Multi­Attribute Tradespace Exploration as 

Front End for Effective Space System Design

9 October 2009

2LT. John Richmond

Greg O’Neill

Jorge Cañizales Diaz

 MATE­CON

“Multi­Attribute Tradespace Exploration with
Con­Current Design”
• What does it mean?
• Applying a series of decision metrics (attributes)
that consider the integration of all stakeholder
requirements to generate a framework
incorporating all qualified designs and indicating
the most viable candidates.

9 Oct 2009 2
 Taxonomy

• MATE­CON buzzwords
Decision Maker ­ Person who makes decisions that impact a system at any stage
of its lifecycle
Design Variable ­ Designer­controlled quantitative parameter that reflects an
aspect of a concept
Design Vector ­ Set of design variables that, taken together, uniquely define a
design or architecture
Attribute ­ Decision maker perceived metric measuring how well a defined
objective is met

Utility ­ Perceived value under uncertainty of an attribute

Tradespace ­ Space spanned by completely enumerated design variables

Pareto Frontier ­ Set of efficient allocations of resources forming a surface in

metric space

Exploration ­ Utility­guided search for better solutions within a tradespace

Concurrent Design ­ Techniques of design that utilize information technology for

real­time interaction among specialists

Architecture ­ Level of segmentation for analysis that represents overall project 

form and function

9 Oct 2009 3
 Index

1. Context of MATE­CON
2. Implementing MATE­CON

1. MATE
2. CON
3. Alternatives
4. Benefits
5. Limitations
6. Discussion

9 Oct 2009 4
 Index

1. Context of MATE­CON
2. Implementing MATE­CON

1. MATE
2. CON
3. Alternatives
4. Benefits
5. Limitations
6. Discussion

9 Oct 2009 5
 Context of MATE­CON

• Process for Tradespace

Requirements
Exploration and Concept Definition

Selection (MATE).
System Architecture
• Includes aid for Concept Generation

Requirements Definition
Tradespace Exploration
• Plunges forth and back Concept Selection

Human
into Design (CON), to Factors
Design Definition
win accuracy. Multidisciplinary Optimization

9 Oct 2009 6
 Context of MATE­CON

• Inputs:
Requirements
• Important Stakeholders. Definition

• Set of different

System Architecture
Concepts.
Concept Generation

• Outputs:
Tradespace Exploration
• System requirements for Concept Selection

the Detailed Design Human

Factors
phase. Design Definition
Multidisciplinary Optimization
• Knowledge of the design
tradespace.

9 Oct 2009 7
 Index

1. Context of MATE­CON
2. Implementing MATE­CON

1. MATE
2. CON
3. Alternatives
4. Benefits
5. Limitations
6. Discussion

9 Oct 2009 8
 Implementing MATE­CON

Architecture-level Analysis

True
preference
space Key decision
1a makers

2a User
MAUT
Design-level Analysis
4 Simulation (e.g. X-TOS) Customer

Trade Preference Solution Firm

Model
space space space True User
preference
Concept Engineering
generation 2b 3a 5 Pareto space Customer
judgment subset
7a Proposal
Designers 6a Validation Reduced Firm
Systems Subsystem
solution engineer chair
3b Analysts space 1b
6b Simulation MATE-CON
Sensitivity
chair
Verification analysis M P.S. S.S.
Discussions T.S. 3a
7b Real-time
utility
tracking 2
Designer R.S.S. 1 ICE
Architecture­level Analysis
Baseline
3b
Fidelity feedback
Analyst
Subsystem Subsystem
chair chair

Images by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Design­level Analysis
9 Oct 2009 9
 Index

1. Context of MATE­CON
2. Implementing MATE­CON

1. MATE
2. CON
3. Alternatives
4. Benefits
5. Limitations
6. Discussion

9 Oct 2009 10
 “MATE” Overview

Stakeholderi Stakeholderi
Single Attribute
System Preference Interview Repeat for each Utility
Stakeholder Formulation
Single Attribute  Repeat for each
Utility Interview Stakeholder
Defining the System
Preferences Multi­
Corner Point Interview Attribute
Utility
Formulation
Define the System Generate Multi­Attribute 
Attributes for  Utility Functioni
Stakeholderi
Tradespace n

Define one Set of 

System Attributes

Utility

Create Design Vectors Physics­based

and MAUF
System
Modeling Tool Metric i

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

9 Oct 2009 11
 System Preference Interview & Single

Attribute Utility

1. Outcome of System Preference Interview

Remote Sensing Mission
Communications Attributes
Satellite
RANK 4 3 1 2
Data Continuity
Revisit Rate Mission Duration LTAN Timing
(System Availability)
Units hour year % minute
Range [24, 1.5] [5,15] [30,100] [240,5]
Utility Form decreasing increasing increasing decreasing

Range [least acceptable value : most realistic, desirable value]
Rank 1 = most important attribute, 4 = least important attribute
2. Outcome of Single Attribute Utility Interview
Attribute Utility
Revisit Rate: Single-Attribute i Function Attribute j
System Availability: Single-Attribute Utility Function
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
Utility
Utility (-)

Utility (-)
0.6 0.6
0.5
Utility
0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
30 40 50
0 5 10
Attribute
Revisit
15
i Axis
Rate (hours)
20 25
Attribute j Axis80
60 70
System Availability (%)
90 100

9 Oct 2009 12
 Generating Single Attribute Utility Curves: The Lottery

Equivalent Probability Method (LEP)

� LEP Process (for one specific attribute value) Bracketing the Indifference Point

Present the Interviewee Select the

Attributei with this Attributes Probability Setup the
(@ value) Utility Interview (P*) for the Bracket
Scenario Scenario

Select the
Select another  Calculate the Indifference  Select another  Preferred
Attribute Value Probability Value
Utility Point Point Situation
(Repeat for at least 7
Attribute Values)

• LEP Situation Setup

Situation A Situation B
Attributei Attributei
Prob. = 0.5 (@ value) Prob. = P* (@ best value)
OR 0 ≤ P* ≤ 0.5

Prob. = 0.5 Attributei Attributei

Prob. = (1­P*)
(@ worst value) (@ worst value)
9 Oct 2009 13
 A Lottery Equivalent Probability

Method (LEP) Scenario

• Purpose: To provide context for the interviewee when selecting whether they prefer the outcomes of
Situation A or Situation B in the LEP Situation Setup.
• Example Interview Scenario
• Attribute: resolution, Attribute Value: 4 Megapixels, Attribute Range: 1­7 Megapixels
“A new optical system has been developed for a satellite that provides a higher amount of image
resolution. If this optical system is used there is a chance that it could provide 7 Megapixel images versus
only 4 Megapixel images when using a traditional optical system. However, the new optical system
employs the use of state of the art glass manufacturing so there is a chance that the new optical system
could lead to reduced image resolution (as compared to a traditional optical system). A team of engineers
has studied the issue and determined that this new optical system has a P* chance of providing images
with a 7 Megapixel resolution, or a (1­P*) chance of providing images with a 1 Megapixel resolution,
while traditional optical systems will provide images with a 1 Megapixel resolution with a probability of
50%, and a images with a 4 Megapixel resolution with a probability of 50%. Which optical system would
you prefer to use?”

Situation A (Traditional Optical System) Situation B (New Optical System)

4 Megapixels
Prob. = 0.5 Prob. = P* 7 Megapixels
OR

Prob. = 0.5
Prob. = (1­P*)
9 Oct 2009 1 Megapixels 1 Megapixels 14
 Utility Point Calculation (from LEP

Method Results)

Process (for one specific attribute value)

Known: The indifference point for the attribute value (i.e. P' that renders both situation A and B equally
desirable to the stakeholder).
Calculating the utility point for the specific attribute value is then done using Eqn. 1:

0.5 . U(Xi) + 0.5 . U(Xmin) = P'.U(Xmax ) + (1-P') . U(Xmin)

The utility is calculated on a ordinal scale, where the maximum and minimum utility equal 1.0 and 0.0
respectively. Hence, Eqn. 1 becomes:

0.5 . U(Xi) + 0.5 . U(Xmin) = P'.U(Xmax ) + (1-P') . U(Xmin)

0 P' 0

U(Xi) = 2 . P'

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

9 Oct 2009 15
 Generating the Multi­Attribute

Utility Function

• Process (for one stakeholder)

• Known: the SUAF’s for the stakeholder.
• Terms: 
U ( X ) i ≡the i th SAUF
ki ≡the i th Corner Point (SAUF Weighting Factor)
K ≡the MAUF Normalization Coefficient 
__
U (X) ≡ the MAUF

• Constructing the MAUF

(K ⋅ ki ⋅U ( X )i +1)
__ n
1
U(X ) =
K 

−1+ ∏
i=1 
• Capabilities of the MAUF
• Determine the stakeholder aggregate utility value for a given set of single attribute utility values.
• Implications
• Must have the MAUF in a explicit function form
• Assumptions (in addition to the 4 single attribute utility theory assumptions)
• Preferential Independence: the ranking of preferences over any pair of attributes is independent of all
the other attributes.
• Utility Independence: The utility curve for one attribute is unique, and independent of all the other 
attribute utility functions.

9 Oct 2009 16
 Multi­Attribute Utility Function

Normalization Constant

• Purpose: To ensure consistency between the MAUF and the SUAF’s. That is, ensure that
the MAUF is defined over the same range as the SAUF’s (i.e. [0, 1]).

• Process for Determining the MAUF Normalization Constant

• Known: All the SAUF weighting factors (ki) – corner point values.

• Solve Eqn. 5 for K (can be done via an iterative procedure)
n
K = −1 + ∏ (K ⋅ ki + 1)
i =1

• Normalization Constant Ranges

n
if ∑k i < 1.0 K >0
i =1 then 
n
if ∑k i > 1.0 ­1 < K < 0
i =1 then 
n
if ∑k i = 1.0 K =0
i =1 then 

9 Oct 2009 17
 Index

1. Context of MATE­CON
2. Implementing MATE­CON

1. MATE
2. CON
3. Alternatives
4. Benefits
5. Limitations
6. Discussion

9 Oct 2009 18
 (Integrated) Concurrent Engineering
Objective: to enable engineering design, tradestudies, and subsequent decisions to occur in real­
time with all design team members and critical stakeholders colocated and an emphasis placed on
stakeholder feedback.
Screen Screen Screen
Reliability
Conference 
IA&T Room and
Thermal
Stakeholder  Systems Information
Team Engineering Support
Mechanical Door
Team
Lead Kitchen
Printer
Printer

d
de
A/V

cs

ee
ni
Control

sN
Mission Design Laboratory (MDL) Copier

io
Mission

Av

A
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

n
Ops Flight 

sio
Courtesy of Integrated Design Center, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Flight  Dynamics

ul
op
Used with permission. LVs and Software Administrative 

Pr
Cost Attitude  and Technical
Concurrent engineering session example: Control
System: satellite
Radiation Support
Stakeholder: external program manager

Orbital
m

Model Fidelity: conceptual (Phase A)

Power Printer
om

Session Length:’ 1 week, 5 days

Debris Door Door
C

Daily Schedule: Design time (8 AM – noon and 1­5:30

Layout of the MDL
PM); lunch (noon­1 PM)
Courtesy of Mark Avnet
9 Oct 2009 19
Courtesy of Mark S. Avnet. Used with permission.
 Index

1. Context of MATE­CON
2. Implementing MATE­CON

1. MATE
2. CON
3. Alternatives
4. Benefits
5. Limitations
6. Discussion

9 Oct 2009 20
 Alternatives to MATE for Tradespace

Exploration (TE)

