CEUR Proceedings 4th Workshop HCP Human Centered Processes, February 10-11, 2011 Integrated use of linear programming and multiple criteria methods in an engineering design process Maria Franca Norese (mariafranca.norese@polito.it), Ersilia Liguigli (ersilia.liguigli@polito.it) Chiara Novello (chiara.novello@polito.it) Department of Production System and Economics – Politecnico di Torino Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 – 10129 Torino, Italy Abstract a specific legacy aircraft has to be updated in relation to these needs, or to understand what kind of aircraft has to In an aeronautical sector company, where engineering be designed or (at least partially) re-designed, in order to design process steps and activities are developed, a guarantee its integration in the new SoS that the client decision aiding methodology was required to support the perceives as possible or essential for the future. processes. We have proposed the integrated use of linear The client's involvement in the initial phase of the programming and multiple criteria methods, which can be design process is analyzed in the literature in "front end" used to orient the conceptual design of alternative models of the product development process (see, for functional and physical solutions and to cope with instance, Smith & Reinertsen,1992; Reinertsen,1999). complex design problems. Some authors have focused on the concept phase of the Linear programming has been used in relation to some process where, through the involvement of the client, it is case studies, to generate design alternatives that satisfy the possible to obtain meaningful improvements (Clark & set of the initial requirements, while multiple criteria Fuijmoto, 1991) and to resolve ambiguity and methods have been proposed to interact transparently with uncertainties in the customer’s requirements that may the client, in relation to some aspects that a linear programming model cannot include, to evaluate, compare cause orientation difficulties (Smith & Reinertsen,1998). and select alternatives in order to identify and formalize In aeronautics, a partial and apparently limited re- new expectations that the first solutions have not be able to design requires years of work (five years on average) and resolve. The iterative use of the two approaches, in a cyclic therefore uncertainty concerning the evolving nature of procedure of mutual learning, allows the requirements to the client’s requirements is normally present, with an be defined more clearly and a final satisfying solution to evident impact on the engineering design process. The be reached. MBDD asked our research group for suggestions and methods, in order to improve the interaction with the Introduction client (who has to understand every step of the process and freely propose his point of view), to reduce time and Engineering design is an iterative decision-making guarantee quality of the results, which can be solutions process which is developed to devise a component, and/or a better definition of the needs, objectives, product, process or system that meets the customer’s priorities and future scenarios of aircraft use. needs (Eggert, 2005). A collaboration with the Marketing We proposed the integrated use of two kinds of and Business Development Department (MBDD), of a Operation Research methods, in relation to some case company that designs and produces aircraft for civil and studies, and the cyclic use of the method application military use, has allowed us to understand their main outputs, as new inputs for the other method application conceptual design activities (Norese et al., 2008a; Norese (Belton & Stewart, 2002). Linear programming (LP) can & Liguigli, 2009) and to propose an integrated use of be used to analytically define the constraints and linear programming and multiple criteria methods in aspirations of a client, generate the widest set of design order to aid engineering designers (by means of a logical alternatives that satisfy the initial requirements framework that was used also in Alenia Spazio, 2004 and (admissible solutions) and calculate optimal solutions, in Norese et al., 2008). relation to specific objectives. Multiple Criteria Decision An aircraft is a complex system, but it can also be seen Aid (MCDA)1 models can be developed and MCDA as a component of an even more complex structure, a methods activated iteratively, in order to transparently System of Systems (SoS), in which different systems interact with the client. Alternative solutions, produced communicate and work together to achieve specific by means of the previous LP application, can be analysed targets. In an SoS, integration and synergic work may and evaluated, in relation to aspects that an LP model vary from a simple collaboration, in which the single cannot include, such as the perception of a risk (of using components work alone, to a situation in which the single a too innovative technology, or to generate new components are not able to work in an autonomous way, complexity in the future maintenance problems, and so when extrapolated by the SoS. on) in relation to a specific solution. Some client’s The MBDD supports product development by requirements can be identified and formalized when a managing the relationship with the client in the initial engineering design process phase. The client’s needs 1 have to be identified, in order to decide whether and how More details can be found on the Euro Working Group MCDA website: www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ewgmcda/ 10 CEUR Proceedings 4th Workshop HCP Human Centered Processes, February 10-11, 2011 solution is not compatible with expectations that were not performed to verify and, when necessary, to modify the clear enough before the MCDA analysis and therefore design. not included in the LP model. At this point, new In the conceptual phase of the design process, it may be functional and organization limits may be included in the necessary to go back to a previous step at any point in the LP model and the consistency of each solution should process. The chosen solution may prove to be also be tested for these new constraints, in the new cycle unworkable for different reasons and may require that it started, and so on until an acceptable solution is specification redefinition, new solution generation, the reached. collection of more information or, in the worst situation, The first section of the paper focuses on the iterative redefining the problem. This is a continuous and iterative nature of the engineering design process and offers a process. synthetic overview of the methods, theories and tools that Several tools are commonly used to aid designers. are used by designers. Methodologies and theories that have been proposed in In the second section, the problem, as perceived by the the literature, usually offer a more analytically rigorous MBDD, is presented and, in the third section, a set support for engineering designers. Concurrent covering model is proposed for the generation of design engineering may be the most practical methodology to alternatives. improve the design process. The approaches that are In the fourth section, some multiple criteria approaches most frequently suggested to obtain input from are described, in relation to the evaluation of design stakeholders in the design process are the Pugh Method alternatives, and the integrated use of two methods is (Pugh, 1990), Quality Function Deployment (Akao, proposed to support communication with the clients, in 1997) and the Analytical Hierarchy Process (Saaty 1980; order to better define their needs and expectations. The 1994), which always incorporate subjective judgments. possible development of the procedure, in relation to Others are used to generate alternatives for designers, more complex projects and decision contexts, is analysed such as TRIZ (Altshuller, 1988) and the C-K Theory in the conclusions. (Hatchuel & Weil, 2009). Problem Statement Engineering design process The problem definition step, in the engineering design Several theories and various tools are proposed in process, is critical when the client has to face an evolving engineering design to aid designers in different ways: to situation and cannot clearly communicate needs that are understand stakeholders’ needs, improve quality, address no well defined. This criticality is often present in variability and uncertainty in the design process or aeronautics, where many years are required to create a generate alternatives for designers. new aircraft, but also to innovate some elements of a The engineering design process, as described by Eggert legacy system. (2005), is structured in five steps: definition of the The problem definition step is developed in the MBDD problem, gathering pertinent information, generating by anticipating some activities that pertain to the multiple solutions, analyzing and selecting a solution and, successful steps of the process (as described in Eggert, 2005) and using them to acquire essential, but latent or finally, testing and implementing the solution. A fragmented, knowledge elements. procedure of identifying and formally listing the Clearly understanding the point of view of the client, at customer’s requirements is usually present in problem a functional level but also in organization terms, is definition, in order to define product functions and essential to identify and structure the requirements that features. These activities are included in the first step of orient the design. The MBDD arrives at a complete the described process, but in some cases problem problem definition through a procedure that involves the definition is complicated and can be completed only organization of a client in a comparative analysis of some when pertinent information is gathered. And generating promising draft solutions. These solutions are elaborated and analyzing multiple solutions, with the involvement of in the MBDD, in relation to general technical the client and some areas of the enterprise, is a way to requirements, and then the strength and weakness obtain relevant information on the product design and elements of the solutions are discussed with the client or, functional specifications. more precisely, with some organization-client key actors Once at least the structural components of the design (for example, a pilot or whoever is in charge of have been identified, above all with inputs from testing, maintenance). manufacturing and marketing teams, the design team Even if the innovation is related to a single aircraft generates alternative conceptual solutions that are component, the future use of the aircraft in an integrated oriented in different ways to achieve predefined goals SoS has to be analyzed. Various types of aircraft, but also (i.e. requirements that have to be satisfied). satellites and maritime or ground systems can be Considering costs, quality and risk, as the main involved, in order to achieve an assigned target in selection criteria, the most promising alternatives are missions of various kinds (i.e. military, civil or a selected for a further analysis (Dean & Unal, 1992), combination of the two situations). Innovation is often which enables a complete study to be made of the required in order to specifically facilitate coordinated work and communication in the SoS. solutions and elaboration