Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incorporating end-user models and associated uncertainties to investigate multiple stakeholder preferences in system design

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

Abstract

The essence of systems engineering lies in enabling rational decision-making that is consistent with the preferences of the system’s stakeholders. Modern approaches, such as value-driven design, attempt to convey the true preferences of the stakeholder using mathematical formulations like value models. A critical step to the formation of value models is the identification of the stakeholders. A primary stakeholder must be identified and then it must be determined how the other stakeholders’ preferences impact the preference of the primary, if they do at all. This paper looks at three stakeholders of an electric vehicle system, all of which could be considered the primary stakeholder dependent on the situation. Novel customer, commercial, and government-oriented value models are created. To understand the impact of customers on the primary stakeholder’s designs, an end-user value-based demand model is developed and a method for integrating end-user preferences into the manufacturer’s value model is demonstrated. Uncertainties associated with the end-users, including those associated with the economy, are quantified and incorporated into a value-based design framework through Monte Carlo simulations. Possible stakeholder risk attitudes are discussed and a rational decision-making strategy to maximize stakeholder’s system value under uncertainty is presented. The resulting designs and the influences of the multiple stakeholders are discussed, showing that the identification and incorporation of the important stakeholders are critical to the systems engineering process and value-based design in particular.

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
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

\({\text{Vt}}\) :

Top-level customer value model

\({\text{Ct}}\) :

Top-level representation of costs occurring to the customer

\({\text{Bt}}\) :

Top-level representation of customer benefits

\({\text{Sp}}\) :

Purchase cost or selling price of the vehicle

\({\text{Gt}}\) :

Taxes associated to the vehicle

\({\text{Gp}}_{\text{j}}\) :

Government penalty/incentive on vehicle

\({\text{CPM}}\) :

Cost to operate vehicle per mile

\({\text{MC}}_{\text{j}}\) :

Annual maintenance cost of the vehicle

\({\text{CI}}_{\text{j}}\) :

Annual insurance cost of the vehicle

\({\text{SV}}_{\text{j}}\) :

Salvage value of the vehicle

\(r_{\text{p}}\) :

Customer’s discount rate

\(l\) :

Number of years the customer owns the vehicle

\({\text{Br}}\) :

Average annual cost of a rental vehicle

\({\text{Bn}}\) :

Benefit of passenger capacity

\({\text{Bp}}\) :

Benefit of performance

\({\text{Hp}}\) :

Horsepower of the vehicle

\({\text{Pd}}\) :

Downtime penalty function due to time lost at recharging

\({\text{Rev}}\) :

Range of the vehicle

\({\text{Rave}}\) :

Average range of a gas-powered vehicle

\(t_{\text{charge}}\) :

Charging time of the vehicle

\(\pi\) :

Profit of the commercial manufacturer

\({\text{IC}}_{\text{total}}\) :

Costs occurring to the commercial manufacturer

\(Q\) :

Quantity of vehicles the commercial manufacturer sold

\(Q_{\text{comp}}\) :

Quantity of vehicles the competitor sold

\({\text{CI}}_{\text{k}}\) :

Startup investment cost occurring to the government

\({\text{Cv}}\) :

Investment/infrastructure cost of the manufacturer

\({\text{Cd}}\) :

Total design cost of the vehicle

\({\text{Cm}}\) :

Manufacturing cost of the vehicle

\({\text{Ctr}}\) :

Transportation cost of the vehicle (plant to store)

\(C_{\text{pv}}\) :

Cost to manufacture a single vehicle

\(r_{\text{c}}\) :

Discount rate of the manufacturer

\(m\) :

Project duration in years

\({\text{PM}}\) :

Profit margin of the manufacturer

\(V_{\text{comp}}\) :

Perceived customer value of the competitor

\(V_{\text{new}}\) :

Perceived customer value of the new vehicle

\({\text{ElPop}}_{\text{comp}}\) :

Eligible population of the competitor

\({\text{ElPop}}_{\text{new}}\) :

Eligible population of the new vehicle

References

  • Abbas AE (2016) Attribute Selection for Preference Functions in Engineering Design. World Acad Sci Eng Technol Int J Mech Aerosp Ind Mechatron Manuf Eng 10(12):1867–1871

