MPD 575 Design For SATISFICING (DFS) Team BBCD Cohort #9 B rad Kenoyer B ill Parran C hintan Ved D...
-
date post
15-Jan-2016 -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of MPD 575 Design For SATISFICING (DFS) Team BBCD Cohort #9 B rad Kenoyer B ill Parran C hintan Ved D...
MPD 575Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
Team BBCDCohort #9
Brad Kenoyer
Bill Parran
Chintan Ved
Dawoud AlQasrawi
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Overview & Definition• Objectives of System Engineering (SE)• Satisficing and Ford’s Quality Triangle • Satisficing and Existing Products• Satisficing and High Product Quality• Satisficing and Superior Purchase and Service Experience• Examples• Discussion
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 2
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 3
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Satisficing: The selection of an acceptable or satisfactory solution that meet an agents minimum aspiration-level or threshold , a threshold, under which solutions are deemed unacceptable . A satisficing solution may or may not be an optimal economic solution.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing#References
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 4
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• The word satisfice was coined by Herbert Simon. He pointed out that human beings lack the cognitive resources to maximize: we usually do not know the relevant probabilities of outcomes, we can rarely evaluate all outcomes with sufficient precision, and our memories are weak and unreliable. A more realistic approach to rationality takes into account these limitations: This is called bounded rationality.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 5
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)• Do not try to produce optimal designs, because for
complex systems this is impossible. • The key to successful design is “the replacement of
the goal of maximization with the goal of satisficing, of finding a course of action that is 'good enough.' ... Since the [designer] ... has neither the senses nor the wits to discover an 'optimal' path – even assuming the concept of optimal to be clearly defined – we are concerned only with finding a choice mechanism that will lead it to pursue a 'satisficing' path, a path that will permit satisfaction at some specified level of all its needs.” - Herb Simon, 1957
04/21/23 6
Objectives of System Engineering (SE)
• In a nutshell, SE is all about making the best dang system possible
• The SE must find the best balance of the critical system attributes– “The best is the enemy of the good”– “Systems engineering is the art of good enough”
• SE is about satisficing - MPD 510 Systems Engineering - Weaver Topic 1 20060911
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• When delivering any product, there are essentially three main components that must be right: product content (what's designed in), product execution (how it's designed to meet customer usage), and the customer interface points.
• This is best demonstrated by Ford's quality triangle.
Ford’s Quality Triangle
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 9
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
Satisficing in Search
• Threshold: A threshold is imposed with regard to the satisfaction or suitability of a solution. Once a solution meets such a threshold, the search may be considered satisfied.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 10
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
Satisficing in Search
• Tradeoffs: More than one consideration (such as fitness or utility) is evaluated when seeking a solution.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 11
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
Satisficing in Search
• Comparative: from satisficing evolution, solution utility may be considered comparatively rather than absolutely. This ordinal ranking may further be reduced to the Boolean status of satisfactory and unsatisfactory solutions.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 12
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
Satisficing in Search
• Presence of Optimality: also from satisficing evolution, unlike optimization that assumes the presence of a global or locally optimum solution, satisficing makes no such assumptions about the existence of an optimum where one may or may not exist.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of Exciting & Innovative Products
• Launched in 1991, Explorer defined the modern SUV phenomenon by offering just the right amount of equipment and style
• Sales peaked at just short of 500,000 units per year
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of Exciting & Innovative Products
Explorer Satisficing Points:• Vehicle not the fastest, most fuel efficient, or
best off road• Offered luxury appointments similar to the
best in class but not unique in its segment• Combination of size, style, content, and price
offered the general package that met a large number of peoples perceived needs without adding unnecessary cost and complexity
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of Exciting & Innovative Products
SUV / CUV Evolution Satisficing Points:• Customer needs became clearer as the segment evolved• New products were added starting in 2001 (Escape and Edge
shown above)• Unnecessary truck-related parts were shed (full-frame, solid
rear axle) and more comfort features added but basic formula remained the same
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of High Product Quality (cont.)
Black & Decker
• Black & Decker is a global manufacturer and marketer of quality power tools and accessories, hardware and home improvement products, and technology based fastening systems.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of High Product Quality (cont.)
• Fein defines quality as high performance precise power tool that is durable and exceed the customer expectation.
• B&D defines it as a quality that is good enough; that can perform the job many times but it is not durable and high performance as a Fein.
• Both companies define QUALITY term in different aspect.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of High Product Quality (cont.)
• Fein Electric Hacksaw.
It costs
$2,409.75
• B&D corded Cut Saw Kit
It costs
$111.60
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of High Product Quality (cont.)
• From the price standpoint, it apparent that Quality is not the same in both products.
