Page 9 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 9 of 171 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
ix
Figure 4.7 Preferential Probabilities for Alternative b3 of Problem B .......................65
Figure 4.8 Information Entropy of the Most Preferred Alternative for Problem B ...65
Figure 5.1 Probability Density Function of Logistic Distribution .............................70
Figure 5.2 Cumulative Distribution Function of Logistic Distribution......................70
Figure 5.3 Manhattan Distance, Euclidean Distance and Chebyshev Distance ........75
Figure 5.4 Cosine Similarity between Two Vectors in 2-D Space.............................76
Figure 5.5 Design Process Evolution: Group Preferential Probabilities of the
Three Alternatives for Carafe Selection (Initial Probabilities with Equal
Likelihood) .................................................................................................................89
Figure 5.6 Design Process Evolution: Group Preferential Probabilities of the
Three Alternatives for Filter Selection (Initial Probabilities with Equal
Likelihood) .................................................................................................................90
Figure 5.7 Entropy of Design Selection .....................................................................92
Figure 5.8 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Glass Carafe ............99
Figure 5.9 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Stainless-steel
Carafe .........................................................................................................................99
Figure 5.10 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Plastic Carafe ......100
Figure 5.11 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Gold Tone Filter..100
Figure 5.12 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Paper Filter..........100
Figure 5.13 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Titanium Filter ....101
Figure 6.1 Rating Distribution with Stated Rating=0...............................................110
Figure 6.2 Rating Distribution with Stated Rating=0.2............................................111
Object Description
| Title | Extraction of preferential probabilities from early stage engineering design team discussion |
| Author | Ji, Haifeng |
| Author email | haifengj@usc.edu; haifeng.ji@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Industrial & Systems Engineering |
| School | Viterbi School of Engineering |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-19 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-07 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Yang, Maria C. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Lu, Stephen Jin, Yan |
| Abstract | Activities in the early stage of engineering design typically include the generation of design choices and selection among these design choices. A key notion in design alternative selection is that of preference in which a designer or design team assigns priorities to a set of design choices. However, preferences become more challenging to assign on both a practical and theoretical level when done by a group of individuals. Preferences may also be explicitly obtained via surveys or questionnaires in which designers are asked to rank the choices, rate choice with values, or select a "most-preferred" choice. However, these methods are typically employed at a single point of time; therefore, it may not be practical to use surveys to elicit a team’s preference change and evolution throughout the process.; This research explores the text analysis on the design discussion transcripts and presents a probabilistic approach for implicitly extracting a projection of aggregated preference-related information from the transcripts. The approach in this research graphically represents how likely a choice is to be "most preferred" by a design team over time. For evaluation purpose, two approaches are established for approximating a team's "most preferred" choice in a probabilistic way from surveys of individual team members. A design selection experiment was conducted to determine possible correlations between the preferential probabilities estimated from the team's discussion and survey ratings explicitly stated by team members. Results suggest that there are strong correlations between extracted preferential probabilities and team intents that are stated explicitly, and that the proposed methods can provide a quantitative way to understand and represent qualitative design information using a low overhead information extraction method. |
| Keyword | preferences; probabilities; concept selection; design process; design decision-making |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1635 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Ji, Haifeng |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Ji-2413 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume14/etd-Ji-2413.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 9 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | ix Figure 4.7 Preferential Probabilities for Alternative b3 of Problem B .......................65 Figure 4.8 Information Entropy of the Most Preferred Alternative for Problem B ...65 Figure 5.1 Probability Density Function of Logistic Distribution .............................70 Figure 5.2 Cumulative Distribution Function of Logistic Distribution......................70 Figure 5.3 Manhattan Distance, Euclidean Distance and Chebyshev Distance ........75 Figure 5.4 Cosine Similarity between Two Vectors in 2-D Space.............................76 Figure 5.5 Design Process Evolution: Group Preferential Probabilities of the Three Alternatives for Carafe Selection (Initial Probabilities with Equal Likelihood) .................................................................................................................89 Figure 5.6 Design Process Evolution: Group Preferential Probabilities of the Three Alternatives for Filter Selection (Initial Probabilities with Equal Likelihood) .................................................................................................................90 Figure 5.7 Entropy of Design Selection .....................................................................92 Figure 5.8 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Glass Carafe ............99 Figure 5.9 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Stainless-steel Carafe .........................................................................................................................99 Figure 5.10 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Plastic Carafe ......100 Figure 5.11 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Gold Tone Filter..100 Figure 5.12 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Paper Filter..........100 Figure 5.13 Comparison of Group Preferential Probabilities on Titanium Filter ....101 Figure 6.1 Rating Distribution with Stated Rating=0...............................................110 Figure 6.2 Rating Distribution with Stated Rating=0.2............................................111 |
