OCTOBER 19-20, 2012 - YMCA University of Science & Technology

Proceedings of the National Conference on
Trends and Advances in Mechanical Engineering,
YMCA University of Science & Technology, Faridabad, Haryana, Oct 19-20, 2012
EVALUATION OF IDEAS FOR PANEL BODY ASSEMBLY BY
DECISION MATRIX
Narender Kumar a* and Vineet Jain b
a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dronacharya College of Engineering Farukh Nagar, Gurgaon
Email: narenderiitd@gmail.com
b Department of Mechanical Engineering, Deep institute of engineering and Technology, Gurgaon,
Email: vjdj2004@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Evaluation phase aims at development of value alternatives which is accomplished by careful appraisal and
creative judgment to the ideas which were listed during creativity phase. During the process of development, we
should ensure that the product is not cheapened or degrade i.e. there is no reduction in product quality,
performance, reliability, maintainability or other aspects below the requirements of customer. In this technique,
decision matrix method is used to find out the performance score for different alternatives and then value score
with the help of the cost of the alternatives. This comparison will give the team best workable solution for the
problem at lowest cost without degrading the quality or value or the product.
1. INTRODUCTION
The evaluation of alternatives can be done on multiplicity of attributes- both tangible and intangible. The
decision matrix approach is very effective way of multi-criteria evaluation and to find the ranking of the
proposals. The attributes / factors for each assembly / component are given in their respective functional
worksheets.
In this technique, decision matrix method is used to find out the performance score for different alternatives and
then value score with the help of the cost of the alternatives. This comparison will give the team best workable
solution for the problem at lowest cost without degrading the quality or value or the product.
In this first decision matrix for attributes is made by paired comparison of attributes. To decide the importance
of a function following weight factor are considered and allotted to the function depending on the difference
between them as explained in function phase previously. Once the attributes and their weights have been
established, the next task is to use them in evaluating the alternatives selected from the feasibility ranking and
comparison technique. At this point, it is assumed that all ideas that have survived i.e. accepted meet all minimal
basic functions of the user.
The criteria elements are entered on the top of the evaluation matrix their weight of importance just below. The
following steps are used to rank the alternatives:
(i) Find the percentage weights of the relevant attributes for each function by paired comparison.
(ii) Rank the acceptable alternatives by comparing with each other for each attribute selected in step 1.
(iii) Multiply the ranks of each alternative with weight for each attribute calculated in step 2 and subtotal it
as performance score.
(iv) Fine the value score by dividing performance score by cost of alternative.
(v) Select the alternative with highest value score as the most optimal solution.
Following the above procedure the evaluation worksheet for all poor value functions is made and given below as
decision matrix. Attribute used in decision matrix are given by the following alphabets:
A = Ease of implementation E = Safety
B = Ease of maintenance F= Reliability
C = Ease of operation
G = Productionisation
D = Endurance (Life)
H = Ruggedness
Functional development worksheets have only one acceptable alternative and these alternatives have direct cost
saving besides the following advantages:
(i) Simple design
(ii) Ease of maintenance
(iii) Spares readily available
(iv) Life of the component is as good as the existing
787