A number of approaches for multi-attribute selection decisions exist, each with certain advantages and disadvantages. One method that has recently been developed, called the hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents method (HEIM) supports a decision maker (DM) by implicitly determining the importances a DM places on attributes using a series of simple preference statements. In this and other multi-attribute selection methods, establishing consistent preferences is critical in order for a DM to be confident in his/her decision and its validity. In this paper, a general preference consistency method is developed, which is used to ensure that a consistent preference structure exists for a given DM. The method is demonstrated as part of HEIM, but is generalizable to any cardinal or ordinal preference structure, where the preferences can be over alternatives or attributes. These structures play an important role in making selection decisions in engineering design including selecting design concepts, materials, manufacturing processes, and configurations, among others. The theoretical foundations of the method are developed and the need for consistent preferences is illustrated in the application to a drill selection case study where the decision maker expresses inconsistent preferences.

1.
Saaty
,
T. L.
, 1980,
The Analytic Hierarchy Process
,
McGraw-Hill
, New York.
2.
Keeney
,
R. L.
, and
Raiffa
,
H.
, 1993,
Decision With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs
,
Cambridge University Press
, Cambridge, UK.
3.
Thurston
,
D. L.
, 1991, “
A Formal Method for Subjective Design Evaluation With Multiple Attributes
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
3
, pp.
105
122
.
4.
Wan
,
J.
, and
Krishnamurty
,
S.
, 2001, “
Learning-Based Preference Modeling in Engineering Design Decision-Making
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
123
(
2
), pp.
191
198
.
5.
Wassenaar
,
H. J.
, and
Chen
,
W.
, 2003, “
An Approach to Decision Based Design With Discrete Choice Analysis for Demand Modeling
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
125
(
3
), pp.
490
497
.
6.
Green
,
P. E.
, and
Srinivasan
,
V.
, 1990, “
Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments With Implications for Research and Practice
,”
J. Marketing
0022-2429,
54
(
4
), pp.
3
19
.
7.
Scott
,
M. J.
, and
Antonsson
,
E. K.
, 2005, “
Compensation and Weights for Trade-Offs in Engineering Design: Beyond the Weighted Sum
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
127
(
6
), pp.
1045
1055
.
8.
Scott
,
M. J.
, and
Antonsson
,
E. K.
, 1998, “
Aggregation Function for Engineering Design Trade-Offs
,”
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
0165-0114,
99
(
2
), pp.
253
264
.
9.
Otto
,
K. N.
, and
Antonsson
,
E. K.
, 1991, “
Trade-Off Strategies in Engineering Design
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
3
(
2
), pp.
87
104
.
10.
Eschenauer
,
H.
,
Koski
,
J.
, and
Osyczka
,
A. E.
, 1990,
Multicriteria Design Optimization: Procedures and Applications
,
Springer-Verlag
, New York.
11.
Saari
,
D. G.
, 2000, “
Mathematical Structure of Voting Paradoxes. I; Pairwise Vote. II; Positional Voting
,”
Economic Theory
,
15
(
1
), pp.
1
103
.
12.
Stewart
,
T. J.
, 1992, “
A Critical Survey on the Status of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Theory and Practice
,”
Omega
0305-0483,
20
(
5–6
), pp.
569
586
.
13.
Fukuda
,
S.
, and
Matsuura
,
Y.
, 1993, “
Prioritizing the Customer’s Requirements by AHP for Concurrent Design
,”
ASME
, Design for Manufacturability, DE-52, pp.
13
19
.
14.
Benyon
,
M.
,
Curry
,
B.
, and
Morgan
,
P.
, 2000, “
The Dempster–Shafer Theory of Evidence: An Alternative Approach to Multicriteria Decision Modeling
,”
Omega
0305-0483,
28
(
1
), pp.
37
50
.
15.
Davis
,
L.
, and
Williams
,
G.
, 1994, “
Evaluating and Selecting Simulation Software Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
,”
Integr. Manuf. Syst.
0957-6061,
5
(
1
), pp.
23
32
.
16.
Basak
,
I.
, and
Saaty
,
T. L.
, 1993, “
Group Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
,”
Math. Comput. Modell.
0895-7177,
17
(
4–5
), pp.
101
110
.
17.
Hamalainen
,
R. P.
, and
Ganesh
,
L. S.
, 1994, “
Group Preference Aggregration Methods Employed in AHP: An Evaluation and an Intrinsic Process for Deriving Members’ Weightages
,”
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
0377-2217,
79
(
2
), pp.
249
265
.
18.
Scott
,
M.
, 2002, “
Quantifying Certainty in Design Decisions: Examining AHP
,”
ASME Design Technical Conferences, Design Theory and Methodology Conference
, DETC2002/DTM, Paper No. 34020.
19.
Barzilai
,
J.
, and
Golany
,
B.
, 1990, “
Deriving Weights From Pairwise Comparison Matrices: The Additive Case
,”
Oper. Res. Lett.
0167-6377,
96
, pp.
407
410
.
20.
Barzilai
,
J.
,
Cook
,
W. D.
, and
Golany
,
B.
, 1992, “
The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Structure of the Problem and Its Solutions
,”
Systems and Management Science by Extremal Methods
,
F. Y.
Phillips
and
J. J.
Rousseau
, eds.
Kluwer Academic Publishers
, Netherlands, pp.
361
371
.
21.
Dym
,
C. L.
,
Wood
,
W. H.
, and
Scott
,
M. J.
, 2002, “
Rank Ordering Engineering Designs: Pairwise Comparison Charts and Borda Counts
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
13
, pp.
