The Pugh Method of

Creative Concept Evaluation

USE THE ENGINEER’S MINDSET

Problem Solving Process Related Task

Data Collection, Analysis Goals, Objectives

Customer/Market Analysis,
PROBLEM DEFINITION
Design Criteria

CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
Brainstorming Engineering, Cost Analyses
Tolerances
IDEA GENERATION
PROCESS PLANNING
OPTIMIZED DESIGNS
Pugh Method
Design Review
Go/No Go Decision
IDEA EVALUATION
BEST DESIGN

IDEA JUDGMENT Detail Drawings

PROTOTYPE
IMPLEMENTATION
 Steps and Documentation in Engineering Design
DESIGN STEP
1. Identify the forces driving the
EXPLORER + DETECTIVE
design
2. Identify design constraints
3. Identify user needs
4. Define the objectives or design
specifications
5. Analyze the design problem
and its context
6. Plan the design process
ARTIST + ENGINEER
7. Develop concepts and select
best alternatives
+ JUDGE
8. Complete system level design
9. Complete the detailed design
10. Test effectiveness of design
11. Review design at each stage
PROD.
12. Iterate, refine, optimize design
and communicate the results
DOCUMENTATION
DP1 Project concept statement
DP2 Table of design constraints
DP3 Customer survey
DP4 Table of design objectives
DP 5 Design problem analysis and
statement
DP6 Project plan, design proposal
DP7 Pugh matrix, design concept
descriptions, drawings
DP8 Progress report, BOM, analyses
DP9 Production specs, drawings
DP10 Prototype test plan
DP11 Design evaluation results report
DP12 Final project report and team
evaluation/presentations
 What Is the Pugh Method?

It is a creative design idea or concept evaluation

technique that uses criteria derived from
the “voice of the customer”
in an advantage-disadvantage matrix.
Each concept is evaluated against a datum
using a three-way evaluation scheme.

EVALUATION SCALE
+ means substantially better
― means clearly worse (or flawed)
S means more or less the same
 Additional Features
1. A “best” conventional design can be used as datum against
which the new designs are compared.
2. While the team completes the evaluation matrix, it
generates new ideas and thus adds new concepts to the
matrix.
3. This process is repeated several times over days (for
students) or weeks/months (in industry), until a superior
concept emerges that cannot be overturned since all
negatives (“flaws”) have been removed.
 Benefits of the Pugh Method
1. Discussions reveal arbitrary criteria. Team members
gain insight into the problem and clearly understand
the criteria which become better defined.
2. The discussion also leads to creative leaps between
different concepts and idea synthesis, as flaws are
attacked together and the team experiences synergy.
3. The team develops consensus about the best
solution.
4. The resulting new concepts are better than the
original ideas. No flaws are overlooked; engineering
changes are eliminated, and invulnerable products are
developed that will succeed in the marketplace.
5. The method results in cost savings.
 The Pugh Method — Phase I
1. The design teams brainstorm and rank a list of 15 to
20 evaluation criteria (based on customer needs).
2. The design teams develop imaginative concepts.
3. The matrix is prepared on a large wallboard, and the
best existing product is chosen as benchmark/datum.
4. Each team’s design concept is discussed and
evaluated against the list of criteria and the datum.
5. The ratings are evaluated.
6. The design teams work to strengthen the positives
and removed the negatives through synthesis and
new ideas; these concepts are added to the matrix
which is rerun for one or more rounds, with the
strongest concept chosen as the datum each time.
 The Pugh Method — Phase II
1. Over a period of time, the teams further develop
their best concepts, run analyses, and research
missing information. The designs/concepts are
now engineered or developed to more detail.
2. Weaker designs/ideas are dropped (after their
good points have been judged for use elsewhere).
3. The matrix and concept improvement process are
iterated until a winning concept emerges. All team
members understand why this solution is best—all
good points have been strengthened and all
negatives overcome.

OUTCOME:
Everyone is committed to the “best” or optimized
design which is now ready for development into a
commercial product.
 Cost Impact of Decisions

85%

Committed
Manufacturing
Cost

CONCEPT PROTOTYPE PRODUCTION

Design Cycle Phase

 Influence on Product Cost (Car Example)
PRODUCT COST INFLUENCE ON COST
5%
Overhead 5%
30%
20%

Labor
15%

Materials 70%

50%

Design

5%
 Comparison of Engineering Changes
US and Japan
Number of Engineering Job #1
Changes Processed
US COMPANY

JAPANESE COMPANY

© 2004 Edward Lumsdaine -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 Months

