Module

1
Introduction
IIT, Bombay
 Lecture
2
Concept Generation and Evaluation

IIT, Bombay
Instructional objectives
The primary objective of this lecture is to outline the importance of concept generation and
selection in decision making exercises in a product development.

Introduction
Concept generation and the final selection of a concept through proper evaluation are critical
decision making steps in product development. The primary aim of concept generation and
evaluation is to ensure that the product can perform all of the major functions. This may be done
by simple calculations, sketches, circuit diagram, proof-of-concept models, or by a detailed
written description of the concept. The stage of concept generation and evaluation should
minimize the possibility of misrepresenting a solution, which may actually be effective, and
consider different ramification of a final decision. For example, not considering the customer’s
need during the concept generation and evaluation phase may lead to the failure of the product in
the market. Typical steps involved in concept generation and evaluation is shown below [Figure
1.2.1].

Figure 1.2.1 Various stages involved during concept generation and evaluation

IIT, Bombay
Creative Thinking
Creative thinking is critical for concept generation for a product development. The process of
creative thinking can be viewed as a step to move from an unstructured idea to a well-structured,
from an implicit to an explicit design. Following steps are considered helpful in encouraging
effective creative thinking in the process of concept generation.
Develop a creative attitude
It is very essential to develop confidence that one can provide a creative solution to a given
problem.
Unlock your imagination
One should always ask questions like “what” or “what if” and discuss all possibilities. One
should spend time on understanding the problem given and be able to realize various queries that
may be associated with the problem given.
Be persistent
Most of the problems are never solved in their first or even initial few attempts. One should
rather peruse the solution of a given problem with persistence to find out alternate solutions or
designs.
Develop an open mind
One should always be receptive to ideas from any and all sources for newer concepts.
Suspend your judgment
The concept generation stage should preclude early judgments. Often the creative ideas develop
slowly and require time to proceed in an explicit manner. Thus, the concept generation stage
should not be hampered by critical judgment at the initial level.
Set problem boundaries
This is extremely important for concept generation. It is widely accepted that setting problem
boundaries at the very initial stage does not limit creative design ideas but rather focuses it more.

Conceptual Decomposition
An effective way to solve a complex problem is to decompose it into smaller parts that are easier
to manage and then recombine all the ideas or designs to arrive at the final solution. There are
two main approaches towards conceptual decomposition.

IIT, Bombay
Decomposition in Physical Domain
In this stage, the product design is decomposed directly into a number of subassemblies and parts
/ components. This is the initial step. It should be possible to describe how these subassemblies
and part/components work together to accomplish the required function of the product. The
function of each of the parts and sub-assemblies, and the way there are connected and interact
with each other should be realized explicitly. Each of these subassemblies may be further
decomposed into smaller subassemblies and component. This continues till we reach the
component level of all the subassemblies. The design information that is available at every level
of decomposition is slightly different from its preceding level. However, the functions of the
components and subassemblies down the line would possibly be quite different from the function
of the final product. Following example [Figure 1.2.2] shows the decomposition of a typical
bicycle in the physical domain for the purpose of product design.

Figure 1.2.2 Decomposition of a bicycle in physical domain for product design purpose

Decomposition in Function Domain

In functional decomposition, the system functions are descried as the transformation between an
initial stage and the desired final state. The approach of concept generation by functional
decompositions was originated in the German schools of design. The input and the output of the
functional devices are usually described in terms of either energy flow, material flow or
information flow. The functions associated with the flow of energy are classified both by the
type of energy and by its action on the system. The types of energy are usually classified as
mechanical, chemical, electrical, fluid and thermal energy. The actions on the system are
envisaged as change, change back, enlarge, reduce, change in direction and so on. The material
flow is classified as through-flow or material-conserving process in which the position or shape

IIT, Bombay
of the material is changed, diverging flow in which the material is divided in two or more number
of small parts, and converging flow, in which the materials are joined or assembled. The
information flow is basically in the form of mechanical or electrical signal or software
instruction. Hence, the process of functional decomposition describes the design problem in
terms of flow of energy material and information. Table 1.2.1 shows the decomposition of
typical devices in functional domain.

