5.1 JUSTIFICATION FOR SCORE GIVEN - N-div-2026-27-Odd/Repo-02 GitHub Wiki
Task 3: Justification for the Scores Given
| Design No. | Objective | Score Allocated | Justification for the Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Safety | 0 | Reference design for comparison |
| 1 | Ease of Use | 0 | Reference design for comparison |
| 1 | Portability | 0 | Reference design for comparison |
| 1 | Use of Standard Parts | 0 | Reference design for comparison |
| 1 | Cost | 0 | Reference design for comparison |
| 2 | Safety | 1 | Stable design improves operational safety |
| 2 | Ease of Use | 1 | Easy to operate |
| 2 | Portability | -1 | More difficult to move |
| 2 | Use of Standard Parts | 1 | Uses readily available components |
| 2 | Cost | -1 | May require more expensive components |
| 3 | Safety | 0 | Similar safety to the reference design |
| 3 | Ease of Use | 1 | Simple operation |
| 3 | Portability | 1 | Compact and easy to carry |
| 3 | Use of Standard Parts | 0 | Similar component availability |
| 3 | Cost | 1 | Low-cost components can be used |
| 4 | Safety | 1 | Obstacle detection can improve safety |
| 4 | Ease of Use | 1 | Automatic functions reduce manual effort |
| 4 | Portability | 0 | Similar portability to the reference design |
| 4 | Use of Standard Parts | 1 | Standard sensors and motors can be used |
| 4 | Cost | 0 | Similar estimated cost to the reference design |
Conclusion
The scores are assigned by comparing each alternative design with Design 1, which acts as the reference design. Design 2 improves safety and ease of use but is less portable and may cost more. Design 3 offers simple operation, better portability, and lower-cost components. Design 4 improves safety through obstacle detection and reduces manual effort through automation.
These justifications help evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative design.