Introduction

One danger of concept generation process is the

bias of preconceived solutions
Another danger of concept generation is the
creation of ideas within in the vacuum of the
design teams experience
Decomposition or breaking down a problem in to
smaller parts is one of the principle to overcome
these dangers
Another useful principle is to use our engineering
and applied science knowledge to help direct the
research for alternative solution
11/9/16

Methods of concept generation

Information gathering and brainstorming
techniques
These methods focus on the combination of obtaining
knowledge of possible technologies with the
generation of ideas from the minds of the designers.
This is undirected and free-wheeling

Biasing methods
These methods add bias to the search of the
solutions by using physical insights and documented
design principles

11/9/16

Concept generation process

11/9/16

Information gathering methods

This activity entails

the dynamic search
for the data that
will contribute to
the technological,
physical principles
or industrial design
of a product.

11/9/16

Information sources

11/9/16

Techniques for Idea Generation

To help make search for ideas more efficient
Brainstorming
Memory map
Brain-ball
C-sketch / 6-3-5
Synectics
Trigger Word Technique
Checklist Technique
Morphological Technique
11/9/16

Concurrent Engineering

BITS Pilani

Brainstorming
A group ideation technique (Osborn, advertising)
Group:
Leader plus 5-15 members from diverse fields.
Made up of equals
Leader: first outlines the problem, invites ideas from
members. (S)he never leads in the expression of ideas.
(S)he sees that the rules are observed and a free and
easy atmosphere prevails
Procedure: The ideas are displayed, listed and passed
on to members for further suggestions, if any. Then they
are submitted for evaluation to another group of experts.
The whole session up to 45 minutes
11/9/16

Concurrent Engineering

BITS Pilani

Brainstorming
Rules to be observed during the session:
Members must shed their inhibitions: avoid rejecting
ideas as absurd, stupid, embarrassing or false
Members must not criticize ideas generated (killer
phrases forbidden)
Members encouraged to freely change, develop further
or combine other ideas
All ideas to be recorded and displayed, and practicality
of ideas is ignored
The wilder the idea, the better it is (easier to tone down
wilder ideas than to improve mediocre ideas)

11/9/16

Concurrent Engineering

BITS Pilani

Brainstorming
Team members will piggyback and leapfrog
each other
Piggybacking creates building block ideas to the
words, body language, statements and concepts
stated by team members
Leapfrogging results in divergent or discontinuous
jumps in responses

Disadvantages
The right idea may not come at right time
The group conventions may sidetrack or inhibits
original ideas
Certain member may dominate the discussion
11/9/16

Brainstorming: Case Study

To separate unripe (green) tomatoes from ripe tomatoes quickly &
automatically

We separate them by colour. A colour meter ought to be practical

Emissivity or reflectivity green one ought to have a higher
reflectivity
Sound
can you hear a tomato?
Hardness. We squeeze them easy or poke them Can a tomato hear?
Electrical conductivity
Saltwater
Electrical resistance
Odour, smell
Magnetism!
Heat infrared radiation
Size. Wont the green ones be smaller?
Thermal conductivity
Weight. The ripe ones will be heavier
Specific heat
Size and weight together ought to correlate
Ability of a juggler to juggle them
Size and weight is density
Specific volume They must be mostly water
and have the specific volume of water
Do they float or sink?
May be thats it separate them by density
by whether they float or sink in water
Would not have to be water could be anything
Non toxic
X-Ray size of seeds, or something like that

11/9/16

Concurrent Engineering

Just let a woman look at them push a

button

Statistically check only every other one

Just shake the hopper ripe ones will rise

or fall

Blow air through as you shake

Use random numbers let 3s and 7s be

ripe
BITS Pilani

10

Memory (Mind) maps

One of the effective way to record the results of
brainstorming session as it is happens is by memory mind
mapping
The facilitator starts with a clean sheet of paper, writes the
problem statement in the middle of the paper as two words
and draws a box around it
Then the ideas generated to solve the problem is then
recorded quickly, with circle around it
Each new idea to solve problem is connected to the
original problem statement
The memory map servers as an effective visual
documentation of the brainstorming session
11/9/16

11

Memory map procedure

Conduct either a free-for all or an orderly (around the room)
process for the idea suggestions, directed by the facilitator
Record all this ideas as they stated, but none are judged at this
point (even as to practically)
Detail suggestions far enough for emergence of the specific
solution idea
Wrap session in about 35-45 min
After the session is completed, judge the results with experts on
the same group. Each person spends one share to vote for the
concept each person has ten shares with which they can vote

