| Design Objectives |
Weights |
Concept 1 |
Concept 2 |
Concept 3 |
Concept 4 |
concept 5 |
| Efficiency |
6 |
+ |
++ |
+ |
Datum |
|
| Durability |
5 |
- |
+ |
0 |
Datum |
|
| Sustainability |
9 |
0 |
++ |
0 |
Datum |
|
| Installation |
2 |
++ |
- |
- |
Datum |
|
| Ease of use |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Datum |
|
| Score(+) |
|
10 |
35 |
17 |
Nil |
|
| Score (-) |
|
5 |
2 |
7 |
Nil |
|
| Total |
|
5 |
33 |
10 |
Nil |
|
5.1 JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SCORE GIVEN
| Design No. |
Objective |
Score Allocated |
Justification for the Score |
| Concept 1 |
Efficiency |
+ |
It is having good efficience. |
| |
Durability |
- |
It is not that durable as datum. |
| |
Sustainability |
0 |
It is not that sustainable. |
| |
Installation |
++ |
It is good to install. |
| |
Ease of use |
0 |
since there are less parts used the ease decreases |
| Concept 2 |
Efficiency |
++ |
It is more efficient than datum. |
| |
Durability |
+ |
It is durable than datum. |
| |
Sustainability |
++ |
It is sustainable compared to datum. |
| |
Installation |
- |
It is not that easy to install. |
| |
Ease of use |
0 |
It is not easy to use. |
| Concept 3 |
Efficiency |
+ |
It is better efficient than datum. |
| |
Durability |
0 |
It in not durable. |
| |
Sustainability |
0 |
It is not sustainable. |
| |
Installation |
0 |
It is not having good installation. |
| |
Ease of use |
0 |
It is not easy to use. |
| Concept 4 |
Efficiency |
Datum |
|
| |
Durability |
Datum |
|
| |
Sustainability |
Datum |
|
| |
Installation |
Datum |
|
| |
Ease of use |
Datum |
|