Data processing: generic control systems or specific application – Generic control system – apparatus or process – Optimization or adaptive control
Reexamination Certificate
2001-11-14
2004-08-03
Patel, Ramesh (Department: 2121)
Data processing: generic control systems or specific application
Generic control system, apparatus or process
Optimization or adaptive control
C700S028000, C700S049000, C700S050000, C700S053000, C700S067000, C700S073000, C706S045000, C706S046000, C706S007000, C706S050000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06772019
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to the field of trade-off studies and more particularly to performing computerized trade-off studies using multi-parameter choice optimization techniques.
In today's competitive environment, companies increasingly reply on data gathering and analysis to better focus corporate resources. A common form of analysis performed by companies is referred to as trade-off studies. Trade-off studies are performed for many reasons and can utilize many forms of data. For example, a company may perform trade-off studies to focus marketing efforts on a particular demographic group, to evaluate different prototype designs before going to full production, for minimizing per unit costs, for evaluating profit margins, etc. For companies to derive maximum benefit from trade-off studies, they must prioritize companies to derive maximum benefit from trade-off studies, they must prioritize requirements and objectives such as obtaining a given per-unit profit, obtaining a given number of customers, etc.
Trade-off studies often employ numerous candidates, or inputs, that may each in turn have one or more criteria associated with them. As a result, trade-off studies may require very large data sets and numerous complex computations to arrive at meaningful results. Companies often resort to computerized analysis systems and methods for processing the large amounts of data used in performing meaningful trade-off studies.
Over time, several specialized methods have been developed for facilitating trade-off studies. One such method is referred to as the cost-value approach (CVA) which employs an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for making tradeoffs and for allocating resources to obtain desired objectives. A good discussion of the cost-value approach may be found in the paper entitled “A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements” by Joachim Karlsson and Kevin Ryan, appearing in IEEE Software Magazine September/October 1997, pages 67-74 the contents of which are herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
CVA allows companies to perform a value assessment of items while factoring in the cost. A key feature of CVA is the use of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for comparing alternatives in a pair-wise fashion while measuring their relative contribution to the overall objectives of a study. The use of AHP has the effect of incorporating a redundancy into computations that smoothes out errors and biases associated with judgments made by test engineers using the tool when conducting a trade-off study. For example, judgment errors may arise when attempting to quantify a customer's preference for a particular color of a product or preference for a particular style of home.
Although CVA reduces judgment errors, it still has several shortcomings. For example, CVA alone cannot be used to conduct a complete trade-off study because it is primarily a processing technique and thus lacks an integrated user interface for facilitating entry of data and display of results. Furthermore, CVA does not automatically generate criteria pages and candidate evaluation pages for facilitating efficient conduct of trade-off studies. Additionally, CVA will not automatically complete comparisons even if the actual values for particular trade-off criteria are known. And, CVA does not allow for the capture of rationale as pair-wise comparisons are made.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Embodiments of the present invention employ system, computer program product, and method for performing multi-parameter choice optimization. More specifically, a method for performing trade-off analysis using a computer is disclosed. A plurality of candidate selection criteria are received from an input interface with certain of the plurality of candidate selection criteria being associated with each of a plurality of candidates. Pair-wise comparisons are performed for each of the plurality of criteria. Each of the pair-wise comparisons is accomplished by selecting each one of the plurality of criteria and comparing it against each of the remaining plurality of criteria to produce a like plurality of criteria comparisons. A degree of importance is assigned to each of the criteria comparisons and a rationale for each degree of importance is then received from the input interface. Weighting is performed on the plurality of criteria using a pair-wise comparison algorithm to produce a computed criteria weight for each of the plurality of criteria with each weight indicating an importance value for each one of the plurality of criteria. A plurality of candidates are displayed to a user and compared against each other to produce a like plurality of candidate comparisons before assigning an importance measurement to each one of the candidate comparisons. A rationale is received for each of the importance measurements before applying another pair-wise comparison to each of them to produce a series of criteria compliance scores for each of the plurality of candidates. Each of the series of criteria compliance scores is multiplied with its respective weight to produce a series of modified criteria compliance scores for each of the plurality of candidates. The series of modified criteria compliance scores is summed to produce a candidate weighted score for each of the plurality of candidates. Then the candidate weighted scores for each of the plurality of candidates are utilized for selecting a particular one of the plurality of candidates.
The present invention facilitates efficient use of AHP by employing an integrated user interface, by automatically generating criteria pages and candidate evaluation pages when performing trade-off studies, and by automatically completing comparisons if actual values for trade-off criteria are known.
Objects and advantages of the present invention will become apparent after reference to the detailed description of exemplary embodiments thereof taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:
REFERENCES:
patent: 4613946 (1986-09-01), Forman
patent: 5179643 (1993-01-01), Homma et al.
patent: 5692181 (1997-11-01), Anand et al.
patent: 5758026 (1998-05-01), Lobley et al.
patent: 5855009 (1998-12-01), Garcia et al.
patent: 5894311 (1999-04-01), Jackson
patent: 5940816 (1999-08-01), Fuhrer et al.
patent: 5995728 (1999-11-01), Forman
patent: 6151582 (2000-11-01), Huang et al.
patent: 2002/0026429 (2002-02-01), Lostis et al.
patent: 2002/0035520 (2002-03-01), Weiss
patent: 2002/0156757 (2002-10-01), Brown
Joachim Karlsson & Kevin Ryan, “A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements”, IEEE Software, Sep./Oct. 1997, v. 14, i5, pp. 67-74.
Dersin, P. & Durand, J., “Mass-transit system service quality: tradeoff analysis on reliability, maintainability and logistics”, IEEE, Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 1995, Proceedings, Annual, pp. 515-528.
Robert D. Meya & Linda F. Selk Sway, “A method of evaluating candidate spacecraft data system architectures”, IEEE, Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 1992, IEEE/AIAA 11th, pp. 457-463.
D. Prasad & J. McDermid, “Dependability evaluation using a multi-criteria decision analysis procedure”, IEEE, Dependable Computing for Critical Applications 7, 1999, pp. 339-358.
J.F. Bard & S. F. Sousk, “A tradeoff analysis for rough terrain cargo handlers using the AHP: an example of group decision making”, IEEE, Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions, Aug. 1999, pp. 222-228.
Borghetti Peter J.
Erlich Jacob N.
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Patel Ramesh
Perkins Smith & Cohen LLP
LandOfFree
Method and system for multi-parameter choice optimization does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method and system for multi-parameter choice optimization, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method and system for multi-parameter choice optimization will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3331243