10. Conclusion

This eBook described a formal engineering design approach that starts with a societal problem and then goes from vague societal needs to an engineering design that best fits all stakeholders’ interests whilst not violating any design constraints. It thus integrates desirability (what people want) and what the engineering artifact can provide (what is possible).

A mathematical optimization model is used as an implementation of the methodology. This mathematical model acts as an unbiased reflection of the engineering design problem, i.e. if these are the objectives of all stakeholders (desirability) and if these are the design constraints (feasibility), then this is the corresponding optimal engineering design.

The methodology consists of two cycles: a technical cycle (construction and improvement of the model) and a social cycle (utilization of the model with stakeholders). This iterative approach corresponds with real life design processes that also require a number of design changes before the final design is approved by stakeholders.

Because of its integration of desirability and feasibility at the start of the design processes it prevents projects going wrong by ensuring a feasibility check up front, i.e. starting right.

Below are some final remarks concerning the novelty of this approach.

In classical books on negotiation a distinction is made between the following approaches for reaching a result:

Cooperate – usually applied when stakeholders have similar interests

Negotiate – usually applied when stakeholders have conflicting interests

Fight – usually applied when one stakeholder assumes to get the best result by means of a fight

Even though stakeholders within engineering design processes have conflicting interest, the preference-based engineering design methodology described in this eBook can be considered a form of cooperation. It is aimed at synthesis rather than compromise as is commonly the end result of negotiation processes.

The decision making process within this preference-based design methodology is neither top down nor bottom up. Because there is no hierarchy in the way that stakeholders are treated it is similar to a network structure where all stakeholders have equal decision making power. Although it is recommended that power is distributed equally there are instances where it makes sense to have an unequal power distribution. One can for instance argue that for political decision making the power of political stakeholders can be represented by the number of seats that they have.

The use of advanced mathematical optimization to find the optimal design configuration can sometimes yield unexpected results. This is in line with the theory put forward by Kahneman in his book “Thinking fast and slow”. The preference-based engineering design methodology is an example of thinking slow where it is not uncommon that the found engineering design solution was deemed impossible to achieve but is in fact possible. Note that intuition does not play a role in the mathematical optimization process.

Finally, we think that this methodology aligns with the Nguni philosophy of ubuntu, “humanity to others” with a connotation of “I am what I am because of who we all are”.