Table 1.2.1 Functional domain decomposition of three common devices

Device Input Function Other effect Output

Rotating
Change direction Rotational
Gear mechanical Change speed of rotation
of rotation mechanical energy
energy
Mechanical Transfers Graphite from Graphite deposit on
Pencil
energy pencil to paper paper
Converts electrical
Electrical Generate Rotational
Motor energy to mechanical
energy Thermal energy mechanical energy
energy

Generating Design Concepts

The design concepts are necessary to build the functions of the product. In other words, the
design concepts provide the answer “how” for the intended function of a product. Usually, a
design team is formed in which every team member spends several hours working individually
on a few subsets of the overall problem for example, how to identify the sub-functions, and so
on, Next, the team members would assemble together to discuss and improve the concepts
developed individually and in turn, a number of small design concepts would be generated.

Morphological Chart
The morphological chart is a method to arrange all the functions and sub-functions in a logical
order. The morphological chart also enlists the possible “how”s for each sub-functions with an

IIT, Bombay
aim to realize the combinations of ideas comprising several design concepts. Following is the
typical procedure to develop a morphological chart.

(1) Establish the functions that the design product must perform
(2) List the functions, one per row, in a chart.
(3) For each function (row), list a wide range of sub-solutions, one per column.
(4) Select an acceptable set of sub-solutions, one for each function.

Table 1.2.2 shows an example of a morphological chart for the packing of parts like nuts and
screws, etc. In the chart, some of the alternatives along a row may be combined to give a single
solution, e.g. for picking up the parts, a vacuum arm could be used and for orienting parts, step
feeder can be used. If every solution on each row is compatible with all the solutions on the other
rows the number of the possible solutions to the system is a multiple of all the ideas on the rows,
the possibilities would be enormous.

Table 1.2.2 Schematic presentation of a morphological chart of packing parts

Functions Option1 Option1 Option1
Picking parts Mechanical Arm Vacuum Arm Pneumatic arm
Orienting parts Step feeder Bowl feeder Centrifugal feeder
Storing parts Rack system Shelves and Bins Drawer Storage
Industrial manual Industrial trucks Automatic Guided
Transporting parts
trolleys (powered) vehicles

Combining Concepts
This is the step when many fragmented small design concepts are combined to yield a final
design concept. Number of possible combinations may be many and all should equally be
evaluated or checked for viability. The next step is to combine the concepts to arrive at a set of
ultimate design concepts.

IIT, Bombay
Evaluation Method
Once all the design concepts are more or less selected based on feasibility, these concepts are to
be evaluated before the final finished design. Evaluation of these concepts involves various
comparisons either in an absolute or in a relative manner among several possible design
concepts.

Absolute Comparison of Design Concepts

It consists of comparing the concepts to a series of absolute filters.
[1] Evaluation based on judgment of feasibility of the design: This is the first screening and
involves an assessment of the feasibility of the design concepts by the experts.
[2] Evaluation based on assessment of technology readiness: This is the second screening and
involves an assessment of the readiness of a product manufacturer to produce the designed
product without additional research efforts.
[3] Evaluation based on go-no-go screening of the customers’ requirements: This step involves
an evaluation whether the design has undertaken the customers’ requirements or feedbacks.
Each customer requirement should be transformed in to a question and should be
answerable as either yes (go), maybe(go) or no (no-go). This should help to eliminate any
design concept that cannot address an important customer requirement.

Relative Comparison of Design Concepts

Relative comparisons help to work out the importance of a number of options relative to each
other especially when there are no objective data available to set the standard for comparison
relative comparison really helps to remove any sort of ambiguity while selecting the most
appropriate candidate. There are various ways methods for comparing concept designs by
relative comparisons. Some of the most important ones are
• Pugh's Concept selection Method
• Weighted Decision Matrix
• Analytical hierarchy process.

