Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trade-off Studies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Tradeoff Decisions in System Design

  • 1898 Accesses

Abstract

Trade-off studies are a part of decision analysis and resolution (DAR). When the decision is one of selecting the preferred alternatives from amongst many alternatives, and the alternatives are to be examined in parallel, then the problem is amenable to a trade-off study. Trade-off studies address a range of problems from selecting high-level system architecture to selecting commercial off-the-shelf hardware or software. Trade-off studies are typical outputs of formal evaluation processes, such as DAR. Nevertheless, even if the mathematics and utility curves are done correctly, care still needs to be exercised in doing a trade-off study, because it is difficult to overcome mental mistakes. This chapter will discuss mental mistakes in trade-off studies and offer suggestions for ameliorating their occurrence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Madni AM (2014) Expanding stakeholder participation in upfront system engineering through storytelling in virtual worlds. Syst Eng 18(1):16–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Madni AM, Sage AP, Madni CC (2005) Infusion of cognitive engineering into systems engineering processes and practices. In: 2005 I.E. international conference on systems, man and cybernetics. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ (2006) Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 313(5787):684–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Petroski H (2003) Framing hypotheses: a cautionary tale. Am Scientist 91:18–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ainslie G (2001) Breakdown of will. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility analysis for social decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-7:326–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haimes YY (2004) Risk of extreme events and the fallacy of the expected value. In: Sage AP (ed) Risk modeling, assessment, and management. Wiley, Hoboken

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook v2a (2004) [March 2005]

    Google Scholar 

  12. CMMI for Development (2015) ver 1.3 [cited 2015 December]. http://cmmiinstitute.com/cmmi-models

  13. Madni AM (2000) Thriving on change through process support: the evolution of the process edge enterprise suite and team edge. Inform Knowledge Syst Manage 2(1):7–32

    Google Scholar 

  14. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63(2):81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith ED (2006) Tradeoff studies and cognitive biases. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson

    Google Scholar 

  16. Madni AM (2013) Generating novel options during systems architecting: psychological principles, systems thinking, and computer-based aiding. Syst Eng 17(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith ED, Son YJ, Piattelli-Palmarini M, Bahill AT (2007) Ameliorating mental mistakes in tradeoff studies. Syst Eng 10(3):222–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bohlman J, Bahill AT (2013) Examples of mental mistakes made by systems engineers while creating tradeoff studies. Stud Eng Technol 1(1):22–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gladwell M (2005) Blink: the power of thinking without thinking. Little Brown & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Klein G (1998) Sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zimmerman BJ (2006) Development and adaptation of expertise: the role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In: Erickson A, Charness N, Feltovich P, Hoffman R (eds) Handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 707–724

    Google Scholar 

  22. Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart J Econ 59:99–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Simon HA (1957) Models of man: social and rational. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bahill AT, Botta R, Daniels J (2006) The Zachman framework populated with baseball models. J Enterprise Archit 2(4):50–68

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ullman DG, Spiegel B (eds) (2006) Trade studies with uncertain information. In: 16th annual international symposium of the international council on systems engineering, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  26. Leveson NG (2002) System safety engineering: back to the future. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lydersen K (2015) Power stash. Discover 71–73

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zakeri B, Syri S (2015) Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle cost analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 42:569–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Searchinger T, Edwards R, Mulligan D, Heimlich R, Plevin R (2015) Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? Science 347(6229):1420–1422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Madni AM (2011) Towards a generalizable aiding-training continuum for human performance enhancement. Syst Eng 14(2):129–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chrissis MB, Konrad M, Shrum S (2011) CMMI for Development®: guidelines for process integration and product improvement. Published Mar 10, 2011 by Addison-Wesley Professional. Part of the SEI Series in Software Engineering series

    Google Scholar 

  32. Marquard JL, Robinson SM (2008) Reducing perceptual and cognitive challenges in making decisions with models. In: Kugler T, Smith JC, Connolly T, Son YJ (eds) Decision modeling and behavior in complex and uncertain environments. Springer, New York, pp 33–55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Sage AP (1981) Behavioral and organizational considerations in the design of information systems and processes for planning and decision support. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 11(9):640–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Smith ED, Piattelli-Palmarini M, Bahill AT (2008) Cognitive biases affect the acceptance of tradeoff studies. In: Kugler T, Smith JC, Connolly T, Son YJ (eds) Decision modeling and behavior in complex and uncertain environments. Springer, New York, pp 227–249

