PUGH CHART

Task 1: Assign Weights to the Objectives

Objectives	Weights
Safety	9
Ease of use	7
Portability	5
Use of standard components	6
Cost	6

Task 2: Pugh Chart for Alternative Designs

Task 2 : Write Pugh chart for the 4 alternative designs shown in figures

Task 2 : Write Pugh chart for the 4 alternative designs shown in figures

Design Objectives	Weights	Design 1 (Datum)	Design 2	Design 3	Design 4
Safety	9	DATUM	+	+	-
Ease of use	7	DATUM	+	+	+
Portability	5	DATUM	+	+	+
Use of standard components	6	DATUM	+	+	+
Cost	6	DATUM	+	0	+
Score (+)		0	33	27	24
Score (-)		0	0	0	9
Total		0	33	27	15

** Justification for Pugh Chart Scores**

The designs are compared with Design 1, which is taken as the Datum. The comparison is based on safety, ease of use, portability, use of standard components, and cost.

Design 1 - DATUM

Design No.	Objective	Score Allocated	Justification for the Score
1	SAFETY	0	Used as the reference solution for assessing the safety of other designs.
1	EASE OF USE	0	Used as the reference model for comparing the operational ease of alternative designs.
1	PORTABILITY	0	Its size and weight serve as the reference for evaluating the portability of other designs.
1	USE OF STANDARD	0	Serves as the standard for assessing the availability and use of standard components.
1	COST	0	Its estimated component and production expenses are taken as the baseline.

TOTAL SCORE : 0

Design 2

Design No.	Objective	Score Allocated	Justification for the Score
2	SAFETY	9	Wooden frame provides good stability and securely supports the printer components.
2	EASE OF USE	7	Open structure makes the printer easy to access and maintain.
2	PORTABILITY	5	Wooden construction is relatively lightweight and easy to move.
2	USE OF STANDARD	6	Uses commonly available motors, belts, bearings, lead screws, hotend and electronic components.
2	COST	6	Wooden frame can be made using inexpensive and easily available materials.

TOTAL SCORE:33

Design 3

Design No.	Objective	Score Allocated	Justification for the Score
3	SAFETY	9	Plastic frame is durable but provides less stability than a wooden frame.
3	EASE OF USE	7	Moderate – Requires some adjustment and calibration of the different mechanisms.
3	PORTABILITY	5	The additional frame and components make it comparatively less convenient to transport.
3	USE OF STANDARD	6	Uses standard components but also requires several custom 3D-printed parts.
3	COST	0	Additional custom components, control elements and structural parts may increase the overall cost.

TOTAL SCORE:27

Design 4

Design No.	Objective	Score Allocated	Justification for the Score
4	SAFETY	7	PVC pipes provide basic structural support but are less rigid than wooden or metal frames.
4	EASE OF USE	7	Simple construction makes it easy to operate, but manual calibration and PC/laptop-based control are required.
4	PORTABILITY	5	PVC pipes make the structure lightweight, but the overall assembly is still somewhat bulky.
4	USE OF STANDARD	6	Uses standard motors, belts, pulleys, lead screw and hotend, but the PVC frame requires customized assembly.
4	COST	6	PVC pipes and commonly available components keep the cost relatively low, but additional components are still required.

TOTAL SCORE:15

Conclusion

According to the Pugh chart, Design 2 achieved the highest overall score of 33. Hence, it is considered the most suitable option among the five designs, offering the best overall balance of safety, ease of use, portability, use of standard components, and cost.