical system that had not been verified, why should we do the same for selection methods? Robust, accurate selection methods are required for good engineering design, current methods yield inconsistent and wrong results, even with good data. Engineering design will benefit greatly from the incorporation of decision sciences into its decision methods.

Because all of this is subjective, being Hazelriggs opinions, we do not need to follow his proposed requirements for a selection method. However, we do value his opinions highly, and have tried to make our method satisfy many of his proposed ideas. However, because we have only created a process for selection of MCDM methods, not a method itself, Hazelriggs requirements have limited applicability. Group Decision Arrows Theorem Opposing Hazelriggs ideas is work discussing the applicability of Arrows theorem to engineering design problems [11]. This article establishes that Arrows General Possibility Theorem has only indirect application to engineering design. Many engineering design decisions are based in the aggregation of preferences. The foundation of many engineering decisions is the explicit comparison that is not available in the social choice problem. The paper puts forth the notion that Engineering decisions require both judgment and resources. Often however, engineers simply work to meet specifications, and do not directly compare variants.

12/14/2004

120

The paper poses the question:

Is social choice like engineering decisions? Or more like a single decision maker with multiple objectives?

And presents the hypothesis:

Engineering design decisions fall somewhere in the middle, usually closer to the individual decision maker.

The paper presents the following problem with the application of social choice axioms to engineering design: Axioms of Social Choice Problem: a) Consistency of result, or rationality b) Autonomy or sovereignty of voters (decision makers) The paper proposed that it is legitimate to construct aggregated preferences in engineering design decision making, not in social choice. Group decision in engineering design does not require the sovereignty of individuals, engineering design is requirement driven, not by individuals desires. Different management style correspond to different positions between one and many decision makers, e.g. top down management would be forcing a single a single decision maker problem. The aggregation of preference in engineering design is often discussed as the assessment of a utility function, though utility is a particular for of preference assessment that is useful in decision making under uncertainty and risk. The multi-criteria decision problem discussed in this paper does not include probabilistic uncertainty. This paper therefore opposes the foundation of Hazelriggs work. The following conclusions of the paper are useful to us:

Comparison of preferences must be made explicit Arbitrary assignment of numbers to alternatives can lead to undesired conclusions Arbitrary assignment of aggregation can lead to undesired conclusions A decision making method mush have an explicit method for assigning values to alternatives, combining these values into a single value function, and these two must agree If a decision method gives inadequate answers it is because that particular implementation is flawed Reformulation of the decision problem whenever an infeasible candidate arises can fix the problem of evaluation of infeasible alternatives A decision methodology can handle constraints by modifying the underlying axioms

12/14/2004

121

The Validation Square To verify and validate our personalized and augmented Pahl and Beitz method, I will use the validation square [8]. This validation square is shown below if [Fig 5.1].

1. Theoretical Structural Validity

4. Theoretical Performance Validity

2. Empirical Structural Validity

3. Empirical Performance Validity

[Fig 5.1] - The validation square

1. Theoretical Structural Validity - Theoretical validity is the measure of the methods internal consistency, its logical soundness, both of its individual components and the method as a whole. Basically, does the method make sense? I believe that our augmented Pahl & Beitz method has theoretical structural validity. This is because the only augmentation is regarding selection methods, which was based upon the integration of many different pieces of work, adding stability to our proposed method. Because our method only suggests which MCDM techniques to use, it does not fall under the direct scrutiny of those criticizing selection methods as a process.
2. Empirical Structural Validity - Empirical structure validity is a measure of how appropriate the examples used to test and demonstrate the design method. Although no examples were given during the establishment of the method, the method was utilized in its entirety for the selection of HVAC equipment for the data center lab facility. This shows that the method has empirical structural validity.

3. Empirical Performance Validity- Empirical performance validity is a measure of the usefulness of the method to produce results for specific examples. The Pahl and Beitz method has had is performance validated many times over, and does not require our testing of it. Our augmentation was tested during its use to select HVAC equipment for the data center lab facility. These selections have proven to be effective for the lab, and will allow for Nathan and the other researchers at the lab to perform their experiments for their theses.

12/14/2004

122

4. Theoretical Performance Validity - Theoretical performance validity is a measure of the ability of a method to be applied to problems outside of its example problems, and a test to see if it produces useful results. This would require our augmented Pahl & Beitz design process to be applied to something other than a selection problem. This is outside of its range of intended use, and we cannot ascertain if it would be useful for this kind of application. How we would we continue Automation A big driving factor we noticed in the literature search was the notion of automated expert systems for the selection and application of the most appropriate MCDM methods for the task under consideration. We believe that this would be the future direction of our proposed method as well. The advantages of a computerized system are the storage and fast completion of preference forms, meaning that the most applicable method can be selected and then applied, without the user having to look up and find the method, or learning how to apply it, they just have to follow the computers instructions. We propose the following steps for the development of the automation of our process. 1. Characteristics for evaluation of decision situation a. Characteristics of the decision process i. Type of decisions problem ii. Number of attributes to be considered iii. Number of alternatives iv. Flexibility of problem statement b. Characteristics of the decision maker i. Decision makers acceptance of a particular methods assumptions ii. Decision makers ability and willingness to provide the preference information required by an MCDM method 2. Characteristics of MCDM methods a. Mutual correspondence between the MCDM method and the decision problem b. Mutual correspondence between the MCDM method, assumptions about the decision makers preference, and preference information required by the method c. Availability of an MCDM decision support system 3. Quantification of decision situations and MCDM methods The information requirements of various MCDM methods were identified in a general form and then formulated in the form of specific questions posed to the decision maker. a. Tradeoffs between alternatives are permitted

12/14/2004

123

b. The additive value function adequately represents the decision makers values c. The user can rank-order all the attributes in decreasing order of importance d. The decision maker can construct single attribute value functions either using a direct ration technique or by identifying a linear or nonlinear scale e. The user can calculate attribute weights using either ration estimation, rating or ranking of importance. The preference structure of the DM can be determined by the following questions: 1. Would you like to have more interaction with the system? 2. Would you like the system to provide a set of solutions or a unique solution? 3. Would you like the system to select one satisfactory solution or would you like to select a solution? 4. Would you like to analyze solutions (e.g. improving/sacrificing the value of the objectives)? 5. Would you like the system to define an ideal solution? 6. Have you prepared a weight for every objective? 7. Have you prepared a goal for every objective? 8. Have you prepared a priority for every objective? These questions would pertain to the following criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Interaction more interaction with the system Subset system provides a set of solutions Unique system provides a unique solution S-Selection select one satisfactory solution by system D-Selection select one satisfactory solution by yourself Analyze analyze the solutions (e.g. improving/sacrificing the value of objectives) 7. Ideal system defines an ideal solution 8. Weight prepare the weight for every objective 9. Goal prepare the goal for every solution 10. Priority prepare the priorities for every objective

These are just subset of the criterion in our proposed method. Many more questions would have to be developed to ascertain the full lists applicability to the problem. However, this is just to give a future direction that our group has considered, not develop a full solution.

12/14/2004

124

Section 6 : Self Grading

Utility and Value
Has our group answered our posed Question for the semester through the completion of this project? To find out here is our group Question for the Semester:

How can the P&B method be augmented to better address selection utilizing a systematic procedure enabling the selection of the most appropriate decision method for the task? Thus making all assumptions and preferences explicit to facilitate better communication and design in the distributed environment of 2020.
We believe that our method answer this posed question. Our proposed method is systematic it enables the selection of the most appropriate MCDM method, and is makes all assumptions and preferences explicit. This is also shown in the utility section of the HVAC selection in Section 4. This shows that through the application of our method, all requirements for the HVAC system were met. This shows that there is value to using our method, as good selections were made. This is important because it means that this process can be used again, in any future selection problems for ME6102 or Nathans future research work.

12/14/2004

125

Learning
All group members have learned about project management, time management, and team interactions during the course of this project. Project Management Through our division of tasks, assigning work to individuals while keeping the project goals in mind, we have learned how to operate effectively as a team. This was accomplished through group collaboration to create an outline, and then assigning sections based on experience with that topic. Time Management Creating a realistic and through schedule using our augmented PEI diagram, our team learned how to effectively manage their individual schedules and fit them into the group timeline. Without this effective balancing time management, our group would not have been able to operate in a dispersed environment as we did. Team Interactions Using constructive criticism, and collaboration of ideas, our group has learned how to work effectively as a team. This was not too challenging because the team selection ensured that we all had similar aspirations and were compatible as a team. However, as deadlines approach and the workload increases, so does stress we sill were able to operate effectively.

12/14/2004

126

Grading Scheme
We have made an attempt, in Figure 5.2, to do a critical review of our own work and assign ourselves a grade based upon that review. The criteria that we are graded upon are based on our own goals and aspirations for ME6101 in general and this project in particular. Our level of performance is judged next to defined performance scores from 1 to 10. The explanation of each score level is based upon our ideal levels of performance for each criteria and our score reflects how we feel we stacked up against those levels. The overall total number of points possible (calculated by multiplying the maximum score of 10 by the weight of the criterion) is listed at the bottom left of Figure 5.2. Each of our scores was multiplied by the weight of the criterion in question and added up to reach the sum at the bottom left of the figure.

