Product Design:: Preface

gico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey
Instituto Tecnolo
Campus Toluca
Preface
Product design:
techniques for robustness, reliability and
optimization
Class Notes
Dr. Jos
e Carlos Miranda V.
It is widely recognized that to develop successful products, systems or services it

is extremely important to follow a structured product development process. Although each company follows a process tailored to its specific needs, in general the
start of a product development process is the mission statement for the product.
It identifies the target markets for the product, provides a basic functional description of the product, and specifies the key business goals of the effort. The end of
the development effort occurs when the product is launched and becomes available
for purchase in the market place. The different activities that take place during the
product development process can be grouped into five phases: Concept development,
system-level design, detail design, testing and refinement, and production ramp-up.
During the detailed design and the testing and refinement phases, product optimization, robustness and reliability becomes critical. As many powerful techniques have
appeared to make a product more optimal, robust and reliable, it is necessary to
know how they work and how can they be applied to design products that exceed
customer expectations and minimize costs.
The present notes have been prepared for the courses of Design Methodologies and
Product Design that I teach. Although these notes are far from complete and therefore may contain many mistakes and inaccuracies, they evolve term after term and
with the help and suggestions of my students are continuously improved. Once
these notes are mature, it is my desire to publish them to reach a wider audience
and receive further comments.
If you have any feedback, suggestions or have detected any mistakes, or simply would
like to assist me or contribute in this effort, please do not hesitate to contact me. I
will be very happy to hear from you.
v. Fall 2004
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
e CarlosMiranda. Todos los derechos reservados.
Jose Carlos Miranda

Research Center for Automotive Mechatronics
jmiranda@itesm.mx
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
CHAPTER
The Engineering Design Process
Part I
The product design process
1.1
Definition of design
The word design has had different meanings over the last decades. While
sometimes a designer is considered to be the person drafting at the drawing
board or in the computer, the word design really conveys a more engineering
and analytical sense. Design is much more than just drafting.
Suh (1990) defines design as the creation of synthesized solutions in the form
of products, processes or systems, that satisfy perceived needs through the
mapping between functional requirements and design parameters.
In the scope of the previous definition, functional requirements (FRs) respond
to the question of what a product must do or accomplish. On the other hand,
design parameters (DPs) respond to the question of how the functional requirements will be achieved. What relates the domain of functional requirements to
the domain of design parameters is design (see figure 1.1). It should be noted
that although design parameters should fulfill the functional requirements, the
mapping between them is not unique. For a set of functional requirements
may be several design parameters that fulfill those functional requirements.
Another, less technical, definition of design is the one promulgated by ABET
(Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology):
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
1.2 The design process

WHAT?
HOW?
Mechanical
Engineering
List of
Functional
Requirements
design
List of
Design
Parameters
Electronic
Engineering
Purchasing
Product
Design
Manufacture
Engineering
Marketing
Figure 1.1: Design is the process of mapping functional requirements to design

parameters.
Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component,

or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision making process
(often iterative) in which the basic sciences, mathematics and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet
a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of design
process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis,
analysis, construction, testing and evaluation. . . It is essential to
include a variety of realistic constraints such as economic factors,
safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics and social impacts.
Industrial
Design
Figure 1.2: Engineering design core disciplines.

1.2.1. Design process Probably the most simple model of the design process
models
is the one shown in figure 1.3, where only four general
stages are outlined.
Another relatively simple model is presented by Ullman (1992) who suggest to
view the design as problem solving. When solving a given problem, five basic
actions are taken:
1. Establishment of need or realize there is a problem to be solved.
Although several definitions of design may be found, the last one highlights
one of the main difficulties associated with design: its truly multidisciplinary
nature. Design involves several, if not all, different departments in a given
company (see figure 1.2). Design engineers should always be aware of this
condition, involving in the design process the expertise of people of different
disciplines.
1.2
The design process
2. Understanding of the problem.

3. Generation of potential solutions for it.
4. Evaluation of the solutions by comparing the potential solutions and
deciding on the best one.
5. Documentation of the work.
While it is possible to see design as problem solving, it is important to realize
that most analysis problems have one correct solution whereas most design
problems have many satisfactory solutions.
There are many different maps or models of the design process. Some of these
models describe steps and their sequence as they occur in the design process.
Some other models try to define or prescribe a better or more appropriate
pattern of activities. Cross (1994) describe some of these models.
A more detailed model, which involves all steps of the design process, is presented in figure 1.4. As shown, this model divides design process in 5 phases:
Concept development, System-Level design, Detail design, Testing and refinement and Production. Each phase has one or more steps. It is important
to realize that this model is general and may be necessary to follow different
paths in one or more phases depending on the project at hand.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
e Carlos Miranda. Todos los derechos reservados.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos

Phase 1:
Concept
Development
Recognition of need
Exploration
Conceptualization
Phase 2:
System-Level
Design
Generation
Feasibility
assessment
Phase 3:
Detail
Design
Preliminary design
cost analysis / redesign
Evaluation
Development
testing
Phase 4:
Testing and
Refinement
Communication
Detailed design
Qualification testing
Production planning
and Tooling design
Phase 5:
Production
Acceptance testing
Production
Figure 1.3: A simple model of the design process with 4 stages.

Figure 1.4: Detailed model of the design process.
Independently of the model, it is generally agreed that the design process
should always start with the recognition of a need. After the need has been
recognized it is necessary to consider alternatives for its solution, which is done
during the concept development phase. Here the statement of the problem is
taken and broad solutions to it are generated. This phase presents the greatest
chance for improvements and hence is specially imperative to be objective,
open to new ideas and recognize when changes are needed.
Once the best ideas have been selected, preliminary design may start to further
evaluate those ideas. In this phase testing may be of great help to differentiate
good ideas from regular ones. After a design has been finally selected, detailed
design begins to incorporate every feature that the design may need to incorporate. Hence, a very large number of small but essential points should be
decided. After the detailed design has been re-evaluated and tested, production planning may be started and final products tested for final acceptance.
In what follows the different steps in the design process are discussed more in
depth.
1.2.2. Identifying customer
needs
The need to design a new product may come

from different sources: consumers, organizations
or governments. The need may also sometimes
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
be substituted for an idea of a product with possibilities of becoming commercially successful.

Eide et al. (1988) state that in industry, it is essential that products sell for
the company to survive. Inasmuch as most companies exist to make a profit,
profit can be considered to be the basic need. Hence, a bias toward profit
and economic advantage should not be viewed as a selfish position because
products are purchased by people who feel that they are buying to satisfy a
need which they perceived as real. The consumers are ultimately the judges
of whether there is truly a need.
Identifying the needs of the costumer is one of the most important steps in
the design process and is, at the same time, one of the most difficult since is
not unusual to find that the customer does not know exactly what features
the product must have. Once the needs have been specified together with the
costumer, this information is used to guide the design team in establishing
design parameters, generating concepts and selecting the best one of them.
According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) the process of identifying customer
needs includes five steps:
1. Gather raw data from customers.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos

Metric
Value
The product must be . . .

easy to install
Average time for installation < x seg.
durable
Must withstand 10x cycles
easy to open
Opens with a force of max. x newtons.
able to resist impacts
Withstand drops from x meters.
able to work in cold weather
Operation possible at -x C.
According to French (1985) in this phase the statement of the design problem is taken and broad
solutions are generated in the form of schemes. It is the phase that makes the
greatest demands on the designer, and where there is more scope for striking
improvements. It is the phase where engineering science, practical knowledge,
production methods and commercial aspects need to be brought together. It
is also the stage where the most important decisions are taken.
1.2.4. Concept generation
2. Interpret the raw data in terms of customers needs.
In the scope of design, a concept is an abstraction, an idea that can be represented in notes and/or sketches and that will eventually become a product.
It is generally recognized that, for a given product, several ideas (sometimes
hundreds of them) should be generated. From this pool of ideas, a couple of
them will merit serious consideration for further evaluation and development.
3. Organize the needs into a hierarchy of primary and secondary needs.
The concept generation stage can be divided into 4 steps:
Table 1.1: Examples of metrics and their value.
4. Establish the relative importance of the needs.

5. Reflect on the results and the process.
1. Clarification of the problem.

2. Gathering of information.
As was briefly discussed above, when the design engineer is first approached with a product need, it is
very unlikely that the customer will express clearly
what is needed. In most occasions it is only know what is wanted in a very
general way without idea of the particularities involved.
1.2.3. Establishing the
design requirements
Hence, the starting point for a design engineer is to turn an ill-defined problem
with vague requirements into a set of requirements that are clearly defined.
This set of product requirements may change as the project advances, so it is
convenient to clarify them at all stages of the design process.
For the product requirements to be helpful, they must be translated to technical specifications that are precise, easily understood and can be measure by
means of one or more design variables. Ulrich & Eppinger state that A specification consists of a metric and a value. Table 1.1 shows some examples of
metrics and their values.
3. Use and adaptation of design team s knowledge.

4. Organization of teams thinking.
Although concept generation is an inherently creative process, it is possible to
use some techniques to improve it like functional decomposition and generation of concepts from functions. Although sources for conceptual ideas come
primarily from the designers own expertise, it can be enhanced through the
use of books, experts, lead engineers, patent search, brainstorming and current
designs.
The purpose of concept selection is assessing the
feasibility of concepts to ensure that they are achievable technically and economically. The feasibility of the concept is based on
the design engineers knowledge. As in the generation of concepts, the design
engineer can rely in tools like the decision-matrix method to compare and
evaluate concepts.
1.2.5. Concept selection
Several tools can be used to establish product specifications. Although simple

to apply, the objectives tree and decision tree methods offer a clear and useful
starting format for such a statement of requirements and their relative importance. As will be discussed later, other more sophisticated and more useful
method is Quality Function Deployment (QFD).
The importance of the concept selection phase cannot be understated. It is

known that decisions made during the design process have the greatest effect
on the cost of a product for the least investment. In figure 1.5, the cost
of design and its influence in manufacturing cost for an automotive project
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos

Overhead
100
Labor
Material
Percent
80
Design

Design changes
10
Company A
60
Company B
40
20
0
Final
Manufacturing
Cost
Influence on
Final Manufacturing
Cost
Figure 1.5: Design influence on manufacturing cost (After Ullman, 1992).

is shown. From the figure it can be stated that the decisions made during
the design process have the greatest effect on the cost of a product for the
least investment. Typically, around 70% to 80% of the manufacturing cost is
committed by the end of the conceptual phase of the design process. Hence
the importance of concept evaluation.
Also, the generation and evaluation of concepts have a great effect on the time
it takes to produce a new product. Figure 1.6 shows the number of design
changes made by two automobile companies with different design strategies.
Company A made many changes during the early stages of the design process
as a result of the iterative process of generation and evaluation of concepts.
Company B made just a few changes in the initial stage, but was still making
changes later in the process, even when the product was released for production. The advantage gained by company A is clear since changes made late in
the process are far more expensive than changes made in early stages.
The evaluation of concepts to find its viability may occur not only during
concept development, but throughout the design process. This will lead to the
so called Design process paradox (Ullman, 1992). The design process paradox
states that during the design process, the knowledge about the design increases
as the project runs in time and the design team gains understanding of the
problem at hand. Hence, the knowledge of the design team is at its top when
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Begin
design
Release for
production
Time
Figure 1.6: Engineering changes in automobile development (After Ullman,

1992).
the design process is at its end. Although this seems natural, it is important
to realize that, by the end of the process, most decisions have already been
made.
This increased knowledge at the end of the project tempt most design teams
to feel the need of re-doing the project now that they fully understand it.
Unfortunately, economics almost always drive the design process, and second
chances rarely exist.
Figure 1.7 shows the dilemma above. At the beginning of the process, the
design team has the most freedom since no decisions have been made. As time
goes by, knowledge increases as a result of the design time efforts, but freedom
is lost since decisions have been made and changes are increasingly expensive
to perform.
Concept testing is closely related to concept selection.
It is used to gather opinions and information from
potential customers about one or more of the selected concepts that may be
pursued. It can also be used gather information about how to improve an
specific product and to estimate the sales potential of the product.
1.2.6. Concept testing
Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) suggest to divide the concept testing into 6 steps:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
11

100
Knowledge about
the design problem
12
integration between different engineering disciplines involved on the design

effort.
80
The preliminary design helps to obtain more precise design requirements involving analysis, benchmarking, literature search, experience, good judgment
and, if necessary, testing. The refinement of the project also helps to have a
better estimate of the project cost and required time for completion.
Percent
60
40
Design
freedom
20
0
Time into design process
Figure 1.7: The design process paradox (After Ullman, 1992).

1. Definition of the purpose of the concept test.
2. Choosing of a survey population.
3. Choosing of a survey format.
4. Communication of the concept.
5. Measurement of customer response.
6. Interpretation of results.
Both concept selection and concept testing are used to narrow the possible
concepts under consideration. Concept selection relies in the work and judgment of the development team. Concept testing is based in data gathered
directly from potential customers.
After the preliminary design stage has been carried

out, it is necessary to go into the details of the design
in order to better understand the concepts. Detail design is mostly concerned
with the design of the subsystems and components that make up the entire
design. Because of the latter, this stage is sometimes divided into two independent parts, System-level design and the detail design itself.
1.2.8. Detailed design
In the system-level design the product arquitecture is defined and decomposition of the product into subsystems and components takes place. These components may be integrated circuits, resistors, shafts, bearings, beams, plates,
handles, seats, etc., depending on the nature of the product under development. Here, geometric layouts of the product and functional specifications for
each subsystem are stated.
The detail design phase includes the complete specification of each independent
part such as geometry, materials and tolerances and identifies all those parts
that will be purchased from suppliers. In this stage, the control documentation
of the product is generated, including technical drawings, part production
plans and assembly sequences.
This stage initiates with the identification of the
machines, tooling and processes required to manufacture the designed product. Technical data such as dimensions, tolerances,
materials and surface finishes among others are evaluated to determine the
appropriate assembly sequence for the manufacturing operations. According
to Ertas and Jones (2000), typical tasks included in the production planning
include:
1.2.9. Production planning
The preliminary design stage or embodiment design stage, fills the gap between design concept
and detailed design. According to French, in this phase the schemes are worked
up in greater detail and, if there is more than one, a final choice between them
is made. There is (or should be) a great deal of feedback from this phase to
the conceptual design phase.
1.2.7. Preliminary design
Is during this stage of the design process that the overall system configuration is defined. Extensive engineering documentation in the form of schemes,
diagrams, layouts, drawings, notes or other types of documents is generated
to provide control over the project and to ensure better communication and
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
1. Interpretation of design drawings and specifications.

2. Selection of material stock.
3. Selection of production processes.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
13
1.3 Quality Function Deployment
14
4. Selection of machines to be used in production.

With QFD
Effort
5. Determination of the sequence of operations.

6. Selection of jigs, fixtures, tooling and reference datum.
Traditional approach
7. Establishment of tool cutting parameters, such as speed, depth and feed

rate.
8. Selection of inspection gauges and instruments.
9. Calculation of processing time.
10. Generation of process documentation and numerically controlled machine data.
Once the production planning has been made and all the decisions regarding
production have been taken, a production ramp-up is made using the intended
production system. The purpose of the production ramp-up is to evaluate the
correctness of the production plan, the tooling and the assembly sequences to
follow as well as to identify possible flaws before going to a full-scale production.
Engineers feel most of times burdened with the idea
of documenting their designs. The preparation of
documents describing the design process and the reasons behind decisions
taken is oftenly seen as as an activity that does not directly contribute to
the design. Other times documentation is seen as an unattractive task that
does not involve any challenge at all.
1.2.10. Documentation
Nevertheless, documentation is as important as any other in the task in the

design process. Product documentation is important not only in terms of
instructions to user, maintainers or others, but is imperative for purposes like
legal protection or future product redesign.
Hence, keeping track of the ideas developed and decisions made in a design
notebook is essential. It is advisable to keep, for patent or legal purposes,
a notebook with dated pages that is sequentially numbered and signed. In
this notebook, all information related to the design such as sketches, notes,
calculations and reasons behind decisions should be included. The notebook
does not have to be neat, but certain order has to be kept. When design
information like plots, photocopies, drawings or results of analyses are too
large or bulky to keep in the notebook, a note stating what the document is,
a brief summary of its contents and where it is filed should be written.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Time
Design
Details
Process
Production
Figure 1.8: Traditional vs. QFD design approaches (After Ouyang et al.
When the design effort has concluded, standard drawings or computer data
files of components showing all the information necessary for the production
of the product have to be generated. This drawings usually include written
documentation regarding manufacturing, assembly, quality control, inspection,
installation, maintenance and, retirement.
1.3
Quality Function Deployment
It is not uncommon that designers find themselves working a problem only

to find out later that they were solving the wrong one. An efficient designer
must try by all possible means to define the correct problem at the beginning
or discover the problem at earliest possible moment. The Quality Function
Deployment technique provides a methodological way to do it.
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) originated in Japan as a help to translate customer requirements into technical requirements throughout the development and production of a product. It originated in Japan in the 1970s as
the Kobe supertanker company wanted to develop the logistics for building
complex cargo ships. Professors were asked to create a technique that would
ensure that each step of the construction process would be linked to fulfilling
a specific customer requirement.
Using this technique, Toyota was able to reduce the costs of bringing a new car
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
15
16
Design
Requirements
HOWS
3
Process
WHATS
Details
3. Determining relative importance of the requirements.
Process
Requirements
Product
Requirements
HOWS
WHATS
Design
2. Determining customer requirements.
Parts
Requirements
Parts
Requirements
WHATS
HOWS
1. Identifying the customer(s).
Design
Requirements
WHATS
Customer
Requirements
HOWS
The QFD technique uses six steps to do this translation:
Production
Requirements
4. Competition benchmarking.
5. Translating customer requirements into measurable engineering requirements.
6. Setting engineering targets for the design.
Production
Figure 1.9: The four phases of QFD. From customer requirements to client
satisfaction. The hows on each House of Quality becomes the whats in the
next.
model to the market by 60 percent and to decrease the time required for its
development by one third. As shown in figure 1.8, QFD requires more effort
on the design stage, but as most design flaws are catched early in the design
process, later stages are less prone to fail or require adjustments or redesigns.
According to Ouyang et al., Qualify Function Deployment has four distinct
phases: design, details, process and production. As shown in figure 1.9, in the
Design phase, the customer helps to define the requirements for the product
or service. In the Details phase, design parameters (hows) carried over the
design phase become the functional requirements (whats) of individual part
details. In the Process phase, the processes required to produce the product are
developed. Once more, the design parameters of the details phase become the
functional requirements of the process phase. Finally, in the Production phase,
the design parameters of the process phase become functional requirements for
production.
Each step will be reviewed in more detail, but before going any further is
convenient to highlight that:
No matter how well a design team thinks it understand a problem, it
should employ the QFD method.
Customer requirements must be translated into clear engineering targets
involving measurable quantities.
The QFD technique may be applied to the whole design as well as to
subsystems or subproblems.
It is important to first worry about what needs to be designed and, once
the problem is fully understood, to worry about how it will be designed.
1.3.1. Identification of
costumers
Sometimes is not only not clear what the customer

wants, but also who the customer is. Furthermore,
is very common to find that there is more than one
customer to satisfy.
As discussed above, QFD can be applied all the way through the design process from concept to production using the same principles on each phase. It
is generally agreed that the QFD technique is most valuable at the early design stages where customer requirements have to be translated to engineering
targets.
Independently of how many customers may be, it is essential to realize that the
customer, and not the engineer, is the one driving the product development
process. Many times the engineer has a mental picture of how the product
should be like and how it should perform, picture that may be very different
from what the customer really wants. On the other hand, may products have
been poorly received by the customers simply because the engineer failed to
identify accurately the customers desires.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
17
The determination of customer requirements should

be made through customers surveys or evaluation of
similar existing products. Customer requirements
should be made in the customers own words such as fast, easy, durable,
light, strong, etc. As much as possible, customer requirements should be
stated in positive terms.
1.3.2. Determination of
costumers requirements
In order to facilitate understanding, requirements may be grouped in types like

performance requirements, appearance requirements, safety requirements, and
so on. If the customer has specific preference for one given type, determining
the relative importance of different requirements may be easier to do.
Not all requirements will be regarded as equally

important to customers. For example, easy to
use may be more important for the customer
than easy to maintain, and easy to maintain
may be regarded as more more important than good looking. On the other
hand, some requirements like safe to use, may be regarded as absolute requirements rather than relative preferences.
relative importance of the
requirements
In order to design effectively, the design team should know which attributes
of their product design are the ones that most heavily affect the perception
of the product. Hence, it is necessary to establish the relative importance of
those attributes to the customers themselves.
Sometimes customers often make judgment about product attributes in terms of comparisons with other products. One screwdriver, for example, may have better
grip than others or another screwdriver may seem more durable. Given that
customers are not generally experts, they may compare different attributes by
observation of what some products achieve.
1.3.4. Competition
benchmarking
1.4 Some important design considerations
18
1.3.5. Conversion of
Once a set of customer requirements have been
customer needs into
selected due to its importance, it is necessary to
engineering requirements develop a set of engineering requirements that are
measurable.
Some of these engineering requirements, or design specifications, may be cleared
defined from the beginning. One example is the weight that a chair must withstand. Others, may be more difficult to characterize as will be measurable by
different means. In the case of a chair that is to be easily assembled by the
customer, easily may be measured in terms of the number of tools needed
for the assembly, the number of parts to be assembled, the number of steps
needed for the assembly or the time needed for the assembly.
In this step, every effort should be made in order to find all possible ways in
which a customer requirement may be measured.
The last step in the process is setting the engineering targets. For each engineering measure determined in the previous step, a target value will
be set. This target values will be used to evaluate the ability of the product
to satisfy customer requirements. Two actions will be needed, to examine how
the competition meets the engineering requirements, and to establish the value
to be obtained with the new product.
1.3.6. Setting engineering
targets
Best targets are established using specific values. Less precise, but still usable,
are those targets set within some range. Another type, extreme values, are
targets set to a minimum or maximum value. Although extreme type targets
are measurable, they are not the best since they give no clear information of
when the performance of a new product is acceptable. Here, evaluation of the
competition can give at least some range for the target value.
1.4
Some important design considerations
If the product is to be well positioned in a competitive market, the design

team must ensure that its product will satisfy customer requirements better
than competitor products. Therefore, the performance of the competition of
those product attributes that are weighted high in relative importance should
be analyzed.
When designing products, several considerations must be taken into account.

For the inexpert designer, this considerations may or may not be obvious
sources for requirements, parameters and targets. In what follows, three design
considerations, whose importance may depend on the project at hand, are
briefly discussed.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
19
1.4 Some important design considerations
1.5 Good design practices
Most of the times, when designing a new product, the design team does not pay much attention in how the product will be distributed. Decisions regarding packaging,
transportation and shelf stocking are taken after the product has been designed. Nevertheless, design features that could be avoided may increase the
distribution cost due to the need of special packaging, transportation or shelfs.
Design teams must do everything at their hands to avoid this situations that
unnecessarily increase the cost of the product.
process from early stages.
1.4.1. Product distribution
Taking into account the distribution of the product is specially important when
redesigning a product. Generally speaking, companies looking for an existing
product of better features are unwilling to make extensive modifications to the
existing distribution infrastructure. In this cases, product distribution will be
a major source of requirements.
It is normally assumed for most engineering products, that after it has completed its useful life, the
product will be removed from its original installation, retired and dispose of.
Nevertheless, in many occasions the product is put to some second use that is
different from its original purpose. Consider for example, an empty 20 lts. (4
Gal.) bucket that is used as a step.
1.4.2. Design for after life
The problem arises as this second use was not included in the initial design
specifications and is therefore not accounted for in the design process. The
result may be failure and personal injury leading to product liability litigation.
The fact that a certain product was used in a way never intended by the
original design may not be of importance on the court. Courts seem to focus
on whether the failure was foreseeable and not whether there was negligence
or ignorance. The best the design team can do is to try to foresee both use
and misuse an make provision in the design for credible failures.
In order to translate functional requirements into design parameters, the study

of ergonomics has produced a body of anthropometric (human measure) data
that can be used in designing anything that involves interaction between a
human and a product. As anyone will agree, humans bodies come in a variety
of shapes and sizes, which makes somewhat difficult to design a product to fit
absolutely everybody. Nevertheless, human measure can be well represented
as normal distributions.
This last feature makes it possible to define parameters to fit, let say, 90%
percent of the population. In many occasions, to be able to design for such a
high percentage of the population it is required to include adjustable features
to the product. One typical example is the way in which seat and steering
wheel positions can be altered in many cars to adapt the height and size of the
driver.
Other three ways in which humans may interact with products is as a source
of power (for example when opening a door), as a sensor (for example reading
a dashboard) or as a controller (for example the operating a CD player).
In the first case, information about the average force that a human can provide
(or is expected to provide) is vital toward a successful product. In the second
case, if the human is expected to be able to read information is important that
the person has only one way to interpret the data. In the third way, a product
must be designed so there is no ambiguities in the form in which the product
operates. For the product to be easy to interact with, there must be only one
obviously correct thing to do for every action that is required.
1.5
Almost every product that is designed will interact
with humans whether during manufacture, operation, maintenance, repair or disposal. Operation is
probably the most important since it will involve the largest span of interaction.
1.4.3. Human factors in
design
20
Good design practices
Considering operation, a good product will be the one that becomes an extension of the users motor and cognitive functions. To achieve this, human
machine interaction features should be included as parameters in the design
1.5.1. Good design versus The goal for the introduction of models for the
bad design
design process is to provide a guideline to help
the engineer/designer to achieve a better product through the use of good design practices. As
experience would tell, in most occasions it is not difficult to tell either as engineer or consumer, a good design from a bad design. Table 1.2 show some
general characteristics of good design versus bad design.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
21
Good Design
Bad Design
1. Works all the time
1. Stops working after a short time
2. Meets all technical requirements
2. Meets only some technical requirements
3. Meets cost requirements
3. Costs more than it should
4. Requires little or no maintenance
4. Requires frequent maintenance
5. Is safe
5. Poses a hazard to user
6. Creates no ethical dilemma
6. Fulfills a need that is questionable
Table 1.2: Characteristics of good design versus bad design. After Horenstein
(1999).
1.5.2. Good design
engineer versus bad design
engineer
Horenstein (1999) highlights the traits of good

design engineer and bad design engineers. According to Horenstein, a good engineer:
Listens to new ideas with an open mind.

Considers a variety of solution methodologies before choosing a design
approach.
Does not consider a project complete at the first sign of success, but
insists on testing and retesting.
Is never content to arrive at a set of design parameters by trial and error.
Use phrases such as I need to understand why and Lets consider all
the possibilities.
A Bad Engineer:
22
Equates pure trial and error with engineering design.

Green (1992) summarizes skills that seem to mark the expert designer in domains of routine design.
Supplying context. The requirements seldom provide enough information to
create a design. This occurs in part because the client himself does not know
precisely what he/she wants. However, another problem is that the stated
requirements imply several other, unstated, requirements. The expert can
read between the lines and supply context that reduces the search space.
Decision ordering. Strategic knowledge is a major part of the designers expertise. The expert designer is able to make decisions in the correct order
to avoid spending much time in backtracking and revising. Decision ordering
is important because it rank constraints. The experts decision ordering set
constraint values in some optimal sequence.
Heuristic classification. Although the overall design problem may be ill-structured,
it usually contains some well-structured components. Some decisions fell into
the heuristic classification paradigm (here, heuristic means problem-solving
techniques that utilize self-education techniques, as the evaluation of feedback, to improve performance). The designer begins by listing requirements,
both stated and unstated, and maps them to design parameters which enables
him/her to choose a set of design classes.
Parameter abstraction. Much of routine design requires to simultaneously manage a large collection of variable values. This can be a very complex cognitive
task since it requires the expert to maintain a large amount of information in
working memory. Experts are able to reduce the complexity of the problem by
abstracting only the most important parameters, treating related parameters
as single entities whenever possible.
Thinks he/she has all the answers; seldom listens to the ideas of others.
Has tunnel vision; pursues with intensity the first approach that comes
to mind.
Ships the product out the door without thorough testing.
Use phrases such as good enough and I dont understand why it wont
works; so-and-so I it this way.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
References
1. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons.
2. Eide, A., Jenison, R., Mashaw, L. & Northup, L. (1998) Introduction to
Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill.
3. Ertas A. & Jones, J. (1996) The Engineering Design Process, second ed.,
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
23
John Wiley & Sons.

4. Horenstein, M. (1999) Design Concepts for Engineers, Prentice-Hall.
5. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse
Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall.
6. Ouyang, S., Fai, J., Wang, Q. & Johnson, K. Quality Function Deployment.
University of Calgary Report.
7. Pugh, S. (1990) Total Design, Addison Wesley.
8. Suh, N. (1990) The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press.
9. Ullman, D. (1992) The Mechanical Design Process, McGraw-Hill.
10. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Irwin
McGraw-Hill.
CHAPTER
Identifying customer needs
If a new or redesign product is to be successful, it should fulfill the needs of the

customer. Unfortunately, the process of finding which are the real needs to be
fulfilled is not a straightforward one. According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2000),
the goals of a method for comprehensively identifying a set of customer needs
should be:
1. Ensure that the product is focused on customer needs.
2. Identify latent or hidden needs as well as explicit needs.
3. Provide a fact base for justifying the product specification.
4. Create an archival record of the needs activity of the development process.
5. Ensure that no critical customer need is missed or forgotten.
6. Develop a common understanding of customer needs among members of
the development team.
The main purpose of identifying customer needs is to create a direct information link between customers and developers. The involvement of members of
the design team (specially engineers and industrial designers) results essential
as they must have a clear view of how the product will be used by the end
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
25
2.1 Customer satisfaction
In this chapter, the next 5 steps to effectively identify customer needs will be
discussed:
Customer
Satisfaction
user. This direct experience will help the design team not only to discover the
true needs of the customer, but also to create better concepts and to evaluate
them in a more accurate form.
26
Delighted
e
urv
eC
nc
a
rm
rfo
e
dP
cte
pe
Ex
Delighted Performance Curve
Fully Implemented
1. Gather raw data from customers.

2. Interpret the raw data.
Function
Absent
Basic Performance Curve
3. Organize the needs into a hierarchy.

4. Establish the relative importance of the needs.
5. The review of the process and its results.
2.1
Customer satisfaction
In order to satisfy customers, a given product must fulfill customer expectations about it. Even when finding which features are wanted by the customer
is a difficult task since customers usually not mention them directly, customer
satisfaction translates to the implementation in a given product as much desired features as possible. In order to better understand this relationship, the
Kano diagram may be of help.
The Kano model shown in figure 2.1, shows the
relationship between customer needs and satisfaction in an easy to appreciate diagram ranking the customer satisfaction from
disgusted to delighted.
2.1.1. The Kano diagram
The lower curve in Kanos diagram is called the basic performance curve or
expected requirements curve. It represent the essentially basic functions or
features that customers normally expect of a product or service. They are
usually unvoiced and invisible since successful companies rarely make catastrophic mistakes. However, they become visible when they are unfulfilled.
Disgusted
Figure 2.1: Kano diagram of customer satisfaction. After Otto & Wood (2001).
They satisfy customers when fulfilled. But they do not leave customers dissatisfied when left unfulfilled. And they are invisible to customers since they
are not even known.
The center line of the Kano diagram is called the one-to-one quality or linear quality line. It represents the minimum expectation of any new product
development undertaking. It is related also to performance type issues such
as faster is better. These represent what most customers talk about. Thus,
they are visible to the company and its competitors. The expected requirements and exciting requirements provide the best opportunity for competitive
advantage. Hence, ways to make hem visible and then deliver on them are
needed.
The upper curve in Kanos diagram is called the delighted performance curve or
exciting requirements curve. They are a sort of out of the ordinary functions
or features of a product or service that cause wow reactions in customers.
Kanos diagram is often interpreted simply as a relationship model of expected

quality vs. excited quality. What is really important, however, is that the target of customer satisfaction can not only invisible but also moving. Customer
expectations increase over time. This calls for a more complex analysis and
deeper market understanding.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
27
2.2 Gather data from customers
28
According to Otto & Wood (2001) customer needs

may be profitably considered in general categories
based on how easy the customer can express them
and how rapidly they change. They can be classified in three categories: first,
direct and latent needs which consider observability, second, constant and
variable needs which consider technological changes and finally, general and
niche needs which consider variance in the consumers.
2.2
Direct needs These are the needs that, when asked about the product
customer have no trouble declaring as something they are concerned about.
These are easily uncovered using standard methods as the one that will be
described hereafter.
Interviews One or more members of the design team interview a number of

customers, one at a time. Interviews are generally carried out in the environment of the costumer where the product is used. They typically last for one
to two hours.
Latent needs These are the needs that typically are not directly expressed
by the customer without probing. Customer typically do not think in modes
that allow themselves to express these needs directly. Latent needs are better
characterized as customer needs, not of the product, but of the system within
which the product operates. Other products, services or actions currently
satisfy the needs directly. Yet, these needs might be fulfilled with a developing
product, and doing so can provide competitive advantage.
Questionnaires A list of important concerns, questions and criteria is prepared by the design team and sent to selected customers. Although this type
of survey is quite useful at later stages of the design process, at this stage they
do not provide enough information about the use environment of the product.
It is also important to notice that not all needs may be revealed using this
method.
2.1.2. Types of customer

needs
Constant needs These needs are intrinsic to the task of the product and
always will be. When a product is used, this need will always be there. Such
needs are effective to examine with customer needs analysis, since the cost can
be spread over time.
Variable needs These needs are not necessarily constant; if a foreseeable
technological change can happen, these needs go away. These needs are more
difficult to understand through discussions with the customer, since the customer may not understand them yet.
General needs These needs apply to every person in the customer population. It is necessary for a product to fulfill these needs if it is to compete in
the existing market.
Niche needs These needs apply only to a smaller market segment within
the entire buying population.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Gather data from customers
In order to obtain information from customers, several methods are available:

interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, observing the product in use and
finally, be the customer oneself. In what follows, a brief description of each
one together with pros and cons is given.
Focus groups A group of 8 to 12 customers participate in a discussion

session facilitated by a moderator. Focus groups are typically conducted in a
special room equipped with a two-way mirror allowing several members of the
development team to observe the group. It is desired for the moderator to be
a professional market researcher, but a member of the development team can
also perform as moderator.
Observing the product in use When watching a customer using an existing product or perform a task for which a new product is intended, details
about customer needs can be reveled. Observation may be passive, leaving the
customer to use the product without any direct interference or can be carried
out along with one of the design team members allowing the development of
firsthand experience about the use of the product.
Be the customer In many situations, members of the design team may
perform as users of existing competitor products or, in later stages of the
design process, of prototypes. Although this method is very cost effective and
relatively easy to perform as no persons outside the design team are involved,
it posses two main problems. First, members of the design team may not
have the required skills or experience to accurately evaluate the product, and
second, they may feel biased towards certain characteristics of the product.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
29
Lead Users
Users
Retailer or
Sales Outlet
Service
Centers
Occasional User
Frequent User
Heavyduty User
Figure 2.2: Customer selection matrix. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
30
Ulrich and Eppinger provide some general hints for effective customer interaction. First, they suggest to sketch
an interview guide that help to obtain an honest expression of needs. This can not be stressed enough, the goal of the interview is to
obtain customer needs, not to convince the customer of what he or she really
wants. Some helpful questions and prompts to use are:
2.2.2. Conducting
Interviews
When and why do you use this type of product?

Walk us through a typical session using the product.
What do you like about the existing products?
What do you dislike about the existing products?
From the above methods, research carried out by Griffin and Hauser (1993)
reports that conducting interviews is the most cost and effort effective method.
According to their report, one 2-hour focus group reveals about the same
number of needs as two 1-hour interviews. They also report that interviewing
nine customers for one hour each will obtain over 90% of the customer needs
that would be uncovered when interviewing 60 customers. These figures where
obtained when a single function product was being considered, and may change
when considering multi-function products. According to Ulrich & Eppinger,
as a practical guideline for most products, conducting fewer than 10 interviews
is probably inadequate and 50 interviews are probably too many.
Selecting customers is not always a straightforward activity as many different persons may be
considered a customer. Consider, for example, all those products that are
purchased by one person and used by another. In all cases, it is important to
gather information from the end user, and then gather information from other
type of customers and stake-holders.
2.2.1. Selecting customers
A customer selection matrix like the one shown in figure 2.2, is useful for
planning exploration of both market and customer variety. It is recommended
that market segments be listed on the left side of the matrix while the different
types of customers are listed across the top. The number of intended customer
contacts is entered in each cell to indicate the depth of coverage.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
What issues do you consider when purchasing the product?

What improvements would you make to the product?
Second, they suggest the following general hints for effective interaction with
customers:
Go with the flow. If the customer is providing useful information, do not
worry about conforming to the interview guide. The goal is to gather
information data on customer needs, not to complete the interview guide
in the allotted time.
Use visual stimuli and props. Bring a collection of existing and competitors products, or even products that are tangentially related to the
product under development. At the end of a session, the interviewers
might even show some preliminary product concepts to get customers
early reactions to various approaches.
Suppress preconceived hypotheses about the product technology. Frequently
customers will make assumptions about the product concept they expect would meet their needs. In these situations, the interviewers should
avoid biasing the discussion with assumptions about how the product
will eventually be designed or produced. When customers mention specific technologies or product features, the interviewer should probe for
the underlying need the customer believes the suggested solution would
satisfy.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
31

Have the customer demonstrate the product and/or typical tasks related
to the product. If the interview is conducted in the use environment, a
demonstration is usually convenient and invariably reveals new information.

Customer Data: Project/Product Name
Customer:
Address:
Willing to do follow up?
Type of user:
Question
Customer Statement
32
Interviewer(s):
Date:
Currently uses:
Interpreted Need
Importance
Be alert for surprises and the expression of latent needs. If a customer

mentions something surprising, pursue the lead with follow-up questions.
Frequently, an unexpected line of questioning will reveal latent needs
important dimensions of the customers needs that are neither fulfilled
nor commonly articulated and understood.
Watch for nonverbal information. The design process is usually aimed
at developing better physical products. Unfortunately, words are not
always the best way to communicate needs related to the physical word.
This is particularly true of needs involving the human dimensions of the
product, such as comfort, image or style. The development team must
be constantly aware of the nonverbal messages provided by customers.
What are their facial expressions? How do they hold competitors products?
2.2.3. How to document
interactions
There are four main methods for documenting interactions with customers:
Notes Handwriting notes are the most common method of documenting an

interview. If a person is designated as notetaker, other person can concentrate
in effectively questioning the customer. The notetaker should try to capture
the answers of the customer in a verbatim form. If the notes from the interview
are transcribed inmediately after it, a very close account of the interview can
be obtained.
Figure 2.3: Customer data template. After Otto & Wood (2001).
the advantage of being inexpensive and easy to do.