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Smith ED, Bahill AT (2010) Attribute substitution in systems engineering. Syst Eng 13(2):130–148

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wymore AW (1993) Model-based systems engineering. CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  37. Smith ED, Son YJ, Piattelli-Palmarini M, Bahill AT (2008) Cognitive biases affect the acceptance of tradeoff studies. In: Kugler T, Smith JC, Connolly T, Son YJ (eds) Decision modeling and behavior in uncertain and complex environments. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bahill AT, Dean FF (1999) Discovering system requirements. In: Sage AP, Rouse WB (eds) Handbook of systems engineering and management. Wiley, New York, pp 175–220

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bahill AT, Dean F (2009) Discovering system requirement. In: Sage AP, Rouse WB (eds) Handbook of systems engineering and management. Wiley, New York, pp 205–266

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hooks IF, Farry KA (2001) Customer-centered products: creating successful products through smart requirements management. AMACOM, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Daniels J, Bahill AT (2004) The hybrid process that combines traditional requirements and use cases. Syst Eng 7(4):303–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hull E, Jackson K, Dick J (2005) Requirements engineering. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bahill AT, Baldwin D, Venkateswaran J (2005) Predicting a Baseball’s path. Am Sci 93(3):218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Baldwin D, Bahill AT, Nathan A (2007) Nickel and dime pitches. Baseball Res J 35:25–29

    Google Scholar 

  45. Baldwin D, Bahill AT (2008) Mechanics of Baseball pitching and batting, Applied Biomedical Engineering Mechanics. Informa, London, pp 445–488

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bahill AT, Baldwin DG, Ramberg JS (2009) Effects of altitude and atmospheric conditions on the flight of a baseball. Int J Sports Sci Eng 3(2):109–128

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bahill AT, Stark L (1975) Neurological control of horizontal and vertical components of oblique saccadic eye movements. Math Biosci 27(3–4):287–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bahill AT, Stark L (1979) The trajectories of saccadic eye movements. Sci Am 240(1):108–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bahill AT, LaRitz T (1984) Why can’t batters keep their eyes on the ball. Am Sci 72(3):249–253

    Google Scholar 

  50. Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  51. McBeath MK, Nathan AM, Bahill AT, Baldwin DG (2008) Paradoxical pop-ups: why are they difficult to catch? Am J Phys 76(8):723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bahill AT, Baldwin DG (2007) Describing baseball pitch movement with right-hand rules. Comput Biol Med 37(7):1001–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58(9):697–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 49–81

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Smith ED, Szidarovszky F, Karnavas WJ, Bahill AT (2007) Sensitivity analysis, a powerful system validation technique. Open Cybernet Syst J 2(1):39–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hsu FK, Bahill AT, Stark L (1976) Parametric sensitivity analysis of a homeomorphic model for saccadic and vergence eye movements. Comput Programs Biomed 6(2):108–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Karnavas WJ, Sanchez PJ, Bahill AT (1993) Sensitivity analyses of continuous and discrete systems in the time and frequency domains. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23(2):488–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Smith ED, Szidarovszky F, Karnavas WJ, Bahill AT (2008) Sensitivity analysis, a powerful system validation technique. Open Cybernet Syst J 2:39–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Forer BR (1949) The fallacy of personal validation: a classroom demonstration of gullibility. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 44(1):118–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Piattelli-Palmarini M (1994) Inevitable illusions: how mistakes of reason rule our minds. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  61. Shafir E, Tversky A (1992) Thinking through uncertainty: nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cogn Psychol 24(4):449–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tversky A, Shafir E (1992) The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychol Sci 3(5):305–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 46(2):171–185

    Google Scholar 

  64. Abdellaoui M (2000) Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Manage Sci 46(11):1497–1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Bahill AT (2010) Design and testing of an illuminance management system. ITEA J 31(1):63–89

    Google Scholar 

  66. Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL (2000) A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Manage Sci 46(11):1485–1496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Katz SJ, Hawley ST, Morrow M, Griggs JJ, Jagsi R, Hamilton AS et al (2010) Coordinating cancer care. Med Care 48(1):45–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Botta R, Bahill AT (2007) A prioritization process. Eng Manage J 19(4):20–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Systems and Industrial Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    A. Terry Bahill

  2. Astronautical Engineering Department, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Azad M. Madni

Authors
  1. A. Terry Bahill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Azad M. Madni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bahill, A.T., Madni, A.M. (2017). Trade-off Studies. In: Tradeoff Decisions in System Design. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43712-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation