5. CONCEPT EVALUATION AND PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE - N-div-2026-27-Odd/Repo-02 GitHub Wiki
5. CONCEPT EVALUATION AND PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
Task 1: Assign Weights to Objectives
| Objectives | Weights |
|---|---|
| Safety | 9 |
| Ease of Use | 7 |
| Portability | 5 |
| Use of Standard Parts | 6 |
| Cost | 6 |
Task 2: Pugh Chart for Four Alternative Designs
| Design Objectives | Weights | Design 1 | Design 2 | Design 3 | Design 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety | 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Ease of Use | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Portability | 5 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 |
| Use of Standard Parts | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Cost | 6 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 |
| Score (+) | 0 | 22 | 18 | 22 | |
| Score (-) | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total Score | 0 | 11 | 18 | 22 |
Task 3: Concept Evaluation
The Pugh chart is used to compare four alternative designs based on five objectives: safety, ease of use, portability, use of standard parts, and cost.
The objectives are assigned weights according to their importance. Each design is evaluated using the following ratings:
- +1: Better than the reference design
- 0: Equal to the reference design
- -1: Worse than the reference design
The positive score is calculated by adding the weights of objectives rated +1. The negative score is calculated by adding the weights of objectives rated -1. The total score is obtained by subtracting the negative score from the positive score.
Task 4: Result and Conclusion
Design 1 obtains a total score of 0, Design 2 obtains 11, Design 3 obtains 18, and Design 4 obtains 22.
Therefore, Design 4 is selected as the preferred alternative because it achieves the highest total score of 22 among the four designs.