3.

4 From the first round of Pugh analysis, design number one, three, and four were the winning designs. Before the second round of Pugh analysis could take place, each of the designs weak points, which were identified in the first round of Pugh analysis, was assessed. The modifications to each of the three designs will be summarized. Each of the designs selected from the first round of Pugh analysis will be designated with by a prime after its corresponding number. For design number one prime, the weaknesses assessed was the weight and ice removal effectiveness. Considering the former, the weight was reduced by changing the frame material from steal to aluminum. Aluminum is generally advantageous over steal in light weight applications. The ability to remove ice was improved by changing the blade material from aluminum to stainless steel. The rationale for this decision was the stainless steel has a much higher hardness than aluminum, and ices high hardness makes it easier to cut with a harder material. The next redesign, which is designated by design three prime, was primarily concerned with the cost, safety, and weight, force experienced by user, and snow removal effectiveness. The weight was the main safety concern, since a device of this type would be dangerous if it were to fall on a user. The weight is also related to the force experienced by the user. Therefore, reducing the weight also helped with safety and reducing the force experienced by the user. Switching from batteries to plug-in reduced the weight significantly. The batteries, which were part of the original design, accounted for much of this designs cost. With the batteries removed, the cost thus decrease significantly. The snow removal effectiveness was assessed by adding coils to the lower part of this device, but doing so keeping in mind that these coils must be low power so that the heat generated does not damage the roof. Design four primes motivation was to reduce the weight, force experienced by the user, storage size, and increase the reliability/durability. The major design change was switching from one large inflatable pillow to ones that were sections, which would be horizontally orientated in operation. This design change reduced the weight, and thus reducing the force experienced by the user, and allowed storing it easier. The reliability/durability was increased by adding protective plastic sheet over the critical stressed areas; these areas are dominant in the regions of potential ice accumulation, as well as jagged edges present of the roof. With the winning designs from the first round of Pugh analysis completed, a second round of Pugh analysis could take place. The datum for the second Pugh analysis the winning design from the first round of Pugh Analysis which had the fewest number of negatives, which was design one. By choosing this as the datum, the success of eliminating the weaknesses from the winning designs of the first of Pugh analysis can be seen.

Round two of Pugh analysis revealed many insightful positives and negatives when comparing the three new redesigns with the datum. The completed round two of Pugh analysis can be seen in Table # below. Design one prime was the cheapest simply due to the ease of manufacturing the materials involved. The rake like designs, the datum, or design one, and design one prime were considered the safest since their full cyclic operation could be done with the user never leaving ground level. These two designs were also considered the easiest to use, since their operation requires no special, or above general intuition, for operation. Design one prime and three prime were considered the most reliable/durable, while design four prime lacked behind the datum. Reliability/durability was primarily gauged upon the materials involved for each of the designs. The winner of the second round of Pugh analysis was design one prime.

Table #. Pugh Analysis Round 2 List of Criteria Minimal Roof Damage Material Cost Height Extension Safety Weight Force Exp by User Storage Size Reliability/Durability Snow Removal Effectiveness Ice Removal Effectiveness Ease of Use Positives Negatives No Changes

Datum O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 10

1' 3' 4' O O + O O O O + O + O 3 1 7 +

- O + - - + O O + + 3 5 3 + + 4 6 1