of the final design The MBDD procedure includes two subsequent stages: specifications that best fit the requirements. A prototype in the first one, some “functionally acceptable” solutions is therefore constructed and functional tests are are identified or elaborated, in relation to the 11 CEUR Proceedings 4th Workshop HCP Human Centered Processes, February 10-11, 2011 functionalities that are required. In the second stage, the integrated assets can be seen as an SoS and both the client’s attention is focused on these solutions, in order to performances of the assets and the relationships between evaluate the associated costs (which are not only them allow the missions to be performed. monetary), their economic sustainability and specific The purpose of the analysis is to define a mathematical benefits and risks, as proposed in (Office of Aerospace model in which the variables are the different assets that Studies, 2002). This analysis orients the elaboration of a can be activated to accomplish a mission. The better solution for the client, but at the same time defines functionalities that have to be guaranteed (or guaranteed the overall problem and identifies pertinent information at a required level), in relation to the “nature” of the and/or information sources. A representation of how the mission, can become the constraints of the model. cyclic procedure develops is proposed in Figure 1,with The different objectives, in relation to a specific indications on the main activities that are included. decisional problem, can be: minimize the costs, maximize In the last few years, some clients have required the use the effectiveness, minimize the risks of a mission and so of an Operations Research tool, in order to facilitate on. A combination of assets that is acceptable because it comparisons of the solutions in a multiple criteria guarantees the Required Level of Performance (RLP) for analysis. Having found the tool very interesting, the each functionality (i.e. for each constraint of the model) MBDD asked to our research group for a method to help becomes an admissible solution, which is called the generation of “interesting” and acceptable solutions, architecture (of the SoS). The optimal solution is an in order to reduce time and guarantee the completeness of admissible solution that minimizes (or maximizes) the the acceptable solution set. We analyzed their use of the objective. If a single admissible solution does not exist, tool and the weak and strong points of their applications. the need for a technological innovation (i.e. at least a We then proposed the integrated use of LP and MCDA partially new asset) is underlined. A new product, or an models in a procedure that fits the MBDD approach to improvement in a legacy system, satisfies the client’s the problem, but also improves the interaction with the needs if all the missions that the client had proposed to client, who can propose his point of view (in terms of describe his needs can be faced with a minimum cost. limits of the solutions and opportunities that have to be The problem can be represented by a linear stressed), in a simple but formal language, and who can programming model, if all the constraints and the almost immediately analyze all the new solutions that are objectives are linear functions. If there is only one consistent with the new vision. objective, the oldest and most famous method of Operations Research, the Simplex method (Dantzig, 1963), can be used to obtain the optimal solution. If there is more than one objective, the multi-objective linear programming methods (Ehrgott & Wiecek, 2005) can be used. At the start of the model setting, the assets that have to be included in the model and a list of functionalities, i.e. the constraints of the model, are defined in relation to the (generic or specific) request of the client and above all using the Universal Join Task List (UJTL) Report2. A complete list of about 720 functionalities, in terms of ability to perform a task, is proposed in the UJTL Report, in relation to the strategic, operational and tactical level of mission in a military context. The UJTL was developed for the U.S. Armed Forces, but it has been used by several other countries and international military organizations, such as NATO. The MBDD has structured and adapted the Report to facilitate its use with the clients. The MBDD synthesizes all the coordination, monitoring and controlling functionalities for military Figure 1: Cyclic procedure missions in the Mission Management macro functionality and Find-Fix-Track is the code that is used to indicate the Linear programming application set of functionalities which, at different levels of detail, The request of a client can be very generic and the real allow the area of interest to be patrolled, in order to needs are not always easy to understand. In order to indentify and trace the target. Using this framework, xx reduce uncertainty, a request can be expressed in terms of main functionalities, that have to be guaranteed in a mission types that the new system (or asset) has to face, military mission, are always present as model as a component of an SoS. constraints. When the mission requires a specific and not From a technical point of view, an asset is a system that usual functionality or for non military missions, the UJTL guarantees specific functionalities. The assets may be Report is used directly as a check list. component parts of a single aircraft that have to be If the adopted objective is to minimize the number of integrated to complete a mission, or to be integrated with assets that have to be involved in the proposed missions, other assets in other aircraft or in systems that operate on the mathematical problem can be re-formulated in terms the ground. The assets may also be specific kinds of of a set covering problem, which consists in finding the aircraft (or other resources) that have to be activated together in a specific mission. In all these situations, the 2 Report available on the www.dtic.mil website 12 CEUR Proceedings 4th Workshop HCP Human Centered Processes, February 10-11, 2011 minimum number of service centers (in our model, the assets) so that the request for each service (the guarantee of a required level of a specific functionality) is covered (Tadei & Della Croce, 2001). In this mathematical model, the performance pij of the j- asset for the i-functionality is compared with Si, the RLP that has to be guaranteed for the i-functionality, in order to define the covering matrix [tij], in which the elements tij are equal to 1, if pij≥ Si, or equal to 0 otherwise. The set covering problem can be formulated in the following way: Figure 2: Cost/effectiveness analysis Min ∑ xj j = 1,…, m ∑tijxj ≥ qi i = 1,..., n xj={0,1} The MBDD adopted a different approach when a client where xj has a value of 1 when the asset is included in suggested the use of a multiple criteria method for the the solution (which in this case, is an SoS architecture), comparison of the alternatives. The first application was otherwise it is equal to 0. not totally satisfactory. Some other experiments allowed The value of the redundancy, for each functionality the MBDD to realize that the correct approach has to with redundancy (i.e. a critical functionality that requires involve structuring the evaluation model in macro aspects more than one asset that is able to satisfy this task, in an that can be analysed separately by the organisation actors SoS architecture), is equal to qi. For the others, qi is equal in charge of each specific aspect. At the same time, the to 1. MBDD elaborated a way of translating each personal We used Xpress-MP, version 2007 (Mosel 2.0.0, IVE judgment into an analytical function. 1.18.01, Optimizer 18.00.01), produced by DASH When we analysed the procedure they were using, we Optimization, to treat models with a single mission or noticed that the results were very interesting, in relation multi scheduled missions that are included in the model. to the first aim (improve communication with the client For a multi missions model with 18 variables and 210 in order to understand his point of view and adequately constraints, the application has provided six admissible model his requirements), but very poor as far as the and three optimal solutions in 0.15 seconds. second (transparently arrive at the decision and The model structure and the linear programming analytically document the decision motivations) was application to the problem were tested in relation to some concerned. In fact, their analytical functions did not previous military cases, where the solutions and their result to be consistent with either the original judgements characteristics were well known for the MBDD. We or with the logical structure of the method. At the same spent a great deal of time defining and modifying the time, their need to artificially construct evaluation constraints, in order to have a better fit of some specific functions, after the application of the method and in order requirements, but the immediate calculation of the to explicitly document the process, was analysed together solutions facilitated convergence towards a good model. with them, to show them that the wrong method had been The same procedure was then applied to a new case, in adopted. relation to the surveillance of a critical sea canal. The There are many multiple criteria methods that can be model development and PL application were accepted by used to aid decision making (see for instance, Belton & the MBDD as effective steps of a procedure that can Stewart, 2002). It is necessary to choose among the support communication with the client. various methods in relation to the specific requests of the At this point attention was focused on the tool that decisional problem. In this case, they essentially are: should be used to understand why a solution is not transparency of the process that elaborates a conceptual adequate enough. solution; an objective way of expressing each evaluation and, finally, a treatment of the uncertainty that affects Multiple criteria approaches data and judgments. We proposed the analysis of two methods, Analytic The U.S. Air Force Center of Expertise for Analyses of Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980; 1994) and Alternatives (Office of Aerospace Studies, 2002) ELECTRE III (Roy, 1978; 1990), which were tested in suggested a multiple criteria approach in which all the relation to the examined case studies. AHP is the method aspects that are related to the effectiveness have to be that is already used by the MBDD with its SW tool, analyzed and then synthesized in an overall judgment, in Expert Choice, which supports model structuring by a transparent way. The different costs (which are not means of an easily visualization of the organizational necessary monetary) of each solution have to be aspects, scenarios, problem dimensions and model identified and synthesized in an overall cost. Every criteria. A sensitivity analysis facilitates the identification solution can be graphically shown in a two axe diagram of model weakness elements and the consequent (see Figure 2) where, as is natural, the most effective improvement or re-structuring of the problem and/or the solution is also the most expensive. One or more multiple criteria model. An analytical evaluation of the acceptability thresholds can be introduced to facilitate a solutions is not required. Comparative judgments are decision that is not easy to make. used both to assess the solutions and calculate weights for the compensatory synthesis procedure. 