12/14/2004

127

Grading Sheet
Category Project Work Understanding the Problem 10 Ability to enable selection 10 Application of engineering knowledge Weight Scale Explanation Demonstrated complete familiarity with problem, 10 background involved Understood question being asked by lacked 5 familiarity with background 1 Group mistook the problem, went in diff direction Selection of product will be greatly facilitated by 10 method 5 Project contains ideas that could help 1 Project does not contribute to selection 10 Design is backed up by detailed analysis 5 Principles considered but not elaborated upon 1 No attempt made to analyze situation Group worked well together, met often, learned 10 from each other 5 Team functioned together but worked seperately 1 Team did not function well 10 Active effort was made to explore new methods Some use was made of readily available outside 5 methods 1 No attempt was made to innovate in any way 10 All goals accomplished 5 Not all goals accomplished 1 No goals were met 10 5 1 10 5 1 10 5 1 10 Visual aids 10 Content of presentations 10 Answering questions 5 Learning Use of P&B systamatic approach 10 5 1 10 5 1 10 Report is well organized Report has somewhat confusing structure Structure of report is flawed All pertinent methods, and phases are explored Good effort was made, but not all phases and methods addressed Methods are covered to quickly Report is easy to read Style and language are passable Style and language need work Illustrations are good, and well marked. Aid flow of report Illustrations are okay, but don't always flow well with document Illustrations are poorly used Presentation is thorough, but no excessive Presentation has good material, but could convey information better Presentation needs work Answers show confort with material 9 Our Score Comments

Our project should show a firm understanding of the problem Many good points with regards to selection processes, and their use were documented Adequate engineering analysis was performed, but time became an issue. Group meetings were held regularly till midterm, then work was divided to be accomplished by individuals Used many new ideas, and researched many existing processes. Much learning was had Detail design was not completed, but was not necessarily applicable. Could have used more time

10

Team work 10 Search for new ideas 5 Completeness of results 5 Final Report Structure of report 10 Comprehensivness 10 Style and language 5 9

10

Our report has a good flow, and should be easy to follow The project itself should show a clear understanding of what we wanted to accomplish, and the methods we used. The report should have a good flow, and be grammatically accurate

Visual aids and illustrations are used only when needed, and are well referenced in text The presentation will provide a brief, but thorough overview of our project Every group member should be able to convey understanding in the project

10

5 Answers show a relative understanding of material 1 Answers show a lack of preparation 10 Students fully internalized P&B 5 Students showed understanding of P&B Students did not show proper understanding of 1 P&B Supporting documentation was used to support 10 project ideas, and was well documented Supporting documentation was not used to it's 5 utmost, or was not properly documented Supporting document was miss-used and miss1 documented 10 Deep thought about usefullness of P&B is evident 5 Thought about usefullness of P&B is evident 1 No thought of proper use of P&B apparent Group learned how to work together, and do so in 10 an orderly, smooth fashion Group learned to deal with certain problems, but 5 effort was required Group made no attempt to learn from team 1 experience Score: Percent: Grade:

Use of P&B should be evident, and it's internalization clear

Use of supporting documentation 10 Learning about P&B methods 10

Supporting documents are used well, and are cited properly Additional learning, outside of our Q4S assignments should be evident

Learning about teamwork 10

9
1215 90 A

Group learned about each other, and members were willing to pick up slack when necessary.

[Fig 5.2] Self Grading Scheme

12/14/2004

128

References

[1]. Pahl, G., and Beitz, W. Engineering Design: A systematic Approach. London: Springer, 1996., [2]. Todd Spierling ME6101 Engineering Design, Question for the Semester, Dr. Farrokh Mistree, Fall 2002. [3]. Marco Gero Fernndez, Carolyn Conner Seepersad, David W Rosen, Janet K. Allen, and Farrokh Mistree, Decision Support in Concurrent Engineering The Utility-Based Selection Decision Support Problem. Systems Realization Laboratory, G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. Submitted to CERA September 25, 2003. [4]. Hazelrigg, George A. Validation of Engineering Design Alternative Selection Methods. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230. Submitted for review for Journal of Mechanical Design. [5]. Spencer, R.S., Gilmore, D.G.: Equating state for polystyrene. J. appl. Phys. 20: 502-506. 1949. [6]. Tecle, A., L., Duckstein, A Procedure for Selecting MCDM Techniques for Forest Resources Management, in: A. Goicoechea, L. Duckstein, S. Zionts (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference: Theory and Applications in Business, Industry, and Government, Springer, New York, 1992, pp. 19-32. [7]. Suh,. N. 1996 "Development of the Science Base of the Manufacturing Field through the Axiomatic Apporach." Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, No 3/4, pg 397-415 [8]. Pederson, K., Emblemsvag, J., Bailey, R., Allen, J.K., Mistree, F., 2000, The Validation Square Validating Design Methods, ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, New York: ASME, 2000. ASME DETC2000/DTM-14579. [9]. Sen, P. and Yang, JB: Multiple criteria decision support in engineering design [10]. Thurstone, L.L., The method of paired comparisons for social values. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1927, 21, 384-400. [11]. Teghem, J. Jr., C., Delhaye, P. L., Kunsch, 1989, An interactive decision support system (IDSS) for multicriteria decision aid, Mathematical Computational Modelling, Vol. 12, No. 10/11, pp. 1311-1320.

12/14/2004

129

Appendix A: Individual Visions

Ashley Ceci A0 Goals The purpose behind doing anything in this class is to make progress towards our A0 goals. These are the goals I hope to move towards by the end of this project, and class:

To sharpen my skills in the problem-solving arena, and understand how my problem solving skills will need to change to meet 2020 requirements. To gain the necessary skills to properly view the long term effects of a project, or design choices. (i.e. how will future changes in people's/societies/my needs alter how effective/promising a design decision really is) To get some real experience in tying my business consulting and engineering/scholastic backgrounds together in order to solve problems. Learn how to get to the crux of the problem, and organize my thoughts and approach to utilize that knowledge. To take a design idea from cradle to grave. Going from the initial planning and outline stage to a full-fledged proposal/conceptual document. Normally I was on the build phase, and most of the big decisions were already made.

Personal Question for the Semester How must P&B be restructured to meet the design and communication needs of a company in the year 2020? These modifications must take into account a geographically disperse manufacturing, business and managerial environment. Personal World of 2020 Prior to answering the Q4S, we must first define, to the best of our ability, what the future will be. First its necessary to touch on the concept of a geographically disperse market place. As with many companies today, current designs are being created in the United States, for example, and then sent Off-shore to programming and build facilities. The thought is that this is cheaper, as labor costs abroad are much lower than they are here. Many times the design process would stop at the embodiment phase, allowing the offshore managers to tweak the final detail design to fit the skill sets they had available to them. The only concern they had was integrating back to the existing systems; everything else was a black box. In the future I see this happening to a greater extent. No longer will there be simple hand offs, but these disperse groups will work from cradle to grave on the project; altering requirements, eliminating certain design and process paths, setting proof of concept testing constraints, and performing those tests all in an attempt to come up with a solution that is modular and compatible enough to be completely plug and play in any 12/14/2004 130

environment. In order for this to happen, solutions must be location independent. Whether you are stationed in India, the US, Mexico, China, or anywhere else, the way in which you begin a design, and the way you create your road-map to completion must be standardized. This is the only way that work can be done in a geographically disperse business environment. There must be standards and protocols that everyone is expected to adhere to, otherwise departments begin working in silos, and the best interest of the company as a whole is lost. Having said that, my world for the year 2020 is very similar, on the grand scale, to that of many others. The following are some of the key changes that we will probably see, and which will effect how companies are forced to work [3]. Political vision Countries will have a stronger International Identity, as their views, believes, actions and political ways become more accessible to other countries. This will eliminate much of the behind the scenes work that is done by many countries, and will make them more accountable on the global scale. Political rivals in 2001 will be forced to work together, or risk war, as resources become scarcer. Ambassadors serve as both political envoys and economic envoys as nations try to promote their businesses overseas. Social vision The average age of populations is significantly changed compared to 2003. While life expectancies have increased in industrialized countries, the average age for individuals in non-superpower nations will remain the same, or steadily decrease due to overpopulation. The average consumer has access to better and more information about goods and services available through the Internet and global marketing. Students, workers, friends and family are receiving international information and educations, as virtual conferencing becomes common. International travel becomes as common as domestic travel, although security becomes heightened. Borders are more easily crossed for individuals who have something to contribute to their new foster nation. Communities are multi-racial, multicultural, multi-religions, and multilingual. Environmental vision While build up is occurring at a mind boggling rate within cities, facilitating the need to elevate not just living, business and commercial facilities (skyscrapers), but also for parks, airports and farms. People are finally begin to understand the need for mass recycling, and, must like its done on military bases today, recycling of basic products (glass, paper, metal, etc.) becomes mandatory. Industrial facilities that have better environmental management are no longer allowed to sell their environmental points (the net amount of pollutants they are allowed to put into the air, water and soil) to those companies that are not

12/14/2004

131

up to par. Instead, companies that cannot consistently meet environmental regulations are shut down. Corporate vision The corporation is responsible for dealing with greater levels of uncertainty in the consumer market due to shorter product life cycles. Manufacturing corporations, in 2020, will manage a larger resource pool, in term of design technology Group Project Now that my vision of the world of 2020 has been laid out, its necessary to tie it into the group vision, and thus the project. How my Q4S benefits from the group Q4S is as follows: One of the greatest factors affecting the effectiveness of communicating ideas and information over great distances, and between differing social, economic and business cultures is the differing methods used to arrive at a project direction. There are many internal biases that effect how a decision are made, when you add in the disperse network of divisions and facility groups that will be prominent in the future, the problem becomes compounded. By setting a standard method, you are able to simplify the design process, and facilitate smoother communication of ideas. So how does the above effect my goals?

