Katsikopoulos,K.V.

I show how the coherence/correspondence distinction can inform the conversation about decision methods for engi- neering design. Some engineers argue for the application of multi-attribute utility theory while others argue for what they call heuristics. To clarify the differences among methods, I first ask whether each method aims at achieving coher- ence or correspondence. By analyzing statements in the design literature, I argue that utility theory aims at achieving coherence and heuristics aim at achieving correspondence. Second, I ask if achieving coherence always implies achiev- ing correspondence. It is important to provide an answer because while in design the objective is correspondence, it is difficult to assess it, and coherence that is easier to assess is used as a surrogate. I argue that coherence does not always imply correspondence in design and that this is also the case in problems studied in judgment and decision-making research. Uncovering the conditions under which coherence implies, or does not imply, correspondence is a topic where engineering design and judgment and decision-making research might connect.

Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2009). Coherence and correspondence in engineering design: Informing the conversation and connecting with judgment and decision-making research. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 147-153. (Full text)

Publication year	2009
Document type:	Article
Publication status:	Published
External URL:	http://journal.sjdm.org/cck/cck.pdf View
Categories:	Expected Utility
Keywords:	coherencecorrespondencedesignengineeringheuristicsmulti-attribute utility theorypugh process