One useful aid in the collection of data from a customer interview is a customer
data template. A customer data template, like the one shown in figure 2.3,
helps to record questions, answers and comments. The template can be filled
during the interview or inmediately afterwards.
Video recording Video recording is the usual way of documenting focus

group sessions. It is also very useful for documenting observations of the
customer in the use environment and the performance of existing products.
In the first column, the question prompted is recorded. In the second column,
a verbatim description of the answer and comments given by the customer is
recorded. In the third column, the customer needs implied by the raw data are
written. Special attention must be given to clues that may identify potential
latent needs like humorous remarks, frustrations or non-verbal information. In
the last column, linguistic expressions of importance that the customer may
have used are recorded. The importance may be expressed in terms of words
like must, good, should, nice or poor.
Still photography Even when dynamic information cannot be captured by

it, still photography can be used to capture high quality images. It also has
According to Otto & Wood, a must is used when a customer absolutely must
have this feature, generally when it is a determining criterion in purchasing
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Audio recording Audio recording is probably the easiest way of documenting and interview. Unfortunately, many customers feel intimidated by it.
Another disadvantage is that transcribing the recording into text is very time
consuming.
33
2.3 Interpret raw data
the product. Must ratings should be used very sparingly; only a few musts
per customer interview is a good rule. A very important customer need should
have a good importance rating. Needs that are presumed should have at least a
should rating. If the customer feels the product should satisfy this requirement,
it is important enough for the design team to consider it. The nice category
is for customer needs that would be nice if the product satisfied them but are
not critical.
2.3
2.4 Organization of needs
Guideline
Customer Statement
Need Statement - Right
Need Statement - Wrong
What not how
Why dont you put

protective shields around
the battery contacts?
The screwdriver battery is

protected from accidental
shorting.
The screwdriver battery

contacts are covered by a
plastic sliding door.
Specificity
I drop my screwdriver all

the time.
The screwdriver operates

normally after repeated
dropping.
The screwdriver is rugged.
Positive not negative
It doesnt matter if its

raining; I still need to work
outside on Saturdays.
The screwdriver operates

normally in the rain.
The screwdriver is not

disabled by the rain.
An attribute of
the product
Id like to charge my
battery from my cigarette
lighter.
The screwdriver battery can

be charged from an
automobile cigarette
lighter.
An automobile cigarette
lighter adapter can charge
Avoid must
and should
I hate it when I dont know

how much juice is left in
the batteries of my
cordless tools.
The screwdriver provides an

indication of the energy
level of the battery.
The screwdriver should

provide an indication of
the energy level of the
battery.
Interpret raw data
At this point, customer needs are expressed in terms of verbatim written statements. Every customer comment or observation as expressed in the customer
data template may be translated into any number of customer needs. It has
been found that multiple analysts may translate the same interview notes into
different needs, so it is convenient for more than one team member to be
involved in this task.
34
Table 2.1: Examples illustrating the guidelines for writing need statements for
a cordless screwdriver (After Ulrich & Eppinger, 2000).
Express the need as an attribute of the product. Wording needs
as statements about the product ensure consistency and facilitates subsequent translation into product specifications.
Ulrich & Eppinger provide five guidelines for writing need statements. They
recognize the first two as fundamental and critical to effective translation, and
the remaining three as guidelines to ensure consistency of phrasing and style
across all team members. Table 2.1 shows examples to illustrate each guideline.
Avoid the words must and should. The words must and should
imply a level of importance for the need.
Express the need in terms of what the product has to do, not
in terms of how it might do it. Customers often express their preferences by describing a solution concept or an implementation approach;
however, the need statement should be expressed in terms independent
of a particular technological solution.
After all the customer comments have been translated into need statements,
the design team ends up with a group of maybe tens or even hundreds of need
statements. At this point, some may be similar, other may not be technological
feasible, and others may express conflicting needs. In the following section,
methods for organizing and classifying these needs are presented.
Express the need as specifically as the raw data. Needs can be

expressed at many different levels of detail. To avoid loss of information,
express the need at the same level of detail as the raw data.
2.4
Use positive, not negative, phrasing. Subsequent translation of a

need into a product specification is easier if the need is expressed as a
positive statement. This may not apply in those occasions when the
statement is expressed more naturally in negative terms.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Organization of needs
2.4.1. Classification of
needs
In order to work effectively with all the customer

needs, it is necessary to classify them in groups of
equal or similar statements. Each group may be subsequently sorted out in a list according to the relative
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
35
2.4 Organization of needs
2.5 Design brief
36
importance of each need in the group. Each group list typically consists of a set
of primary needs, each one of which will be characterized by a set of secondary
needs and if needed, tertiary needs.
Importance
This process of sorting and classification is normally performed by the design

team. Nevertheless, it also exists the possibility of leaving this task to a group
of selected customers. According to Otto and Wood, this approach prevents
the customer data from being biased by the development team.
The classification of needs can be done without many difficulties following the
next steps:
Ranking 1
Ranking 2
Must
1.0
Good
0.7
Should
0.5
Nice
0.3
not mentioned
Table 2.2: Two different ranking systems for the importance of needs.
interpreted importance rank of the ith customer need can be obtained from
1. Write each need on a small card.
Ri =
2. Group similar needs eliminating redundant statements.

3. Choose a descriptive name for each group.
4. Review the process and consider alternative ways of grouping the statements.
When working with different customer segments, cards with different color
labels can be used to distinguish between them. The sorting and classification process can also be done separately for each customer segment observing
differences in both the needs themselves and their organization. The latter
approach is best suited when the segments are very different in their needs
and when there is the question if just one product may suit the needs of all
segments.
As of now, the classification of needs does not provide any information regarding the relative importance that the customer place on different needs.
Each customer need has an importance expressed
by the own customer during the interview. It is expected that different customers will feel different regarding the importance of features according to
their own use of the product.
relative importance of
needs
number of times mentioned

number of subjects
(2.1)
It is important to have in mind that the above method may raise inconclusive
results as it mainly measures the obviousness of the need as opposed to its
importance. Therefore, needs that may be obvious but not important may be
ranked high as opposed to important needs that may not be obvious.
A more correct approach, is to include in the ranking the importance statements given by the customer during the interview. In order to do so, it is
necessary to convert the subjective importance ratings into numerical equivalents. A typical transformation is shown in table 2.2.
Once the mapping has been carried out, the importance assigned to each customer need can be calculated as:
average rating number of times mentioned
Ri =
(2.2)
number of subjects
Although a better method of ranking customer needs, the previous method
has also its own flaws as it still may hide important needs that were reveled
by only few customers but were not seen by the rest.
2.5
Design brief
An elementary approach to establish the relative importance of needs is to

first construct a set of normalized weightings by comparing the number of
subjects who mention a need versus the total number of subjects. Hence, the
After grouping and ranking customer needs, a better idea of the design problem
is at hand. To keep a clear idea of the direction of the design process, the design
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
37
2.6 Clarifying customer needs
team may issue what is called a design brief or mission statement. A design
statement includes a brief description of the product, key business goals, target
markets, assumptions and constraints and stakeholders:
Description of the product A brief description typically includes the

key customer benefits of the product avoiding implying a specific product
concept.
Key business goals. These goals generally include goals for time, cost,
quality and market share. Other goals may be added as deem appropriate.
Target markets. Identifies the primary as well as secondary markets
that should be considered during the design process.
Assumptions and constraints. In some projects is necessary to make
assumptions in order to keep a project of manageable scope and size. In
other occasions, time, cost or even feature constraints are known from
the beginning of the product.
Stakeholders. It is always convenient to list all the stakeholders in
order to handle subtle issues that may appear during the development
process. Stakeholders are all the groups of people who are affected by
the success or failure of the product. The list usually begins with the end
user and the customer who makes the buying decision about the product.
Stakeholders also include the customers residing within the firm such as
the sales force, the service organization and the production departments.
2.6
Clarifying customer needs
One step further in the determination of customer needs is to try to clarify

all the customer need that were grouped, classified and prioritized. In fact, it
is very helpful to have the clearest possible idea of the customer needs at all
stages of the design process. These customer needs, that will guide the design
process, should be expressed in a form which is easily understood and which
can be agreed by both, client and designer.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
38
2.6.1. The objectives tree The objectives tree method offers a clear and usemethod
ful format for such a clarification of customer
need statements in form of objectives. It also
shows in a diagrammatic form the ways in which different objectives are related to each other and the hierarchical pattern in which they are organized.
As with many methods in the design process, the objectives tree is not as
important as the procedure for arriving at it.
One way to start making vague statements more specific is to try to simple
specify what it means. Consider the following example provided by Cross
(1994) where an objective for a machine tool must be safe. This objective
might be expanded to mean:
1. Low risk of injury to operator.
2. Low risk of operator mistakes.
3. Low risk of damage to work-piece or tool
4. Automatic cut-out on overload.
These different statements can be generated simply at random as the design
team discusses about the objective. The types of questions that are useful in
expanding and clarifying objectives are simple ones like why do we want to
achieve this objective? and what is the problem really about?.
Some authors also include questions like How can we achieve it? starting to
give some insight about how the objectives may be accomplished. This gives
way to statements like automatic cut-out on overload which are not objectives
by themselves but means of achieving certain objectives.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid making concessions reducing the scope
of the possible solutions that may be generated in later stages of the design
process. For this reason, in the approach followed here, everything related to
the how to accomplish objectives will be left to the concept generation stage.
As the list of objectives is expanded, it becomes clear that some are at higher
levels of importance than others. This relative importance may be represented
in a hierarchical diagram of relationships as shown in figure 2.4.
In some cases, the relative position of each statement in the diagram may be
a source of disagreement between the different members of the design team.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
39
40
Machine must
be safe
Provide
opening
How
Low risk
of injury to
operator
Low risk
of operator
mistakes
Low risk of
damage to
workpiece or tool
Enable
in/out
Pivot
door
Open
door
Why
Push/pull
door
Automatic
cutout on
overload
Close
door
Figure 2.4: Hierarchical diagram of relationships. After Cross (1994).
Keep
weather out
Povide
seal
However, exact precision of relative levels is not important, and most people
can agree when only a few levels are being considered.
At this point, it is important to notice that the level of importance of the
statement should not be confused with the level of importance of the customer
need. Here, importance is related to the statements written to try to clarify
one objective, which correspond to one customer need.
When
open
Provide
protection
Correct
amount
Safe
force
In many cases, different people will draw different objectives trees for the same
problem or the same set of objective statements. The tree diagram simply
represents one perception of the problem structure. It is only a temporary
representation, which will probably change as the design process proceeds.
One more elaborated example of an objective tree is shown in figure 2.5 where
the objectives tree for the design of a car door is shown.
Safe
direction
Against
injury
When
closing
Resist
impact
Resist
damage
Provide
safety
Safe
interior
When
closed
The procedure of building an objectives tree can be summarized using the

following steps:
Strong
latch
Provides
latch
Latches
securely
Against
theft
Secure
handle
Inaccessible
lock
Figure 2.5: Objectives tree for a car door. After Pugh (1991).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
41
42
1. Prepare a list of design objectives.

Black Box
2. Order the list into sets of higher-level and lower-level objectives.

3. The expanded list of objectives and sub-objectives is grouped roughly
into hierarchical levels.
Inputs
Transparent Box
From the objectives tree method, it is clear that design problems can have different levels of generality
or detail. Hence, the level at which the problem is
defined is crucial and it is always appropriate to question the level at which
the design problem is posed. On the other hand, focusing too narrowly on a
certain level may hide a more radical or innovative solution.
2.6.2. The functional

decomposition method
The function decomposition method offers such means of considering essential

functions and the level at which the problem is to be addressed. The essential
functions are those that the device, product or system to be design must satisfy,
independently what physical components might be used to fulfill them.
Outputs
Figure 2.6: A black box system model. After Cross (1994).
4. Draw a diagrammatic tree of objectives showing hierarchical relationships which suggest means of achieving objectives.
In any way, it is useful to have means of considering the problem level at which
a design team is to work. It is also very useful if this can be done considering
the essential functions that a solution will be required to satisfy. This approach
leaves the design team free to develop alternative solution proposals that satisfy
the functional requirements.
Function
Subfunction
Subfunction
Inputs
Subfunction
Subfunction
Function
Outputs
Figure 2.7: A transparent box model. After Cross (1994).

are the outputs for?, what is the next stage of conversion?, etc. can be made
to the customer.
Usually the conversion of the set of inputs into the set of outputs is a complex
set of tasks occurring inside the black box. This complex set of tasks must
be broken down into sub-tasks or sub-functions which linked together by their
inputs and outputs satisfy the overall function of the product or device being
designed. As this necessary sub-functions are establish, the black box is redraw
as a transparent box (see figure 2.7).
The starting point of this method is to clarify what is the main purpose of the
design. As it has been up to now, it is important what has to be achieved by
the new design and not how is going to be achieved. The most simple way of
representing this main purpose is to draw a black box which converts certain
inputs into desired outputs (see figure 2.6). This black box contains all the
functions which are necessary for converting inputs into outputs.
According to Pahl and Beitz (2001), anyone setting up a function structure

ought to bear the following points in mind:
At this point, it is preferable to try to make this overall function as broad

as possible, avoiding to start with a narrow function that limits the range of
possible solutions. In order to establish in an accurately way the required
inputs and outputs as well as the system boundary which defines the function
of the product or device, questions like where do the inputs come from?, what
1. First derive a rough function structure with a few sub-functions from

what functional relationships you can identify in the requirements list,
and then break this rough structure down, step by step, by the solution
of complex sub-functions. This is much simpler than starting out with
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
43

more complicated structures. In certain circumstances, it may be helpful
to substitute a first solution idea for the rough structure and then, by
analysis of that first idea, to derive other important sub-functions. It is
also possible to begin with subfunctions whose inputs and outputs cross
the assumed system boundary. From these it is possible to determine the
inputs and outputs for the neighboring functions, in other words, work
from the system boundary inwards.

Storing energy for instance, storing kinetic energy.
Conversion of material:
Changing matter for instance, liquefying a gas.
Varying material dimensions for instance, rolling sheet metal.
Connecting matter with energy for instance, moving parts.
2. If no clear relationship between the sub-functions can be identified, the

search for a first solution principle may, under certain circumstances,
be based on the mere enumeration of important sub-functions without
logical or physical relationships, but if possible, arranged according to
the extent to which they have been realized.
Connecting matter with signal for instance, cutting off steam.
3. Logical relationships may lead to function structures through which the

logical elements of various working principles (mechanical, electrical,
etc.) can be anticipated.
Storing material - for instance, keeping grain in a silo.
4. Function structures are not complete unless the existing or expected flow
of energy, material and signals can be specified. Nevertheless, it is useful
to begin by focusing attention on the main flow because, as a rule, it
determines the design and is more easily derived from the requirements.
The auxiliary flows then help in the further elaboration of the design, in
coping with faults, and in dealing with problems of power transmission,
control, etc. The complete function structure, comprising all flows and
their relationships, can be obtained by iteration, that is, by looking first
for the structure of the main flow, completing that structure by taking the
auxiliary flows into account, and then establishing the overall structure.
5. In setting up function structures it is helpful to know that, in the conversion of energy, material and signals, several sub-functions recur in most
structures and should therefore be introduced first. Essentially, the generally valid functions are described next.
Conversion of energy:
44
Connecting materials of different type for instance, mixing or

separating materials.
Channelling material - for instance, mining coal.
Conversion of signals:
Changing signals for instance, changing a mechanical into an electrical signal, or a continuous into an intermittent signal.
Varying signal magnitudes for instance, increasing a signals amplitude.
Connecting signals with energy for instance, amplifying measurements.
Connecting signals with matter for instance, marking materials.
Connecting signals with signals for instance, comparing target
values with actual values.
Channelling signals for instance, transferring data.
Storing signals for instance, in data banks.
6. In the case of mechanical devices, table 2.3 can be a good starting point
to identify functions.
Changing energy for instance, electrical into mechanical energy.

Varying energy components for instance, amplifying torque.
Connecting energy with a signal for instance, switching on electrical energy.
Channeling energy for instance, transferring power.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
7. For the application of micro-electronics, it is useful to consider signal

flows as shown in figure 2.5. This results in a function structure that
suggests clearly the modular use of elements to detect (sensors), to activate (actuators), to operate (controllers), to indicate (displays) and, in
particular, to process signals using microprocessors.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
45
Operate
User
Indicate
Process
(control)
Detect
Technical
system
Activate
Figure 2.8: Basic signal flow functions for modular use in micro-electronics.
After Pahl and Beitz (2001).
8. From a rough structure, or from a function structure obtained by the
analysis of known systems, it is possible to derive further variants and
hence to optimize the solution, by:
braking down or combining individual sub-functions;
changing the arrangement of individual sub-functions;
changing the type of switching used (series switching, parallel switching or bridge switching); and
shifting in the system boundary.
Because varying the function structure introduces distinct solutions, the
setting up of function structures constitutes a first step in the search for
solutions.
9. Function structures should be kept as simple as possible, so as to lead to
simple and economical solutions. To this end, it is also advisable to aim
at the combination of functions for the purpose of obtaining integrated
function carriers. There are, however, some problems in which discrete
functions must be assigned to discrete function carriers, for instance,
when the requirements demand separation, or when there is a need for
extreme loading and quality.
46
Absorb/remove
Dissipate
Release
Actuate
Drive
Rectify
Amplify
Hold or fasten
Rotate
Assemble/disassemble Increase/decrease
Secure
Change
Interrupt
Shield
Channel or guide
Join/separate
Start/stop
Clear or avoid
Lift
Steer
Collect
Limit
Store
Conduct
Locate
Supply
Control
Move
Support
Convert
Orient
Transform
Couple/interrupt
Position
Translate
Direct
Protect
Verify
Table 2.3: Typical mechanical design functions. After Ullman (2003).

The procedure to follow to establish the required functions and the system
boundary of a new design can be stated using the following steps:
1. Express the overall function for the design in terms of the conversion of
inputs and outputs.
2. Break down the overall function into a set of essential subfunctions.
3. Draw a block diagram showing the interaction between subfunctions.
4. Draw the system boundary. The system boundary defines the functional
limits for the product or device to be designed.
In order to effectively apply the functional decomposition method, the following guidelines should be followed:
1. Document what not how.
2. Use standard notation when possible.
3. Consider logical flows.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
47

Cold water
48
Hot tea
(measured quantity)
Tea begin
BREWED
Tea leaves
(measured quantity)
Tea leaves
(waste)
Figure 2.9: Black box model of the tea brewing process. After Cross (1994).
4. Match inputs and outputs in the functional decomposition.
(a)
Water
5. Break the function down as finely as possible.

One simple example that can be used to illustrate the process of functional
decomposition is that of a tea maker (Cross, 1994). The fundamental process
to be achieved by such a machine is to convert cold water and tea leaves into
hot tea as illustrated in figure 2.9.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Tea is
infusing
Tea and water

are separated
Tea leaves
(b)
Water
Leaves
Tea
Water is
heated
Tea leaves
are immersed
Energy
Tea leaves
(c)

3. Pahl, G. and Beitz W. (2001) Engineering Design - A systematic Approach.
Second Ed. Springer. 4. Ullman, D. (2003) The Mechanical Design Process.
Third Ed. McGraw-Hill.
5. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Second
Ed. Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Water and
tea united
Energy
Some transparent box models of the tea maker are shown in figure 2.10. These
models represent three alternative processes by which the overall function can
be achieved. After considering them, the designer settled on the first process where various necessary auxiliary functions became apparent, specially
regarding the control of the heating and brewing processes.
References
Tea
Water is
heated
Water
Water is
heated
Tea leaves
are wetted
Leaves
Concentrate and
water are united
Tea
Energy
Figure 2.10: Three alternatives to the transparent box model for the tea brewing process. After Cross (1994).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
3.1 Benchmarking
50
they understand their product by mere self-inspection, they are closing doors
to a wide array of alternative possibilities.
CHAPTER
Benchmarking and Product Specifications
Benchmarking the competition as an activity in the product development process overlaps many of the other activities as it generates data that is important
to understand a product and forecast its future development. This activity cannot be understated, product developers must learn from competitors.
Companies must avoid the Not-Invented-Here (NIH) syndrome that presents
when engineers at a company choose not to use technology developed outside
it as it is considered to not be of any good. This may cause a product to fail,
as it leaves the design teams and companies behind as new technology emerges
at the marketplace.
Design teams must understand the importance of newly introduced technology
by competitors and be ready to respond. Benchmarking allows to meet this
goal. It is also an important step in establishing engineering specifications.
3.1
Benchmarking
A famous example of understanding the competition is that of Xerox Corporation. When in 1979 Xerox marketshare in the copy machines segment was
rapidly decreasing, its engineers pondered the following question: How in the
world could the Japanese manufacture in Japan, ship it over to the United
States, land it, sell it to a distributor who sells it to a dealer who marks up the
cost to the final customer, and the price the customer pays is about what it
would cost us to build the machine in the first place? (Jacobson and Hillkirk,
1986). Even when at the time Xerox was not able to analyze and understand
competitors product, production and distribution, they have now competitive
benchmarking activities. These activities allows them to focus on how to be
successful, rather than how competitors can be better than them.
In order to understand the competition, design teams must tear down and analyze competitive products. This activity must be done periodically, not only
supporting new design efforts but also developing a continuous understanding
of trends and directions in technology development. Many large companies
have entire departments devoted only to benchmarking activities. These departments provide insight not only on new technological developments, but
also in the position of the companys products in the marketplace in terms of
quality, value and performance.
Benchmarking activities are vital at all stages of the product development as
they:
provide a way to understand what needs other products are satisfying
provide means to establish product specifications ensuring that products
goals superpass existing competition
help in the concept generation stage providing best-in-class concepts
help to incorporate in the detailed design new and improved design features of the best-in-class products
There are two main purposes for studying existing competitive products: first,
creates an awareness of what products are already available, and second, reveal
opportunities to improve what already exists. Design teams must be aware
not only on what other products offer, but also how other competitors provide
similar products. As Otto & Wood (2001) clearly state, when engineers think
According to Otto & Wood (2001), product benchmarking can be carried out
following the next steps:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
help to find the best-in-class components and suppliers
51
3.1 Benchmarking
1. Form a list of design issues
2. Form a list of competitive or related products
3. Conduct an information search
4. Tear down multiple products in class
5. Benchmark by function
6. Establish best-in-class competitors by function
7. Plot industry trends
A list of issues must be developed for comparative benchmarking. Further, this list should be
continually revised and updated. With a focus
for benchmarking efforts, an efficient exploration path may be pursued. The
result is a reduction in wasted time and resources.
3.1.1. Form a list of design

issues
Considering the design issues and product function

in product development, the next step is to examine retailer stores and sales outlets for products that
demonstrate these issues. For a product, it is necessary to list all competitors and their different product models. In addition,
all related products in their portfolio should be listed. If the competitors
have a family of products under a common platform (they use identical components for some aspects of each product but different components for niche
demands), detailed information about this should be included as it indicate
the competitors preferred market segments and compromises made for other
market segments.
3.1.2. Form a list of
competitive or related
products
3.1 Benchmarking
52
3.1.3. Conduct an The information search is a step of great importance. In

information search order to benchmark a piece of hardware, the design team
must gather as much information about the product as
possible. Any printed article that mentions the product, its features, its materials, the company, manufacturing locations or problems, customers, market
reception or share, or any other information will be useful. Because of the
proliferation of computerized databases and the World Wide Web, a good library is essential. There is a generous amount of information available about
all business operations. Before starting any design activity, a team must understand the market demand for product features and what the competition
is doing to meet it. A design team should gather information on
the products and related products
the functions they perform
the targeted market segments
All keywords associated with these three categories should be formed and used
in informational searches.
Sources of information can be quite varied. Most businesspersons are perfectly
happy to discuss the market and noncompetitive business units. Although
most businesspersons will not provide strategic information about their own
companies, many people are happy to tell all about their competitors. Suppliers will usually discuss their customers as they can, if it appears that the
requester might provide an additional sale. The key is always to be open,
honest and ethical when questioning for information. Once people understand
that a design team is designing a new product or redesigning an existing one,
they naturally want to get involved with new orders and will help the team as
far as they legally can. Pursuit of information beyond that point is unethical
and not necessary. Most people are happy to share information, and so simple
honesty and a friendly attitude can get team members along way.
This step should only be an identification of the competitors in the form of

company names and product names. With a complete set of different products,
vendors and suppliers to examine, the list should be screened by highlighting
the particular competitors that appear most crucial for the design team to
fully understand. This step serves as basis for the next step, conducting an
information search.
Sources of information can be divided in two main groups: public sources that
are freely accessible, and market research databases that are accessible through
a fee.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Public sources of product information include:
53
3.1 Benchmarking
Libraries University libraries are filled with technical engineering modeling

references. Many libraries that does not have a large book count, have access
to other larger libraries where information may be found and retrieved through
inter-library loans.
Thomas Register of Companies This set of documents is a yellow pages
for manufacturing-related business. The Thomas Register list vendor by product name (http://www.thomasregister.com).
Consumer Reports Magazines These magazines survey and test a number
of common consumer products. Useful data are available for customer needs,
qualitative benchmarking, engineering specifications, and warranty andmaintenance information. If a given product is not covered in the magazines, other
products can provide analogies as a starting point.
(http://www.consumerreports.com/,
http://www.profeco.gob.mx/new/html/revista.htm).
Trade Magazines Consumer trade magazines such as Car and driver, Byte,
Consumer Electronics, JD Powers and Associates, and others provide comparative studies of products within a field. Such studies are very useful to
understand how a given product compares with the competition and to understand important customer and technical criteria.
Patents After examining trade journals and uncovering which competitors
have new innovations, gathering the patents on these new innovations explains
much. Patent searches based on company names are difficult since companies
typically bury their patents by filing them under the individual names of
designers. Uncovering the individual patents is usually through refined topical searches, and hence, as much information as possible should be at hand
when doing the research. Patent information may be obtained from the Classification and Search Support System (CASSIS) of from Web sites such as
http://www.patents.ibm.com/.
Market Share Reporter Published every year by International Thomson
Publishers, this book summarizes the previous market research of Gale Research, Inc. It is composed of market research reports from the periodicals
literature. It includes corporate market shares, institutional shares and brand
market shares.
National Bureau of Standards This U.S. government branch provides,
among other things, national labor rates for all major countries. This inforc
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
3.2 Setting product specification
54
mation proves very useful for determining competitors manufacturing costs.

Census of Manufactures Taken every 5 years by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, this census includes statistics on employment, payroll, inventories,
capital expenditures, and selected manufacturing costs. Also, the supplemental
Current Industrial Reports lists production and shipment data on industries
and some products.
Moodys Industry Review Taken every 6 months, this survey provides key
financial information, operating data, and ratios on about 3,500 companies.
Companies as an industry group may be compared with one another group
and against industry average.
Even when benchmarking can help to understand the
market, forecast trends and identify key innovations
and technology, one complaint about it is that always
provide lagging information. Hence, it is argued that market leaders can find
little or no information at all through this practice.
3.1.4. Some comments
about benchmarking
Nevertheless, it should be realized that very few market leaders constantly

produce leading technology in a market. Markets are always evolving and
the opportunity for a competitor to produce new exciting technology is always
latent. One way market leaders can benefit from benchmarking is from focusing
it on components rather than in products. Components benchmarking may
allow them to introduce new technology in components that are not directly
developed by them.
One problem is commonly associated with benchmarking is the chasing the
competition syndrome. This problem presents when benchmarking is only
used to see what the competition is doing rather than to help the development
of new competitive products.
3.2
Setting product specification
After benchmarking, one next step is to use the information gathered up to this
point to set targets for a new product development effort. Specifications for a
new product are quantitative, measurable criteria that the product should be
designed to satisfy. In order to be useful, each specification should consist of a
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
55
metric and a value. This value can be a specific number or a range. Examples
are: 50 Hz, 30-40 N, > 10 dB, etc.
In general terms, specifications fall into two categories, functional requirements
and constraints. As discussed before, functional requirements or engineering
design specifications are statements of the specific performance of a design,
what the device should do. On the other hand, constraints are external factors that limit the selection of the characteristics of the system or subsystem.
Constraints are not directly related to the function of the system, but apply
across the set of functions for the system. In many situations, constraints
can drive the design process of a product and should be established only after
critical evaluation.
Setting specifications is generally not a straightforward task, and specifications
are usually checked several times during the design process. Several concepts
may be derived from a customer requirement giving rise to different engineering specifications. Take for example a lid that can be either screwed or pushed
to close a container. Both solutions will give way to different engineering specifications since in the first case to screw is related to torque and in the second
one to push is related to force. In this case, early concept-independent criteria
such as opening ease may be refined later into performance specifications for
the selected concept. In those specifications that are not expected to change
during the design process, margins in target values of 30% at the beginning
of the design process are commonly expected.
In any case, it is primordial for each specification should be measurable, and
testing and verification of it should be possible at any stage. If for any reason,
a specification is not testable and quantifiable, it is not a specification.
Ulrich and Eppinger (2000) suggest to consider a few guidelines when constructing the list of specifications:
Specifications should be complete. Ideally each customer need
would correspond to a single specification, and the value of that specification would correlate perfectly with satisfaction of that need. In practice,
several specifications may be necessary to completely reflect a single customer need.
Specifications should be dependent, not independent, variables.
As do customer needs, specifications also indicate what the product must
do, not how the specifications will be achieved. Designers use many types
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
56
of variables in product development; some are dependent, such the mass

of a product and other are independent, such as the material used to
manufacture the product. In other words, designers cannot control mass
directly because it arises from other independent decisions the designer
will make, such as dimensions and material choices. Metrics specify the
overall performance of a product and should therefore be the dependent
variables in the design problem. By using dependent variables for the
specifications, designers are left with the freedom to achieve the specifications using the best approach possible.
Specifications should be practical. It does not serve the team to
devise a specification for a given product that can only be measured
by a scientific laboratory at a cost of several thousand dollars. Ideally,
specifications will be directly observable or analyzable properties of the
product that can be easily evaluated by the team.
Some needs cannot easily be translated into quantifiable specifications. Needs like the product instills pride may be critical to
success, but are difficult to quantify. In this cases the team simply repeats the need statement as a specification and notes that the metric is
subjective and would be evaluated by a panel of customers.
The specifications should include the popular criteria for comparison in the marketplace. Many customers in various markets buy
products based on independently published evaluations (see examples of
sources in the previous section). If the team knows that its product will
be evaluated by the trade media and knows what the evaluation criteria will be, then it should include specifications corresponding to these
criteria.
3.2.1. Specification Lists With the above guidelines, a specification list like
the ones shown in tables 3.1 and 3.2 can be generated. In order to help with the search for relevant design specifications, an
approach known as Specification List Generation can be of some help.
Specification List Generation uses the decomposition method to obtain a list
of general specifications from latent needs such as safety, regulations and environmental factors. Each specification can be labeled as a required demand
or a desirable wish to communicate its level of importance.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
57
58
To identify specifications, the table 3.3 devised by Franke (1995) provides a

good starting point. In order to apply Franke approach follow the next steps:
1. Compile specifications and constraints and label them accordingly. Start
with specifications and follow with constraints.
2. Determine if each of the functional requirements and constraints is a
demand or wish.
3. Determine if each of the functional requirements and constraints are logically consistent. Check for obvious conflicts. Check that specifications
are technically and economically feasible.
4. Quantify wherever possible.
5. Determine detailed approaches for ultimately testing and verifying the
specifications during the product development process.
6. Circulate specifications for comment and/or amendment inside and outside the development team.
7. Evaluate comments and amendments.
Up to this point, several pieces of information are
available to the design team. Without proper guidance, the team may feel that is lost in a see of information. One technique that is commonly used to help in the design process
is Quality Function Deployment (QFD). One of the main advantages of the
QFD method is that it is organized to develop the major pieces of information
necessary to understand a design problem:
3.2.2. Quality function
deployment
M.
N.
Metric
1,3
2,6
1,3
1,3
Attenuation from dropout to handlebar at 10 Hz

Spring preload
Maximum value from the Monster
Minimum descent time on test track
Damping coefficient adjustment range
Maximum travel (26 in. wheel)
Rake offset
Lateral stiffness at the tip
Total mass
Lateral stiffness at brake pivots
Headset sizes
Steertube length
Wheel sizes
Maximum tire width
Time to assemble to frame
Fender compatibility
Instills pride
Unit manufacturing cost
Time in spray chamber without water entry
Cycles in mud chamber without contamination
Time to disassemble/assemble
Special tools required for maintenance
UV test duration to degrade rubber parts
Monster cycles to failure
Japan Industrial Standards test
Bending strength (frontal loading)
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
16
11
17
12
18
13
19
14
20
15
21
16,17
22
17,18
23
19
24
19
25
20
26
20
Imp
3
Units
dB
N-s/m
mm
mm
kN/m
kg
kN/m
in
mm
List
in
list
Subj.
US
cycles
list
hours
cycles
binary
kN
Table 3.1: List of metrics for a mountain bike suspension. The relative importance of each metric and the units for the metric are shown. M. and N.
are abbreviations for the number of specification and the need it comes from.
Subj. is an abbreviation indicating that a metric is subjective. (Adapted
after Ulrich & Eppinger, 2000).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
59
60
1. The specifications of the product.

Date
Demand/
Design specification
Wish
Test/
Verification
Functional Requirements
3. What is important from the point of view of the customer.
1/25
Provide thrust for maximum height

(velocity > (20 m/s)
of momentum analysis
1/25
Maintain stable vertical flight path (less
Flight tests with prototype
than 0.25 m deviation from vertical path)
Bernoulli and conservation
Design of experiments
Constraints
1/25
Rocket length 15 cm
Verify with engr. drawings

during concept generation,
detail design, etc.
1/26
2. How the competition meets the goals.
No detachable part less than
Verify with dimensional
5 cm in diameter
check of engr. drawings
Table 3.2: Specification sheet template, example of a toy rocket product (partial). Adapted after Otto & Wood (2001).
4. Engineering specifications to work toward.

There are two points that are worth considering before applying QFD to a
design problem. First, no matter how well it is taught that a design problem
is understood, the design team should employ the QFD method for all original
design or redesign projects. Second, the QFD technique can be applied to an
entire product and its sub-systems.
To apply the QFD methodology, the following steps should be followed:
1. Identify the customers.
2. Determine the requirements of the customers.
Specification category
Description
Geometry
Dimensions, space requirements, . . .
Kinematics
Type and direction of motion, velocity, . . .
Forces
Direction and magnitude, frequency,load imposed by, energy type,
Material
Properties of final products, flow of materials, design for manufacturing
efficiency, capacity, conversion, temperature

Signals
Input and output, display
Safety
Protection issues
Ergonomics
Comfort issues, human interface issues
Production
Factory limitations, tolerances, wastage
Quality Control
Possibilities for testing
Assembly
Set by DFMA or special regulations or needs
Transport
Packaging needs
Operation
Environmental issues such as noise
Maintenance
Servicing intervals, repair
Costs
Manufacturing costs, material costs
Schedules
Time constraints
3. Determine the relative importance of the requirements.

4. Perform a benchmarking activity to determine how competition satisfy
the customers.
5. Generate engineering specifications.
6. Set engineering targets.
7. Relate the requirements of the customers to engineering specifications.
8. Identify relationships between engineering requirements.
Applying the above steps builds what is known as the house of quality. This
house provides in a single picture all the pieces of information gathered by the
design team and their relationships. As shown in figure 3.1, the house has
many rooms, each containing valuable information.
Table 3.3: Categories for searching and decomposing specifications (After

Franke, 1995).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
61
62
The first step for documenting information in the house of quality is to determine the customer requirements and its relative importance. This information
can be registered in the first room of the house: customer requirements. This
room relates to what the customers want.
The next step is to write down the information regarding the benchmarking
activities carried out in the second room of the house: Customer targets and
ratings. This room relates to now vs. what or how the customer are currently
being satisfied.
Correlation
Matrix
How vs How
In this step, each competing product must be compared with the requirements
of customers, rating each existing design on a scale of 1 to 5:
Relationship
Matrix
What vs How
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Customer Targets
and Ratings
Now vs. What
Customer
Requirements
WHAT
Importance Rating
Engineering Design
Specifications
HOW
The
The
The
The
The
product
product
product
product
product
does not meet the requirement at all.

meets the requirement slightly.
meets the requirement somewhat.
meets the requirement mostly.
fulfills the requirement completely.
The benchmarking step is very important as it shows opportunities for both

product improvement and gain in market share. If all the competition rank low
on one requirement, that is clearly an opportunity, specially if the customer
ranked that specific requirement as essential.
After the engineering specifications have been generated, each one can be written in the third room of the house: engineering design specifications. This room
relates how customer requirements will be measured to ensure satisfaction.
Targets
How Much
Figure 3.1: Template for the House of Quality.
Hand in hand with the previous room is the targets room, which specify how
much should be achieved. In this room all the target values related to each
one of the engineering design specifications are stated. In many cases, extreme
values for the delighted and disgusted states of customer satisfaction are also
included for each specification.
After the previous steps have been carried out, only two more steps are missing,
to relate the requirements of the customers to engineering specifications and
to identify relationships between engineering requirements.
To relate the requirements of the customers to engineering specifications, the
room at the center of the house, the relationship matrix, is used. In this matrix,
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
63

Indicator
Meaning
Strength
Strong relationship
Some relationship
Small relationship
Indicates no relationship
Blank
Table 3.4: Symbols used to indicate the level of relationship between customer
requirements and engineering design specifications.
Indicator
Meaning
Strength
Strong positive correlation
Some positive correlation
Some negative correlation
-1
Strong negative correlation
-3
Table 3.5: Symbols used to indicate the level of correlation between engineering
design specifications.
down the design process, but it does not. Time spent developing information
is returned in time saved later in the process. Finally, it should be kept also
in mind that QFD is a tool to build consensus. It is a tool to ensure that a
variety of specifications from different areas converge to a successful product.
References
1. Jacobson, G. & Hillkirk, J. (1986) Xerox: American Samurai.
2. Franke, H. J. (1975) Methodische Schritte beim Klaren konstruktiver Aufgabenstellungen. Konstruktion. 27, 395-402.
3. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall.
4. Ullman, D. (2001) The Mechanical Design Process. Third Ed. McGrawHill.
each cell represents how an engineering specification relates to a customer

requirement. Although many parameters can measure more than one customer
requirement, the strength of the relationship can vary. The strength of the
relationship is represented through the specific symbols shown in table 3.4.
To finish with the procedure, the roof of the quality house, the correlation
matrix is filled. Here, the relationship between different engineering specifications is shown. The idea of the roof is to show that as one works to meet one
specification, you may be having a positive or negative effect on others. For
this purpose, the symbols shown in table 3.5 may be used.
As the above steps are completed, the house of quality fills up. Figures 3.2 and
3.3 show two different examples of houses of quality for two different products.
One hint for effectively using the House of Quality
is that the matrix should not grow too large. If
the house is larger than 50 rows and columns,
then the design team should operate at different levels in the product. Another
is to devote QFD as much time as needed. It may appear that QFD slows
3.2.3. Comments on QFD
and the house of quality
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
64
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Easy to store
Brew larger amount
Contain steam
Technical Difficulty
Measurements Units
sec cup C
Object Target values
98 8.0
sec sec sec ft3
qt
44
30 0.2
98 << 4.75 88
20 0.4 2
20 0.2
20 0.4 1.5
100
Objective
West Bend
Measures
Mr. Coffee
WB Coffee Maker
98 na
Old Fashion Way
99
na hot
240 na
na 100
Powered Tea
na
na
na
25
60 na
na
Technical
Absolute
83 81
63 45
45
27 36
Importance
Relative
4.75 ?
?
Mountain Bike
Recumbent
BikeE CT
Amount of change in damping
Easy to clean
Amount of change in spring rate
# of tools to adjust
# number of tools to adjust
Rider height range
Rider weight range
Riders that notice pogoing
Max accel on 5.0 cm standard pothole
Easy to add tea
Max accel on 2.5 cm standard pothole
Max acceleration on standard street
West Bend Iced Tea Maker

1
66
Energy transmitted on standard road
Powdered Tea
5
Environment Adjustability Performance
Old Fashion Way

5
Largest size of brew
Total Volume
Easy to add ice
Time to clean product
Time needed to add tea
Stronger tea
Volume of water in tank
West Bend Coffee Maker
Mr. Coffee Iced Tea Maker
Hottest temperature outside container
Temperature of exiting hot tea
Time water is in contact with tea
Temperature of water in sleeping basket
65
Smooth ride on streets
Eliminate shock from bumps
No pogoing
Easy to adjust for different weights
Easy to adjust for different heights
Easy to adjust ride hardness
No noticeable temperature effect
No noticeable dirt effect
No noticeable water effect
Units
gs
BikeE CT
95
0.4 1.6 3.0 0.0 100 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mountain Bike
35
0.1 0.4 0.5 20
30
4.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Recumbent
50
0.1 0.7 0.9 40
40
6.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
25
Target (delighted)
30
0.1 0.4 0.5 100 100 6.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
27 18
Target (disgusted)
50
0.2 0.7 1.0 50
?
?
gs
gs
lbs in
50
3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Figure 3.2: House of quality for iced tea maker (partial). After Otto & Wood
(2001).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Figure 3.3: House of quality for suspension system (partial). Adapted from
Ullman (2003).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
4.1 Brainstorming
68
Basic Methods
CHAPTER
Concept
generation methods
635 Method
The Morphological Chart
Logical methods
Concept Generation
Brainstorming
TRIZ (TIPS)
Axiomatic design
Figure 4.1: Some concept Generation methods.

creates a tendency for designers to take their first idea and start to refine it
toward a product. This is considered a very weak practice.
Up to now, all energies have been focused to understand the design problem
and to develop its specifications and requirements. The goal now is to generate
concepts that will lead to a quality product. A concept may be defined as
an idea that is sufficiently developed to evaluate the physical principles that
govern its behavior (Ullman, 2003). Hence, concepts must be refined enough
to evaluate their form and the technologies needed to realize them. Concepts
can be represented in rough sketches, flow diagrams, set of calculations or
textual notes. In any case, each concept must contain enough details so the
functionality of the idea can be ensured.
Sometimes, design begins with a concept to be developed into a product. This
is considered to be a weak philosophy and generally does not lead to quality
design. In order to minimize changes later in the process, it is normally expected that the concept generation scheme should take 20-25 percent of the
design process.
It is very important for the design team to generate as many concepts as
possible, following the old advice:
Generate one idea, and it will probably be a poor one.
Generate twenty ideas, and you may have a good one.
In order to avoid the previous problems, various methods aimed to generate

concepts are presented here. Some may be more complicated to follow or have
their particular value. In any case, it is a decision of the design team which to
follow. Figure 4.1 shows the methods that will be discussed in this chapter.
It is important to recall once more the importance of information gathering.
Considered the first method for concept generation, this activity should be
really the starting point of any concept generation method. This activity will
include the search for documented ideas on solving problem functions that will
increase the scope of possible solution generated by the design team.
In the last chapter several sources of information were reviewed in the scope
of the benchmarking activity. This sources are also valid here, and figure 4.2
shows a summary of them.
4.1
Brainstorming
It is a natural tendency to generate concepts as the design process progress,

as it is naturally to associate ideas with things that we already known. This
Brainstorming is a group-oriented technique aimed to generate as many concepts as possible. The procedure is quite simple and has the advantage that
a committed team can create a large number of ideas from different points of
view. The guidelines for brainstorming are as follows:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
69
4.1 Brainstorming
Benchmarking
Product Function
Product Architecture
Patents
Journals
Information
Sources
Published
media
Product Information
Textbooks
Consumer Products Periodicals
People
70
5. Avoid confining the group to experts in the area, that may limit the
introduction of new ideas.
Nature
Analogies
4.2 The 6-3-5 method
6. Avoid hierarchically structured groups. Bosses, supervisors and managers should not be included in many of the sessions.
Some hints may be used to stimulate new thinking and the generation of new
ideas:
Make analogies, think what other devices solve a related problem, even
if they are applied to an unrelated area of application.
Goverment Reports
Wish and wonder. Think wild. Sometimes silly, impossible ideas, give
way to useful ones.
Professionals in Field
Use related and unrelated stimuli. First, use photos of objects or devices
that are related to the problem at hand. Next, use photos of objects
unrelated to the problem. This activity usually gives way to new ideas.
Customers
Experts
Figure 4.2: Information sources for concept generation. Many of this information can be found through the World Wide Web.
Set quantitative goals. Set a reasonable number of concepts and do

not leave the session until you have achieve them. For a group session,
individual targets of 10 to 20 concepts is reasonable.
1. Form a group with 5 to 15 people.

2. Designate a person to work as facilitator to prevent judgments and encourage participation by all. Although some authors state that the facilitator should also be a contributor. Other suggest that the facilitator
should only guide and record the session avoiding further participation.
The latter allows the designation of the most participate person of the
team as facilitator to encourage other team members to participate actively.
3. Brainstorm for 30-25 minutes. The first 10 minutes are generally devoted
to introduce the problem at hand. The next 20-25 minutes sees the most
generation of ideas, and during the last 10 minutes a sharp decline in
ideas may happen.
4. Do not allow the evaluation of ideas, just the generation of them. This
is very important. Ignore any comments about the usefulness, validity
or value of any idea.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
4.2
The 6-3-5 method
One of the two main disadvantages with brainstorming is that first, all ideas
are conveyed by words. Second, the generation of ideas can be dominated by
one or two team members. The 6-4-5 method forces equal participation by all.
The guidelines for the 6-3-5 method are also very simple:
1. Arrange teams around a table. Although 6 members are optimal, a
number between 3 and 8 should suffice.
2. Establish a specific function of the product to work with.
3. Ask each member to draw in a sheet of paper two lines in order to create
three columns. After that, ask each member to write, 3 ideas, one on
each column, about how the function could be fulfilled. Ideas can be
communicated by words, sketches or both.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
71
4.3 TRIZ
4.3 TRIZ
72
4. After 5 minutes of working in the concepts, pass the sheets of papers to

the right.
Level
5. Give the participants another 5 minutes to add other three ideas to the
list.
Apparent
solution
32%
Personal
Knowledge
10
Minor
improvement
45%
Knowledge
within company
100
Major
improvement
18%
Knowledge
within industry
1000
New
concept
4%
Knowledge
outside industry
100,000
Discovery
1%
All that is knowable
1,000,000
6. After completing a cycle stop to discuss the results and find the best
possibilities.
It is important to mention that there should be no verbal communication in
this technique until the end. This rules forces interpretation of the previous
ideas only from what it is on the paper.
Degree of
inventiveness
Percent of
solutions
Source of
knowledge
Approximate
number of
solutions to
consider
Table 4.1: Levels of Inventiveness.
4.3
TRIZ
The Teoriya Resheniya Izobreatatelskikh Zadatch (TRIZ) or Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS), was developed by Genrikh S. Altshuller in the
former U.S.S.R. at the end of the 1940s. The TRIZ theory is based on the
idea that many of the problems that engineers face contain elements that have
already been solved, often in a completely different industry for a totally unrelated situation that uses an entirely different technology to solve the problem.
Based on this idea, Altshuller collaborated with an informal collection of academic and industrial colleagues to study patents and search for the patterns
that exist.
The first two categories were designated as routine design, meaning that they
do not exhibit significant innovations beyond the current technology. The last
three categories represent designs that included inventive solutions. He also
noted that as the importance of the innovation increased, the source of the
solution required broader knowledge and more solutions to consider before an
ideal one could be found. Table 4.1 summarizes this idea.
After spending 1500+ person-years studying at first around 400,000 patents

(today the database extend up to 2.5 million patents), Altshuller discovered
that they could be classified into five categories:
1. basic parametric advancement
2. change or rearrangement in a configuration
3. identifying conflicts and solving them with known physical properties
4. identifying new principles
5. identifying new product functions and solving them with known or new
principles.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
73
4.3 TRIZ
PROBLEM
TO
SOLVE
SOLUTION
Find
contradictions
Contradiction
Matrix
Apply
Inventive
Principles
1
2
3
4
n
Inventive
Principles
TRIZ
Figure 4.3: TRIZ methodology.
Based on his studies, Altshuller observed some trends in historical inventions:
Evolution of engineering systems develops according to the same patterns, independently of the engineering discipline or product domain.
These patterns can be used to predict trends and direct search for new
concepts.
Conflicts and contradictions are the key drivers for product invention.
The systematic application of physical effects aids invention, since a particular product team does not know all physical knowledge.
In this regard, Altshuller noticed that almost all invention problems involved
in one way or another the solution to a contradition. By contradition it is
understood a situation in which the improvement of one feature means detracting another. The quality of the invention was in most occasions related
to the quality of the solution to the contradiction.
4.3 TRIZ
74
Weight of movable object
21
Power
Weight of stationary object
22
Waste of energy
Lenght of movable object
23
Loss of substance
Lenght of stationary object
24
Loss of information
Area of movable object
25
Waste of time
Area of fixed object
26
Quantity of substance
Volume of movable object
27
Reliability
volume of stationary object
28
Measurement accuracy
Manufacturing precision
Speed
29
10
Force
30
Harmful action at object
11
Stress or pressure
31
Harmful effect caused by object
12
Shape
32
Ease of manufacture
13
Stability of the objects composition
33
Ease of operation
14
Strength
34
Ease of repair
15
Durability of a moving object
35
Adaptation
Device complexity
16
Durability of a stationary object
36
17
Temperature
37
Measurement or test complexity
18
Illumination intensity
38
Degree of automation
19
Use of energy by moving object
39
Productivity
20
Use of energy by stationary object
Table 4.2: TRIZ 39 design parameters.

Then, use the 40 inventive principles of TRIZ to generate ideas to overcome
this problem. The 40 inventive principles were found by Altshuller to be the
underlying principles behind all patents. This procedure is depicted in figure
4.3.
Applying TRIZ principles allows the innovation without having to wait for inspiration. Practitioners of the TRIZ theory have a very high rate of developing
new, patentable ideas.
Based on this premise, Altshuller devised TRIZ. The goal of using TRIZ is
to find those contradictions that makes the design problem hard to solve.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
38 34
40 28
8 15
35 30
35 28
17 7
40 29
10 40
14 15
6. Area of stationary object
18
30
14 18
7. Volume of movable object
2 26
2 28
8
1 28
19
8 40 26
40 15 27
15. Durability of
a movable object
4 10
7
37
18. Illumination intensity

19. Use of energy by moving
object
20. Use of energy by stationary
object
4 34 35
7 29
1 18 15
2 36 13 28
6 35 35 24
5 34 11
3. Length of movable object
28 2
10 27
19 6
35 19
29 34
14
4. Lenght of a stationary object
28 26
5. Area of movable object
15 6
40
36
2 34 28
35
35 40
35 33
15 10 2
4 10
15 22 35
34 18 37 40 10 14
18 4
2 11 39
28 10 34 28 33 15 10 35 2
13
19 39 35 40 28 18 21 16 40
8 13 10 18 10 3
14
7 17 15 26 14
10
19
1 40
35
2 19
16
28 25 35
35 23
2 28 35 10 35 39 14 22
39 18
40 18 4
36 30
10 13 26 19
35 19 32
19 32
16
26
10
19
12 28
15 19
35 13
25
18
13
14. Strength
39 3
32
12. Shape
18 4
35 34
6
11. Stress or pressure
10 30 13 17
38
3 35 35 38 34 39 35
10. Force
13. Stability of the objects

composition
3 14 26 13 3
27
3 21 19
1 35
15. Durability of
a movable object
32 30 32 3
14
19 13
35 21 2
17 24
36 37
27
29
27 4
29 18
19
17. Temperature
35
35 7
12 8
10 15 10 20 19 6
29 1
35 26 18 26
24 15 2
19 13
29 35
29
28 10 28 24 26 30 29
24 35
15 15 32 19 32
3 26
20 28 18 31
35 39 23 10
25
26. Quantity of substance
23. Loss of substance
22. Waste of energy
17. Temperature
21. Power
1
14
19 10 15 17 10 35 30 26 26 4
29 30
32 18 30 26 2
13
10 14 30 16 10 35 2
18
17 32 17 7
30
6 7
39
18 39
15 36 39 2
35
10 18 2
13 18 13 16 34 10
34 10 7
30
10 39
35 16 35 3
35 34
32 18
4
28 30 10 13 8
19
15
22 2
18 40 4
34 39 10 13 35
35 34 35 6
38
10 24 10 35
18 22 28 15 13 30 35
19 35 14 20 10 13 13 26
26 14 35 5
36 2
35 10 19 2
35 10
19 17 1
14 27
21
10
18 19 3
35 39
14 24
10 35 2
35 38
38 2
40 27
19 2
10 37
14
36 37 18 37
36
36 10 36
18 36
25
3 37
37 36 10 14
36
4
14
35 29
14 34 36 22
19 32 32
34 14
10 17
35 1
13 19 27 4
32 35 14 2
14
35 27 15 32
9 13 27 39 3
15
10 35 35 23 32
32 3
27 15
10 37 14 29
10 40
17
40
29 38
35
22 14 13 15 2
9 25
10 19
19 35 28 38
16 19 35 14 15 8
29 30
30 14 14 26
29 18 27 31 39 6
30 40
35
27 3
30 10 35 19 19 35 35
10 26 35
35 28
29 3
26
40
29 10
10
35 28
31 40
28 10 27
27 3
19 35 2
19 28 6
19 10
28 27 10
20 10 3
10
39
35 35 18
35 38
19 18
3 18
16
36 40
28 20 3
18 38
10 16 31
19 18
32 30 19 15
22 40 39
36 40
21 16 3
17 25 35 38 29 31
35 19 2
19
32 19
32
35
19

object
19 28 35
19 24 2
35 6

object
35
18
15
14 19
17
1 32 35 32
1
15
14 21 17 21 36
19 16 13 1
1
35
28 18 10 40
27 16 10
10 30 19 3
27
35 16 26 23 14 12 2
16. Durability of a
stationary object
2 19 32 32
25
35
10 35 39
14 6 35
3 14 18 40 35 40 35
3 35 19
19 30
35 22 1
9
8
9. Speed
40
33 1
9 14
35 3
16
17 15
1 18
2 35 15 35 10 34 15
9 40 10 15
8. Volume of stationary object
40 34 21
35 4
21
24
38 18
15 7
1 39
3 34
19
3
40 14
35
3
28 1
10 15 32
1
5 35
18 19 15 19 18 19 5
32 22 32
19 30 38
1 15 28 10
6 18 35 15 28 33
11
27 28 19 35 19
24. Loss of information
18 31 34 19 3 31
20. Energy expense of fixed

object
13 36 6
34 31
16. Duration of fixed objects

operation
25 12
38 32
28 27 5
25. Waste of time
15. Duration of moving objects

operation
29 19 1
What is deteriorated?
2. Weight of a stationary object
4 13 39
2 38
14. Strength

composition
12. Shape
35
14
6 35
6 35 36 35
19 1
19 9
18 21 10 35 35 10
36 37 12 37 18 37 15 12
3 17
15 19 38 40 18 34
32
2 8 31
13 28
8 35 28 26 40 29 28
15
2 36 28 29
4 15 35
2 19
6 27
12 18
10. Force
9. Speed
5 34
1 28
1 15 15 14
1. Weight of a movable object
1 40
1 14 13 14 39 37
35
29 30 19 30 10 15
14 16 36 28 36 37 10
19 16
6 38 32
28 10
34
15
36 22 22 35 15 19 15 19
17. Temperature
2 14
2 18 24 35
1 10 15 10 15
34 31
16. Durability of a
stationary object
35
34
18 40 31 35
What should be improved?
10 29 15 34
37
34
21 35 26 39 13 15
2 39
35
9 36
1 35
35 36 36 37
29 30
10 36 13 29 35 10 35
38 34 36 37 36 37 29
29 40 26
14. Strength
29
8 10 15 10 29 34 13 14

composition
4 35
2 14
37 40 10 18 36
12. Shape
1 18 10 15
1 18 13 17 19 28 10 19 10
37 18
4 17 10
13 14
13 38
10. Force
13
4 17
19 14
9. Speed
19 35 10 18 29 14
7 17
35 10 19 14 35
8 10 10 36 10 14
8 10 13 29 13 10 26 39
9 39
1
29 40
14
17
26
15 38 18 37 37 40 35 40 19 39
7 14
2
5 35
2 17
29
13
15 17
29 34
76
19. Energy expense of movable

object
29 34
29 35
8. Volume of fixed object
29
10
29 17

6. Area of fixed object
4.3 TRIZ
18. Illumination
15
3. Length of fixed object
2. Weight of a fixed object
4.3 TRIZ
75
35 28 3
35
17
21 18 30 39
1
19 1
19
26 17
19 12 22 35 24
37 18 15 24 18 5
35 38 34 23
19 18 16 18
19 2
28 27
35 32
18 31
31
Figure 4.4: TRIZ contradiction matrix.Continued.
Figure 4.5: TRIZ contradiction matrix. Continued.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
35
28
35 17 22 37 1
39 9
15 17 15 1
29 37 17 24
15 29 32 28
29
32 35 26 28 2
40 4
32 3
14 1
25 26 25 28 22 21 17 2
28
2 32 1
28 1
29 27 2
25
19 27 35
28 2
10 13 6
12. Shape
10 40 28 32 32 30 22 1
35 22 2
37
15 13 10
40
30 12
24 35 13 32 28 34 2
33
35
13 12 28 27 26
15 37 1
3
32 32 15 2 13 1 1 15
11 2
16. Durability of a
stationary object
34 27 10 26
17. Temperature
19 35 32 19 24
13
30
27 18 35 15 35 11 3
6 40 24
22
35 10 1
27
13
22 33 22 35 26 27 26 27 4
35 2
11 15 3
2 24
16
35
37
32 39 28 26 19

object
19 21 3
35
2 35 28 26 19 35 1
11 27 32
27

object
10 36
10 2
23
22 37 18
30
19 22 1
19 28 18 9
13 7
35 6
14 29 10 28 35 2
35 6
6 38
15 26 17 7
10 18 1
10 20 10 20 15 2
30 24 26 4
37 35 26 5
14 5
35 6
29
27 26 29 14
15 14 2
29
15 29 17 10 32 35 3
10 40 8
28 14 4
28 11 14 16 40 4
15 40
10 14
19 29 6
20 10
16 38
17 3
35
15 28
35 31 19 16 35
16
6
14 19
25 14 1
36. Device complexity
32 32 15 2
13
26 2
10
2 29 35 38 32 2
25
16
19 35
14 3
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos

composition
17 40
28 10 24 35 1
2 32 28 33 2
29 37 10
22 17 1
32 3
29 32 28 25 10 10 28 28 19
29 32 18 36 2
18 22 1
27 2
35
32
34 36
33 28 39 35 37 35 19 27 35 28 39 18 37
29 15 17 13 1
15 16 36 13 13 17 27
26 12
25 2
13 1
17
13 15 1
25 13 12
27 1
27 2
35 4
16 40 13 29 35
1
40
28 3
18 15 13 16 25 25 2
32
29 16 29 2
16
29 7
19 26
14 1
28 26 28 26 14 13 23
17 14
35 13
18 35 35 10 28 17
13
16
13 2
34 31 17 7
27 39
32 15 34 32 35
12
11 13
29 28 30
1
13 2
20
18 3
35
4
35
22
28 15 17 19
39 39 30
35 13 35 15 32 18 1
1
34 10 10 2
14
36 28 35 36 27 13 11 22
28 10 2
35 37
29 13 2
16 26 31 16 35 40 19 37 32 1
28 11 13
37 13 27 1
16 34 10 26 16 19 1
28
39 29 1
30 14 10 26 10 35 2
35 40
35 10 15 17 35 16 15 37 35 30
18 17 30 16 4
28 38 26 7
35
14
38. Degree of automation
26 24
35 24
35
33 35 1
10
36 34 26 1
13 16 17 26
24 37 15 3
34 9
29
27 26 6
35 26 28 27 18 4
35 35 30 15 16 15 35
6
40 27 18
18 18 13 28 13 2
35 11
19 15 35 1
28 13 28 1
16 4
30 18
22 1
35 13 35 12 35 19 1
13 16 15 39 35 15 39 31 34
26 1
30 18 35 28 35 28 2
40
17 18 16 1
15 8
26 30 2
17 2
23 1
13
40
22 23 34 39 21 22 13 35 22 2
28 32 35
32
3 35 32 30 30 18
27 39 13 24 39 4
22 1
28 6
13
28 15 10 37 10 10 35 3
10 36 14
16 25
12. Shape
10. Force
9. Speed
21 35 8
32
3 16 32 3
14 24 24
37. Measurement or test

complexity
39. Productivity
35
34 28 3
13 16
12 28
35 29 35 14 10 36 35 14 15 2
10 2 35
34 36 35 39 26 24
27 26 2
10 35 3
14
30 40
34 17 22 5
32 24
16
35 11 35 11 10 25 31
35. Adaptation
26 28 25 26 5
13 18 27 9
10 35 17
36 5
35 19 16 11
22 21 2
34. Ease of repair
10 37 36 37 4
28 13 32 2
30. Harmful action at object
29 35
35 16
11 28 10 3
27 1
15
32 35 28 35 28 26 32 28 26 28 26 28 32 13
28 29 1
13 27 3
29
10 15 9
28 32 28 35 10 28
33. Ease of operation
3 36 29 35 2
22 26 32
18 15 20
40 4
32. Ease of manufacture
40 3
39 6
39 10 13 14 15
34 10 32 18
29. Manufacturing precision
23 35
10 35 2
16 17 4
34 10
8
29 3
35 35 22 1
14 2
30 26 30 16
26 26
40 15 31
38
10 24 10 35 1
18 39 40
22 26 39 23 35
16 35 36 38
10 31 39 31 30 36 18 31 28 38 18 40 37 10 3
17 2
32
18 7
17 30 30 18 23
39 16 22
28 39
22 10 29 14 35 32
36 35 35
23 40 22 32 10 39 24
28. Measurement accuracy
6. Area of fixed object
3. Length of fixed object
2. Weight of a fixed object
39. Productivity
15 39 1
35 37
17 28 13 16 27 28
4
19 22 35 22 17 15
18 2
15 15 17
15 35 26 2
25
19 6
18 31 18 35 35 18
36 35 24 10 14
29 35 39 35
13 16 19
30 6
13 38 38
31. Harmful effect caused by

the object
35 10 4
27
19 38 17 32 35 6
17 26
28
32 15 19 35 19 19 35 28 26 15 17 15 1
32
1
10 2
3 28
35 37
10
16 29 15 13 15 1
40 33
3 10 24

complexity
15 35 30 2
10 16 34 2
12 27 29 10 1
16 40 33 28 16 22 4
17 1
19 1
32 40 27 11 15 3 2 2
10 32 28 2
27 22 15 21 39 27 1
29
25. Waste of time
3 34 10 18
2 35
15 6
35
35 37
4 34 27 16
35
27. Reliability
10 2
18 20 10 18 10 19
35 24 35 40 35 19 32 35 2
15. Durability of
a movable object
2 17
15 17 26 35 36 37
17 28 26
22 2
17 7
16 24 34
25 11
1 35 11
26
29 26 35 34 10 6 2
28 15 1
18
37 1
31
10 15
30 18
15 10 10 28
27 18 16
35 1
35 23
26
13
27 3
22. Waste of energy
36 14 30 10 26
26 18 28 23 34 2
1 18 2
15 29 26 1
13
15 16
36 19 26 1
38 31 17 27 35 37
30 14
40
16
16
26 26
15 17 15 13 15 30 14 1
21. Power
17 26 14 4
18 30 27 39
11 3
35. Adaptation
34. Ease of repair
35 1
35 13 3
14. Strength
15 35
25 3
19 35 1
36
16 27 35 40 1
3 35 35 10 28 29 1

composition
26 39 17 15 35
1 28
16 26 24 26 24 24 16 28 29
13 21 23 24 37 36 40 18 36 24 18 1
19 35 25
2 26
4 10
29 1
24 32 25 35 23 35 21 8
28 3
10 25 28
35
40 16 16 4
35 10 34 39 30 18 35
16
32 28 11 29
18 36 39 35 40
11 35 28 32 10 28 1
10. Force
27 19 15 1
18 39 26 24 13 16 10 1
22 1
27 28 1
36 34 26 32 18 19 24 37
1 28 14 15 1
13 1
35
13 2
26 30 28 29 26 35 35 3
27
32 22 33 17 2
40 11 28
16
27 29 5
15 17 2
10
9 26 28 2
32 3
9. Speed
18
24 28 11 15 8
29 15 29
17

object
2 19 35 22 28 1
10 14 28 32 10 28 1
29 40
36 2
8. Volume of fixed object
10 28 18 26 10 1
8
35 26 26 18 18 27 31 39 1
78
27
3 11 1 28 27 28 35 22 21 22 35 27 28 35 3
4.3 TRIZ
27. Reliability
4.3 TRIZ
77
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
34 40 22 39
22. Waste of energy
26 10 19 35 16
28
17 25 19
10 38
26
14 16
19 38 1
7
31 40 3
6 16
38
13
6
10
18 38
38
10 6
37
32 7
18
21. Power
22. Waste of energy
25
15 18 6
24 5
31
35 10 10 24
10 19 19 10
24 26 24 28
12 31 18 38 2

28 32 35
25. Waste of time
29 3
14 35 3
20 10 28 20 35 29 1
19 35 38 1
35 20 10 5
28 18 28 18 10 16 21 18 26 17 19 18
35 3
35 3
34 10 10 40 31
27. Reliability
11 28 2
3

28 6
32
3
10 26 6
32
24
27 3
27
35 35
18 35 22 15 17 1
37 1
13
19 6
26 31 35
32
19 26 3
32 32 2
22 33 1
19 1
32 13 6
15 35 15 22 21 39 22 35 19 24 2
22 2
33 31 16 22 2
27 1
32 40 29 3
3
28 8
34. Ease of repair
11 11 29 1
35. Adaptation
18
25 25
27 1
18
27 1
28 32 32
32 2
13 32 35 31
32 26 32 30
28 18
10 24
19 22 21 22 33 22 22 10 35 18 35 33
35 2
19 40 2
35 21 35 10 1
10 21 1
22 3
29
24
22 2
27 1
19 35 15 34 32 24 35 28 35 23
33
39 1
18 16 34 4
19 28 32 4
10 4
10 13
24 27 22 10 34
10 15 1
15 1
15 10 15 1
35
13
28 16
32 2
32 19 34 27
10 25 10 25
22 19 35
19 1
18 15 15 10
35 28 3
29
13 1
35
35 26 1
13 10 4
17 24 17 27 2
2
28
28 15

complexity
27 3
19 29 25 34 3
25 13 6
13
13
27 2
29 13
26 2
29 28
19
19
30 34 13 2
16
32
13
2 32
13
35 3
27
35 20 28 10 28 10 13 1
10 18 2
10
38 19
29 35 35 23 5

the object
23
35
27
29 18
34
10
22
10 28
22 10 10 21 32
27 22
23
1
28 32 28 18 34
18 3
34. Ease of repair
39. Productivity

complexity
34. Ease of repair
35. Adaptation
28 10
29 35
24 34 27 2
28 24 10 13 18
10 23
35 33 35
13 23
15
4 28 32 1
18 39 34 4
10 34 10
3 35 29 1
35 29 2
11 32 27 35 35 2
35 28 6
27 17 1
40 40 26
32 10 35 30
32 15 3
35 1
13 3
27 8
35 13 29
3
27
35
27 10 29 18
24 1
28
27 29 38
11
28 24 3
23
22 26 39 10 25 18 17 34 13 11 2
10 34 32 28 10 34 28 32
11 32
26 28 4
26 2
26 28 10 18
10 36 34 26
18
18 23 32 39
17
1
24 35 2
24 2
33 4
40 39 26
1
28 39 2
35
24 2
25
34 35 23 28 39
2
16
1
31
26 26 24 22 19 19 1
10 34 32
29 40
27 40 26 24
11 27 28 26 28 26 2
1
32 28
10 34 18 23
35 1
13 24
22 35
10 32 1
22 19 2
29 28
33 2
35 1
1
21 5
16 7
1
5
32 1
16 12 17
34 35 1
16
13 11
16
15 29 1
27 34 35 28
37 28
35
13 29 15
28 37
12 26 1
13
34 3
22 35 35 22 35 28 1
10 38 34 28 18 10 13 24 18 39 2
12 1
24 7
13
28 1
28
35 1
1
32 1
37 28
28
34 21 35 18
24
5
15 24 34 27
35 10
37
12 17
15 15 10
35 27 4
32
13 10
15 10 15 1
37 28
26 1
10 28
34 15 1
714
11 29
1
1
12 3
13 9 26 24
28 2
11 1
28 35 1
1
12
27 26 27
18 39
28 8
1
13 15 34 1
1
27 1
13 27 26 6
1
21 2
12 26 15 34 32 25
11 10 26 15
32 31
10
12
25 10 35 10
35 11
28 8
35 1
3 22 31
19 1 3 2
13 16 11 19 15
32 2
8
1
10 34
22 31 29 40 29 40 34
1
35 13 35 5
13 35 2
25 35 10 35 11 22 19 23 19 33
17
16 13
24 1
32 25 10
34 26
17 27 25 13 1
40 2
32 13 35 27 35 26 24 28 2
35 23
27 24 28 33 26 28
40 23 26 10 18
13 1
11 13 35 13 35 27 40 11 13 1
40
33 6
29 18 28 24 28

complexity
39. Productivity
23 35 3
34
22
33 30 35 33
17
35 15 10 35 10 35 18 35 10 28 35
29 31 40 39 35 27 10 25 10 25 29
11 10 10 2
35. Adaptation
19
28 35
30 34 16
15 23
39 35 31 28 24 31 30 40 34 29 33
19 17 20 19 19 35 28 2
10 34 34
15 34 32 28 2
12 18

the object
35 26 10 26 35 35 2
18
10 29 16 34 35 10 33 22 10 1
32
35 38
35 30
29 28 35 10 20 10 35 21 26 17 35 10 1
18 16 38 28 10 19 1
28
23 28 35 10 35 33 24 28 35 13
18 5
35 2
11 23 1
27 10
18 35 33 18 28 3
16 10 15 19 10 24 27 22 32 9
28 2
35
8
2
29 13 3
28 29
1
35 32 2
32 3
15
20 19 10 35 35 10
24 35 38 19 35 19 1
35 35 16 26
21 22 21 35
24
28 12 35
32 1
11 10 32
27. Reliability
29 31
18
34
34
31 2
24 34 2
35 34 2
24
40
27
31 28
19 22 2
26 31 2
28 40 28
13
16 27 2
24
19 24 32 15 32 2
10 30 24 34 24 26 35 18 35 22 35 28
18 16
29 39
12 24
13
32 6
10 24 35
25. Waste of time

24 28 35 38
26 32 10 16
35 19 22 2
35 3
15 28 25 39 6
28 27
2
18 6
32
27 22 37 31 2
24 39 32 6
16 26 27 13 17 1
39. Productivity
24 10 2
35 16 27 26 28 24 28 26 1
1
18 16
27 19
28 24 32
33 28 40 33 35 2
10 32 4
18 32 10 39 28 32
35 11 32 21 17 36 23 21 11 10 11 10 35 10 28 10 30 21 28

the object
35 38
25
40
35 18 24 26
16 18 31
40 10
28 6
10 6
34 29 3
39
35 34 27 3
25 6
17
27. Reliability

34
35 18 28 27 28 27 35 27
19
80
19
35 27 19 10 10 18 7
2
4.3 TRIZ
25. Waste of time
22. Waste of energy
21. Power
20. Energy expense of fixed

object
10 35 28 27 10 19 35 20 4
19 37
18 18 38 39 31 13
10
32 15
35 28 28 27 27 16 21 36 1
19. Energy expense of movable

object
18. Illumination
17. Temperature
16. Duration of fixed objects

operation
14. Strenght

21. Power
15. Duration of moving objects

operation
4.3 TRIZ
79
35 12 17 35 18 5
19 10 25 28 37 28 24 27 2
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
12
35 26
25
12
35 26
81
4.3 TRIZ
From the patents studied, Altshuller extracted 39 design

parameters that cause conflict. These 39 parameters are
listed in table . To effectively use these parameters, it is
necessary to find those two that are cause of conflict in a given design. Consider
for example that a non-moving mechanical component needs to be lighter but
remain as strong. From the 39 design parameters, find the principle that
needs to be changed, in this case, Weight of stationary object (principle #2).
Then find the parameter that is negatively affected, in this case, Strength
(principle #14). Then, using the contradictions matrix shown in figure 4.9,
find those inventive principles that are candidates to solve the conflict. From
the contradictions matrix, the inventive principles that solve the contradiction
between Weight of a stationary object and Strenght are 2, 10, 27 and 28.
4.3.1. 39 design
parameters
4.3 TRIZ
82
To scare birds from buildings and airports, reproduce the sound of

a scare bird using a tape recorder.
Hovercraft.
3. Principle of local quality
Change the structure of the object or environment from homogeneous to non-homogeneous.
Have different parts of the object carry out different functions.
Place each part of the object under conditions most favorable for
its operation.
Examples:
4.3.2. Forty inventive Once the matrix has been used to find those inventive
principles
principles candidates to solve the engineering contradiction, they can be applied to generate solutions for
the problem at hand. These inventive principles can also be used independently of the contradiction matrix as a source of ideas to solve conflicts. The
forty TRIZ design principles to solve engineering conflicts are:
Fuselage skin of commercial airplanes.

Stapler. A pencil and an eraser in one unit.
4. Principle of asymmetry
Make an object asymmetrical.
Increase the object asymmetry.
1. Principle of segmentation
Examples:
Divide an object into independent parts that are easy to disassemble.
Increase the degree of segmentation as much as possible.
Examples:
Sectional furniture, modular computer components, folding wooden
ruler, food processor.
Garden hoses can be joined together to form any length needed.
Drill shafts.
2. Principle of removal
Remove the disturbing part or property of the object.
Remove the necessary part or property of the object.
Examples:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Eccentric weight on motor creates vibration.

5. Principle of joining
Merge homogeneous objects or those intended for contiguous (adjacent) operations.
Combine in time homogeneous or contiguous operations.
Examples:
TV/VCR, Cassette tape heads.
The working element of a rotary excavator has special steam nozzles
to defrost and soften frozen ground in a single step.
6. Principle of universality
Let one object perform several different functions.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
83
4.3 TRIZ
Remove redundant objects.
Examples:
Sofa which converts from a sofa in the daytime to a bed at night.
Fingernail clipper.
7. The nesting principle
Place one object inside another, which in turn is placed in a third,
etc.
Let an object pass through a cavity into another.
Examples:
4.3 TRIZ
84
Set up the object such that they can perform their action immediately when required.
Examples:
Cutter blades ready to be snapped off when old.
Correction tape.
11. Principle of introducing protection in advance
Compensate for the low reliability of an object by introducing protections against accidents before the action is performed.
Examples:
Telescoping antenna, stacking chairs.
Fuses, electric breakers. Shaft couplers.
Mechanical pencil with lead stored inside.
Shoplifting protection by means of magnetized plates in products.
8. Principle of counterweight
Compensate for the weight of an object by joining it with another
object that has a lifting force.
Compensate for the weight of an object by interaction with an environment providing aerodynamic or hydrodynamic forces.
12. Principle of equipotentiality

Change the conditions such that the object does not need to be
raised or lowered.
Examples:
Pit for change oil, Loading dock, airport gate.
Examples:
Boat with hydrofoils, hot air balloon.
Rear wings in racing cars to increase the pressure from the car to
the ground.
9. Principle of preliminary counteraction
Perform a counter-action to the desired action before the desired
action is performed.
Examples:
Reinforced concrete column or floor. Reinforced shaft.
10. Principle of preliminary action
Perform the required action before it is needed.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
13. Principle of opposite solution

Implement the opposite action of what is specified.
Make a moving part fixed and the fixed part mobile.
Turn the object upside down.
Examples:
Abrasively cleaning parts by vibrating the parts instead of the abrasive.
Lathe, Mill.
14. Principle of spheroidality
Switch from linear to curvilinear paths, from flat to spherical surfaces, etc.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
85
4.3 TRIZ
Make use of rollers, ball bearings, spirals.
4.3 TRIZ
86
Switch from direct to rotation motion.
A computer mouse where a 2D screen is transformed into a horizontal mouse pad.
Use centrifugal force.
A composite wing where loads are in only one direction per layer.
Examples:
18. Use of mechanical vibrations
Computer mouse.
Make the object vibrate.
Screw lift.
Increase the frequency of vibration.
15. Principle of dynamism

Make the object or environment able to change to become optimal
at any stage of work.
Make the object consist of parts that can move relative to each
other.
If the object is fixed, make it movable.
Examples:
A flashlight with flexible neck.
Bicycle drivetrain and derailer.
16. Principle of partial or excessive action
If it is difficult to obtain 100% of a desired effect, achieve somewhat
more or less to greatly simplify the problem.
Use resonance, piezovibrations, ultrasonic, or electromagnetic vibrations.