236
242
.
22.
23.
Peter
,
H.
, and
Wakker
,
P.
, 1991, “
Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives and Revealed Group Preferences
,”
Econometrica
0012-9682,
59
(
6
), pp.
1787
1801
.
24.
See
,
T. K.
,
Gurnani
,
A.
, and
Lewis
,
K.
, 2005, “
Multi-attribute Decision Making Using Hypothetical Equivalents and Inequivalents
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
126
(
6
), pp.
950
958
.
25.
Scott
,
M. J.
, and
Zivkovic
,
I.
, 2003, “
On Rank Reversals in the Borda Count
,”
ASME Design Technical Conferences
, Design Theory and Methodology Conference, DETC2003/DTM, Paper No. 48674.
26.
Chen
,
W.
,
Wiecek
,
M.
, and
Zhang
,
J.
, 1999, “
Quality Utility: A Compromise Programming Approach to Robust Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
121
(
2
), pp.
179
187
.
27.
Dennis
,
J. E.
, and
Das
,
I.
, 1997, “
A Closer Look at Drawbacks of Minimizing Weighted Sums of Objective for Pareto Set Generation in Multicriteria Optimization Problems
,”
Struct. Optim.
0934-4373,
14
(
1
), pp.
63
69
.
28.
Messac
,
A.
,
Sundararaj
,
J. G.
,
Tappeta
,
R. V.
, and
Renaud
,
J. E.
, 2000, “
Ability of Objective Functions to Generate Points on Non-Convex Pareto Frontiers
,”
AIAA J.
0001-1452,
38
(
6
), pp.
1084
1091
.
29.
Zhang
,
J.
,
Chen
,
W.
, and
Wiecek
,
M.
, 2000, “
Local Approximation of the Efficient Frontier in Robust Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
122
(
2
), pp.
232
236
.
30.
Scott
,
M. J.
, and
Antonsson
,
E. K.
, 2000, “
Using Indifferent Points in Engineering Decisions
,”
ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences
, Design Theory and Methodology Conference, DETC2000/DTM, Baltimore, MD, Paper No. 14559.
31.
Wu
,
G.
, 1996, “
Exercises on Tradeoffs and Conflicting Objectives
,” Harvard Business School Case Studies,
9
-396-
307
.
32.
Gurnani
,
A.
,
See
,
T. K.
, and
Lewis
,
K.
, 2003, “
An Approach to Robust Multiattribute Concept, Selection
,”
ASME Design Technical Conferences
, Design Automation Conference, DETC03/DAC, Paper No. 48707.
33.
Gurnani
,
A.
, and
Lewis
,
K.
, 2005, “
Robust Multiattribute Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Design
,”
Eng. Optimiz.
0305-215X,
37
(
8
), pp.
813
830
.
34.
See
,
T. K.
, and
Lewis
,
K.
, 2006, “
A Formal Approach to Handling Conflicts in Multiattribute Group Decision Making
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
128
(
4
), pp.
678
688
.
35.
Thurston
,
D. L.
, 2001, “
Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
123
(
2
), pp.
176
182
.
36.
Hey
,
J.
, and
Orme
,
C.
, 1994, “
Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data
,”
Econometrica
0012-9682,
62
(
6
), pp.
1291
1326
.
37.
Hey
,
J.
, and
Carbone
,
E.
, 1995, “
A Comparison of the Estimates of EU and Non-EU Preference Functionals Using Data from Pairwise Choice and Complete Ranking Experiments
,”
Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory
,
20
(
2
), pp.
111
133
.
38.
Hey
,
J. D.
, 1998, “
Do Rational People Make Mistakes
?” in
Game Theory, Experience, Rationality
,
W.
Leinfellner
, and
E.
Kohler
, eds.,
Kluwer Academic Publishers
, Netherlands, pp.
55
66
.
39.
Hammond
,
K.
, 1996,
Human Judgment and Social Policy
,
Oxford University Press
, New York.
40.
Yu
,
P. L.
, 1985,
Multiple-Criteria Decision Making: Concepts, Techniques and Extensions
,
Plenum Press
, New York, pp.
113
161
.
41.
Andreoni
,
J.
, and
Miller
,
J.
, 2002, “
Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism
,”
Econometrica
0012-9682,
70
(
2
), pp.
737
753
.
42.
Chiclana
,
F.
,
Herrera
,
F.
, and
Herrera-Viedma
,
E.
, 2001, “
Integrating Multiplicative Preference Relations in a Multipurpose Decision-Making Model Based on Fuzzy Preference Relations
,”
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
0165-0114,
122
, pp.
277
291
.
43.
Pindyck
,
R. S.
, and
Rubinfeld
,
D. L.
, 2001,
Microeconomics
, 5th ed.,
Prentice Hall
, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
44.
Wakker
,
P. P.
, 1988,
Additive Representations of Preferences: A New Foundation of Decision Analysis
,
Kluwer Academic Publishers
, Netherlands.
45.
Kulok
,
M.
, 2004, “
A Study of Consistency in Multi-attribute Decision Making
,” MS thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
46.
Maddulapalli
,
K.
,
Azarm
,
S.
, and
Boyars
,
A.
, 2005, “
Interactive Product Design Selection With an Implicit Value Function
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
127
(
3
), pp.
367
377
.
47.
Phadke
,
M. S.
, 1989,
Quality Engineering Using Robust Design
,
Prentice Hall
, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
48.
Arrow
,
K. J.
, and
Raynaud
,
H.
, 1986,
Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making
,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
, Boston, MA.
You do not currently have access to this content.