    Google Scholar 

  • Annual Financials for Tesla Motors Inc. (2015). http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/tsla. Accessed 16 June

  • Baer D (2014) The making of tesla: invention, betrayal, and the birth of the roadster. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-the-origin-story-2014-10. Accessed 11 Nov

  • Bakker DP (2010) Battery electric vehicles. Master's Thesis, Copernicus Institute University of Utrecht

  • Barton JA, Love DM, Taylor GD (2001) Evaluating design implementation strategies using enterprise simulation. Int J Prod Econ 72(3):285–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernoulli D (1954) Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. J Econometric Soc 22(1):23–36

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Besselink IJM, Van Oorschot PF, Meinders E, Nijmeijer H (2010) Design of an efficient, low weight battery electric vehicle based on a VW Lupo 3L. In: 25th World battery hybrid fuel cell vehicle symposium exhibition, Shenzen, China, pp 32–41

  • Binmore K (2007) Playing for real: a text on game theory. Oxford University Press, USA

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard BS, Fabrycky WJ (2011) Systems engineering and analysis, 5th edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Brathwaite J, Saleh JH (2008) On the concept of value and its importance to space systems design and acquisition. Conference & Exposition, AIAA SPACE Forum. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-7866

  • Brown OC, Eremenko P, Collopy PD (2009) Value-centric design methodologies for fractionated spacecraft: progress summary from phase 1 of the DARPA System F6 program. Conference & Exposition, AIAA SPACE Forum. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2009-6540

  • Buede DM (2016) The engineering design of systems: models and methods, vol 55. Wiley. ISBN: 978-1-119-02790-4

  • Bureu of Labor Statistics (2015) Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted. Accessed 27 July

  • Carmen DW, Proctor BD (2014) Income and poverty in United States: 2013. Current Population Reports P60-249. Washington, DC: U.S. Consensus Bureau

  • Castagne S, Curran R, Collopy P (2009) Implementation of value-driven optimisation for the design of aircraft fuselage panels. Int J Prod Econ 117(2):381–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Allen JK, Mavris DN, Mistree F (1996) A concept exploration method for determining robust top-level specifications. Eng Optim + A35 26(2):137–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Allen JK, Mistree F (1997) A robust concept exploration method for enhancing productivity in concurrent systems design. Concurr Eng 5(3):203–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chorus CG, Koetse MJ, Hoen A (2013) Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model. Energy Policy 61:901–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collopy PD (1999) Joint strike fighter: optimal design through contract incentives. In: 1999 Acquisition reform symposium proceedings, Defense Systems Management College, pp 335–346

  • Collopy PD (2009) Aerospace system value models: a survey and observations. In: AIAA SPACE 2009 conference and exposition. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

  • Collopy PD, Hanover NH (1997) Surplus value in propulsion system design optimization. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.1997-3159. Accessed 13 Nov 2014

  • Collopy PD, Hollingsworth PM (2011) Value-driven design. J Aircr 48(3):749–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collopy P, Bloebaum CL, Mesmer BL, Lawrence G (2012) The distinct and interrelated roles of value-driven design, multidisciplinary design optimization, and decision analysis. In: Conference and 14th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conferences. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2012-5575

  • Curran R, van der Zwan FM, Ouwehand A, Ghijs S (2010) Value analysis of engine maintenance scheduling relative to fuel burn and minimal operating costs. In: 10th AIAA aviation technology, integration, and operations (ATIO) conference, Fort Worth, Texas, 13–15 September 2010; AIAA 2010-9145. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

  • Dawes RM (1964) Social selection based on multidimensional criteria. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 68(1):104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Castro LN, Von Zuben FJ (2005) Recent developments in biologically inspired computing. Idea Group Inc (IGI), Hershey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Weck O, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2007) A classification of uncertainty for early product and system design. In: 16th International conference on engineering design (ICED’07), 159–60. Paris, France: Design Society

  • Delucchi MA (2000) Electric and gasoline vehicle lifecycle cost and energy–use model. Report for the California Air Resources Board. Final Report UCD-ITS-Rr-99-04. Davis, California, Institute of Transportation Studies-University of California