To sharpen my skills in the problem-solving arena, and understand how my problem solving skills will need to change to meet 2020 requirements.

Creating something that will benefit the masses requires the best, most involved form of problem solving and decision-making. To make the above goal come to fruition, Ill need to be able to solve one of the worlds biggest problems. How do we get people to agree on a standard coarse of action for making decisions, or selecting a product, process, or company path? By taking the deeper understanding of selection processes, and how to apply them, that I hope to gain from this project, I should be able to reach this goal, or accomplish a large part of it by the end of the semester.

To gain the necessary skills to properly view the long term effects of a project, or design choices. (i.e. how will future changes in people's/societies/my needs alter how effective/promising a design decision really is)

Making choices is the key to this project, and creating a standardized process by which selections are made is the proposed outcome (at least on a small scale). By creating such a standardized process you are able to limit some of the unpredictability associated with what may, or may not occur in the future. This helps you to better calculate the effects

12/14/2004

132

of future changes, because those changes are measured against a relatively concrete set of processes.

To get some real experience in tying my business consulting and engineering/scholastic backgrounds together in order to solve problems.

Everything Ive done thus far in this class has made us of my past experience. This project, working with team members, and trying to standardize a future vision is only one more step towards furthering this goal.

Learn how to get to the crux of the problem, and organize my thoughts and approach to utilize that knowledge.

Through this project I hope to further my understanding, and internalization of Pahl and Bietz. Utilizing the Clarification of Task, Conceptual Design and some of the Embodiment Phases will do this. In addition, I hope better determine the limitations of the P&B methods, and personalize and augment them by adding in a structured selection process.

To take a design idea from cradle to grave. Going from the initial planning and outline stage to a full-fledged proposal/conceptual document.

Probably going to drop this goal, as its not really achievable by the end of this class.

12/14/2004

133

Nathan Rolander A0 Goals The purpose of all work in ME6101 is to make progress towards achieving our A0 goals and answer our question for the semester. As of 10/11/03 my A0 goals are: 1. To think critically and to get to the crux of the problem 2. To formulate a design process 2.a. To internalize the principles behind a systematic design method 2.b. To internalize the principles behind selection processes 3. To identify opportunities for new or improved designs 4. To use mathematical models & systems in designs 5. To communicate my designs Personal Question for the Semester How should the Pahl & Beitz systematic design method be personalized and augmented to create a design process that is adaptable and scaleable to address any design project. This will be accomplished through customization of the design process to best suit the task, accounting for the geographically disperse manufacturing, business and managerial environment of the year 2020. Group Project The project makes up a large part of the work for this class and as such should address both class objectives of achieving my A0 goals and answering my Q4S. This is how my individual Q4S will leverage from the group Q4S: Group Q4S:

How can the P&B method be augmented to better address selection utilizing a systematic procedure enabling the selection of the most appropriate decision method for the task? Thus making all assumptions and preferences explicit to facilitate better communication and design in the distributed environment of 2020.
Selection occurs throughout the Pahl and Beitz systematic method, but is not addressed directly in a systematic manner. The group Q4S is a subset of my personal Q4S; both address the customization of the design process to suit the needs of the user. Standardization and the systematic manner make the method proposed in the group Q4S beneficial to geographically dispersed design teams, as group operating differences will be removed enabling communication and understanding. Through answering the group

12/14/2004

134

Q4S I will have answered a large part of my individual Q4S, addressing the selection module of my augmented Pahl and Beitz process. This is how I believe the group project will address each of my A0 goals: 1. To think critically and to get to the crux of the problem The group project involves addressing two issues, selection methods and the application of selection methods to an HVAC system. To address each of these issues our team must get to the essence of each problem, in order to determine what must be accomplished. After the crux of the problem has been identified we must abstract and determine our region of interest in both of these issues. 2. To formulate a design process 2.a. To internalize the principles behind a systematic design method We will be following the Pahl and Beitz process of clarification of task, conceptual design, and some limited design embodiment during the project. We will also be personalizing and augmenting the process with regards to the project requirements and selection steps. Continued exposure to the Pahl and Beitz system moves me closer to this goal. 2.b. To internalize the principles behind selection processes I modified my old A0 goal to directly address selection processes when I realized that they were neglected from the Pahl and Beitz process. The project directly tackles this goal. 3. To identify opportunities for new or improved designs During the focusing of the project we identified the need for better dealing of selection in the Pahl and Beitz process. This is not a traditional product design improvement, but uses the same principles. We will continue to look for opportunities to improve the selection processes as the project progresses. 4. To use mathematical models & systems in designs The project does not involve any modeling of systems, and therefore I do not foresee the project addressing this goal very well. 5. To communicate my designs Creating an effective final report and presentation as part of the project will help me become effective at communicating my work and designs. I can also learn from my team member Ashley Ceci on good presentation skills.

12/14/2004

135

Personal World of 2020 My vision of the world of engineering design in the year 2020 is based on looking at the world of 1980 and comparing it today, and extrapolating trends out for another 20 years. Barring sudden drastic changes that cannot be predicted, I feel that this process will give me accurate insight into the world of the future. Looking back over the past 20 years the biggest changes have been in the information technology sector. The development of the PC and the internet have had the most profound changes on the global market, allowing for multinational projects that were inconceivable in the past. Product development time has also been reduced, as a result of better communication and the increased computational power of the modern PC, allowing for human-computer 'cyborgs'. Less important to design phase but more important to manufacturing is the emergence of new high tech manufacturing plants in south east Asia and other areas of the world. Nearly all competitive electronics are designed and manufactured in separate countries, without lots of communication. Other aspects of the world have not changed. Bulk product transportation is still carried out by container ship, as it has been for centuries. Air travel for meetings is less expensive and marginally faster, but no great strides have been made towards either supersonic transportation or mass economic international travel, only small steps. In fact, with the disbanding of the Concorde, fast human transportation has actually moved backwards. Another aspect that is undecided upon is environmental impact of products and recycling. I feel this area is undecided upon because some countries, primarily smaller European countries such as Holland, have made great strides forward, others such as the United States have made very little process. Combined with newly developing countries with no environmental regulations that are currently being exploited by the global market, I am unsure as to the worlds development as a whole on this issue. Using these observations, I make the following predictions about the world of 2020:

Personal Computers will become even more powerful, further reducing product development time using advanced software, specifically I think a new direction in online group design collaboration software will emerge. For example, the CAD design of a system will be constructed by individuals at different locations, but the assembly of parts will be a global file online. The Internet, e-mail, and video conferencing (plus new long-range communication methods) will be as widespread as the telephone, furthering global communication. Manufacturing will continue to move away from developed countries where the design work occurs, to the newest developing countries. The better developing countries of today will become more established and move on to advanced manufacturing and some design industries. Bulk international transportation will still be performed by heavy cargo ship, domestic distribution will still be primarily performed by tractor-trailer trucks, with some advancement but nothing ground breaking. This will be a bottle neck in the globally distributed manufacturing and design industry.

12/14/2004

136

Air transportation will continue to decrease in cost with the breaking up of the monopolies of the large old airlines from new competition. A new more efficient supersonic airliner will be developed for executive transportation. Small steps will be made by the world towards environmentally friendly manufacturing as a whole. Some countries will make large strides, others no progress at all, however overall I believe we will move slowly forward.

12/14/2004

137

Matthieu Berdugo A0 Goals Throughout these two months my goals have slightly evolved. In fact, I have understood that some goals have been already reached or should be considered secondly important. Meanwhile some goals have appeared to be necessary to be taken into account. This could be explained by the fact that Im (slowly) understanding what the ME 6101 class is wanting from me.

Adapt to people and make them want to work with me To get rid of all my prerequisites to abstract new concepts when needed To get the crux of a problem To anticipate problems to prevent from bad surprises To broaden my mind to several fields

Personal Question for the Semester Here is my first Q4S, which will probably evolve during the next weeks:

How the P&B design method could be augmented to suit in a social, ethical and advertising-based world and adapt it to a worldwide variety of markets?
Personal World of 2020 Means of communication Means of communication will have to fulfil following features: rapidity and accuracy. These are the only way for a potential mean of communication to suit in a world where the life cycle of a product could be reduced to one day. Multidirectional exchanges of information because we need to be heard by more than one person and to be understood quickly by all. Long distance interaction will be possible by the use of new technologies such as holographic materialization and all the technology advances will interact between each other to transmit the information under different formats and to different people. Adoption of an accurate, organised and viable way to dispatch information among the different offices of a company: each mails and messages would be analysed by a computer which would have to send it all around the world to the really concerned and interested people. Set-up of personals settings and preferences database in each company so that the statue of an employee is well defined and made available for all when sending a message. Ways of manufacturing and designing Products will have to be made and shipped faster.