Tradespace Exploration Intent: enumerate candidate design concepts and ultimately

select a small number of designs (called point designs), on the basis of stakeholder­
influenced criteria, to be assessed at a higher level of fidelity.
Benefit­Centric TE Value­Centric TE
Multiple Attribute Tradespace Value Quantification
Exploration (MATE) 1. Value function
1. MATE­CON 2. Multi­attribute value
2. Dynamic MATE function theory (in progress)
3. System of Systems (SoS) Tradespace
Exploration Tradespace n
4. MATE for Survivability
5. Responsive Systems Comparison (RSC)
Technique for Preference by Similarity to the

Utility
Ideal (TOPSIS)
“Traditional” TE

Quantification of “Traditional” Metric i

Figures of Merit (FoM)
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.
9 Oct 2009

21

 Index

1. Context of MATE­CON
2. Implementing MATE­CON

1. MATE
2. CON
3. Alternatives
4. Benefits
5. Limitations
6. Discussion

9 Oct 2009 22
 Benefits

• Forced design decisions’ changes, during the

design phase, can be guided using the knowledge
of the larger tradespace. Their impact is thus
reduced.
• By calculating utility gradients, counterintuitive
design decisions are revealed.
• Almost full automatization reduces impact of
changing stakeholder expectations.

9 Oct 2009 23
 Benefits

• Propagating the utility metric down through the

Design levels prevents pursuing a detailed design
without understanding its global effects.
• Proved less time and effort for a given project, and
other benefits.
• But the reference is to a conference paper by the
author.

9 Oct 2009 24
 Index

1. Context of MATE­CON
2. Implementing MATE­CON

1. MATE
2. CON
3. Alternatives
4. Benefits
5. Limitations
6. Discussion

9 Oct 2009 25
 Limitations

• Very different concepts are a challenge to model

in 1 vector.

Computer generated images of space vehicles removed due to copyright restrictions.

9 Oct 2009 26
 Limitations

• What do you do if the Requirements

tradespace is so big Definition

you cannot generate System Architecture

Concept Generation
but a very small
fraction of it? Tradespace Exploration
Concept Selection

• No HF concerns are Human
Factors
Design Definition
explicitly addressed. Multidisciplinary Optimization

9 Oct 2009 27
 Limitations

• Real­time design (CON) is hard to achieve for

logistical and schedule reasons.
• The process “doesn’t scale up”.
• Not used much anymore.
• Even if it’s only for early design, that needs to be done
fast, the class did 12 sessions.

9 Oct 2009 28
 Limitations

• Doesn’t consider any “­ility”.

• They all change from Concept to Concept, and even
inside each one.
• Their utility is usually better assessed by the engineers
than by the stakeholders.
• Pushing towards the frontier normally increases design
cost, which isn’t considered (and can be relevant
compared to manufacturing and operations cost).
• Consider isoperformant frontiers.

9 Oct 2009 29
 Index

1. Context of MATE­CON
2. Implementing MATE­CON

1. MATE
2. CON
3. Alternatives
4. Benefits
5. Limitations
6. Discussion

9 Oct 2009 30
 Discussion Questions

• Considering the architecture­level analysis and

the design­level analysis that incorporate MAUT
and ICEMaker, at what point do you freeze the
design and move forward?
• For tradespace exploration, do you think
employing the metric of utility is a viable
alternative to “more traditional” metrics, given
the inherent advantages (e.g., aggregation of
benefit) and disadvantages (e.g., ordinal nature) of
utility?

9 Oct 2009 31
 Discussion Questions

• Stakeholders networks (utility flow) can be easily

incorporated into the methodology.
• What is MIT’s Generalized Information Network
Analysis (GINA) method (that provided advances
in modeling tradespaces)?
• What is Quality Function Deployment (QFD),
which is used to organize and prioritize suggested
variables?
• What is SMAD’s Small Satellite Cost Model?

9 Oct 2009 32
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

16.842 Fundamentals of Systems Engineering

Fall 2009

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.