Product Design and Development

Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger

4th edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Chapter Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Development Processes and Organizations
3. Product Planning
4. Identifying Customer Needs
Concept Selection 5. Product Specifications
6. Concept Generation
7. Concept Selection
8. Concept Testing
Topic 7 9. Product Architecture
10. Industrial Design
11. Design for Manufacturing
12. Prototyping
13. Product Development Economics
14. Managing Projects

ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 1 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 2

Select Concepts in Relation to Concept

Development Activities Facts About Concept Selection
• Concept selection is a convergent process.

• Concept selection is also an iterative process that does

Timeline of Concept Development not always produce the dominant concept immediately.

Identify Establish Generate Select Test Set Plan • Better concepts may be found through recombination of
Customer Target Product Product Product Final Downstream
Needs Specifications Concepts Concepts Concepts Specifications Development pre-screened concepts.

• Recombination may temporarily enlarge the number of

Perform Economic Analysis
available concepts.
Benchmark Competitive Products
Build and Test Models and Prototypes • The final concept is chosen after several iterations.
Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 3 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 4
 Concept Development Funnel Selection Methods
• External decision. Concepts are turned over to the
customer or other external entity.
– No: Customer should not be bothered with hundreds of
concepts.
– Maybe: Final concept selection.
• Product champion. An influential member of the
product development team chooses a concept based on
personal preference.
– No: Group consensus is preferable both for confidence and
harmony.
• Intuition. The concept is chosen by its feel. No explicit
concept generation criteria are used. The concept simply seems better.
concept screening – No: Design decisions need to be objective and justifiable.
concept scoring Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

concept testing
ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 5 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 6

Selection Methods (contd.) Selection Methods (contd.)

• Multivoting. Each member of the team votes for a set • Decision matrices. The team rates each concept
number of projects. against pre-specified selection criteria, which may be
– Maybe: Depends on how objectively the team members vote.. weighted.
• Pros and cons. The team lists strengths and – Yes: Preferred method.
weaknesses of each concept and makes a choice based
upon group opinion.
– Yes: The decision is group based and (presumably) objective.
• Prototype and test. The organization builds and tests Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

prototypes of each concept, making a selection based

upon test data.
– No: Too costly for hundreds of concepts.
– Yes: Final concept selection.

Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 7 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 8
 Two Stage Process Concept Screening: Steps 1-3
1. Concept Screening • Step 1 – Prepare the Selection Matrix.
– Enter concepts and criteria into the matrix.
– Quick, approximate evaluation aimed at – Select reference concept (industry standard, main competitor,
producing a small number of viable current product). Its performance is rated using 0’s.
• Step 2 – Rate the Concepts.
solutions. – Concepts that perform better than the reference are rated with +’s.
2. Concept Scoring – Concepts that perform similarly compared to the reference are
rated with 0’s.
– Much more careful analysis of a relative – Concepts that perform worse than the reference are rated with –’s.
small number of concepts in order to choose • Step 3 – Rank the Concepts.
the single best option. – Sum up “better than”, “same as”, and “worse than” and enter the
sum for each category in the lower rows of the matrix.
– The net score is calculated by subtracting the number of “worse
than” from the number of “better than”.
Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 9 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 10

Outpatient Syringe
Concept Screening: Steps 4-6 Concept A – Master Cylinder
• Step 4 – Combine and Improve Concepts.
– Is there a generally good concept which is degraded by a single
bad feature?
– Are there two concepts which can be combined to preserve the
“better than” qualities while canceling the “worse than” features?
• Step 5 – Select One or More Concepts.
– After the team has gained sufficient understanding of each
concept and its relative quality, a small number of concepts are Each concept should include a sketch and short description
chosen for further analysis and refinement (and perhaps testing). All concepts should include a similar level of detail
• Step 6 – Reflect on the Results and Process.
– All team members should be comfortable with the outcome.
Differences between team members may indicate missing
criteria or rating errors. Displaced fluid from master cylinder actuates pusher. Upon release, sealed
Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development
fluid cavity is filled with more fluid if necessary.
Dose is set by length of stroke.
Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 11 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 12
 Outpatient Syringe Outpatient Syringe
Concept B – Rubber Brake Concept C - Ratchet

Pushnut grips shaft when pushed but releases when being pulled (rubber Ratchet engages pusher when plunger is being pushed and disengaged is
clutch offers resistance). plunger is being pulled.
Dose is set by length of stroke. Dose is set by length of stroke.
Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 13 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 14

Outpatient Syringe Outpatient Syringe

Concept D – Plunge Stop (Reference) Concept F

Stroke length is set by screwing outer sleeve forward, thereby increasing the
spacing between plunger and outer sleeve
Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development
ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 15
Stroke length is set through angle of operating lever.
Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development
ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 16
 Outpatient Syringe
Concept G – Dial Screw
Example: Concept Screening

CONCEPT VARIANTS

SELECTION
CRITERIA
A B C D E F G REF.
Ease of Handling 0 0 – 0 0 – – 0
Ease of Use 0 – – 0 0 + 0 0
Number Readability 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0
Dose Metering + + + + + 0 + 0
Load Handling 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0
Manufacturing Ease + – – 0 0 – 0 0
Portability + + – – 0 – – 0
PLUSES 3 2 2 1 2 2 2
SAMES 4 3 1 5 5 2 3
MINUSES 0 2 4 1 0 3 2
NET 3 0 –2 0 2 –1 0
Set dose by turning knob. This energy is stored in a spring. RANK 1 3 7 5 2 6 4
Actuate by releasing the lead screw, which will turn according to the CONTINUE? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes
rotational energy supplied by the spring.
Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development
ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 17 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 18

Concept generation Outpatient Syringe

Pair-up with a team mate Concept DF
In upper right of your page
• Names of students
• Project Name
• TA Name

• List some criteria that you might judge your

designs on CONCEPT VARIANTS

SELECTION
CRITERIA
A B C D E F G REF.
Ease of Handling 0 0 – 0 0 – – 0
Ease of Use 0 – – 0 0 + 0 0
Number Readability 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0
Dose Metering + + + + + 0 + 0
Load Handling 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development
Manufacturing Ease + – – 0 0 – 0 0
Portability + + – – 0 – – 0
PLUSES 3 2 2 1 2 2 2
SAMES 4 3 1 5 5 2 3
MINUSES 0 2 4 1 0 3 2
NET 3 0 –2 0 2 –1 0
RANK 1 3 7 5 2 6 4
CONTINUE? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes

ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 19 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 20
 Outpatient Syringe
Concept G+ Concept Scoring
• Similar to concept screening.
• Criteria are weighted according to their importance.
• Suggested rating scale:

Relative Performance Rating

Much worse than reference 1

Worse than reference 2
Same as reference 3
Better than reference 4
Much better than reference 5
Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 21 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 22

Concept generation
Example: Concept Scoring Pair-up with a team mate
Concepts
A DF E G+
(reference)
Master Cylinder Lever Stop Swash Ring Dial Screw+ • List some areas of your project that you will
Selection Criteria Weight Rating
Weighted
Score Rating
Weighted
Score Rating
Weighted
Score Rating
Weighted
Score want to generate concepts to be evaluated
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

– e.g., steering linkages, transmission designs…
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

CONCEPT VARIANTS

Portability 10% 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3 SELECTION

A B C D E F G REF.
CRITERIA
Total Score 2.75 3.45 3.10 3.05 Ease of Handling 0 0 – 0 0 – – 0
Ease of Use 0 – – 0 0 + 0 0
Number Readability 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0
Rank 4 1 2 3 Dose Metering + + + + + 0 + 0
Load Handling 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0
Continue? No Develop No No Manufacturing Ease + – – 0 0 – 0 0
Portability + + – – 0 – – 0
PLUSES 3 2 2 1 2 2 2
SAMES 4 3 1 5 5 2 3
MINUSES 0 2 4 1 0 3 2
NET 3 0 –2 0 2 –1 0
RANK 1 3 7 5 2 6 4
CONTINUE? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes

ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 23 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 24
Concept Scoring Example: Outpatient Syringe Caveats
ConceptsConcepts • Decomposition of concept quality. Assumption: the
A
A DF
DF G+E overall quality equals the sum of the individual qualities.
(Reference)
(Reference) Lever
LeverStop
Stop Dial Screw+
Swash Ring This may not be the case where relationships between
Master
Master individual criteria are complex.
Cylinder
Cylinder
Selection Criteria Weight
Weight Rating
Rating Weighted
Weighted Rating
Rating Weighted
Weighted Rating
Rating Weighted
Weighted
Score
Score Score
Score Score
Score
• Subjective criteria. Some selection criteria, particularly
Ease
Easeofofhandling
handling
Ease
Easeofofuse
use
those related to aesthetics are highly subjective. Use
Readability
Readabilityofofsettings
settings external reviewers for such criteria.
Dose
Dosemetering
meteringaccuracy
accuracy
Durability
Durability
Ease
Easeofofmanufacture
manufacture
• Where to include cost. The overall cost are one of the
Portability
Portability dominant factors determining the economic success.
Total
Total While “ease of manufacturing” is not a customer need, it
Rank
Rank brings cost into the equation.
Continue?
Source: Ulrich K, Eppinger S, Product Design and Development

ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 25 ME EN 4000 – Engineering Design I – Concept Selection 26