CONCEPT EVALUATION AND PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE

5.1 Justification for score given

JUSTIFICATION OF DESIGN 01 WITH RESPECT TO Design2 (DATUM)

OBJECTIVES	SCORE GIVEN WITH DATUM REFERENCE	JUSTIFICATION
SAFETY	5	Safety of DS1 is better when compared to the datum
EASE OF USE	0	Ease of use of DS1 is almost similar to the datum
PORTABILITY	2	As DS1 has wheels and can be controlled through various means. Therefore, it is much more portable.
USE OF STANDARD PARTS	2	Uses most of the standard parts.
COST	3	DS1 is cost effective when compared to the design.

JUSTIFICATION OF DESIGN 03 WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN 2(DATUM)

OBJECTIVES	SCORE GIVEN WITH DATUM REFERENCE	JUSTIFICATION
SAFETY	0	Safety of DS3 is almost similar to the safety of datum
EASE OF USE	+	As DS3 uses hydraulic system it is comparitively much easier to use when compared to the datum
PORTABILITY	0	Same as the datum
USE OF STANDARD PARTS	-	Standard parts used in DS3 are less when compared to the datum
COST	-	As using hydraulic system is expensive. Therefore, the cost of DS3 is higher when compared to the datum

JUSTIFICATION OF DESIGN 04 WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN 2(DATUM)

OBJECTIVES	SCORE GIVEN WITH DATUM REFERENCE	JUSTIFICATION
SAFETY	5	It can handle objects more safely, with less probability of falling
EASE OF USE	0	Same as datum
PORTABILITY	2	As it has an engine it can be more portable
USE OF STANDARD PARTS	-1	Some rare parts are used
COST	-1	Parts are costly

5.2 Selected Design

5.3 Product Architecture

5.4 Function Clustering

5.5 Interaction Between Subsystems

Subsystem 1	Subsystem 2	Subsystem 3
Spatial		✔
Data	✔
Material		✔

Subsystem 2	Subsystem 1	Subsystem 3
Spatial		✔
Data		✔
Material		✔

Subsystem 3	Subsystem 1	Subsystem 2
Spatial		✔
Data	✔
Material		✔