Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Risk attitudes in risk-based design: Considering risk attitude using utility theory in risk-based design

  • Douglas Van Bossuyt (a1), Chris Hoyle (a1), Irem Y. Tumer (a1) and Andy Dong (a2)
Abstract

Engineering risk methods and tools account for and make decisions about risk using an expected-value approach. Psychological research has shown that stakeholders and decision makers hold domain-specific risk attitudes that often vary between individuals and between enterprises. Moreover, certain companies and industries (e.g., the nuclear power industry and aerospace corporations) are very risk-averse whereas other organizations and industrial sectors (e.g., IDEO, located in the innovation and design sector) are risk tolerant and actually thrive by making risky decisions. Engineering risk methods such as failure modes and effects analysis, fault tree analysis, and others are not equipped to help stakeholders make decisions under risk-tolerant or risk-averse decision-making conditions. This article presents a novel method for translating engineering risk data from the expected-value domain into a risk appetite corrected domain using utility functions derived from the psychometric Engineering Domain-Specific Risk-Taking test results under a single-criterion decision-based design approach. The method is aspirational rather than predictive in nature through the use of a psychometric test rather than lottery methods to generate utility functions. Using this method, decisions can be made based upon risk appetite corrected risk data. We discuss development and application of the method based upon a simplified space mission design in a collaborative design-center environment. The method is shown to change risk-based decisions in certain situations where a risk-averse or risk-tolerant decision maker would likely choose differently than the expected-value approach dictates.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Reprint requests to: Douglas Van Bossuyt, Complex Engineered Systems Design Laboratory, School of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Oregon State University, 204 Rogers Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; E-mail: douglas.vanbossuyt@gmail.com
References
Hide All
Arrow, K.J. (1950). A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy 58(4), 328346.
Bernoulli, D. (1954). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica 22(1), 2336.
Bindschadler, D.L., Theilig, E.E., Schimmels, K.A., & Vandermey, N. (2003). Project Galileo: Final Mission Status (Technical Report). Pasadena, CA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Cooper, A.C., Woo, C.Y., & Dunkelberg, W.C. (1988). Entrepreneurs' perceived chances for success. Journal of Business Venturing 3, 97108.
Dong, H., & Wood, W. (2004). Integrating computational synthesis and decision-based conceptual design. Proc. ASME 2004 Int. Design Engineering Technology Conf. Computers in Information & Engineering Conf., Paper No. IDETC/CIE2004, pp. 361–371. Salt Lake City, UT: ASME.
Du, X., & Chen, W. (2000). Towards a better understanding of modeling feasibility robustness in engineering design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 385394.
Dvir, R., & Pasher, E. (2004). Innovation engines for knowledge cities: an innovation ecology perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management 8(5), 1627.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2006). National airspace system system engineering manual (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, ATO Operations Planning.
Gerber, A. (2002). Super Nova-Acc Probe (SNAP) (Technical report). Pasadena, CA: National Aeronautics & Space Administration.
Grantham-Lough, K., Stone, R., & Tumer, I.Y. (2007). The risk in early design method. Journal of Engineering Design 20, 155173.
Hazelrigg, G.A. (1996). The implications of arrow's impossibility theorem on approaches to optimal engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design 118(2), 161164.
Hazelrigg, G.A. (1998). A framework for decision-based engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design 120(4), 653659.
Hillson, D., & Murray-Webster, R. (2007). Understanding and Managing Risk Attitude. Aldershot: Gower.
Howard, R.A. (1988). Decision analysis: practice and promise. Management Science 34, 679695.
Hoyle, C., Tumer, I.Y., Mehr, A.F., & Chen, W. (2009). Health management allocation for conceptual system design. Journal of Computing and Information Sciences in Engineering 9(2).
Hubbard, D. (2007). How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
IEEE. (1990). IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York: IEEE.
International Electrotechnical Commission. (1990). International Standard IEC 61025 Fault Tree Analysis. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.
International Organization for Standardization. (1997). ISO 10628: Flow Diagrams for Process Plants: General Rules. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Ji, H., Yang, M.C., & Honda, T. (2007). A probabilistic approach for extracting design preferences from design team discussion. ASME 2007 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers & Information in Engineering Conf., Paper No. IDETC/CIE2007, pp. 297–306. Las Vegas, NV: ASME.