 Kitchen Lighting Example
© 2004 Monika Lumsdaine

Table 1 Existing Kitchen Lighting Fixtures

I.D. #,Rating Type Fixture Location Switching

A 4, 20 watt 2-ft fluorescent, triangular Under wall cabinets individual

B 4, 40 watt 4-ft fluorescent tube On top of cabinets 3-way switch
C 2, 75 watt Aluminum spotlight 5 ft above sink individual
D 1, 20 watt 2-ft fluorescent tube Under microwave Plug-in cord

Problem Briefing
A large Pullman-type kitchen in a 1940s house is quite dark at night, worst at
the sink and chopping board located in front of the window. The cherry
paneled ceiling has an average height of almost 11 ft and is traversed by a
14 in. x 6 in. wood-laminate beam supporting the flat roof above. All walls,
countertops and metal wall cabinets are beige; the vinyl floor has a brownish
brick pattern. Bottom cabinets are brick-red. The fluorescent tubes lying on
top of the cabinets, as well as the spotlights, are ugly, look cheap, and are
hard to clean. None of the lighting fixtures give adequate light for their tasks.
 Table 2 Pugh Evaluation Round 1: Kitchen Lighting Concepts
1 Track Lighting Install an 8-ft long track with 4 movable spots (50 watt
each, black) to match existing track light in adjacent living room. Plug
into outlet over cabinet near sink.
2 Sink Task Lighting Replace the two spotlights over the sink with new,
nicer-looking, and more efficient practical lamps.

3 Over-Cabinet Strip Lighting Replace the fluorescent tubes with a

lighted strip along the top of all wall cabinets.

4 Fluorescent Hanging Fixtures Install two 4-ft fluorescent fixtures with

efficient diffusers at 8-ft level (from chains, with wood surrounds) to
replace the over-the-cabinet tubes; wire to main switch. Option
explored with supplier.
5 Halogen Fixtures Install two hanging halogen down lights; wire to
main switch; match chrome style of under-cabinet triangular fixtures.
Option explored with supplier.
6 Brighter Surfaces Paint walls white; install white vinyl flooring; install
new white countertop; paint cherry panels in ceiling while.
 Table 3 Pugh Method Round 1 Kitchen Lighting Concept Evaluation
# Criteria Now 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Adequate sink task lighting S + ― + + ―
2 Other countertop lighting ― S ― + + ―
3 General lighting S S S + + +
4 Light to ceiling ― S + ― ― +
5 Energy efficient D ― + ― + + +
A
6 Easy to clean + S S S + ―
T
7 Easy bulb replacement U + S ― S + S
8 Allow deletion of tubes M ― ― + ― ― ―
9 Matching adjacent room fixture + + ― ― ― S
10 Attractive high-tech look + + + + + S
11 Low installation labor cost ― + + ― ― ―
12 Low materials cost ― ― ― ― ― ―
TOTAL POSITIVES (+) 4 5 4 5 7 3
TOTAL NEGATIVES (―) 6 2 6 5 5 6
Table 4 Pugh Evaluation Round 2: New or Improved Lighting Concepts
5 Halogen Fixtures Install two hanging halogen down lights; wire to
main switch; match chrome style of under-cabinet fixtures.
7 Fluorescent Track Lighting Install a black 8-ft long, 2-circuit track
with 3 movable cans (150 watt incandescent bulbs or fluorescent bulb
option) and one 2-ft fluorescent, 40 watt movable parabolic louvered
diffuser to match living room track light. Mount to bottom of beam;
connect to main switches with conduit along beam edge.

8 Sink Task Lighting Replace two spotlights over the sink with black
cans matching the track lights of Option #7. Use fluorescent bulbs.

9 Over-Cabinet Strip Lighting Replace the fluorescent tubes with a

rope light along the top of all wall cabinets.

10 Fluorescent Hanging Fixtures Install two 4-ft fluorescent fixtures

with efficient diffusers at 8-ft level (sleek high-tech design); hang from
ceiling, centered between counters.