Examples:
Vibrating casting molds.
Quartz clocks.
19. Principle of periodic action
Use periodic or pulsed actions, change periodicity.
Use pauses between impulses to change the effect.
Examples:
Hammer drill.
Emergency flashing lights.
20. Principle of uninterrupted useful effect
Examples:
Keep all parts of the object constantly operating at full power.
Raincoats, snowboards.
17. Principle of moving into a new dimension
Increase the degrees of freedom of the object.
Use a multi-layered assembly instead of a single layer.
Incline the object or turn it on its side.
Use the other side of an area.
Examples:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Remove idle and intermediate motions.

Examples:
Steam turbine, mechanical watch.
21. Principle of rushing through
Carry out a process or individual stages of a process at high speeds.
Examples:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
87
4.3 TRIZ
Cutting thin wall plastic tubes at very high speeds so cutting action
occurs before deformation.
22. Principle of turning harm into good
4.3 TRIZ
88
Nail resistant tires.

26. The copying principle
Use harmful factor to obtain a positive effect.
Instead of unavailable, complicated or fragile objects, use a simplified cheap copy.
Remove a harmful factor by combining it with other harmful factors.
Replace an object by its optical copy, make use of scale effects.
Strengthen a harmful factor to the extent where it ceases to be

harmful.
If visible copies are used, switch to infrared or ultraviolet copies.
Examples:
Medical defibrillator. Use of high frequency current to heat the
outer surface of metals for heat treatment.
23. The feedback principle
Introduce feedback.
If feedback already exists, reverse it.
Examples:
Air conditioning systems.
Noise canceling devices.
24. The go between principle
Use an intermediary object to transfer or transmit the action.
Merge the object temporarily with another object that can be easily
taken away.
Examples:
Gear trains.
25. The self service principle
The object should service and repair itself.
Use waste products from the object to produce the desired actions.
Examples:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Examples:
Rapid prototyping. Crash test dummies.
Measure shadows instead of actual objects.
27. Cheap short life instead of expensive longevity
Replace an expensive object that has long life with many cheap
objects having shorter life.
Examples:
Inkjet printer heads embedded in ink cartridges. Cardboard box.
28. Replacement of a mechanical pattern
Replace a mechanical pattern by an optical, acoustical or odor pattern.
Use electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields to interact with
the object.
Switch from fixed to movable fields changing over time.
Go from unstructured to structured fields.
Examples:
CD player.
Microwave oven. Crane with electromagnetic plate.
29. Use of pneumatic or hydraulic solutions
Replace solid parts or an object by gas or liquid.
Examples:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
89
4.3 TRIZ
Power steering. Bubble envelopes.
30. Using flexible membranes and fine membranes

Replace customary constructions with flexible membranes and thin
film.
Isolate an object from outside environment with thin film or fine
membranes.
Examples:
Dome tent. High Altitude Balloon.
31. Using porous materials
Make the object porous or use porous elements.
If the object is already porous, fill the pores in advance with some
useful substance.
Examples:
Running shoe soles. Air filters.
32. The principle of using color
Change the color or translucency of an object or its surroundings.
Use colored additives to observe certain objects or processes.
If such additives are already used, employ luminescence traces.
Examples:
Transparent bandage. Roadway signs.
33. The principle of homogeneity
Interacting objects should be made of the same material, or material
with identical properties.
Examples:
Shaft and bushing.
34. The principle of discarding and regenerating parts
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
4.3 TRIZ
90
Once a part has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer necessary, it

should automatically be discarded or disappear.
Parts that become useful after a while should be automatically generated.
Examples:
Multistage rockets. Bullet castings.
35. Changing the aggregate state of an object
Change the aggregate state of an object, concentration or density,
the degree of flexibility or its temperature.
Examples:
Heat packs. Light sticks.
36. The use of phase changes
Use phenomena occurring in phase changes like change of volume
and liberation or absorption of heat.
Examples:
Fire extinguisher.
37. Application of thermal expansion
Use expansion or contraction of materials by heat.
use materials with different thermal expansion coefficients.
Examples:
Thermometers. Bimetallic plates.
38. Using strong oxidation agents
Replace air with enriched air or replace enriched air with oxygen.
Treat the air or oxygen with ionizing radiation.
Use ionized oxygen or ozone.
Examples:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
91
4.4 The morphological chart

Metal forming ovens. Torch cutting.
Convert
Electrical Energy to
Translational Energy
39. Using an inert atmosphere

Replace the normal environment with an inert one.
Carry out the process in a vacuum.
Examples:
Aluminum cans for beverages. Arc welding.
40. Using composite materials
Replace a homogeneous material with a composite one.
Examples:
Steel belted tires.
wings.
4.4
Tennis racquets.
High performance aircraft
The morphological chart
The aim of the morphological chart is to generate a complete range of alternative design solutions for a product widening the search for potential new
solutions. It is based on the use of identified functions to foster ideas and
has two parts. First, to generate as many concepts as possible. Second, to
combine the individual concepts into overall concepts that meet all functional
requirements.
The procedure to create and use a morphological chart is quite simple and can
be summarized as follows:
1. List the features or functions that are essential to the product. Each
function will be a row of the chart. The list of functions should contain
all the features that are essential to the product, at an appropriate level
of generalization. If a QFD procedure has been already performed, the
list of customer requirements can be used as the list of functions.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
92
Rotary motor with

transmission
Linear Motor
Accumulate
Energy
Spring
Moving mass
Apply
Translational
Energy to Nail
Simgle impact
Multiple impacts
Solenoid
Rail gun
Push nail
Figure 4.10: Morphological table for a hand-held nailer. Adapted from Ulrich
& Eppinger (2000).
2. For each feature or function, list the means by which it may be achieved.
These lists will be the columns of the chart. Lists might include new
ideas as well as known solutions.
3. After the chart has been filled out, identify feasible combinations of subsolutions. Each combination will be a possible solution to identify.
Figure 4.10 shows an example of a morphological chart for a hand nailer presented by Ullrich & Eppinger (2000). The rows in the table correspond to
the functions identified by the design team: convertion of electrical energy to
translational energy, acummulation of translational energy and application of
translational energy to the nail. The entries in each column correspond to
possible solutions for the function at hand.
It is important to notice that in order for the chart to be most useful, the
items in the list of functions should all be at the same level of generality, and
they should be as independent of each other as possible. The list should not
be too long, however, and no more than 10 functions should be considered.
Some authors advice to use no more than 4 functions at a time. If some functions are to be disregarded for this matter, the development team must clearly
understand the risks and tradeoffs of not taking them into consideration.
It is also advisable to arrange solution principles so that the columns create
logical grouping, for example, of mechanical type, of electrical type, etc. Also,
sketches should be used whenever possible to convey as much information as
possible. Finally, consideration should be given only to solutions that meet
the estimated engineering specifications.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
93
Once the chart is filled with solutions to all the specific functions listed, the
next step is to consider combinations from the range of all possible solutions.
Usually a large number of combinations is possible, although restrictions apply
as not all combinations of solutions are possible, for example, combinations
that have intrinsic incompatibilities should be discarded.
Rotary motor with

transmission
Linear Motor
Accumulate
Energy
Spring
Moving mass
Apply
Translational
Energy to Nail
Simgle impact
Multiple impacts
Solenoid
Rail gun
Push nail

In the example shown in figure 4.10, 24 combinations can be found from the
concepts generated ( 423). Figures 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 show the sketch of
four possible solutions arising from the combination of concepts. The first solution, shown in figure 4.11, is due to the combination the concepts solenoid,
spring and Multiple impacts. The second solution, shown in figure 4.12,
results from the combination of rotary motor with transmission, spring
and multiple impacts. The third, fourth and fifth solutions, shown in figure
4.13, arise from the combinations of concepts rotary motor with transmission, spring and single impact.
Convert
94

It is essential to analyze very carefully each option before rejecting it. The
design team must have in mind that, initially many combinations may not
seem to provide a practical solution to the problem at hand, specially to the
inexperienced designer.
Figure 4.11: Concept 1. Solenoid compressing a spring which is then released

repeatedly in order to drive the nail with multiple impacts. Adapted from
Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
Convert
Rotary motor with

transmission
Linear Motor
Accumulate
Energy
Spring
Moving mass
Apply
Translational
Energy to Nail
Simgle impact
Multiple impacts
Solenoid
Rail gun
Push nail

Figure 4.12: Concept 2 showing a possible combination of a motor with a

transmission, a spring and multiple impacts. The motor repeatedly winds and
releases the spring, storing and delivering energy over several hits. Adapted
from Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
95
96
Feature
Support
Convert
Rotary motor with

transmission
Accumulate
Energy
Spring
Linear Motor
Rail gun
Solenoid
Moving mass
Simgle impact
Multiple impacts

MOTOR
Air
cushion
Slides
Linear
induction
Pedipulators
Driven
wheels
Air
thrust
Power
Electric
Petrol
Diesel
Bottled
gas
Steam
Gears and
shafts
Belts
Chains
Hydraulic
Flexible
cable
Steering
Turning
wheels
Air
thrust
Rails
Stopping
Brakes
Reverse
thrust
Hydraulic
ram
Rack and
pinion
Screw
Chain or
rope hoist
Seated
at rear
Standing
Walking
Transmission
Push nail

CAM
Track
Propulsion
Operator
TRIGGER
Wheels
Moving
cable
Lifting
Apply
Translational
Energy to Nail
Means
Seated at
front
Ratchet
Remote
control
Figure 4.14: Morphological chart for a forklift truck, with one possible combination of sub-solutions picked out by the dashed line (After Cross, 1994).
Two examples of morphological charts are presented by Cross (1994). The first
one is concerned with finding alternative versions of the conventional forklift
truck used for lifting and carrying loads. In the second one, alternatives for
the design of a welding positioner are explorer.
Regarding the finding of alternative versions of a lifting truck, the essential
features of the truck are:
1. Means of support which allows movement.
Figure 4.13: Concept 3, 4 and 5 showing possible combinations of a motor

with a transmission, a spring and a single impact. The motor winds a spring,
accumulating potential energy which is then delivered to the nail in a single
hit. Adapted from Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
2. Means of moving the vehicle.

3. Means of steering the vehicle.
4. Means of stopping the vehicle.
5. Means of lifting loads.
6. Location of the operator.
The morphological chart generated for the above functions is shown in figure
4.14 where one possible solution is highlighted. It is interesting to note that
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
97
98
there are 90 000 possible combinations in the chart, although, some of them
obviously, are not possible or include incompatible concepts.
In the second example, alternatives for the design of a welding positioner,
a device used to support and hold a workpiece and locating it in a suitable
position are explored. Figure 4.15 shows the morphological chart for this
case where several concepts are described by means of sketchs and text. One
possible combination of concepts is indicated by the zig-zag line through the
chart.
References
Partial Functions
ENABLE
connection
with
workpiece
ENABLE
rotational
movement
mechanical
screw or bolt
wedge
sliding journal
bearing
magnetic
sphere
fulcrum pin
position
screw thread
straight line
guidance
hold directly
by hand,
weight of
workpiece
hang from
above
lever
mechanism

CONTROL
of
movement
hydraulic
rolling bearing
cylinder

DRIVE
(by hand)
pneumatic
Rotational
guidance
bearing, sliding or rolling
LOCK
state
Force locking (friction)
Form
interlocking

ENABLE
height
adjustment

ENABLE
tilting
movement
1. Altshuller, G. S. (1984) Creativity as an exact science. Gordon and Breach

Science Publishers, New York, U.S.A.
Second Ed. Springer.
5. Ullman, D. (2001) The Mechanical Design Process. Third Ed. McGrawHill.
Action Principles / Families of Function carriers
form interlocking
force locking (friction)

screw
screw with
wedge,
washer
brake block
hole pin
ratchet
mechanism
within
guidance
Direct
gear wheel
pair
rack and
pinion
helical gears
(crossed)
through
drive
mechanism
through
locking
(ratchet)
optical
electronic
with mechanical advantage device
mechanical
Show
position
line scale
pointer scale
band, lever
worm and
rope, eccentric
wormwheel chain cam
mechanical
stop
Figure 4.15: Morphological chart for a welding positioner, with one possible
combination of sub-solutions picked out by the zig-zag line (After Cross, 1994).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
5.0
100
Concepts
Design
Brief
Generation
CHAPTER
Screening
and
Scoring
Screening
and
Scoring
Development
and
Testing
Final
Concept
Testing
Concept Selection
In the previous chapter some methods to generate potential solutions for a

design problem where reviewed. Normally, a design team should generate tens
or even hundred of ideas. Clearly not all ideas will lead to a successful product.
However, at this point in time, with few information at hand, it is not possible
to say which concept is best. In concept selection the goal is to expend the
least amount of time and resources on deciding which concepts have the best
chances to become a successful product.
Concept selection requires the evaluation, of concepts with respect to some
criteria comparing their relative strengths and weaknesses in order to select
one or more concepts for further evaluation and testing. Here, evaluation
should be understood as the process of comparison and decision making. The
concept selection phase usually requires at least three steps:
1. Estimate the technical feasibility of the concepts. All those concepts that are regarded as not feasible or ill-conceived are quickly discarded.
2. Concept screening. Concepts are compared roughly in relative terms
against a common reference concept. Those that do not offer any advantage or fail to fulfill the requirements of the customer are discarded.
3. Concept scoring. A more detailed comparison is carried out including
more information about the concepts for finer resolution.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Feasibility
Judgment
Generation
and
Screening
Figure 5.1: Concept selection is an iterative process that goes through different
phases and is closely related to concept generation and concept testing.
The last to steps are usually done in an iterative fashion, where concepts
are discarded and some other are combined to generate new concepts. After
sufficient iterations have been carried out, the team goes to the next stage:
concept testing. Figure 5.1 depicts the above procedure.
The iterative behavior of the design cycle is perhaps better represented by the
design-build-test cycle shown in figure 5.2. In the diagram, two different design
cycles are represented by the inner and outer loops. The first loop represent
the design cycle when new or complex technologies are being use. In this case,
building a physical model and testing it is the only approach possible.
The outer loop represent a more common approach where no physical devices are build until the very end of the process. Here, the time and expense
of building physical models is eliminated by developing analytical models and
simulating the concept before anything is build. All the iterations occurs without building any prototypes as all ideas are represented by means of analytical
models and graphical representations, usually with the help of computers.
Regardless of which design path is chosen, several benefits arises when a structured approach is followed to select concepts. Probably the most most important is that because concepts are compared against customer needs, the
selected concept is likely to be focused on the customer. Other benefits may
include a reduced time to product introduction and effective decision making.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
101
5.1 Estimating Technical Feasibility

DESIGN
Iterate
Iterate
Build prototypes
with each closer
to the final product
Analytical models
and graphical drawings
to refine concept
and product
Test physical
protoypes
TEST
Build final
product
Figure 5.2: Design evaluation cycles. After Ullman (2003).
5.1
102
represent a problem to estimate as different people will give values that can
vary by orders of magnitude.
Simulatable
technology
Design
prototypes
BUILD
Estimating Technical Feasibility
When concepts are generated, members of the design team may experience
feelings about the idea that can be grouped in three main reactions:
1. It will never work
2. It may work depending on something else
3. It is an idea worth considering
The above judgments regarding technical feasibility are based on the experience of the design team and the individual engineers and their ability to
estimate correctly. In general, it is safe to say that the more experience, the
more chances the decision will be reliable at this point. Fortunately, estimating
is a skill that any person can learn and cultivate to a very good degree.
According to Otto and Wood (2001), the estimating skill of an engineer is
dependent mainly on familiarity with dimensional units and with the different values along the dimensions. This familiarity takes place in two different
levels of abstraction. First, perceived units like length or mass usually represent no problem as everyone can associate their dimensions with day-to-day
experiences. On the other hand, derived units like energy or power, usually
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
What allows an engineer to become more familiar with derived dimensions is

to associate them with known values. For example, one might realize that
2000W is 3hp, the common power for a lawnmower; or that 0.1MPa is 1atm,
the atmospheric pressure at sea level. It is said that a skilled engineer will
have at least three readily understood reference levels for every dimensional
unit such as power, energy, pressure, force, acceleration, etc. Table 5.1 shows
some approximated values for different units to be used as reference.
The gut feeling reactions to the generated concepts are worth exploring since
they have different implications and may induce the individual or design team
to discard potentially good ideas or adapt potentially dangerous ones.
It will never work. Before discarding concepts that appears to be infeasible
or unworkable, consider it briefly from different points of view before reject it.
As a guideline, before rejecting the concept answer the following questions:
Why it is not technologically feasible?
Does it meet the requirements of the customer?
Is the concept different from the rest?
Is the concept an original idea?
To answer the first two cases, where more attention is deserved, the methods
described later in this chapter will be of help. In the case of the last two, it
is worth analyzing if the reaction is a product of resistance to change or the
not invented here syndrome.
It may work depending on something else. This reaction is product of
a doubt in the design team due to internal or external requirement that may
be judged to be either non-existent or not ready for consideration. Typical
question to be made in order to get insight of this reaction are:
Is the technology needed available?
Is the technology ready for production?
Is all information needed readily available?
Is is dependent on other parts of the product?
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Energy
Mass
Force
Pressure
Acceleration
Velocity
(W)
(J)
(kg)
(N)
(MPa)
(m/s2 )
(m/s)
(m)
Ant crawling up
Moving 5g snail:
1 1 piece
Electrostatic attraction
Moon surface: 0.13
Centripetal acceleration of
Tip speed of a wrist watch
Human hair
a wall at
0.56J kinetic
of paper: 40
between electron and
109 MPa
a regular clock hour
hour hand: 20m/s. 10
thickness:
1cm/s: 33W
energy
106 kg
proton in hydrogen
hand: 0.3m/s2
snow accumulation rate
30m
atom: 0.08N
Length
103
106
Power
over 2 winter months:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
0.1m/s
103
LED: 40mW
Bee in flight:
Grape: 10g
Piece of paper, weight:
Blood pressure: 16
Centripetal acceleration of
Tip speed of a wrist watch
Book cover
2 mJ kinetic
Penny: 3g
0.04N
103 MPa. Mars
a regular clock minute
minute hand: 1mm/s
thickness: 2mm
atmosphere: 0.8
hand: 1 mm/s2
Speed of tide rising from
energy
103 MPa
1
low to high: 0.1 mm/s
Small flashlight:
A small apple
Small meal or a
Small apple, weight: 1N
10m underwater: 0.10 MPa
Fast car acceleration:
Falling body after 1/10s:
Persons height:
10W
lifted 1m in
large snack:
Finger force for
1atm = 0.10MPa
3m/s2 . Hard braking
1m/s. Walking speed:
2m
gravity: 1J.
1kg
appliance buttons: 7N
Piston engine
car: 7m/s . Earth gravity
A small apple
compression pressure:
at sea level: 9.8m/s2
falling 1m: 1J
1.3 MPa
1.5m/s
kinetic energy
100
Bright light
140km/hr fast ball:
Average
Bag of potatoes, weight:
Piston engine firing
Humans black out: 40
Highway speed: 30m/s
Soccer field
bulb: 100W
114J kinetic
person:
100N
pressure: 3.5MPa
m/s2 . Belly flopping
Jetliners: 250m/s
length: 100m
Typical
energy
70kg
hard in water from a 10m

diving board jump,
Statue of
causing broken bones:
Liberty: 93m
Small lawn
Energy effectively
Mid-sized car:
Two small people,
Pressure to create a
Marble dropped from 1m
3 times the speed of
Width of a small
mower
extractable
1300kg
weight: 1.5kN
diamond: 5GPa
stopping in sand,
sound: 1km/s
town: 5km
engine:
from a AA
Elephant:
Deep ocean trench:
Head-on car collision
2000W
battery: 1kJ
5000kg
0.11GPa
occupant deceleration:
10km/s2. Bullet fired
D-sized battery:
from a rifle: 60km/s2
80kJ
106
Electrical power
Car @ 130km/h:
A 747 fully
Boeing 747: 1MN
Center of the Earth: 0.40
Projectile fired from a rail
Voyager 1 traveling in
Dallas, TX to
to a small
1 MJ kinetic
loaded:
thrust.
106 MPa
gun: 800km/s2
outer space: 17km/s
Denver, CO or
town: 1MW
109
energy
300,000kg
Boston MA to
Automotive
Ocean liner:
Pittsburgh PA:
Battery: 5MJ
107106kg
Electrical power
USS Nimitz
Aircraft carrier:
plant: 1GW
91,400 tons @
0.5109kg
1000km
30 knots: 9.9
Saturn V or Space
Center of the sun:
Centrifugal acceleration of
Shuttle:
20 109 MPa
0.2 GN thrust
Speed of light in
Earth to moon:
light trapped in a black
vacuum:
3.84109m
hole: 21013m/s2
3108m/s
GJ kinetic energy
Table 5.1: Approximate reference values on different dimensions (adapted). After Otto & Wood (2001).
100m/s2.
100-1000W
103
Height of the
household
appliance:
5.2 Concept screening

104
In the first two cases, the technology needed should be carefully examined to
see if it is available and if it is already mature or can be by the time the product
reach production. In the third case, serious consideration should be given to
decide if it is worth waiting for more information to become available. Finally,
in the last case, it should be pondered if other parts of the product could be
modified to accommodate the intended design without causing a delay in the
design process.
Concept screening
It is an idea worth considering. This is generally the hardest case to

evaluate, since knowledge and experience are an important part for the evaluation of its feasibility. The methods described later in the chapter will help to
develop a deeper knowledge about the concept in order to evaluate it.
5.2
Concept screening is a technique based on a method developed by Stuart Pugh

and is also known as Pugh concept selection method (Pugh, 1990). The main
idea of the technique is to narrow the number of concepts quickly comparing
the concepts between themselves based on common criteria and to improve the
concepts whenever possible.
Concept screening is based on the following steps:
1. Choose the criteria for comparison.
2. Choose which concepts will be evaluated.
3. Decide on a reference concept to be used as a datum.
4. Prepare the selection chart.
5. Rate the concepts.
6. Rank the concepts.
7. Combine and improve the concepts.
8. Select one or more concepts.
Step 1: Choose the criteria for comparison. To start, it is necessary

to know the basis on which the different concepts will be compared with each
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
105
other. During QFD, an effort was made to develop a set of customer requirements. This requirements are generally well suited to be used as a criteria for
comparison. In some cases, when the concepts are well refined, engineering
targets may be used instead.
Step 2: Choose which concepts will be evaluated. After concept generation several options where available. These options where narrowed down
discarding those concepts that were not technically feasible. From the options
left, choose the group to be evaluated. If more than 12 concepts are to be
considered, the design team can vote to select the 12 concepts that will be
compared.
106
Concepts
Datum
Selection Criteria
Concept
B
Concept
C
Concept
D
Concept
E
Concept
F
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5
Criterion 6
Criterion 7
Step 3: Decide on a reference concept to be used as a datum. To

select a reference concept or datum, the design team can follow several approaches. If the company already has a current product, it may serve well as
a well understood concept. Other option is to use a competitive product that
the team wish to superpass. Pugh (1990) recommends using as a datum the
concept that the team vote best.
Sum +s
Sum 0s
Sum s
Net Score
Rank
Continue?
Step 4: Prepare the selection chart. Once the criteria for comparison, the
concepts that will be evaluated and the datum all have been chosen, the next
step is to prepare the selection chart. For that purpose the template shown in
figure 5.3 can be of help.
Step 5: Rate the concepts. To rate the concepts, compare them against the
datum using a very simple scale. It is recommended to use a + if the concept
is better than the datum for the current criterion, a if the concept is worse
than the datum and a 0 or an S (same) if the concept is judged to be about
the same as the datum or there is some ambivalence. If the decision matrix is
carried out in a spreadsheet use +1, 0 and 1 for scoring. It is advisable to
to rate every concept on one criterion before moving to the next.
Step 6: Rank the concepts. After all the concepts have been rated for
each one of the criterion, four scores are generated: the number of +s, the
number of s, the number of 0s and the net score. The net score is obtained
subtracting the number of s from the number of +s. To rank the concepts,
simple use the one with the best net score as 1, the next one as 2 and so forth.
Step 8: Combine and improve the concepts. After the concepts have
been rated and ranked, the design team should verify the validity of the results.
Some recommendations for the interpretation of results are pointed out by
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Figure 5.3: Template for the Pugh selection chart.

Ullman (2003):
If a concept or group of similar concepts has a good overall total score
or a high + total score, it is important to notice what strengths they exhibit, that is, which criteria they meet better than the datum. Likewise,
groupings of scores will show which requirements are especially hard
to meet.
If most concepts get the same score on a certain criterion, examine that
criterion closely. It may be necessary to develop more knowledge in the
area of the criterion in order to generate better concepts.
In many occasions, concepts can be combined to improve them. Here, to help
visualize if concepts can be combined, Ullrich and Eppinger suggest to answer
the following questions:
Is there a generally good concept which is degraded by one bad feature?
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
107
Can a minor modification improve the overall concept and yet preserve
a distinction from the other concepts?
108
Removable
Unit
Removable
Chamber
Removable
Blade
Washable
Scraper
Cost
Store Grinder
0
_
+
_
Put in Beans
+
_
_
0
_
Are the two concepts which can be combined to preserve the better
than qualities while annulling the worse than qualities?
If any improved concepts arose from combination, these are added to the selection chart and ranked along the original concepts.
Step 9: Select one or more concepts. Once the above steps have been
carried out, and the design team is satisfied with their understanding of each
concept, its strengths and weaknesses, it is time to decide which concepts
should be selected for further refinement and analysis. The design team should
also clarify if issues need to be investigated further before a final decision can
be made. In addition, decisions should be made if the screening matrix has
provided enough resolution and if another round of concept screening should be
performed. If concept screening has not provided enough resolution, concept
scoring should be applied next. la An example of a Pugh chart for the redesign
of a coffee grinder is shown in figure 5.4. In this example, presented by Otto &
Wood (2001), the goal was to evaluate different concepts all restricted to the
use of a chopper. Several ideas were developed to improve the grinder, focusing
on cleaning functions. The criteria for the redesign evaluation gathered directly
from customer needs and engineering specifications are as follows:
Cost: unit manufacturing cost (development and delivery costs were not
considered). Measured in $.
Selection Criteria
0
_
Take Out Coffee
Power Setup
Cleanable
0
_
Development Risk
0
_
Sum +s
Sum 0s
Sum s
Net Score
Rank
Figure 5.4: Pugh chart for coffee mill redesign concepts regarding cleanability.
Adapted from Otto & Wood (2001).
Store grinder: facility to put away in a cabinet out of sight. Measured

in cm3 .
Cleanable: Time or steps needed from the point where the coffee has
been taken out until the point of being spotless. Measured in number of
steps or seconds.
Put in beans: Time elapsed between the beans are in a bag until the
chopper switch can be activated. Measured in seconds.
Development risks: Difficulty getting a working alpha prototype. Measured in number of potential faults or difficulties.
Take out coffee: Time elapsed between removing all grounds until all
the coffee is poured into a coffee maker. Measured in seconds.
Power setup: Time elapsed between the grinder is plugged in until the
switch can be activated. Measured in seconds.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
From the chart some conclusions could be drawn. First, the power setup
criteria does not distinguish between concepts as all of them were about the
same. Therefore, although it was an important criterion for the product, it
did not impact cleanability, and was dropped from further discussion. Next,
the removable blade concept was clearly ahead of the rest and was a natural
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
109
5.3 Concept scoring
5.3 Concept scoring
110
candidate for further development.
5.3
Concepts
Datum
Concept scoring
Selection Criteria
Concept scoring is a technique very similar to concept screening and it is used

when increased resolution will better differentiate among concepts. In this
method, the teams weight the relative importance of the selection criteria and
focuses on more refined comparisons with respect to each criterion. The steps
to use the method are as follows:
Weight
Rating
Weighted
Score
B
Rating
C
Weighted
Score
Rating
D
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Ease of use
Readability of settings
Ease of handling
Dose metering accuracy
Durability
Ease of manufacture
Portability
Total Score
Rank
1. Choose the criteria for comparison.

2. Choose which concepts will be evaluated.
3. Decide on whether only one concept will be used as a datum or, if different concepts will be used as reference for different criteria.
4. Prepare the selection chart and decide the weight for each criterion.
5. Rate the concepts.
6. Rank the concepts.
7. Combine and improve the concepts.
8. Select one or more concepts.
As most of the steps are identical to the concept screening ones, only those
different will be discussed next.
Continue?
Figure 5.5: Template for a concept scoring matrix.
it will be seen later. For this reason, many times different concepts are used
as reference for different criteria.
Step 4: Prepare the selection chart and decide the weight for each
criterion. The selection charts for the scoring method is very similar to Pugh
charts with two exceptions. First, for each criterion, it includes its weight.
Second, the chart includes two columns per concept: rating and weighted score.
A template for an scoring chart is shown in figure 5.5. The weight for each
criterion is usually defined as the percentage of importance that the criterion
has relative to the other criteria. Each percentage is defined such that the sum
of all different percentages is 100%. An example illustrating the use of weights
is shown in figure 5.6 where three different cars are compared in base to four
different criteria: fuel consumption, cost of spare parts, simplicity of servicing
and comfort. Each criterion has its own weight defined by some chosen rules:
fuel consumption weight is 50%, the cost of spare parts has a weight of 20%,
easy to maintain 10% and finally, comfort 10%. It is easy to see in this example
that the sum of all weights is 100%.
Step 3: Decide on whether only one concept will be used as a datum

or if different concepts will be used as reference for different criteria.
Although a single reference concept can be used for the comparative ratings of
all criteria as in the screening method, this is not always appropriate. Unless
by pure coincidence the reference concept is of average performance relative
to all criteria, the use of the same reference concept for the evaluation of
each criterion may lead to what is known as the scale compression effect.
Consider, for example, that the reference concept to be used as datum is
better than the rest in 1 criterion. If this is the case, all the concepts could
be evaluated only as same as or worse than, effectively compressing the
evaluation scale to 2/3. This effect applies independently of the scale used, as
In many ocassions, the selection of the right weighting factors can be a cumbersome task, specially if many different criteria have to be taken into account.
One alternative is to use a objectives tree that includes weighting for each criterion. To show how objectives trees are constructed, consider the objective
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
111
5.3 Concept scoring
Car A
Selection Criteria
Weight
Parameter
Low fuel
consumption
50%
Miles per
galon
Low cost of
spare parts
20%
Easy to maintain
High comfort
Value
Car B
Rating Score
Value
Rating Score
Value
1.0
Rating Score
1.0
40
2.0
36
1.5
Cost of 5
typical parts
18
1.4
22
1.0
28
0.4
10%
Simplicity
of servicing
Very
simple
0.5
Com
plicated
0.2
Average
0.3
20%
Comfort
rating
Poor
0.4
Very
good
1.0
Good
0.8
Rank
112
Car C
33
Total Score
5.3 Concept scoring
3.3
4.2
3.0
11
12
13
0.25 0.25
0.60 0.60
0.15 0.15
Figure 5.6: Scoring matrix for three alternative motorcars. Adapted from
Cross (1994).
tree in figure 5.7. Each criterion in the objectives tree is represented by a circle
or box with three numbers on it. At the top of each box, a number represents
the level of the criterion. For example, the set of criteria is level 1, representing
a weight of 100% or 1. If there are three main criteria, then the first would
be represented by the number 11, the second by the number 12, the third by
the number 13, an so on. If the second criterion, number 12 has two criterions
that must be considered, then the first one will be identified by the number
121 and the second one by the number 122. If the criterion identified by the
number 121 has to be divided into two different criteria, then the first would
be 1211 and the second one 1212. The objectives three can have as many levels
as necessary. The second number, at the lower left side of the box, indicates
the weight of the factor to whom it belongs. The third number, at the lower
right end, is result of the multiplication of the weight of the criterion times
the weight factor of its parent box. This product gives the contribution of the
criterion to the total 100%.
1.0
1.0 = 0.25
121
122
131
132
0.75 0.45
0.25 0.15
0.30 0.05
0.70 0.11
1211
1212
0.50 0.22
0.50 0.22
+ 0.22
0.22
+ 0.15
0.05
0.11
Figure 5.7: An objetive tree with weighting factors.
for 0.25, mechanical behavior for 0.60 and cost of manufacturing for 0.15.
This procedure is better explained through an example. The above objectives

tree was constructed to aid in the selection of weighting factors for the selection of a mechanical component. The main factors for the selection of the
component were specified as how safe the component was (criterion 11), its
mechanical behaviour (criterion 12) and and its cost of manufacturing (criterion 13). Since these three factors must add 100%, or 1 for short, then 1.0
have to be divided between these factors. It was decided that safety accounted
Mechanical behavior was divided in two criteria, first, strenght (121) which
accounted for 0.75 of the original 0.60 specified for mechanical behavior, and
second, freedom from resonance (122) which accounted for 0.25 of the original
0.60. It is important to stress at this point that the sum of weights of factors
which have the same parent and are at the same level must be 1.0 or 100% (here
0.75 + 0.25 = 1.0). It was considered to divided strenght further into two more
specific criteria, both with the same weight, stiffness (1211) and maximum
allowable stress in the component (1212). Carrying out the products, the final
weight for stiffness is 0.22, which is the same value for the maximum stress
criterion.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
113
5.3 Concept scoring

CONCEPTS
TEST RIG
BOTTOMRIGHT HINGE
SCORING MATRIX
Selection Criteria
Weight
Safety
0.25
Stiffness
0.22
Max. allowable stress
0.22
Freedom from resonance
5.3 Concept scoring
Reference
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
C
Weighted
Score
D
Weighted
Score
Rating
Rating
Weighted
Score
0.15
Cost of tooling
0.05
Cost of materials
0.11
Do
Nothing
Renuzit
Air
Freshner
Rating Score
Rating Score
Selection Criteria
Weight
Performance
(olfactory distance ft)
50%
Cost
25%
Ease of replacement
13%
12%
Frequency of
Replacement
Total Score
Rank
114
Baking
Soda
Cedar
Chips
Rating
Score
Rating
Vented
Walls
Score
Rating
Activated
Carbon
Score
Rating
Score
70
35
70
35
80
40
20
10
90
45
100
25
52
13
76
19
84
21
100
25
20
100
12.5
70
90
11
40
100
13
20
100
12.5
50
67
100
13
67
Total
Score
50
57
71
74
61
61
Rank
Continue?
Figure 5.8: An objetive tree with weighting factors.

Finally, the cost of manufacturing was divided into two more specific costs:
cost of tooling (131) and cost of materials (132). Cost of tooling had a weight
of 0.30 whereas the cost of materials had a weight of 0.70. Hence, cost of
tooling final weight is 0.05 and the final weight for cost of materials is 0.11.
As final observation about objectives trees, it is important to notice that the
sum of weights of each level is always 1 as shown in figure 5.7 for the final
level. In figure 5.8 the final template for the scoring matrix for this problem
is presented.
Step 5: Rate the concepts. Similar to the procedure followed in the screening method, here each concept is rated using a simple comparative scale. As
more detail is needed, a more detailed rating scale is generally used. A common
option is to use a 5 levels scale:
Relative performance
Rating
Much worse than reference
Worse than reference
Same as reference
Better than reference
Much better than reference
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Figure 5.9: Concept scoring matrix for the selection of odor control alternatives. Adapted from Otto & Wood (2001).
Sometimes a 10 or more levels scale is used, but its use is discouraged as it

requires more time and effort. For example, figure 5.10 presents a scoring matrix for an outpatient syringe where four different concepts are been evaluated.
Note that in this example a 5 levels scale is being used and that different concepts serve as datum for different criteria. This example is different from the
one presented in figure 5.6 where a 10 levels scale is used.
Step 6: Rank the concepts. Once the ratings have been specified for each
criterion, the weighted score is obtained multiplying the rating for the weight
of the criteria. The total score for each concepts is simply the sum of all
weighted scores. Finally, each concept is given a rank corresponding to its
total score.
Another example showing a more elaborated scoring matrix is presented by
Otto & Wood (2001). The matrix, shown in figure 5.9, helped the design
team to evaluate between different alternatives to control the odors in a cat
litter box. The careful reader should notice that the rating scale used in
this example goes from 0 to 100, which at first sight may look unnecessary.
Nevertheless, in this case a 0-100 scale was chosen as the team had high-quality
information about the relative performance of each concept regarding each one
of the criteria. This high-quality information is usually gathered directly from
testing and experimentation, and it is not influenced by the opinion of the
design team members.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
115
5.4
5.4 Concept Testing
Concept Testing
5.4 Concept Testing
116
Which of several alternatives should be pursued?

How the concept may be improved to better meet customer needs?
In the concept selection process, it is very likely that some form of customers
response will be needed in order to further discuss the possibilities of the
proposed concepts. In order to communicate the idea of the concept and to
measure the response of the customer, in some cases simple verbal descriptions
or drawings will suffice. In other cases, there is no other choice but to create
physical prototypes of the product. This testing will give a better idea on the
feasibility of the concepts and the sales potential of the product.
Concept testing is carried out to facilitate decision-making during final concept
selection stages, generally after some detailed design has been done. Concept
testing is not necessary when:
time required to test the concept is large relatively to the product life
cycle.
cost of testing is large relative to the cost of actually launching the product.
Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) presents a 6 steps methodology for testing product
concepts:
Approximately how many units are likely to be sold?

Should development be continued?
5.4.2. Choosing a survey It is necessary to define the number of possible
population
customers to survey and in what market segments
they will be. This selection is carried out in a
similar fashion as the selection of customers in the Identifying customer needs
phase. It is important, however, to have in mind that concept testing is a
much more expensive activity.
The most important question to answer is how large the survey population
should be. Some useful guidelines are outlined next.
Factors favoring a smaller sample size:
Test occurs early in the concept development process.
Test is primarly intended to gather qualitative data.
Surveying potential customers is relatively costly in time and money.
1. Definition of the purpose of the concept test.

2. Choosing of a survey population.
3. Choosing of a survey format.
Required investment to develop and launch the product is relatively

small.
A relatively large fraction of the target market is expected to value the
product.
4. Communication of the concept.

5. Measurement of customer response.
6. Interpretation of results.
In this initial step, the design team should clarify
what questions they want to answer with the test. It
is essential to define what the test or experiment is
for. Some typical questions are:
5.4.1. Concept testing
purpose
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Factors favoring a larger sample size:

Test occurs later in the concept development process.
Test is primarily intended to assess demand quantitatively.
Surveying customers is relatively fast and inexpensive.
Required investment to develop and launch the product is relatively high.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
117
5.4 Concept Testing
A relatively small fraction of the target market is expected to value the

product.
Concept tests can be done in the early stages of the development process to
solicit feedback on the basic concept.
5.4.3. Choosing a survey The following formats are commonly used in conformat
cept testing:
5.4 Concept Testing
118
Most concept test surveys first communicate the

product concept and then measure customer response. Although is good practice to include questions to measure customer response to product concepts, in many occasions
concept test generally attempt to measure purchase intent. A useful scale to
measure purchase intent may be:
5.4.5. Measure customer

response
Definitely would buy
face-to-face interaction
Probably would buy
telephone
Might or might not buy
postal mail
Probably would not buy
electronic mail
Definitely would not buy
internet
It is important to realize that each of these formats presents risks of sample
bias.
The way in which the concept will be surveyed,
is closely related to the way in which the concept
will be communicated. Communication of the
concept can be carried out by the following means:
5.4.6. Interpreting results Usually interpretation is straightforward if the

design team is just comparing two or more concepts. It is important, though, to be sure that customers understood the key
differences among concepts.
5.4.4. Communicating the

concept
verbal descriptions
sketch
photos and renderings
storyboard
video
References
4. Ullman, D. (2003) The Mechanical Design Process, Third Edition. McGrawHill.
McGraw-Hill.
simulation
interactive multimedia
physical appearance models
working prototypes
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
119
5.4 Concept Testing
CHAPTER
Embodiment design
Concepts
Selection Criteria
Weight
Master Cylinder
Lever Stop
Swash Ring
Dial Screw
Rating
Weighted
Score
5%
0.15
Readability of settings
15%
Ease of handling
10%
Dose metering accuracy
25%
Durability
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
0.15
0.2
0.2
0.45
0.6
0.6
0.45
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.75
15%
0.3
0.75
0.6
0.45
Ease of manufacture
20%
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
Portability
10%
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Ease of use
Total Score
2.75
3.45
3.10
Rank
3.05
3
Continue?
No
Develop
No
No
Figure 5.10: Concept scoring matrix for an outpatient syringe. The reference
points for each criterion are signified by bold rating values. Adapted from
Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
As a design task, concept embodiment is perhaps the one that is most identified
with engineers as in this phase of the design process the choice of components,
interfaces, materials, dimensions, shapes, tolerances, surface finishes, union
methods, manufacturing and assembly processes, etc., are carried out.
In order to make wise choices, engineers should be able to understand throughly
the design, its functionality, objectives and constraints. Is in this stage
where engineers apply their skills in mathematics and basic science.
Regardless of size, complexity or cost, products must be effectively modeled,
tested and, whenever possible, refined. Methods for concept embodiment must
aid in this process.
6.1
Product architecture is the the definition of the layout of systems, sub-systems

and components according to their functional purposes. This definition of
the layout of the product must also deal with what interfaces are necessary
between components, sub-systems and systems. Product architecture allows
the design to be divided so building blocks can be assigned to individuals,
teams or suppliers in order to permit parallel detailed design, testing and
refinement.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
121
6.1 Product Architecture

for the Product and Common Derivatives
Product
Type
Integral
Modular
Derivatives
Type
Fisted vegetable peeler
Fixed unsharing
Shares no common components
Wooden pencil
#1, #3 lead pencils
Modular platform
Differing lead hardness
Kitchen knife
Kitchen knife set
Modular platform
Parametric handle size
Swiss Army Knife
Complex knives
Modular platform
Expanding width
PC computer
More RAM, devices
Adjustable for purchase
Standard interfaces
Black and Decker cordless
VersaPak line of power
drill
tools
Tinkertoys
Theme sets
Modular platform
Adjustable for use
Cons
Pros
Characteristics
Handheld vegetable peeler
122
Improves device reconfigurability
May make devices look too similar
Increases the device variety and speed of
Makes imitation of device easier by competitors
introduction for new devices

Modular architecture
Improves maintainability and serviceability
Reduces device performance
of device
Decouples development tasks (and
Common battery
manufacturing to some extent)
Modular design may be more expensive than

integral design
Common motor
Standard interfaces
Component variety
Integral architecture
Figure 6.1: Product architecture examples. After Otto & Wood (2001).
Harder for competitors to copy design
Hinders change of design in production
Tighter coupling of team with less interface
Reduces the variety of devices that can be
problems
produced
Increases system performance

Possible reduction in system cost
Product architecture is also related what is called portfolio architecture. Portfolio Architecture relates to a group or family of products, where design strategy revolves around how to share components or subsystems across products
in the portfolio. Figure 6.1 shows some examples of product and portfolio
architecture.
In general terms, product architecture can be divided in two main types: integral architecture and
modular architecture. Each type has its own advantages and disadvantages as shown in figure 6.2.
6.1.1. Types of product

architecture
A product has an integral architecture when no attempt is made to divide

functions into components or systems resulting in on a very small number of
physical elements carrying out all functions of the product. Integral architecture is common for high-volume products where cost is not reduced through
sharing components but through easiness of assembly. This results in products
with fewer components but much function sharing.
Modular product architecture is the result of dividing product functions into
a similar number of blocks or modules that perform a limited set of functions. Ideally, a one-to-one correspondence between modules and functions is
achieved. In practice, modularity is not strict, and generally speaking, products are neither fully modular or fully integral. Rather, a given product will
present more or less modularity than another comparative product.
Figure 6.2: Comparison of modular and integral architectures. After Otto &
Wood (2001).
types: slot, bus and sectional. These three types, shown in figure 6.3, are
explained next.
Slot-modular architecture. Each of the interfaces between modules in a
slot-modular architecture is of a different type from the others, so that the
various modules in the product cannot be interchanged. An example of this
type of architecture are products that are to be assembled by the customer
and are constructed in such a way that any given module can fit in only one
place.
Bus-modular architecture. In a bus-modular architecture, there is a common bus to which the other modules connect via the same type of interface.
An example of bus-modular architecture are the floppy drive, DVD, CDRW
and battery that connects to a bay in a laptop using the same interface.
Sectional-modular architecture. In a sectional-modular architecture, all
interfaces are of the same type, but there is no single element to which all the
other modules attach. The assembly is built up by connecting the modules
each other via identical interfaces. An example may be modular office furniture
that can be arrange in different ways depending on the modules used.
According to Ulrich (1995), modular architecture can be classified in three
Slot-modular architectures are the most common type of modular architecture

because for most products, different modules require different interfaces to
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
123
124
Product variety
SlotModular
Architecture
BusModular
Architecture
SectionalModular
Architecture
Figure 6.3: Three types of modular architectures. After Ulrich & Eppinger
(2000)
accommodate unique interactions with the rest of the system.
Even when the architecture of a product is initially defined, at least informally, since the concept generation stage, formal decisions are made
during the embodiment design phase. Product architecture is one of the development decisions that plays a major impact in the ability to deliver a variety of
products with standard components that allows better product performance,
manufacturability and maintenance.
6.1.2. Implications of the

architecture
Product variety refers to the amount of different products that any given company can manufacture over a period of time. Product variety generally respond
to market needs, as consumers want distinctive products. Product architecture
can help to achieve a large product variety for a minimum overhead in its cost.
An example is Swatch watches, where hundreds of different combinations can
be achieved choosing different components during assembly.
Component standardization
Component standardization is the use of the same components or modules in
multiple products. This standardization allows the manufacturer to minimize
cost and increase quality through the production of larger volumes and the
refined design of such common components. An example are cars within same
or sister companies that share many parts and subsystems.
Product Performance
Product change
Modules are the building blocks of the product and the architecture defines how
this blocks relate to the function of the product and how the blocks interact
with each other. If each module is responsible for certain isolated functions, it
would be possible to replace or change any given module without affecting the
rest of the product. The contrary is true for an integral architecture, where
changing one part of the product may have an influence in the functions carried
out by the rest of it. Some of the motives for product change are:
Upgrades
Add-ons
Adaptation
Wear
Consumption
Flexibility in use and reuse.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Product performance is related to how well the final product meets customer
requirements in terms of intended functions. Some examples of typical performance measures are speed, acceleration, efficiency, life, accuracy and noise.
Here, architecture can facilitate the optimization of performance characteristics by means of integration and function sharing. Function sharing refers to
the implementation of multiple functions through a single module or component. Function sharing can help to optimize a design, but trade offs in the
advantages of modular architecture have to be considered by the design team.
Manufacturability
As discussed above, product architecture can influence the manufacturing cost
through product variety and component standardization. In addition, many
decisions regarding the architecture of a product influence the easiness of manufacturing as many complicated modules can be produced in larger volumes
to reduce cost or many functions can be implemented in a single module to
reduce either parts or manufacturing operations.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
125
Due to the importance of product architecture in

subsequent steps of the product design process, it
should be throughly discussed by the team design
and established in a cross-functional fashion. At the end of this step, an approximate geometric layout of the product, description of the major modules
and documentation about the interaction between modules should be obtained.
Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) suggest to follow a four steps approach that will be
illustrated using a DeskJet printer as an example. The four recommended
steps are:
126
6.1.3. Establishing the

architecture
1.
2.
3.
4.
Create a schematic of the product.

Cluster the elements of the schematic.
Create a rough geometric layout.
Identify the fundamental and incidental interactions.
Step 1: Create a schematic of the product. A schematic is a diagram

showing the constituent elements of a product as understood by the design
team. It is important that the schematic reflects the best understanding of the
team, although great detail is not necessary at this step. For the purpose of
establishing product architecture, some authors recommend to aim for fewer
than 30 elements in the schematic. It also should be realized that there is not
a unique schematic for any given product, so the team should generate several
alternatives to select from.
In figure 6.4 The schematic for a DeskJet printer is shown. Many elements in
the schematic represent physical components such as the print cartridge, while
other elements represent functional elements such as store output. Functional
elements are those that have not yet been reduced to physical concepts or
components, requiring further discussion by the design team in order to achieve
a final decision about how they will be implemented. On the other hand,
components that have been reduced to physical components are generally those
that are central to the basic product concept that the team has generated and
selected.
Step 2: Cluster the elements of the schematic. In this step, the objective
is to assign the different elements in the schematic into specific modules. As
in the previous step, the assignment of elements into modules is not unique,
and the design team will be faced with different viable alternatives that can
range from the few to the hundreds.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Enclose
Printer
Print
Cartridge
Provide
Structural
Support
Position
Cartridge
in XAxis
Store
Output
Accept
User
Inputs
Display
Status
Position
Paper
in YAxis
Control
Printer
Store
Blank
Paper
Flow of forces or energy

Flow of material
"Pick"
Paper
Supply
DC
Power
Communicate
with
Host
Command
Printer
Flow of signals or data

Connect
to
Host
Figure 6.4: Schematic of the DeskJet printer. Note the presence of both
functional elements (e.g., Store Output) and physical elements (e.g., Print
Cartridge). For clarity, not all connections among elements are shown. After
Ulrich & Eppinger (2000)
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
127
128
One method to manage such complexity is for each element to be assigned to

its own module and then to cluster elements when advantageous. Some factors
worth considering when clustering elements are:
Enclosure
Geometric integration and precision. In some cases, it is convenient

to cluster elements that control certain functions that are related between
themselves. Elements requiring precise location or close geometric integration can often be best designed if they are part of the same module.
In the case of the DeskJet, this principle would suggest clustering the
elements associated with positioning the cartridge and the paper.
Enclose
Printer
Print
Cartridge
Provide
Structural
Support
User Interface Board

Position
Cartridge
in XAxis
Chassis
Store
Output
Accept
User
Inputs
Position
Paper
in YAxis
Control
Printer
Store
Blank
Paper
Paper Tray
Flow of forces or energy

Flow of material
Display
Status
"Pick"
Paper
Power Cord
and "Brick"
Supply
DC
Power
Print
Mechanism
Communicate
with
Host
Flow of signals or data

Connect
to
Host
Command
Printer
Host Driver
Software
Logic Board
Figure 6.5: Clustering the elements into modules. Nine modules make up this
proposed architecture for the DeskJet printer. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000)
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Function sharing. When a single device can implement several different functions, it is best to cluster the related components together. For
the DeskJet it was believed that that the status display and the user
controls could be incorporated into the same component.
Capability of vendors. If a specific vendor is know for its capacity
in developing and manufacturing certain components, it is best if those
components are cluster together. This will help the vendor to integrate
more efficiently the said components.
Similarity of design or production technology. When two or more
components are designed or manufactured using the same or similar technology is best to cluster them in order to save costs. An typical example
of the application of this principle is the clustering of several electronic
devices into a single circuit board.
Localization and change. If the design team anticipates that a component will suffer several changes over time, it is best to isolate that
component into its own module. In the case of the DeskJet, the engineers decided that the printer would suffer cosmetic shape modifications
and decided to isolate the enclosure into its own module.
Accommodate variety. If some components of the product will be
changed to satisfy different market or operative conditions, it is best to
isolate these components in a module that can be easily replaced. For
the Deskjet, the engineers decided to isolate the components associated
with the DC power supply as the printer was going to be sold in different
parts of the world with different power standards.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
129
Enabling standardization. When a component or components can be

used in different products, it is best to isolated them in separate module
or modules. This allows the higher production of the elements in the
module. An example of this standardization is the printer cartridge in
the DeskJet printer.
Step 3: Create a rough geometric layout.

The next step once the general components have been arranged in modules, is
to generate a general geometric layout to analyze if the proposed distribution is
physically possible. This rough sketch can be made out of foam or cardboard,
or even as a rough 3-D computer model, as it is not necessary to include
great detail. Nevertheless, it should be sufficient to decide whether component
and interface distributions are possible. An example of a geometric layout for
the DeskJet printer is shown in figure 6.6. In this example, the design team
realized that there was a trade off between the height of the machine and how
much paper could be stored in the paper tray.
In many cases, the design team may decide that the geometric layout or the
clustering chosen are not feasible. In this cases, components may be assigned
to different modules.
Step 4: Identify the fundamental and incidental interactions.
User interface board
Logic
board
print
cartridge
Paper tray
Print
mechanism
Chassis
Enclosure
Logic board
Portability of the interfaces. Some interactions are more easily transmitted over large distances than others. For example, it is easier to
transmit electric or light signals over a distance than mechanical forces
and motions. It is also true for the transmission of fluid connections.
As a result, it is easier to separate elements with electronic and fluid
interactions. In the case of the DeskJet, the flexibility of electrical interactions allowed the design team to cluster control and communication
functions into the same chunk. On the other hand, the design team was
constrained by the geometric and mechanical interactions of the paper
handling mechanism.
130
Print cartridge
Roller/guide
Paper
Paper tray
Chassis
Figure 6.6: Geometric layout of the printer. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000)
According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) there are two types of interactions
between modules. First, fundamental interactions are those corresponding
to the lines on the schematic that connect the chunks to one another (see
Figure 6.4). This interaction is planned and is fundamental to the operation
of the system. Second, incidental interactions, are those that arise because of
particular geometric or physical implementation of modules. In the Deskjet
example, the vibration from the actuator in the paper tray could interfere with
the precise location of the print cartridge in the xaxis.
It is common practice to divide the design so each module can be assigned

to an specific person or team. Since the different modules interact in one
way or another, different persons or teams have to constantly coordinate their
activities and exchange information. To facilitate this interaction, interactions
between modules have to be identified.
Even when the principal interaction between modules were described in the
schematic, incidental ones should be documented apart. When the system
includes a reasonable small number of incidental interactions (less than 10),
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
131
6.2
User Interface
Board
Enclosure
Styling
Paper Tray
Vibration
Print
Mechanism
Thermal Distortion
RF Shielding
Chassis
Thermal
Distortion
Logic Board
Host Driver
Software
RF Interference
Power Cord
and "Brick"
Figure 6.7: Incidental interaction graph. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000)
an incidental interaction graph is convenient. Figure 6.7 shows an example of
an interaction graph regarding the DeskJet example. This graph shows that
vibration and thermal distortion are two incidental interactions that may affect
the performance of the print mechanism. The design team should be careful
to address these issues.
To define the interactions between modules, flows in material, energy and
signals must be investigated and refined at each module boundary. These
flows usually define the interactions and the boundaries define the interfaces.
According to Cutherell (1996), four types of interactions are typically investigated:
1. Material interactions: solid, liquids, or gases that flow from one module
to the next.
2. Energy interactions: energies that must be transmitted or shielded between modules.
3. Information interactions: signals (tactile, acoustic, electrical, visual, etc.)
that must be processed from one module to the next, and
4. Spatial interactions: geometrical dimensions, degrees-of-freedom, tolerances, and constraints that must be maintained between modules.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
6.2 Geometry and layout refinement
132
Geometry and layout refinement
In the quest of creating a robust product, two main activities take place once
rough concepts have been generated and selected:
1. refining the geometry and architecture of the product,
2. systems modeling toward detail design.
Take for example the electric wok presented by Otto & Wood (2001) shown in
figure 6.8. In this case the design team was faced with the task of improving an
existing product. As shown, the original concept of the wok evolved to a new
one that included more advanced controls and configurations accommodating
improved product cleaning and storage. As a result of the embodiment design
phase, components, parts, assemblies and interfaces were clearly defined, from
both geometrical, and functional points of view. Another example of the result
of embodiment design is shown in figure 6.9, where an exploded view of the
PrestoTM hot air popcorn popper is shown.
In any case, the embodiment process include the following tangible documentation:
detailed drawings,
exploded views,
assembly diagrams,
tool designing,
manufacturing process plans,
tolerance design,
packaging,
maintenance and warranty information and
users manual.
In order to generate the above documentation, some guidelines described next

may be followed. The main objective of these guidelines is to transform a
concept sketch into refined geometry and material choices focusing on the
functional performance of the product, including all relevant engineering specifications.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
133
134
Figure 6.8: Embodiment example of a new electric wok concept. (a) Original
wok concept. (b) Original product realization. (c) Evolved wok concept. (d)
Realization of new product concept. After Otto & Wood (2001)
In the embodiment design phase, specific layouts and parameters are generated
in order to logically chose a given concept from a number of solution alternatives that have been developed. Ideally, the result of this phase is a single
developed concept, in its definitive form, for the product or each subsystem
defined including:
geometric layout
material composition
quality and manufacturability issues
economics
In practice, the design team may be faced with the situation that further
refinement of the selected concepts is needed before commitment for a single
solution occurs.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Figure 6.9: Embodiment example of the PrestoTM hot air popcorn popper.
After Otto & Wood (2001)
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
135
136
Prepare parts lists (BOM), assembly drawings,

part drawings, product process plans
Develop possible layouts for supporting functions
4. Definitive Layout
Check for robustness and errors

Inventory required supporting functionality
Engineer the dimensions of components
In order to deal with these complex characteristics of embodiment design, Pahl

& Beitz (1996) suggest a general process to iteratively refine the geometry and
layout of a product from an abstract form to a well-defined one. Figure 6.10
illustrates this general process.
3. Preliminary Layout
Evaluate against customer, technical, robust,

safety, and business case criteria
Without doubt, the main challenge of embodiment design is that when parameters in the different subsystems or modules change, they usually affect other
subsystems or modules, they propagate. This behavior is the result of having parameters that are highly coupled between product subsystems/modules.
This scenario means that embodiment design activities of the different subsystems/modules must be carried out simultaneously and iteratively. As one
change is made, its effects in the other subsystems/modules are studied and, if
acceptable, the change is approved and its effects mitigated. The process stop
when the performance of the product becomes acceptable.
Complete form design with detailed drawings
In this situation, parallel development of the concepts should be carried out.

It is important to try to select one final concept as soon as possible in order
to direct more resources for the development of the final product.
maximum/minimum dimensions of the product

clearance between relative subsystems/modules
installation paths
general arrangement of components relative to one another.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Select an effective layout
Fill in the spatial form with scale drawings
2. Concept Layout
Select and effective layout for module placement
Develop preliminary layouts possibilities

for the module placement
Identify the main functional modules
Define the spatial form with preliminary scale drawings
After critical specifications have been selected, the next step is to draw a
scale sketches of the product. These sketches should have enough detail to
incorporate all critical aspects of the alternatives but care should be taken
to avoid over-constraining the models. These drawings includes the following
items:
Using the engineering specifications,

identify crucial requirements
size and geometric specifications

material specifications
arrangement specifications
1. Concept
The process begins defining customer needs and the engineering specifications
that fulfill them. Critical specifications/requirements that will drive the embodiment process are identified. Some examples of critical specifications are:
Figure 6.10: A general process for concept embodiment. After Pahl & Beitz
(1996)
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
137
Once the sketches have been completed, it should be verify that each product
subsystem, module, part or assembly fulfills its intended function completely.
Also, the different sketches should be checked for possible geometry simplifications and function sharing.

Embodiment
Checklist issue
Function
Are the customer needs satisfied, as measured by the target values?
138
Is the stipulated product architecture and function(s) fulfilled?

What auxiliary or supporting functions are needed?
Working principles Do the chosen form solutions (architecture and components per function) produce the desired effects
and advantages?
Based on the results, alternative sketches should be generated if needed. Next,

ranges of geometric, materials, and other variables should be established and
listed for each subsystem/module. Also, decisions regarding the possible use of
standard components in each subsystem/module should be made. This process
stage is finished by choosing between alternative layouts using the product
specifications. The scale drawings are updated with the choices made.
What disturbing noise factors may be expected?

What byproducts may be expected?
Layout, geometry
Do the chosen layout, component shapes, materials, and dimensions provide
and materials
minimal performance variance to noise (robustness),

adequate durability (strength),
efficient material usage (strength-to-mass ratio),
suitable life (fatigue),
permissible deformation (stiffness),
adequate force flows (interfaces and strength concentrations),
As the next stage, additional functions that may be needed to carry out support and auxiliary requirements should be identified. Then, rough layouts for
these additional functions should be developed ensuring the compatibility of
all subassembly interfaces. This task usually requires the use of standards,
mathematical models, design guidelines and experimentation in order to determine all appropriate parameters. At the same time, the product should be
evaluated against customer, technical, robust, safety an economic criteria and
the layout should be checked to estimate potential faults.
The embodiment process concludes with the testing of physical prototypes and
the design of appropriate tooling.
adequate stability,
impact resistance,
freedom from resonance,
unimpeded expansion and heat transfer, and
acceptable corrosion and wear with the stipulated service life and loads?
Energy and
Do the chosen layout and components provide
kinematics
efficient transfer of energy (efficiency),

adequate transient and steady state behavior (dynamics and control across energy domains), and
appropriate motion, velocity and acceleration profiles?
Safety
Have all of the factors affecting the safety of the user, components, function, operation, and the
Ergonomics
Have the human-machine relationships been fully considered?
environment been taken into account?

Have unnecessary human stress or injurious factors been predicted and avoided?
Has attention been paid to aesthetics and economic analysis of the production process, capability, and
suppliers?
A second method to supplement the general embodiment process, is the application of the embodiment checklist developed by Pahl & Beitz shown in table 6.1. This
table provides a systematic approach to apply proven design principles during the embodiment phase. The objective of the list is to ensure robustness,
clarity, simplicity and safety in a product.
6.2.1. Embodiment
checklist
The checklist involves categories of possible engineering specifications, where

each category has a set of basic questions that should be exhaustively applied to
the product and the different subsystems/modules as they are being detailed.
It should be noted that mathematical models or physical prototypes may be
needed to effectively answer each of the questions.
Quality control
Have standard product tolerances been chosen (not too tight)?
Assembly
Can all internal and external assembly operations be performed simply, repeatedly, an in the
Have the necessary quality checks been chosen (type, measurements, and time)?
correct order (without ambiguity)?
Can components be combined (minimize part count) without affecting modular architectures
and functional independence of the product?
Transport
Have the internal and external transport conditions and risks been identified and solved?
Operation
Have all of the factors influencing the products operation, such as noise,
Life cycle
Can the product, its components, its packaging be reused or recycled?
Have the required packaging and dunnage been designed?

vibration, and handling been considered?
Have the materials been chosen and clumped to aid recycling?
Is the product easily disassembled?
Maintenance
Can maintenance, inspection, repair, and overhaul be easily performed and checked?
Costs
Have the stipulated cost limits been observed?
Schedules
Can the delivery dates be met, including tooling?
What features have been added to the product to aid in maintenance?

Will additional operational or subsidiary costs arise?
What design modifications might reduce cycle time and improve delivery?
Table 6.1: Checklist for embodying a product concept. Adapted from Pahl &
Beitz (1996).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
139
6.3
6.3 Trends for the design process
Trends for the design process
Market
Specifications
140
Concept
Design
Detail
Design
Manufacture
Sell
Iterations
In the last decades technology has brought profound changes in the way engineers design. Computational tools together with methods to increase the
communication with all parts involved in the life cycle of a product have shortened significantly the amount of time needed to put a initial concept or idea
into the market as a final product. From all the techniques that are or have
been applied, concurrent engineering and computer aided tools have been most
significant.
6.3.1. Concurrent Traditionally, design, manufacturing and marketing acengineering
tivities have taken place sequentially rather than concurrently or simultaneously. The designer team would spend
large amounts of time analyzing components and preparing detail drawings for
a new product. After the design was considered satisfactory, the design team
forwarded the information to the manufacturing team who would, once more,
spend large amounts of time figuring out how to manufacture the product according to design specifications. After facilities and manufacturing processes
were ready for production, the marketing team began to prepare a marketing
strategy based on the product features.
Although may seem logical at first, this linear scheme proved to be inadequate.
In many occasions the design team ended up with a product that was difficult
to manufacture and even difficult to sell. Great efforts were wasted (and sometimes still are) doing re-designs to improve manufacturing and to add features
to improve the marketing of the product.
To avoid the previous problems it is best to include members of the manufacturing and marketing divisions into the design team from the conceptual
stages of the design process. The inclusion of the members will help to achieve
a better decisions to avoid design features that are difficult to manufacture
or no desirable from the marketing point of view. This approach, that may
also include members from other areas like distribution and disposal, is called
Concurrent Engineering.
Figure 6.11: Depiction of concurrent engineering in the design process. After

Pugh (1991).
Life cycle means that all aspect of the product, such as design, development,
production, distribution, use, disposal, and recycling, are considered simultaneously. The basic goals of concurrent engineering are to reduce changes in a
products design and engineering to reduce the time and costs involved in taking the product from its design concept to its production and its introduction
into the marketplace. Figure 6.11 shows a simple design process models that
makes emphasis in the interaction between phases due to the use of concurrent
engineering principles.
As discussed above, while designing a product,
several disciplines must be taken into account.
One of those disciplines that is specially bounded
to the design process is manufacturing. Many times new products have been
designed only to find out that the technology needed for its manufacturing was
not readily available.
6.3.2. Design for
manufacture and assembly
Hence, each component of the product must be designed not only to fulfill
engineering requirements but also to be easily and cheaply manufactured. This
emphasis is called design for manufacture, and it groups selection of materials,
manufacturing methods, planning, assembly, testing and quality assurance.
The design team must be capable of evaluating the impact that design changes
have in manufacturing processes.
Kalpakjian & Schmidt (2001) define Concurrent Engineering as a systematic

approach integrating the design and manufacture of products, with a view
towards optimizing all elements involved in the life cycle of the product.
After the individual parts have been manufactured, they usually have to be
assembled to make the final product. The importance of the assemblies cannot be understated, in many products assembly takes the largest time of the
manufacturing process. Much can be done during the design phase to make
the assembly as simple and fast as possible. Figure 6.12 shows some good and
bad design practices regarding assemblies.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
141
Material
extraction
142

Bad
Manufacturing
Use
Recycle
Remanufacture
Reuse
Waste
managment
Bad

Material
Processing
Good
Bad
Good
Good
Figure 6.12: Design considerations for assembly.

Figure 6.13: Stages of a product life cycle. After Otto & Wood (2001).
Nowadays, computers are an integral part of the
conceptual, refinement, evaluation and production
phases of the design process either as engineering
or management tools. The use of computers has greatly simplified the representation, study and construction of analytical models through Computer
Aided Design (CAD), Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) and Computer
Aided Manufacturing (CAM).
6.3.4. CAD, CAM, CAE
and CIM
During the centuries the impact that humans have in

the environment has grown steadily as both, populations and its needs, increase. In the last decades, the
awareness about the consequences of extracting resources and dumping waste
without control has modified the way engineers design.
6.3.3. Design for the

environment
If populations is to keep enjoying the advantages of technological advances and

higher standards of living for the centuries to come, products must have little
or no impact in the environment. Design for environment (DFE) is a product
design approach for reducing the impact of products on the environment.
Most of the times, the impact of products into the environment is thought of
in terms of their disposal. Nevertheless, products have an impact during all of
its life cycle from the extraction of the materials it is made from up to their
disposal (see figure 6.13).
These tools use computer software to assist in the creation and revision of
engineering drawings and models (CAD), manufacturing (CAM), and analysis
(CAE) of new products.
The use of CAD/CAM/CAE tools avoids the need of making costly illustrations, models and prototypes, shortening the time needed to bring a new
product from concept to production. Although these tools may be applied in
different parts of the design process, they are better suited for certain parts of
the process (see figure 6.14).
Regarding Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM), Egan and Greene (1989)
state that the appearance of CIM is based on the recognition that steps in the
development of a manufactured product are interrelated and can be accomplished effectively and efficiently by using computers.
Products can have adverse impact on the environment during their manufacture through the use of polluting processes, the use of high amounts of raw
materials, or the need of high quantities of energy. They can also have different levels of impact on their disposal due to large half-lives or the need of
large amounts of energy for their destruction. As shown in figure 6.13 there
are many opportunities for recycling, remanufacturing and reuse to reduce environmental impact. Unfortunately, products that are designed without this
vision in mind are difficult to remanufacture, reuse or even recycle. Designers must use all their knowledge and creativity to create products that are
environmentally friendly products throughout their manufacture, packaging,
transportation, use and disposal.
CIM provides a mean to integrate all the steps in the manufacturing process
taking into account processes, specifications, instructions and data that need
to be controlled and organized.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
143
6.4
Definition of product need;

marketing information
Conceptual design and evaluation;

feasibility study
Design analysis; codes/standards review;

physical and analytical models
Prototype production; testing

and evaluation
Computer Aided
Design
(CAD)
Computer Aided
Engineering
(CAE)
Production drawings;
instruction manuals
Material specification; process

and equipment selection; safety review
Pilot production
Production
6.4 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
Computer Aided
Manufacturing
(CAM)
Computer Aided
Process Planning
(CAPP)
Computer Integrated
Manufacturing
(CIM)
Inspection and quality assurance
Packaging; marketing and

sales literature
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
The notion of a reliable product comes from two different parts. First, there is
the minimization of performance variation across different environments and
user conditions. Second, is the assurance that the product will work as intended, without falling short of a given set of customer expectations. The first
part is achieved through customer quality. The second part is achieved through
the more fundamental engineering quality. With the latter, it is ensured that
the product has adequate strength, reliability and failure prevention. Traditionally, reliability has been achieved through extensive testing at the end of
the design process. A better idea is to design from the early design stages
incorporating the concepts of quality and reliability.
Historically, engineers have not been very good at designing with reliability and
quality. In most occasions, engineers use a safety factor as a way of making
up for all the possible failure modes that were not considered in the design.
As the engineer had less idea of what could go wrong with the product, the
larger the safety factor that the engineer would use.
Unfortunately, as stated in the Mechanical Engineering magazine:
A large safety factor does not necessarily translate
into a reliable product. Instead, it often leads to an
overdesigned product with reliability problems.
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is an analytical methodology used
as means for analyzing potential reliability problems early in the product design process, where it is easier and cheaper to take corrective actions. FMEA
is used to identify potential failure modes, determine their effect on the use
of the product, and identify counter-actions to correct them. FMEA focuses
on the entire product and not just in the different components and interfaces,
although failure modes may be related to specific components or interfaces.
There are several types of FMEAs, each one with its
own focus and objectives. Independently of the task
at hand, FMEA should always be used whenever failures would mean potential
harm or injury to the user. The types of FMEA are:
6.4.1. Types of FMEA
Product
Figure 6.14: The use of computer aided tools in the different steps of the design
process (after Kalpakjian & Schmid, 2001).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
144
System FMEA: focuses on global system functions

c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
145
Design FMEA: focuses on components and subsystems
Capture engineering/organization knowledge
Process FMEA: focuses on manufacturing and assembly processes
Emphasizes problem prevention
Service FMEA: focuses on service functions
Documents risk and actions taken to reduce risk
Software FMEA: focuses on software functions
Provide focus for improved testing and development
According to the Society of Automotive Engineers (2002),

FMEA supports the product development process in reducing the risk of failure by:
6.4.2. FMEA Usage
aiding in the objective evaluation of design requirements and design alternatives

aiding in the initial design for manufacturing and assembly requirements
increasing the probability that potential failure modes and their effects
on system operation have been considered in the design/development
process
146
Minimizes late changes and associated cost

Catalyst for teamwork and idea exchange between functions
In order to effectively apply FMEA, the greatest challenge that the design team
faces is to anticipate what might go wrong with a product. While anticipating
every possible failure mode is almost always impossible, the development team
should generate a detailed list of potential failures. Some questions that may
help in this task are (Stamatis, 1995):
1. What does the product do and what are its intended uses?
2. How does the product perform its function?
providing additional information to aid in the planning of through and

efficient design improvements and development testing
3. What raw materials and components are used to build the product?
providing an open issue format for recommending and tracking risk reducing action
4. How, and under what conditions does the product interface with other
products?
providing future references to aid in analyzing field concerns, evaluating

design changes, and developing advanced designs
5. What by-products are created by the product or by the use of the product?
Properly used, FMEA provides the engineer with several benefits that include
(Crow, 2002):
6. How is the product used, maintained, repaired, and disposed of at the

end of its useful life?
7. What are the manufacturing steps in the production of the product?
Improve product/process reliability and quality
8. What energy sources are involved and how?
Increase customer satisfaction
9. Who will use or be in the vicinity of the product, and what are the
capabilities and limitations of these individuals?
Early identification and elimination of potential product/process failure

modes
Prioritize product/process deficiencies
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
The above questions should be aimed to gather information in order to address

six basic questions:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
147
148
1. What could fail or go wrong with each component of the product?

2. How or why can the part fail to meet its engineering specifications?
3. What circumstances could cause the failure?
4. To what extent might it fail?
5. What are the potential hazards produced by the failure?
6. What steps should be implemented to prevent the failure?
The use of FMEA is straightforward consisting
of a series of steps. Following the procedure suggested by Otto & Wood (2000), the 10 steps procedure is explained in what follows.
6.4.3. Step by step Design

FMEA Analysis
Step 1: List each subassembly and component number, along with the basic
functions or function chains of the component. The component numbers may
be referenced from a products bill of materials. Likewise, the component
functions should be consistent with the functional models and architecture
developed for a product. Any functions listed for a component should concisely
represent the design intent. Environmental and operational parameters, such
as temperature, humidity, and pressure ranges, should be listed to clarify this
intent.
Step 2: Identify and list the potential failures for each product component.
Simple prototype models and brainstorming techniques can aid in identifying
potential failure modes. Likewise, sketches, storyboards, free-body diagrams,
force-flow diagrams, and process-flow diagrams can help in understanding the
physics of a failure mode. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 should be used to check for typical
problems with components and product systems. For any listed failure mode,
the idea is that the failure could occur, but not that will necessarily occur for
the product under consideration.
Step 3: List possible potential causes or mechanisms of the failure modes. Example causes include tolerance stack-up, assembly errors, poor maintenance,
impact loading, overstressing, and so forth. These causes will provide insights
into modeling of the failure mode. They will also indicate appropriate preventive measures that might be adopted.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
List of example failure modes

Corrosion
Ingress
Delamination
Fracture
Vibrations
Erosion
Material Yield
Whirl
Thermal shock
Electrical short
Sagging
Thermal relaxation
Open Circuit
Cracking
Bonding failure
Buckling
Stall
Starved for lubrication
Resonance
Creep
Staining
Fatigue
Thermal expansion
Inefficient
Deflections or deformations Oxidation
Fretting
Seizure
UV deterioration
Thermal fatigue
Burning
Acoustic noise
Sticking
Misalignment
Scratching and hardness
Intermittent system
operation
Stripping
Unstable
Egress
Wear
Loose fittings
Surge
Binding
Unbalanced
Overshooting
Enbrittlement
Ringing
Loosening
Loose
Scoring
Leaking
Radiation damage
Table 6.2: Abbreviated list of example failure modes. After Otto & Wood
(2000).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
149
Step 4: List the potential effects of the failure, including impact on the environment, property, or hazards to human users. Example effects include noise,
poor appearance, flying debris, unpleasant odor, erratic operation and so forth.
Step 5: Rate the likelihood of occurrence (O) of the failure. The ratings
should be on a scale of 1-10 as given by:
1
2/3
No effect
Low (relatively few failures)
4/5/6 Moderate (occasional failures)

7/8
High (repeated failures)
9/10
Very high (failure is almost inevitable)
Step 6: Estimate the potential severity (S) of the failure and its effect. Again,
a 1-10 scale should be used. The following meanings are associated with this
scale:
No effect
Very minor (only noticed by discriminating customer)
Minor (affects very little of the system; notice by average customer)
4/5/6 Moderate (most customers are annoyed)

7/8
High (causes a loss of a primary function; customers are dissatisfied)
9/10
Very high and hazardous (product becomes inoperative; customers are

angered; the failure may result in unsafe operation and possible injury)

1
Almost certain
High
Moderate
4/5/6 Moderate most customers are annoyed

7/8
Low
9/10
Very remote to absolute uncertainty
Step 8: Calculate the Risk Priority Number (RPN). An RPN prioritizes the
relative importance of each failure mode and effect on a scale of 1-1000. It can
be calculated with the following relation:
RPN = (S) (O) (D)
A 1000 rating implies a certain failure that is hazardous and harmful and will
occur, whereas a 1 rating is a failure that is highly unlikely and unimportant.
Rating above 100 will occur, whereas ratings below 30 become reasonable
for typical applications. It is important to notice that the RPN scale is nonlinear in risk.
Step 9: Develop recommended actions for the failure modes, assign responsibilities to appropriate parties and team members, and set a schedule for
implementing the actions. Corrective actions should be first developed for
the highest ranked failure modes based on the RPN. Example actions include
revised component or subassembly design, revised test plan or material specification, design of experiments and prototypes, etc. These actions should be
specific.
Step 10: Implement the corrective actions, update the S-O-D ratings, and
recalculate the RPN for the updated design.
The process and results of the FMEA should be documented, perhaps with
the help of a template like the one shown in figure 6.15.
Step 7: List current or expected design controls/test for detecting (D) the
failure before the product is released for production. A 1-10 scale is used to
assess detection:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
150
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
151
152
D RPN
O S
Improved situation
Applied
steps
O S
Current situation
Proposed test
steps
Failure
Cause
Failure
Consequence
Failure
Type

2. Crow, K. (2002) Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), DRM Associates, www.npd-solutions.com. 3. Cutherell, D. (1996) Product Architecture.
Chap 16. in The PDMA handbook of new product development, edited by
M. Rosenau, Jr. et al. New York: Wiley. 4. Kalpakjian, S. & Schmid, S.
(2001) Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, fourth ed., Prentice-Hall.
5. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall.
Second Ed. Springer.
8. SAE (2002) Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Design (Design
FMEA) and Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Manufacturing
and Assembly Processes (Process FMEA) and Effects Analysis for Machinery
(Machinery FMEA). SAE Standard J1739.
9. Stamatis, D. H. (1995) Failure Mode and Effect Analysis - FMEA from
Theory to Execution. ASQ Quality Press.
10. Ullman, D. (2003) The Mechanical Design Process, Third Edition. McGrawHill.
11. Ulrich, K. (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing
firm. Research Policy, 24, 419-440.
McGraw-Hill.
Failure Location
Name/Department/Supplier/Telephone
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS

Design FMEA
Process FMEA
D RPN
Suggested remedial
measures
By (Name/Department/Telephone)
Component name
References
Figure 6.15: FMEA Template.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
CHAPTER
Part II
Techniques for robustness,
reliability and optimization
Design of Experiments using the Taguchi

Method
7.1
Basics of Design of Experiments
When a person is faced with the task of solving a problem which answer is not
know, many different alternatives or ideas for its solution may appear based
on those factors that are regarded as important in the problem at hand. If
no better ideas arise, trial and error procedures are generally employed until a
satisfactory solution is found.
Although trial and error may seem as a simple approach, as it is evident to any
person that has tried to solve a problem in this way, the procedure has many
drawbacks. First, trial and error generally lack of any structure and solution
attempts are carried out changing the problem variable randomly. Second, it
takes a long time to find a satisfactory solution, if one is ever found! Third, it
is difficult to assess if the solution found is the optimal one. Fourth, and most
importantly, trial and error procedures are prohibitively expensive to carry out
as several failing attempts are usually needed to find a solution.
From the above, it is obvious that trial and error procedures are not well suited
for scientific purposes. Hence, a structured, reliable and efficient methodology
to carry out tries or experiments is needed. The discipline of Design of Experiments, or DoE for short, is responsible for answering this question.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
155
7.1 Basics of Design of Experiments
In order to carry a designed experiment it is recommended to follow a simple

procedure:
1. Define the problem.

Experiment
156
Factors
1
2 3
2. Design the experiment.
3. Setup the experiment.
4. Gather data.
5. Analyze data.
These steps will be analyzed next.

In this step the problem to be solved is clearly
understood. The variables, or factors, that affect
its behavior are determined and the shape and value of an acceptable solution
is determined. Although this step may be seen as obvious, it is the most
critical part of a designed experiment. In many ocassions it is difficult not
only to determine which factors are relevant and which not, but also what is
the required output, or response, for the experiment.
7.1.1. Define the problem
Whenever possible, attempts should be made to solve the problem analytically. Even when too many assumptions and/or simplifications were needed
to solve it analytically, the formulas used can of great help providing, first, an
insight into the nature of the problem and second, an idea of around where the
solution should be found. This would help the scientist to determine factors
and numerical values to be used in order to reduce the number of experiments
to run.
Once the problem has been fully understood, the next
step it to design the experiment. Here, design the experiment involves the determination of what factors and
values should be varied during the experiments and what response or responsed
will be measured. It also involves the selection of how the experiment will be
carried out: it will be done numerically using methods like Finite Elements or
Boundary Elements, it will be done experimentally, using a full size test rig,
a combination of both approaches, etc. Next, it is necessary to define how
many runs will be carried out and how the inputs (factors) will be varied. One
simple and effective albeit long approach, is to use a factorial design.
7.1.2. Design the
experiment
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Table 7.1: 23 factorial design table.
In a factorial design the response to all possible combinations of factor levels

is measured. The number of all possible combinations of k factors, each with
n different levels to be tested, is nk .
Consider for example a problem that has three different factors and it is desired
to test the response of the system when each factor is varied between two
different values. Since there are three different factors to take into account,
k = 3. Furthermore, since each factor will take only two different values, n = 2.
Hence, the number of experiments to run is 23 = 8. Table 7.1 shows all the
required runs representing the low value of any factor by the number 1 and
its higher value by the number 2.
The choice between two, three or more levels for each one of the factors is based
on the type of response that is required from the experiment. If two levels are
chosen, then making it a 2k factorial design, the response of the system will
be forced to be linear. If three levels are chosen (a 3k experiment), then the
response will be forced to be quadratic, and so on. It is responsability of the
person designing the experiment to choose the right number of levels needed in
order to mimic the nature of the response of the problem. If the response of the
problem is thought to be of cubic nature, then four levels should be considered
for each factor. Figure 7.1 shows graphically the different in response from a
2k and a 3k experiments.
One of the main advantages of carrying out factorial designs, is that all possible
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
157

quadratic response
estimated with 3
factor levels (123)
Response variable
158
experiments which will be discussed in detail in the next section. The interested reader is encourged to consult the references by Montgomery (1997) or
Berger and Maurer (2002) to review other methods.
3
b
linear response
estimated with 2
factor levels (ab)
1
a
Factor Level
Figure 7.1: Difference in the response variable between a two-level factor and
a three-level factor.
interactions between factors the effect of one factor depending on the value
of some of the other factors are taken into account. Their main disadvantage
is the number of experiments that have to be done, consider for example, six
factors with 3 levels each: 36 = 729 experiments to run!
As the number of experiments needed for a factorial design increases rapidly
as the number of factors increases, an alternative is needed in order to make
complex experiments managable. Full nk factorial designs allow the estimation
of all main effects effects that depend on only one factor as well as 2way interactions, 3-way interactions and so on until n-way interactions. Here
interaction means interdependece between two or more main effects. One way
to reduce the number of experiments needed is to give up the ability to estimate
interactions, especially higher order, by confounding them with each other.
Confounding two or more factors means that the effects of these factors on a
response variable cannot be distinguished from one another. Factorial designs
where not all runs are performed are called fractional factorial designs.
In this step the experiment is prepared either by means

of existing equipment, a test rig or a numerical simulation.
The experiment should be isolated as much as possible from
all possible external influences. Also, care must be given to ensure that any
factor can be modified without interfering with the others and that the response variable can be measured effectively. It is of great importance that
the response variable is always something that can be quantified by just one
number, as it will make the analysis more much easier. If by the nature of the
problem, the response variable cannot be represented by just one number, it
is strongly recommended to find an alternative way to quantify it.
7.1.3. Setup the
experiment
Consider for example that the neck of aluminum cans wrinkle during its manufacturing process as shown in figure 7.2. As it is an undesirable feature, a
engineering team is assigned to determine its probable causes and to modify
the process to reduce it. The team decides to design an experiment using the
amount of wrinkling as the response variable. The question is now how to
quantify the amount of wrinkling in a single number? Clearly, the more the
final shape of the neck deviates from a perfect circle, the more the wrinkling.
In this case the team decided to use the difference in the arc length between
the final shape and a circle of the average radius along the neck. If there are no
wrinkles, the difference would be zero. On the other hand, the more wrinkling,
the greater the difference.
As it shown in the example, there are times when the person or team designing
Wrinkled can
Confounding higher order interactions significantly reduces the number of experiments to carry out. Nevertheless, the question of which experiments to
run has to be answered. This is not an easy question, as the selection must be
specified in such a way that desired effects are not affected by interactions and
undesired effects are confounded with each other. Many alternatives exists to
answer this question. One alternative that has become increasingly popular
for its simplicity and effectivness is the use of Taguchis Method for designed
Figure 7.2: Wrinkled neck in an aluminum can.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Desired shape
159
Experimental
Factors
A
y11
y12
y13
y1
y21
y22
y23
y2
y31
y32
y33
y3
y41
y42
y43
y4
y51
y52
y53
y5
y61
y62
y63
y6
y71
y72
y73
y7
y81
y82
y83
y8
y91
y92
y93
y9
Response
Response
Table 7.2: Layout of gathered data for an experiment with 4 factors (A, B and
C) and 3 repetitions based on the L9 orthogonal array.
the experiment must figure out how to measure and/or quantify the response
variable. There is no magic formula and one form will have always advantages
and disadvantages over others. It is important when desiging experiments to
clearly understand the problem and the tradeoffs of decisions taken.
Once the setup for the experiment is ready, the experimental runs are carried out, each one with the factor levels specified in the experimental design matrix. The output in every response
variable of interest is registered on each case. If the experimental design requires repetitions, they are carried out until all experiments have been run and
registered. After all experimentation is finished, all the information gathered
can be conveniently arranged as shown in table 7.2.
7.1.4. Gather data
The final step is to analyze the data gathered from the

experimental runs. The analysis typically answers the
following questions:
How the factor levels affect the response?
Is there any relevant interaction between factors?
How can the response be predicted from factors values?
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
160
Mean
Run
7.1.5. Analyze data
7.2 Orthogonal arrays and linear graphs
Figure 7.3: Linear graph for L4 array.

Which factors values will give the best response?
In the following sections the methodology used to answer these and other
questions will be discussed in detail.
7.2
Orthogonal arrays and linear graphs
Taguchi showed that if experimental runs are chosen appropriately, there is no

need to run full factorial experiments. The basis for Taguchis method are the
orthogonal arrays, which show what factors levels must be selected each time
to do the fewest possible runs. The main idea is to concentrate only on those
few runs that are vital for the analysis.
Table 7.3 shows the most common experimental design orthogonal arrays.
These arrays can be found at the end of the chapter. Orthogonal arrays are
named under the convention Ln where the L comes from Latin square and the
n represents the number of rows in the array. As usual, each row represent an
experiment to carry out and each column represent the factors (or interactions)
of interest.
The simplest orthogonal array, the L4 array, is shown in table 7.4. This orthogonal is suitable to run a 3 two-level factors experiment. As it can be seen,
it requires only 4 runs, compared to a full 23 factorial design that would require
8 runs. Only half the work! As experiments become more large and complex,
the use of orthogonal arrays becomes more convenient. Consider for example a design to study the effects of 15 two-level factors. An orthogonal array
suited for this study, the L16 requires 16 experiments whereas a full factorial
design would require 32,768 experiments! A design to study the effects of 13
three-level factors using orthogonal arrays would require 27 runs using the L27
array; a full factorial design would require 1,594,323 experiments.
An orthogonal array is a fractional factorial experimental matrix that is orthogonal and balanced. Here, the balance property has two meanings. First it
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
161
7.2 Orthogonal arrays and linear graphs

Array
7.3 Investigating effects
Description
L4 (2 )
162
Experiment
3 two-level factors
L8 (2 )
Factors
1
2 3
7 two-level factors
11
11 two-level factors
15
31
L31 (2 )
L9 (34 )
4 three-level factors
L18 (21 37 )
1 two-level and 7 three-level factors
L12 (2 )
L16 (2 )
13
L27 (3 )
L36 (211 312 )
L036
13
(2 3 )
L032 (21 49 )
L016
Table 7.4: L4 (23 ) Orthogonal Array.
13 three-level factors
(or left blank as it will be discussed later) to the interaction AB.
Linear graphs can also be of help choosing the right array for a given experimental setup. As shown in table 7.3, the number of standar orthogonal arrays
is limited and as such, may seem very limited as not all experimental designs
may fit exactly into one of the Ln arrays available. Although it is possible to
create new arrays from the standard ones, in most ocassions there is no need
to do so.

1 two-level and 9 four-level factors
(4 )
5 four level factors
L25 (56 )
6 five level factors
L50 (21 511 )
1 two-level and 11 five-level factors
Table 7.3: Common orthogonal arrays
means that every column is balanced, that is, each level of the factor appears
the same number of times. For example, in the L4 array any column will have
2 1 levels and 2 2 levels. The second meaning is that any two columns
in the array are also balanced, having the same number of combinations of
levels. The reader is encouraged to check both balance properties with any
of the orthogonal arrays presented in section 7.6. Other important property
of orthogonal arrays is that any two columns of an orthogonal array form a
two-factor complete factorial design.
Consider for example a experimental design with 4 two-level factors. In this

case, the L4 is limited to 3 factors and the L8 is designed for seven two-level
factors. In this case, the L8 array can be used. Looking at the linear graphs
shown in figure 7.11, main factors can be assigned to columns 1, 2, 4 and 7.
Once factors are assigned to these columns, the 8 experiments are carried out
normally taking into account for each experimental run the levels of each of
the 4 factors. It is important to notice that if a factor is assigned to a column
reserved for interactions, its main effect cannot be estimated independently
from the other factors. Nevertheless, If there is the certainty that there are no
possible interactions between factors, then they can be assigned to any column
independently if they are reserved for interactions or not.
7.3
Investigating effects
Each orthogonal array has one or more linear graphs associated with it. The
objective of the linear graph is to show in a friendly way the interaction between columns. Figure 7.1 shows the linear graph for the L4 array, where dots
represent factors and lines connecting them represent interactions. In this
sense, the linear graph for the L4 array shows that columns 1 and 2 should be
assigned to factors, lets say A and B, and that column 3 should be assigned
It has been said that the strategy behind design of experiments is to gather the
most valuable data with the least amount of experimental runs. In the Taguchi
methodology, the analysis of information gathered from the experiments can
be carried out in four steps:
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Taguchi recommends to start analyzing the experiment results using means and plots to keep
simplicity. The first step of the analysis should be to calculate the average of
the response variable for a given factor level. Consider for example the experiment shown in table 7.2. For this case, the mean response, or main effect,
when factor A is at level 1 can be found as:
7.3.1. Estimation of effects
A1 = (y 1 + y 2 + y 3 )/3
(7.1)
as the factor A takes the low level at experimental runs 1, 2 and 3.

Similarly, the main effect when factor A is at level 2 can be found through
the responses y 4 , y 5 and y6 as this factors takes the intermediate level at
experimental runs 4, 5 and 6:
A2 = (y 4 + y 5 + y 6 )/3
(7.2)
The main effect of any factor at any level can be found likewise. For example,
the mean response when factor C is at level 3 is calculated as
C 3 = (y3 + y 5 + y7 )/3
(7.3)
as the factor C takes the level 3 at runs 3, 5 and 7.
164
A1
A2
A3
No significant effect
of factor A
Average response
Estimation of effects where the effect that factors have in the average response are studied.
Factor influence where the amount of influence that each factor has on the
response is quantified.
Analysis of interactions where the amount of interaction between factors
is investigated.
Prediction where a mathematical model of the experiment is developed and
the optimal values of factors for a given response are obtained.
Average response
Average response
163
A1
A2
A3
Linear effect
of factor A
A1
A2
A3
Nonlinear effect
of factor A
Figure 7.4: Effect of factor on response variable.
over the response. The second possibility is that the values for the average
response forms a line with slope different from zero. In this case, factor A
has a linear effect on the response. Finally, the third possibility is for the
values to resemble a quadratic function, or if the factor has more than 3 levels,
a non-linear function. In this case the effect of factor A on the response is
non-linear.
The different types of responses call for different criteria to select what factor
level may be better. When the factor has no significant effect, the optimum
level may be selected in terms of cost or convenience. When the effect is linear,
the factor can be used to shift response towards a target. Finally, if the effect
is non-linear, the value chosen may be around the flat part of the curve, so
small changes in the value of the factor do not affect the overall response.
The above criteria assumes that interactions between factors are insignificant,
so changing the value of one factor has no effect on the others. When interactions are presumed to be present, it makes no sense to change the value of
factors independently. In such a case, it is necessary to study how interactions
affect the average response.
Once the mean response of the different factors at the different levels has
been obtained, it is possible to determine the significance of each factor. To
determine the significance of a factor it is only necessary to plot the main
effects of each factor versus the values of its levels. Figure 7.4 shows the three
possible types of effect of factor A on the average response. The first possibility
is that the value for the average response remains almost constant along the
different levels of factor A. In this case, factor A has no appreciable effect
From the above discussion, it is clear that different

responses represent different strategies towards obtaining a given target for the response variable. The question of how factors
affect the response has been answered, but the question of how strong the
effect is has been not. For example, it may be irrelevant that a factor has a
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
7.3.2. Factor influence
165
non-linear effect over the response, if let say, that said factor affects the response in just 1%. Hence, it is important to see the percent influence of each
factor.
To show the procedure to obtain the percent influence of each factor consider
the example results shown in table 7.5.
Experiment Factors
A
Response
12
10
166
where Yi is the response for the i-th experiment.

The fourth step is to obtain the factor sums of squares for each one of the
factors using the formula
Sf =
SA =
=
The first step is to calculate the total effects of factors. The total effect of a
factor is obtained by adding the results containing the effects of the factor at
each level. For the example being studied,
A2 = 12 + 10 = 22
B2 = 8 + 10 = 18
C2 = 8 + 12 = 20
(7.4)
=
Yi2 CF
i=1
= (62 + 82 + 122 + 102 ) CF

= 344 324
= 20
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
142 222
+
324
2
2
(7.8)
B12
B2
+ 2 CF
NB1 NB2
182 182
+
324
2
2
(7.9)
= 162 + 162 324

= 0
SC =
=
C12
C2
+ 2 CF
NC1 NC2
162 202
+
324
2
2
(7.10)
= 128 + 200 324

= 4
The third step is to compute the total sum of squares using the formula
ST =
A21
A2
+ 2 CF
NA1 NA2
= 98 + 242 324
= 16
SB =
The second step is to compute the correction factor CF used for calculations
of all sums of squares. It remains constant for all constants and is computed
as
36 36
T2
=
= 324
(7.5)
CF =
N
4
where T is the sum of all results (6 + 8 + 12 + 10) and N is the total number
of experiments.
N
X
(7.7)
where Sf is the sum of squares for the factor f , N L are the number of levels
for the factor, Fl is the total effect of factor F for the level l and NF l is the
number of experiments ran with factor F at level l. For the example at hand,
Table 7.5: L4 sample experiment.
A1 = 6 + 8 = 14
B1 = 6 + 12 = 18
C1 = 6 + 10 = 16
NL
X
Fl2
CF
NF l
l=1
(7.6)
Finally, the percent influence of the factor Pf , can be obtained as the ratio
between the factor sums of squares and the total sum of squares
Pf =
Sf
100
ST
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(7.11)
PA
SA
=
ST
=
16
100
20
(7.12)
= 80%
PB =
=
(7.13)
A2
A3
B3
B2
B1
A1
A2
A3
Synergistic
interaction
B1
B2
B3
A1
A2
A3
Antisynergistic
interaction
Figure 7.5: Possible types of interaction.

normally. After the values of the response are available, a simple procedure
can be followed to detect if there are any interactions of interest.
SC
ST
4
100
20
B1
No interaction
= 0%
PC =
B2
A1
SB
ST
0
100
20
B3
168
Average response
where for the example being studied are
Average response
Average response
167
(7.14)
= 20%
As expected PA + PB + PC = 100%. The above results show that factor A has
the most impact on the response and factor B has no impact whatsoever on
the response.
By design orthogonal arrays are unable to study all potential interactions between the different factors. Specially,
third-way interactions are completely neglected. It is the
responsability of the person designing the experiments to identify any interactions that may be of interest. This selection of interactions may be a consequence of prior experience or pure engineering judgment.
7.3.3. Analysis of
interactions
To detect the interactions, lets say between factors A and B, the average
response of factor B at the different levels are plotted against the values of
factor A. Depending on the experiment, one of three different cases may
appear. These different cases are shown in figure 7.5. The first case is when
there is no interaction between the two factors. In this case the lines plotted
do not intersect and are parallel to each other. In the second case, a synergistic
interaction appears. In this case there is some interaction as the lines are not
parallel although they never intersect. Here the interaction at least gives some
idea of its tendency. In the third case, an antisynergistic interaction appears,
and there is no clear idea of how the interaction behaves. In this case, further
study of the interaction is necessary.
To explain the above procedure, consider that an experiment based on the L8
array shown in table 7.2, has been carried out. Furthermore, consider that the
experiment has been done with 4 factors and that all interactions have been
neglected.
Once the mean response of all experimental runs y1 to y9 are available, the
mean responses of two factors can be plotted against each other to check if
there is any interaction between the two.
It is best when interactions are identified before the experiment, nevertheless

the knowledge about the problem itself is limited at this point in time and
there is no certainty about what interactions, if any, are of interest. For this
reason, Taguchi suggest to neglect all interactions and run the experiment
Consider for example, that the interactions between factor A and factor C are
to be explored. To plot the average response of factor C with respect to factor
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
169
170
C1
C2
C3
Experiment
AB
Response
A1
y1
y2
y3
y1
A2
y6
y4
y5
y2
A3
y8
y9
y7
y3
y4
Table 7.6: Interactions AC.
Table 7.8: L4 orthogonal array with 2 factors and 1 interaction.

D1
D2
D3
C1
y1
y6
y8
C2
y9
y2
y4
C3
y5
y7
y3
Table 7.7: Interactions CD.

A, it is necessary to check the response of the different levels of factor C to
the different levels of factor A. From table 7.2, the average response of factor
C1 when factor A is at level 1 is y1 . Similarly, the average response of factor
C1 when factor A is at level 2 is y6 . Finally, the average response of factor C1
when factor A is at level 3 is y8 .
The procedure is repeated for the average response of factors C2 and C3 . The
results of the interaction can be arranged into a matrix as shown in table 7.6.
Then the average responses are plotted against each other to obtain a plot
similar to the ones shown in figure 7.5. The same steps are followed to check
for any possible two-way interaction. The reader is encouraged to review the
interaction matrix between factors C and D.
As mentioned before, in some cases it is necessary to study a given interaction
in more detail. To explain how interactions are studied following Taguchis
approach, consider now a very simple experiment consisting of two factors,
namely A and B, each one with two levels each. Furthermore, consider that
the interaction between the two factors, AB is of interest. For this case, the
L4 orthogonal array seems adequate as from the linear graph shown in figure
7.3 column 3 may be used to estimate interactions. Hence, the experiment can
be carried out using table 7.8.
As the interaction does not play a part in the setup and run of the experiment,
some people recommend to leave all interaction columns blank to avoid any
possible confusions.
To estimate the effects of the interaction AB, the same procedure used to
estimate main effects can be used. For example, the main effect when AB is
at level 1 can be obtained as
AB 1 = (y 1 + y4 )/2
(7.15)
Similarly, the average response when AB is at level 2 can be found as

AB 2 = (y 2 + y3 )/2
(7.16)
The main effects of AB can be plotted against its levels in a similar manner as
the main effects of factors are plotted. If the plot is a horizontal line, then the
effect of the interaction between A and B is not significant. On the other hand,
if the plot resembles a linear or non-linear effect, then the optimum values of
A and B have to be determined based on the combined effect of both.
In most occasions the objective of a design of experiments
is to estimate optimum values for the factors given a desired level of the response variable. For that matter, it is necessary to obtain
a matematical model of the experiment. Typically, this is done through a
multiple linear regression by least squares.
7.3.4. Prediction
For this problem, the experiment would be carried out normally, varying the
levels of factors A and B and registering the values for the response variable.
Consider that you have an experiment with four factors, namely A, B, C and
D, that is ran n times. A matematical model of the experiment could be
described by:
y = 0 + 1 A + 2 B + 3 C + 4 D +
(7.17)
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
171
where i are coefficients that must be found from the experimental data and
is the error in the model.

The previous equations can be simplified and extended into
n0
Since the previous equation should approximate all the observations done, the
above model can be applied to any run i of the experiment,
y i = 0 + 1 Ai + 2 B i + 3 C i + 4 D i + i
(7.18)
where Ai is the value of the factor A at experiment i and the other terms
are interpreted similarly. It is important to note that the coefficients are
constants and do not change since only one equation should be used to model
the experiment.
In general, for k factors, the matematical model can be described by the equation
yi = 0 + 1 Xi1 + 2 Xi2 + 3 Xi3 + + n Xik + i
k
X
j Xij
= 0 +
(7.19)
j=1
where Xi is the i-th factor.

The least squares method consists of choosing the s in such a way that the
sum of squares of the errors i is minimized. The least squares functions L is
described as
L =
=
n
X
i=1
n
X
i=1
2i
Yi 0
(7.20)
k
X
j=1
j Xij
The least squares function must be minimized with respect to 0 , 1 , . . . , k .

Therefore, the least squares estimations 0 , 1 , . . . , k must satisfy,
!

n
k
X
X
L
= 2
j Xij = 0
yi 0
(7.21)
0 0 ,1 ,...,k
j=1
j=1
!

n
k
X
X
L
yi 0
j Xij Xij = 0
= 2
j 0 ,1 ,...,k
j=1
j=1
j = 1, 2, ..., k
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
172
n
X
Xi1 +
1
1
i=1
..
.
n
X
n
X
i=1
n
X
Xi1
2
Xi1
+ 2
i=1
i=1
n
X
Xik Xi1 + 2
i=1
Xi2
+ +
i=1
n
X
Xi1 Xi2 + + k
i=1
..
.
Xik + 1
n
X
n
X
n
X
Xik
i=1
n
X
Xi1 Xik =
i=1
..
.
Xik Xi2 + +
i=1
..
.
n
X
n
X
yi
i=1
n
X
Xi1 yi
i=1
2
Xik
i=1
..
.
n
X
Xik yi
i=1
The above equations can be expressed in matrix form as
n
n
n
X
X
X
X
Xi1
Xi2
Xik 0
yi
n
i=1
i=1
i=1
i=1
n
n
n
n
n
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
y
1
i1
i1 i2
i1 ik
i1 i
i1
i=1
= i=1
(7.22)
i=1
i=1
i=1
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
n
n
n
n
n
X
X
X
X
X
..
2
k
Xik
Xik Xi1
Xik Xi2 .
Xik
Xik yi
i=1
i=1
i=1
i=1
i=1
If the matrix multiplications are carried out, the previous equations are obtained. The careful reader will notice that the coefficient matrix is symmetric
and that the elements on the main diagonal are the sums of squares of the
factors and that the elements outside the diagonal are the sums of the crossproducts of factors.
The above matrix system can be solved to obtain the values of the k coefficients. Once these values are available, the regression model is given by
yi = 0 +
k
X
j Xij
i = 1, 2, . . . , n
(7.23)
j=1
The difference between the observation yi and the adjusted value yi is called
residual and is usually represented by the letter e
ei = yi yi
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(7.24)
173
7.4 Examples
Factor
A: Injection pressure (MPa)
Low
High
1.75
2.25
B : Mold temperature ( C)
85
105
C : Cycle time (seconds)
25
35
Table 7.9: Factors and levels for the problem of strenght of bumpers.
The residuals are a very effective way to check the quality of the regression
since the larger the residual, the poorer the quality of the model.
7.4 Examples
174
problem is as follows. For the injection pressure, factor A,

A1 = (2.5 + 3.2)/2 = 2.85
A2 = (2.7 + 2.9)/2 = 2.80
(7.25)
For the mold temperature, factor B,

B 1 = (2.5 + 2.7)/2 = 2.60
B 2 = (3.2 + 2.9)/2 = 3.05
(7.26)
For the time cycle, factor C,

C 1 = (2.5 + 2.9)/2 = 2.7
C 2 = (3.2 + 2.7)/2 = 2.95
7.4
(7.27)
Examples
7.4.1. Strenght of bumpers A manufacturer of automotive bumpers is trying a new material to increase the energy absorbed by the bumper during a crash. Although
the manufacturing process for the new material behaves different from others
known by the company, it is believed that from the different factors affecting
the process, the three that are controllable and critical are: injection pressure
(MPa), mold temperature ( C) and cycle time (seconds). As this is a first
approach into the problem, it has been decided to neglect interactions. The
response variable has been selected as the specific energy absorption of the
bumper in kJ/kg.
It has been decided to carry a 2 level experiment with the above factors.
For that purpose, the L4 array seems adequate. In the current process the
manufacturing process is set to a pressure of 2 MPa, a mold temperature of
95 C and a cycle time of 30 seconds. The selected high and low levels of each
factor are described in table 7.9.
With the above information the matrix for the experiment is shown in table 7.10. Note that the low and high values for the experiment have been
substituted and the results of the experiment are included.
The plots of the main effects for each factor are shown in figure 7.6. From the
plots is easy to see that the injection pressure has practically no effect over
the specific energy absorbed by the bumper. On the other hand, the mold
temperature has the larger effect followed by the cycle time. Both factors
increase the energy absorbed as the their values increase.
The next step is to obtain the percent influence of each one of the factors.
Following the procedure shown in 7.3.2, the percent influence can be computed
from the next steps:
A1 = 2.5 + 3.2 = 5.7
B1 = 2.5 + 2.7 = 5.2
C1 = 2.5 + 2.9 = 5.4
Experimental
run
A2 = 2.7 + 2.9 = 5.6

B2 = 3.2 + 2.9 = 6.1
C2 = 3.2 + 2.7 = 5.9
Injection
Mold
Cycle
pressure temperature time
(7.28)
Specific
energy absorbed
1.75
85
25
2.5
1.75
105
35
3.2
2.25
85
35
2.7
2.25
105
25
2.9
Once the results of the experiments are available, it is possible to start with
the analysis of the gathered data. The estimation of the main effects for this
Table 7.10: Experimental matrix for the problem of strenght of bumpers.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
7.4 Examples
CF =
11.3 11.3
T2
=
= 31.9225
N
4
ST = (2.52 + 3.22 + 2.72 + 2.92 ) 31.9225

= 0.2675
SA
5.72 5.62
+
31.9225
=
2
2
7.4 Examples
176
(7.29)
(7.30)
(7.31)
3.4
Specific energy absorbed (kJ/kg)
175
2.6
2.2
= 0.0025
1.75
SB =
5.2
6.1
+
31.9225
2
2
(7.32)
= 0.2025
SC =
5.42 5.92
+
31.9225
2
2
3.4
(7.33)
= 0.0625
PA =
2.25
Injection Pressure (MPa)
0.0025
100
0.2675
2.6
2.2
85
(7.34)
105
Mold temperature (C)
= 0.94%
PB
(7.35)
= 75.70%
PC
0.0625
100
=
0.2675
(7.36)
= 23.36%
3.4
0.2025
100
=
0.2675
2.6
2.2
25
35
Cycle time (sec)
From the percent influence, the temperature mold clearly is the factor of major
influence in the process. As mentioned, it is always important to check for
interactions.
Figure 7.6: Plot of the main effects of the three factors for the problem of
strength of bumpers.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
177
7.4 Examples
7.4 Examples
178
80
Mold temperature 1
Mold temperature 2
3.4
Influence (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2.6
2.2
0
A
1.75
2.25
Factor
The final step of the analysis is to obtain a prediction model for the problem
using a least squares regression. As there are only four factors, the mathematical model for the experiment will have the form
y = 0 + 1 A + 2 B + 3 C
(7.37)
The least squares regression can be performed using either a purpose-specific

software as MINITAB or a spreadsheet program such as Excel, OpenOffice or
Gnumeric. The reader is encourage to read and learn to use any of this software
to do regressions.
Figure 7.8 shows the interactions plots between injection pressure and mold
temperature (interaction AB), mold temperature and cycle time (interaction
BC), and injection pressure and cycle time (interaction AC). From the plots it
can be observed that, judging from the almost parallel lines, there is practically
no interaction between the mold temperature and the cycle time. On the
other hand, there is interaction between the injection pressure and the mold
temperature and there is a strong interaction between the injection pressure
and the cycle time. Therefore, the problem should be studied further including
interactions AB and AC.
Cycle time 1
Cycle time 2
3.4
2.6
2.2
85
105
Mold temperature (C)
Cycle time 1
Cycle time 2
3.4
Figure 7.7: Percent influence of injection pressure (factor A), mold temperature
(factor B) and cycle time (factor C).
2.6
2.2
1.75
2.25
Figure 7.8: Plot of the interactions AB, BC and AC for the problem of
strength of bumpers.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
179
From the
obtained:
model for
7.4 Examples
regression analysis, the following values for the coefficients are
0 = 0.1375, 1 = 0.1, 2 = 0.0225 and 3 = 0.025. Hence, the
the experiment is given by
7.4 Examples
180
Experiment
AB
AC
AD
(7.38)
remembering that A is the injection pressure, B is the mold temperature and

C is the cycle time.
The above model fits perfectly the data of the problem, that is, the residual
of between the estimated and real responses is zero. This is a consequence of
having just one observation and considering only a linear behavior, which the
linear least squares regression is capable of estimate without error.
y = 0.1375 0.1 A + 0.0225 B + 0.025 C
The above analysis shows that the best response is obtained when the value
for the injection pressure is kept at its lowest possible value and the mold
temperature and cycle time are kept at their maximum possible values.
The data for this problem was taken from Dunlap,
Riehle and Longhouse (1999). Disk brake noise continues to be a problem in the automotive industry. After some use, the brakes
are prone to produce different types of sounds during breaking. One of the low
frequency noises occurring during decelaration is groan. To better understand
the interaction of raw materiales on sustained groan, Delphi Chassis Systems
engineers carried out designed experiments. One of the objectives was to find
the percent influence of the different factors on the response.
7.4.2. Disk brake noise
The experiment was carried out taking into account four factors: filler, fiber,
lube and abrasive. The response variable was chosen as the average number
of stops with caliper acceleration level greater than 1g. Although the original design included the full factorial experiment, consider here that only the
interactions fillerfiber, fillerlube and fillerabrasive are of interest.
Table 7.11: Experimental matrix for the example of disk brake ingredients
including interactions. Factor A is filler type, factor B is fiber type, factor C
is lube and factor D is the abrasive used. Data taken from Dunlap, Riehle and
Longhouse (1999).
placed in column 7 so the interaction fillerabrasive is set in column 6. The
experimental matrix is shown in table 7.11.
To carry out the experiment is necessary to set every factor to the corresponding level according to the experimental matrix. The results in the response
variable are shown in table 7.12. Once the information is available, then the
influence of the different factors and interactions on the response can be quantified.
As explained before, the first step to quantify the percent influence is to calculate the main effect of all factors and interactions. For example, the main
effects of factor A and interaction A B can be found from the experimental
matrix shown in table 7.11 as
A1 = y 1 + y 2 + y3 + y 4 = 8.5
A2 = y 5 + y6 + y 7 + y8 = 31
Since the experiment has four factors and three interactions, and each factor
has two levels, the L8 array seems appropriate. From the corresponding linear
graphs, shown in figure 7.11, the option would be to set the four factors in
columns 1, 2, 4 and 7. Since the filler is part of the three interactions of
interest, it should be set in column 1. If the type of fiber is set in column 2,
then the interaction fillerfiber, should be placed at column 3. Similarly, if
lube is placed at column 4, then the interaction between lube and filler should
be set in column 5. Finally, the last factor, the type of abrasive, must be
The main effects of all other factors and interactions can be calculated similarly
and are: B1 = 2, B2 = 37.5, C1 = 20, C2 = 19.5, D1 = 28, D2 = 11.5,
AC1 = 12.5, AC2 = 27, AD1 = 18.5, AD2 = 21.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
AB1 = y1 + y 2 + y 7 + y 8 = 31
AB2 = y 3 + y4 + y 5 + y6 = 8.5
181
7.4 Examples
run
Filler Fiber Lube Abrasive
Response
0.5
0.5
0.25
7.25
19.25
10.75
Influence (%)
Experimental
AB
AC
AD
Factor
As before, the correction factor and the total sum of squares are obtained from
2
39.5 39.5
T
=
= 195.03
N
8
182
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
A
Table 7.12: Experimental matrix for the example of disk brake ingredients
excluding interactions.
CF =
7.5 Comments about Taguchis approach
(7.39)
ST = (0.52 + 0.52 + 0.252 + 7.252 + 02 + 12 + 19.252 + 10.752)

195.03
(7.40)
= 345.22
Figure 7.9: Percent influence of factors and interactions for the disk brake
noise problem. Factor A is the filler, factor B is the fiber, factor C is the lube
and factor D is the abrasive.
influence of all factors and interactions can be computed. The final results are
shown graphically in figure 7.9. From the results, the fiber type has the greatest
influence on the response, followed by the filler and the interaction between
fiber and filler. Also, the lube has no effect whatsoever as the fillerabrasive
interaction.
7.5
The sums of squares for every factor and interaction are computed accordingly,
for example,
Comments about Taguchis approach
The sums of squares for all the other factors and interactions are: SB = 157.53,
SC = 0.03, SD = 34.03, SAC = 26.28, SAD = 0.78. From these values, the
The Taguchi approach to design of experiments, albeit very convenient, is

not perfect. The simplicity of its approach comes for a price. In previous
discussions it has brought to the attention of the reader that orthogonal arrays
neglect third-way interactions and confound two-way interactions with main
effects. This confounding can lead to inaccuracies as the significance of main
effects depends on the interactions. Hence, conclusions drawn from orthogonal
array requires that interactions effects are insignificant. In this regard, help
can be obtained from the use of linear graphs. Linear graphs provide an easy
way to identify how factors, and interactions between them, should be assigned
to the different columns in the orthogonal array. If the assignment of factors
and interactions to columns in the array is chosen carefully, then two-way, and
even sometime three-way interactions, can be studied.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
SA
8.52 3.12
=
+
195.03
4
4
(7.41)
= 63.28
SAB =
312 8.52
+
195.03
2
2
(7.42)
= 63.28
183
7.5 Comments about Taguchis approach
Taguchi suggests to drop the study of interactions, especially if their behavior

is not known in advance, at the first stages of the experiment. The rationale
behind this suggestion being that interactions are in most occasions difficult
to quantify and the effort is better spent if more factors are included rather
than interactions. If interactions are found to be significant, then more detailed experiments can be carried out. Taguchi also emphasizes the use of a
confirmation run to verify that the optimal values chosen for the experiment
are indeed optimal.
Another advantage of the Taguchi approach is that the number of runs to
performe for a given experiment is minimal. Althought this is the case in most
occasions, pure fractional matrices are sometimes smaller with the advantage
that main effects can be kept from confounding. Unfortunately, many engineers
find difficult to design their own optimal experimental matrices or do not
have the time to do it. With this in mind, it is much better a non-optimal
experimental design done, that an optimal one that is not carried out!
7.6 Common orthogonal arrays
7.6
184
Common orthogonal arrays
Experiment
Factors
1
2 3
As with many engineering methods, judgment should be the first tool. Never
trust any method without understanding how it works and what disadvantages
it provides. Remember there is no such thing as a free lunch!
References
1. Berger, P.D. and Maurer, R.E. (2002) Experimental Design with applications
in management, engineering and the Sciences. Duxbury Thomson-Learning.
3
1
2. Dunlap, K.B., Riehle, M.A. and Longhouse, R.E. (1999) An investigative

overview of automotive disc brake noise. Brake Technology and ABS/TCS
Systems (SP-1413). SAE International Congress and Exposition. Detroit,
USA.
3. Montgomery, D.C. (2000) Design and Analysis of Experiments. 5th Edition.
Wiley Text Books, New York.
4. Phadke, M.S. (1989) Quality engineering using robust design. Prentice-Hall.
5. Roy, R.K. (2001) Design of experiments using the Taguchi approach. 16
steps to product and process improvement. John Wiley & Sons.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
185
186
Experiment Factors
1
3 4
6 7
Experiment
Factors
1
2 3
1
3
3
2
4
6
2
3,4
7
1
(1)
(2)
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
187
188
Experiment Factors
Experiment Factors
3 4
6 7
9 10
11 12 13
14 15
11
3 4
6 7
9 10
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
Table 7.16: L12 (211 ) Orthogonal Array. The interaction between any two
columns is partially confounded with the rest. Do not use if interactions must
be estimated.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
189
14
14
15
13
13
12
11
10
11
6
10
8
12
7
3
(2)
11
13
15
15
14
11
12
9
6
14
13
7
4
10
12
(!)
10
8
(3)
(4)
15
12
13
14
10
11
3 4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
9
3
190
Experiment Factors
3
2
15
10
11
12
13
6
1
15
14
(5)
(6)
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
3,4,5
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
191
192
Experiment Factors
1
3 4
6 7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
3,4
9 10 12 13
3,4
Table 7.19: L18 (21 37 ) Orthogonal Array. Interaction between columns 1 and
2 is orthogonal to all columns and can be estimated without sacrificing any
column. Interaction between any other pair of columns is confounded partially
with the remaining columns.
3,4,5,6
6,7
8,11
(1)
6,7
9,10
1
12,13
5
(2)

1
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
11
193
194
Experiment Factors
Experiment
Factors
1
2 3
5 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Table 7.20: L25 (5 ) Orthogonal Array. To estimate the interaction between

columns 1 and 2, all other columns must be empty.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
3 4
6 7
9 10
11 12 13
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
3 4
6 7
9 10
11 12 13
1
14 15
1
16 17 18
1
19 20 21
1
22 23 24
1
25 26 27
1
28 29 30
1
31
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
3
4
195
Experiment Factors
3 4
6 7
10
Experiment Factors
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
14
31
13
32
0
Table 7.23: L32
(21 49 ) Orthogonal Array.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
196
197
Experiment
Experiment
Factors
198
Factors
1 2
4 5
7 8
10 11 12
1
13 14
1
15 16
1
2 3
5 6
8 9
23
10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19
20 21 22
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
20
21
22
23
19
20
21
22
24
23
25
24
26
25
27
26
28
29
27
28
30
31
29
32
30
33
31
34
32
35
36
Table 7.24: L36 (211 312 ) Orthogonal Array.
33
34
35
36
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
199

Experiment Factors
1
3 4
6 7
9 10
11 12
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
CHAPTER
Robust Design
8.1
Quality through design
The main philosophy of quality engineering is that quality can be built into a
product during its design phase rather than controlled during its manufacturing process. The fundamental stone behind this philosophy is Robust Design.
Robust Design is an engineering methodology whose objective is to create
high-quality, cost-effective products that perform well during its useful life independently of how and under which circumstances are used. These external
circumstances that are outside the control of the design engineering are called
noise. Robust design increases the quality of products minimizing the effect of
noise on the performance of the product. The robust design methodology relies
on two powerful tools: orthogonal arrays to carry out designed experiments,
and signal-to-noise ratios to measure quality.
Since robust design is a tool inteded to increase quality of products, it is important to discuss what quality means here. To give a clearer idea of how quality
should be measure, consider the next case. At the end of the 70s, consumers
in the United States showed a preference for televisions sets made by Sony
Japan over those ones made by Sony America in San Diego. The preference
seemed strange at first since both plants worked with exactly the same designs
and exactly the same tolerance. In 1979, the Asahi newspaper showed a study
of this problem. In the study, the newspaper showed a distribution plot of the
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
201
8.1 Quality through design
Sony USA
8.2
m5
m
C
Color
Density
m+5
B
202
on meeting the target seems to be a better alternative to measure quality of

products. In order to do so effectively, the concept of quality loss must be
studied.
Sony Japan
8.2 Quality loss function
Grade
D
Figure 8.1: Distribution of color density in television sets. (From the Asahi,
April 17, 1979).
level of color density of sets made by Sony Japan and Sony America. Color
density was chosen as the objective function as it is commonly used to quantify
the quality of TV sets. The plot, reproduced in figure 8.1, showed that the
color density distribution of TV sets were very different. Sony Japan had an
almost normal distribution around the target value m with approximately 0.3
percent of TV sets out of tolerance limits. On the other hand, Sony America
had a uniform distribution around tolerance limits with no TV sets out of
tolerance limits.
So, if Sony America had no units outside tolerance limits, while Sony Japan
had 0.3 percent of shipped outside them, how it was then possible for the
consumers to prefer sets from Sony Japan? The response to this question lays
on how quality is measured. Depending on the deviation from the target m,
TV sets are ranked as grade A, if color densitiy is within m 1, and ranked B,
C and D as color density deviated progressively from target m. From figure
8.1 it is clear that Sony Japan shipped much more grade A TV sets and far
fewer grade C sets than Sony America. Hence, in average, the quality of TV
sets from Sony Japan was better, and therefore, customers had a preference
for sets from Sony Japan.
Quality loss function
From the previous example it is clear that when the objective characteristic
from a given product deviates from a target value m, it will loss some performance. Consider for example a connecting rod which objective function is to
have a nominal diameter. It is clear that if the diameter is too small compared
to its target, the rod will be loose and may not work. On the other hand, if
the diameter is too large, then the rod will not fit. Also, as the diameter of
the rod deviates from its target value, it may require a larger effort to make it
work when assembled.
Hence, everytime a the objective characteristic y of a product deviates from its
target value, some financial loss L(y) will occur. As engineering specifications
are always written as m 0 , one may be tempted to feel that while the
objective characteristic is between the range (m 0 ) and (m + 0 ), there is
no financial loss as the product is equally good for the customer, independently
on the deviation from the target m. This representation of quality loss can be
represented as a step function as shown in figure 8.2,
(
0 if |y m| 0
L(y) =
(8.1)
A0 otherwise
where A0 is the cost of replacement or repair.
The step function is unable to quantify the quality loss when an objective
characteristic of a product deviates from its target value but is still within
tolerance limits. As shown in the example of Sony TVs, this model is faulty
and should be avoided.
Consider now the following approach suggested by Taguchi. When y meets
the target value m, the loss L(y) will be at minimum. Under ideal conditions,
the financial loss can be assumed to be zero under this circumstance
The above example shows the difference between being focused on meeting tolerances rather than being focused on meeting the target. Cleary, being focused
L(m) = 0
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(8.2)
203
A0
m 0
m + 0
Now, it is only necessary to define the constant k. Taguchi suggests to compute

it in terms of the replacement or repair cost, A0 , and the magnitude of the
deviation from the target value 0 , as
A0
(8.7)
k=
0
Quality
Loss ($)
L(y)
Consider once more the example of the transmission shaft where the target
length is 300mm. If the shaft is longer or shorter by 2mm, then it has to be
reworked for a cost of $12. For this case, the quality loss function is given by
12
(8.8)
L(y) = (y 300)2 = $ 6(y 300)2
2
A0
m 0
m + 0
204
The above view of quality loss is shown in figure 8.2. As the objective function
deviates from its target, the quality loss increases, independently of if the
objective characteristic is within or out of tolerances. Of course, if the objective
characteristic is outside tolerance limits, the product should be considered
defective.
Quality
Loss ($)
L(y)
Figure 8.2: Models for quality loss functions: step function (top) and quadratic
function (bottom).
As the financial loss will be at a minimum, then the value of the first derivative
of the function should also be zero at this point
L0 (m) = 0
(8.3)
If the loss function is expanded through a Taylor series expansion around the
target value m, the following equation is obtained
L00 (m)
L0 (m)
(8.4)
(y m) +
(y m)2 +
1!
2!
or taking into account that L(m) = 0, L0 (m) = 0 and neglecting high-order
terms
L00 (m)
(8.5)
(y m)2
L(y) =
2!
L(y) = L(m) +
Thus, the loss function can be written as a squared term multiplied by a

constant k
L(y) = k(y m)2
(8.6)
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
From the above equation it is clear that even when the shaft has a deviation
of 1, and is within tolerance, a financial loss occurs as L(301) = $ 6.
The quadratic loss function discussed above is called
nominalthebest and is only useful when the quality characteristic y has a finite target value and
the quality loss incurred when y deviates from the target m is the same on
either side of the target, i.e. the function is symmetrical.
8.2.1. Other types of loss
functions
In many ocassions the quality loss function must accommodate situations different from the above. In that case, other type of functions different from
nominalthebest are needed. Other commonly used loss functions are explained next and shown in figure 8.3.
Smallerthebetter This type of characteristic is useful for those situations
when the characteristic function can never take negative values, its ideal
value is equal to zero and as its value increases its performance becomes
progressively worst. An example of this behavior is the pollution from an
automobile or the leak of fluid in a reservoir tank. This type of function
is obtained from equation (8.6) substituting m = 0,
L(y) = ky 2
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(8.9)
205
m 0
L(y)
L(y)
A0
8.3 Noise factors
cases, two different constants k can be specified and the quality loss
function could be approxmated as
(
k1 (y m)2 , y > m
(8.12)
L(y) =
k2 (y m)2 , y m
A0
m + 0
(a) Nominal the best
206
8.3
(b) Smaller the better
L(y)
Noise factors
As mentioned before, the goal of robust design is to create product that perform well under all circumstances, despite external and internal uncontrollable
influences, that is, despite noise.
L(y)
A0
Noise factors can generally be classified in three groups:

A0
0
(c) Larger the better
m 0
m + 0
(d) Asymmetric
Figure 8.3: Different quality loss functions.
Outer noise or external noise, groups all environmental factors such as humidity, temperature, pressure, dust, magnetism, vibration, supply voltage, electromagnetic interference and human error during operation of
the product.
Inner noise or deterioration, refers to changes within the product during its
useful life due to wear, tear, etc.
Larger-the-better Some characteristics, like the durability of a mechanical

component, do not take negative values, their worst value is zero and
as it becomes larger, its performance is progressively better. Its ideal
value is zero and reach the point of zero loss at infinity. This behavior is
inversely proportional to the smallerthebetter type. Hence, the quality
loss function for this type of problems is obtained substituting y by 1/y
in function 8.9

1
L(y) = k
(8.10)
y2
In table 8.1, the strategies to deal with the three different class of noise at
different levels of the organization is shown. The table indicates, for example,
that the effect of all types of noises can be reduced during the system design
but only manufacturing imperfection can be reduced by the manufacturing
department.
In this type of problems, 0 is taken as the limit below which the product
will fail and A0 is the repair or replacement cost, then the constant k, is
determined by
k = A0 20
(8.11)
It is important to notice that not only components or products must be robust

to withstand noise. Manufacturing processes should also be robustly designed
to make them resistant to external noise, inner noise (tool wear) and product
noise.
Product noise or unit-to-unit variation refers to the inevitable variation that

exists between one unit and the next when manufactured.
Asymmetric loss functions Sometimes the deviation of a quality characteristic on one direction makes more harm than in the other. In those
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Table 8.1: Sources of noise and the corresponding strategies for managing the noise in each department. (After
Taguchi, 1993).
X
X
1. After-sale service
R: The effects of this type of noise can be reduced in this department using the strategy indicated.
N: Although the effects of this type of noise can be reduced, it is not recommended to do so at this stage.
X: The effects of this type of noise cannot be reduced in this department using the strategy indicated.
R
X
X
2. Product management
Modify:
Marketing
R
X
X
1. Process management
Modify:
Manufacturing
On-line departments
R
X
X
X
X
3. Tolerance design
X
1. System design
Modify:
Production Technology
2. Parameter design
R
X
R
R
R
R
N
1. Tolerance design
R
1. System design
Modify:
Development and design
Technology departments
2. Parameter design
(deteriorative effects)
(environmental effects)
Department
Strategy
imperfections
Inner
Outer
Noises
8.3 Noise factors

Manufacturing
207
8.4 Signaltonoise ratios
8.4
208
Signaltonoise ratios
In the field of communication engineering, a common performance ratio is

the signal-to-noise ratio. A ignaltonoise ratio, or S/N ratio, combines a
performance characteristic with its sensitivity to noise factors to measure the
quality of a design. Because of this characteristic, signaltonoise rations are
ideal to measure quality loss when noise factors are to be taken into account.
One of the main contributions of Taguchi was to extend the use of signal
tonoise ratios to non-communication engineering. As it will be shown next,
all signaltonoise ratios involve the use of logarithms, as logarithms allow
the transformation of a multiplicative relationship into an additive one which
smooths out non-linearities and interactions.
As with quality loss functions, three diferent S/N ratios have been developed
to use depending on its intended behavior: nominalthebest, smallerthe
better and largerthebetter. These three S/N ratios are computed from the
following formulas:
Nominalthebest
S/N = 10 log
2
2
(8.13)
P
P
where =
(yi /n), 2 = 1/(n 1) (yi )2 and n is the number of
observations.
Smallerthebetter
X
1
S/N = 10 log
yi2
n
(8.14)
Largerthebetter
S/N = 10 log
X
1
1
n
yi2
(8.15)
The key characteristic of the S/N ratios is that maximizing them will in all
cases minimize the quality loss function L(y).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
209
8.5 Parameter design
Factors
Experiment A
Replicates
Input
S/N
AB
y11
y12
y1n
y21
y22
y2n
y31
y32
y3n
4
..
.
..
.
y41
y42
..
.
y4n
..
.
4
..
.
yN 1
yN 2
yN n
210
Design Factors
(controllable)
Product/System
8.5
Parameter design
Robust design involves ensuring that a given design will perform as expected
regardless of the noise factors that may affect it. One answer to this problem
may be to isolate the product from noise. This option may be either expensive
or even impossible as isolating some products like cars or other types of vehicles. Other option may be to compensate for the noise, for example, including
in the product control systems. Although this option is more real, is still expensive and not applicable to all cases. One third option, the one that Taguchi
suggest, is to minimize the effect of noise in the product. The question now
remains how to include those noise factors in the design.
(uncontrollable)
Quality
Characteristics
Table 8.2: An experimental setup using S/N ratios.

Consider for example the experimental setup shown in table 8.2. In this example the experiments have been replicated and several different responses yN n
have been recorded. Instead of using the average response as a measure of the
output of the experiments, a suitable signaltonoise ratio may be selected.
Once more, remembering that maximizing the S/N ratio will minimize the
corresponding quality loss function.
Noise Factors
Smallerthebetter
Largerthebetter
Nominalthebest
Output
Figure 8.4: The Taguchi robust parameter design.
description of the Taguchi method is shown in figure 8.4.

The first step in the robust parameter design technique is to select the factors
and/or interactions to be included in the designed experiment and to select
an appropriate orthogonal array in exactly the same way as it has been done
until now. This orthogonal array of design factors receives the name of inner
or design array.
Next, the technique suggests to select those noise factors that are believed to
affect the design the most and assign numeric values in a range as it is done
with design (controllable) factors. Depending on the number of noise factors
and the levels of interest, a suitable orthogonal array has to be selected as if
the experiment consisted only of noise factors. This orthogonal array receives
the name of outer or noise array.
Taguchi suggested that noise factors can be managed similarly to design factors, including their effect in the experimental setup through an orthogonal array. This technique, called Taguchi robust parameter design allows to explore
the effect of noises in the design in a efficient and simple way. A graphical
Once the inner and outer orthogonal arrays have been selected, both arrays
are coupled in a single designed experiment as shown in table 8.4. Each replica
of the experiment will involve including certain levels of each one of the noise
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
211
212
Outer (Noise) Array
Outer L4 Array
Experiment
Inner (factors) Array
Experiment
Noise
Noise
P
..
.
Inner L9 Array
Control Factors
Control Factors
y11
y12
y13
y14
y21
y22
y23
y24
y31
y32
y33
y34
y41
y42
y43
y44
AB
y11
y12
y1m
y21
y22
y2m
y31
y32
y3m
4
..
.
1
4
1
1
S/N
Experiment A
Experiment
..
.
y41
yN 1
y42
yN 2
S/N
..
.
y4m
..
.
4
..
.
4
5
y51
y52
y53
y54
yN m
y61
y62
y63
y64
y71
y72
y73
y74
y81
y82
y83
y84
y91
y92
y93
y94
Table 8.3: Experimental setup using inner and outer arrays.
factors selected as specified by the inner array. Overall, if there are N design
factors and M noise factors, then M N experiments must be run.
Table 8.4: Experimental setup using a L9 inner array and a L4 outer array.
Consider for example a designed experiment involving 4 independent factors,

namely A, B, C and D, each one with three levels. Furthermore, consider that
the design is affected by mainly by three noise factors, E, F and G, and that
2 levels are to be considered on each.
factors. One advantage of measuring the response through S/N ratios is that
since the S/N ratio is computed for each experiment of the inner array, a higher
S/N ratio will indicate less sensitivity to the effects of noise factors.
From the setup of the experiment, as each experiment of the inner array is
carried out multiple times, each one with a different combination of factors,
the variation among the responses yn1 to yn4 must be caused by the noise
Once the experiments have been carried out, the selection of optimal values for
the design factors can be carried out as done before but remembering that if
signaltonoise ratios are used, then optimal values will be found maximizing
the response independently of the S/N formula used. The selection of factor
levels that maximize the response can be done as usual from main-effects plots.
Nevertheless, it is of extreme importance to select the S/N ratio formula that
fits the response of the problem at hand, either nominalthebest, smaller
thebetter or largerthebetter.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
As there are 4 design factors, each one with three levels, a L9 array seems
appropriate. On the other hand, for the three two-level noise factors, an L4
array is sufficient. The resulting setup for the experiment with these two arrays
is shown in table 8.4.
213
(a)
m
(b)
T
Although the above methodology provides some insight into the optimization
problem, it requires the finding of a factor that has little or no effect on the
S/N but has at the same time a significant effect on the mean.
Sometime the problem at hand has more than one response variable of interest.
For those cases the above strategy cannot be applied verbatim. Phadke et al.
(1983) have suggested the following two steps strategy:
Shift mean to target
214
4. For factor that have no or little effect on S/N and the mean function,
choose any level that is more convenient from the point of view of other
considerations, such as other quality characteristics and cost.
Reduce Variation
8.6 Examples
m=T
1. Separately determine the control factors and their optimum levels corresponding to each response variable. if there is a conflict between the
optimum levels suggested by the different repsonse variables, use engineering judgment to solve the conflict.
Figure 8.5: Steps to reduce the quality loss.

As of now, the discussion about robust design have been centered in minimizing the effects of noise in the design. For that purpose, the S/N ratio has been
selected as a convenient choice to minimize the quality loss. From the concept
of quality loss, this reduction means, in fact, to reduce product variation in
order to keep most products around a given target. This idea is shown graphically in figure 8.5a. But what can be done when the reduction in variation
is done around the wrong target? This case, shown in figure 8.5b, calls for a
different strategy.
In order to reduce variability in the product and keep the mean in target,
Phadke (1989) suggest the following strategy:
1. Evaluate the effects of the control factors under consideration on average
response and S/N.
2. For factors that have a significant effect on S/N, select the levels that
maximize S/N.
3. Select any factor that has no or little effect on S/N but has a significant
effect on the mean function as an adjustment factor. Use the adjustment
factor to bring the mean function on target.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
2. Select a factor that has the smallest effect or no effect on the S/N ratio
for all response variables but has a significant effect on the mean levels.
This is called mean adjustment/signal factor. Then, set the level of
adjustment factor so that the mean responses are on target.
As it can be observed the above strategy is not very different from the oneresponse optimization strategy. Nevertheless, it requires much more careful
application.
8.6
Examples
(Antony et al., 2001) A company wants to investigate the possibility of using lightweight plastics in a
modern braking system and decided to carry out a
Taguchis experiment. The production process consists of a heated die, which is then forced down by air pressure onto a valve
body forming a plastic lip into which a retaining ring is inserted. A schematic
view of the process is shown in figure 8.6. The purpose of the experiment was
to obtain the parameters of the process that maximized the pull-out strenght.
8.6.1. Use of plastics in
braking systems
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
215
8.6 Examples
Preheated die
Force
Run

Figure 8.6: Schematic view of the industrial process.
From the many variables affecting the process, five were selected as critical.
The choice of control factors and levels is described in table 8.5. As the objetive
of the experiment was to obtain the factors levels that maximized the pull-out
streght, this quantity, it was natural to select this quantity as response variable.
As temperature was the most critical factor, the engineering team working on
the problem decided to use four levels for this factor. As the other four factors
had only two levels, the orthogonal array that was closer to fit the experiment
needs was the L16 . Nevertheless, it had to be modified to fit a four-levels
factor. A common technique to fit a column with more levels is to merge two
or more columns in the array.
Level
Units
Die temperature (A)
Hold time (B)
sec
Maximum force (D)

Force application rate (E)
180 200 220 240

5
15
kN
kN/sec
Batch no. (C)
B A
BE
y1
y2
y3
S/N
2.18 2.10 2.14 2.14
6.61
2.68 2.65 2.67 2.67
8.52
2.46 2.57 2.52 2.52
8.01
Servo valve body
Control factor
216
Thermoplastic
moulding
Metal insert
8.6 Examples
2.92 2.59 2.76 2.76
8.78
2.83 2.74 2.79 2.79
8.90
3.61 3.22 3.42 3.42 10.64
3.31 3.40 3.36 3.36 10.52
4.02 3.98 4.00 4.00 12.04
3.08 3.14 3.11 3.11
9.85
10
3.07 2.97 3.02 3.02
9.60
11
3.35 3.15 3.25 3.25 10.23
12
3.46 3.21 3.34 3.34 10.45
13
3.42 3.81 3.62 3.62 11.14
14
3.56 3.70 3.63 3.63 11.19
15
4.33 4.90 4.62 4.62 13.25
16
4.77 4.70 4.74 4.74 13.51
Table 8.6: Experimental layout for the study.

The first step in this technique is to identify the degrees of freedom associated
with each level. As the degrees of freedom for each factor is the number of
levels it has minus one, then, a two-levels factor has one degree of freedom and
a four-levels factors has three degrees of freedom. In order to maintain the
balance in the array, to fit a four-levels column, three two-levels columns have
to be merged. In that way, three one-degree-of-freedom columns are merged
to fit one three-degrees-of-freedom column.
For the problem under study, it was decided to merge columns 2, 4 and 6. If
these columns are isolated, each row will fall in one of the following combinations: 1-1-1, 1-2-2, 2-1-2 or 2-2-1. Each combination can be now assigned to
one of four levels of the new factor. For example, 1-1-1 1, 1-2-2 2, 2-1-2
3 and 2-2-1 4.
Table 8.5: Design factors for the Taguchi experiment.

c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
217
8.6 Examples
8.6 Examples
218
Influence (%)
60
12.5
Signaltonoise ratio
12
11.5
11
50
40
28.59
30
20
10
10.5
10
9.5
4.78
3.97
0.11
0.01
1.53
BE
Error
Factor
9
8.5
61.01
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2
Factors
Figure 8.9: Percent influence of the design factors.
Figure 8.7: Factor effects on the signaltonoise ratio.
The experimental setup from the modified orthogonal array and its results are
shown in table 8.6. Notice that three repetitions of each run were carried out
and that the pull-out strength is measured in kN.
To determine the optimum conditions, the level of each factor has to be chosen
in such a way that the maximum pull-out strength is achieved together with
the minimum variation. Hence, optimal condition is achieved selecting the
levels of each factor that yields the highest S/N ratio. Figure 8.7 shows the
response in the S/N ratio for the different factors. From the plot, it is clear
that factors A and B have the most influence in the S/N response and that
optimal levels based on S/N are obtained with A4 , B2 , C2 , D2 , and E1 .
Average pullout strength (kN)
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
For this problem, the same conclusions can be drawn from plots of main effects
in average response, shown in figure 8.8, as the levels that maximize the average
pull-out strength, remains A4 , B2 , C2 , D2 , and E1 .
3
2.8
2.6
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2
Factors
Figure 8.8: Factor effects on the average response.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
To complete the analysis is always recommendable to check the percent influence of factors. For this problem, the percent influence in the singal-to-noise
ratio is shown in figure 8.9. As expected, factors A and B has the most influence with 61% and 29% percent, respectively. Factors C and D have a very
small influence with 4.8% and 4%, and factor E and the interaction BE have
a negligible influence as their contribution is respectively 0.11 and 0.01%.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
219
8.6 Examples
(Modified from Reddy et al., 1998) A company manufactures a large range of plastic mouldings from household
to large industrial products. The company has experimented some complaints from customers regarding an agitator used in washing
machines. The agitator, depicted schematically in figure 8.10, is respnsible for
the movement of clothes inside the washing tub. The product is moulded in
polypropylene and is fitted on to a serrated shaft spline and locked in position
with a screw.
8.6 Examples
220
8.6.2. An injection
moulding process
After some initial investigation, it was observed that the problem was mainly
due to lack of keeping dimensions, specifically in the outer-diameter and pullout strength. It was decided to use Taguchis parameter design methodology
to bring the process on target. To ensure success, three response variables
were taken into account: outer diameter, height and pull-out strength.
The engineering team dealing with the problem identified seven control factors
relevent to the investigation. These seven factors are: mould temperature (A),
injection pressure (B), hold-on pressure (C), injection time (D), holding time
(E), cooling time (F) and fill time (G). In order to keep the experiment of
manageable size, it was decided to use only two levels per factor. The choice
of levels of each factor is shown in figure 8.7. Also, the team decided to
neglect interactions for the sake of simplicity and use instead confirmation or
verification experiments to avoid misleading conclusions.
washer tub

height
(114 mm)
Level
Control factor
Units
Mould temperature (A)
C
2
35
50
110 150
Injection pressure (B)
kg/cm
Hold-on pressure (C)
kg/cm2
70
120
Injection time (D)
sec
30
50
Hold-on time (E)
sec
23
33
Cooling time (F)
sec
50
100
Fill time (G)
sec
17
Table 8.7: Control factors and their levels for the agitator experiment.
Outer diameter
Height
Pull-out force
Exp.
Mean
S/N
Mean
S/N
Mean
329.30
65.88
113.21 52.99
3.00
329.41
65.08
114.07 58.83
1.66
329.45
64.02
113.20 43.29
1.69
329.48
66.89
113.54 45.17
2.12
329.48
60.29
113.88 47.79
2.77
329.45
67.89
114.05 50.21
1.48
329.43
72.12
113.85 52.21
2.13
329.60
69.57
113.72 52.75
2.58

outerdiameter
Table 8.8: Summary of responses for the agitator experiment.
Figure 8.10: Washing machine agitator.

c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
From the choice of factors and levels, a L8 orthogonal array was selected. To
make the experiment more robust, it was conducted in the presence of three
noise factors, namely two different operators, two shifts, and raw materials
from two different vendors. As all noise factors had two levels, a L4 array was
appropriate as noise array.
The recorded response from the experiments is described in table 8.8. As the
objective of the experiment was to minimize variance and bring the process
mean on target for the outer diameter and height responses, the nominal-thebest case was selected to compute the S/N ratio for these quality characteristics. Although it was desirable to minimize the pull-out force, it was decided
to deal with this response after the previous two had been optimized.
From the results obtained, the percent influence or percent contribution for
each factor on each response, either average or in terms of the S/N ratio, were
calculated. The results are presented in figures 8.11 and 8.13 for the outer
diameter. For the height, the results are presented in figures 8.15 and 8.17 for
the S/N ratio and the average response, respectively. For the pull-out force,
the percent influence of factors in the average response is shown in figure 8.19.
In all cases all those factors with a small contribution were pooled into error
to avoid misleading results with the ANOVA.
The main effects plots for the outer diameter in terms of the S/N ratio and
the average response are shown in figures 8.12 and 8.14, respectively. For the
height, the main effects plot in terms of the S/N ratio is shown in figure 8.16
and in terms of the average response is shown in figure 8.18. Finally, the main
effects plot for the average pull-out force is shown in figure 8.20.
8.6 Examples
222
40
Influence in S/N (%)
8.6 Examples
35
32.69
30
25
20
20.81
20.39
22.18
15
10
5
0
3.98
Error
Factor
Figure 8.11: Percent of influence of control factors in the S/N ratio for the
outer diameter. Factors D, E and F were pooled.
68.5
68
Signaltonoise ratio
221
67.5
67
From the results for the outer diameter it can be concluded that for the S/N
ratio, factors B and C have a moderate effect and contributes around 20%
each. Factor G, fill time, has the most influence with a 22.18%. From the
main effects plot for the S/N ratio, factor G has again the most influence.
The optimum levels for the most significant factors are B2 , C1 and G1 . For
the average response, factor A, mould temperature, and the fill time have the
most significant effect with a contribution of around 30% each. Factors C and
F have a moderate effect and factor E has the least influence on the response.
From the main effects plot, factors A, B, D and G cause all a relatively large
change in the average response.
Figure 8.12: Plots of main effects for the outer diameter using S/N.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
66.5
66
65.5
65
64.5
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2
Factors
223
8.6 Examples
40
Influence (%)
35
29.27
25
20
15
12.50
10
0
12.50
7.18
4.17
5
A
224
From the above results, factors B, C and G can be treated as control factors
as they have a relatively large influence in the S/N response. Factors A and
F are the best candidates as adjustment or signal factors since they cause an
important effect on the average response but have a little effect on the S/N
ratio.
34.38
30
8.6 Examples
Error
Factor
Figure 8.13: Percent of influence of control factors in the average response for
the outer diameter. Factors B and D were pooled.
Analyzing the results for the height, it can be observed that for the S/N
ratio, factor C, hold-on pressure, has by far the largest percent contribution
with almost 67%, follow by factor B, injection pressure with almost 20% and
factor D, injection time, with almost 8%. All other factors have a very small
contribution. From the main effects plot for the S/N ratio, factors B and C
have most influence in the S/N ratio and have both level 1 as their optimal.
Regarding the average response for the height, factor A has a relatively high
influence with 32.5%. Factors D and E have a moderate influence of around
20%. Factors B and F have a small influence of around 10%. From the main
effects plot, factor A has the most influence and factor C the least.
From the above results, factors C, B and D are the control factors for the height
and factors D, E and F are the best candidates to be adjustment factors for
the same response.
For the pull-out force, results indicate that factor F, cooling time, has the
largest influence with almost 70%. Factors C and D have a relatively small
contribution of 10 and 17%. All other factors have almost no contribution.
From the main effects plot it can be observed that a change in the cooling
time causes a large change in the average force required to remove the agitator
from the shaft.
Average outer diameter (mm)
329.5
329.48
329.46
329.44
329.42
329.4
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2
Factors
Figure 8.14: Plots of main effects for the outer diameter using the average
response.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
The above analyses show that factors B, C and G can be used as control
factors while factors A and F can be used as adjustment factors for the problem
considering that all three responses, outer diameter, height and pull-out force
have to be considered. The final selection of levels have to be carried out taking
into account the above results and considering the nature of the industrial
process when contradictory results are at hand.
Consider for example the injection pressure (factor B). In terms of the S/N
ratio, factor B has to be at level 2 for optimal response in the outer diameter.
Nevertheless, from the height S/N results, factor B has to be at level 1. Hence,
it is necessary to consider more information in order to decide which level is
best for the process.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
225
8.6 Examples
8.6 Examples
226
40
66.62
70
35
60
Influence (%)
Influence in S/N (%)
80
50
40
30
20
19.22
7.95
10
0
1.25
2.03
2.93
Error
32.53
30
25
20
15
Average height (mm)
Signaltonoise ratio
113.85
50
49
48
Error
113.8
113.75
113.7
113.65
113.6
113.55
47
46
4.23
the height. Factors C and G were pooled.
113.9
51
9.67
Factor
54
52
11.37
55
53
19.47
10
Factor
Figure 8.15: Percent of influence of control factors in the S/N ratio for the
height. Factors A and G were pooled.
22.73
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2
Factors
113.5
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2
Factors
Figure 8.16: Plots of main effects for the height using S/N.
Figure 8.18: Plots of main effects for the height using the average response.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
227
8.6 Examples
80
Influence (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
9.86
From similar analyses the engineering team found the following final results:
16.97
2.21
1.10
228
In this case, the engineering team concluded the following: Higher injection
pressure is the main cause of built-in-stress in the end product. Such stresses
may increase the vulnerability of the parts to the wear and tear of daily use.
If high pressure is exerted on the material and released too soon, some of the
material will move out of the mould into the runners and sprue, owing to relief
from the state of compression resulting in still greater final shrinkage. As
shrinkage will increase the necessary force to retire the agitator, it was decided
to set the injection pressure at level 1.
69.86
70
8.6 Examples
Error
Factor
the pull-out force. Factors B, E and G were pooled.
Mould temperature (A) = 50 C (level 2).

Injection pressure (B) = 110 kg/cm2 (level 1).
Hold-on pressure (C) = 70 kg/cm2 (level 1).
Injection time (D) = 30 sec (level 2).
Hold time (E) = 33 sec (level 2).
Cooling time (F) = 100 sec (level 2).
Fill time (G) = 7 sec (level 1).
Average pullout force (kg/cm)
2.7
2.6
The above combination of factors is not in the array of experimental runs, so

verification experiments were carried out yielding good results both in terms
of getting target values and reducing variability. The interested reader is encouraged to read the full paper for more details.
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
References
1.9
1.8
1.7
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2
Factors
Figure 8.20: Plots of main effects for the pull-out force using the average
response.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
1. Antony, J., Warwood, S., Fernandes, K. & Rowlands, H. (2001) Process

optimisation using Taguchi methods of experimental design. Work Study, 50,
pp. 51-57.
2. Fowlkes, W.Y. & Creveling, C.M. (1995) Engineering methods for robust
product design. Using Taguchi Methods in Technology and Product Development. Addison-Wesley.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
229
8.6 Examples
3. Phadke, M.S., Kackar, R.N., Speeney, D.V. & Grieco, M.J. (1983) Off-line
quality control integrated circuit fabrication using experimental design. The
Bell System Technical Journal, 62, pp. 1273-309.
4. Phadke, M.S. (1989) Quality engineering using robust design. Prentice-Hall.
5. Reddy, P.B.S., Nishina, K. & Subash Babu, A. (1998) Taguchis methodology for multi-response optimization. A case study in the Indian plastics
industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15, pp.
646-68.
6. Roy, R.K. (2001) Design of experiments using the Taguchi approach. 16
steps to product and process improvement. John Wiley & Sons.
CHAPTER
Response Surface Method
7. Taguchi, G. (1993) Taguchi on robust technology development: bringing

quality engieering upstream. ASME Press.
8. Yang, L. & El-Haik, B. (2003) Design for Six Sigma. A roadmap for Product
Development. McGraw-Hill.
9.1
Overview of the method
From the previous chapters, Taguchi methodology presents itself as a very

attractive methodology to effectively and conveniently design robust products
and processes. Nevertheless, Taguchi methodology is not infallible as it is
possible to miss an optimal setup as the methodology usually involves large
changes in the design factors and therefore, it looks for optimal points in a
discrete space rather than in a continuous space.
To clarify the idea, imagine that an engineer/scientist has setup a single factor
experiment. He or she carry out the experiment setting values for the control
factor within a pre-established range selecting the minimum (1), middle (2) and
maximum (3) points in the range. After the values for the response variable
are registered, the engineer/scientist finds that the factor level that maximizes
the response is 3 (see figure 9.1a). To be sure, he or she finds a interpolated
function by means of a least-squares regression and finds that effectively, the
optimum level for the control factor is 3, as shown in the figure 9.1b. As there
is a feeling that the optimal point found does not provide the best response,
the engineer/scientist decides to carry one more experiment, this time using
values for the control factors near the optimum found. After the experiments
are run, the engineer/scientist realized that the previous experiment missed
the optimal value and that the real optimum is on the new level 2 (see figure
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
231
9.2 Steepest ascent method
False
optimum
False
optimum
x2
(a)
x3
x1
x2
232
True
optimum
False
optimum
interpolated
response
x1
x3
(b)
x1
x2
x3
(c)
x
0.75
0.5
Figure 9.1: Missing an optimal point in a single factor experiment.
0.25
0
9.1c. The engineer/scientist goes home happy thinking that he/she found the
true optimal, not realizing that the true optimal has not been found yet.
The above story shows one disadvantage of using discrete values for design
factors: the true optimum may be missed. To solve this problem, one option
is to try to use continuous values for the design factor. Albeit not as efficient
as using discrete values, using continous values would assure that the true
optimum would be found in most cases.
The Response Surface Method (RSM) aims at solving the above problem in
the most efficient possible way. The name response surface comes from the fact
that it is possible to represent responses as surfaces, where then a maximum
or minimum can be looked for. In many ocassions, analysis is carried out using
two factors at a time, in such a way a three-dimensional surface can be plotted
or represented by a contour map (see figure 9.2).
2 1.5
1 0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
2 2
0.5
1.5
2
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1.5
1
0.5
0
9.2
Steepest ascent method
The process of searching for an optimal solution can be

illustrated using a single factor, single response problem.
In RMS, it is customary to designate factors by the letter
X with a subindex 1, 2, etc., to stress that now factors
are treated as continuous variables rather than discrete ones. Using this notation, in the following example the response y will be a function of a single
factor X1 .
9.2.1. Single factor
problem
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
0.5
1
1.5
2
2
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
Figure 9.2: Three-dimensional response surface and corresponding contour

map.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
233
234
maximum
y
X
X
steepest
10
ascent
Figure 9.3: A response curve with an initial condition X10 .

y
PSfrag replacements
X
X
10
X 1-n
Figure 9.5: Looking for a maximum point in the steepest ascent direction.
slope
intercept
X
X 10
Figure 9.4: Tangent line at initial condition X10 .

Since one of advantages of the Response Surface Methodology is that it can
be applied to a running system without having to stop production, consider
that the system is running at some initial condition X10 as shown in figure
9.3. The objective of the procedure is to find the point of optimal response
which in this case is the maximum response. The standard approach in RMS
is to find for points of maximum response. When the point of interest is a
minimum, then the response is simply multiplied by 1.
If the slope at condition X10 is positive, that means that the maximum is at
the right, since the response increases in that direction. This direction that
points to the condition of maximum response is called the direction of steepest
ascent. When the slope is negative, then the condition of maximum response
will be at the left. In general, this slope will only be accurate in the vecinity
of the condition X10 , but is good enough to show which direction to follow.
Once the direction of steepest descent has been found, the following step is to
run an experiment with a new condition X11 = X10 X1 , where the sign
depends on the direction to follow.
The above procedure is repeated several times until the response stops increasing as shown in figure 9.5. If the response stops increasing, it is because we
are at the optimum, or near it. If the new computed slope differs in sign from
the previous ones, then the point of maximum response is between the last
two chosen conditions. In this case, small increments of X1 can used to hunt
for the point of maximum response.
Starting from the initial condition X10 , in this simple problem the maximum
is either at the right or left. To find which side to go, consider that the
process is varied slightly to find the values of the responses in the vecinity of
X10 . These additional points, represented by crosses in figure 9.4, allows the
calculation through linear regression analysis of the slope at point X10 . It is
important to remember that the response curve is not known in advance and
that several observation may have to be carried if there is scatter in the data.
The above example, although simple in nature,

presents how RMS works toward finding an optimum point and the procedure followed can be applied regardless of the number of factors. Consider now a more complicated problem with two factors. In
this case, the response is not a curve but a surface.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
9.2.2. Two factors problem
235
236
0.5
0.5
Steepest
ascent
X20
X20
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-1
-0.5
X10 0.5
-1
1
Figure 9.6: A response surface with an initial condition (X10 , X20 ).

As in the single factor problem, starting point of the procedure is an initial
condition, in this case, (X10 , X20 ) since two factors namely, X1 and X2 , are
considered. Figure 9.6 shows this starting point representing the unknown
response surface as a contour map.
Next, it is necessary to find the steepest ascent direction, which in this case is
a vector. Similarly to the procedure followed in the single factor problem, the
steepest ascent direction can be found by observing the response in the vecinity
of (X10 , X20 ) as shown in figure 9.7, and computing a multiple-variable linear
regression analysis. Since this case involves a two-factor problem, at least three
additional points are required for the linear regression analysis to work. From
the linear regression, two slopes will be found, one with respect to factor X1
and one with respect to parameter X2 .
The direction of steepest ascent can be found from the slopes as follows:
If the slope with respect to factor X1 is positive, then the direction of
steepest ascent is to the right.
If the slope with respect to factor X1 is negative, then the direction of
steepest ascent is to the left.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
-1
-0.5
X10 0.5
Figure 9.7: Additional sample points at the vecinity of condition (X10 , X20 )
and steepest ascent vector.
If the slope with respect to factor X2 is positive, then the direction of
steepest ascent is to the top.
If the slope with respect to factor X2 is negative, then the direction of
steepest ascent is to the left.
Since the two slopes with respect to X1 and X2 are available, then it is possible
to find not only the direction of steepest ascent but the vector of steepest
ascent. This vector will point in which direction the maximum appears to
be. Naturally, this direction will be accurate only in the vecinity of the of
(X10 , X20 ).
From the direction found, a new set of conditions (X1i , X2i ) must be found
until the response stops increasing as sketched in figure 9.8. When two or
more factors are taken into account, the direction of the increments taken to
generate the new condition, in this case (X11 , X21 ), has to agree with the
vector of steepest ascent. In order to do that, increments for the factors must
be chosen accordingly.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
237
238
1
75
70
0.5
z
65
X1 , X 2
n
n
60
X21
X20
55
-0.5
50
45
-1
-1
-1
-0.5
X11 0
X10 0.5
-0.5
0
X1
0.5
1 -1
-0.5
0
X2
0.5
1 y
Figure 9.8: Tangent line in the direction of steepest ascent and the new condition (X11 , X21 ) found.
In order to obtain the increments for the factors, typically the factor with the
largest magnitude of slope is chosen first and a desired value for the increment is
selected. Then, the increment in the other factor is calculated so the direction
of the vector of increment agrees with the direction of the vector of steepest
ascent. Suppose for example, that the largest slope is for factor X1 . Then,
an increment X1 will be chosen taking into account the characteristics of
the process and the corresponding increment X2 will be calculated. In this
fashion, new conditions (X1i , X2i ) can be generated. Once the response
stops increasing, then it is necessary to find a new vector of steepest ascent
and repeat the procedure to hunt of the optimum as shown in figure 9.9.
Steepest
ascent
0.5
Figure 9.10: The climber analogy.
X 2n
-0.5
In many occasions, the Response Surface Method

of finding maximums is compared to a climber
that wants to reach the top of a mountain that is covered by dense fog. As
the climber does not know exactly where the top is, he or she needs to rely
in his/her instruments to find the way. If the climber has an altimeter and a
compass, he/she measure the altitute in some points around his/her current
position, and determines in which direction the altitude increases the most.
With the help of the compass, the climber proceeds to climb in the same di9.2.3. The climber analogy
-1
-1
X1n
-0.5
0.5
Figure 9.9: Steepest ascent vector at condition (X11 , X21 ).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
239
rection until he/she notices that altitude is not gained anymore. With the
help of the altimeter, the climber takes several measurements of altitude in
points nearby. With this information, the climber finds once more the direction where the altitude increases the most and starts to climb again following
that direction until he/she notices that altitude fails to increase.
Repeating the procedure, the climber will eventually reach the top. Although
one may argue that the procedure is not very efficient, it is important to notice
that surely is faster than trial and error and somehow guarantees that a peak
(maximum) will be found. At this point is important to mention that as an
expert climber will observe, to find a peak does not necessarily means that one
has reached the top of the mountain as another higher peak may be close by.
In the procedure described above, it is necessary to
carry out a regression analysis to find the direction
of steepest ascent. As explained above, this regression is performed on selected
points laying on the vecinity of a condition (X1i , X2i ). Unfortunately, the
regression may contain factors of very different units and ranges, reason for
which it is not convenient to perform the regression in the raw data. Instead,
all data must be normalized before the regression analysis is done.
9.2.4. Coded variables
It is convenient to normalize data in the range 1 to +1 so all factors affect

the response in the same way. To convert any factor X into a coded variable
the simple following formulas may be used:
X,
=2
X
X Xmid-value
Xmax Xmin
(9.1)
where Xmid-value = (Xmax Xmin )/2 and Xmax and Xmin is the maximum and
minimum values for factor X to consider.
As it has been discussed, once the regression has been carried out and the
vector of steepest distance has been found, it is necessary to select an increment
in the factors. This increment can be selected in terms of the coded variables.
Nevertheless, it will be necessary to transform the increment in terms of coded
variables into an increment in terms of the original physical units in order to
setup the next experiment. This backwards transformation is given by
X =
Xmax Xmin
X
2
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(9.2)
240
is the selected increment

where X is the increment in physical units and X
in coded units.
As explained above, two of the key points of the
Response Surface Method are to find the vector
of steepest ascent and to obtain the chosen increment in the same direction. Fortunately, once
the results of the regression analysis are available, these two key points are easy
to carry out.
9.2.5. Finding the vector
and increments of steepest
ascent
Considering a two-factors problem, after the regression analysis is performed,

an equation of the form
1 + 2 X
2
y = 0 + 1 X
(9.3)
is available. Mathematically speaking, the 1 and 2 factors are the slopes

1 and X
2 ,
with respect to X
y
= 1
X1
y
= 2
X2
and therefore the vector of steepest ascent would be described by

y y
,
1 X
2
X
(9.4)
(9.5)
Now, it is necessary to choose the desired increment based on both experience

and the process itself. Assuming that the largest slope is in factor X1 , then it
as base increment. To keep the increment
is convenient to select a given X1
vector in the same direction as the vector as steepest ascent, the increment in
any other factor Xn can be calculated from
1 (y/ Xn)
n = X
X
1)
(y/ X
(9.6)
Since these increments are in coded variables, it is necessary to transform them

into increments in physical variables. This transformation can be carried out
accordingly using equation (9.2).
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
241
9.3 Local exploration method
242
Region found by
the steepest
ascent method
As sometimes the selection of the magnitude of the increments is not easy,

some authors suggest to follow the next strategy. Suppose that from linear
regression the following linear model can be established:
y
y = 0 + 1 X1 + 2 X2 + + k Xk
(9.7)
From the above model, the next coordinate to analyze can be obtained as
i
Xinew = Xiold + v
u k
uX 2
t
(9.8)
X
j=1
where Xiold is the current value for the Xi factor, Xinew is the next value for
Xi after one increment and is the step length. When no better choice for the
step length is available, = 1 is a common selection.
From the above formula,
qP
k
2
it is clear that the increment is given by i /
j=1 k . It is left to the reader
to study the equivalence of this procedure to the one shown earlier.
9.3
Local exploration method
After a search for the point of maximum point using the steepest ascent method
has been carried out, and the engineer/scientist feels that the optimum point
should be close by, then the method of local exploration may be a better choice.
Consider figure 9.11. In the case depicted, the steepst ascent method would
require to obtain a new direction of steepest ascent, to select an increment, and
advance looking for the point where the response starts to diminish. This procedure can become both tedious and long, specially for problems with multiple
factors. When the maximum point is near, the method of local exploration is
better suited to find it in a quick and effective way.
The method of local exploration requires to carry out a designed experiment
to fit a non-linear regression model into the reponse to look for the point of
maximum yield. Once the non-linear model is obtained, standard exploration
and calculus techniques may be used to find the optimum point.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Figure 9.11: Region of the response where the maximum lays.

In general, three different types of designed experiments are preferred for local
exploration: Central Composites Designs (CCD), Box-Behnken designs and
D-Optimal designs. In some occasions, Taguchi arrays may also be used due
to their simplicity. In what follows, CCD and Box-Behnken designs will be
discussed.
Central Composites Designs (CCD) are a combination of factorial or fractional factorial designs
with a group of centerpoints and a group of secondary points that allows the estimation of second order effects. The points
belonging to the to the secondary group receive the name of axial points. If
the factorial design points are usually at a distance 1 unit from the center of
the design, axial points are at a distance where || < 1. The exact value
of depends on the specific factorial design choosen.
9.3.1. Central Composite
Designs
The layout of a CCD experiment is shown in figure 9.1. The first part of the
layout consists of N F factorial design points. Here, full factorial or fractional
factorial designs may be used. In the second part, N C centerpoints are specified. The number of centerpoints in the design depends on the number of
repetitions required to obtain a predition of the error in the model. In general, the more centerpoints are selected, the lower the prediction error will be.
Finally, the number of axial points, N A, is always twice the number of factors.
The CCD layout may be represented graphically as depicted in figure 9.12 for
a two factors design. As shown, the CCD layout is a combination of factorial
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
243
244
Factors
Point type
Experimental Point
X1
X2
Factorial
Design
2
..
.
NF
2
..
.
0
..
.
0
..
.
NC
Points
Centerpoints
Axial
Points
2
..
.
NA
X2
X2
+
+1
X1
+1
Factorial design
with centerpoints
0
Axial points
X2
Table 9.1: Layout of Central Composite Designs.
+
+1
points, centerpoints and axial points.

The value of used for the axial points is chosen so the experimental design
has a rotatable property. When a design is rotatable, then the variance of the
predicted value of the response is only function of the distance between the
point of interest and the center of the design, that is, there is no preferential
direction in the experiments prediction. Since there is no knowledge on in
what direction the maximum point may be, it is desirable not to set by design
a direction of preference. Rotatables design, are therefore, a better choice.
To have a rotatable central composite design, the value of is a function of
the number of experimental runs in the factorial portion of the design,
1
= (N F ) 4
+1 +
X1
Central Composite Design
Figure 9.12: Central Composite Design (CCD).

(9.9)
Values for for designs including two to six factors are shown in table 9.2.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
X1
245
Number of factors Factorial design
1.414
1.682
24
2.000
251
2.000
25
2.378
261
2.378
26
2.828
Table 9.2: Values for for different factorial designs.

One disadvantage of rotatable central designs is that they require to consider
five levels for each factor: , 1, 0, +1, +. In many cases, this requirement
makes CCD designs difficult to implement or carry out. One alternative is to
set = 1 to reduce the number of levels involved in the experimental design.
These designs are called face-centered central composite designs. Although
this type of setup requires only three levels for each factor, it looses the CCD
rotatable property. For these cases, Box-Benhken designs provide another
convenient alternative.
9.3.2. Box-Behnken Box-Behnken designs are quadratic independent designs
Designs
that do not contain an embedded full or fractional factorial design. Hence, in this design, experimental runs
are at the center and at midpoints of edges of the design space. Figure 9.13
shows graphically a Box-Behnken design for three factors. The levels for each
one of the factors are specified in table 9.3. Apart from the advantage that
experimental designs require only three levels for each factor, another one is
that Box-Behnken designs are rotatable or nearly rotatable.
246
X1
X2
X3
0
..
.
0
..
.
0
..
.
Table 9.3: Box-Behnken design for three factors.
Table 9.4 presents the Box-Behnken design for four factors. It is important to
notice that in this type of designs centerpoints are added as usual to lower the
prediction error.
Figure 9.13: Graphical representation of a Box-Behnken design for three factors.

c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
247
X1
X2
X3
X4
0
..
.
0
..
.
0
..
.
0
..
.
Table 9.4: Box-Behnken design for four factors.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
9.4 Examples
248
9.3.3. Single response Once the experimental design layout has been choosen,
model creation
and the experimental runs have been carried out, it is
time to create a quadratic model that can be analyzed
in order to find the optimum response point.
In general, a quadratic model can be described as:
y = 0 +
k
X
i=1
i xi +
k
X
ii x2i +
i=1
ij xi xj +
(9.10)
i<j
The above equation can be rewritten in matrix form as:

y = X +
(9.11)
where y is the response vector, X is the factor or information matrix and is

the coefficent vector.
In order to find the coefficient vector , a least-squares fit for multiple linear
regression can be obtained from
= (X0X)1 X0 y
(9.12)
Once coefficients are found, the model is complente and can be analyzed using
standard calculus techniques in order to find the point of maximum yield.
9.4
Examples
(Yang & El-Haik, 2003). In a given chemical process, the two most important factors are temperature and reaction time. The response surface method
is selected to obtain the point that maximizes yield.
To carry out experiments, a central composite layout is used where = 1.414.
The summary of experimental runs is shown in table 9.5.
9.4.1. Chemical process
response
From the experimental results, the information matrix in coded variables X

and the response vector y are
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
249
9.4 Examples
9.4 Examples
Coded variables
Natural variables
X1
X2
Temperature, C Reaction Time, min Yield
170
300
64.33
+1
230
300
51.78
+1
170
400
77.30
+1
+1
230
400
45.37
=
X
250
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
0
0
64.33
51.78
77.30
45.37
62.08
79.36
y = 75.29
73.81
69.45
72.58
37.52
54.63
54.18
200
350
62.08
200
350
79.36
200
350
75.29
200
350
73.81
where the information matrix is given by the column vectors

i
h
= 1
1
2
12 X
22 X
1 X
2
X
X
X
X
200
350
69.45
is
0 X)
1 X
0y, the coefficient vector
Solving the system (X
1.414 0
157.58
350
72.58
+1.414
242.42
350
37.42
1.414
200
279.3
54.63
+1.414
200
420.7
54.18
= [72.0
11.78 0.74
7.25
7.55
(9.13)
4.85]T
(9.14)
(9.15)
Hence, the prediction model is described by the quadratic equation

2
2 7.25X
2 7.55X
2 4.85X
1X
1 + 0.74X
y = 72.0 11.78X
1
2
(9.16)
Table 9.5: Experimental layout for the chemical process example.

The response surface predicted by the model is shown in figure 9.14.
In order to find the point that either maximizes or minimizes the predicted
k
response, it is necessary to find the point where all partial derivatives y/ X
are equal to zero.
The first partial derivative is
y
1
X
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
1 4.85X
2 11.78
= 14.5X
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(9.17)
251
9.4 Examples
9.4 Examples
252
The final step is to convert the coded temperature and reaction time to physical
variables,
X1 high + X1 low
1 X1 high X1 low
+X
2
2
230 170
230 + 170
+ (0.9285)
= 172.14
=
2
2
X1 =
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
X2 high + X2 low
2 X2 high X2 low
+X
2
2
300 + 400
400 300
=
+ (0.3472)
= 367.36
2
2
(9.22)
X2 =
1.5
1
1.5
(9.23)
0.5
1
0
0.5
Hence, the conditions that maximize the yield are a temperature of 172.14 C
and 367.36 minutes of reaction time.
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
Figure 9.14: Predicted response surface for the chemical reaction problem.
1. Berger, P.D. and Maurer, R.E. (2002) Experimental Design with applications
in management, engineering and the Sciences. Duxbury Thomson-Learning.
The second partial derivative is

y
2 4.85X
1
= 0.74 15.1X
2
X
(9.18)
Hence, the system of equations to solve is:

1 4.85X
2 11.78 = 0
14.5X
1 = 0
0.74 15.1X2 4.85X
(9.19)
2 = 0.3472
X
2. Montgomery, D.C. (2000) Design and Analysis of Experiments. 5th Edition.

Wiley Text Books, New York.
3. Myers, R.H. & Montgomery D.C. (1995). Respose Surface Methodology.
Process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley series in
Probability and Statistics.
2 yields
1 and X
Solving for X
1 = 0.9285
X
References
(9.20)
Subsituting these values into the predicted response model yields the maximum
response:
y = 72.0 11.78 (0.9285) + 0.74 (0.3472)
7.25 (0.9285)2 7.55 (0.3472)2
4.85 (0.9285) (0.3472) = 77.597
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(9.21)
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
10.1 Optimum design
254
Good design
Optimal design
work as intended
CHAPTER
10
work as intended
vs
minimizes cost
maximizes performance
Optimum design
In many ocassions, a design team is faced with the task to provide a design
that is not only good but also optimal. Here, optimal may be understanded
as the condition where a certain characteristic or group of characteristics are
at its best. As it has been discussed previoulsy, a good design is a design that
will work as intended, fulfilling customers expectectations. But a design that
satisfy the needs of the customer may not necessarily be one that minimizes
cost or maximizes certain desired characteristic. Such a design is called optimal
design. The difference between these two types of designs is shown graphically
in figure 10.1.
Optimization is a branch of applied mathematics and in this chapter, some
optimization techniques will be applied to maximize/minimize desired characteristics in engineering designs.
10.1
Figure 10.1: Difference between a good design and an optimal design.
Design variables
Problem Formulation
Objective/Cost function
equalities
Design constraints
inequalities
domain of solution
Standard model/
Mathematical model
constrained
unconstrained
Optimum design
Graphical method
In order to optimize a given problem, three steps are needed. First, the problem must be throughly understood. Second, it is necessary to formulate the
problem in order to create a model that can be subject to optimization. Third,
using an optimization technique, the selected characteristic(s) are maximized
or minimized.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
Optimization
Analytical methods
Numerical methods
Figure 10.2: Path to optimization.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
255
10.2 Problem formulation
In figure 10.2, a brief conceptual map of the path to optimization is presented.

First during the problem formulation, design variables, those variables that
will be changed in order to maximize/minimize the desired characteristic are
identified. Then, the characteristic to be optimized is expressed in mathematical form. The resultant mathematical expression is called objective function or
design function. In this step, design constraints are also identified. A design
constraint is a condition that limit the possible values that design variables may
take in order to consider physical or technical limitations. Design constraints
may come in the form of solution domain limitation, equalities or inequalities.
256
h
l
s/2
s/2
l
W
Figure 10.3: A truss problem.
The second step is to use all the above equations to create a model that can be
optimized. This model is usually constructed as the union of design variables,
objective functions and constraints.
F1
The final step is to optimize the problem using a given technique. Simple
problems involving one, two or even three variables can be optimized using a
graphical method. More complicated models are optimized using numerical
techniques such as Newton-Rhapson, Simplex or Steepest descent methods.
F2
W
Figure 10.4: Body forces diagram for the truss problem.
10.2
Problem formulation
From the figure
sin =
In order to show how problems may be formulated, four different examples will
be shown. The examples includes simple problems of structural optimization.
s/2
l
cos =
h
l
(10.3)
Solving equations (10.1) for F1 and F2 yields

Consider the problem of a truss structure with
two members shown in figure 10.6. The optimization problem is to design the structure in
order to minimize its weight. The structure must avoid yield and buckling.
10.2.1. Truss optimization
As with any truss problem, the first step is to sketch the free-body diagram
and perform summation of forces in both x and y directions. From the diagram
shown in figure 10.7, summation in forces become
F1 cos + F2 cos = 0
F1 sin + F2 sin = W
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(10.1)
(10.2)
F1 =
where l =
Wl
W
=
2 sin
2s
F2 =
Wl
W
=
2 sin
2s
(10.4)
h2 + (s/2)2 .
To specify the design, it is necessary to choose a cross-sectional shape for each

member. Although the choice of a standard shape like the ones shown in figure
10.8, limits the generality of the solution, it helps to maintain the complexity
of the problem to a minimum.
Suppose that cross-section (3) is selected for both members. Since weight must
be minimized, then the mass of the structure can be specified as the objective
function which value must be at a minimum. Hence, the objective function for
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
257
258
Considering the calculation of areas, the above restrictions become

t
d
di
(2)
(1)
It is necessary to state that all dimensions defining the cross sectional areas
cannot be zero or negative. Hence, the next restrictions arise
(3)
b
t1
t1 d
(4)
(10.8)
do
Wl
(b1 t1 2d1 t1 + t21 ) < Yt
2s
Wl
(b2 t2 2d2 t2 + t22 ) < Yc

2s
t2
t2
(5)
bi > 0
di > 0
ti > 0 and ti < b/2
b i di
(10.9)
(10.10)
(10.11)
(10.12)
(10.13)
As the lower member is subject to compression, it is necessary to check for

buckling. The critical load for a column with pinned ends is
(6)
Figure 10.5: Some cross-sectional areas for structural members.
Pcr =
2 EI
L2
(10.14)
where E is the Young Modulus of the material and I is the moment of inertia.
the problem is
mass = density volume
= A1 l + A 2 l
p
= (b1 t1 2d1 t1 + t21 ) h2 + (s/2)2
p
+ (b2 t2 2d2 t2 + t22 ) h2 + (s/2)2
From the critical load formula, the buckling condition restriction becomes
(10.5)
(10.6)
where is the density of the material, Ai is the cross-sectional area, bi , di and

ti are the width, height and thickness of the cross-section for the i-th member.
(10.15)
For the cross-sectional area selected, a rectangular tube, the moment of inertia
can be computed as follows
bd3
(b 2t)(d 2t)3 12
12
I=
bd3 (b 2t)(d 2t)3

E
12
12

F2 <
s 2
h2 +
2
2
(10.7)
where Yt is the yield stress at tension and Yc is the yield stress at compression.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
2 EI
L2
(10.16)
Hence, the restriction becomes
As the structure must withstand yield, then

F 1 A1 < Y t
F 2 A2 < Y c
F2 <
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(10.17)
259
Minimize:
+ (b2 t2 2d2 t2 + t22 )

subject to:
260
The can capacity should be 400ml (400 cm3 ). Do not consider the top of the
can.
Finally, the problem can be stated as:
S = (b1 t1 2d1 t1 + t21 )
p
p
bi
di
ti
ti
bi
h2 + (s/2)2
h2 + (s/2)2
>
>
>
<
0
0
0
b/2
di
Wl
(b1 t1 2d1 t1 + t21 ) < Yt
2s
Wl
(b2 t2 2d2 t2 + t22 ) < Yc
2s

3
bd
(b 2t)(d 2t)3
2
E
12
12

< F2
s 2
2
h +
2
A company want to verify that the aluminum beer can

that they manufacture is optimal from the cost point of
view. Since most of the production cost is associated to
the material needed to manufacture the can, it has been decided that an optimal can would have the least material which in turn translate into having the
least possible surface area.
10.2.2. Beer can

optimization
In order to use current production and handling facilities, the can must fulfill
the following restrictions (Arora, 1989):
The diameter of the can should be more than 3.5 and less than 8 cm.
The height of the should be more than 8 cm and less than 18 cm.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
As the surface area should be minimized, it is necessary to consider the surfaces

covering the cylinder and bottom of the can. Hence, surface area can be
calculated from
S(d, h) = d2 + dh
(10.18)
4
where d is the diameter of the can and h is its height. Now, the volume of the
can must also be considered as it has to be equal to 400 cm3 . The volume of
a cylinder is given by
(10.19)
V (d, h) = d2 h
4
With the above equations and the restrictions stated, the optimization problem
can be formulated as:
Minimize:
S(d, h) =
2
d + dh
4
subject to:
d
d
h
h
3.5
8.0
8.0
18.0
2
dh
V (d, h) =
4
Consider the design of a tubular column completely
fixed at its lower end. The design objective is to
minimize the weight of the column. To design a column is necessary to consider
failure by yielding and failure by buckling. Failure by yielding occurs when the
compression stress is larger than the yielding stress of the material. Failure
by buckling occurs when the compression force acting on the column is larger
than the critical load for the beam.
10.2.3. Tubular column
Since the weight of the column has to be minimized, it is possible to set as an

objective function to minimize the total mass of the column. The mass of the
beam is given by
mass = h(Ro2 Ri2 )
(10.20)
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
261
where is the density of the material, h is the height of the column and Ro
and Ri are the outer and inner radius of the column.
Since the column must withstand yield, then
F
< Y
(Ro2 Ri2 )
(10.21)
where F is the force that the column must support and Y is the yield stress
for the material.
Now, since the critical load of the column must not be exceeded, it is necessary
to fulfill in the design
F < Pcr
2 EI
(10.22)
4h2
h
i
2 E (Ro2 Ri2 )
4
F <
4h2
where E is the Young Modulus of the material and I is the moment of inertia
of the cross-sectional area.
F <
Finally, the inner radius Ri must be greater than zero and less than Ro
Ri 0
Ro > R i
Hence, the optimization problem can be formulated as:
Minimize:
S(Ro , Ri ) = h(Ro2 Ri2 )
(10.23)
262
As another example, consider now that a beam

of solid rectangular cross-sectional area subject
to shear and bending forces must be optimized (Arora, 1989). The bending
and shear stress in the beam can be computed from
10.2.4. Rectangular beam
6M
(10.24)
bd2
3V
(10.25)
=
2bd
where is the bending stress, is the shear stress, M and V are the moment
and shear force acting on the beam and b and d are the base and depth of the
rectangular cross-section. Another restriction is that the depth of the beam
must not exceed twice its base.
=
The above problem can be easily formulated as follows. First, as the beam
must have a minimum cross-section, the objective function becomes
cross-section = b d
Second, since the beam must withstand a bending stress M , then
6M
bd2
where a is the maximum allowable bending stress for the beam.
a >
3V
2bd
where a is the maximum allowable shear stress for the beam.
a >
(10.28)
With the above information, the problem can be summarized into minimize:
S(b, d) = bd
subject to:
F
< Y
Ri2 )
h
i
2 E (Ro2 Ri2 )
4
> F
4h2
d < 2b
6M
a >
bd2
3V
a >
2bd
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(Ro2
(10.27)
Third, since the beam must also withstand shear stress, then
subject to:
Ri 0
Ro > R i
(10.26)
263
10.3 Solution by the graphical method
Solution by the graphical method
One simple yet effective method to solve optimization problems is the so called
graphical method. This method relies in plotting the restrictions and objective function to determine regions, curves and points of optimal solution. The
method is one of the best ways to gain insight of the problem at hand. Unfortunately, as it relies on plotting all the different functions and restrictions, it
is only of practical use with two-variables problems and in some cases threevariable problems.
To explain how the graphical method works, the last three optimization problems shown in the last section will be solved by this method.
10.3.1. Beer can problem
From the previous section, the beer can problem

can be formulated as:
Minimize:
S(d, h) =
2
d + dh
4
264
18
(10.29)
16
Feasible region
height [cm]
10.3
14
12
r5
S=250 cm
S=315 cm
S=400 cm
10
8
3.5
4.5
5.5
6
6.5
diameter [cm]
7.5
Figure 10.6: Graphical solution of the beer can.
subject to restrictions r1 to r5 :
plotted as a function of d
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
=
=
=
=
d 3.5
d 8.0
h 8.0
h 18.0
= 400 = d2 h
4
(10.30)
(10.31)
(10.32)
(10.33)
(10.34)
The first step towards the solution of an optimization problem is to identify

the variables that will be used to plot. For this problem, diameter will be
used as the abscissas axis (x-axis) and height will be used as the ordinates axis
(y-axis).
The second step to solve an optimization problem graphically is to plot all the
restrictions involved in the problem. In this case, restrictions r1 to r4 are limits
to the solution domain. Hence, any possible solution must be in the windows
3.5 d 8.0 and 8.0 h 18.0. Such solution domain is shown in figure
10.6. The last restriction r5 , which sets a volume restriction of 400cm3, can be
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
400
h(d) =
d2
4
(10.35)
From figure 10.6 it can be seen that the restriction divides the domain window
in two parts. Below the curve r5 lay all the possible solution where volume is
less than 400cm3 . Above the same curve, lay all possible solutions where V
is larger than 400cm3 . As practically speaking the can may have a volume of
more than 400cm3 , the feasible region for the solution is the region to the right
of the r5 curve. If, on the other hand, the can must have exactly a volume of
400cm3 , then all possible solutions lay on the curve r5 .
The third step is to plot different possible solutions that fullfil the objective
function S(d, h). In order to plot possible solutions, it is necessary to assume
a given final surface area. The objective function 10.29 can be plotted as
2
d
4
d
S
h(d) =
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(10.36)
265
where S is the value chosen as a guess for the final surface.
0.1
To verify the selected point, d = 8 and h = 8 can be substituted in the

volume equation. Using equation 10.19, it can be verified that the volume
gives 402cm3, which closely satisfy the volume restriction. These two values
give a final surface area of 251cm2 .
If the proposed solution is not accurate enough, then more accurate values for
the diameter and the height can be obtained plotting the area near point (8,8).
0.08
outer radius [m]
In figure 10.6, chosen values of S = 250, S = 315 and S = 400 where chosen as
possible solutions. As all these curves represent solutions to the optimization
problem, it is necessary to check which curve give values of d and h that are in
the feasible region and are closer to the restriction curve r5 . For this problem,
it seems like the point d = 8 and h = 8 give a possible solution as it lays on
the curve r5 and intersects with the possible solution curve S = 250.
Feasible region
0.06
0.04
r1
r2
r3
S=10 kg
S=20 kg
0.02
0
0
Consider the tubular column problem described in

the previous section. Furthermore consider that the
column must have a height of 5m, support a load
of 50kN and that it will be build from steel having the following properties:
E = 110GPa, Y = 120MPa and = 2700 kg/m3 .
10.3.2. Tubular column

problem
As stated in the previous section, this problem can be stated as: Minimize:
S(Ro , Ri ) = h(Ro2 Ri2 )
(10.37)
r 0 = Ri 0
r 1 = Ro > Ri
F
r2 =
< Y
(Ro2 Ri2 )
h
i
2 E (Ro2 Ri2 )
4
>F
r3 =
4h2
(10.38)
(10.39)
subject to:
(10.40)
(10.41)
In order to plot restrictions and possible solutions, it is possible to select the

inner radius as abscissas and the outer radius as ordinates. The r0 and r1
restrictions limit the solution domain to the first quadrant of the coordinate
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
266
0.02
0.04
0.06
inner radius [m]
0.08
0.1
Figure 10.7: Graphical solution of the tubular column.

system. If plotted, the r1 restriction will draw a 45 from (0,0) limiting the
feasible region to the upper part of the quadrant as shown in figure 10.7.
The r2 and r3 restrictions will further limit the solution domain, although the
restriction will only be of importance for values of the inner radius between
0 and 0.04 since farther away the three restrictions are very close together.
Restrictions r2 and r3 can be plotted respectively as
r
F
+ Ri2
(10.42)
Ro (Ri ) =
Y
r
2
4 16F h
(10.43)
+ Ri4
Ro (Ri) =
3
E
Finally, curve lines for solutions S = 10 and S = 20 were plotted to look for
points of optimal solution. These two solutions are shown in figure 10.8 where
only the area of interest is shown.
From the plots it can be observed that the optimal solution must lay between
10 and 20kg since both curves cross the curve of restriction r3 . Hence, the
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
267
0.03
268
r1
r2
r3
S=0.1 m
S=0.2 m
Feasible region
outer radius [m]
0.025
0.8
depth [m]
0.02
0.015
r1
r2
r3
S = 5 kg
S = 10 kg
S = 20 kg
0.01
0.005
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
inner radius [m]
0.025
0.6
Feasible region
0.4
0.2
0
0.03
0.2
0.4
0.6
width [m]
0.8
Figure 10.8: Area of interest for the tubular column problem.
Figure 10.9: Graphical solution of the rectangular beam.
optimal value for the inner radius must be between 0.02 and 0.04 meters and
for the outer radius between 0.02 and 0.04 meters. Further plots of S with
values for the inner radius slightly smaller than 10kg would help to find the
point of optimal solution.
As both base and width must be positive, then the solution domain is restricted
to the first quadrant of the coordinate system, which in this case was selected to
have the width in the abscissas and depth as the ordinates. The first restriction,
d < 2b, draws a straight dividing line limiting the feasible region to the lower
part of the quadrant as shown in figure 10.9. The second and third restrictions,
plotted as
r
6M
d(b) =
(10.48)
a b
and
3V
(10.49)
d(b) =
a 2b
further limit the region of feasible solution.
10.3.3. Rectangular beam

problem
The problem of finding the minimum cross-sectional

area of a rectangular beam subject to a bending
moment and shear force can be formulated as
S(b, d) = bd
(10.44)
r1 = d < 2b
6M
r 2 = a > 2
bd
3V
r3 = a >
2bd
(10.45)
subject to:
as it was discussed in the previous section.

c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
(10.46)
(10.47)
After plotting the three restrictions, the feasible solution is bounded first by
r1 . Then, it is bounded by r3 until it crosses the curve of r2 where the latter
becomes the limit of the feasible region.
After plotting possible solutions with S = 0.1m2 and S = 0.2m2 , it is clear that
all solutions are parallel to r3 and hence, the curve describing this restriction
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos
269
holds all possible solutions for the problem between the crossings with r1 and
r2 . Any point (b, d) laying in this curve between these two crossing will be a
point of optimal solution.
References
1. Arora, J.S. (1989) Introduction to optimal design. McGraw-Hill international editions.
2. Papalambros, P.Y. & Wilde, D.J. (2000) Principles of optimal design. Modeling and computation. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.
c
Copyright 2004
Dr. Jos

Product Design:: Preface

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Product Design:: Preface

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

gico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

It is widely recognized that to develop successful products, systems or services it

Jose Carlos Miranda

The Engineering Design Process

1.2 The design process

1.2 The design process

Figure 1.1: Design is the process of mapping functional requirements to design

Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component,

Figure 1.2: Engineering design core disciplines.

The design process

2. Understanding of the problem.

1.2 The design process

1.2 The design process

Figure 1.3: A simple model of the design process with 4 stages.

The need to design a new product may come

be substituted for an idea of a product with possibilities of becoming commercially successful.

1.2 The design process

The product must be . . .

Average time for installation < x seg.

Must withstand 10x cycles

Opens with a force of max. x newtons.

able to resist impacts

Withstand drops from x meters.

able to work in cold weather

1.2 The design process

2. Interpret the raw data in terms of customers needs.

3. Organize the needs into a hierarchy of primary and secondary needs.

The concept generation stage can be divided into 4 steps:

Table 1.1: Examples of metrics and their value.

4. Establish the relative importance of the needs.

1. Clarification of the problem.

3. Use and adaptation of design team s knowledge.

Several tools can be used to establish product specifications. Although simple

The importance of the concept selection phase cannot be understated. It is

1.2 The design process

1.2 The design process

Figure 1.5: Design influence on manufacturing cost (After Ullman, 1992).

Figure 1.6: Engineering changes in automobile development (After Ullman,

1.2.6. Concept testing

1.2 The design process

1.2 The design process

integration between different engineering disciplines involved on the design

Figure 1.7: The design process paradox (After Ullman, 1992).

After the preliminary design stage has been carried

1. Interpretation of design drawings and specifications.

1.2 The design process

1.3 Quality Function Deployment

4. Selection of machines to be used in production.

5. Determination of the sequence of operations.

7. Establishment of tool cutting parameters, such as speed, depth and feed

Nevertheless, documentation is as important as any other in the task in the

Quality Function Deployment

It is not uncommon that designers find themselves working a problem only

1.3 Quality Function Deployment

1.3 Quality Function Deployment

3. Determining relative importance of the requirements.

2. Determining customer requirements.

1. Identifying the customer(s).

The QFD technique uses six steps to do this translation:

Sometimes is not only not clear what the customer

1.3 Quality Function Deployment

The determination of customer requirements should

In order to facilitate understanding, requirements may be grouped in types like