IIT, Bombay
Pugh's Concept Selection Method
This is a widely accepted method for comparing concepts that are not refined enough for direct
comparison with the engineering requirements. Following are the steps involved in this method
which are explained with the help of an example. In the example comparison of the effectiveness
between three different types of hinges that are used in cabinets is being done. The three options
for the hinge are butt hinge, flush hinge and barrel hinge as shown in the Figure 1.2.3.

1. Choose or develop the criteria for comparison: The criteria can be identified by examining
the customer requirements and generating a corresponding a set of engineering requirements
and targets. In our example the criterias are cost of the part, durability, time to production of
the part and reliability.
2. Select the alternatives to be compared: The alternatives refer to the alternate ideas developed
during concept generation. All concepts should be compared at the same level of
generalization and in similar language. In the following example, the barrel hinge is taken as
the datum and the other two hinge are compared with this datum level
3. Generate Scores: Designers should pick one of the design concepts that they think is the
most appropriate and call it the datum. Now all the other being compared to the datum
concept as measured by each of the customer requirements. For each comparison the product
should be evaluated as being better (+), the same (S), or worse (-).If it is impossible to make
a comparison, more information should be developed. The scores are shown in Table 1.2.3
for our example.
4. Compute the total score: Four scores will be generated, the number of plus scores, minus
scores, the overall total and the weighted total. The overall total is the number of plus scores
minus the number of minus scores. The weighted total is the scores times their respective
weighting factors, added up. The totals should not be treated as absolute in the decision
making process but as the guidance only. If the two top scores are very close or very similar,
then they should be examined more closely to make a more informed decision. For our
example, we can clearly see that the overall score for the flush hinge is 1 and that for the butt
hinge is -1.

IIT, Bombay
 Butt hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge

Figure 1.2.3 Schematic presentation of three different types of hinges

[Source: http://www.technologystudent.com/joints/hinge1.htm]

Table 1.2.3 Evaluation on the basis of Pugh's Concept Selection Method

Criterion Butt Hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge
Cost of part - +
Durability + S D
Time to produce S - A
Reliability - + T
Σ+ 1 2 U
Σ- 2 1 M
ΣS 1 1

Weighted Decision Matrix

A decision matrix is used to evaluate the competing design concepts by ranking them with
weighting factors and scoring the degree to which each design concept meets the criteria. It is a
simple tool that can be very useful in making complex decisions, especially in cases where there
are many alternatives and many criteria to be considered. Thus it makes as a qualitative tool to
evaluate the alternatives. The procedure for weighted decision matrix is explained below with the
help of the above example [Figure 1.2.3]. The above example considers three different types of
hinges – (1) butt hinge, (2) flush hinge, and (3) barrel hinge – that are used in a cabinet. These
hinges are required to be produced in bulk. Following is usually the procedure to evaluate the
concept based on a weighted decision matrix.

IIT, Bombay
1. Identify the Criteria: The more specific the criteria are, the better will be the results of the
evaluation. While it is also desirable to have the criteria that are independent of one another,
it is rarely possible. For our current example the criteria are the cost of the part, the time to
production of the part, and durability and reliability of the parts.
2. Rank and Weigh the Criteria: Some criteria are probably more important than the others.
The relative ranking of the criteria will off course affect the evaluation. It is therefore
preferable to find out a a way of assigning weights to the criteria so that their relative
importance (e.g., reliability may be more important than cost of the part) can be quantified.
We can consider the following criteria and the respective weights within parenthesis.
(a) Cost of the part (0.50);
(b) Durability (0.30)
(c) Time to production of the part (0.10)
(d) Reliability (0.10)
3. Choose a Ranking Scale: In order to evaluate each design concept option, we need to
confirm which one is better (with respect to each criterion). An often-used scale for this is a
linear, symmetrical scale as shown below in Table 1.2.4.

