DESIGN OBJECTIVES	WEIGHTS	DESIGN 1	DESIGN 2	DESIGN 3	DESIGN 4
SAFETY	10	Datum	++	++	+
EASE OF USE	8	Datum	+	+	++
PORTABILITY	9	Datum	0	0	0
USE OF STANDARD PARTS	7	Datum	+	-	+
COST	9	Datum	-	-	–
score(+)	—-	0	35	28	40
score(-)	—-	0	9	16	18
total	43	0	24	12	22

DESIGN NO.	OBJECTIVE	JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ALLOTED SCORE	score alloted
1(datum)	SAFETY	it is not safe	0
-	EASE OF USE	maintainence is complex	0
-	PORTABILITY	can be portable but re installation is a difficult task	0
-	USE OF STANDARD PARTS	it uses standard parts	0
-	COST	yes it is on budget	0
2	SAFETY	it is safer than ds1 as it is horizontally assembled	+20
-	EASE OF USE	it is easy to use as it is automatic	+8
-	PORTABILITY	it is not portable	-9
-	USE OF STANDARD PARTS	it uses all standard parts	+7
-	COST	it is more or less equals to ds1	-9
3	SAFETY	as it is a rack system no disturbance in the system	+20
-	EASE OF USE	as it is fixed system its easy to use	+8
-	PORTABILITY	its a fixed system so no portability	-9
-	USE OF STANDARD PARTS	less usage pf standard usage	-7
-	COST	it is cost effective	-9
4	SAFETY	it is safer than ds1	+10
-	EASE OF USE	easier to use as it is automatic	+18
-	PORTABILITY	it is portable	+7
-	USE OF STANDARD PARTS	it uses all standard parts	+7
-	COST	can be little over budget	-18


C:\Users\hp\Downloads\WhatsApp Image 2022-12-24 at 7.46.04 PM.jpeg

Dispensing unit	moving unit	indication unit
material interaction	yes	no
data interaction	no	yes
spatial interaction	yes	-

moving unit	dispensing	indication
material	yes	no
data	no	yes
spatial	yes	-

indication	dispensing	moving unit
material	yes	no
Data	yes	no
spatial	-	-