• Black & Decker certainly satisfy the customers (majority of the customer base) who don’t want to pay too much and at the same time get the job done.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Superior Purchase and Service Experience– As the attractiveness of product or service
alternatives rises, people experience conflict and, as a result, may put off making a decision, choose the default option, or simply opt out
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 20
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Superior Purchase and Service Experience (cont.)– Research suggests that as the number of
alternatives increases, people simplify their decision making processes by relying on heuristics, they tend to consider fewer alternatives, and process a smaller fraction of the available information regarding those alternatives.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 21
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Superior Purchase and Service Experience (cont.)– Almost a half century ago, Simon (1955,
1956, 1957) suggested an approach to explaining choice that was more cognizant of human cognitive limitations than rational choice theory.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 22
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Superior Purchase and Service Experience (cont.)– Simon argued that the presumed goal of
maximization (or optimization) is virtually always unrealizable in real life, owing both to the complexity of the human environment and the limitations of human information processing
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 23
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Superior Purchase and Service Experience (cont.)– He suggested that in choice situations,
people actually have the goal of “Satisficing” rather than Maximizing.
– So, there will be two types of people:• Maximizers (optimizers)• Satisficers
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 24
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Superior Purchase and Service Experience (cont.)– To satisfice, people need only to be able
to place goods on some scale in terms of the degree of satisfaction they will afford, and to have a threshold of acceptability
– A satisficer simply encounters and evaluates goods until one is encountered that exceeds the acceptability threshold
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 25
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Superior Purchase and Service Experience (cont.)– A satisficer thus often moves in the
direction of maximization without ever having it as a deliberate goal
– To satisfice is to pursue not the best option, but a good enough option.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 26
Design For SATISFICNG (DFS)
• Superior Purchase and Service Experience (cont.)– In one series of studies (Lyengar & Lepper,
2000; see also Iyengar & Lepper, 1999), participants were more likely to purchase exotic jams or gourmet chocolates when they had 6 options from which to choose than when they had 24 or 30, respectively.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 27
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Superior Purchase and Service Experience (cont.)– And perhaps more importantly, those with
fewer options expressed greater satisfaction with the choices they made.
– The more options there are, the more likely one will make a non-optimal choice.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 28
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)• Superior Purchase and Service Experience
(cont.)– As an example of high satisficers
customers are the Apple Computers customers, the company provide them with limited numbers of options that fulfill their needs, and because of that Apple customers are more satisfied than any other computer customers.
Reference: Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 29
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of Superior Purchase & Service
Experience
Southwest Airlines
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of Superior Purchase & Service
Experience• Company Goal
– Affordable flying for customers – Be a profitable company– Achieve job security for every employee
• Within its own industry group, the company scored first place in such key attributes as: innovation, employee talent, use of corporate assets, social responsibility, quality of management, financial soundness, and long-term investment value according to Fortune Magazine
• Southwest was the first airline to start the trend of no first class; no food other than peanuts, potato chips, or cookies; no assigned seats; no transfers of luggage to other airlines.
• Yet, Southwest Airlines has become the nation’s fourth largest carrier in terms of customer boardings.
• Southwest has 35,000 employees and it serves 59 airports in 58 cities in 30 states. It operates nearly 2,800 flights a day.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of Superior Purchase &
Service Experience
• On an average Southwest carried over 44 million passengers per year
• While the average cost per passenger of serving meals in the industry is about $5, Southwest’s average cost per passenger is only 20 cents. They passed the savings the customers in terms of reduced airfare.
• Southwest Airlines boasts the best on-time record, best baggage handling, and fewest customer complaints in the airline industry.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of Superior Purchase &
Service Experience
• While their competition was focusing on travel flexibility, covering each & every major city in the US – Southwest was focusing on maintaining low cost fares (their goal since day one).
• Oil price hedging (might be luck) certainly helped Southwest in 2007 / 08 CY’s
• Elimination of onboard food and limiting itself to only specific cities helped Southwest satisfy the customers.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)Example of Superior Purchase &
Service Experience
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• The following tables are examples of Maximizing verses SATISFICING for different Features.
• Tables from W.C. Wimstatt 12/29/05
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)A Comparison of Features: Maximizing vs. Satisficing W. C. Wimsatt 12-29-05
I. FRAMEWORK ISSUES
Feature Maximization Satisficing Comments
1.Conceptual Paradigm
Rationality as logic; (irrationalityas incoherent)choices and theirstructure arerationaland maximal
Rationality as adaptive; May startwith badinformation anddecision rules; needrobust procedurefor improvement(Simon: ProceduralRationality)
“Logic” paradigm fits claim that rational behavior is analytically maximal. Adaptive paradigm is more open to contingent and context-specific designs; see ‘heuristics.’