11/9/16

12

Memory map of detecting a golf ball

11/9/16

13

Brain-Ball
Oral and verbal methods in brainstorming are wonderful tools to
generate concepts
They have heavy reliance on the energy supplied by the
facilitator
One approach to create a self energetic system and minimize
the negatives is to structure the activity, both physical
environment and role of participants
Brain ball is one form of the brainstorming that meets the goal
In brain-ball the participants form the standing circle where
everyone in the circle may see each other
The process begins with introducing the hypothetical ball that is
passed from individual to another assuring that all the
participants are included in the pass at some point
11/9/16

14

Brain-Ball (contd.)
In the first round of the game, no speaking is allowed. The intent is simply to
form clear communication of passing the ball
In the next round the ball is reintroduced again by the facilitator and the
throwers add sound
After a few minutes of passing the ball and sound, the facilitator introduces the
second ball an to unoccupied member in the circle. Participants have to give
the attention to one of the ball
Facilitator may then add third ball, and the process continues until the team
experiences the full activity of responding spontaneously to multiple balls and
sounds
The facilitator then add the concept to the group and throws the ball with
response or solution to the concept
Multiple ball with piggyback and leapfrog responses are then simultaneously
passed until the brainstorming reaches a repetitive stage
The idea is to create an environment where the concept flow between
participants
11/9/16

15

C-Sketch/6-3-5 method
The drawbacks of the traditional brainstorming may classified
according to two primary factors: idea generation may dominated
by a small no of team members or by zealous facilitator, and
brainstorming always relies on an oral means of communication
Alternative methods to address these deficiencies are known as
c-sketch and 6-3-5 methods also known as brain writing
C-sketch focus on the sketches as the media for creating the
concept. The 6-3-5 method recommends sketch with the limited
use of the key words and short descriptions
The team members are arranged around the table usually the
round to provide the continuity
Ideally the group of 6 generally may range from 3-8 members is
formed and each one writes for the 3ideas for the product
function, architecture or overall configuration under consideration
11/9/16

16

C-Sketch/6-3-5 method
After developing solution principles for each product
function, the procedure is repeated to aggregate the
principle into the integrated concept variants
Passing of the papers through one cycle is known as a
round The method encourage the 5rounds to refine and
combine ideas
There should be no verbal communication until the round is
completed. By that no one member will dominate the
discussion
The focus should be on the advancement of the ideas not
the criticism
11/9/16

17

6-3-5 method
Arrange the team members around a table
Each member writes three(3) ideas for the primary product functions, usually five
or less. The ideas are expressed in clearly distinguished areas of the paper,
usually on oversized white media such as butcher appear
After T minutes of work on concepts, members pass their ideas to the person on
their right
For the next T minutes, team member modifies the ideas on the paper, with the
option of adding an entirely new concept, not contend on their original idea sheet
Passing of the ideas sheets continues until a members original sheet returns and
the round ends. With sufficient time intervals between round the five round are
repeated
After generating ideas for each of the primary product functions the entire process
is repeated to develop alternative layouts and combined concept variants that
utilize a summary of the solution principles generated for the each function
Post process, ideas are accumulated and summarized
11/9/16

18

6-3-5 method application

11/9/16

19

Morphological Analysis
A systematic method for assembly of the
overall alternatives and continued idea
creation is known as morphological
analysis or morphological charting
Morphological analysis is tool that
provides a structured search and
combination of concepts in product design

11/9/16

20

Morphological Analysis
The process of executing this analysis is as follows:

Consider each product function in the functional model and each module
of the architecture
List the function or module as rows of the matrix
In the first column of the matrix, enter the current solution to the function
or module, if the product exists
Apply concept generation methods and record the concepts in the
columns of the matrix for each function
Map the range the solutions per each function to a classification scheme,
such as energy domains. Judge if the solutions are too focused or cover
a good breadth. If the solutions are too focused, carry out further
sessions of the intuitive and directed concept generation
When good breadth of ideas and technologies are realized in the
morphological matrix, combine the ideas into diverse concept variants
that seek to satisfy the entire product specification
11/9/16

