Competitive Design of Web-Based Courses in Engineering Education - Web-Based Engineering Education: Critical Design and Effective Tools - page 124

characteristic could harm the improvement of
the performance characteristic with which it is
negative correlated. To solve the conflict without
compromises, innovative problem solving tools
should be considered (Altshuller, 2000; Brad,
2005; Brad, 2008).
Knowing the ranks of stakeholders' require-
ments and the relationship coefficients between
stakeholders' requirements and performance
characteristics, the value weight of each perfor-
mance characteristic can be determined (Bier &
Cornesky, 2001; Brad, 2008; Brad, 2009). Value
weight reveals the maximum impact that each
performance characteristic brings in satisfying
the set of stakeholders' requirements.
Performance characteristics could be further
deployed into functions, further into technical
modules and then into components of the system.
Having established a cost-objective and/or a
time-objective for developing the overall system,
as well as the value weights of each module and
component, value could be effectively engineered
within the system during the design process (Brad,
2008). For example, having determined the relative
value weight of module X of 20% and the cost-
objective to realize the system is set to 10 000$,
then the upper cost limit to develop module X is 2
000$. This limit could generate design constraints
that might require innovative approaches in system
design (technical, organizational, etc.).

When two requirements are compared, the
Saaty's eigenvector method is mostly considered
(Saaty & Vargas, 2001). In AHP, each pair-wise
comparison represents an estimate of the ratio of
the priorities of the compared elements. Estimates
of the priorities (or weights) are calculated for each
pair-wise comparison matrix for each level of the
hierarchy. To synthesize the results over all levels,
the priorities at each level are weighted by the
priority of the higher-level criterion with respect
to which the comparison was made. AHP/Saaty
method is a powerful tool for consistent ranking
of requirements; therefore it is very often used in
the framework of system planning.

Innovative Problem Solving

Innovating solutions is the process of bringing
creative ideas into practice. According to count-
less opinions there is no unique way to solve
a particular problem. However, the process of
solving the problem innovatively could follow
a systematic approach. The innovative problem
solving process comprises five stages: problem
formulation, problem analysis, solution genera-
tion, selection and implementation.
The problem formulation is about asking ap-
propriate questions to “visualize” the problem as
correct and clear as possible. In order to formulate
the problem, data about context, initial situation
and goal should be collected. This means to see the
background, factors and events leading to problem
occurrence, to see what is not satisfactory today
in the current system and to “draw the map” of
the future desirable system.
Problem solving is about “translating” the
system from the initial situation to the desired
situation. By understanding the context properly
and by analyzing the difference between the
current situation and the desired situation, the
problem could be better formulated. The problem
formulation must reflect the context, the initial
system and the future system (the vision). A good
formulation of the problem means: not too broad

About Analytic Hierarchy Process

AHP is a highly developed mathematical system
for priority setting (Raharjo, Xie, Goh & Brom-
bacher, 2007; Saaty & Vargas, 2001). The main
operational steps of the AHP method are:

• Define the problem;

• Structure a hierarchy representing the

problem;

• Perform pair-wise comparison judgments

on the requirements with respect to the
goal of the system.