The problem of collective decision by design teams has received considerable attention in the scientific literature of engineering design. A much debated problem is that in which multiple designers formulate their individual preference rankings of different design alternatives and these rankings should be aggregated into a collective one.
This paper focuses the attention on three basic research questions: (i) “How can the degree of concordance of designer rankings be measured?”, (ii) “For a given set of designer rankings, which aggregation model provides the most coherent solution?”, and (iii) “To what extent is the collective ranking influenced by the aggregation model in use?”.
The aim of this paper is to present a novel approach that addresses the above questions in a relatively simple and agile way. A detailed description of the methodology is supported by a practical application to a real-life case study