Table 1.2.4 Evaluation scale for design objective

11-point scale Description 11-point scale Description
0 Totally useless solution 6 Good solution but a few drawbacks
1 Very inadequate solution 7 Good solution
2 Weak solution 8 Very good solution
3 Poor solution 9 Excellent
4 Tolerable solution 10 Ideal solution
5 Satisfactory solution

4. Calculating the weighting factor for each criterion: This is achieved by multiplying the
weightage of the criteria by the score of the criteria for each of the design concept. The
calculation for the above example is shown below [Table 1.2.5].

IIT, Bombay
 Table 1.2.5 Weight decision matrix for selection of a hinge
Weight Butt Hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge
Design Criteria
Factor Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating
Cost of part 0.5 8 4.0 7 3.5 9 4.5
Durability 0.3 7 2.1 6 1.8 9 2.7
Time to produce 0.1 6 0.6 5 0.5 7 0.7
Reliability 0.6 0.5 0.8
0.1 6 5 8
Total 7.3 6.3 8.7

5. Overall score rating: This is the sum of the weighted factors of all the criteria for a
particular design concept in step 4. For example, the overall rating for the butt hinge is
4.0 + 2.1 + 0.6 + 0.6 = 7.3 .
6. The one with the highest score is the best design concept which is the Barrel Hinge in
Table 1.2.2.

Analytical Hierarchy Process

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is designed to solve multi-criteria decision problems.
Several alternatives are compared in AHP on the basis of the same set of attributes. The typical
steps involved in performing the AHP: (a) make pairwise comparisons, (b) synthesize judgments,
and (c) check for consistency. A typical AHP based evaluation process is explained in detail in
Figure 1.2.4 considering the selection of the most suitable hinge as in the previous method.

IIT, Bombay
 Selecting the best hinge

Criteria Cost Durability Time to produce

Butt hinge Butt hinge Butt hinge

Alternatives Flush hinge Flush hinge Flush hinge

Barrel hinge Barrel hinge Barrel hinge

Figure 1.2.4 Evaluation of different types of hinges through AHP method

1. Make pairwise comparisons: Pairwise comparison is widely found to be effective with the
assignment of relative weights. We compare here each alternative with another in a pairwise
manner for each criterion. Following [Table 1.2.6] is the scale that is used for pairwise
comparison [in Table 1.2.7, Table 1.2.8, Table 1.2.9 and Table 1.2.10].

Table 1.2.6 Scale / Rating used for selection of a hinge

Verbal Judgment of Preferences Numerical Rating
Extremely preferred 9
Very strongly to extremely 8
Very strongly preferred 7
Strongly to very strongly 6
Strongly preferred 5
Moderately to strongly 4
Moderately preferred 3
Equally to moderately 2
Equally preferred 1

IIT, Bombay
 Table 1.2.7 Pairwise comparison of cost, durability and time to produce
Cost Durability Time to produce
Cost 1 5 6
Durability 1/5 1 1/3
Time to produce 1/6 3 1

Table 1.2.8 Pairwise comparison of three different hinges for cost

Butt hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge
Butt hinge 1 4 1/3
Flush hinge ¼ 1 1/7
Barrel hinge 3 7 1

Table 1.2.9 Pairwise comparison of three different hinges for durability

Butt hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge
Butt hinge 1 1/6 1
Flush hinge 6 1 6
Barrel hinge 1 1/6 1

Table 1.2.10 Pairwise comparison of three different hinges for “time to produce”
Butt hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge
Butt hinge 1 5 8
Flush hinge 1/5 1 3
Barrel hinge 1/8 1/3 1

2. Synthesis – The priority of each criterion in terms of its contribution to the overall goal of
achieving your goal is computed in this step. It involves the following step.
[a] Sum values in each column of pairwise comparison matrix
[b] Divide each element by its column total (gives normalized pairwise comparison matrix)
[c] Compute average in each row (gives estimate of relative priorities of elements being
compared) by dividing each element by the column total [Tables 1.2.11 to 1.2.16]

