Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

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)

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.

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:
Hide All
K.J. Arrow (1950). A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy 58(4), 328346.

D. Bernoulli (1954). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica 22(1), 2336.

A.C. Cooper , C.Y. Woo , & W.C. Dunkelberg (1988). Entrepreneurs' perceived chances for success. Journal of Business Venturing 3, 97108.

X. Du , & W. Chen (2000). Towards a better understanding of modeling feasibility robustness in engineering design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 385394.

R. Dvir , & E. Pasher (2004). Innovation engines for knowledge cities: an innovation ecology perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management 8(5), 1627.

K. Grantham-Lough , R. Stone , & I.Y. Tumer (2007). The risk in early design method. Journal of Engineering Design 20, 155173.

G.A. Hazelrigg (1996). The implications of arrow's impossibility theorem on approaches to optimal engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design 118(2), 161164.

G.A. Hazelrigg (1998). A framework for decision-based engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design 120(4), 653659.

R.A. Howard (1988). Decision analysis: practice and promise. Management Science 34, 679695.

J.A. Jones (2005). An Introduction to Factor Analysis of Information Risk. New York: Risk Management Insight.

D. Kahneman , & A. Tversky (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263291.

R.L. Keeney , & H. Raiffa (1993). Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

K. Lewis , W. Chen , & E.L. Schmidt (2006). Decision Making in Engineering Design. New York: ASME Press.

K. MacCrimmon , & D.A. Wehrung (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives. Management Science 36, 422435.

J.D. Martin , & T.W. Simpson (2006). A methodology to manage system-level uncertainty during conceptual design. Journal of Mechanical Design 128, 959968.

P.Y. Papalambros , & D.J. Wilde (2000). Principles of Optimal Design: Modeling and Computation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

J.M.E. Pennings , & A. Smidts (2000). Assessing the construct validity of risk attitude. Management Science 46(10), 13371348.

J.W. Pratt (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32, 122136.

A.M. Ross , D.E. Hastings , J.M. Warmkessel , & N.P. Diller (2004). Multi-attribute tradespace exploration as front end for effective space system design. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 41(1), 2029.

J.S. Russell , & M.J. Skibniewski (1988). Decision criteria in contractor prequalification. Journal of Management in Engineering 4(2), 148164.

P.J.H. Schoemaker (1990). Are risk-preferences related across payoff domains and response modes? Management Science 36, 14511463.

P. Slovic (1964). Assessment of risk taking behavior. Psychological Bulletin 61, 330333.

R.B. Stone , I.Y. Tumer , & M. Van Wie (2005). The function–failure design method. Journal of Mechanical Design 127(3), 397407.

G.M. Stump , S. Lego , M. Yukish , T.W. Simpson , & J.A. Donndelinger (2009). Visual steering commands for trade space exploration: user-guided sampling with example. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 9(4), 110.

H.J. Wassenaar , & W. Chen (2003). An approach to decision-based design with discrete choice analysis for demand modeling. Journal of Mechanical Design 125(3), 490497.

E.U. Weber , A.R. Blais , & N.E. Betz (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15(4), 263290.

Recommend this journal

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

  • 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? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 26 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 233 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.