11 Halogen Fixtures Install two hanging halogen down lights; wire to

main switch; match style of dining room chandelier, if possible.
 Table 5 Pugh Method Round 2 Kitchen Lighting Concept Evaluation
# Criteria 5 7 8 9 10 11
1 Adequate sink task light S + ― S S
2 Countertop lighting (window wall) + + ― S S
3 Countertop lighting (stove wall) + ― ― S S
4 Ceiling illumination S S + S S
5 Low-energy night lighting S + + S S
6 Low glare + + + + S
7 Flexible (direction, additions, lumens) + + ― S S
8 Easy bulb replacement D S S ― ― S
9 Energy efficient A S S ― S S
10 Easy to clean T S S ― S S
U
11 Preserves view of ceiling/open space S + + ― S
M
12 Allows deletion of B tubes + ― + S S
13 Matching adjacent room lamp styles + + S ― +
14 Attractive to future owners + + ― ― S
15 Low labor cost S + + S S
16 Low materials cost ― + ― + S
TOTAL POSITIVES (+) 6 10 6 2 1
TOTAL NEGATIVES (―) 2 2 9 4 0
Table 6 Pugh Evaluation Round 3: New or Improved Lighting Concepts

8 Sink Task Lighting Replace two spotlights over the sink with black
cans matching the track lights of Option #7. Use fluorescent bulbs.

12 Fluorescent Track Lighting System Install a black 8-ft long, 2-circuit

track with 3 movable cans with fluorescent bulbs and two 2-ft
fluorescent, 40-watt movable parabolic louvered diffusers (“wall
washers”). Mount to bottom of beam; connect to main switches with
conduit along beam/ceiling edge. Replace the two spotlights over the
sink with matching cans and fluorescent bulbs to achieve a flexible,
attractive, and easily modified, adjustable lighting system.

11 Halogen Fixtures Install two hanging halogen down lights; wire to

main switch; match style of dining room chandelier, if possible.
 Table 7 Pugh Method Round 3 Kitchen Lighting Concept Evaluation
Criteria 8 12 11
1 Adequate sink task light + ―
2 Countertop lighting (window wall) + ―
3 Countertop lighting (stove wall) + ―
4 Indirect lighting to ceiling (eliminate cave look) + S
5 Low-energy night lighting + ―
6 Low glare, especially for eye-glass wearers + ―
7 Flexible in direction, light level, future additions D + ―
A
8,9 Easy bulb replacement; easy to clean of grease buildup S,S S.S
T
10 Energy efficient, cool burning U S ―
11 Sun-type lighting quality M + +
12 Preserves view of beautiful paneled ceiling S ―
13 Allows deletion of all plugged-in tubes S ―
14 Matching adjoining living and dining room light fixtures + S
15 Attractive to future owners; good “selling” point S ―
16 Reasonable installation costs + S
17 Material cost in line with “value added” S S
TOTAL POSITIVES (+) 10 1
TOTAL NEGATIVES (―) 0 10
 Comments to Kitchen Lighting Example
Round 1: None of the concepts provided a satisfactory solution.
More options are needed. Concept #6 (painting) is dropped.

Round 2: Concepts #9 and #10 are eliminated. Concepts #7 and #8

are combined into Concept #12. Concept #11 (which had no
negatives) is carried forward unchanged.

Round 3: Concept #12 is shown to be superior (no negatives); it

solves the original problem with added value (flexibility and
lighting that exceeded the customer’s expectations). Note how
the list of criteria became more “demanding” in each round. The
total cost of $742 was acceptable since the system is very
functional as well as attractive.

CONCLUSION: The Pugh method was crucial for clarifying criteria,

generating viable options, and identifying the optimal solution.
The customer is very pleased with the new lighting.
 Accessing the Car Horn Example (Stuart Pugh)

1. Get online at www.engineering-creativity.com

2. In left-hand menu, click on “Teaching Aids”
3. Scroll to File 8 and click on
“Teaching Chapters 10, 11, 12 of Textbook”
4. Scroll to File 8b “Teaching Chapter 11.” See
Page 18 for Design Criteria for Car Horn (11-3), with
discussion on Page 19.
1. Click on Pugh Design Concepts for Car Horn (11-4)
6. Click on Pugh Round 1 Evaluation for Car Horn (11-5)
Pugh Method Matrix for Heat Transfer Syllabus (Partial List)
KEY:
S = Satisfactory
+ = Advantage
― = Disadvantage
Relevant to Subject
Useful
Teachable
Duplication
Fit with Context
Need in Later Courses
Need in Industry
Need in Design
Integrated in Other Courses
TOTALS
Boundary Layers
Heat Exchangers
Convection Corr.
Fin.Diff. Methods
Product Solution
Temp. Chart Use
Energy Balance
Dimensionless
+ S + + + + + +
+ ― + + + S + +
+ ― + + + S + +
S S S + S S + S
S S S + + S + S
+ ― S S + ― S +
+ ― + + + ― + +
+ ― + + + S + S
+ ― S S S S S +
7+ 0+ 5+ 7+ 7+ 1+ 7+ 6+
0– 6– 0– 0– 0– 2– 0– 0–