A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design
In design, as with many fields, the bases of decisions are generally not formally modeled but only talked or written about. The research problem addressed in this paper revolves around the problem of modeling the direct evaluation of design alternatives and their attributes as they are realized in l...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | en_US |
| Published: |
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
2017
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/109245 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2365-1378 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7776-3423 |
| _version_ | 1811090263325540352 |
|---|---|
| author | Dong, Andy Honda, Tomonori Ji, Haifeng Yang, Maria C. |
| author2 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering |
| author_facet | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering Dong, Andy Honda, Tomonori Ji, Haifeng Yang, Maria C. |
| author_sort | Dong, Andy |
| collection | MIT |
| description | In design, as with many fields, the bases of decisions are generally not formally modeled but only talked or written about. The research problem addressed in this paper revolves around the problem of modeling the direct evaluation of design alternatives and their attributes as they are realized in linguistic communication. The question is what types of linguistic data provide the most reliable linguistic displays of preference and utility. The paper compares two formal methods for assessing a design team’s preferences for alternatives based on the team’s discussion: APPRAISAL and Preferential Probabilities from Transcripts (PPT). Results suggest that the two methods are comparable in their assessment of preferences. This paper also examines the nature of consistency in the way design teams consider the attributes of a design. Findings suggest that assessment of an attribute can change substantially over time. |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T14:39:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | mit-1721.1/109245 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| language | en_US |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T14:39:45Z |
| publishDate | 2017 |
| publisher | American Society of Mechanical Engineers |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/1092452022-10-01T21:58:53Z A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design Dong, Andy Honda, Tomonori Ji, Haifeng Yang, Maria C. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Data, Systems, and Society Honda, Tomonori Yang, Maria Ji, Haifeng In design, as with many fields, the bases of decisions are generally not formally modeled but only talked or written about. The research problem addressed in this paper revolves around the problem of modeling the direct evaluation of design alternatives and their attributes as they are realized in linguistic communication. The question is what types of linguistic data provide the most reliable linguistic displays of preference and utility. The paper compares two formal methods for assessing a design team’s preferences for alternatives based on the team’s discussion: APPRAISAL and Preferential Probabilities from Transcripts (PPT). Results suggest that the two methods are comparable in their assessment of preferences. This paper also examines the nature of consistency in the way design teams consider the attributes of a design. Findings suggest that assessment of an attribute can change substantially over time. National Science Foundation (U.S.) (Award CMMI- 0900255) Australian Research Council (Discovery Projects funding scheme (project number DP1095601)) 2017-05-22T15:06:33Z 2017-05-22T15:06:33Z 2010-08 Article http://purl.org/eprint/type/ConferencePaper 978-0-7918-4413-7 http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/109245 Honda, Tomonori, Maria C. Yang, Andy Dong, and Haifeng Ji. “A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design.” Volume 5: 22nd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; Special Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise (2010). https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2365-1378 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7776-3423 en_US http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/DETC2010-29045 Volume 5: 22nd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; Special Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use. application/pdf American Society of Mechanical Engineers American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) |
| spellingShingle | Dong, Andy Honda, Tomonori Ji, Haifeng Yang, Maria C. A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design |
| title | A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design |
| title_full | A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design |
| title_fullStr | A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design |
| title_short | A Comparison of Formal Methods for Evaluating the Language of Preference in Engineering Design |
| title_sort | comparison of formal methods for evaluating the language of preference in engineering design |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/109245 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2365-1378 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7776-3423 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dongandy acomparisonofformalmethodsforevaluatingthelanguageofpreferenceinengineeringdesign AT hondatomonori acomparisonofformalmethodsforevaluatingthelanguageofpreferenceinengineeringdesign AT jihaifeng acomparisonofformalmethodsforevaluatingthelanguageofpreferenceinengineeringdesign AT yangmariac acomparisonofformalmethodsforevaluatingthelanguageofpreferenceinengineeringdesign AT dongandy comparisonofformalmethodsforevaluatingthelanguageofpreferenceinengineeringdesign AT hondatomonori comparisonofformalmethodsforevaluatingthelanguageofpreferenceinengineeringdesign AT jihaifeng comparisonofformalmethodsforevaluatingthelanguageofpreferenceinengineeringdesign AT yangmariac comparisonofformalmethodsforevaluatingthelanguageofpreferenceinengineeringdesign |