Ameliorating mental mistakes in tradeoff studies

  • Authors:

  • Eric D. Smith;Young Jun Son;Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini;A. Terry Bahill

  • Affiliations:

  • Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO 65409-0370 and Dept. of Sys. and Indus. Eng., Univ. of Arizona (and Dept. of Eng. Mgmt. and Sys. Eng., Univ. of M ...;Department of Systems and Industrial Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0020;Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0068;Department of Systems and Industrial Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0020

  • Venue:
  • Systems Engineering
  • Year:
  • 2007

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.01

Visualization

Abstract

Tradeoff studies are broadly recognized and mandated as the method for simultaneously considering multiple alternatives with many criteria, and as such are recommended in the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) process. Tradeoff studies, which involve human numerical judgment, calibration, and data updating, are often approached with under confidence by analysts and are often distrusted by decision makers. The decision-making fields of Judgment and Decision Making, Cognitive Science and Experimental Economics have built up a large body of research on human biases and errors in considering numerical and criteria-based choices. Relationships between experiments in these fields and the elements of tradeoff studies show that tradeoff studies are susceptible to human mental mistakes: This paper indicates ways to eliminate the presence, or ameliorate the effects of mental mistakes on tradeoff studies. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 10: 222–240, 2007 This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under AFOSR/MURI F49620-03-1-0377.