5.1 WEIGHTAGE

Objectives	Weights
User Friendly(Ease of use)	10
Safety	7
Aesthetic look	5
Weight	4
Portability	8
Semi Automatic	3

5.2 PUGH CHART

Design Objectives	Weights	Design 1	Design 2	Design 3	Design 4
User Friendly(Ease of use)	10	plus	DATUM	minus	plus
Safety	7	minus minus	DATUM	minus	plus
Portability	8	minus	DATUM	plus plus	minus minus
Weight	4	plus	DATUM	plus	minus
Aesthetic look	5	plus	DATUM	minus	minus
Automatic	3	Minus	DATUM	Minus	Minus
Score(+)	34	19	0	20	17
Score(-)	0	-25	0	-25	-28
Total	34	-6	0	-5	-11

5.3 JUSTIFICATION OF SCORE

Design No.	Objective	Score Allocated	Justification for the Score
1	User friendly(ease of use)	plus	it is moderately safe to use as it involves complex programming
	Safety	minus minus	It is less safe
	Portability	minus	as the bot has to many wire connections it is difficult to carry
	weight	plus	It is moderately heavy as it uses many standard parts
	Aesthethical look	plus	With proper architecture it looks good
	Automatic	Minus	It is not completely automatic because it needs manual help
2	User Friendly	0	This was used as datum
	Safety	0	This was used as datum
	Portability	0	This was used as datum
	Weight	0	This was used as datum
	Aesthetic Look	0	This was used as datum
	Automatic	0	This was used as datum
3	Safety	minus	As more electrical components are used it is not safe
	Portability	plus plus	Wheels are used hence it is easily portable
	Weight	plus	As sensors are used and light weight wheel are used the weight is less
	User friendly	minus	As more electrical devices are used it's not user friendly
	Aesthetic look	plus	As the design has considerably good aesthetic look
	Automatic	Minus	there is no inbuilt mechanism for filling back the rangoli when it gets over
4	Safety	plus	No harmful materials used
	Portability	Minus minus	Bot is heavy to carry
	weight	minus	heavy weight
	user friendly	minus	High more electric parts used
	asthetic look	minus	conisidderably good
	automatic	minus	not fully automatic

5.4 SELECTED DESIGN

5.5 FUNCTION CLUSTERING