Advertisement

Group Decision Making in Design

  • Deborah L. Thurston

Abstract

Part 1 deals with the problem of balancing conflicting objectives in group decision making. Several methods and their limitations are described, including matrix, voting, ranking, and rating schemes. Two analytic decision tools are presented; multiattribute utility analysis and the analytic hierarchy process. An example illustrates the problem of eliciting and aggregating individual preferences for managing a long range, multiple product design plan and schedule. The group includes engineering, manufacturing, marketing and environmental personnel. Part 2 deals with communication. Based on cognitive models of communication processes and failures, a method is presented for designing not the artifact, but the interdisciplinary design team itself. The objective is to minimize the expected effect of communication failures through failure modes and effects analysis.

Keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process Group Decision Design Team Critical Task Product Flaw 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, Thomas J., “Organizational Structure, Information Technology, and RandD Productivity,” IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, EM-33: 4, 212–217, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, T. J., D. M. S. Lee and M. L. Tushman, “RandD Performance as a Function of Internal Communication Project Management, and Nature of the Work,” IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, EM-27: 1, 2–12, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K., Social Choice and Individual Values, New York: Wiley, 1951.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Barge, J. K. and R. Y. Hirokawa, “Toward a Communication Competency Model of Group Leadership,” Small Group Behavior, 20: 2, 167–189, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bales, R. F. and P. F. Slater, Role Differentiation in Small Decision Decision Making Groups, Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, 259–306, New York: Free Press, 1955.Google Scholar
  6. Bajaria, H. J. J., “Integration of Reliability, Maintainability, and Quality Parameters in Design,” 29th L. Ray Buckendale Lecture, SAE, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. Bavelas, A., “A Mathematical Model for Group Structures,” Applied Anthropology, 7 (1948), 16–30, 1948.Google Scholar
  8. Bavelas, A., “Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 725–730, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blakar, R. M., “An Experimental Method for Inquiring into Communication,” Eur. J. Soc. Psycho!, 3 (4), 415–425, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carzo, Jr., R., “Some Effects of Organization Structure on Group Effectiveness,” Admin. Sci. Quarterly, 393–424, 1963.Google Scholar
  11. Chakrabarti, A. K., S. Feineman, and W. Ruentevilla, “Characteristics of Sources, Channels, and Contents for Scientific and Technical Information Systems in Industrial R and D,” IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, EM-30: 2, 83–88, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. Chapanis, A. et al., “Studies in Interactive Communication: I. The Effects of Four Communication Modes on the Behavior of Teams During Cooperative Problem Solving,” Human Factors, 14: 6, 487–509, 1972.Google Scholar
  13. Condorcet, Marquis de, “Essai sur l’application de l’analyse a la probabilite des decisions rendues a la pluralite des vois”, Paris, 1785.Google Scholar
  14. DeSanctis, G. and R. B. Gallupe, “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems,” Management Science, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 1987.Google Scholar
  15. Dyer, J. S., “A Clarification of `Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process’,” Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, March 1990.Google Scholar
  16. Dyer, J. S., “Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, March 1990.Google Scholar
  17. Earle, J., Engineering Design Graphics, New York: John Wiley, 1985.Google Scholar
  18. Eder, W. E., “Information Systems for Designers,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 2, 1307–1319, 1989.Google Scholar
  19. Fiedler, F. E., A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
  20. Finger, S. and J. R. Dixon, “A Review of Research in Mechanical Engineering Design. Part I: Descriptive, Prescriptive, and Computer-Based Models of Design Processes,” Research in Engineering Design, 1, 51–67, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fishburn, P. C. “Independence in Utility Theory with Whole Product Sets,” Operations Research, Vol. 13, 1965, pp. 28–45.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. French, S., Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1986.MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Gebala, D. A., Eppinger, S. D., “Methods for Analyzing Design Procedures,” Proceedings of ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. Gilchrist, J. C., et al., “Some Effects of Unequal Distribution of Information in a Wheel Group Structure,” J. Abn. Soc. Psych., 49, 554–556, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hackman, R. J. and C. G. Morris, “Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness,” Small Groups and Social Interaction, New York: John Wiley, 1983.Google Scholar
  26. Hare, P. A., Handbook of Small Group Research, Second Edition, New York: The Free Press, 330–355, 1976.Google Scholar
  27. Harker, P. T., Vargas, L. G., “Reply to `Remarks on The Analytic Hierarchy Process’ by J. S. Dyer,” Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, March 1990.Google Scholar
  28. Hauser, J. R. and D. Clausing, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review, 66: 3, 1988, 63–73.Google Scholar
  29. Hill, G. W., “Are n + 1 heads better than 1?,” Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hogarth, R., Judgement and Choice, New York: Wiley, 1980.Google Scholar
  31. Ireson, W. B. and C. F. Coombs (eds.), Handbook of Reliability Engineering and Management, New York: McGraw-Hill, 13.5–13.33 and 18.11–18.25, 1988.Google Scholar
  32. Kapur, Kailash C., “Techniques of Estimating Reliability at Design Stage,” Chapter 18 in Ireson, W. G. Handbook of Reliability Engineering and Management, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.Google Scholar
  33. Keefer, D. L., “Allocation Planning for R and D with Uncertainty and Multiple Objectives,” IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, Vol. EM-25, No. 1, February 1978.Google Scholar
  34. Keeney, R. L., Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, New York: Wiley and Sons, 1976.Google Scholar
