Transcript Concept Development & Selection prepared by Prof. Margaret Bailey (ME) Copyright © 2006 Rochester Institute of Technology All rights reserved. EDGE™

Concept Development & Selection
prepared by Prof. Margaret Bailey (ME)
Copyright © 2006 Rochester Institute of Technology
All rights reserved.
EDGE™
Today’s Workshop Overview
• 10am –11:30AM Interactive Exercise on
Concept Development & Selection
• 11:30 – 1:00 PM Concept Development & Selection
on Team Project
• 2:00 – 3:30
Continue Selection Process:
Concept Scoring, Customer Feedback
• 3:30 – 4 PM
Create Summary of Activities
• By 4:30 PM
Review Team Concept
Development and Selection
Activities with Guide
EDGE™
Session Overview
• Introduce Concept Development &
Selection Process
• Explore Two-Stage Methodology
• Demonstrate Above Steps on Example
• Discuss Common Dysfunctions Associated
with this Phase
• Apply Concept Development & Selection
Process to Team SD1 Project
EDGE™
Concept Development & Selection
Session Learning Objectives
1. Understand concept selection matrix commonly used decision tool in product
development
2. Reinforce importance of concept selection
within product development process
3. Explore the application of a selection matrix
method for selecting & developing product
concepts – can be applied to sub-systems as
well.
EDGE™
Concept Selection Example:
Reusable Syringe
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-1, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Concept Selection Example:
Reusable Syringe
• Design an improved, reusable syringe with
precise dosage control for outpatient use.
– Current product was too costly and inaccurate
• Seven criteria identified based on customer
needs
– Ease of handling, use and manufacture
– Readability of dose settings and accuracy
– Durability and portability
• Seven overall product concepts proposed
(Exhibit 7-3)
EDGE™
Concept Development & Selection Process
Mission
Statement
Identify
Customer
Needs
Establish
Target
Specifications
Generate
Product
Concepts
Select
Product
Concept(s)
Test
Product
Concept(s)
Set
Final
Specifications
Plan
Downstream
Development
Development
Plan
Perform Economic Analysis
Benchmark Competitive Products
Build and Test Models and Prototypes
These activities can occur
throughout the design
process!
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-2, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Concept Development &
Selection Process
Concepts
Scoring
Stage
Selection Criteria
Screening
Stage
Concept Ratings
Winning Concept(s)
Goal: The goal is not to select the best
concept but to develop the best concept
by combining and/or refining
EDGE™
Concept Development & Selection
Funnel
concept gener ation
concept screeni ng
concept scor ing
concept testi ng
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-4, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Examples of Concept Generation
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004,
Product Design and Development, Exhibit 7-3,
Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
Concepts need to be well-defined
PRIOR to concept evaluation!
(neither of these concepts made
the screening cut) EDGE™
Concept Selection Process
Screening Stage
Prepare the Matrix
Rate Concepts
Rank Concepts
Combine and Improve
Select Best Concept
Reflect on the Process
Scoring Stage
Prepare the Matrix
Rate Concepts
Rank Concepts
Combine and Improve
Select Best Concept
Reflect on the Process
EDGE™
Concept Development & Selection
Funnel
concept gener ation
concept screeni ng
concept scor ing
concept testi ng
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-4, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Screening Stage
• Prepare the Matrix – Pugh's
METHOD
Concepts which made the first
cut BUT more refinement
required before SCORING
process
– Criteria
– Select Reference Concept
• Rate Concepts
– Scale (+ – 0)
– Compare to Reference
Concept
• Rank Concepts
• Combine and Improve
– Remove Bad Features
– Combine Good Qualities
• Select Best Concepts
– May Be More than One
– Beware of Average Concepts
• Reflect on the Process
– Continuous Improvement
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-5, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Identify “Winning” Concepts
Concept A has highest net
score and no “worse than”
ratings
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-3, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Combine Winning Concepts
Concepts D & F were
combined to eliminate
“worse than” ratings
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-3 and 6, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Refine Winning Concepts
Concept G’s scored well but
ease of handling was a
problem, therefore revise!
