Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges to Bayesian decision support using morphological matrices for design: empirical evidence

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A novel Bayesian design support tool is empirically investigated for its potential to support the early design stages. The design support tool provides dynamic guidance with the use of morphological design matrices during the conceptual or preliminary design stages. This paper tests the appropriateness of adopting a stochastic approach for supporting the early design phase. The rationale for the stochastic approach is based on the uncertain nature of the design during this part of the design process. The support tool is based on Bayesian belief networks (BBNs) and uses a simple but effective information content–based metric to learn or induce the model structure. The dynamically interactive tool is assessed with two empirical trials. First, the laboratory-based trial with novice designers illustrates a novel emergent design search methodology. Second, the industrial-based trial with expert designers illustrates the hurdles that are faced when deploying a design support tool in a highly pressurised industrial environment. The conclusion from these trials is that there is a need for designers to better understand the stochastic methodology for them to both be able to interpret and trust the BBN model of the design domain. Further, there is a need for a lightweight domain-specific front end interface is needed to enable a better fit between the generic support tool and the domain-specific design process and associated tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apel H, Thieken AH, Merz B, Bloschl G (2006) A probabilistic modelling system for assessing flood risks. Nat Hazards 38(1–2):79–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake CL, Merz CJ (1998) UCI repository of machine learning databases. http://www.ics.uci.edu/~mlearn/MLRepository.html

  • Chen J, Greiner R, Kelly J, Bell D, Liu W (2002) Learning Bayesian networks from data: an information-theory based approach. Artif Intell 137(1–2):43–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen VCP, Tsui KL, Barton RR, Meckesheimer M (2006) A review on design, modelling and applications of computer experiments. IIE Trans 38(4):273–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong Y, Chen C-H, Leong K (2009). A heuristic-based approach to conceptual design. Res Eng Des

  • Clarkson PJ, Simons C, Eckert CM (2004) Predicting change propagation in complex design. J Mech Des 126(5): 788–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (1994) Engineering design methods: strategies for product design. Wiley, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliashberg J, Jonker JJ, Sawhney MS, Wierenga B (2000). MOVIEMOD: An implementable decision-support system for prerelease market evaluation of motion pictures. Mark Sci 19(3):226–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez MG, Seepersad CC, Rosen DW, Allen JK, Mistree F (2005) Decision support in concurrent engineering—the utility-based selection decision support problem. Concurrent Eng Res Appl 13(1):13–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forouraghi B (1999) On utility of inductive learning in multiobjective design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 13(1):27–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines BR and Shaw MLG (1993) Eliciting knowledge and transferring it effectively to a knowledge-based system. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 5(1):4–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer P (2008) Multidisciplinary grammars supporting design optimization of buildings. Res Eng Des 18(4):197–216

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hauck RV, Wesiband S (2002) When a better interface and easy navigation aren’t enough: examining the information architecture in a law enforcement agency. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 53(10):846–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He L, Chan CW, Huang GH, Zeng GM (2006) A probabilistic reasoning-based decision support system for selection of remediation technologies for petroleum-contaminated sites. Expert Syst Appl 30(4):783 – 795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollins B, Pugh S (1990). Successful product design. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes EJ, Richards TG, Tilley DG (2001) Development of a design support tool for fluid power system design. J Eng Des 12(2):75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamper RJ (2002) Extending the usability heuristics fir desugb abd evaluation: lead, follow get out the way. Int J Hum Comput Interact 14(3–4):447–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim H, Yoon YC (2005). Supporting the cognitive process of user interface design with resusable design cases. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62(4):457–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahdavi A, Gurtekin B (2004). Generating the design-performance space via simulation and machine learning. J Archit Plann Res 21(4):350–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Maher ML, Gómez de Silva Garza A (1997) Case-based reasoning in design. IEEE Expert Intell Syst Appl 12(2):34–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin JD, Simpson TW (2005) Use of kriging models to approximate deterministic computer models. AIAA J 43(4):853–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews PC (2006) Bayesian networks for design: a stochastic design search method. In: Gero JS (ed) Proceeding of the design computing and cognition conference. Kluwer, Eindhoven

  • Matthews PC (2008) A Bayesian support tool for morphological design. Adv Eng Inform 22(2):236–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews PC, Standingford DWF, Holden CME, Wallace KM (2006) Learning inexpensive parametric design models using an augmented genetic programming technique. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 20(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore CJ, Miles JC, Ress DWG (1997) Decision support for conceptual bridge design. Artif Intell Eng 11(3):259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong YS, Keane AJ (2002) A domain knowledge based search advisor for design problem solving environments. Eng Appl Artif Intell 15(1):105–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osio IG, Amon CH (1996) An engineering design methodology with multistage Bayesian surrogates and optimal sampling. Res Eng Des 8(4):189–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco JE, Amon CH, Finger S (2003) Bayesian surrogates applied to conceptual stages of the engineering design process. J Mech Des 125(4):664–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl J (1995) Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika 82(4):669–709

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl J, Verma TS (1991) A theory of inferred causation. In: Allen JF, Fikes R, Sandewall E (eds) KR’91: principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo California, pp 441–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Pons DJ, Raine JK (2004) Design with uncertain qualitative variables under imperfect knowledge. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 218:977–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pons DJ, Raine JK (2005) Simulation of key performance characteristics under uncertainty. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 219(1):151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter S, Culley SJ, Darlington MJ, Chawdhry PK (2003) Automatic conceptual design using experience-derived heuristics. Res Eng Des 14(3):131–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter S, Darlington MJ, Culley SJ and Chawdry PK (2001) Design synthesis knowledge and inductive machine learning. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 15(3):233–249

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick ML, Vaughan MW (2006) Best practices and future visions for search user interfaces. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57(6):781–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinkus S, Walji M, Johnson-Troop KA, Malin JT, Turley JP and Zhang JJ (2005) Human-centered design of a distributed knowledge management system. J Biomed Inf 38(1):4–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard H, Fenves SJ (2000). SEED-config: a case-based reasoning system for conceptual building design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 14(5):415–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahinidis NV (2004) Optimization under uncertainty: state-of-the art and opportunities. Comput Chem Eng 28(6–7): 971–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scwabacher M, Ellman T, Hirsh H (1998) Learning to set up numerical optimizations of engineering designs. Atrif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 12(2):173–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson TW, Peplinski JD, Koch PN and Allen JK (2001) Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Eng Comput 17(2):129–150

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Szewczyk J (2003) Difficulties with the novices’ comprehension of the computer aided design (CAD) interface: understanding visual representations of CAD tools. J Eng Des 14(2):169–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2000) Product design and development, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Tor S, Britton G (2002) Automated functional design of engineering systems. J Intell Manuf 13(2):119–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziv-Av A, Reich Y (2005) SOS—subjective objective system for generating optimal product concepts. Des Stud 26(5):509–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwicky F (1967) The morphological approach to discovery, invention, research and construction. In: Zwicky F, Wilson AG (eds) New methods of thought and procedure. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by a Nuffield Foundation Award to Newly Appointed Lecturers in Science, Engineering and Mathematics (Grant number: NAL/00846/G). Thanks must also be given to the design students and designers from Rolls-Royce (Aerospace) who provided their time to support the empirical work. Thanks is also given to the anonymous reviewers whose inputs vastly improved the final presentation of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering and Computing Sciences, Durham University, DH1 3LE, Durham, UK

    Peter C. Matthews

Authors
  1. Peter C. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter C. Matthews.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matthews, P.C. Challenges to Bayesian decision support using morphological matrices for design: empirical evidence. Res Eng Design 22, 29–42 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0094-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0094-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation