Location of Repository

the conversation and connecting with judgment and decision-making research

By Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos and Max Planck

Abstract

I show how the coherence/correspondence distinction can inform the conversation about decision methods for engineering design. Some engineers argue for the application of multi-attribute utility theory while others argue for what they call heuristics. To clarify the differences among methods, I first ask whether each method aims at achieving coherence or correspondence. By analyzing statements in the design literature, I argue that utility theory aims at achieving coherence and heuristics aim at achieving correspondence. Second, I ask if achieving coherence always implies achieving correspondence. It is important to provide an answer because while in design the objective is correspondence, it is difficult to assess it, and coherence that is easier to assess is used as a surrogate. I argue that coherence does not always imply correspondence in design and that this is also the case in problems studied in judgment and decision-making research. Uncovering the conditions under which coherence implies, or does not imply, correspondence is a topic where engineering design and judgment and decision-making research might connect

Topics: coherence, correspondence, design. engineering, Pugh process, multi-attribute utility theory, heuristics
Year: 2013
OAI identifier: oai:CiteSeerX.psu:10.1.1.319.4448
Provided by: CiteSeerX
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v... (external link)
  • http://cog.psych.warwick.ac.uk... (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.