2.Experimental / Theoretical Paradigm
study Simple [laboratory]cases;Mechanismsremain validwhen extendedto cover complexcases
study Complex[natural] cases;DifferentDegenerate(maximiz.)behaviors mayarise in simple well-defined cases
Key question: do you learn fundamental (basic) laws of interaction in simple cases, or do you see the most revealing behavior in complex cases, and (most crucially): What is evolvable?
3. Theoretical structure: and theoretical tools:
Unitary and apparently very general methodology and theoretical structure utility calculus [interval]Probability calculus [ratio] optimizationMethods
Piecemeal methodology and theoreticalstructure theories ofadaptive control,learning, behavioralecology, biologicaland cognitive development &evolution.
Rational decision theory tries to get all from utility calculus, placing strong requirements on utilities (and probabilities). Satisficing consistent with theoretical decentralization, local, limited action in non-equilibrium conditions; with decisions as intersection of processes and constraints that are more content and mechanism-specific.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
II. COMMONPLACE FEATURES AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
Feature Maximization Satisficing Comments
4. Calculation demands impossibly large relatively small Calculations required for maximization model to generate probabilities not physically computable, compounded by non-linearities, bifurcations, chaos.
5. Knowledge required enormous, global, long-range
small, local, short-range For maximization, total (like LaPlacean demon) because desired states entangled with total states. (less demanding for shorter planning horizons).
6. Optimization global, total (problems arise for multiple optima)
local, incremental With level of aspiration set to “> current value” and a “greedy” algorithm, satisficing yields hill-climbing algorithm. [simple selection on fitness topographies]
7. Alternatives given simultaneously, en bloc
normally sequentially Assuming alternatives are a closed set (specifiable at time of decision) is formative for the maximizing perspective.
8. Computational equilibrium
yes no; computational relaxation time >> decision time unless decisions force satisficing.
Relation between selection mechanisms and relaxation times at different levels of decision processes parallels evolution with multiple units of selection.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
III. UTILITY OR RATIONALITY ASSUMPTIONS
Feature Maximization Satisficing Comments
9. transitive preferences(no multi-dimensionalchoice or utilities(MDU’s)
required to avoid irrationality (money pump argument)
not required; can path- dependence orcycles (Gilpin 1975)
Intransitivity maymulti-dimensional choice (MDU’s) w.context-sensitive relevance of dimensions. Specifystate may à deterministic outcomes (e.g. Kachalnik)
10. utilities measurable on interval metric
required for decisionunder uncertainty
Ordinal metric or lexicalordering often sufficient
A strong metric is required for maximization view sothat expected utility is well-defined
11. exclusive definition of alternatives
yes (req’d. for def.of expected utility)
No Problems with this clause rarely discussed, but nottractable in the real world. Alternatives are mutuallyexclusively specifiable only in logical space
12. exhaustive definition of alternatives
yes (req’d. for def.of expected utility)
No Needs closure (no exceptions) or wastebasket clause.Exceptionless laws rarely available. WBC open-textured with ill-defined probabilities and utilities.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
IV. CONSEQUENCES AND EXTRAPOLATIONS
Feature Maximization Satisficing Comments
13. path dependence no: regarded as “irrational”
yes (history matters)
Phylogenetically: inherited mechanismsOntogenetically: development, learning history Socially: prior enculturation of individual.
14. stable preferences assumed (Becker1976)
yes (especiallyuseful for revealedpreference)
not required; mustbe relaxed forFestinger data
Festinger (1957) finds increases in preferencefor chosen alternative after choice; possible mechanism for adaptive “lock in” of choice, no vacillation (WW).
15. dyadic preferences or interactions sufficient to generate phenomena
Archimedean Axiom for utilitiesà pair wisecomparisonsSuffice
MDU’s, lexicalorderings à denialof AA; Chase’sparadox requirestriadic
Convergences through learning from random towards transitivity not possible thru dyadic interactions (Landau); Chase (1974) demonstrates that triadic interactions suffice.
V. TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURE
Feature Maximization SATISFICING Comments
16. temporal structure atemporal or simultaneous, staged, static
temporal, sequential,Dynamic
Rational decision theory framework supposes we canstop to gather information, or it is already given, withonly predictable new options arising during decision.
17. acquire information during decision
no? Yes Info learned is used for the adaptive modification of theaspiration level to converge on an outcome (feedbackis essential).
18. modify decision rules thru experience
No Yes If the process is repeated sufficiently, higher ordersatisficing modification of higher order rules ispossible. Regress is on demand; not vicious.
