Decision Making and Value Considerations During the Early Stages of Engineering Design

  • G. Medyna
  • E. Coatanéa
Conference paper


Early design is a critical stage in product and service development. The choices made during this period influence the final spread and acceptance of the artifact and therefore must be made in the best possible manner. Different aspects must be taken into account during decision making such as value, risk awareness, environmental impacts, etc. The present work studies value in engineering projects using dimensional analysis and its integration in the decision making framework while putting an accent on value considerations.


Value Decision making Dimensional analysis Early design 


  1. 1.
    Buede, D.M. (2009) The Engineering Design of Systems: Models and Methods, 2nd ed. Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Modarres, M. (1993) What every engineer should know about reliability and risk analysis, CRC.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thurston, D. (2001) Real and misconceived limitations to decision based design with utility analysis. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 123(2):176–182.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hazelrigg, G.A. (1998) A framework for decision-based engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 120:653–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grünter, J., Ehrlenspiel, K. (1999) Comparing designers from practice and designers with systematic design education. Design Studies, 20(5):439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    von der Weth, R. (1999) Design instinct? – the development of individual strategies. Design Studies, 20(5):453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ng, K. (2006) A critical analysis of current engineering design methodologies from a decision making perspective. Proceedings of 2nd Iproms Virtual Internation Conference 3–14 July 2006 .Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hazelrigg, G.A. (1998) A framework for decision based engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 120(4):653–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clemen, R. (1997) Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis. Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuo, T.-S., Chang, S.-H., Huang, S. (2006) Environmentally conscious design by adding fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 29(5):419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gupta, M. (1995) Environmental management and its impact on the operations function. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(8):34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coatanea, E. (2005) Conceptual design of life cycle design: A modeling and evaluation method based on analogies and dimensionless numbers. PhD thesis Helsinki University of Technology. Helsinki.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Medyna, G., Nordlung, H., Coatanea, E. (2009) Study of an exergy method for environmental evaluation assessment in the early phase using comparative LCA and exergy approach. International Journal of Design Engineering, 2(3):320–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Medyna, G., Coatanea, E., Millet, D. (2009) Comparative study of environmental evaluation assessment using exergetic LCA implemented in existing software and a novel exergetic approach during the early design phase. Proceedings of the 2009 ICED conference.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marston, M., Mistree, F. (1998) An implementation of expected utility theory in decision based design. Proceedings of the 10th Internation Conference on Design Theory and Methodology 13–16 September 1998, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loosemore, M., Raftery, J., Reilly, C., Higgon, D. (2003) Risk Management in Projects. 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buckingham, E. (1924) On physically similar systems: illustrating the use of dimensional analysis. Physical Review, 4: 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Butterfield, R. (2001) Dimensional analysis revisited. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 215(11):1365–1375.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bourbaki, R. (2001) General Technology (two volumes) – 2nd printing. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tomiyama, T. (1980) General Design Theory and Its Application to Design Process. University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Granta-Design-Limited (2002) CES Selector Version 4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Product Development Research Group, Department of Engineering Design and ProductionAalto University School of Science and TechnologyAaltoFinland

Personalised recommendations