6.Concept Evaluation and Product Architecture - P-Division-2022-2023-Odd/Repo11 GitHub Wiki

6.1 Pugh Chart

---

Table 1:Pugh chart for four alternative designs

Sl No.	Design Objective	Weights	Design 1	Design 2	Design 3	Design 4
1.	Safety	8	-	Datum	+	0
2.	Ease of use	8	+	Datum	+	+
3.	Portability	5	-	Datum	+	+
4.	Use of standard parts	6	+	Datum	-	-
5.	Cost	9	+	Datum	-	+
6.	Aesthetics	5	+	Datum	+	+
	Score(+)		28	0	26	27
	Score(-)		13	0	15	6
	Total Score		15	0	11	21

6.2 Justification for the scores given

---

Design No.	Objective	Score Allocated	Justification
	Safety	-	Because sliding doors are not as air-tight
	Ease of use	+	Because sliding doors are easy to use and automatic
1	Portability	-	Shape is less proprietary
	Use of standard parts	+	Made out of rather available part sand material
	Cost	+	Made out of cheaper parts
	Aesthetics	-	Exposed wiring and minimum space to customize it

Design No.	Objective	Score Allocated	Justification
	Safety	Datum
	Ease of use	Datum
2	Portability	Datum
	Use of standard parts	Datum
	Cost	Datum
	Aesthetics	Datum

Design No.	Objective	Score Allocated	Justification
	Safety	+	Because of air tight sealing
	Ease of use	+	Because of better UI interface
3	Portability	+	Because of a more standardized shape
	Use of standard parts	-	Requires proprietary parts
	Cost	-	because of the price of the parts which are more advanced
	Aesthetics	+	It is compactly packed and there is no exposed wiring

Design No.	Objective	Score Allocated	Justification
	Safety	0
	Ease of use	+	Because of GPS navigation and RFID
4	Portability	+	Compact size
	Use of standard parts	-	Lots of proprietary parts
	Cost	+	Cheaper and more available technology is used
	Aesthetics	+	Lots of free space to customize it

##6.3 subsystem interaction details

---

subsystem 1	subsystem 2	subsystem 3	subsystem 4
Spatial		y
Data	y		y
material

---

subsystem 2	subsystem 1	subsystem 4	subsystem 3
spatial			y
Data		y
material

---

subsystem 3	subsystem 1	subsystem 2	subsystem 4
spatial
Data			y
material

---