21

Morphological Chart
Problem: Design a manual propulsion system for a small boat

Alternative ideas

Design
parameters
Input
motion

rotating

oscillating

reciprocating

Input
source

one
hand

Both
hands

One foot

Both feet Hand &foot

Input
device

Hand
crank

pedals

lever

treadmill

Output
device

fin

screw

propeller

Paddle
wheel

jet

Mechanism gears

Belt
pulley

Chain &
sprocket

linkage

pump

Operator
position

standing

reclining

kneeling

11/9/16

sitting

Concurrent Engineering

BITS Pilani

22

Concept
Evaluation
11/9/16

23

Estimating Technical Feasibility

Any person can cultivate a good estimating ability
Estimating skill of an engineer is dependent on
familiarity with dimensional units and familiarity with
the different values along the dimensions
Many do have the problems in estimating and the
estimates can vary by orders of magnitude
One reason for this disparity is the difference between
perceived and derived dimensional units
Lengths are directly perceived i.e. we can see the difference
between 1cm and 1 m. but energy are not easily perceived
The point is when one can not directly perceive a unit, one
should directly perceive a concept that exhibits the unit of
interest
11/9/16

24

Estimation
There are basic steps to estimating: imagine, model, compare and
judge
The first step is to imagine the concept to estimate. Imagine the
points along the energy, material and information flows through the
concept where one might measure the input output change or the
capacity change in concept
The second step is to construct a very simple model that relates
the capacity or flow through a concept to known quantities
Third step in estimating is to use the concept and the model to
provide a comparison with known quantity. Fill in the model with
imagined values on the model variables and calculate a
comparison value in the dimension of the known quality
The last step is to judge whether the estimated quantity compares
with a known quantity
When estimating on preliminary concept, it is noted that estimate is
generally accurate only to certain order of magnitude
11/9/16

25

Estimation
Estimating Hints:

There are two fundamental aspects to estimating, model

building and known quantities
One key dimension to be adept at modeling is the power flow through any
mechanical system
Power is the good dimensional unit to be intimately familiar with and adept at
modeling
The other factor of good estimating is to have known quantities at ready recall
The estimation process should be used to eliminate concepts that are not
technically feasible
Power, size and cost values for the different concepts are estimated and out of
bounds of feasibility are eliminated
Generally this process will retain concepts that the order of magnitude
estimation can not be resolved and requires the well structured design decision
making process to resolve it into a winning preliminary concept to expand
further resources on
11/9/16

26

Concept Selection Process

The selection process is a five step process and
iterations:

11/9/16

Forming consensus on the criteria

Forming consensus on the alternative
Ranking alternatives
Evaluating alternative
Attacking the negatives

27

1. Forming consensus on the criteria

The first step is to establish evaluation criteria on which the concept
selection will be based
To establish criteria definitions design team should start with one
member articulating the proposed list of evaluation criteria developed
from customer needs and engineering specification
As this list is formed, other team members should chime in with more
criteria, until a set of criteria on board that everyone agrees could be
legitimate criteria

common definition

The team must determine what the scope of the criteria does and does
not include this may lead to addition of new criteria or discarding some
This process can help with the problem of failure to consider all
ramifications of decisions
Once the criteria and their definitions should be posted in large, easily
readable characters on a side wall during the decision making process
for the quick reference to the team members
11/9/16

28

2. Forming consensus on the alternative

Once the evaluation criteria are initially established,
different alternative need to be understood on a common
basis
First the team members voice the alternatives that are
given labels, and these alternatives should be those that
proceed from concept generation
These alternatives needs to be refined to a level where
every team member will understand it
Next each alternative is given a commonly understood
definition and articulation of what will be needed to the
engineer the concept into final product
11/9/16

29

3. Ranking Alternatives
The next step is to rank each clearly defined alternative
on each clearly defined criterion
There are different ranking schemes that can be used,
depending upon the quality of the information available
The ranking is completed using the decision matrix
To rank the alternatives a scale is used such as (-,s,+)
where a(-) is worse than (s) is worse that (+)

11/9/16

30

4. Assessment
Once the ranking are completed for each criterion, the
evaluations should be collected into the over all summary
rankings on each alternatives
The basic reason for creating summaries is that humans
cannot process all rankings simultaneously when
comparing two alternatives
The criteria ranking needs to be aggregated into one or
more ranks for simpler ordering of alternatives into a best
to worst ranking that can be understood
Then an ordering of all the alternatives form overall worst
to the overall best is completed

11/9/16

31

5. Attacking the negatives

The alternatives that rate poorly should be taken off chart
and that rate favorably must be closely examined
In particular, the alternatives that rate high overall but have
a few low scores should be closely scrutinized. This is
called attacking the negatives
For the alternatives such as negative ranked criteria,
design team should
Clearly state the what is causing the negative effect
Apply the theory of innovative problem solving
Require out of box thinking
Attacking negatives is very effective at the earlier period of
product concept selection phase