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-3 and 6, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Screening Stage for SD1 Project
• NOW
– Select a sub-system (or overall product if applicable)
– Prepare the Matrix
– Begin the following as time allows
• This afternoon:
–
–
–
–
–
Rate Concepts
Rank Concepts
Combine and Improve
Select Best Concept
Reflect on the Process
EDGE™
Concept Development & Selection
Funnel
concept gener ation
concept screeni ng
concept scor ing
concept testi ng
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-4, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Scoring Stage
•
REFINE Pugh’s Matrix
•
Rate Concepts
•
Rank Concepts
•
Combine and Improve
•
Select Best Concepts
•
Reflect on the Process
– Criteria
– ADD Weightings
– REFINE Scale (1 - 5)
– Select “Average” Criteria for
Reference
– Compare to Reference Criteria
– Sum Weighted Scores
– Remove Bad Features
– Combine Good Qualities
– May Be More than One
– Continuous Improvement
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-7, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Generated from
Customer Needs
– week 1
Example: Concept Scoring
Concepts
A
(reference)
Master Cylinder
DF
E
G+
Lev er Stop
Swash Ring
Dial Screw+
Selection Criteria
Weight
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Ease of Handling
5%
3
0.15
3
0.15
4
0.2
4
0.2
Ease of Use
15%
3
0.45
4
0.6
4
0.6
3
0.45
Readability of Settings
10%
2
0.2
3
0.3
5
0.5
5
0.5
Dose Metering Accuracy
25%
3
0.75
3
0.75
2
0.5
3
0.75
Durability
15%
2
0.3
5
0.75
4
0.6
3
0.45
Ease of Manufacture
20%
3
0.6
3
0.6
2
0.4
2
0.4
Portability
10%
3
0.3
3
0.3
3
0.3
3
0.3
T otal Score
Rank
Continue?
2.75
3.45
3.10
3.05
4
1
2
3
No
Develop
No
No
Need to revisit PUGH Matrix as your
team’s knowledge base expands
EDGE™
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-7, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
Final Winning Concept - DF
Concept DF was selected as the winning concept HOWEVER:
Do not simply select concept was highest rating – conduct a
sensitivity study by varying weights and ratings and examine
effect on winning concept rating. Does uncertainty about a
particular value have a large impact on the winning concept?
Team could have decided to go with top two (or more) concepts.
Concepts could be prototyped and tested for customer feedback.
EDGE™
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-6, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
Tips for Concept Development & Selection
• When possible, use objective rather
subjective criteria
• Useful to identify strengths of concepts that
do not make it through screening/scoring
stages – could these be incorporated on
winning concept(s)?
• Include ease of manufacture, reduced
liability, and/or cost as criteria
• Use concept development & selection process
throughout SD1 and SD2
EDGE™
Concept Development & Selection
Funnel
concept gener ation
concept screeni ng
concept scor ing
concept testi ng
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 7-4, Chapter 7, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Test Product Concepts
Mission
Statement
Identify
Customer
Needs
Establish
Target
Specifications
Generate
Product
Concepts
Select
Product
Concept(s)
Test
Product
Concept(s)
Set
Final
Specifications
Plan
Downstream
Development
Development
Plan
Perform Economic Analysis
Benchmark Competitive Products
Build and Test Models and Prototypes
Helps in further exploring concepts…
Which concept should be pursued?
How can the concept be improved to better meet customer needs?
Should development continue?
TOOL: Survey customer response, refer to Chapter 8 for more details
Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and
Development, Exhibit 8-2, Chapter 8, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill
EDGE™
Practice Concept Development &
Selection on SD1 Project
• Continue Team Screening Stage and start
Scoring Stage
Screening or
Scoring Stages
Prepare/Refine the Matrix
Rate Concepts
Rank Concepts
Combine and Improve
Select Best Concept
Reflect on the Process
Sample Excel
Spreadsheet
Available for
PUGH
EDGE™
Rest of the Day….
