The Pennsylvania State University

School of Engineering Design, Technology, and Professional Programs

EDSGN 100 Introduction to

Engineering Design

CONCEPT SELECTION

Ivan E. Esparragoza, PhD

Concept Selection
Statement of problem
Project No. 2
Concept Selection

Customer
Statement
(Need)

Problem Definition
Literature search
Market studies Clarify objectives
Focus groups Establish user
Observations requirements
Benchmarking Identify constraints
Patents search Establish functions
Product dissection

Conceptual Design

Establish design
Biomimicry
specifications
Brainstorming
Generate alternatives
Systematic generation
Evaluate and select
of ideas
alternatives
 Outline

 Concept Selection Definition

 Methods for Choosing a Concept

 Decision Matrix

 Pugh’s Concept Selection Method

 Weighted Rating Concept Selection Method

 Example
 Concept Selection Definition

 Concept selection is the process of:

 evaluating concepts with respect to customer needs

and other criteria,
 comparing the strength and weaknesses of the
concepts, and
 selecting one or more concepts for further
investigation, testing, or development.
 Methods for Choosing a Concept

METHOD DEFINITION
Concepts are turned to customers or some other external entity for
External Decision
selection.

An influential member of the development team chooses a concept

Product Champion
based on personal preferences.

Intuition The concept is chosen by its feel. The concept just seems better.

Multivoting Each member of the team votes for several concepts.

The team list strength and weaknesses of each concept and makes
Pros and Cons
choice based upon group opinion.

The team builds, and tests prototypes for each concept, making the
Prototype and Test
selection based upon the test data.

The team rates each concept against specified selection criteria that is
Decision Matrices
usually weighted.
 Decision Matrix

 A decision matrix is a chart that systematically allows:

 identifying,
 analyzing, and
 rate the strength of relationships between sets of information.

 The decision matrix is used to

 evaluate and
 compare alternatives concepts with respect to a set of selection
criteria based on the design objective list.

 There are two commonly used methods for evaluating alternative

concepts:
 Pugh’s concept selection method

 Weighted rating method

 Pugh’s Concept Selection Method

STEP DESCRIPTION
- If all alternatives fulfill the demands on the same level, then the criteria should be the design
objectives.
Identify Selection Criteria
- Ensure that the criteria are written so that a high score for each criteria represents a favorable result
and a low score represents and unfavorable result.

- Select the alternatives to be compared

Identify Alternatives
- These alternatives may come from a brainstorming or a systematic concept generation activity

- If some selection criteria are more important than others, review and agree on appropriate weights to
Assign Weights
assign (e.g., 1,2,3)

- The design team chooses a concept to become the benchmark or datum against all other concepts
are rated.
Design Scoring System
- For each comparison the concept being evaluated is judge to be better than, about the same, or less
than the datum.

- For each criterion the team marks whether the alternative is better (+), worse (-), or about the same
Rate the Alternatives
(0) as the datum.

Total Score - Multiply the weight by the +’s, and -’s then they are summed and recorded at the bottom of the matrix.
 Decision Matrix: Pugh’s Method
Assign Rate the Alternatives
Weights
CONCEPT
Identify SELECTION
WEIGHT Identify
Selection CRITERIA ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C
Criteria Alternatives
Criteria 1 35 + D +

Criteria 2 30 + A +

Criteria 3 25 + T 0

Criteria 4 15 _ U _

Criteria 5 5 _ M _

TOTAL (+) 90 65

TOTAL (-) 20 20

TOTAL SCORING 70 45

RANK 1 3 2

Scoring Scale: (+) Better

Design (-) Worse
Scoring (0) Same
System Total Score
 Weighted Rating Selection Method

STEP DESCRIPTION
- If all alternatives fulfill the demands on the same level, then the criteria should be the design
objectives.
Identify Selection Criteria
- Ensure that the criteria are written so that a high score for each criteria represents a favorable result
and a low score represents and unfavorable result.

- Select the alternatives to be compared

Identify Alternatives
- These alternatives may come from a brainstorming or a systematic concept generation activity

- If some selection criteria are more important than others, review and agree on appropriate weights to
Assign Weights
assign (e.g., 1,2,3)

- The design team rates each concept as unsatisfactory, just tolerable, adequate, good, or very good
Design Scoring System using an ordinal scale such as 0, 1, 2, 3, 0r 4.
- Other scales have and might be used.

