Advertisement

An Experimental Study of Human Decisions in Sequential Information Acquisition in Design: Impact of Cost and Task Complexity

  • Ashish M. ChaudhariEmail author
  • Jitesh H. Panchal
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 134)

Abstract

An important type of process-level decisions in design is information acquisition decisions which includes deciding whether to acquire information about a concept, which concepts to test, whether to run simulations or conduct experiments, etc. To improve design processes, it is important to understand how individuals make these decisions under different problem and process settings. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to understand which strategies individuals follow during sequential information acquisition, and how various factors such as cost and task complexity impact their strategies. Towards this objective, a behavioral experiment involving the function optimization task is conducted using student subjects, and Bayesian inference is performed to estimate the closeness of the subjects’ decisions to predictions from different decision models.

Keywords

Information acquisition Sequential decisions Design optimization Behavioral experiment 

References

  1. 1.
    Loch, C.H., Terwiesch, C., Thomke, S.: Parallel and sequential testing of design alternatives. Manage. Sci. 47(5), 663–678 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gero, J.S.: Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Mag. 11(4), 26 (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hazelrigg, G.A.: A framework for decision-based engineering design. J. Mech. Des. 120(4), 653–658 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Papalambros, P.Y.: Principles of Optimal Design: modeling and Computation. Cambridge University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deb, K.: Optimization for Engineering Design: algorithms and Examples. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore, R.A., Romero, D.A., Paredis, C.J.: Value-based global optimization. J. Mech. Des. 136(4) (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, G.G., Shan, S.: Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. J. Mech. Des. 129(4), 370–380 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xiong, Y., Chen, W., Tsui, K.-L.: A new variable-fidelity optimization framework based on model fusion and objective-oriented sequential sampling. J. Mech. Des. 130(11), 111401 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borji, A., Itti, L.: Bayesian optimization explains human active search. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Griffiths, T., Lucas, C., Williams, J., Kalish, M.: Modeling human function learning with Gaussian processes. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smithers, T., Troxell, W.: Design is intelligent behaviour, but what’s the formalism? AI EDAM 4(3), 89–98 (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McComb, C., Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K.: Utilizing Markov chains to understand operation sequencing in design tasks. In: Design Computing and Cognition (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flager, F., Gerber, D.J., Kallman, B.: Measuring the impact of scale and coupling on solution quality for building design problems. Des. Stud. 35(2), 180–199 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirschi, N., Frey, D.: Cognition and complexity: an experiment on the effect of coupling in parameter design. Res. Eng. Des. 13(3), 123–131 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grogan, P.T., de Weck, O.L.: Collaboration and complexity: an experiment on the effect of multi-actor coupled design. Res. Eng. Des. 27(3), 221–235 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sha, Z., Kannan, K.N., Panchal, J.H.: Behavioral experimentation and game theory in engineering systems design. J. Mech. Des. 137(5), 051405 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simon, H.A., Newell, A.: Human problem solving: the state of the theory in 1970. Am. Psychol. 26(2), 145 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen, D.L., Schonger, M., Wickens, C.: oTree—an open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments. J. Behav. Exp. Finan. 9, 88 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bishop, C.M.: The Gaussian distribution. In: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, pp. 67–127. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones, D.R., Schonlau, M., Welch, W.J.: Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J. Glob. Optimization 13(4), 455–492 (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Browne, G.J., Pitts, M.G.: Stopping rule use during information search in design problems. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 95(2), 208–224 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Montgomery, H.: Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: towards a process model of decision making. Adv. Psychol. 14, 343–369 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chaudhari, A.M.: Crowdsourcing for engineering design: theoretical and experimental studies. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Purdue University (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations