Assignment#8 - Concepts generation and sct
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
North Carolina State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
216
Subject
Industrial Engineering
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by CoachSnakePerson1321
ISE 216
Product Development and Rapid Prototyping
FALL 2023
Assigment#8 (TEAM): Develop Product Concepts
(S/UN)
Due in Moodle by 5 PM on Oct. 30
To be uploaded in Moodle by 1 member/team
Describe the procedure to develop the product concepts. Your response should include your product
under development and product metrics/specifications, the procedures for concepts generation and
the generated concepts (by verbal description and/or sketch, 3D models, etc.), the concept selection
process and the Pugh Selection Matrix, and your final product concept. To develop our cutting board concepts, we began by examining the House of Quality customer
requirements, in addition to our survey and interview results. We initiated the process by addressing the requirements of "not too small" and "not too flimsy." We determined the desired size from our customers, which was larger than “11x17”x0.5”, and started our drawings based on this size requirement.
Subsequently, we tackled the issue of the cutting board "sliding around on the counter too much." Continuing with our cutting board concept development, we focused on meeting the customers' requirements by conducting an in-depth analysis of their feedback and needs. The
"not too small" and "not too flimsy" criteria were crucial in guiding our design choices. We incorporated these customer expectations into our initial design considerations, ensuring that
the cutting board would strike the right balance between size and sturdiness.
We then focused on the aspect of storage. We explored several solutions, including adding storage compartments to the bottom of the board, making it compatible, and allowing all the board's components to be taken apart in our drawings. This approach added storage functionality to the cutting board itself, making it more convenient to store in cabinets or drawers.
With this customer-driven size requirement in mind, we proceeded to create detailed drawings
and prototypes. These drawings serve as the foundation for our cutting board concepts, providing a visual representation of the product that encompasses the desired dimensions and serves as the basis for further development.
In addition to size, we also considered other customer requirements such as durability, ease of maintenance, and aesthetics to ensure that our cutting board concepts would not only meet
but exceed their expectations. This customer-centric approach is at the core of our product development process, ensuring that the final cutting board design will truly resonate with our target audience.
Finally, we addressed the requirement of customers who "like cute artwork on the cutting board" by labeling different parts of the cutting board with adorable images representing what
each section is meant to store, such as chicken, fruit, veggies, and trash.
PICTURES
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
To select the top 9 drawings from our initial set of 15, we collectively took a step back and
added a star to the ones that exhibited the basic qualities desired by our customers, as well as
designs we found particularly appealing. In order to narrow down our choices, we excluded
the more basic designs that duplicated certain ideas and those that seemed less feasible
given the time frame and materials available, such as a wood cutting board or scratch-
resistant materials. For our Pugh Selection matrix, we came up with 9 criteria that went along with our HOQ
customer requirements including:
●
11”x17” or bigger
●
Bottom cutting board grips
●
Dishwasher safe
●
$20 or less
●
Storage within the board
●
Drawings on board
●
Detachable board
●
Foldable
●
3.5lbs or less
We then proceeded to identify a highly rated cutting board on Amazon to serve as our
baseline. Each team member was assigned 1-2 specific criteria, and we evaluated each
alternative based on whether it was "better than baseline" to "worse than baseline." The
rankings were as follows: D in first place, F in second, A, H, and I in third place, and B, C, E,
and G in fourth place.
Next, we transferred our Pugh matrix to the weighted decision matrix. We rated each criterion
on a scale from 1 to 9 and associated a weight with each criterion to ensure that the total
weight added up to 100. Subsequently, we assessed each option on a scale of 1 to 9 in terms
of how well it met the criteria. This resulted in a percentage score for each option, with I
receiving the highest score at 81.44% and D the lowest score at 35.33%.
Pugh Matrix:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U0eheg9FNdefZaxP0Dm0thMtuQ_qO9RdYnxA9-
kK5Y8/edit#gid=234521618
Decision Matrix:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19PRLsHC-
FOD3Ccle_PLU90rIjkBQVFzK0n9tYAPMy5w/edit#gid=1673634488