Advertisement

Cooperative negotiation in concurrent engineering design

  • Katia P. Sycara
Negotiation
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 492)

Abstract

Design can be modeled as a cooperative multi-agent problem solving task where different agents possess different knowledge and evaluation criteria. These differences may result in inconsistent design decisions and conflicts that have to be resolved during design. The process by which resolution of inconsistencies is achieved in order to arrive at a coherent set of design decisions is negotiation. In this paper, we discuss some of the characteristics of design which make it a very challenging domain for investigating negotiation techniques. We propose a negotiation model that incorporates accessing information in existing designs, communication of design rationale and criticisms of design decisions, as well as design modifications based on constraint relaxation and comparison of utilities. The model captures the dynamic interactions of the cooperating agents during negotiations. We also present representational structures of the expertise of the various agents and a communication protocol that supports multi-agent negotiation.

Keywords

Design Decision Negotiation Process Case Base Reasoning Argumentation Strategy Root Radius 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bond, A., and Ricci, R. Cooperation in Aircraft Design. Proceedings of the MIT-JSME Workshop on Cooperative Product Development, Cambridge, Mass., 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DICE: Initiative in Concurrent Engineering. Red Book of Functional Specifications for the DICE Architecture. Concurrent Engineering Research Center, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, February, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gregory, S.A. The Boundaries and Internals of Expert Systems in Engineering Design. Proceedings of the Second IFIP Workshop on Intelligent CAD, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hicks, T.G.. Machine Design Calculations Reference Guide. McGraw-Hill, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huhns M.H., R.D. Acosta. Argo: An Analogical Reasoning System for Solving Design Problems. Tech. Rept. AI/CAD-092-87, Microelectronic and Computer Technology Corporation, March, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keeney, R.L., and Nair, K. “Decision Analysis for the siting of nuclear power plants-The relevance of multiattribute utility theory”. Proceedings of the IEEE 63 (1975), 494–500.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H.. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kolodner, J.L., Simpson, R.L., and Sycara-Cyranski, K. A Process Model of Case-Based Reasoning in Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Ninth Joint International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-85), Los Angeles, CA, 1985, pp. 284–290.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lander, S., and Lesser, V. A Framework for Cooperative Problem-Solving Among Knowledge-Based Systems. Proceedings of the MIT-JSME Workshop on Cooperative Product Development, Cambridge, Mass., 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mark, W. A Design Memory Without Cases. Working Notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Case-Based Reasoning, Stanford, CA., 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mostow, J. “Toward Better Models Of The Design Process”. The AI Magazine (Spring 1985).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mostow, J., M. Barley. Automated Reuse of Design Plans. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, February, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Navinchandra, D. Exploring for Innovative Designs by Relaxing Criteria and reasoning from Precedent-Based Knowledge. Ph.D. Th., M.I.T., 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Navinchandra D., D. Sriram, S.T. Kedar-Cabelli. On the Role of Analogy in Engineering Design: An Overview. In AI in Engineering, Proceedings of the 2nd Intl. Conference, Boston, D. Sriram, B. Adey, Ed., Computational Mechanics Publishing, U.K., 1987.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pahl, G., W. Beitz. Engineering Design. The Design Council, Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pruitt, D. G.. Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press, New York, N.Y., 1981.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robinson, W. Towards the formalization of specification design, Master's Thesis. University of Oregon, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sacerdoti, E. A structure for plans and behavior. Tech. Rept. 109, SRI Artificial Intelligence Center, 1975.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sriram, D., Logcher, R., and Groleau, N. Cooperative Engineering Design. Proceedings of the AAAI-88 Workshop on AI in Design, AAAI, St. Paul, MN., 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suh, N.P., A.C. Bell, D.C. Gossard. “On an Axiomatic Approach to Manufacturing and Manufacturing Systems”. Journal of Engineering for Industry (May 1978).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sussman, G. A computer model of skill acquisition. American Elsevier, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sycara, K. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods. Ph.D. Th., School of Information and Computer Science Georgia Institute of Technology, Altanta, GA, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sycara, K. Resolving Goal Conflicts via Negotiation. Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-88), St. Paul, MN., 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sycara, K. Patching Up Old Plans. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Montreal, Canada, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sycara, K. “Utility Theory in Conflict Resolution”. Annals of Operations Research 12 (1988), 65–84.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sycara, K. and Navinchandra, D. Integrating Case-Based Reasoning and Qualitative Reasoning in Engineering Design. In Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, J. Gero, Ed., Computational Mechanics Publications, 1989.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sycara, K., and Marshall C. Towards an Architecture to Support Integration of Decision-Making in Manufacturing. Proceedings of the IJCAI-89 Workshop on Integrated Architectures for Manufacturing, Detroit, MI., 1989.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sycara, K. Argumentation: Planning Other Agents' Plans. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89), Detroit, Mich, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sycara, K. “Negotiation Planning: An AI Approach”. European Journal of Operational Research 46 (1990), 216–234.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sycara, K., and Roboam, M. Intelligent Information Infrastructure for Group Decision and Negotiation Support of Concurrent Engineering. Proceedings of the 24th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 1991.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sycara, K. “Modeling Group Decision Making and Negotiation in Concurrent Product Design”. Systems Automation: Research and Applications (1991. Forthcoming.).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Talukdar, S., Elfes, A., and Papanikolopoulos, N. Concurrent design, simultaneous engineering and distributed problem solving. Proceedings of the AAAI-88 Workshop on AI in Design, AAAI, St. Paul, MN., 1988.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ullman, D.G., T.A. Dietterich. “Mechanical Design Methodology: Implications on Future Developments of Computer-Aided Design and Knowledge-Based Systems”. Engineering with Computers 2 (1987), 21–29.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ulrich, K.T., W.P. Seering. Function Sharing in Mechanical Design. Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1988, pp. 347–352.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Werkman, K., and Barone, M. Evaluating Alternative Connection Designs Through Multiagent Negotiation. Proceedings of the MIT-JSME Workshop on Cooperative Product Development, Cambridge, Mass., 1989.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Whitmore, G.A. and Cavadias, G.S. “Experimental Determination of community preferences for water quality-cost alternatives”. Decision Sciences 5 (1974), 614–631.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katia P. Sycara
    • 1
  1. 1.The Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations