copyright robust decisions inc. 2003 decision management in product development dr. david ullman...

Copyright Robust Decisions Inc. 2003

Decision Management in Product Development

Dr. David UllmanPresident

Robust Decisions, Inc.www.robustdecisions.com


“Concern for decision support is in its pre-infancy and that the commercial world is just beginning to realize the importance of decision support in business and product development” Wayne Collier, analyst for D.H. Brown and Associates


What do these processes have in common?

• Acquisition planning• Portfolio management• Product development• Proposal evaluation• Strategic planning

• Homeland security • Bad actor identification• Target identification

• Courses of Action (COA) decisions• Analysis of Alternatives• Business strategy development


They all require choosing a course of action and committing resources based

• Incomplete• Uncertain• Evolving

from stakeholders or agents who:• Know part of the information• Are distributed in time and location• Represent many different viewpoints, areas

of expertise, and organizational functions

on information that is:


The Value of Information

DECISION

Judgment

KNOWLEDGEBehavior

MODELS

Relationships

DATA

Increasing value


Historical View

Product

Product development and business processes are the evolution of

information punctuated by decisions.

1970s 1980-90s2000s

Process

Decision


The goal is to make decisions with:

• Confidence• Stakeholder buy-in • Measured expectations• Risk awareness• Efficient processes• Reports, documentation, and reuse


Decision management isa process that ensures

stakeholders’ perspectives and their uncertain knowledge and information

are effectively used in determiningwhat to do next to make the

best possible decisions with measured satisfaction and risk

Meeting this goal requires decision management


• Projects are late or over budget • “Final” decisions are later revisited • Poor stakeholder buy-in• Decisions made by edict or the most forceful• Expertise is underutilized• Low confidence in decisions • Decisions are not justified, recorded, reused

Symptoms of poor decision management


Many decision support systems (dss) really only

evaluate

QFD, other requirements

development, and concept

generation tools


Accord TM – single window application that supports Decision Management

Incorporates• Uncertain Info.• Incomplete Info.• Evolving Info.• Distributed teams• Info. fusion• Stakeholder

viewpoints• Graphical

interface

Useful results• Satisfaction• Risk• What to do

next


Underlying model• Utility Theory augmented by Bayesian Model• Manages uncertain information from multiple

stakeholders• Fuses distributed team information:

• Satisfaction from multiple viewpoints • The value of information (risk and what to do

next)• Patented algorithms• Easily imbedded in existing information

management systems


W1 W2 W3

K

C

K

C

Sum

BeliefBelief Belief

Weighted Values

Individual Satisfaction

Criterion 1 Criterion 2

Best Estimate, Pessimistic, and Optimistic

Criterion 3


Belief Map for qualitative evaluation

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Knowledge or certainty

Cri

teri

on

Sa

tis

fac

tio

n

Belief

.6

.7.8

.9

.5

.4

.3

.2.1

.5


Expand/ Contract

Scale

Delighted

Most Likely

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Disgusted

For qualitative evaluation


Results (partial display)

Satisfaction (expectation)for each alternative from various

viewpoints

Downside risk displayed as a potential reduction

in expectation


Case study, HP InkJet

BACKGROUND• An interdepartmental team, developing the next

generation color inkjet printer cartridge

GOAL• Produce the best quality print and graphics,

quickly and inexpensively

TASKS • Design the ink delivery system• Select the inks• Revisit the process as the delivery system

matures


Case study, HP InkJet (cont.)

CHALLENGES• 15 people on the team, a variety of departments

• The best ink must be selected early in the process- a poor decision might result in additional project cycles, or in unacceptable product performance

• System design requires optimization of numerous interacting and evolving properties of the ink and delivery components

• The nature, meaning, and relative importance of these interactions is not well understood or represented



PREVIOUS DECISION MAKING METHOD • A series of meetings among the different

representative groups • Sometimes are unstructured, and sometimes not

NEW APPROACH• Robust Decisions’ training and companion

software, Accord, were introduced to the group • Training is based on the book “12 Steps to

Robust Decisions”• Accord is uniquely suited to teams managing

uncertain, incomplete, and conflicting information



RESULTS • Potential elimination of an ink testing iteration later in the

project. Time savings: as much as five months • An estimated 30-50% increase in decision confidenceTEAMS ALSO REPORTED

• Increased participant accountability, and process buy-in • Awareness of important issues and areas of disagreement• Consensus, with more certainty and rapidity• Decisions based on shared knowledge, rather than decisions

made by a few experts• Better team visualization of individual and group thought

processes• Improved alternative and criteria development


Customer results

• Decreased time to market through lower risk of design cycle repetition

• Increased probability of market success

through:

• Increased decision confidence

• Managed risk and uncertainty

• Identified areas for risk mitigation

• Facilitated team consensus

• Increased team accountability

• Captured decisions for reuse

• Large organizations behaving like small teams


Dr. David UllmanPresident

Robust Decisions, Inc.Corvallis Oregon

541.758.5088www.robustdecisions.com

[email protected]

Contact

A free license is available to educational institutions in trade for use feedback.

copyright robust decisions inc. 2003 decision management in product development dr. david ullman...

Documents

decisions decisions

copyright robust decisions

value slide

budget final decisions

best possible decisions

reuse slide

uncertain information

value of information