19. decision structure and process are located
Internal to agent;market asaggregate, socialstructure ignored.
Embodied socializedagent; decisionstructure significantlyexternal.
See Simon (1954) Administrative Behavior,McClamrock 1994, Hutchins 1995, Clark 1997.
20. tools for dealing with temporal patterns of change and adaptation
Cost-benefit and risk-benefit toolsplanning horizon
Threshold-baseddecision rules; relaxation-timedynamics
Heuristics to operationalize risk: Half-life, LD-50, n-year flood plain, wind- and shock-magnitude scales
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
VI. OTHER TOOLS:
Feature Maximization SATISFICING Comments
21. Heuristics relevant
no yes; extensions ofsatisficing strategy;H’s specialized tospecific classes ofProblems
All biological adaptations meet 6 primarycharacteristics of heuristics (Wimsatt 2006),connecting evolutionary and problem-solvingcontexts.
22. context sensitive rules are relevant
if so, only as partof subject matterof particularDecisions
yes; may be part ofdecision procedureas well as content
Context sensitivities indicate conditions ofapplicability or of successful operation ofheuristics.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• The MPD Program’s Cohort 9 was given the opportunity twice to practice the art of satisficing.
1.) The January Experience: LIGHT-BOT
2.) King Texere - Trebuchet
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• The January Experience project required the team to build a robot.
• The basic given objectives were to sort large and small marbles and raise them. Points were given for the # sorted properly and the height raised.
• Bonus points were awarded to the lightest weight for the robot
January Experience Cohort 9
LIGHT – BOTby
BBCBrad Kenoyer
Bill ParranChintan Ved
Product Description
CHASSIS
• Light Weight: Styrofoam packaging mat’l
– Aluminum bracket to support: Lift / Raising
• Support total system design– Drive– Sorter– Lifting (Telescoping)– Raising sorter
DRIVE• (2) Servo drive motors
• (2) Model airplane wheels w/ rubberbands
• (2) Skid buttons
RAISING• (1) Servo motor
• (1) Aluminum Arm
SORTER• “Dust Pan” design
• Collect small and large marbles
• Sort small and large marbles
LIFTING• (1) Servo Motor
• (2) Cardboard Tubes
• (1) Aluminum ‘L’ bracket w/ plastic cap
• (1) Aluminum strip w/ string
Team BBC w/ LIGHT-BOT
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• The LIGHT-BOT performed the objectives in the test trials: sorting and raising the marbles and achieved the bonus points for the lightest design
• The LIGHT-BOT failed to perform during the competition.
• Besides some controller issues - due to the ultra-light weight, the servo drives were able to drift during the competition.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
Lessons Learned from January Experience:1. Meeting all the individual component objectives
does not necessarily meet the systems requirements.
2. Make sure the components deliver what they were designed for (no compromise once you do all the tradeoffs).
3. Testing system for robustness is a good idea.4. Always have the controller antenna fully
extended.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• King Trexere – Trebuchet Project
• The objective for the Trebchet Project was to follow the SE Design Vee process to produce a working Trebuchet and use in competition to defeat your opponent’s fortress.
• Bonus: Shoot unopposed if weight is less than opponants by ½ lb.
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Team BBCD following the process for the Design Vee, past experience from the January Experience, and utilizing Satisficing: The selection of an acceptable or satisfactory solution that meet an agents minimum aspiration-level or threshold, produced a SATISFICING Trebuchet.
Systems Engineering Vee
Trebuchet Sub-System Verification
Trebuchet Verification
• Propels projectile 15-20’ – YES
• Provides enough force to knock down a pop can – YES
• Weighs less than 5lbs (and competitor’s trebuchet) – YES
• Robust enough for 50+ consistent shots – YES
• All components geometrically compatible -YES
Trebuchet Verification
• Controlled experiments run to optimize firing pin angle, sling length, and projectile location
• Distance, repeatability, and launch angle all considered as variables were finalized
• Fired inside and outside to measure variability to temperature and wind
Final Preparation
• Team firing rolls determined
• Aiming procedure practiced and refined
Design For SATISFICING (DFS)
• Trebuchet Results
• By following the SE Design Vee process and SATISFICING the project (customer) requirements, Team BBCD showed that satisficing works when the design objectives: Understand-specify-design-build-verify will lead to Validation: a light weight, accurate shooting Trebuchet
The Golf ball was shot into the golf ball sleeve from 20’ for verification.
Heuristics
• Make sure you don’t loose sight of the goal or deliverables.
• There is a fine line between must have & nice to have.
• True Validation is SATISFICING the Customer.
04/21/23 MPD575 Weaver 60
Thank You !!!
Team BBCD…