  • Donndelinger JA, Cook HE (1997) Methods for analyzing the value of automobiles. SAE Technical Paper 970762. Warrendale, PA: SAE International

  • Du X, Chen W (2002) Efficient uncertainty analysis methods for multidisciplinary robust design. AIAA J 40(3):545–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhart RC, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, 1: pp 39–43. New York

  • Ehsani M, Gao Y, Emadi A (2009) Modern electric, hybrid electric, and fuel cell vehicles: fundamentals, theory, and design. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichenberg-Bicknell E, Wisniewski MJ, Choi SW, Westley DM (2009) Using a value-centric tool framework to optimize lifecycle cost, value, and risk of spacecraft architectures. AIAA Paper 6766:2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghassemieh E (2011) Materials in automotive application, state of the art and prospects. In: Chiaberge M (ed) New trends and developments in automotive industry. InTech pp 365–94. http://www.intechopen.com/books/new-trends-and-developmentsinautomotiveindustry/materials-in-automotive-application-state-of-the-art-and-prospects

  • Hammersley JM, Handscomb DC (1964) Monte Carlo Methods, vol 1. Methuen, London

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hankey R, Cassar C, Peterson R, Wong P, Knaub J (2015) U.S. Energy Information Administration: Electric Power Monthly. U.S Department of Energy

  • Haskins C, Forsberg K, Krueger M, Walden D, Hamelin D (2006) Systems Engineering Handbook. InINCOSE

  • Hauser JR, Wernerfelt B (1990) An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. J Consum Res 16(4):393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelrigg G (2012) Fundamentals of decision making for engineers. Chap. 1, 1st edn. USA

  • Hildenbrand W (2014) Market demand: theory and empirical evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs BF, Horn GTF (1997) Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas. Energy Policy 25(3):357–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu PL, Robbins H (1947) Complete convergence and the law of large numbers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 33(2):25

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Husain I (2011) Electric and hybrid vehicles: design fundamentals. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapurch SJ (2010) NASA systems engineering handbook. DIANE Publishing, Collingdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1994) Using values in operations research. Oper Res 42(5):793–813

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, McDaniels TL (1992) Value-focused thinking about strategic decisions at BC hydro. Interfaces 22(6):94–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decision analysis with multiple conflicting objectives. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, McDaniels TL (1999) Identifying and structuring values to guide integrated resource planning at BC gas. Oper Res 47(5):651–662

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Klippenstein M (2013) Electric-car market share in 2013: understanding the numbers better. Green Car Reports

  • Kromer MA (2007) Electric powertrains: opportunities and challenges in the US light-duty vehicle fleet. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Laskey KB (1996) Model uncertainty: theory and practical implications. Syst Man Cybernet A 26(3):340–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malak RJ, Paredis CJJ (2008) Modeling design concepts under risk and uncertainty using parameterized efficient sets. SAE Technical Paper

  • Martins JRRA, Lambe AB (2013) Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA J 51(9):2049–2075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick D, Barrett B, Burnside-Clapp M (2009) Analyzing fractionated satellite architectures using RAFTIMATE—a boeing tool for value-centric design. AIAA Paper 6767:2009

    Google Scholar 

  • McManus H, Hastings D (2005) A framework for understanding uncertainty and its mitigation and exploitation in complex systems. In: INCOSE international symposium, 15: pp 484–503. Wiley Online Library

  • Mesmer BL, Bloebaum CL (2015) An end-user decision model with information representation for improved performance and robustness in complex system design. Res Eng Design 26(3):235–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-015-0194-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer BL, Bloebaum CL, Kannan H (2014) Incorporation of value-driven design in multidisciplinary design optimization. In: 10th World congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization. http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/mdo/Papers/5519.pdf