Jones, J.A. (2005). An Introduction to Factor Analysis of Information Risk. New York: Risk Management Insight.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263291.
Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkwood, C.W. (1997, January). Notes on Attitude Toward Risk Taking and the Exponential Utility Function. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, Department of Management.
Kurtoglu, T., & Tumer, I.Y. (2008). A graph-based fault identification and propagation framework for functional design of complex systems. Journal of Mechanical Design 30(5).
Lewis, K., Chen, W., & Schmidt, E.L. (2006). Decision Making in Engineering Design. New York: ASME Press.
MacCrimmon, K., & Wehrung, D.A. (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives. Management Science 36, 422435.
MacCrimmon, K.R., & Wehrung, D.A. (1986). Taking Risks: The Management of Uncertainty. New York: Free Press.
Martin, J.D., & Simpson, T.W. (2006). A methodology to manage system-level uncertainty during conceptual design. Journal of Mechanical Design 128, 959968.
McNamee, P., & Celona, J. (1990). Decision Analysis With Supertree (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Scientific Press.
Meshkat, L. (2007). A holistic approach for risk management during design. Proc. Aerospace Conf., IEEE, 2007, pp. 1–5.
NASA. (1995). NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. Pasadena, CA: NASA.
Oberto, R.E., Nilsen, E., Cohen, R., Wheeler, R., DeFlorio, P., & Borden, C. (2005). The NASA exploration design team: blueprint for a new design paradigm. Proc. 2005 Aerospace Conf., pp. 4398–4405.
Papalambros, P.Y., & Wilde, D.J. (2000). Principles of Optimal Design: Modeling and Computation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pennings, J.M.E., & Smidts, A. (2000). Assessing the construct validity of risk attitude. Management Science 46(10), 13371348.
Pratt, J.W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32, 122136.
Ross, A.M., Hastings, D.E., Warmkessel, J.M., & Diller, N.P. (2004). Multi-attribute tradespace exploration as front end for effective space system design. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 41(1), 2029.
Russell, J.S., & Skibniewski, M.J. (1988). Decision criteria in contractor prequalification. Journal of Management in Engineering 4(2), 148164.
Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1990). Are risk-preferences related across payoff domains and response modes? Management Science 36, 14511463.
Shah, J.J., & Wright, P.K. (2000). Developing theoretical foundations of DFM. Proc. ASME 2000 Int. Design Engineering Technology Conf. Computers in Information & Engineering Conf., Paper No. IDETC/CIE2000. New York: ASME.
Slovic, P. (1964). Assessment of risk taking behavior. Psychological Bulletin 61, 330333.
Stamanis, D.H. (2003). Failure Modes and Effects Analysis: FMEA From Theory to Execution (2nd ed.). Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Standards Australia New Zealand. (2009). AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management: Principles and Guidelines. Sydney: Standards Australia New Zealand.
Stone, R.B., Tumer, I.Y., & Van Wie, M. (2005). The function–failure design method. Journal of Mechanical Design 127(3), 397407.
Stump, G.M., Lego, S., Yukish, M., Simpson, T.W., & Donndelinger, J.A. (2009). Visual steering commands for trade space exploration: user-guided sampling with example. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 9(4), 110.
Ullman, D. (2009). Accord [Computer software]. Portland, OR: Robust Decisions Inc.
US Department of Defense. (1980). Procedures for Performing Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis. Military Standard MIL-STD-1629A. Washington, DC: US Department of Defense.
Van Bossuyt, D., Carvalho, L., Dong, A., & Tumer, I.Y. (2011). On measuring engineering risk attitudes. ASME 2011 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers & Information in Engineering Conf., Paper No. IDETC/CIE2011, pp. 425–434. Washington, DC: ASME.
Van Bossuyt, D.L., & Tumer, I.Y. (2010). Toward understanding collaborative design center trade study software upgrade and migration risks. Proc. ASME 2010 Int. Mechanical Engineering Congr. Exposition, Paper No. IMECE2010, pp. 315–328. Vancouver: ASME.
Van Bossuyt, D.L., Wall, S., & Tumer, I. (2010). Towards risk as a tradeable parameters in complex systems design trades. Proc. ASME 2010 Int. Design Engineering Technology Conf. Computers in Information & Engineering Conf., Paper No. IDETC/CIE2010, pp. 1271–1286. Montreal: ASME.
Villemeur, A. (2000). Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Safety Assessment. New York: Wiley.
von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wassenaar, H.J., & Chen, W. (2003). An approach to decision-based design with discrete choice analysis for demand modeling. Journal of Mechanical Design 125(3), 490497.
Weber, E.U., Blais, A.R., & Betz, N.E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15(4), 263290.
Wertz, J.R., & Larson, W.J. (Eds.). (1999). Space Mission Analysis and Design. London: Springer.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

AI EDAM
  • ISSN: 0890-0604
  • EISSN: 1469-1760
  • URL: /core/journals/ai-edam
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed