Variant Evaluation

An evaluation is meant to determine the “value”, “usefulness” or “strength” of a solution with respect to
a given objective. An objective is indispensable since the value of a solution is not absolute, but must be
gauged in terms of certain requirements. An evaluation involves a comparison of concept variants or, in
the case of a comparison with an imaginary ideal solution, a “rating” or degree of approximation to that
ideal. The evaluation should not be based on individual aspects such as production cost, safety,
ergonomics or environment, but should, in accordance with the overall aim, consider all aspects in an
appropriate balance
There are different types of procedure for evaluation. Procedure which are fast and simple such as
Selection list and argument balance and the others are with medium effort such as simple weighted
method and ranking & preference matrix. The procedure with medium effort is preferred as they are
more accurate.
The most effective methods used are VDI 2225 and Utility value analysis. Both methods require low to
medium investment and can also solve complex problems But Utility value analysis can solve more
diverse problems and the criteria is mapped in a tree better than the VDI clusters are used also Utility
value analysis consist of weighted value and has an evaluation scale of 0-10 whereas VDI 2225 has a
scale of 0-5. Finally, the results in Utility value analysis are recorded in a tabular form which is easier to
analyze unlike the strength diagram in VDI 2225. So, considering all the aspects of our project we decide
to use Utility value analysis for our variant evaluation

Utility value analysis Evaluation steps

 Identification of objectives or evaluation criteria for the evaluation of concept variants with the
aid of the requirements list and a checklist
 Analysis of the evaluation criteria for the purpose of determining their weighting to the overall
value of the solution; determination of weighting factors
 Assessment of the parameter magnitudes and assignment of values (0-10 or 0-4 points)
 Determination of the overall value of the individual concept variants
 Comparison of concept variants

Objective Tree for Utility Value Analysis

The objective tree for the proposed project is given below and the prioritization of various
Functions and sub functions are done based on the customer requirement.
∑Weight = 0.09+0.07+0.15+0.07+0.11+0.08+ 0.08+0.06+0.06+0.09+0.09+0.05 =1.00

Value scale

Value Meaning Magnitude

0 Absolutely useless solution
very low
1 Very flawed solution
2 Weak solution
low
3 Viable solution
4 Adequate solution
moderate
5 Satisfactory solution
6 Good solution with minor deficiencies
high
7 Good solution
8 Very good solution
very high
9 Solution exceeding the target
10 Ideal solution ideal

Variant Evaluation Chart

 Solution Variants

Variant 1 Variant 2 Variant 3 Variant 4

We
SL Paramete V Wei
Criteria igh V
NO rs a Weigh Va ghte Weight Weigh
t Magni Magnit Magn Val Magn al
l ted lu d ed ted
tude ude itude ue itude u
u value e valu value value
e
e e
Ease of loading 0.0 mode
1 Time less 7 0.35 more 2 0.1 5 0.25 more 2 0.1
the box 5 rate
Safety of 0.0 mode mode
2 Stability high 7 0.63 less 2 0.18 4 0.36 4 0.36
launching System 9 rate rate
Accuracy of 0.0
3 Stability high 7 0.56 low 4 0.32 high 6 0.48 low 2 0.16
launching 8
ease of achieving 0.1 mode
4 Velocity high 8 1.2 low 2 0.3 high 7 1.05 4 0.6
desired height 5 rate
Ease of 0.1
5 Time less 7 0.77 less 6 0.66 less 6 0.66 more 2 0.22
deployment 1
Tracking 0.0 adequ
6 distance high 7 0.49 6 0.42 high 7 0.49 high 7 0.49
capability 7 ate
0.0 moder
7 landing safety Stability high 7 0.63 4 0.36 high 6 0.54 high 6 0.54
9 ate
0.0 mode mode
8 Easy Maintenance Price high 4 0.24 high 4 0.24 5 0.3 5 0.3
6 rate rate
0.0 moder mode
9 Recycling Price high 3 0.18 4 0.24 low 4 0.24 4 0.24
6 ate rate
0.0 mode mode
10 Cost Price low 6 0.54 low 7 0.63 4 0.36 4 0.36
9 rate rate
No. of 0.0 adequ adequ adeq adeq
11 Simple Assembly 5 0.35 4 0.28 5 0.35 5 0.35
Parts 7 ate ate uate uate
No. of
Low complexity of 0.0 adequ adeq
12 moving 5 0.4 low 6 0.48 4 0.32 low 3 0.24
system 8 ate uate
parts
4.2
Overall Score 1 6.34 5.4 3.96
1

Variant 1 is the optimal solution

Definition of Evaluation Criteria

1. Accuracy of launching: The criteria state the launching of system without distorting the
specimen
2. Tracking capability: The subfunctions are evaluated on basis of accuracy of tracking the system
throughout the experiment
3. Landing safety: A major criteria to ensure the safety of specimen during landing according to
the customer requirement
4. Low complexity and Simple assembly: Complexity of overall system and ease of assembling all
the parts
5. Cost: The cost of the experiment including the cost of system and safety measure taken
Value Profile

Variant 1 has less deviation from the overall weighted value compared to variant 3, hence
variant 1 can be selected as the optimal solution
References

1. Pahl, G., W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, and K. H. Grote. "Engineering Design, 2007." A Systematic
Approach
2. LV-EDII_2_Beyer_Variant Evaluation_rev