  • Michalek JJ, Papalambros PY, Skerlos SJ (2004) A study of fuel efficiency and emission policy impact on optimal vehicle design decisions. J Mech Des 126(6):1062–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalek JJ, Chester M, Jaramillo P, Samaras C, Shiau CS, Lave LB (2011) Valuation of plug-in vehicle life-cycle air emissions and oil displacement benefits. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(40):16554–16558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller SW, Simpson TW, Yukish MA, Stump G, Mesmer BL, Tibor EB, Bloebaum CL, Winer EH (2014) Toward a value-driven design approach for complex engineered systems using trade space exploration tools. In: ASME 2014 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, V02AT03A052–V02AT03A052. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2090549

  • Morgan MG, Small M (1992) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenstern O, Von Neumann J (1953) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow WR, Long M, MacDonald EF (2014) Market-system design optimization with consider-then-choose models. J Mech Des 136(3):031003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myerson RB (2013) Game theory. Harvard University Press

  • Nozick R (1994) The nature of rationality. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Owen NA, Inderwildi OR, King DA (2010) The status of conventional world oil reserves—hype or cause for concern? Energy Policy 38(8):4743–4749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne JW (1976) Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis. Organ Behav Human Perform 16(2):366–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90022-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich Y, Ziv Av A et al (2005) Robust product concept generation. In: ICED 05: 15th international conference on engineering design: engineering design and the global economy, Australia p. 2726. https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=398070093384071;res=IELENG

  • Saleh JH, Torres Padilla JP (2007) Beyond cost models: communications satellite revenue models. integrating cost considerations into a value-centric mindset. Int J Satell Commun Netw 25(1):69–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheng H, Nah FFH, Siau K (2005) Strategic implications of mobile technology: a case study using value-focused thinking. J Strateg Inf Syst 14(3):269–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiau CS, Kaushal N, Hendrickson CT, Peterson SB, Whitacre JF, Michalek JJ (2010) Optimal plug-in hybrid electric vehicle design and allocation for minimum life cycle cost, petroleum consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. J Mech Des 132(9):091013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siau K, Sheng H, Nah FFH (2004) The value of mobile commerce to customers. In: Proceedings of the third annual workshop on HCI research in MIS. Washington, DC. http://aisel.aisnet.org/sighci2004/8/. Accessed 12 Nov 2014

  • Simon HA (1957) Models of man; social and rational, vol xiv. Wiley, Oxford

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1965) Administrative behavior, vol 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT (1997) Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments. Struct Optim 14(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon S, Plattner GK, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P (2009) Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(6):1704–1709. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812721106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern NH (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sun Z, Hupman AC, Ritchey HI, Abbas AE (2016) Bayesian updating of the price elasticity of uncertain demand. IEEE Syst J 10(1):136–146. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2014.2315192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The American Automotive Association (2013) Your driving costs-2013 Edition

  • Topcu TG (2015) Impact of multiple stakeholder preferences on design with a focus on demand models and an application of electric vehicles. The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville

    Google Scholar 

  • Topcu TG, Mesmer B (2015) Customer, commercial, and government value functions for electric vehicle system design. https://www.xcdsystem.com/iie2015/abstract/finalpapers/I394.pdf. Accessed 21 July

  • Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol Rev 79(4):281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (2004) Federal size regulations for commercial motor vehicles. FHWA-HOP-04-022

  • US EPA, Climate Change Division (2014) U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Reports and Assessments

  • Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (2007) Theory of games and economic behavior (60th anniversary commemorative edition). Princeton University Press

  • Weliver D (2015) How much car can you afford? How much to spend on a new car. Money Under 30 Internet Blog. http://www.moneyunder30.com/how-much-car-can-you-afford. Accessed 28 April

  • Wood WH, Agogino AM (2005) Decision-based conceptual design: modeling and navigating heterogeneous design spaces. J Mech Des 127(1):2–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, USA

    Taylan G. Topcu & Bryan L. Mesmer

  2. N127 Technology Hall, Huntsville, AL, 35899, USA

    Taylan G. Topcu

  3. N135 Technology Hall, Huntsville, AL, 35899, USA

    Bryan L. Mesmer

Authors
  1. Taylan G. Topcu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bryan L. Mesmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryan L. Mesmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Topcu, T.G., Mesmer, B.L. Incorporating end-user models and associated uncertainties to investigate multiple stakeholder preferences in system design. Res Eng Design 29, 411–431 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0276-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0276-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation