ME 362

Mechanical Engineering
Design
Part 8.2

Muhammad Ilyas
 Concept Evaluation

2
 Methods for Concept Evaluation

Based on Absolute Criteria

Pughs Selection method
Measurement Scales
Already discussed!
Weighted Decision Matrix
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

3
 Methods for Concept Evaluation

Evaluation Based on Absolute Criteria

This is the 1st evaluation of different design concepts
Generally, it is useless to proceed to a more sophisticated evaluation
method if it soon becomes clear that some aspect about the concept
disqualifies it for selection
So begin the evaluation process by comparing the concepts to a series
of absolute filters:
Evaluation based on judgment of feasibility of the design
Evaluation based on assessment of technology readiness
Evaluation based on go / no-go screening of the customer requirements
(take help from QFD, PDS)

4
 Methods for Concept Evaluation
Evaluation Based on Measurement Scales
Measurement : Rating a design parameter among several alternative
designs
There are different scales which can be used for comparing various
design concepts :
Nominal scale:
Not very quantitative method
Parameters are compared such that we identify the things /
parameters as thick or thin, red or black or yes or no
Ordinal scale:
Items are compared such that we say item A is better than item B or
item D is worse than item C
However, this scale does not say that how much better or how much
worse
e.g. : recall Pughs chart (plus, minus or same)
5
 Methods for Concept Evaluation
Ordinal scale (contd.)
Pairwise comparison : it is one of the ways an ordinal scale is used
Consider the case where there are five design alternatives : A, B, C,
D and E
In comparing A to B we consider A to be more important, and give it
a1
In comparing A to C we feel C ranks higher, and a 0 is recorded in the
A line and a 1 on the C line
This way, the table is completed
Comparison of A against B, C, D, E

This shows A is
better than B, but
worse than C

6
 Methods for Concept Evaluation

Interval scale : this is needed to determine how much

worse or good A is compared with D
e.g. : we could distribute various concepts like A, B, C etc. along a 1
to 10 scale to create an interval scale

7
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
One of the concept evaluation methods developed by Saaty
AHP is well suited for evaluation problems whose objectives have a
hierarchical structure

Car CAM
design

Design Criteria Material Manufacturing Reliability Time to

cost cost produce

Design Concepts / Methods Production by Production by

machining casting

8
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

9
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Identify the Design Criteria (e.g. cost, manufacturing process, time to
market etc.):
Prepare the square matrix
i.e. pair wise comparison

Mat. cost Mfg. cost Reparability Durability Reliability Time to

Criteria produce

Material cost
Manufacturing cost
Reparability
Durability
Reliability

10Time to produce
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Determine the weighting factors for each design criteria
put 1 in the diagonal of the matrix (why?)

Mat. cost Mfg. cost Reparability Durability Reliability Time to

Criteria produce

1
Material cost 1
Manufacturing cost 1
Reparability 1

Durability 1
1
Reliability

11Time to produce
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Determine the weighting factors for each design criteria
next we compare the items of the design criteria
we take help from Saatys fundamental scale for pairwise comparison

12
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Determine the weighting factors for each design criteria

e.g. compare mat cost with mfg cost, reparability, durability etc.

Mat. cost Mfg. cost Reparability Durability Reliability Time to

Criteria produce

1
Material cost 1
Manufacturing cost 1
Reparability 1

Durability 1
1
Reliability

13Time to produce
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Determine the weighting factors for each design criteria
next we compare the items of the design criteria
Suppose we compare the mfg cost with mat cost and suppose we say that
mfg cost has strong importance than mat cost
That will mean that it has a score of 5 compare to 1 (Saatys table)
Alternatively, mat cost will have a score of 1/5 compare to 1 of mfg cost

Mat. cost Mfg. cost Reparability Durability Reliability Time to

Criteria produce

1 1/5
Material cost 5 1
Manufacturing cost 1
Reparability 1

Durability 1
1
Reliability

14Time to produce
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Determine the weighting factors for each design criteria

Mat. cost Mfg. cost Reparability Durability Reliability Time to

Criteria produce

1 1/5
Material cost 5 1
Manufacturing cost 1
Reparability 1

Durability 1
1
Reliability
Mat costto
Time Vsproduce
Mfg cost: mat cost less strongly imp than mfg cost (i.e., mfg cost is strongly imp)
Mat cost Vs Reparability: mat cost is moderately imp than reparability
Mat cost Vs Durability: mat cost is not moderately imp than Durability (i.e., Durability is imp)

15
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Determine the weighting factors for each design criteria
By this way, we complete the rest of the square matrix (for scores of 1,3,7
see Saatys table)

Mat. cost Mfg. cost Reparability Durability Reliability Time to

Criteria produce

1 1/5 3 1/5 3 7
Material cost 5 1 7 3 3 7
Manufacturing cost 1/3 1/7 1 1/5 1/3 5
Reparability 5 1/3 5 1 3 7

Durability 1/3 1/3 3 1/3 1 7

1/7 1/7 1/5 1/7 1/7 1
Reliability
Time to produce

16
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Determine the weighting factors for each design criteria
Next we sum up all the scores
Criteria Comparison Matrix [C] looks like :

Mat. cost Mfg. cost Reparability Durability Reliability Time to

Criteria produce

1 1/5 3 1/5 3 7
Material cost 5 1 7 3 3 7
Manufacturing cost 1/3 1/7 1 1/5 1/3 5
Reparability 5 1/3 5 1 3 7

Durability 1/3 1/3 3 1/3 1 7

1/7 1/7 1/5 1/7 1/7 1
Reliability
Total
Time to produce 11.8 2.14 19.2 4.87 10.47 34.0

17
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Determine the weighting factors for each design criteria
Next we normalize the entries in each cell by dividing by the total
for each column

Mat. cost Mfg. cost Reparability Durability Reliability Time to

Criteria produce

1/11.8 = 1
0.085 1/5 3 1/5 3 7
Material cost 5/11.8 = 5
0.423 1 7 3 3 7
Manufacturing cost 1/3
0.33/11.8=0.028 1/7 1 1/5 1/3 5
Reparability 5/11.8 = 5
0.423 1/3 5 1 3 7

Durability 1/3
0.33/11.8=0.028 1/3 3 1/3 1 7
0.14/11.8 =
1/7 1/7 1/5 1/7 1/7 1
Reliability 0.012

Total
Time to produce 11.8 2.14 19.2 4.87 10.47 34.0

18
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Determine the weighting factors for each design criteria
By this way we complete all the table

Mat. Mfg. Reparabi Durabil Reliabil Time to

Criteria cost cost lity ity ity produce

Material cost 0.085 0.093 0.156 0.041 0.286 0.206

Manufacturing cost 0.424 0.467 0.364 0.616 0.286 0.206

Reparability 0.028 0.065 0.052 0.041 0.031 0.147

Durability 0.424 0.154 0.260 0.205 0.286 0.206

0.028 0.154 0.156 0.068 0.095 0.206
Reliability
0.012 0.065 0.010 0.029 0.013 0.029
Time to produce
Total 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

19
 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Determine the weighting factors for each design criteria
We calculate the sum of each row
Divide it by total no. of design criteria (6 in this case) that will give the
average which is the weight factor (W.F) for each design criteria!
Normalized Criteria Comparison Matrix [Norm C] looks like :

Mat. Mfg. Reparabi Durabil Reliabil Time to

Criteria cost cost lity ity ity produce
Total Criteria
Weights
0.867
0.085 0.093 0.156 0.041 0.286 0.206 0.143
Material cost 2.363
0.424 0.467 0.364 0.616 0.286 0.206 0.393
Manufacturing cost 0.364
0.028 0.065 0.052 0.041 0.031 0.147
0.061
Reparability 0.424 0.154 0.260 0.205 0.286 0.206 1.535
0.256
Durability 0.028 0.154 0.156 0.068 0.095 0.206 0.707
0.118
Reliability 0.012 0.065 0.010 0.029 0.013 0.029 0.158
0.027
Total
Time to produce 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 6.000
20
1.000