- For each criterion the team rate the alternative according to the scale decided in the scoring
Rate the Alternatives
system.

- Multiply the score for each decision criterion by its weighting factor. Then total the scores for each
Total Score
alternative being considered and analyze the results.
 Weighted Rating Selection Method
Assign Rate the Alternatives
Weights
Identify
Identify CONCEPT Alternatives
Selection SELECTION
Criteria WEIGHT ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C
CRITERIA
Weighted Weighted Weighted
Rate Rate Rate
Score Score Score

Criteria 1 35 3 105 1 35 2 70

Criteria 2 30 3 90 1 30 3 90

Criteria 3 25 5 125 3 75 3 75

Criteria 4 15 3 45 5 75 3 45

Criteria 5 5 1 5 3 15 1 5

TOTAL SCORING 370 230 285

RANK 1 3 2

Scoring Scale: 5 - High Design

3 - Medium Scoring
1 - Low System Total Score
 Broadening the Scope (Collaborative
Project Approach)

 Use decision matrix for concept selection

 When evaluating alternatives take into consideration

not only the business aspect of the product but also
the sustainable aspect and the impact in the
society.
 Example: Can Crusher
CONCEPT
Objective Weight
SELECTION
WEIGHT ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C
1. Performance 45.0% CRITERIA
Weighted Weighted Weighted
Rate Rate Rate
Score Score Score
1.1 Easy to use with minimum effort for user 14.0%
Stops easily and immediately 15 5 75.0 3 45.0 3 45.0
1.2 Removable receiving containers 11.0%
Easy to use with minimum effort
14 3 52.0 5 70.0 5 70.0
for user
1.3 Empty cans before crushing 8.0%
Rendered inoperable when
13 1 13.0 5 65.0 3 39.0
opened
1.4 Crush one can at a time 5.0%
Removable receiving containers 11 5 55.0 5 55.0 5 55.0
1.5 Size of cans variable 3.5%
Empty cans before crushing 8 3 24.0 5 40.0 5 40.0
1.6 Easy access to clear jam 2.5%
Low cost to costumers 5.5 5 27.5 2 11.0 3 16.5
1.7 Easy to clean 1.0%
No sharp edges 5.5 4 22.0 5 27.5 4 22.0
2. Safety 38.0%
Crush one can at a time 5 5 25.0 5 25.0 5 25.0
2.1 Stops easily and immediately 15.0%
Low operation cost 5 5 25.0 1 5.0 3 15.0
2.2 Rendered inoperable when opened 13.0%
Size of cans variable 3.5 1 3.5 5 17.5 5 17.5
2.3 No sharp edges 5.5%
Internal parts safe from liquid
3 5 15.0 2 6.0 3 9.0
2.4 Internal parts safe from liquid damage 3.0% damage

Easy access to clean 2.5 5 12.5 3 7.5 3 7.5

2.5 Low noise 1.5%
Low maintenance cost 1.6 5 8.0 3 4.8 3 4.8
3. Cost 13.0%
Low noise 1.5 3 4.5 5 7.5 4 6.0
3.1 Low cost to costumers 5.5%
Internal parts totally enclosed 1.5 2 3.0 5 7.5 5 7.5
3.2 Low operation cost 5.0%

3.3 Low maintenance cost 1.6% Corrosion resistant 1.4 3 4.2 3 4.2 4 5.6

3.4 Low cost of replacement parts 0.9% Easy to clean 1 5 5.0 3 3.0 3 3.0

4. Appearance 4.0% Low cost of replacement parts 0.9 5 4.5 1 0.9 3 2.7

4.1 Internal parts totally enclosed 1.5% Pleasing to eyes 0.6 3 1.8 5 3.0 5 3.0

Transparent cover to view

4.2 Corrosion resistant 1.4% 0.4 5 2.0 5 2.0 5 2.0
operation

4.3 Pleasing to eye 0.6% Paintable surface 0.1 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5

4.4 Transparent cover to view operation 0.4% TOTAL SCORING 100 383 407.9 396.6

4.5 Paintable surfaces 0.1% RANK 3 1 2