11/9/16

32

The Datum Method (Pugh)

11/9/16

Concurrent Engineering

BITS Pilani

33

Pugh concept selection charts

The above discussed process can be applied with decision
making tools as developed by Pugh
These tools known as Pugh charts, use minimal evaluation
scale and three overall ranking matrices
Pugh charts are the most effective known tools for
preliminary concept selection when there is minimal
information quality available
They are also effective as the information quality increases
and the selection scale is refined
The goal of any selection process is to obtain as much
information and concept details as cycle time and
resources permit

11/9/16

34

Pugh concept
Establish the criteria and alternative
The alternatives and criteria are established in the
same way and displayed on the main wall labeled
Pugh selection chart

11/9/16

35

Pugh concept
Select Datum
Next step is to establish the evaluation scale
Use a minimal scale of only(-,s,+) for evaluating preliminary
concept
An effective process is to construct a simple evaluation scale
The team should select one alternative that will be ranked as
(s) (or 0) on every criterion and be called datum
The datum is the alternative to which every other concept will
be compared
To select datum team choose several approaches
This choice accomplishes two things
the degree of disagreement is understood
the team has chosen so this alternative may go to next round of
comparisons after attacking the negatives
11/9/16

36

Pugh concept
Ranking and Assessment
Having selected a datum all the alternatives are
evaluated on each criterion, one criterion at a time
relative to the datum
If team agrees that this alternative performs less that
datum then it is assigned (-) rank. and so on for (+,S)
If there is lengthy debate in team, between datum and
alternative then team should strive to restate the
alternative in question as two conditional alternative
When a condition is not readily apparent, then the design
team should simple rate the alternative with (s) or a (?)
and in overall rating analysis treat as (s)
11/9/16

37

Pugh concept
Alternative rank Ordering
with the alternative rated on every criterion, the rating should be combined
into overall scores that can be used to order the alternatives from best to
worst
To do this simple average summation of the ranks is not adequate
To deal this discrepancy one should use three over all scores to compare the
alternatives
On each alternative, i one can determine the average overall summation
score
Si = Rij
in addition two more over all scores should be calculated. where each adds
up all the (-) scores and all the (+) score, respectively
Pi = Rij+ & Ni = Rij Where Rij+ a (+)score assigned to the alternative i , and R ij- is a(-) score
assigned to the alternative i
These three overall score should be considered when progressing to the next
round of attacking negatives and reevaluation
11/9/16

38

Pugh concept
Attacking the Negatives
Having assessed the alternatives on the criteria, the
lower average-rated alternatives should be discarded
from further consideration and relegated to side wall
Then the highly average rated alternatives with (-)
scores, as reflected by high Ni and Pi scores, should be
scrutinized
The specific concept-generation activity will lead to new
alternatives and thus the need for another round of
ranking and evaluation

11/9/16

39

Pugh concept
Iteration and solution
this process of evaluation, refinement and attacking the
negative should be repeated until the team converges:
The team converges to consensus on a winning
alternative
The team comes to understand a refined choice.
Here team could not make a final decision because specific
information is not available

The team comes to understand that they do not

understand the criteria
The team could not reduce the choice to unclear alternatives
that need refinement because they don't agree on criteria

11/9/16

40

Other methods
There are many other methods other than Pugh chart for
the decision making
One needs to understand these different methods is to
examine the information quality used in the scores
applied to each alternative
This alternatives can be simply ordered or extensively
ordered or comparatively ordered

11/9/16

41

The better/worse method

One evaluation procedure commonly used is the
better/worse method
First we select an arbitrary alternative from x to
from the beginning of list{x0} indexed by j
For other alternative we start at the bottom of the
list and move up through the list asking
Is design xi as good as or better than design xj in
Once xi is no longer better than xj ,then insert xi into
the list at that point. The set of possible ranks for any
evaluation is
S={better,same,worse}
The alternative at the head of the list is better than the rest for
the criteria and is therefore recommended
11/9/16

42

A Critique Of Design Evaluation Schemes

There are many possible concept selection approaches.
A good criterion to judge these method is by the level of
information quality available at the time of decision
At the conceptual design phase information quality may
be low but as the process progresses the quality of
information will become better
There are many decision making process such as AHP,
goal programming, utility theory, probability methods and
fuzzy sets all have various advocates for various design
decision making problems

11/9/16

43

Thank you

11/9/16

44