13 CEUR Proceedings 4th Workshop HCP Human Centered Processes, February 10-11, 2011 In the ELECTRE III method, unlike AHP, the relation to the defined problem, when a decision has to alternatives have to be evaluated in relation to all the activate the subsequent design process phases. criteria in an explicit and (as much as possible) objective In the examined cases, the aircraft and the other way. Thresholds are introduced when uncertainty is systems were under production, or at least in the final present in some evaluations, to limit the negative effect phases of the production process, and the nature of the of the uncertainty on the results. Criteria can have missions was clear, since the MBDD knows the decision different degrees of importance and, in this case, context very well. Therefore, the principal aspects of the coefficients of relative importance of the criteria have to evaluation problem were easily identified (SoS be introduced. performance in relation to the operational scenarios of the ELECTRE III starts by comparing each solution with missions, technical effectiveness in relation to the each of the other solutions. A fuzzy outranking relation, operational management process and life cycle costs) and based on the two principles of concordance and their disaggregation into organizational and functional- discordance, is modelled in phase I of the method economic components was visualized through the SW through the computation of a concordance index, a Expert Choice and its multilevel decision tree. discordance index and an outranking degree. The method In order to support interaction with the client, three uses the latter result in the second fuzzy relation models were elaborated during some simulation sessions exploitation phase, in order to construct two complete in the MBDD: an AHP-Expert Choice model that is pre-orders through a descending and an ascending sufficiently general to be used in different decision distillation procedure. Outranking relation modelling situations, with a decision tree that is articulated in five offers some interesting advantages, in comparison to levels and twenty-six elementary components for the other multiple criteria methods: each criterion can use a comparison of the solutions, and two models for different ordinal or cardinal scale, since a unique specific ELECTRE III, with twelve criteria for the first case scale (such as the cost-benefit analysis monetary scale or study and fifteen criteria for the second one. Different the 0-1 utility scale of the multi attribute utility theory) is decisional scenarios were hypothesized, in order to not necessary and the outranking relation is not analyze which impact could have on the result the compensatory (or partially not compensatory). importance that the criteria assumed. A weak point of ELECTRE III is its software package, The AHP-Expert Choice model and the results of some which does not pay any attention to dialogue with the applications were then analyzed to understand their decision maker, which is essential in model structuring potentiality to facilitate communication between the and parameter definition and when the results require a MBDD and the different clients. The ELECTRE III collective analysis. A new product, which is more results were examined in terms of robustness and suitable and includes several multiple criteria methods, is reliability, and the models in terms of formal validity and currently being developed in the Decision Deck project3. consistency with the internal procedures of the company. This weak point is related to the original nature of the method which was invented to be used when a problem was well structured, i.e. when: Conclusions · a set of solutions is identified, or elaborated, and A client's involvement in the initial phase of an tested in terms of completeness, admissibility and engineering design process is always important and has comparability, and to be carefully managed. The temporal horizon to · a family of evaluation functions (i.e. criteria) produce an innovation in the aeronautic sector always which has been created to represent all the different involves a difficult definition of the client’s needs and aspects of the problem at hand contains a sufficiently some risks in translating the needs into formal small number of criteria to be a basis for discussion requirements. The analysis and comparison of some draft (legibility condition) and to be considered by all the solutions is an effective approach to understand the actors as a sound basis for the continuation of the client’s point of view and the general structure of his/her decision aid study; its coherence (exhaustiveness, preference system. However, this approach requires time cohesiveness and redundancy) has to be verified by to elaborate understandable technical solutions, analyse operational tests (Roy & Bouyssou, 1993; Roy, them with the client and elaborate new solutions for a 1996). new collective analysis, in a learning cycle. For this reason, ELECTRE III is not normally used until Complexity and uncertainty elements can have a the problem (and/or the model) is structured and only negative impact on the problem definition in some when these conditions are satisfied does it become a decision situations, above all when different, and powerful method to transparently compare solutions, in sometimes conflicting, points of view require the relation to all the different criteria, and