  35. Kiggundu, M. N., “Task Interdependence and Job Design: Test of a Theory,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145–172, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kirkwood, C. W. W., “Pareto Optimality and Equity in Social Decision Analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-9, No. 2, February, 1979.Google Scholar
  37. Klein, G. A., R. Calderwood, “Decision Models: Some Lessons from the Field,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 21, No. 5, 1991.Google Scholar
  38. Krishnan, V., Eppinger, S. D., Whitney, D. E., “Towards a Cooperative Design Methodology Analysis of Sequential Decision Strategies,” Proceedings of ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, 1991.Google Scholar
  39. Leavitt, H. J., “Some Effects of Certain Communication Patterns on Group Performance, ” J. Abn. Soc. Psych., 46, 38–50, 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liker, J. K. and W. M. Hancock, “Organizational Systems Barriers to Engineering Effectiveness,” IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, EM-33: 2, 82–91, 1986.Google Scholar
  41. Luce, R. D., and H. Raiffa, Games and Decisions, New York: Wiley, 1957.MATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Marriott, D. L. and N. R., “Materials Failure Logic Models: A Procedure for Systematic Identification of Material Failure Modes in Mechanical Components,” Proceedings, Conference on Failure Prevention and Reliability, ASME, Hartford, CT, Sept. 1981.Google Scholar
  43. McMahon, E. H., “Evaluation of Group Design in Engineering,” Proceedings of ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, 1991.Google Scholar
  44. Mehrabian, A. and H. Reed, “Some Determinants of Communication Accuracy,” Psychological Bulletin, 70: 5, 365–381, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nunamaker, J. F., L. M. Applegate and B. R. Konsynski, “Computer-Aided Deliberation: Model management and Group Decision Support,” Operations Research, Vol. 36, No. 6, Nov-Dec. 1988.Google Scholar
  46. Perlman, G., “Descriptive Models of Cognitive Aspects of the Engineering Design Process,” Design Theory ‘88: Proceedings of the 1988 NSF Grantee Workshop in Design Theory and Methodology, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  47. Pugh, S., “Concept Selection—A Method that Works,” Proceedings ICED, Rome, 1981, pp. 497–506.Google Scholar
  48. Pugh, S., Total Design, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.Google Scholar
  49. Roby, T. B. and Lanzetta, J. T., “Work Group Structure, Communication, and Group Performance,” Sociometry, 19: 1956, p. 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Runkel, P. J., “Cognitive Similarity in Facilitating Communication,” Sociometry, 19, 189–191, 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saaty, T. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw-Hill (revised and extended, 1988 ).MATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Saaty, T., “An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper `Remarks on The Analytic Hierarchy Process’,” Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, March 1990.Google Scholar
  53. Safoutin, M. J. and Thurston, D. L., “A Communications-Based Technique for Interdisciplinary Design Team Management,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 40, No. 4, 1993.Google Scholar
  54. Savage, L. J., The Foundations of Statistics, New York: Wiley, 1954.MATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Shaw, M. E., Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Groups. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976.Google Scholar
  56. Shaw, M. E., “Some Effects of Unequal Distribution of Information Upon Group Performance in Various Communication Nets,” J. Abn. Exp. Psych., 49: 1954, p. 547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steiner, I. D., Group Process and Productivity, New York: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  58. Steward, D. V., “The Design Structure System: A Method for Managing the Design of Complex Systems,” IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, EM-28: 3, 71–74, 1981.Google Scholar
  59. Stomph-Blessing, L. T. M., “Analysing an Engineering Design Process in Industry,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Intl Conference on Engr. Design, v. 1 p. 57–64. August 1989.Google Scholar
  60. Sullivan, L. P., “Quality Function Deployment,” Quality Progress, 1986, 39–50.Google Scholar
  61. Sycara, K. P. and C. M. Lewis, “Modeling Group Decision Making and Negotiation in Concurrent Product Design,” Systems Automation: Research and Applications, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1991.Google Scholar
  62. Thamhain, H. J., “Managing Engineers Effectively,” IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, EM-30: 4, 231–237, 1983.Google Scholar
  63. Thamhain, H. J. and D. L. Wilemon, “Leadership Effectiveness in Program Management,” IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, EM-24: 3, 102–108, 1977.Google Scholar
  64. Thurston, D. L., and Tian, Y. Q., “Integration of the Analytic Hierarchy Process with Integer Linear Programming for Long Range Product Planning,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 17, No. 4 /5, 1993.Google Scholar
  65. Thurston, D. L., “A Formal Method for Subjective Design Evaluation with Multiple Attributes,” Research in Engineering Design, Volume 3, Number 2, 1991.Google Scholar
  66. Thurston, D. L. and Carnahan, J. V., “Fuzzy Ratings and Utility Analysis in Preliminary Design Evaluation of Multiple Attributes,” ASME J. of Mechnical Design, Vol. 114, No. 4, December 1992.Google Scholar
  67. Thurston, D. L. and Liu, T., “Design Evaluation of Multiple Attribute Under Uncertainty.” Systems Automation: Research and Applications, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1991.Google Scholar
  68. Ullman, D. G., “A Taxonomy of Mechanical Design,” 1989 ASME Technical Conference: 1st International Conference on Engineering Design Theory and Methodology, Montreal, September 1989, pp. 23–36.Google Scholar
  69. Wallace, K. M. and Hales, C., “Engineering Design Research Areas,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1, Aug. 1989, p. 555–562.Google Scholar
  70. Wolek, F. W., “The Complexity of Messages in Science and Engineering: An Influence on Patterns of Communication,” Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, 233–337, 1970.Google Scholar
  71. von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947.MATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Watson, S. R. and D. M. Buede, Decision Synthesis: The Principles and Practice of Decision Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah L. Thurston

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations