SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Concept Evaluation and Selection Prepared by: We’am Obaidat  Supervised by: Dr. Abdullah Dwairi
Introduction Concept Evaluation  implies both  comparison  and  decision making . The  Goal  :  To expend the least amount of resources on deciding which concepts have the highest potential for becoming a quality product. The  Difficulty : To choose the best concept with very  limited knowledge  and data on which to base this selection.  Design  is  learning , and  resources  are  limited The greater  knowledge  about the concept, the fewer  surprises
Introduction-cont. Two Types of Comparisons Absolute :  Alternative concept is compared directly with a target set by a criterion Relative:  Alternatives are compared with each other using measures defined by the criteria. Possible only when there is more than one option. For comparisons, the alternatives and criteria must be:   In the same  language  (meters vs. long) At  the same level of  abstraction
Concept Evaluation Techniques There are many  techniques  used to evaluate concept such as: Feasibility Judgment GO/NO-GO Screening  Basic Decision Matrix Weighted Decision Matrix Advanced Decision Matrix Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Concept Evaluation Techniques
Evaluation based on Feasibility Judgment Three Immediate Reactions of a Designer as a concept is generated based on designer’s “ gut feel ”: –  It is not Feasible. –  It might work if something else happens. –  It is worth considering. A comparison based on  experience  and  knowledge
Evaluation based on Feasibility Judgment Implications of Each of these Reactions: –   It Is Not Feasible •  Before discarding an idea, ask “Why is it not feasible?” - Technologically infeasible - Not meeting customer’s requirements - Concept is different - NIH   •  Make sure not to discard an idea because: –  a concept is similar to ones that are already established, or –  a concept is not invented here (less ego-satisfying).
Evaluation based on Feasibility Judgment –  It is Conditional. •  To judge a concept workable if something else happens. •  Factors are the readiness of technology, the possibility of obtaining currently unavailable information, or the development of some other part of the product.
Evaluation based on Feasibility Judgment –  It is Worth Considering •  The hardest concept to evaluate is one that is not obviously a good idea or a bad one, but looks worth considering. •  Such a concept requires engineering knowledge and experience. If sufficient knowledge is not immediately available, it must be developed using models or prototypes that are easily evaluated.
Evaluation based on GO/NO-GO Screening Measures for deciding to go or no-go: 1– Criteria defined by the customer requirements: •  Absolute evaluation by comparing each alternative concept with the customer requirements. •  A concept with a few no-go responses may be worth modifying rather than eliminating •  This type of evaluation not only weeds out designs that should not be considered further, but also helps generates new ideas.
Evaluation based on GO/NO-GO Screening 2– Readiness of the technologies used: •  This technique refines the evaluation by forcing an absolute comparison with  state-of-the-art  capabilities. •   The Technology must be  mature  enough that its use is a design issue, not a research issue. •   There are high  incentive  to include  new technologies  in products.
Evaluation based on GO/NO-GO Screening •  6 Measures for a Technology’s Maturity: –  Are the critical parameters that control the function identified? –  Are the safe operating latitude and sensitivity of the parameters known? –  Have the failure modes been identified? –  Can the technology be manufactured with known process? –  Does hardware exist that demonstrates positive answers to the preceding four questions? –  Is the technology controllable through the product’s life cycle? •  If these questions are not answered in the positive, a consultant or vendor is added to the team.
Evaluation based on a Basic Decision Matrix Decision-Matrix Method (or Pugh’s Method): Select decision criteria Formulate decision matrix Clarify design concepts being evaluated Choose “Datum” or best initial concept Compare other concepts to Datum based on +, -, S scale. Evaluate the ratings: important to discuss concepts strengths and weaknesses.  Good discussion can lead to new, combined, better solution concepts Select a new “datum” concept and rerun analysis Plan further work.  Often new needs for information and concepts come from first meeting. Second working session to repeat above and select a concept.
D A T U M 42 9 23 -3 35 Weighted total 4 2 2 1 3 Overall total 1 1 1 1 0 Total - 5 3 3 2 3 Total + + S + + S 7 Fits hand better + + + S + 10 More secure locking + S S S S 9 Stacking stability + S S S + 10 Hinge doesn’t come apart S + + + S 15 Easier to remove CD - + - S S 9 Easier to remove leaflet + S S S + 15 Easier Opening S - S - S 25 Manufacturing Cost Con.5 Con. 4 Con. 3 Con. 2 Con. 1 Importance Criterion
Evaluation based on a Basic Decision Matrix Notes from above example: Value of S = 0 Overall Total for concept 3= no. of (+) - no. of (-)  = 3-1=2 Weight Total for concept 2= 25*(-1) + 15*0 + 9*0 +15*1 + 10*0 + 9*0 + 10*0 + 7*1 = -3 From above table Concept 5 is the best
Evaluation based on a Weighted Decision Matrix Develop a criteria weighting matrix Select interval scale for evaluation scoring Create weighted decision matrix and sum weighted evaluations. Select highest value Consider combining strengths of various concepts and rerunning with new concepts
Evaluation based on a Weighted Decision Matrix
Evaluation based on a Weighted Decision Matrix
Evaluation based on a Weighted Decision Matrix
Robust Decision Making Robust decision   refers to make decisions that are as insensitive as possible to the  uncertainty, incompleteness, and evolution  of the information that they are based on. For robust decision making, we need to improve the method used to evaluate the alternatives (step 4 in decision-matrix method). Word Equations used for Robust Decision Making –  Satisfaction = belief that an alternative meets the criteria –  Belief = knowledge + confidence •  Belief is the confidence placed on an alternative’s ability to meet a target set by a criterion, requirement, or specification, based on current knowledge. •  Belief (virtual sum of knowledge and confidence) can be expressed on a  “Belief map.”
Belief Map
Belief Map-Cont.
Belief Map-Cont. Belief=1 Belief=.5 Belief=.5 Belief=0
Evaluation based on Advanced Decision Matrix Steps 1 through 3: same as the Decision Matrix Method Step 4: Evaluate Alternatives –  Use a belief map for comparison –  If little is known or the evaluation result is that the alternative possibly meets the criterion, then belief = 0.5 Step 5: Compute Satisfaction –  Satisfaction = S (belief x importance weighting) •  Max satisfaction = 100 (evaluator is 100% satisfied.)
Evaluation based on Advanced Decision Matrix
Evaluation based on Analytic Hierarchy Process Use Saaty’s fundamental scale for pairwise comparison  Determine weighting factors on criteria Determine ratings for each concept relative to each factor by fractional quantitative or qualitative ranking or pairwise comparison between concepts for each criteria. Create decision matrix Highest weighted sum is selected. Software: Expert Choice
Evaluation based on Analytic Hierarchy Process
Evaluation based on Analytic Hierarchy Process
Evaluation based on Analytic Hierarchy Process
 
Evaluation based on Analytic Hierarchy Process
Decision Management Method Selection Logic
Information Presentation in Concept Evaluation There are two ways to present the information in Concept evaluation: Design-build-test cycle :  building physical models or prototypes. - For  New  technology or  complex  known technology Design-test-build cycle :  developing analytical models and simulating (i.e., testing) the concept before any thing built. - For systems that are  understood  and can be  modeled mathematically .
Information Presentation in Concept Evaluation Design-build-test cycle Design-test-build cycle

More Related Content

PPT
Objective tree method
PPTX
Heat exchangers and types
PPTX
Entrepreneurship (Introduction to Entrepreneurship)
PPT
Design of condenser
PPTX
Geo referencing by Mashhood Arif
PDF
Design for Environment
PPT
Accounting concept
PPTX
PROPER ETIQUETTE AND SAFETY IN THE USE OF-REQUIREMENT.pptx
Objective tree method
Heat exchangers and types
Entrepreneurship (Introduction to Entrepreneurship)
Design of condenser
Geo referencing by Mashhood Arif
Design for Environment
Accounting concept
PROPER ETIQUETTE AND SAFETY IN THE USE OF-REQUIREMENT.pptx

What's hot (20)

PPTX
Concept Generation in Product Design
PPT
Product design and development ch2
PPTX
What is waterfall
PDF
Tools and Techniques of Quality Planning
PPT
Product design and development ch3
PPTX
Taguchi’s quality engineering & analysis
PPTX
Product planing and development
PPTX
PDF
Product development-stages
PDF
New Product Development Process And Strategy PowerPoint Presentation Slides
PPSX
Product failure
PPTX
Taguchi introduction concept 1
PPTX
Value Engineering
PPT
Chapter 7_OM
PPTX
Seminar on Basics of Taguchi Methods
PPTX
Defect prevention
PPTX
Product Manager x UX Designer - UX Café 04
PPSX
Concept Generation Aksh ppt
PPTX
Software Process Models
Concept Generation in Product Design
Product design and development ch2
What is waterfall
Tools and Techniques of Quality Planning
Product design and development ch3
Taguchi’s quality engineering & analysis
Product planing and development
Product development-stages
New Product Development Process And Strategy PowerPoint Presentation Slides
Product failure
Taguchi introduction concept 1
Value Engineering
Chapter 7_OM
Seminar on Basics of Taguchi Methods
Defect prevention
Product Manager x UX Designer - UX Café 04
Concept Generation Aksh ppt
Software Process Models
Ad

