Page 141 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 141 of 171 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
129
from the surveys (PPS). For example, vA11 is the PPT-extracted preferential
probabilities on Alternative A1 (glass carafe) at the first time interval.
Let V be the vector of all preferential probabilities extracted from the discussion
transcript (PPT); W be the vector of all preferential probabilities translated from the
surveys (PPS). This time, V and W are vectors of 16 elements each, with 4 selective
alternatives out of 6 at 4 time points when the results are compared. Table 6.3 shows
the possible ranges and the quantitative similarity measures between these two vectors,
with the formulas drawn from Section 5.3.
11 12 13 14
21 22 23 24
11 12 13 14
21 22 23 24
( , , , ,
, , , ,
, , , ,
, , , )
A A A A
A A A A
B B B B
B B B B
V v v v v
v v v v
v v v v
v v v v
=
11 12 13 14
21 22 23 24
11 12 13 14
21 22 23 24
( , , , ,
, , , ,
, , , ,
, , , )
A A A A
A A A A
B B B B
B B B B
W w w w w
w w w w
w w w w
w w w w
=
There are 16 elements in each vector of V and W, and each element is in the
range of [0, 1]. Therefore, the possible L1 metric distance between V and W is [0, 16],
and the possible L1 metric distance between V and W is [0, 16 ], or [0, 4], with the
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 141 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 129 from the surveys (PPS). For example, vA11 is the PPT-extracted preferential probabilities on Alternative A1 (glass carafe) at the first time interval. Let V be the vector of all preferential probabilities extracted from the discussion transcript (PPT); W be the vector of all preferential probabilities translated from the surveys (PPS). This time, V and W are vectors of 16 elements each, with 4 selective alternatives out of 6 at 4 time points when the results are compared. Table 6.3 shows the possible ranges and the quantitative similarity measures between these two vectors, with the formulas drawn from Section 5.3. 11 12 13 14 21 22 23 24 11 12 13 14 21 22 23 24 ( , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B V v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v = 11 12 13 14 21 22 23 24 11 12 13 14 21 22 23 24 ( , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B W w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w = There are 16 elements in each vector of V and W, and each element is in the range of [0, 1]. Therefore, the possible L1 metric distance between V and W is [0, 16], and the possible L1 metric distance between V and W is [0, 16 ], or [0, 4], with the |