12/14/2004

138

Cheaper processes would be favoured because of the need to face new competitors. Cleaner processes will be adapted. Hence, only processes which are able to reduce the amount of material or energy losses would be eligible. We can think of rapid prototyping process. More automated and computerized tasks: recurrent maintenances, tests, surveillance, cleaning Rationalization would be used extensively; each production line could be modulated to form another one. Engineers would combine them to produce new devices. Mass customisation would present a great interest for lots of company in industry: firms will have to produce a great amount of devices and adapt them to the tortuous needs of customers. New materials would also be used: cheaper, recyclable and with great properties. Many improvements in CAD process: it will be easier to draw on a computer: mouse will be gradually given up to adopt a numeric pen. The computer would infer the movement of the pen driven by an engineer to draw a specific element. An hologram technology would be used to represent in 3D the product. If a parts cannot be adapted on the product it would simply appear on the hologram

Marketing considerations Advertising could be present in more various ways than it already exists, it could be an integrated part of the life of people and we would use it daily. Companies which want to promote a new product could offer it first. Poll could be more used: creation of websites where people could express their demands and/or wishes. We could imagine that these people are motivated by the opportunity of getting some free products by expressing on the web. As the market will be broadening to the entire world, companies will have to consider each country before launching a new product. Hence, each country could have its own marketing team. Safety regulations will be really though and lots of tests will be required before a product to be put on the market. Food will be strictly controlled and genetically modified organism would be an integrated part of our life. As new diseases would arise, new regulations to avoid them would be needed. Environmental considerations will be tougher, some materials will be prohibited and replace by cleaner one. These regulations would be applied in a wider extend and not only in the today developed countries. A worldwide use of designed system would require a good adaptation to different environment, temperature, humidity or gravity. It would impose new geometrical, kinematicalconsiderations. Ergonomics would be an important point because the product will need to be used in a broader way: blind people, deaf people, elderly or children

12/14/2004

139

Group Project Lets remind what is question for the semester of my group, to tie it with my personal goals and Q4S: How can the P&B method be augmented to better address selection utilizing a systematic procedure enabling the selection of the most appropriate decision method for the task? Thus making all assumptions and preferences explicit to facilitate better communication and design in the distributed environment of 2020. Selection would be achieved by someone throughout his life. The process of selection lays on the choice between several alternatives that can seem more or less valuable depending of the point of view of the person. Though this project we will show how we can set up a standardized process to make a good choice in front of a problem.

Adapt to people and make them want to work with me

This project has a greater value for me than projects I used to work on in the past. I have to deal with a new way of analyzing a problem and a new way of interacting with my colleagues. I think that the very first step of this project will be a smooth and complete adaptation in my group to make them happy and fell like working with me.

To get rid of all my prerequisites to abstract new concepts when needed

This project presents a great interest for me in the way that I have to abstract a solution for a dual aspects problem which is really challenging for me. First, I have never worked on the design of such an air conditioning system, then; I have to rethink on my way of solving a problem by wondering why would I solve the problem like that? Hence, by studying of this brand-new concept, I would be able to enhance my capacity to criticize my own work and results.

To get the crux of a problem

This is probably the most repeated advise in the ME 6101 class but it is unquestionably the point of this class. By finding a selection method and by standardized it, our group would reach the solution of the design problem: the choice of the best system for the cooling of the Data Centers. This would imply the study of the different selection methods and by analyzing them successively.

To anticipate problems to prevent from bad surprises

This could be achieved by the redaction of a precise and complete requirement list. By listing al the wishes and demands and by quantifying them we could achieve a certain degree of precision when selection the best system of air conditioning. This is an example but all along this project we (and overall Nate as the team leader of this team) would have

12/14/2004

140

to foresee for which reasons a back-up plan would be started. This is the real challenge of a team leader and foreseen all the problems would be the ideal concretization of the project.

To broaden my mind to several fields without being destabilized

As I have said for my second goal, this project is both challenging and new for me in the sense that it makes me think on my work and study a new concept for me. This should not freak me out!

12/14/2004

141

Appendix B: Paper Summaries Hierarchical Selection Decision Support Problems in Conceptual Design Selection in the Conceptual Design of Aircraft
This summary pertains to the Selection DSP, and Selection-Selection DSP (used when multiple selection DSPs need to be integrated). In addition, there is a brief summary of the pre-selection, or preliminary selection DSP method that must take place prior to either the Selection, or Selection-Selection DSPs being performed. While there are also Selection-Compromise DSPs and Compromise-Compromise DSPs, those were not covered in any level of detail in either of these articles. The formulation and solution of DSPs provides a means for making the following types of decisions: 4. Selection: The indication of a preference, based on multiple attributes, for one among several feasible alternatives. 5. Compromise: The improvement of a feasible alternative through modification 6. Coupled or Hierarchical: Decisions that are linked Selection/Selection, Selection/Compromise, and Compromise/Compromise. All decisions made are done so based on analysis-based information hard data, insightbased soft information, or both. It must be understood that the outcome of either of the methods mentioned above is simply to provide support for human judgment in design synthesis. The technique for applying the above is based on the following assertions: 5. The design involves a series of decisions, some of which may be made sequentially and others that must be made concurrently (coupled). 6. Design involves hierarchical decision-making and the interaction between these decisions must be taken into account (unless a decision is being made on a single attribute). 7. Design productivity can be increased through the use of analysis, visualization and synthesis in complementary roles. 8. The technique that supports human decision making ideally must also be: a. Process-based and discipline-independent b. Suitable for solving open problems, and c. Must facilitate self-learning

12/14/2004

142

PreSelection The PreSelection, or preliminary selection DSP is to be formulated and solved when a decision is to be based on experience-based soft information. This is the method of selecting the most likely to succeed concepts for further development into feasible alternatives. This can be used regardless of whether you wish to continue on an utilize the Selection DSP, or one of the combined Selection/Compromise DSPs. The DSP for such a preliminary problem should be set up as follows: Given: Identify: Capture: Rank: A set of concepts The principal criteria influencing selection, and the relative importance of the criteria. Experience-based knowledge about the concepts with respect to a datum and establish criteria. The concepts in order of preference based on multiple criteria and their relative importance.

The problem is developed using the following steps: 8. Describe the concepts and provide acronyms. In our case wed take each of the CRAC units we are choosing between, explain what they do, what they are, who makes them, and any appropriate characteristics. Once that is done wed give them an acronym to use throughout the rest of the selection process. 9. Describe each generalized criterion; provide acronyms and weighting constants for the specific criteria. Some general criteria may be safety, performance, economics and market standing (how well the product sells vs. others). Under each general criteria there may be several more specific criteria such as: a. Safety: i. Simplicity ii. Reliability b. Economics i. Cost ii. Power matching iii. Technology 10. Choose a datum with which all other concepts will be compared. For example, take the first CRAC choice, and set it as the zero standard. It will act as the initial datum. It is sometimes best to select as the datum the concept, in our case the CRAC system, that you perceive to be the best, or the worst. 11. Compare the concepts, with the end result captured in a table, and an accurate record of why you scored each criterion for each concept they way you did (most important). 12. Evaluate the merit function for each concept within each generalized criterion (i.e. Safety, performance, economics and market standing). The Score for each concept, as well as its Normalized Score (i.e. the merit function value) for each of the concepts with respect to the generalized criterion.

12/14/2004

143

13. Include interactions between generalized criteria. This is the weighting of each of the generalized, high-level criteria. It is sometimes best to create a scenario where each of the individual generalized criteria is given the highest weight, thus having it dominate the others. Then create a final scenario where you weight the criteria based on the best estimate of the relative importance of each criteria. The hope is that one concept, (i.e. one CRAC unit) comes up as the best alternative each time. At this point it might be necessary to readdress Part 3, and choose a separate datum. From there you follow through each step again, each time recording which concept was the best. 14. Post solution analysis: Determine the most-likely-to-succeed concepts. This is done by not only choosing the winners of each cycle through steps 3-6, but also by selecting possibly the second and third finisher in each respective cycle. Note: It has been found that youll need a minimum of 5-7 datums (i.e. cycles through steps 3-6) for problems involving 10-15 concepts. The number of datums stays around 7 or 8 for problems involving many more than 15 concepts. Selection DSP The selection DSP facilitates the ranking of alternatives based on multiple attributes of varying importance. The order indicates not only the rank, but also by how much one alternative is preferred to another (the weighting is important, and must have a logical backing). In the selection based DSP both science-based objective information and experience based subjective information can be used. The DSP for such a problem is set up as follows: Given: Identify: Rate: Rank: A set of feasible alternatives. The principal attributes influencing selection, as well as the relationship between those attributes and their relative importance. The alternatives with respect to each attribute. The feasible alternatives in order of preference based on attributes and their relative importance.

The problem is developed using the following steps: 7. Describe the alternatives and provide the acronyms. This is similar to Step 1 for preliminary selection DSP, but there should be fewer concepts involved. At this point you should only be dealing with the most-likely-to-succeed alternatives. 8. Describe each attribute, specify the relative importance of the attributes and provide acronyms. This is a more detailed list, and you dont tend to have generalized categories. For the CRACs, these attributes may be size (height, width, depth), weight, up flow vs. down flow, stability, power matching, cooling capacity, fouling (cost of maintenance based on cooling fluid used) and corrosion (material needed to prevent corrosion based on coolant used).

12/14/2004

144

9. Specify the scales, rate the alternatives with respect to each attribute and normalize them. This can be done through a ratio scale (for size and cooling capacity), a composite scale (for Power Matching), or just a rating scale with justification (Simplicity of use may be on a scale of 1 10, 1 being very simple to operate, and 10 being very difficult). 10. Normalize the ratings. This is done through a series of equations that I wont go into in this summary. 11. Evaluate the merit function for each alternative. The merit function values are calculated using another equation, and make use of the values obtained in step 4. 12. Perform post-solution sensitivity analysis. This is where you determine if work arounds could alter the scores of individual alternatives. It is also important to determine if an attribute that an alternative scored low on is something easily fixed. If an item scores poorly because it is too large, is it possible to decrease the bulkiness in some way, thus negating this negative. Sensitivity to changes in the attribute importance is important, especially with alternatives that score close together on the scales provided. Sensitivity analysis is required to determine the effect on the solution of small changes in the values of the relative importance and also to changes in the attribute ratings. This is done by: 5. Picking the best and second best alternatives for further analysis 6. Increasing and decreasing the relative importance of each attribute (a standard is +- 5%). 7. Compute revised merit 8. Accept or re-evaluate based on the above results. Selection-Selection DSP (and Coupled SSDSP) The selection-selection DSP facilitates the ranking of multiple sets of alternatives based on multiple attributes, some of which are coupled between attributes. It is performed the same as with a Selection DSP, but there is a need to follow the selection DSP steps for each differing sets of alternatives. An example for CRACs might be the need to decide between the CRAC units, as well as the coolant fluid type. A coupled selection-selection DSP arises whenever you have a system that can be decomposed into several inter-dependant subsystems that have to be selected by the designer. An example of an inter-dependant subsystem may be the fouling (cost of maintenance based on cooling fluid used) and corrosion (material needed to prevent corrosion based on coolant used) attributes mentioned above. They are related, or coupled because the cost of maintenance of the CRAC unit is dependant on the cooling fluid used, as well as the corrosion protection material (something that protects against water may be cheaper than something that protects against another fluid, and the amount of anticorrosion material is dependant on the CRAC unit you choose.) The steps are the same as for a selection-selection DSP, but you add in a secondary steps to Step 6 listed in the Selection DSP.

12/14/2004

145

6b. Create an array of ratings for the coupling attributes. This is done by creating an S dimensional array, were S represents the number of selection problems (CRAC and cooling fluid) coupled by the attributes under consideration (fouling and corrosion). For each attribute, the array contains the ratings for all possible combinations of the alternatives corresponding to all the coupled selection DSPs. 6c. Formulate and solve the coupled selection-selection problem.

12/14/2004

146

A Select Overview of MCDM Techniques

Since criteria are often represent conflicting goals, the decision-maker is then faced with a situation in which compromise is required. This is the reason why there are, per this report, two types of Multicriteria Decision Making methods (MCDM): 1. Multiple Attribute Decision Making methods (MADM): for solving a selection problem 2. Multiple Objective Decision Making methods (MODM): for solving a compromise problem Prior to the advent of these two approaches, the classical approach was utilized, which allowed for a rigorous, sometimes numerical solution to problems that were an approximation of the real world. This was normally done when there was a single criterion that was being discussed, or being used for selection, hence those decision types were caused mono-criteria methods. The above-mentioned approaches are to be used when one can create an exact replication of a real world problem making use of multiple criteria. Unfortunately, one can not always come up with a rigorous solution to such problems. In order to make use of the above decision-making, or selection methods, one must have an accurate representation of the design problem to be solved. The two most common are: 1. Descriptive and Computational Models a. The descriptive models are based on close observation of design activities. The design activity is analyzed step by step during the creation of a new product, for example. b. The computational models are connected with computers. In fact, they try to automate the design activity, in decomposing the design in several tasks. 2. Prescriptive or Normative Models a. Axiomatic design b. Systematic Approach of Pugh c. Systematic Approach of Pahl and Bietz

12/14/2004

147

Selection/Decision Methods When selecting a method it is important to understand that the tools that make up the method are unimportant. Whats important is which method will solve the problem we are dealing with. Category Mono-criterion Methods Method
Cost Benefit Analysis Direct Notation Method Delphi Method Pairwise Comparisons Methods

Description
A technique designed to determine the feasibility of a project or plan by quantifying its costs and benefits. Method used in mechanical design and is based on the expertise of the committee who has the responsibility of making the decision. The Delphi Method is based on a structured process for collecting and distilling knowledge from a group of experts by means of a series of questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion feedback These methods consist in successively comparing the relative importance of the element i with the element j in calculating the ratio c[ij] = p[I]/p[j]. These comparisons are then put in a square matrix, at which time a weight vector is utilized to determine which element is most important.

MADM (No Information) MADM (Standard Levels) MADM (Weight Assignment)

Dominance Maximin Maximax Conjunctive

Considers that each alternative is acceptable as long as the corresponding attributes meet the minimum cutoffs.
This method evaluates an alternative on its best attribute regardless of all other attributes The method involves the solution of a set of simultaneous linear algebraic equations and is conceptually easy to understand. Simultaneously involves all participating alternatives to find their respective performances for all criteria in relation to each other With the lexicographic method, the objective functions are arranged in order of importance. Then optimization problems are solved one at a time to determine the best decision The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution: It is a method with appeals as simplicity (easy to apply) and hypotheses based approach of a problem (the best and the worst situations).

Disjunctive Direct Assignment Least Square Eigenvector Entropy MITA Lexicographic Simple Weighting TOPSIS Linear Assignment Relative Position Estimation ELECTRE AHP

MADM (Weight Given Beforehand)

Elimination and Choice Translating Reality) only provide the sorting of the alternatives (in this case, a dominance principles based ranking). Analytic Hierarchy Process: enables a systematic approach for gathering and quantifying weights and ratings of both objective and subjective criteria in order to compare them on a common scale A problem is decomposed into a hierarchy where the alternatives are at the lowest level. This technique applies the decomposition, the comparative judgments on comparative elements and measures of relative importance through pairwise comparison matrices, which are recombined into an overall rating of alternatives.

LIMAP

12/14/2004

148

MADM (Weight to be generated) MADM (Local Utility Function) MADM (Implicit Utility Function) MODM (Efficiency solution generation) MODM (A Priori Articulation of Preference Information)

UTA

This is an implementation of MAVT where individual value functions (for each criterion) are obtained using ordinal regression. Pairwise comparisons of some alternative choices

ILUTA

EDMCM

Pairwise comparisons with some trade-off questions.

Implicit Trade-Off

In this method the decision maker specifies a trade-off among the multiple objectives. This method is also known as the e -constraint or the reduced feasible space method because the technique involves search in a progressively reduced criterion space. The original problem is converted to a new problem in which one objective is minimized subject to N 1 constraints that limit the values of the remaining objectives and the original constraints. In an ordinal ranking, no information is available regarding the magnitude of the differences between the ranked items. All that is known is that A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and so forth. Various techniques are available for converting data from an ordinal to cardinal scale. They are based on identifying quantitative weights

Ordinal

Cardinal

The cardinal approach is followed when the different objectives have different types, units or scales. Two stages are required to transform these objectives into a set of comparable scales. First, the qualitative terms are transferred into an interval scale. The decision makers should agree on the scaling procedure they use. Secondly, the values with different units are normalized.

MODM (Iteractive Progressive Articulation)

Implicit Trade-Offs Explicit Trade-Offs

12/14/2004

149

Choosing The Best Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Method

Introduction Methodology of multiple-criteria decision-making: 1. Structuring the decision problem a. Specifying of objectives and attributes b. Generation of alternatives c. The assessment of consequences of each alternative in terms of multiple criteria 2. Formulating a preference model 3. Evaluating and comparing alternatives Many times this can is just as important as formulating a development of a formal model. If this step is done incorrectly, results can be misleading. Even if the structuring of the problem is carried out perfectly, the use of an inappropriate formal model could result in a decision recommendation that cannot be justified. This means that: 1. Structuring the problem 2. And formulating of MCDM models are interrelated issues that are very important. Where the term MCDM method refers to a procedure for ordering a set of decision alternatives. When dealing with real problem situations, alternatives and the attributes that guide a decision tend to remain in a state of flux. However, once the decision maker gathers a representative sample of finite alternatives, and a number of attributes, the decision problem should be formalized. It is then that a discrete alternative MCDM method is selected. The purpose of the paper being summarized is to illuminate the complexities of the selection problem.

This paper is based on the assumption that for significant MCDM decision problems the following premises, discussed below, are relevant: 1. The selection of the best MCDM method is important; 2. The search for the best MCDM method should be based on the consideration of the decision situation, methods assumptions, and information requirements of the method, and 3. The selection of the best MCDM method can be facilitated by developing and using an MCDM expert system.

12/14/2004

150

Importance of the selection problem There exist different types of decision problems and they require different approaches for their solution. Methods intended for complete rank ordering the set of decision alternatives cannot provide partial rank ordering required in many situations for further analysis of a small number of alternatives. Another issue may be a lack of information due to decisions makers not being able to provide sufficient information. This may require several MCDM methods may be required for various MCDM decision problems. The following are a list of examples illustrating the importance of the selection problem: 1. An attempt to use a second MCDM method to review the results of the implementation of the selected method may be embarrassing. All selection methods should provide the same results. 2. Another situation where the justification of the selected MCDM method is relevant is the choice of an MCDM decision support system (MCDSS). There are a large number of commercially available decision aid packages for solving discrete alternative MCDM problems. Clearly, the selection of the most appropriate MCDSS is an important issue that cannot be adequately addressed without clear understanding of how the best MCDM method should be selected. Alternative approaches to the selection problem While solving an MCDM problem, the analyst usually selects a method developed by him, a method the analyst has the most faith in, or a method the analyst is familiar with and has used before. If a particular MCDM method is selected, the role of the analyst is to elicit the necessary preference information from the decision maker and to alleviate inevitable inconsistencies in the information provided by the decision maker. Using a classification tree: Taxonomy of MCDM methods and a choice rule represented by a tree diagram for specification of appropriate methods can be used. Each node represents a question, fact, or recommendation. The nodes are interconnected with branches showing the relationships. The decision maker can then narrow down their options by following the branches. The Hwang and Yoon tree diagram, which was the subject of this paper, is actually an illustrative chart outlining how a comprehensive tree diagram can be built. The problem with this approach is that its difficult (impossible) to develop a tree encompassing all types of decision problems, types of preference information used in various methods, method assumptions, and the available methods. Another problem is that many times a tree diagram cannon the used to facilitate the solution of a real selection problem without the assistance of an expert analyst. The approach to the selection problem based on MacCrimmons method specification chart 12/14/2004

151

can be very useful, as the chart provides a framework and methodological base for the development of a comprehensive computerized MCDM knowledge base. Using an MCDM Expert System: The reasoning for creating such a system comes from at least three different directions: 1. The needs of users for a procedure and tool for formally addressing the selection problem 2. The possibility of developing a comprehensive system step-by-step and then easily updating it 3. The availability of inexpensive microcomputers-based expert system development tools giving MCDM researchers the capability to develop MCDM expert systems. The use of an MCDM expert system offers the following potential advantages over the existing approach: 1. An MCDM expert system will be able to request the required information from the user, recommend the most appropriate MCDM method for a given decision situation and will then be able to justify its recommendation by displaying its line of reasoning. 2. A very important feature of the system is that it will be a decision aid designed and implemented with close attention to the users behavioral constraints. 3. In terms of accuracy, reliability, and consistency of its conclusions, the performance of an MCDM expert system is expected to be comparable to that of human MCDM expert. This will become an intelligent encyclopedia that can capture the knowledge of many MCDM experts. 4. The system will make implicit MCDM knowledge more widely available in explicit form. Steps in the development of an MCDM expert system The procedure should take into account that different cognitive efforts are required from the decision maker. 1. Characteristics for evaluation of decision situation a. Characteristics of the decision process i. Type of decisions problem ii. Number of attributes to be considered iii. Number of alternatives iv. Flexibility of problem statement b. Characteristics of the decision maker i. Decision makers acceptance of a particular methods assumptions ii. Decision makers ability and willingness to provide the preference information required by an MCDM method 2. Characteristics of MCDM methods

12/14/2004

152

c. Mutual correspondence between the MCDM method and the decision problem d. Mutual correspondence between the MCDM method, assumptions about the decision makers preference, and preference information required by the method e. Availability of an MCDM decision support system 3. Quantification of decision situations and MCDM methods The information requirements of various MCDM methods were identified in a general form and then formulated in the form of specific questions posed to the decision maker. f. Tradeoffs between alternatives are permitted g. The additive value function adequately represents the decision makers values h. The user can rank-order all the attributes in decreasing order of importance i. The decision maker can construct single attribute value functions either using a direct ration technique or by identifying a linear or nonlinear scale j. The user can calculate attribute weights using either ration estimation, rating or ranking of importance.

12/14/2004

153

An interactive decision support system for multicriteria decision aid

Goal of the paper: Find a suitable classification for decision making processes Assumptions: Action= solution to apply K is a set of actions 1) Set of actions
1.1) Classification of set of actions: Mathematics models: K is a continuous set of action. (Example: STRANGE, RB-STRANGE) Multi criteria analysis: K is a finite moderate size set of discrete actions. (Example: ELECTRE, PROMETHEE ) 1.2) Importance of actions: Ordinary criterion: highest evaluation gives the best action Pseudo-Criterion: thresholds gives either a or b the best action

2) Criteria How classify the criteria: Can be ordered between each other Put a weight on each of them (sum of weight=1) Put a function that quantify the preference from an action to another one

3) Method of four problem statement Before dealing with a selection method: Choice-problem statement: selection of good action(s) Sorting-problem statement: arrange the actions in predefined classes Rank-problem statement: order the actions Descriptive-problem statement: analyse the consequences of each actions 4) Operational Approach (OA) How proceeding: OA1. Aggregation into a unique criterion function of all the criterions OA2. Comparative tests between two actions; this can be achieved by defining rules before OA3. Dialogues and calculations between the analyst and the decision maker 5) Interactive decision support system (IDDS) Goal: guide the decision maker to choose the suitable approach depending of the problem at hand. This is a decision tree on which the decision maker moves along. 6) Conclusions 12/14/2004 154

Depending on what kind of set of actions weve got, the method of classification of criteria we choose, there is a suitable decision method available. The difficulty is to pinpoint this one, so a decision tree can help any decision maker who wants the most adapted decision process to his problem at hand.

12/14/2004

155

A Procedure for Selection of a Multiobjective Technique with Application to Water and Mineral resources.
Purpose: to develop and illustrate an algorithm by which the most suitable multiobjective solution can be selected for application to a multiobjective problem.
Two types of problem: A finite number of alternatives which are to be ranked Problem defined in terms of a continuous set of alternatives solutions Classification of Criteria: Mathematical programming versus decision making Either finite or continuous set of criteria B. Quantitative versus qualitative criteria Example: cost or tensile strengthcan be easily quantified and environmental impact cannot C. Timing of preference determination The fact that decision makers would immediately give their preferences or gradually reveal them throughout the study and information comes. D. interactive versus noninteractive Enable the decision maker to both play an active role in the decision process and be aware of the tradeoffs implied by making preferences. E. Method of comparing alternatives The classification is based on the kind of solution that is desired by the decision maker Classification of problem: The problem can either be mathematical or decision analysis form The problem can be quantified or qualified The problem varies upon the size of the number of data, objectives, alternative systems The nature of the problem variable: integer or continuous

Classification of the method: Capabilities and limitation of the method must be known before Some could give always a strongly efficient solution or a weakly one Consistency of result Robustness of parameters changes Ease of use Degree of rank provided Solution time

12/14/2004

156

Time of implementation The amount of required interaction with the decision maker

Classification of decision maker: Group more difficult than individual Large amount of effort suitable for group Amount of time available to reach an appropriate solution The level of understanding of the decision making process (need more or less background)

The development of the model of choice Need to define the set of criteria List the alternative techniques Importance of criteria: A. Mandatory 0-1 criteria: yes-no answer to the question and must be yes to remain into consideration B. Nonmandatory 0-1 criteria: remaining the analysis even if no C. Technique-dependant criteria: can be evaluated without an y knowledge of the problem D. Application-dependant criteria: criteria must be evaluated independently for every new problem encountered. 3.1 Evaluation of the Technique capabilities: To evaluate the choosing process, we first list the process and note if they fill or not the requirement in terms of criteria listed above. Then, we grade each category from 1 to 10. We must proceed by step by focusing by step on criteria A, B and C. But at this point criteria D cannot be evaluated. 3.2 The choice of the model algorithm The problem formulation is moir important than the solution technique applied. Then we can evaluate the technique through all the criteria. Of course, criteria which cannot apply to the technique will be assigned a weight null. To sum up: (1) Formulate the model of the decision problem to be solved (2) (a) List the criteria for model choice (b) Reduce this set of criteria (c) Determine the preference structure over the remaining set of criteria (3) (a) List the alternative solution techniques (b) Reduce the set of alternative solution techniques 12/14/2004 157

(4) Complete the techniques versus criteria (5) Select a satisfying solution from the arry Leverage: We mustnt forget that grading may vary from a decision maker to another one

12/14/2004

158

Facts and Fictions about the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Introduction This is a fun little paper. It discusses the issues involved with the mathematical inconsistencies in selection methods, and how they may/may not be ok. Not exactly sure how it directly relates to our project, but the defenses could be useful in the body of the report, its good background stuff. I think it is good to know this stuff so we can discuss how the methods we select are still valid, and thats why they are in there. This paper deals with the cause and significance of rank reversals, situations allowing or preventing rank reversals, the constraint of the 9 point scale, the roles of redundancy, intransitivities, and inconsistencies, the accommodation of objectivity and uncertainty, the similarity of AHP and MAUT (w.t.f. is MAUT?), and opportunities to combine MCDM (gotta love it when they dont define acronyms) methodologies in real world decisions. Facts & Fictions I am not going to summarize the discussions, if we feel there is something we should look at in these, I will do it. Otherwise its not that relevant. AHP is one of the multiattribute decision making processes, so its focused on this one, but as its a rank ordering method, as are all systems, the arguments are relevant to most methods also.

