Decision making with implementation dependent feedback

DECISION MAKING WITH IMPLEMENTATION DEPENDENT FEEDBACK MATTHIAS STEIN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2012 DECISION MAKING WITH IMPLEMENTATION DEPENDENT FEEDBACK MATTHIAS STEIN (Dipl.-Ing., M.Sc.) A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2012 DECLARATION I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and it has been written by me in its entirety. I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information which have been used in the thesis. This thesis has also not been submitted for any degree in any university previously. Matthias Stein 23 August 2012 v Contents List of Tables x List of Figures xiii List of Symbols and Abbreviations Preface xv xxvii Summary xxxiii Introduction 1.1 Initial Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Problem Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 The Optimal Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 The Conceptual Design Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.3 Comparison, Decision, and Final Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.3 Research Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.4 Solution Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.4.1 A Proactive Decision Making Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.4.2 Novelties and Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.4.3 Scientific Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Contents vi Concept Selection and Decision Making 25 2.1 The Aspects of Conceptual Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2 The Structure of a Design Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.2.1 Design Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.2.2 Discipline Independent Engineering Design Methods. . . . . . . . . 27 The Sufficient Information Basis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.3.1 Quality and Robust Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3.2 Risk, Reliability, and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.3.3 Quantification of Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Decision Making: Analysis and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.4.1 The Human Aspect of Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.4.2 Decision Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.4.3 Decision Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.4.4 Multiple Criteria and Multiple Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.3 2.4 Decision Making with Dependencies and Feedback 45 3.1 Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3.2 The Priority Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.2.1 The Pairwise Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.2.2 Matrix of Pairwise Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.2.3 Ideal Mode and Distributive Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 The Decision Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3.3.1 Model Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3.3.2 Model Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.3.3 The Supermatrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.3.4 Limiting Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.4 Bridge Selection: Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.5 The BOCR Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.3 Contents vii 3.5.1 Perspective and Attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.5.2 The Merits of a Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Implementation Dependent Feedback 4.1 4.2 4.3 73 Limitations of the Fundamental Ratio Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.1.1 Dominance of Tangibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.1.2 Dominance of Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 The Concept of Implementation Dependent Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 4.2.1 Aligning Ratio Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 4.2.2 Degree of Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 4.2.3 An Engineering Feedback Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.2.4 Bridge Selection with Implementation Dependent Feedback . . . . 86 Functional Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4.3.1 Properties and Engineering Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4.3.2 Floater Preference with Respect to Functional Requirements . . . 95 4.3.3 Significance of Function with Respect to Floater Concept . . . . . 95 Floating Platform Concept Selection 101 5.1 General Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 5.2 Field Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 5.3 5.2.1 Offshore Oilfield Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 5.2.2 Field Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 5.2.3 Shortcut to Concept Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Floating Platform Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 5.3.1 Requirements and Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 5.3.2 Concept Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 5.3.3 Semi-submersible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 5.3.4 Tension Leg Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Contents 5.3.5 5.4 5.5 5.6 viii Spar Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Economic Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.4.1 Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.4.2 Total Project Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Concept Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 5.5.1 Defining the Optimal Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 5.5.2 The Benefits Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 5.5.3 The Opportunities Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 5.5.4 The Costs Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 5.5.5 The Risks Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 5.5.6 Ratings and Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5.6.1 Analysis Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5.6.2 Verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Conclusion and Final Remarks 6.1 6.2 161 Thesis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 6.1.1 Facing the Decision Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 6.1.2 Solving the Decision Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 6.1.3 Demonstration of Applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 6.2.1 Industry Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 6.2.2 Potential Future Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 A Engineering Design 167 A.1 The Engineering Design Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 A.1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 A.1.2 The Competitive Marketplace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Bibliography 271 [189] Vladik Kreinovich and Scott A. Ferson. A new cauchy-based black-box technique for uncertainty in risk analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 85(13):267–279, 2004. [190] H. Kwakernaak. Fuzzy random variables – I. definitions and theorems. Information Sciences, 15:1–19, 1978. [191] M. Kwiesielewicz. A note on the fuzzy extension of saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 95(2):161–172, 1998. [192] K. H. Lee and G. J. Park. Robust optimization considering tolerances of design variables. Computers & Structures, 79(1):77–86, 2001. [193] Sang M. Lee. Goal programming for decision analysis. Auerbach Publishers, Philadelphia, PA, 1st edition, 1972. [194] Kemper E. Lewis, Wei Chen, and Linda C. Schmidt, editors. Decision making in engineering design. ASME Press, New York, NY, 2006. [195] Philipp Limbourg. Dependability Modelling under Uncertainty – An Imprecise Probabilistic Approach, volume 148 of Studies in Computational Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, 2008. [196] A. Little, Kristin L. Wood, and Daniel A. McAdams. Functional analysis: A fundamental empirical study for reverse engineering, benchmarking and redesign. Proceedings of the 1997 ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Sacramento, CA, 1997. [197] William W. Lowrance. The nature of risk. In Richard C. Schwing and Jr. Walter A. Albers, editors, Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?, pages 5–17. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1980. Bibliography 272 [198] R. Duncan Luce and Howard Raiffa, editors. Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1989. [199] M. A. Maes and M. H. Faber. Bayesian framework for managing preferences in decision making. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91(5):556–569, 2006. [200] James D. McCaffrey. Multi-attribute global inference of quality (MAGIQ). Software Test and Performance Magazine, 2(7):28–32, 2005. [201] Kevin P. McSweeney, Julie Pray, and Brian N. Craig. Integration of human factors engineering into design- an applied approach. ABS Technical Papers 2009, pages 10–19, 2009. [202] S. R. Mehta, T. A. Cruse, and S. Mahadevan. Confidence bounds on structural reliability. In 34th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, and AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures Forum, La Jolla, CA, 1993. [203] Robert Erich Melchers. On the ALARP approach to risk management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 71:201–208, 2001. [204] David W. Miller and Martin Kenneth Starr. Executive Decisions and Operations Research. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1969. [205] G. A. Miller. The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 13:81–97, 1956. [206] Roberto Minguez, Enrique Castillo, and Ali S. Hadi. Solving the inverse reliability problem using decomposition techniques. Structural Safety, 27(1):1–23, 2005. [207] Mohammad Modarres. Risk Analysis in Engineering: Techniques, Tools, and Trends. CRC Press, Boca Baton, FL, 2006. Bibliography 273 [208] Bernd M¨ oller and Michael Beer. Fuzzy Randomness – Uncertainty in Civil Engineering and Computational Mechanics. Springer, Berlin, 2004. [209] Bernd M¨ oller and Michael Beer, editors. Special Issue on Uncertainties in Structral Analysis – Their Effect on Robustness, Sensitivity and Design, volume 86 of Computers & Structures. Elsevier, 2008. [210] Jose Maria Moreno-Jimenez and Luis G. Vargas. A probabilistic study of preference structures in the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgments. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4–5):73–81, 1993. [211] C. K. Morooka and G. T. Castro. A methodology for the selection of an alternative for a floating production system (OMAE2002-28321). In Proceedings of OMAE’02: 21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2002. CD-ROM. [212] Herbert Moskowitz, Paul V. Preckel, and Aynang Yang. Multiple-criteria robust interactive decision analysis (MCRID) for optimizing public policies. European Journal of Operational Research, 56(2):219–236, 1992. [213] John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart. Terror, Security, and Money: Balancing the Risks, Benefits, and Costs of Homeland Security. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011. [214] Rafi L. Muhanna and Robert L. Mullen. Formulation of fuzzy finite element methods for solid mechanics problems. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 14:107–117, 1999. [215] Rafi L. Muhanna, Robert L. Mullen, and Hao Zhang. Interval finite element as a basis for generalized models of uncertainty in engineering mechanics. Journal of Reliable Computing, 13(2):173–194, 2007. Bibliography 274 [216] Roger B. Myerson. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997. [217] Arnold Neumaier. Clouds, fuzzy sets, and probability intervals. Reliable Computing, 10(4):249–272, 2004. [218] Paul D. Newendorp and John Schuyler. Decision Analysis for Petroleum Exploration. Planning Press, Aurora, CO, 2nd edition, 2000. [219] Joseph D. Novak and D. Bob Gowin. Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1st edition, 1984. [220] W. L. Oberkampf, J. C. Helton, and K. Sentz. Mathematical representation of uncertainty. In AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Forum, AIAA 2001-1645, Seattle, WA, 2001. [221] William L. Oberkampf, Jon C. Helton, Cliff A. Joslyn, Steven F. Wojtkiewicz, and Scott Ferson. Challenge problems: uncertainty in system response given uncertain parameters. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 85(1-3):11–19, 2004. [222] HMH Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries, editor. The American Heritage R Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 4th edition, 2000. [223] Serafim Opricovic. A fuzzy compromise solution for multicriteria problems. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems, 15(3):363– 380, 2007. [224] Serafim Opricovic and Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng. Compromise solution by mcdm methods: A comparative analysis of vikor and topsis. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2):445–455, 2004. Bibliography 275 [225] Michael A. Orloff. Inventive Thinking through TRIZ: A Practical Guide. Springer, New York, NY, 2nd edition, 2010. [226] Alex F. Osborn. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, NY, 3rd, revised edition, 1963. [227] Kevin N. Otto. Measurement analysis of product design methods. Research in Engineering Design, 7(2):86–101, 1995. [228] Kevin N. Otto and Kristin L. Wood. Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000. ¨ [229] M¨ ujgan S. Ozdemir and Thomas L. Saaty. The unknown in decision making: What to about it. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(1):349–359, 2006. [230] Gerhard Pahl, Wolfgang Beitz, J¨org Feldhusen, and Karl-Heinrich Grote. Engineering Design. Springer, London, 3rd edition, 2007. [231] C. Papadimitriou, J.L. Beck, and L.S. Katafygiotis. Updating robust reliability structural test data. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 16:103–113, 2001. [232] G. J. Park, T. H. Lee, K. Lee, and K. H. Hwang. Robust design: an overview. AIAA Journal, 44(1):181–191, 2006. [233] Z. Pawlak. Rough sets. Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1991. [234] C. Carl Pegels. Total Quality Management. Boyd & Frasers, Danvers, 1995. [235] Randy C. Perry and David W. Bacon. Commercializing Great Products with Design for Six Sigma. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006. Bibliography 276 [236] Madhav S. Phadke. Quality Engineering using Robust Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989. [237] B. Pollett and C. Nielsen. OTC 18402: Panel: Decision making, ethics, and professionalism in new horizons and at new depths: Where are the ethical boundaries and potential liabilities facing the offshore energy industry? Offshore Technology Conference 2006 Proceedings, 2006. [238] Michael P¨otzl and J¨org Schlaich. Robust concrete bridges without bearings and joints. Structural Engineering International (IABSE), 6(4):266–268, 1996. [239] Stuart Pugh. Total Design; Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990. [240] James Reason. Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990. [241] James Reason. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, UK, 1997. [242] Kendall C. Reynolds, Dave Brennan, John Spokes, and Lars Seeberg. OTC 16993: Abgami field development concept selection: Evaluating facility and field development alternatives in an environment of significant subsurface uncertainty. Offshore Technology Conference 2002 Proceedings, 2004. [243] Christian P. Robert. The Bayesian Choice: From Decision-Theoretic Foundations to Computational Implementation. Springer, New York, NY, 2nd edition, 2007. [244] Claudio M. Rocco, Jose Ali Moreno, and Nestor Carrasquero. Robust design using a hybrid-cellular-evolutionary and interval-arithmetic approach: a reliability application. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 79(2):149–159, 2003. [245] Beverly F. Ronalds. OTC 14259: Deepwater facility selection. Offshore Technology Conference 2002 Proceedings, 2002. Bibliography 277 [246] Timothy J. Ross. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. Wiley, Chichester, 2nd edition, 2004. [247] William D. Rowe. An Anatomy of Risk (Wiley Series on Systems Engineering & Analysis). John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1977. [248] Asim Roy, Patrick Mackin, Jyrki Wallenius, James Corner, Mark Keith, Gregory Schymik, and Hina Arora. An interactive search method based on user preferences. Decision Analysis, 5(4):203–229, 2008. [249] Thomas L. Saaty. Exploring the interface between hierarchies, multiple objectives and fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1(1):57–68, 1978. [250] Thomas L. Saaty. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1980. [251] Thomas L. Saaty. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 23(7):841–855, 1986. [252] Thomas L. Saaty. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process - Vol. VI. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1st edition, 1994. [253] Thomas L. Saaty. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996. [254] Thomas L. Saaty. Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1):85–91, 2003. [255] Thomas L. Saaty. Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 2005. Bibliography 278 [256] Thomas L. Saaty. Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network process. European Journal of Operational Research, 168(2):557–570, 2006. [257] Thomas L. Saaty and Nina Begicevic. The scope of human values and human activities in decision making. Applied Soft Computing, 10(4):963–974, 2010. [258] Thomas L. Saaty and Brady Cillo. The Encyclicon, Volume 2: a dictionary of complex decisions using the Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1st edition, 2007. [259] Thomas L. Saaty and Ernest H. Forman. The Hierarchon: A Dictionary of Hierarchies. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992. ¨ [260] Thomas L. Saaty and M¨ ujgan S. Ozdemir. Negative priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 37(9–10):1063–1075, 2003. ¨ [261] Thomas L. Saaty and M¨ ujgan S. Ozdemir. Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 38(3–4):233–244, 2003. ¨ [262] Thomas L. Saaty and M¨ ujgan S. Ozdemir. The Encyclicon: a dictionary of decisions with dependence and feedback based on the Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 2005. [263] Thomas L. Saaty and Hsu-Shih Shih. Structures in decision making: On the subjective geometry of hierarchies and networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(3):867–872, 2009. [264] Thomas L. Saaty and Masahiro Takizawa. Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 26(2):229–237, 1986. Bibliography 279 [265] Thomas L. Saaty and Luis G. Vargas. The Logic of Priorities: Applications in Business, Energy, Health, Transportation. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, Boston, MA, 1982. [266] Thomas L. Saaty and Luis G. Vargas. Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Mathematical Modelling, 5(5):309–324, 1984. [267] Thomas L. Saaty and Luis G. Vargas. Inconsistency and rank preservation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28(2):205–214, 1984. [268] Thomas L. Saaty and Luis G. Vargas. Uncertainty and rank order in the analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 32(1):107–117, 1987. [269] Thomas L. Saaty and Luis G. Vargas. Experiments on rank preservation and reversal in relative measurement. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4– 5):13–18, 1993. [270] Thomas L. Saaty and Luis G. Vargas. Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 2001. [271] Thomas L. Saaty and Luis G. Vargas. Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic, Polotical, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks. Springer, New York, NY, 2006. [272] Saikat Saha and C.S. Manohar. Inverse reliability based structural design for system dependent critical earthquake loads. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 20(1):19– 31, 2005. [273] Ahti A. Salo and Raimo P. H¨am¨ al¨ainen. Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 82(3):458–475, 1995. Bibliography 280 [274] A. Saltelli, K. Chan, and E. M. Scott. Sensitivity analysis. Wiley, New York, 2000. [275] Christian A. Schenk and Gerhart I. Schu¨eller. Uncertainty Assessment of Large Finite Element Systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. [276] Stephen R. Schmidt and Robert G. Launsby. Understanding Industrial Designed Experiments. Air Academy Press, Colorado Springs, CO, 4th edition, 1994. [277] Gerhart I. Schu¨eller. Computational stochastic mechanics - recent advances. Computers & Structures, 79(22–25):2225–2234, 2001. [278] Gerhart I. Schu¨eller and Hector A. Jensen. Computational methods in optimization considering uncertainties – an overview. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 198(1):2–13, 2008. [279] Richard C. Schwing and Jr. Walter A. Albers, editors. Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough? Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1980. [280] G. Shafer. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1976. [281] Walter A. Shewhart. Economic Control of Quality Manufactured Product. ASQC (Originally published in 1931 by Van Nostrand), Milwaukee, WI, 1980. [282] Walter A. Shewhart. Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control. Dover (Originally published in 1939 by the Graduate School of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.), New York, NY, 1986. [283] A. C. Shoemaker and R. N. Kacker. A methodology for planning experiments in robust product and process design. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 4:95–103, 1988. [284] A. C. Shoemaker, K. L. Tsui, and C. F. Wu. Economical experimentation methods for robust design. Technometrics, 33(4):415–427, 1991. Bibliography 281 [285] Herbert Alexander Simon. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2):129–138, 1956. [286] Herbert Alexander Simon. The Sciences of the Artificial. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996. [287] Yannis Siskos, Evangelos Grigoroudis, and Nikolaos F. Matsatsinis. Uta methods. In Jos´e Figueira, Salvatore Greco, and Matthias Ehrgott, editors, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., New York, NY, 2005. [288] Paul Slovic. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception. Earthscan, London, UK, 2010. [289] Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein. Rating the risks. Environment, 21(3):14–20, 1979. [290] Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein. Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In Richard C. Schwing and Jr. Walter A. Albers, editors, Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?, pages 181–216. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1980. [291] David John Smith. Reliability, Maintainability and Risk: Practical Methods for Engineers including Reliability Centred Maintenance and Safety-Related Systems. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 7th edition, 2005. [292] Jim Q. Smith. Bayesian Decision Analysis: Principles and Practice. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2010. [293] Michael R. Smith. The World Offshore Oil and Gas Production and Spend Forecast 2009-2013. Douglas-Westwood, Canterbury, UK, 2009. Bibliography 282 [294] Steven M. Smith, Thomas B. Ward, and Ronald A. Finke, editors. The Creative Cognition Approach. A Bradford Book (MIT Press), Cambridge, MA, 1st edition, 2009. [295] Richard Snell. Deep water oilfield facility concept selection. Technical report, CORE Report Number 2008-06, Second LRET Lecture at Faculty of Engineering, National University of Singapore, 2008. [296] D. Snyder and B. Townsley. OTC 20887: Perdido development: World’s first ultradeepwater drilling and production facility. Offshore Technology Conference 2010 Proceedings, 2010. [297] Dean H. Stamatis. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI, 2nd edition, 2003. [298] Clifford Victor Starkey. Engineering Design Decisions. Edward Arnold, London, UK, 1993. [299] Chauncey Starr. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165(3899):1232– 1238, 1969. [300] Chauncey Starr. Introductory remarks, session I. In Richard C. Schwing and Jr. Walter A. Albers, editors, Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?, pages 2–4. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1980. [301] Matthias Stein and Michael Beer. Bayesian quantification of inconsistent information. Proceedings of the ICASP11: Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, pages 463–470, 2011. [302] Nam P. Suh. The Principles of Design (Oxford Series on Advanced Manufacturing). Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1990. Bibliography 283 [303] Nam P. Suh. Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications (The Oxford Series on Advanced Manufacturing). Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2001. [304] Louis Sullivan. The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincott’s Magazine, 1896. [305] K. G. Swift and A. J. Allen. Product variability, risks, and robust design. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 208(1):9–19, 1994. [306] Genichi Taguchi. Introduction to Quality Engineering: Designing Quality into Products and Processes. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, 1986. [307] Genichi Taguchi. Taguchi on Robust Technology Development. ASME Press, New York, NY, 1993. [308] Genichi Taguchi, Subir Chowdhury, and Shin Taguchi. Robust Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2000. [309] Genichi Taguchi, Subir Chowdhury, and Yuin Wu. Taguchi’s Quality Engineering Handbook. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2005. [310] Genichi Taguchi and Rajesh Jugulum. The Mahalanobis-Taguchi Strategy. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 2002. [311] Genichi Taguchi, Rajesh Jugulum, and Shin Taguchi. Computer-based Robust Engineering. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI, 2004. [312] Nassim Nicholas Taleb. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House Trade Paperbacks, New York, NY, 2nd edition, 2010. [313] B. F. Thurmond, D. B. L. Walker, H. H. Banon, A. B. Luberski, M. W. Jones, and R. R. Peters. OTC 16573: Challenges and decisions in developing multiple deepwater fields. Offshore Technology Conference 2004 Proceedings, 2004. Bibliography 284 [314] Deborah L. Thurston. A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes. Research in Engineering Design, 3(2):105–122, 1991. [315] Evangelos Triantaphyllou. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000. [316] Evangelos Triantaphyllou and Stuart H. Mann. An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: A decision-making paradox. International Journal of Decision Support Systems, 5:303–312, 1989. [317] B. Lee Tuttle. Creative concept development. In Subrata Chakrabarti, editor, ASM Handbook Volume 20, pages 19–48. ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1997. [318] Amos Tversky. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4):281–299, 1972. [319] Amos Tversky and Shmuel Sattath. Preference trees. Psychological Review, 86(6):542–573, 1972. [320] David G. Ullman. The Mechanical Design Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 4th edition, 2009. [321] Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger. Product Design and Development. McGrawHill, New York, NY, 2004. [322] Richard Vaclavik. Deepwater GoM challenges span full well process. E&P Exploration and Production, May, 2009. [323] P.J.M. van Laarhoven and Witold Pedrycz. A fuzzy extension of saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3):229–241, 1983. [324] Luis G. Vargas. Reciprocal matrices with random coefficients. Mathematical Modelling, 3(1):69–81, 1982. Bibliography 285 [325] John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, sixtieth anniversary edition edition, 2004. [326] P. Walley. Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. Chapman & Hall, London, 1991. [327] Martin Weber. Decision making with incomplete information. European Journal of Operational Research, 28(1):44–57, 1987. [328] Kurt Weichselberger. The theory of interval-probability as a unifying concept for uncertainty. International Journal Approx. Reasoning, 24(2-3):149–170, 2000. [329] Y. K. Wen. Reliability and performance-based design. Structural Safety, 23(4):407– 428, 2001. [330] John W. Wesner, Jeffrey M. Hiatt, and David C. Trimble. Winning with Quality. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1995. [331] Graham Wilson. Six Sigma and the Product Development Cycle. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 2005. [332] Robert L. Winkler. An Introduction to Bayesian Inference and Decision. Probabilistic Publishing, Sugar Land, TX, 2nd edition, 2003. [333] David .D. Woods. On taking human performance seriously in risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 29:375–381, 1990. [334] David .D. Woods. Risk and human performance: Measuring the potential for disaster. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 29:387–405, 1990. [335] Dong-Ling Xu, Jian-Bo Yang, and Ying-Ming Wang. The evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(3):1914–1943, 2006. Bibliography 286 [336] Jian-Bo Yang and Dong-Ling Xu. On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 32(3):289–304, 2002. [337] L.A. Zadeh. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8:338–353, 1965. [338] Jiansen Zhang and Ricardo O. Foschi. Performance-based design and seismic reliability analysis using designed experiments and neural networks. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 19(3):259–267, 2004. [339] H.-J. Zimmermann. Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston London, 1992. [340] Fritz Zwicky. The Morphological Method of Analysis and Construction. Interscience Publishers, New York, NY, courant anniversary volume edition, 1948. [...]... Non-probabilistic Methods 214 B Decision Theory and Methods 219 B.1 Decision Theory 219 B.1.1 Decision Methods and Models 220 B.1.2 Decision under Uncertainty and Risk 220 B.1.3 Decision Making Paradox 222 B.2 Multi-Criteria Decision Making 223 B.2.1 Conflicting Criteria... people Decision problems in conceptual design can be attacked with methods originating in the fields of economic, political, and social science Particularly appealing is the Analytic Network Process (ANP), a prescriptive decision theory which combines the human aspects of decision making with a sound mathematical foundation It allows for dependence and feedback characteristic for the complex decision. .. confused with cij aSA Short form for acS cA , which describes the dominance of criterion crS over criterion crA with respect to the goal List of Symbols and Abbreviations B, O, C, R xix Limiting priority vectors obtained in dedicated decision models for the BOCR merits b, o, c, r Corresponding coefficients for the synthesis of an overall priority vector Decision Making with Dependencies and Feedback. .. priority vector Decision Making with Dependencies and Feedback ANP Analytic Network Process DM Decision Maker, an individual or a group of people DoI Degree of Implementation, a concept of IDF EC Engineering Characteristics ETLP Extended Tension-leg Platform IDF Implementation Dependent Feedback, the approach developed within this thesis IoE Intensity of Excitement, a concept of IDF LCF Load Capacity Factor,... 4.7 Decomposing the decision model into sub-networks for each function 94 4.8 Implementation dependent feedback for various functions 96 List of Figures xiv 4.9 Decomposing the decision model into sub-networks for each floater 97 5.1 Location map of the deepwater oil and gas field 104 5.2 Estimated production profile 105 5.3 Interdependent aspects of... Design HUC Hookup and Commissioning MAUT Multi-Attribute Utility Theory MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making PDS Product Design Specifications QFD Quality Function Deployment RBO Reliability Based Optimization RDO Robust Design Optimization TM Taguchi Method TQM Total Quality Management Implementation Dependent Feedback ANP Analytic Network Process BOCR Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks C.I Consistency... design engineers have to make many decisions, individually or in groups, which largely determine the overall project success Similar to the synthesis of candidate design concepts, a creative act which cannot be automated, decision making and concept selection as well require imagination, intuition, knowledge, and creativity Similar to concept generation, decision making can be seen as an art The necessary... in one decision does Summary xxxiv not exist, and usually the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are in some kind of balance Concept selection becomes a decision problem Successful decision making depends on the ability to make meaningful trade-offs between contradicting evaluation criteria and subjective judgment values, and the ability to clearly communicate the derivation of a decision. .. a decision problem ANP Analytic Network Process BOD Basis of Detailed Design DM Decision Maker, an individual or a group of people EPCI Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Installation ETLP Extended Tension-Leg Platform FDP Field Development Plan FEL Front-End Loading FEM Finite Element Method FPSO (ship-shaped) Floating Production Storage and Offloading System IDF Implementation Dependent Feedback, ... and intuition to cover for the remaining uncertainties These essential qualities of a good decision maker cannot be emulated by an algorithm, decisions cannot be computed The herein presented approach is not intended to replace the decision making engineer, but to provide a support tool for the various crucial decision points towards a robust design  . DECISION MAKING WITH IMPLEMENTATION DEPENDENT FEEDBACK MATTHIAS STEIN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2012 DECISION MAKING WITH IMPLEMENTATION DEPENDENT FEEDBACK MATTHIAS. 32 2.4 DecisionMaking:AnalysisandTheory 33 2.4.1 TheHumanAspectofDecisionMaking 33 2.4.2 DecisionAnalysis 36 2.4.3 DecisionTheory 40 2.4.4 MultipleCriteriaandMultipleChoices 41 3 Decision Making with. TheConceptofImplementationDependentFeedback 77 4.2.1 AligningRatioScales 77 4.2.2 DegreeofImplementation 79 4.2.3 AnEngineeringFeedbackFramework 82 4.2.4 BridgeSelectionwithImplementationDependentFeedback 86 4.3