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