COMPARISON OF ALTERNATE DESIGNS

(design, concept, configuration)

MEP202 Design, Innovation and Manufacturing

1

The need
Given: An idea Next: What design (or concept) can meet the requirements of the idea? Constraints: Laws of physics (nature), i.e. scientific Answer: Many (possible) designs. All are right. Q: Which design should we make? A: Use the methods of evaluating alternate designs. Q: Then we will get the best design? A: Not always. Not necessarily. But you get a good idea. Because, methods reflect individual biases (judgments).
2

Examples
Car: Auto Expo 2014 (2011) Car designs Pen: Roller, Ball, Fountain, Gel, - many designs Bicycle: . Chair with (or without) coasters: Mouse trap:

You complete the data, and add to the list.

The methods
Pughs method (1991) Dominic method Pahl and Bietz
widely used in industry used on products in market or at design stage
Will they give the same conclusion?

Methodology
List the customer attributes that the design is supposed to satisfy. Designate (label) each design as (1, 2, 3, ..) or any other scheme. Use one or more of the three techniques. Do the comparison analysis. Interpret the result (caution!) Identify the best design, which is to be worked upon. What if there is no clear best design?

Pughs Method (1991)

Evaluate each design alternative for each attribute, on three point basis

Same as Datum Better than Datum Poorer than Datum

Count no. of +, and S for each alternative and compare. Datum means
6

Pughs method - example

Attribute Stays closed Inexpensive Waterproof Identify contents Attractive
Total Pluses (+) Total Minuses () Total Datum (S) Net score

Design-1

Design-2

Design-3

Design-4

RANK

Dominic method
Evaluate each design alternative based on five values AND three priorities

Values Symbol Excellent E Good G Fair F Poor P Unacceptable U

Priority criterion Symbol High Priority H Moderate Priority M Low Priority L

Dominic method - example

High priority criteria Excellent Good Fair Poor Unacceptable Medium priority criteria Low priority criteria

Enter design alternative no. in appropriate box for each customer attribute. Then, see patterns, if any. Trend? Upper left vs. Lower right. Identify better design.
9

Pahl and Beitz method

List all customer attributes (i) Assign a weight to each attribute, wi ; the sum of all weights should be 1.00 (1.000?!) For each design j , give a performance rating for each customer attribute on 0-4 scale: Performance criterion Rating points (Vj,i) Unsatisfactory Just tolerable Adequate Good Ideal Overall weighted value for Design-j = 0 1 2 3 4

(wi Vj,i)
10

Rank designs by overall weighted value; Best? (!)

Pahl and Beitz method - example

Attributes
Stays closed Inexpensive Waterproof Identify contents Attractive Compact Weight
Design-1 Design-2 Design-3 Design-4

0.30 0.05 0.25 0.10 0.20 0.10

TOTAL VALUE RANK

1.00 ----

11

Pros & cons of the three methods

Pughs : Criticality/priority not considered Dominic : Considers priority, qualitatively Pahl & Beitz : Priority/criticality are quantified Different persons will attach different weight-age or priority to different attributes; Best design can vary from person to person; and from method to method for same person. (then what?)
12

Practice exercises
In class #3: Evaluate the different types of CD/DVD carrying cases. (Individual work, followed by consolidation) Alternate: Chairs, washing machine, cooking stoves, solar collectors,

13

Concluded

Questions?

14