Pugh chart

Design Objectives	Weights	Design 1	Design 2	Design 3	Design 4
User Friendly	5	Datum	+	-	-
Portability	7	Datum	0	+	--
Cost	3	Datum	0	+	-
Safety	9	Datum	+	-	-
Use of Standard Parts	6	Datum	-	+	+
Score(+)	.	NA	14	16	6
Score (-)	.	NA	-6	-14	-31
Total	.	NA	8	2	-25

5.1 Justification Table

Design No.	Objective	Score Allocated	Justification of the score
.	User Friendly	Datum	-
.	Portability	Datum	-
1	Cost	Datum	-
.	Safety	Datum	-
.	Use of Standard Parts	Datum	-


.	User Friendly	5	More user friendly than datum.
.	Portability	0	Same portability as datum.
2	Cost	0	Same cost as datum.
.	Safety	9	Mechanism is secure and closed.
.	Use of Standard Parts	-6	Datum uses simpler parts.


.	User Friendly	-5	No space for user interface.
.	Portability	7	More compact.
3	Cost	3	Uses more standard parts which costs less.
.	Safety	-9	Open mechanism and exposed parts.
.	Use of Standard Parts	6	Uses simpler parts than datum.


.	User Friendly	-5	Doesn't have an intuitive user interface.
.	Portability	-14	Bulky design.
4	Cost	-3	Uses complex parts which cost more .
.	Safety	-9	Many exposed parts and mechanisms.
.	Use of Standard Parts	6	Parts are easily available in the market.