• Start with Concepts Associated with Critical Sub-function(s)
Identified During Week 3
– Develop Pugh's Matrix for SCREENING Process
• Create Criteria, Select Reference Concept, Rate Concepts
(Scale (+ – 0)), Compare to Reference Concepts, Rank Concepts,
• Combine and Improve, Remove Bad Features, Combine Good
Qualities, Select Best Concepts
• Refer to Exhibit 7-5
– Refine Pugh's Matrix during SCORING Process
• Refine Criteria, ADD Weightings, Rate Concepts (Scale (1 - 5)),
Select “Average” Criteria for Reference, Determine Sum
Weighted Scores
• Combine and Improve, Remove Bad Features, Combine Good
Qualities, Select Best Concepts
• Refer to Exhibit 7-7
– Get customer feedback, if possible
EDGE™
Next Week
• Complete concept selection process (quickly)
• Begin system level design: architecture, subsystem definition, interface definition
• Schedule and prepare for Design Review I
EDGE™
Weeks 5 - 7: Design Review I
• 30% of SD1 Grade
• In-depth meeting(s) with Guide,
Consultant(s), peers, customer(s), and
appropriate experts
• Minimize “presentation”, maximize valueadded discussion (see Guidelines on EDGE)
EDGE™
Design Review I - Grading Rubric
Design Review 1 - Concept Selection & System-Level Design
Category
Concept Generation
and Evalution
Concept Improvement
and Selection
System-Level Design
Engineering Analysis
Risk Assessment and Proof-ofConcept
Score
0
0
0
0
0
Excellent (10)
Satisfactory (8)
Some customer criteria were
Concepts were effectively
not addressed in concept
developed and evaluated
development or in the
against customer-oriented
evaluation process, or
criteria, as well as competing
competitive benchmarking
products
was not done.
Team:
Barely Acceptable (6)
Unacceptable (0-5)
Many customer needs left
unaddressed, or evalution
process was not followed.
Minimal concept
development, reliance on only
a few ideas; evaluation
process not defined or
followed.
The team clearly took
The team showed some
advantage of the evaluation
ability to use the evaluation
The team made minimal
process to improve or
process to improve on original efforts to improve on original
combine existing concepts or
concepts or combine one or
concepts during evaluation
to uncover some fixable
more concepts, and a
process, and the selection
weaknesses, and the
selection process was
process was adhoc
selection process was
sructured and followed
structured and effective
Systems architecture,
subsystems, and interfaces
are clearly defined and
consistent with selected
concept
Architecture is defined and
consisted with selected
concept, but some
subsytems and interfaces are
not well defined.
Modeling and/or simulation
Some modeling/simulation
necessary for system-level
still remains incomplete or
design is complete, including must be re-run. Critical work
accurate operating conditions
is complete or nearly
and input parameters
complete
High-risk technologies have
been identified, and
breadboard/ simulation has
demonstrated feasibility of
system-level design. Risks
for cost and schedule have
also been idetified and
effectively assessed.
The team did not take
advantage of any
opportunities to use concept
evaluation to improve existing
ideas, and a selection
process was not followed
Architecture is incomplete,
Architecture is undefined and
and many substystems and
subsystems are questionable;
interfaces have yet to be
system design is nonexistent.
defined.
Some critical analysis still
remains unfinished or is
questionable
High-risk technologies have
Some high-risk technologies
been identified, but work
have not been identified, or
remains to demonstrate
oncepts have not been
feasibility. Risks for cost and
proven. Cost and schedule
schedule have been identified
risks have not been identified.
and partly addressed.
Engineering analysis has not
been done or results have
been interpreted inaccurately;
functionality is in doubt
Many risks have not been
identified; feasibility work is
questionable.
EDGE™
Design Review I - Content
• Discuss concept selection & improvement process
• System-level design: architecture, subsystems,
interfaces
• Identify high-risk technologies and perform enough
modeling and/or simulation (computer-based or
physical mock-up) to demonstrate that the project
can be successful
– may include features such as new technology, previously
untested technology, long-lead time or prohibitively
expensive components
• Additional specific requirements should be agreed on
with Guide
• TEAM Goal: get useful feedback from reviewers
EDGE™