to rigorously involvement of some specific competences, from the synthesize evaluations that are associated to the client’s organization, as a not easy, but almost obligatory consequences of each decision. course of action. Therefore, our proposal was: the AHP would be used A structured procedure can support the acquisition of in the problem definition step, when pertinent the different points of view and their translation into information has to be identified together with the client, mathematical models and then into product requirements, by means analysis and selection of conceptual solutions, and can prevent, or at least control, ambiguous while the ELECTRE III would be used at the end, in specifications by an activity that has the aim of verifying the overall consistency of the models. The opportunity to produce conceptual solutions in a 3 www.decision-deck.org short time (a solution requires only few seconds of 14 CEUR Proceedings 4th Workshop HCP Human Centered Processes, February 10-11, 2011 calculation time), with the guarantee of technical Norese, M.F, & Liguigli, E. (2009). The conceptual acceptability and specific performance levels in relation design of a new land monitoring system, 70th meeting to an objective, makes communication possible and of the EURO working group on MCDA, Moncton, effective in the engineering design process. Canada. Mathematical models that use an intelligible language Office of Aerospace Studies (2002). AoA Handbook. A introduce a positive psychological effect, in terms of guide for performing and Analysis of Alternatives clear thinking structure and perception of the logical (AoA) . www.oas.kirtland.af.mil progress. At the same time they facilitate the traceability Pugh, S. (1990). Total Design: Integrated Methods for of the process steps and results. Successful Product Engineering. Wokingham, The integrated use of linear programming and multiple England: Addison-Wesley. criteria methods can make the active collaboration phase Reinertsen, D. G. (1999). Taking the Fuzziness Out of the with the client more rigorous (no acceptable solutions are Fuzzy Front End. Research Technology Management, lost and the evaluations can be documented and used 42. 6, 25-31. consistently) and efficient, because all the structured and Roy, B. (1978). Electre III: Un algorithme de classements partially structured indications can be introduced into the fondé sur une représentation floue en présence de models and transformed, by means of the methods, into critères multiples. Cahier du CERO, 20, 3, 24-27. information for the decision process. Roy, B. (1990). The outranking approach and the The MBDD is planning to test the new approach with foundations of ELECTRE methods. In C.A. Bana e its clients and our group will be involved in analysing the Costa (Ed.), Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision criticalities and opportunities. Aid. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for Decision Aiding. Dordrecht: Kluwer. References Roy, B. & Bouyssou, D., (1993) Aide multicritère à la Akao, Y. (1997). QFD: Past, present, and future. décision: méthodes et cas. Paris: Economica, Proceedings of the Third Annual International QFD Collection Gestion. Symposium. (pp. 19-29). Linköping University . Saaty, T.L.(1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New Alenia Spazio (2004). Multidisciplinary Optimisation York: McGraw-Hill. (MDO) – Problem Architecture Definition (Technical Saaty, T.L. (1994). Fundamentals of decision making note SD–TN–AI–085). Turin: Alenia Spazio. with the Analytic Hierarchy Proces”s. Pittsburgh: Altshuller, G. (1988). Creativity as an Exact Science. RWS Publications. New York: Gordon and Breach. Smith, P.G., & Reinertsen, D.G. (1992). Shortening the Belton, V., & Stewart, T.J. (2002). Multiple criteria Product Development Cycle. Research Technology decision analysis. An integrated approach. Dordrecht, Management, 35, 3, 44-49. Kluwer Academic Publisher. Smith, P. G. & Reinertsen, D. G. (1998). Developing Clark, K.B., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Products in Half the Time: New Rules, New Tools (2nd development performance: strategy, organization, and Ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons. management in the world auto industry. Boston: Tadei, R., & Della Croce, F. (2001). Ricerca Operativa e Harvard Business School Press. ottimizzazione. Bologna: Esculapio. Dantzig, G.B. (1963). Linear Programming and Extensions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Dean, E.B., & Unal, R.(1992). Elements of designing for cost. AIAA-92–057. Reston, Virginia: AIAA Press. Eggert, R.J. (2005). Engineering Design. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Pearson - Prentice Hall. Ehrgott, M., & Wiecek, M.M. (2005). Multiobjective Programming. In J. Figueira, S. Greco & M. Ehrgott, (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. London: Springer Verlag Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K design theory: An advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design, 19, 4, 181–192. Norese, M.F., Montagna, F., & Riva, S. (2008). A multicriteria approach to support the design of complex systems, Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 33, 1, 53-70. Norese, M.F, Liguigli E, Montagna F., Protti, M., Prete F., Todino F., & Mascolo D. (2008a). Methodologies of decision support for the design of complex aeronautic systems (in Italian), In G. Felici & A. Sciomachen (Eds.), Scienza delle decisioni in Italia: applicazioni della ricerca operativa a problemi aziendali (pp. 223-238). Genova: ECIG. 15 CEUR Proceedings 4th Workshop HCP Human Centered Processes, February 10-11, 2011 16