Advertisement

Design decisions: concordance of designers and effects of the Arrow’s theorem on the collective preference ranking

  • Fiorenzo FranceschiniEmail author
  • Domenico Maisano
Original Paper
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

The problem of collective decision by design teams has received considerable attention in the scientific literature of engineering design. A much debated problem is that in which multiple designers formulate their individual preference rankings of different design alternatives and these rankings should be aggregated into a collective one. This paper focuses the attention on three basic research questions: (1) “How can the degree of concordance of designer rankings be measured?”, (2) “For a given set of designer rankings, which aggregation model provides the most coherent solution?”, and (3) “To what extent is the collective ranking influenced by the aggregation model in use?”. The aim of this paper is to present a novel approach that addresses the above questions in a relatively simple and agile way. A detailed description of the methodology is supported by a practical application to a real-life case study.

Keywords

Engineering design Collective decision-making Design teams Preference ranking Collective ranking Degree of concordance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by the award “TESUN-83486178370409 Finanziamento dipartimenti di eccellenza CAP. 1694 TIT. 232 ART. 6”, which was conferred by “Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca-ITALY”.

References

  1. Arrow KJ (2012) Social choice and individual values, 3rd edn. Yale University Press, New HavenzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow KJ, Rayanaud H (1986) Social choice and multicriterion decision-making. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Borda JC (1781) Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences. Translated by Alfred de Grazia as Mathematical derivation of an election system. Isis 44:42–51Google Scholar
  4. Bormann NC, Golder M (2013) Democratic electoral systems around the world. Electoral Stud 32(2):1946–2011, 360–369Google Scholar
  5. Cagan J, Vogel CM (2012) Creating breakthrough products: innovation from product planning to program approval, 2nd edn. FT Press, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen S, Liu J, Wang H, Augusto JC (2012) Ordering based decision making—a survey. Inf Fusion 14(4):521–531Google Scholar
  7. Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2002) A note on the internal consistency of various preference representations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 131(1):75–78MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook WD (2006) Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking. Eur J Oper Res 172(2):369–385MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Dong A, Hill AW, Agogino AM (2004) A document analysis method for characterizing design team performance. J Mech Des 126(3):378–385Google Scholar
  10. Dwarakanath S, Wallace KM (1995) Decision-making in engineering design—observations from design experiments. J Eng Des 6(3):191–206Google Scholar
  11. Dym CL, Wood WH, Scott MJ (2002) Rank ordering engineering designs: pairwise comparison charts and Borda counts. Res Eng Des 13:236–242Google Scholar
  12. Fishburn PC (1973a) Voter concordance, simple majorities, and group decision methods. Behav Sci 18:364–376Google Scholar
  13. Fishburn PC (1973b) The theory of social choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Franceschini F, Maisano D (2015a) Checking the consistency of the solution in ordinal semi-democratic decision-making problems. Omega 57(1):188–195Google Scholar
  15. Franceschini F, Maisano D (2017) Consistency analysis in quality classification problems with multiple rank-ordered agents. Qual Eng 29(4):672–689Google Scholar
  16. Franceschini F, Maisano D (2018) Fusion of partial orderings for decision problems in quality management. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on quality engineering and management (ICQEM 2018), July 11–13, 2018, Barcelona (Spain)Google Scholar
  17. Franceschini F, Maisano D, Mastrogiacomo L (2015b) Customer requirements prioritization on QFD: a new proposal based on the Generalized Yager’s Algorithm. Res Eng Des 26(2):171–187Google Scholar
  18. Franceschini F, Galetto M, Maisano D, Mastrogiacomo L (2015c) Prioritization of engineering characteristics in QFD in the case of customer requirements orderings. Int J Prod Res 53(13):3975–3988Google Scholar
  19. Franceschini F, Maisano D, Mastrogiacomo L (2016) A new proposal for fusing individual preference orderings by rank-ordered agents: a generalization of the Yager’s algorithm. Eur J Oper Res 249(1):209–223MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Franceschini F, Galetto M, Maisano D (2019) Designing performance measurement systems: theory and practice of key performance indicators, Springer, Cham. ISBN: 978-3-030-01191-8Google Scholar
  21. Franssen M (2005) Arrow’s theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design. Res Eng Des 16(1–2):42–56Google Scholar
  22. Frey DDet al (2009) The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Des 20(1):41–58Google Scholar
  23. Frey DD et al (2010) Research in engineering design: the role of mathematical theory and empirical evidence. Res Eng Des 21(3):145–151Google Scholar
  24. Fu K, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2010) Design team convergence: the influence of example solution quality. J Mech Des 132(11):111005Google Scholar
  25. Hazelrigg GA (1996) The implications of Arrow’s impossiblity theorem on approaches to optimal engineering design. J Mech Des 118(2):161–164Google Scholar
  26. Hazelrigg GA (1999) An axiomatic framework for engineering design. J Mech Des 121(3):342Google Scholar
  27. Hazelrigg GA (2010) The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Des 21(3):143–144Google Scholar
  28. Herrera-Viedma E, Cabrerizo FJ, Kacprzyk J, Pedrycz W (2014) A review of soft consensus models in a fuzzy environment. Inf Fusion 17:4–13Google Scholar
  29. Hoyle C, Chen W (2011) Understanding and modelling heterogeneity of human preferences for engineering design. J Eng Des 22(8):583–601Google Scholar
  30. Jacobs JF, van de Poel I, Osseweijer P (2014) Clarifying the debate on selection methods for engineering: Arrow’s impossibility theorem, design performances, and information basis. Res Eng Des 25(1):3–10Google Scholar
  31. Kaldate A et al (2006) Engineering parameter selection for design optimization during preliminary design. J Eng Des 17(March 2015):291–310Google Scholar
  32. Katsikopoulos KV (2012) Decision methods for design: insights from psychology. J Mech Des 134(8):084504Google Scholar
  33. Keeney RL (2009) The foundations of collaborative group decisions. Int J Collab Eng 1:4Google Scholar
  34. Kendall (1962) Rank correlation methods. Griffin & C., LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Kendall MG, Smith BB (1939) The problem of m-rankings. Ann Math Stat 10:275–287MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Ladha K, Miller G, Oppenheimer J (2003 Information aggregation by majority rule: theory and experiment. http://www.gvptsites.umd.edu/oppenheimer/research/jury.pdf
  37. Legendre P (2005) Species associations: the Kendall coefficient of concordance revisited. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 10:226Google Scholar
  38. Legendre P (2010) Coefficient of concordance. In: Salkind NJ (ed) Encyclopedia of research design, vol 1. SAGE Publications, Inc., Los Angeles, pp 164–169Google Scholar
  39. Li H, Bingham JB, Umphress EE (2007) Fairness from the top? Perceived procedural justice and collaborative problem solving in new product development. Organ Sci 18(2):200–216Google Scholar
  40. McComb C, Goucher-Lambert K, Cagan J(2015), Fairness and manipulation: an empirical study of Arrow’s impossibility theorem. In: International conference on engineering design, Milan, Italy, pp 267–276Google Scholar
  41. McComb C, Goucher-Lambert K, Cagan J (2017) Impossible by design? Fairness, strategy and Arrow’s impossibility theorem. Des Sci 3:1–26Google Scholar
  42. Nisan N (2007) Algorithmic game theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Nurmi H (2012) On the relevance of theoretical results to voting system choice. In: Felsenthal DS, Machover M (eds) Electoral systems: studies in choice and welfare. Springer, Berlin, pp 255–274Google Scholar
  44. Olewnik AT, Lewis K (2008) Limitations of the house of quality to provide quantitative design information. Int J Qual Reliabil Manag 25(2):125–146Google Scholar
  45. Önüt S, Kara SS, Efendigil T (2008) A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach to machine tool selection. J Intell Manuf 19(4):443–453Google Scholar
  46. Paulus PB, Dzindolet MT, Kohn N (2011) Collaborative creativity, group creativity and team innovation. In: Mumford MD (ed) Handbook of organizational creativity. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 327–357Google Scholar
  47. Reich Y (2010) My method is better! Res Eng Des 21(3):137–142Google Scholar
  48. Saari DG (2011a) Geometry of voting. Elsevier, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Saari DG (2011b) Decision and elections. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Saari DG, Sieberg KK (2004) Are partwise comparisons reliable? Res Eng Des 15(1):62–71Google Scholar
  51. Scott MJ, Antonsson EK (1999) Arrow’s theorem and engineering design decision making. Res Eng Des 11:218–228Google Scholar
  52. See TK, Lewis K (2006) A formal approach to handling conflicts in multiattribute group decision making. J Mech Des 128(4):678Google Scholar
  53. Weingart LR et al. (2005) Functional diversity and conflict in cross-functional product development teams: considering representational gaps and task characteristics. In Neider LL, Schriesheim CA (eds) Understanding teams. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, pp 89–110Google Scholar
  54. Yager RR (2001) Fusion of multi-agent preference orderings. Fuzzy Sets Syst 117(1):1–12MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Yeo SH, Mak MW, Balon SAP (2004) Analysis of decision-making methodologies for desirability score of conceptual design. J Eng Des 15(2):195–208Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIGEP (Department of Management and Production Engineering)Politecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations