Concept Selection
-
Upload
jolene-joseph -
Category
Documents
-
view
66 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Concept Selection
Concept Selection
Product Design and DevelopmentChapter 7
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger
Concept Development Process
Perform Economic Analysis
Benchmark Competitive Products
Build and Test Models and Prototypes
IdentifyCustomer
Needs
EstablishTarget
Specifications
GenerateProduct
Concepts
SelectProduct
Concept(s)
Set Final
Specifications
PlanDownstreamDevelopment
MissionStatement Test
ProductConcept(s)
DevelopmentPlan
Concept Development Funnel
concept generation
concept screening
concept scoring
concept testing
Concept Selection Process• Prepare the Matrix
– Criteria– Weightings
• Rate Concepts– Scale (+ – 0) or (1–5)– Compare to Reference Concept or Values
• Rank Concepts– Sum Weighted Scores
• Combine and Improve– Remove Bad Features– Combine Good Qualities
• Select Best Concept– May Be More than One– Beware of Average Concepts
• Reflect on the Process– Continuous Improvement
Your text differentiates between concept screening and concept scoring!
• Concept screening is used to narrow the number of concepts quickly and to improve concepts.– Your text uses Pugh Concept Selection. We will use a
modified technique used by IDEO.– This technique is used when you don’t have a lot of
information about your design and you must make decisions.
• Concept scoring is used when increased resolution will better differentiate between concepts.– Your text uses an unusual technique. We will use the
technique introduced in freshmen design (except that you will use it better.)
– Concept scoring should be used when you have more information about your design.
Example: Concept Screening
Prepare the Matrix
• Concept screening works best with 20 or fewer criteria.
• Criteria should be based upon the PDS – pay attention to customer needs.
• You may have to pick the most important criteria to obtain the desired limit.
• Criteria
Lightweight
Stable
Pinch Points
Maintenance
Range of Motion (legs)
Comfort
Form the Matrix• List the concepts• Problem Definition:
– 4 year old, handicapped child cannot support her body weight while learning to creep
• Options– #1 - Catalog Device Modification– #2 - Crane Suspension Device– #3 - Cart Device
Lightweight
Stable
Pinch Points
Maintenance
Range of Motion (legs)
Comfort
1 2 3
Clarify the concepts
• Catalog Device Modification: A height adjustable crawler that provides upper body support, but doesn’t keep legs from “kicking out”
• Crane Suspension Device: Provides support of child’s body using a spring suspended from a height adjustable support arm
• Cart Device: Provides a seat that supports child’s upper body. Also has a plate with bungee cords that limits forward and backward motion of the legs.
• Run the Matrix
– Compare each option within each row.
– Indicate +1, -1, or 0
– This is a modification to the Pugh Concept Selection and allows the decision makers to automatically see the best available in each
– A description for the rationale behind each ranking should be included.
Catalog Crane CartLightweight 1 -1 1Stable 0 -1 1Pinch Points 1 -1 0Maintenance 0 1 -1Range of Motion (legs) 0 -1 1Comfort -1 0 1Totals 1 -3 3
Attack negatives and enhance positives
• Can you combine portions of one design with another?
• Remember our functional analysis - is there a way to change one function and make the design better?
3. Consider a material selection problem for a refrigerated food preparation surface material for use in an ice cream store. The surface will be subsequently coated, but hand mixing of ingredients on the surface is needed. Five materials have been identified as possibilities: 1020 Steel, 304 Stainless Steel, 5052 Aluminum, Copper and Bronze. Use the modified concept screening process discussed in class. To help you in this process a table listing the material properties for each criterion is given below.
Criteria Units DesiredDirection
1020Steel
304SS
5052AL
Cu Bronze
Thickness (in.) less isbetter
0.107 0.107 0.407 0.205 0.205
Conductivity Btu-ft/(hroF-ft2)
higher isbetter
27 9.4 80 200 109
Diffusivity ft2/hr higher isbetter
909 270 3749 6751 3809
Hardness Brinnell higher isbetter
111 95 47 2 1
Yield kips higher isbetter
30 110 13 40 37
Machinability [0-100] less is better
65 90 30 20 20
ThermalMass
Btu/oF lower isbetter
2.93 3.43 7.33 5.45 5.26
Criteria DesiredDirection
1020 Steel
304 SS
5052 Al
Cu Bronze
Thickness less isbetter
Conductivity higher isbetter
Diffusivity higher isbetter
Hardness higher isbetter
Yield higher isbetter
Machinability less is better
ThermalMass
lower isbetter
Total
Criteria DesiredDirection
1020 Steel
304 SS
5052 Al
Cu Bronze
Thickness less isbetter
1 1 -1 0 0
Conductivity higher isbetter
-1 -1 0 1 0
Diffusivity higher isbetter
-1 -1 0 1 0
Hardness higher isbetter
1 1 0 -1 -1
Yield higher isbetter
0 1 -1 0 0
Machinability less is better
0 -1 1 1 1
ThermalMass
lower isbetter
1 1 -1 0 0
Total 1 1 -2 1 0
Weighted Decision Matrix
• Introduced in Freshman Design.• Specify design criterion• Enumerate alternatives• Establish weightings• Determine performance of each alternative for each
criteria• Score that performance as indicated by the data that you
have.
Available Data Controls Evaluation
• Some numeric and some quantitative – use interval scales
• All numeric = use ratio scales
Let’s return to our matrix for material selection. We have actual numeric data for each item. Let’s see what we would decide if we use ratio scales.
Criteria DesiredDirection
1020 Steel
304 SS
5052 Al
Cu Bronze
Thickness less isbetter
Conductivity higher isbetter
Diffusivity higher isbetter
Hardness higher isbetter
Yield higher isbetter
Machinability less is better
ThermalMass
lower isbetter
Total
Complete the Matrix Using Ratio Scales
Answers to the redo of material selection
Evaluation Scheme for Interval Scales
Example of Weighted Decision Matrix Using Interval ScalesTaken from Engineering Design by Dieter and Schmidt
A heavy steel crane hook, for use in supporting ladles filled with molten steel as they are transported through the steel mill, is being designed. Two crane hooks are needed for each ladle. These large, heavy components are usually made to order in the steel mill machine shop when one is damaged and needs to be replaced.
Three concepts have been proposed:1.Built up from flame-cut steel plates, welded together2.Built up from flame-cut steel plates, riveted together3.A monolithic cast-steel hook
The first step is to identify the design criteria by which the concepts will be evaluated. The PDS is used and the design criteria are identified as material cost, manufacturing cost, time to produce a replacement hook if one fails, durability, reliability, and repairability.
Determine Weighting Factor for Each Design Criteria
Crane Hook = 1.0
Cost = 0.6 Quality in Service = 0.4
Material Cost = 0.3
Manufacturing Cost = 0.5
Repairability = 0.2
Durability = 0.6
Reliability = 0.3
Time to produce = 0.1
Weight for Material Cost = 0.3* 0.6 = 0.18
Results for Weighted Decision Matrix using Interval Scales
Remember…
The goal of concept selection is not to• Select the best concept.
The goal of concept selection is to• Develop the best concept.
So remember to combine and refine the concepts to develop better ones!
Caveats
• Beware of the best "average" product.
• Perform concept selection for each different customer group and compare results.
• Check sensitivity of selection to the importance weightings and ratings.
• May want to use all of detailed requirements in final stages of selection.
• Note features which can be applied to other concepts.
Individual QuizName:____________________________ CM:________________
Use the concept screening method presented in class today to evaluate which sport-utility vehicle designs should be pursued. The ratings are given so that you know the relative merits of each vehicle.