Similar to Concept Evaluation And Selection (20)

PPT
Weaver_Concept_Selection_20080729.ppt
PPTX
Pugh matrix concept evaluation in Design
PPTX
UNIT III Concept Inception, Verification and selection.pptx
DOCX
Unit3 productdevelopmentconcepttopf
PPTX
Decisionmaking
PPTX
Item Analysis and scaling methods...pptx
PPT
Eng design 5
PPT
estimating for a better project management.ppt
PDF
Paul Gerrard - Advancing Testing Using Axioms - EuroSTAR 2010
PPT
Fom6 ch04in
PPT
IM426 3A G5.ppt
PPTX
effectivedecisionmaking-111214021741-phpapp02 (1).pptx
PDF
Cox Automotive: Testing Across Multiple Brands
PPT
15826 decision making
PPTX
Market analysis tools in npd (final)
PPT
an understanding of managerial decision making
PPT
Designing the expert system
PDF
RATIONAL DECISION MAKING MODEL
PDF
Executive Briefing: Introduction to Strategic Experimentation
PDF
1st Lecture.pdf
Weaver_Concept_Selection_20080729.ppt
Pugh matrix concept evaluation in Design
UNIT III Concept Inception, Verification and selection.pptx
Unit3 productdevelopmentconcepttopf
Decisionmaking
Item Analysis and scaling methods...pptx
Eng design 5
estimating for a better project management.ppt
Paul Gerrard - Advancing Testing Using Axioms - EuroSTAR 2010
Fom6 ch04in
IM426 3A G5.ppt
effectivedecisionmaking-111214021741-phpapp02 (1).pptx
Cox Automotive: Testing Across Multiple Brands
15826 decision making
Market analysis tools in npd (final)
an understanding of managerial decision making
Designing the expert system
RATIONAL DECISION MAKING MODEL
Executive Briefing: Introduction to Strategic Experimentation
1st Lecture.pdf
Ad

More from QRCE (20)

PPT
Triz Basics -Product Design & Development
PPT
Triz - Product Design & Development
PPT
Product Design & Development
PPT
Product Design & Development - 1
PPT
Pd2Product Design & Development - 2
PPT
J.Promotions Decisons 10
PPT
K.Implementation 11
PPT
H.Pricing Decisions 8
PPT
I.Channel And Distribution Tactics 9
PPT
G.Product Decision 7
PPT
C.Mkis And Mr 3
PPT
D.The Marketing Environment And Competitor Analysis 4
PPT
B.Marketing Planning 2
PPT
Intellectual probability
PPT
Escad & Ce Marking
PPT
Industrial Standards Qrce
PPT
Knauss Angel Investing
PPT
Martin Invention Commercialization Ver 2
PPT
Martin Tto Best Practices Ver3
PPT
Bettaieb Tt Conf Amman
Triz Basics -Product Design & Development
Triz - Product Design & Development
Product Design & Development
Product Design & Development - 1
Pd2Product Design & Development - 2
J.Promotions Decisons 10
K.Implementation 11
H.Pricing Decisions 8
I.Channel And Distribution Tactics 9
G.Product Decision 7
C.Mkis And Mr 3
D.The Marketing Environment And Competitor Analysis 4
B.Marketing Planning 2
Intellectual probability
Escad & Ce Marking
Industrial Standards Qrce
Knauss Angel Investing
Martin Invention Commercialization Ver 2
Martin Tto Best Practices Ver3
Bettaieb Tt Conf Amman

Recently uploaded (20)

PDF
Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Surgery in India
PPTX
Renaissance Architecture: A Journey from Faith to Humanism
PDF
Chapter 2 Heredity, Prenatal Development, and Birth.pdf
PDF
Supply Chain Operations Speaking Notes -ICLT Program
PPTX
IMMUNITY IMMUNITY refers to protection against infection, and the immune syst...
PPTX
master seminar digital applications in india
PPTX
school management -TNTEU- B.Ed., Semester II Unit 1.pptx
PDF
grade 11-chemistry_fetena_net_5883.pdf teacher guide for all student
PDF
Module 4: Burden of Disease Tutorial Slides S2 2025
PPTX
Microbial diseases, their pathogenesis and prophylaxis
PDF
3rd Neelam Sanjeevareddy Memorial Lecture.pdf
PDF
O5-L3 Freight Transport Ops (International) V1.pdf
PPTX
Week 4 Term 3 Study Techniques revisited.pptx
PDF
FourierSeries-QuestionsWithAnswers(Part-A).pdf
PDF
Classroom Observation Tools for Teachers
PDF
102 student loan defaulters named and shamed – Is someone you know on the list?
PDF
ANTIBIOTICS.pptx.pdf………………… xxxxxxxxxxxxx
PPTX
Cell Types and Its function , kingdom of life
PDF
Saundersa Comprehensive Review for the NCLEX-RN Examination.pdf
PPTX
BOWEL ELIMINATION FACTORS AFFECTING AND TYPES
Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Surgery in India
Renaissance Architecture: A Journey from Faith to Humanism
Chapter 2 Heredity, Prenatal Development, and Birth.pdf
Supply Chain Operations Speaking Notes -ICLT Program
IMMUNITY IMMUNITY refers to protection against infection, and the immune syst...
master seminar digital applications in india
school management -TNTEU- B.Ed., Semester II Unit 1.pptx
grade 11-chemistry_fetena_net_5883.pdf teacher guide for all student
Module 4: Burden of Disease Tutorial Slides S2 2025
Microbial diseases, their pathogenesis and prophylaxis
3rd Neelam Sanjeevareddy Memorial Lecture.pdf
O5-L3 Freight Transport Ops (International) V1.pdf
Week 4 Term 3 Study Techniques revisited.pptx
FourierSeries-QuestionsWithAnswers(Part-A).pdf
Classroom Observation Tools for Teachers
102 student loan defaulters named and shamed – Is someone you know on the list?
ANTIBIOTICS.pptx.pdf………………… xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cell Types and Its function , kingdom of life
Saundersa Comprehensive Review for the NCLEX-RN Examination.pdf
BOWEL ELIMINATION FACTORS AFFECTING AND TYPES