IIT, Bombay
 Table 1.2.11 Assign priority rating of each criterion for pairwise comparison of “cost”
Butt hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge
Butt hinge 1 4 1/3
Flush hinge 1/4 1 1/7
Barrel hinge 3 7 1
SUM 17/4 12 31/21

Table 1.2.12 Compute average priority of each criterion for pairwise comparison of “cost”
Butt hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge Average
Butt hinge 1 4 1/3 0.266

Priority
Relative
Flush hinge 1/4 1 1/7 0.080
Barrel hinge 3 7 1 0.654

Normalized pairwise comparison matrix

These relative priority means that with respect to Cost, the barrel hinge will be preferred first
(65%), followed by butt hinge (27%) and flush hinge (8%). We can do similar calculations for
durability and time to produce.

Table 1.2.13 Assign priority rating of each criterion for pairwise comparison of “durability”
Butt hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge
Butt hinge 1 1/6 1
Flush hinge 6 1 6
Barrel hinge 1 1/6 1
SUM 8 8/6 8

IIT, Bombay
Table 1.2.14 Compute average priority of each criterion for pairwise comparison of “durability”
Butt hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge Average
Butt hinge 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125

Priority
Relative
Flush hinge 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Barrel hinge 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125

Normalized pairwise comparison matrix

Table 1.2.15 Assign priority rating of each criterion for pairwise comparison of “time to produce”
Butt hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge
Butt hinge 1 5 8
Flush hinge 1/5 1 3
Barrel hinge 1/8 1/3 1
SUM 53/40 19/3 12

Table 1.2.16 Compute average priority of each criterion for pairwise comparison of “time to produce”
Butt hinge Flush hinge Barrel hinge Average
Butt hinge 0.755 0.790 0.667 0.737

Priority
Relative
Flush hinge 0.151 0.158 0.25 0.186
Barrel hinge 0.094 0.053 0.083 0.077

Normalized pairwise comparison matrix

We will follow the same process for calculating the relative priority for the criteria as follows
[Tables 1.2.17 – 1.2.18]
Table 1.2.17 Assign rating of each criterion for pairwise comparison of “relative priority”
Cost Durability Time to produce
Cost 1 5 6
Durability 1/5 1 1/3
Time to produce 1/6 3 1
SUM 41/30 9 22/3

IIT, Bombay
 Table 1.2.18 Compute average rating for pairwise comparison of “relative priority”
Cost Durability Time to produce Average
Cost 0.73 0.55 0.81 0.70

Priority
Relative
Durability 0.14 0.11 0.04 0.10
Time to produce 0.11 0.33 0.13 0.19

Normalized pairwise comparison matrix

To calculate the overall ranking of the alternatives we now multiply the relative priority of each
criteria with each of the attributes o and add them up [Table 1.2.19].

Table 1.2.19 Overall ranking of the three hinge alternatives

Cost (0.7) Durability (0.1) Time to produce (0.2) Final Score
Butt hinge 0.266*0.7=0.18 0.125*0.1=0.012 0.737*0.2=0.14 0.3461
Flush hinge 0.08*0.7=0.056 0.75*0.1=0.075 0.186*0.2=0.037 0.1682
Barrel hinge 0.654*0.7=0.45 0.125*0.1=0.0125 0.077*0.2=0.015 0.4857

So we can see that the barrel hinge depicts as the best option followed by butt hinge and then the
flush hinge

3. Check for Consistency: A key step in the making of several pairwise comparisons is
considering the consistency of the pairwise judgments. Example: If A compared to B = 3
and B compared to C = 2 then A compared to C should be 6 (3 x 2). Otherwise, an
inconsistency will occur.

IIT, Bombay
Exercise
1. Create a functional decomposition of a refrigerator

References
1. G Dieter, Engineering Design - a materials and processing approach, McGraw Hill, NY, 2000.

IIT, Bombay