Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Concurrent Engineering
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Olewnik, A. T.
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

On Validating Engineering Design Decision Support Tools

Andrew T. Olewnik

University at Buffalo-SUNY, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA

Kemper Lewis

University at Buffalo-SUNY, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA, kelewis{at}buffalo.edu

In this article, an argument for validation of design-decision methods is presented. In the process of justifying the need for validation, several criteria for a valid design-decision method are introduced. These criteria represent a starting point from which the research community can continue to debate and ponder the validation issue. Under these criteria, a critical empirical investigation of two popular decision support methods, the House of Quality and Suh’s Axiomatic Design, is presented via a simple design problem and both are shown to violate some portion of the proposed definition of validity. The goal of this article is to raise awareness of potential flaws in popular design-decision aids and to promote debate on design validation within the concurrent engineering research community.

Key Words: Decision Based Design (DBD) • House of Quality • Suh’s Axiomatic Design • decision support • design validation

Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 2, 111-122 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1063293X05053796
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?