Design Decision Making: Adapting Mathematical Paradigms to fit Designers' Actual Needs

Abstract

When designing products, designers follow a process in which they compare complex alternatives and select one for further development. Because of the complexity and uncertainty involved in comparing and ranking design alternatives, and the high cost of making bad decisions, mathematical decision methods have long held much theoretical appeal for use in design decision making. However, designers do not use them in most practical design work. Why does this discrepancy between theory and practice exist? This paper is a follow-on to a study presented by the authors last year assessing the costs and benefits of various mathematically-based decision support tools. This work aims to provide insights into the results of that study by presenting ethnographic observations of designer's decision making processes, a description of how the assumptions of mathematical decision methods are not well matched to designer's needs. However, by understanding these needs better we are several steps closer to being able to create decision support tools that product designers will want to adopt.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akhavi

Hayes

C. C.

(2007) Decision Making in Engineering Design Tasks: Do Designers Benefit from Representations of Uncertainty? Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) 51rst annual meeting, Baltimore, MD, October 1–5.

Blanchard

B. S.

Fabrycky

W. J.

(Eds) (2006) “Systems Engineering and Analysis,” fourth edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, International Series in Systems Engineering, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.

Bradley

S. R.

Agogino

A. M.

(1994) “An Intelligent Real Time Design Methodology for Catalog Selection” Transactions of the ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Volume 116, pp. 980–988, December 1994.

Dym

C. L.

(1994) “Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views” Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson

K. A.

Simon

H. A.

(1980) “Verbal Reports as Data.” Psychological Data. Cambridge, MA USA: MIT Press.

Grudin

(1988) “Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design of Organizational Interfaces,” Proceedings of the 1988 ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work, Portland, Oregon, USA, pp. 85–93.

Hayes

C. C.

Akhavi

(2008) Journal of Usability Studies, forthcoming.

Hayes

C. C.

Parzen

M. I.

(1997) “QUEM: An Achievement Test for Knowledge-Based Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 9(6):838–847.

Hayes

J. R.

(1981) The Complete Problem Solver, The Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 145–160.

10.

Klein

A. G.

(1993) Decision Making in Action, Ablex publishing corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, U. S.A.

11.

Meshkat

(1984) Conversation at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasedena, CA.

12.

Orasanu

Connolly

(1993) “The Reinvention of Decision Making,” Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods, Klein

Orasanu

Calderwood

Zsambok

C. E.

(eds) Ablex publishing corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, U. S.A.

13.

Saaty

T. L.

(1980) The Analytical Hierarchy Process, MacGraw-Hill, New York, NY, U. S.A.

14.

Simon

H. A.

(1985) Sciences of the Artificial, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

15.

Suchman

(1987) Plans and Situated Actions: the Problem of Human-machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, New York.

16.

Thomas

J. C.

Carroll

J. M.

(1984) “The Psychological Study of Design,” Developments in Design Methodology, Cross

John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England, pp. 226–227.

17.

Ullman

D. G.

Dietterich

T. G.

Stauffer

L. A.

(1988) “A Model of the Mechanical Design Process Based on Empirical Data,” AI EDAM 2(1):33–52, Academic Press.