FACT: AHP uses pairwise comparisons FICTION: AHP cannot accommodate objectivity FACT: AHP need not satisfy the independence of irrelevant alternative assumption of MAUT FICTION: Rank reversal with AHP is caused by the Eigenvector calculations FICTION: A technique allowing rank reversal is flawed FICTION: If it is desirable to preclude rank reversals then AHP should not be used FACT: Normalization is required if the ratio scale property is to be maintained when combining values over several dimensions FACT: AHP allows inconsistency / intransitivities FICTION: An AHP analysis with low inconsistency is a good analysis FICTION: Inconsistencies and intransitivities are bad FACT: The ability of AHP to accommodate inconsistencies and intransitivities is a strength, not a weakness FICTION: AHP cannot deal with uncertainties FACT: AHP and MAUT (MAVT) are more alike then they are different FACT: AHP can be used to produce identical results as Expected Value theory FICTION: The criteria weights in AHP can be automatically calculated or adjusted based on the alternative values FACT: A great deal if time may be required for the pairwise comparisons in a typical AHP analysis

12/14/2004

159

FICTION: Too much time is required for making the many pairwise comparisons with AHP
Yup, thats is. Some of these we can include if we think they are good.

12/14/2004

160

Validation of Engineering Design Alternative Selection Methods

Introduction Everything you always wanted to know about decision methods but were afraid to ask. Decision theory and optimization are closely linked. Currently, selection works like optimization, maximize f(x) subject to g(x)<0. This does not take into account where f(x) came from, or the constraints. These are the axioms of selection methods, and if they are wrong, it does not matter how good the selection or optimization routine, you are starting in the wrong direction. This is what we hope to shed some light on, even though we know we cannot solve it, but simply make people aware of this limitation. All decisions are made under uncertainty, and all traditional selection methods do not take this into account. However, this is out of the scope of our project to attempt to solve, just recognize it. These problems can be addressed with a mathematical framework for methods, but this is an involved process. A good direction is to incorporate previous work done in the decision sciences over the last 300 years, and apply them to engineering design methods. Hazelrigg intends to show this is a good idea in his paper, and call attention to this need. Arrows 4 properties of selection methods 5. Transitivity if the group prefers x to y to z, then the survey should yield the preference that x is preferred to z 6. Unanimity if every member of the group prefers x to y, then the survey should obtain the result that x is preferred to y. 7. Independence of irrelevant alternatives the survey should determine the preference of x over y or of y over x based on only the groups preferences between x and y, and it should not be influenced by preferences for other alternatives. 8. Dictatorship the survey should not be such that whenever individual n in the group prefers x over y, the survey result is always x over y, regardless of the preferences of other individuals in the group. Arrow then showed that there is no way all 4 of these can be satisfied, as such all survey methods have some flaw, there is no universally correct methodology. Hazelriggs Axioms for a good selection method

1. The method should provide a rank ordering of candidate designs. 2. The method should not impose preferences on the designer, that is, the alternatives should be ranked in accordance with the preferences of the designer. 3. The method should permit the comparison of design alternatives under conditions of uncertainty and with risky outcomes, including variability in manufacture, materials, etc., which pervade all of engineering design
12/14/2004 161

4. The method should be independent of the discipline of engineering and manufacture for the product or system in question 5. If the method recommends design alternative A when compared to the set of alternatives S={B, C, D, ...}, then it should also recommend A when compared to any reduced set SR, such as {C, D, ...} or {B, D, ...} or {D, ...}, etc. 6. The method should make the same recommendation regardless of the order in which the design alternatives are considered 7. The method itself should not impose constraints on the design or the design process. 8. The method should be such that the addition of a new design alternative should not make existing alternatives appear less favorable. 9. The method should be such that obtaining clairvoyance on any uncertainty with respect to any alternative must not make the decision situation less attractive (information is always beneficial). 10. The method should be self-consistent and logical, that is, it should not contradict itself and it should make maximum use of available information for design alternative selection.
Hazelriggs Analysis of 8 Methods Hazelrigg applies his 10 axioms to 8 traditional selection methods, and gives reasons for their weaknesses. I believe that he chose these 8 as almost all selection methods are derivatives or sub-sets of these methods, but I cant seem to find where he says this. Ill look in more detail so I can site it in the report. Design Alternative Selection Method Weighted Sum of Attributes Analytical Hierarchy Process Physical Programming Pugh Matrix Quality Function Deployment Taguchi Loss Function Suhs Axiomatic Design Six Sigma 1 x x x x x x x x 2 x Property (from the above list) 3 4 5 6 7 8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o x o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 10 x x x x

o : method meets the designated property x : method meets property under restrictive conditions - : method does not meet property

Weighted Sum of Attributes - Highly restrictive utility form demands utility independence of attributes, which is rare, and demands that utility be proportional to a measure of each attribute, thus, cannot reflect preferences of the designer. Does not account for risk and uncertainty, thus does not account for value of information. Can be validated only in rare circumstances to which it applies. Fails to distinguish between alternatives of varying risk.
12/14/2004 162

Analytical Hierarchy Process - Highly restrictive utility form demands utility independence of attributes and other problems similar to Note 1. Formulation allows violation of Property 5 (Barzilai, 1998b). Physical Programming - Allows outcomes to dictate the formulation of preferences; assumes linear independence of attributes. Pugh Matrix - Seeks to construct a ranking matrix using a method that is invalid, and it makes the invalid assumption that a desirable design is comprised of design elements that are selected optimally but independently. Quality Function Deployment - Fails to recognize that customer preferences cannot be determined correctly in the absence of a specific design decision, and there are particular problems when those preferences are intransitive (Hazelrigg, 1996). It imposes the preferences of the customers (incorrectly determined) on the designer. Does not account for uncertainty and risk. Taguchi Loss Function - Considers only variability in manufacture and materials, does not include other sources of uncertainty, imposes Taguchis preference system on designer. Suhs Axiomatic Design - Suhs axioms are not axioms in the mathematical sense, but instead comprise a preference system which Suh suggests imposing on the designer. Further the method assumes functional requirements are given, which comprises a constraint imposed on the designer. Six Sigma - Six Sigma focuses on defects and their prevention. It does not deal with preferences beyond this.
Conclusions A method cannot be validated simply by showing it works for a variety of selection, only mathematically. Ease of use my have to be sacrificed in order to obtain mathematically rigorous and verifiable selection methods. We would never consider using a model of a physical system that had not been verified, why should we do the same for selection methods? Robust, accurate selection methods are required for good engineering design, current methods yield inconsistent and wrong results, even with good data. Engineering design will benefit greatly from the incorporation of decision sciences into its decision methods.

12/14/2004

163

The Design of a Knowledge-Based Guidance System for an Intelligent Multiple Objective Decision Support System (IMODSS)
Introduction This is an odd little paper. Basically these guys are doing something similar to what we want, a method for choosing the most appropriate selection method, but they are implementing it using a computer program. They have a couple of interesting ideas, and the references could be used to extract some of the methods. Unfortunately, it really focuses on the program, and is high level stuff, it does not even explain most of the acronyms of the methods, so its not all that useful. But here is what I got out of it; I may look at it again in more detail. Characteristics of Multi-Attribute Decision Methods

Decision Maker Related Methods Related Problems Related Solutions Related

An interesting idea is the concept of an intermediate and novice method, depending on the level of the decision makers knowledge of the decision making processes. If we have time or feel its necessary or a good idea, we could employ this idea. Determining the Multi-Attribute Decision Methods Decision Variables (x) Objective Functions (fi(x), i = 1, 2, 3 . . . l) Constraints (gj(x)<bj, j = 1, 2, 3 . . .m)

Maximize { fi(x), i = 1, 2, 3 . . . l} Subject to: {gj(x)<bj, j = 1, 2, 3 . . .m}

Classification of Characteristics of Multi-Attribute Decision Methods These are their classifications: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Interaction more interaction with the system Subset system provides a set of solutions Unique system provides a unique solution S-Selection select one satisfactory solution by system D-Selection select one satisfactory solution by yourself

12/14/2004

164

6. Analyze analyze the solutions (e.g. improving/sacrificing the value of objectives) 7. Ideal system defines an ideal solution 8. Weight prepare the weight for every objective 9. Goal prepare the goal for every solution 10. Priority prepare the priorities for every objective Questions to Determine Multi-Attribute Decision Method These are their corresponding questions: 1. Would you like to have more interaction with the system? 2. Would you like the system to provide a set of solutions or a unique solution? 3. Would you like the system to select one satisfactory solution or would you like to select a solution? 4. Would you like to analyze solutions (e.g. improving/sacrificing the value of the objectives)? 5. Would you like the system to define an ideal solution? 6. Have you prepared a weight for every objective? 7. Have you prepared a goal for every objective? 8. Have you prepared a priority for every objective? This info then gets placed in the corresponding information vectors and they apply a match process to determine the methods to use. Unfortunately they tell us exactly nothing about this really, besides that there will always be some compromise, as there requested selection process requirements dont exactly match up and so we have to find the best fitting methods.

12/14/2004

165

A Procedure for Selecting MCDM Techniques for Forest Resources Management

Introduction This article models the selection of MCDM (Multi-Criterion Decision-Making) techniques as a multicriterion selection problem. They break up the deciding factors into 4 characteristics, related to the problem, Decision Maker (DM), the technique, and the solution. As an example they analyze 15 methods to choose the most applicable for forest recourse management. Although the specific example is specified at resource management, this paper is very relevant to our work, and I think their base method can be leveraged well in our work. Why Proper MCDM Technique Application is Important Because of the huge number of techniques available, an analyst can get confused in determining which technique to employ when confronted with a problem. This ambiguity can lead to inappropriate selection, resulting in a misleading solution and incorrect conclusions. This is very important in relation to P&B as the end of the conceptual phase involves selecting the most promising design variants. If this is done poorly, the entire design will proceed down a poor path, resulting in a weak solution. This in turn wastes time, money, resources, and energy. It also discourages other designers from employing MCDM techniques, methods we are trying to defend as valuable. Unfortunately, its not that easy to determine if a method is appropriate or not, and there has been many debates over this. In some cases, a method that was thought to be inappropriate has been defended as being applicable, and successfully applied and good results have been obtained. It is still worth trying to select the best method though, as it is so important. Suggested General Method for Selection 1. Define the desired objectives or purposes that the MCDM techniques are to fulfill. 2. Select Evaluation criteria that relate technique capabilities to objectives. 3. List and Specify MCDM techniques available for attaining the objective of modeling the multicriterion problem on hand. 4. Determine technique capabilities or the levels of performance of a technique with respect to the evaluation criteria be setting up and solving a multicriterion problem. 5. Construct an evaluation matrix (techniques vs criteria array), the elements of which represent the capabilities of alternative techniques in terms of the selected criteria (obtained in step 4).

12/14/2004

166

6. Analyze the merits of the alternative MCDM techniques and select the most satisficing technique. Steps 1-5 constitute the problem formulation procedure, while step 6 is the implementation of the MCDM technique selection process. Criteria for Selection There are many difference criteria upon which the choice of an appropriate MCDM technique can be based. These can be grouped into 4 catagories: 5. 6. 7. 8. The characteristics of the decision maker (DM) or analyst involved The characteristics of the algorithm for solution The characteristics of the problem under consideration The nature of the obtainable satisficing solution

There can be many different criterion in these 4 categories, but it is important to keep in mind that too many criterion means that there may not be enough information readily available to fulfill them, and more work is required for the selection. An idea might be to break up the levels of criterion available, for faster simpler selection use less, and for a complex problem that is important, take more time using more criteria. Each of these criteria is then weighted based on the DMs view of how important it is. This means criteria such as ease of coding is weighted more heavily than number of parameters required. An important note is that all the scores and weighting of these criterion will be based on the DMs level of experience with each technique, as well as anything they research on the subject. The MCDM Selection Matrix The top row of the matrix is the different selection methods available. This is chosen from all the methods the DM has knowledge of. The left column has the selection criteria, broken into the 4 categories given. Each entry in the matrix is a subjective rating from 1 to 10, where 1 means the technique absolutely does not meet the requirement, and 10 means it fulfills it with the best possible performance. DM related Characteristics

DMs level of knowledge DMs desire to interface Time available DMs actual knowledge Analysts skill

12/14/2004

167

Technique related Characteristics

CPU time required Number of parameters required Ease of use Computational burden Ability to get effective points Ease of coding

Problem related Characteristics

Handling of qualitative data Finite number of alternatives (~ selection) Non-linear problems Problem size Infinite number of alternatives (~ compromise) Dynamic problem Handling of integer (quantitative) data

Solution related Characteristics The nature of the solution may be described by its uniqueness, reliability, and efficiency, among others.

Consistency of results Robustness of results Usefulness of results of DM Confidence of results Strength of effective solution Number of solutions in each alternative

An interesting point is that these 4 categories are independent of each other. Therefore once the DM related characteristics are established, they can be applied to many different problems until the DMs characteristics change. The same is true of the problem, making it DM independent. This could be useful in a distributed team environment. The MCDM Selection Process As with any problem, the 1st 5 steps in which the problem is formulated is more important tan the last step in which it is solved. We have a mini-paradox here, we need to apply a selection method to selecting selection methods, so how do we know the method we are applying is appropriate? Well, fortunately, this selection of MCDM techniques problem never changes, so we can simply use previous work to find the most appropriate method for this kind of selection, and they employ an effective technique in this paper, called Composite Programming. We can employ this technique as well, or another one with similar characteristics, but its given in detail in the paper and seems

12/14/2004

168

fairly straightforward. Now the interesting thing here is that of course this method fails Hazelriggs axioms for a selection method, so we must defend it. I suggest looking at the Facts and Fictions paper for any applicable defenses. As long as we state that we know the limitations and make this explicit, we are ok. Interpreting Results After applying the composite programming method, a numerical value and rank will be obtained for each method for each of the 4 categories. The performance evaluation scores are determined on the basis of the experience of individuals in using the techniques while the criterion weights are meant to represent the DMs preference structure. The individual method scores can vary considerably between categories, showing that there is no best method, and different methods address different needs. It is up the DM to understand what they require and to make these needs explicit, through the choice of criteria and the weighting used. Sensitivity Analysis & Final Selection Before deciding on the appropriate method, a sensitivity analysis is required. This is done as explained in class lecture, by varying the different constants used to carry out the selection procedure. A computer would be good for this process, as it is both very important and time consuming, as the matrices must be re-computed with different weightings. Because the choices will not change, the DM does not have to be directly involved in anything except setting the algorithm up, making use of a computer ideal. Analyzing the final results for all four criterions for many sensitivities will give the final ranking of MCDM methods for that problem. In general however, the MCDM rankings are fairly robust, and order is not changed much during the sensitivity analysis. Note: if used (and I think it should) we need to defend and explain the sensitivity analysis a little more, look and class notes and a little more research. Also note that this is a two-stage process, first the methods are ranked within the 4 criterion categories, and then these are aggregated, combining the results from the 4 categories and using the sensitivity analysis as well. Problems We can try to address the problems, proved ideas for solution, or simply acknowledge they exist explicitly. These are problems with the presentation in the paper, including information the authors did not present.

Method is completely subjective Sensitivity analysis does not provide by how much what items were changed Does not provide limitations of algorithm Does not show that methods are representations of all MCDM methods

12/14/2004

169

Arrowss Theorem and Engineering Design Decision Making

Introduction This article establishes that Arrows General Possibility Theorem has only indirect application to engineering design. Many engineering design decisions are based in the aggregation of preferences. The foundation of many engineering decisions is the explicit comparison that is not available in the social choice problem. Engineering design decision problem with multiple criteria: Given several performance criteria which are to be simultaneously optimized, determine a method for comparing any two design alternatives that depends only of the values of the individual criteria for each alternative Engineering decisions require both judgment and resources. Often however, engineers simply work to meet specifications, and do not directly compare variants. Arrows Theorem Applicability Question:

Is social choice like engineering decisions? Or more like a single decision maker with multiple objectives?

Papers Hypothesis:

Engineering design decisions fall somewhere in the middle, usually closer to the individual decision maker.

Axioms of Social Choice Axioms perform 2 functions: Model the problem mathematically so conclusions can be derived Certainty with respect to real life depends on validity of axioms Axioms of Social Choice Problem: c) Consistency of result, or rationality d) Autonomy or sovereignty of voters (decision makers) In engineering design, there are multiple decision makers but decisions depend on the aggregation of criteria.

12/14/2004

170

Axioms of Arrows Theorem: 1) Unrestricted Domain Each individual is free to order the alternatives in any way. 2) Positive Response If a set of orders ranks A before B and a second set of orders is identical except that individuals who ranked B before A are entitles to switch, then A is before B in the second set of orders. 3) Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives If A is before B is a social order, then A is still before B is a third alternative C is ignored or added. 4) Not Imposed An order is called imposed is some A is before some B in all possible social orders. The social chose problem must not be imposed. 5) Not Dictatorial An order is called dictatorial if there is one individual whose decisions dictate the social order. This is likewise not allowed. These axioms resulting a contradiction, a social choice function that satisfies all 5 axioms is impossible, a social function that satisfies 1-3 is imposed or dictatorial, and therefore fails. Conclusions This paper proposed that it is legitimate to construct aggregated preferences in engineering design decision making, not in social choice. Group decision in engineering design does not require the sovereignty of individuals, engineering design is requirement driven, not by individuals desires. Different management style correspond to different positions between one and many decision makers, e.g. top down management would be forcing a single a single decision maker problem. The aggregation of preference in engineering design is often discussed as the assessment of a utility function, though utility is a particular for of preference assessment that is useful in decision making under uncertainty and risk. The multi-criteria decision problem discussed in this paper does not include probabilistic uncertainty. Important Results:

Comparison of preferences must be made explicit Arbitrary assignment of numbers to alternatives can lead to undesired conclusions Arbitrary assignment of aggregation can lead to undesired conclusions A decision making method mush have an explicit method for assigning values to alternatives, combining these values into a single value function, and these two must agree If a decision method gives inadequate answers it is because that particular implementation is flawed Reformulation of the decision problem whenever an infeasible candidate arises can fix the problem of evaluation of infeasible alternatives A decision methodology can handle constraints by modifying the underlying axioms

12/14/2004

171