Concept Evaluation And Selection

  • 1. Concept Evaluation and Selection Prepared by: We’am Obaidat Supervised by: Dr. Abdullah Dwairi
  • 2. Introduction Concept Evaluation implies both comparison and decision making . The Goal : To expend the least amount of resources on deciding which concepts have the highest potential for becoming a quality product. The Difficulty : To choose the best concept with very limited knowledge and data on which to base this selection. Design is learning , and resources are limited The greater knowledge about the concept, the fewer surprises
  • 3. Introduction-cont. Two Types of Comparisons Absolute : Alternative concept is compared directly with a target set by a criterion Relative: Alternatives are compared with each other using measures defined by the criteria. Possible only when there is more than one option. For comparisons, the alternatives and criteria must be: In the same language (meters vs. long) At the same level of abstraction
  • 4. Concept Evaluation Techniques There are many techniques used to evaluate concept such as: Feasibility Judgment GO/NO-GO Screening Basic Decision Matrix Weighted Decision Matrix Advanced Decision Matrix Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
  • 6. Evaluation based on Feasibility Judgment Three Immediate Reactions of a Designer as a concept is generated based on designer’s “ gut feel ”: – It is not Feasible. – It might work if something else happens. – It is worth considering. A comparison based on experience and knowledge
  • 7. Evaluation based on Feasibility Judgment Implications of Each of these Reactions: – It Is Not Feasible • Before discarding an idea, ask “Why is it not feasible?” - Technologically infeasible - Not meeting customer’s requirements - Concept is different - NIH • Make sure not to discard an idea because: – a concept is similar to ones that are already established, or – a concept is not invented here (less ego-satisfying).
  • 8. Evaluation based on Feasibility Judgment – It is Conditional. • To judge a concept workable if something else happens. • Factors are the readiness of technology, the possibility of obtaining currently unavailable information, or the development of some other part of the product.
  • 9. Evaluation based on Feasibility Judgment – It is Worth Considering • The hardest concept to evaluate is one that is not obviously a good idea or a bad one, but looks worth considering. • Such a concept requires engineering knowledge and experience. If sufficient knowledge is not immediately available, it must be developed using models or prototypes that are easily evaluated.
  • 10. Evaluation based on GO/NO-GO Screening Measures for deciding to go or no-go: 1– Criteria defined by the customer requirements: • Absolute evaluation by comparing each alternative concept with the customer requirements. • A concept with a few no-go responses may be worth modifying rather than eliminating • This type of evaluation not only weeds out designs that should not be considered further, but also helps generates new ideas.
  • 11. Evaluation based on GO/NO-GO Screening 2– Readiness of the technologies used: • This technique refines the evaluation by forcing an absolute comparison with state-of-the-art capabilities. • The Technology must be mature enough that its use is a design issue, not a research issue. • There are high incentive to include new technologies in products.
  • 12. Evaluation based on GO/NO-GO Screening • 6 Measures for a Technology’s Maturity: – Are the critical parameters that control the function identified? – Are the safe operating latitude and sensitivity of the parameters known? – Have the failure modes been identified? – Can the technology be manufactured with known process? – Does hardware exist that demonstrates positive answers to the preceding four questions? – Is the technology controllable through the product’s life cycle? • If these questions are not answered in the positive, a consultant or vendor is added to the team.
  • 13. Evaluation based on a Basic Decision Matrix Decision-Matrix Method (or Pugh’s Method): Select decision criteria Formulate decision matrix Clarify design concepts being evaluated Choose “Datum” or best initial concept Compare other concepts to Datum based on +, -, S scale. Evaluate the ratings: important to discuss concepts strengths and weaknesses. Good discussion can lead to new, combined, better solution concepts Select a new “datum” concept and rerun analysis Plan further work. Often new needs for information and concepts come from first meeting. Second working session to repeat above and select a concept.
  • 14. D A T U M 42 9 23 -3 35 Weighted total 4 2 2 1 3 Overall total 1 1 1 1 0 Total - 5 3 3 2 3 Total + + S + + S 7 Fits hand better + + + S + 10 More secure locking + S S S S 9 Stacking stability + S S S + 10 Hinge doesn’t come apart S + + + S 15 Easier to remove CD - + - S S 9 Easier to remove leaflet + S S S + 15 Easier Opening S - S - S 25 Manufacturing Cost Con.5 Con. 4 Con. 3 Con. 2 Con. 1 Importance Criterion
  • 15. Evaluation based on a Basic Decision Matrix Notes from above example: Value of S = 0 Overall Total for concept 3= no. of (+) - no. of (-) = 3-1=2 Weight Total for concept 2= 25*(-1) + 15*0 + 9*0 +15*1 + 10*0 + 9*0 + 10*0 + 7*1 = -3 From above table Concept 5 is the best
  • 16. Evaluation based on a Weighted Decision Matrix Develop a criteria weighting matrix Select interval scale for evaluation scoring Create weighted decision matrix and sum weighted evaluations. Select highest value Consider combining strengths of various concepts and rerunning with new concepts
  • 17. Evaluation based on a Weighted Decision Matrix
  • 18. Evaluation based on a Weighted Decision Matrix
  • 19. Evaluation based on a Weighted Decision Matrix
  • 20. Robust Decision Making Robust decision refers to make decisions that are as insensitive as possible to the uncertainty, incompleteness, and evolution of the information that they are based on. For robust decision making, we need to improve the method used to evaluate the alternatives (step 4 in decision-matrix method). Word Equations used for Robust Decision Making – Satisfaction = belief that an alternative meets the criteria – Belief = knowledge + confidence • Belief is the confidence placed on an alternative’s ability to meet a target set by a criterion, requirement, or specification, based on current knowledge. • Belief (virtual sum of knowledge and confidence) can be expressed on a “Belief map.”
  • 23. Belief Map-Cont. Belief=1 Belief=.5 Belief=.5 Belief=0
  • 24. Evaluation based on Advanced Decision Matrix Steps 1 through 3: same as the Decision Matrix Method Step 4: Evaluate Alternatives – Use a belief map for comparison – If little is known or the evaluation result is that the alternative possibly meets the criterion, then belief = 0.5 Step 5: Compute Satisfaction – Satisfaction = S (belief x importance weighting) • Max satisfaction = 100 (evaluator is 100% satisfied.)
  • 25. Evaluation based on Advanced Decision Matrix
  • 26. Evaluation based on Analytic Hierarchy Process Use Saaty’s fundamental scale for pairwise comparison Determine weighting factors on criteria Determine ratings for each concept relative to each factor by fractional quantitative or qualitative ranking or pairwise comparison between concepts for each criteria. Create decision matrix Highest weighted sum is selected. Software: Expert Choice
  • 27. Evaluation based on Analytic Hierarchy Process
  • 28. Evaluation based on Analytic Hierarchy Process
  • 29. Evaluation based on Analytic Hierarchy Process
  • 30.  
  • 31. Evaluation based on Analytic Hierarchy Process
  • 32. Decision Management Method Selection Logic
  • 33. Information Presentation in Concept Evaluation There are two ways to present the information in Concept evaluation: Design-build-test cycle : building physical models or prototypes. - For New technology or complex known technology Design-test-build cycle : developing analytical models and simulating (i.e., testing) the concept before any thing built. - For systems that are understood and can be modeled mathematically .
  • 34. Information Presentation in Concept Evaluation Design-build-test cycle Design-test-build cycle