Evaluation_Selection

Evaluation_Selection - weight strain stable cost compact...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: weight strain stable cost compact peace durable Support Weight--- Keep strain off 1--- Keep stable 1 1--- 0.5 1 Cost 1 1 0.5--- 1 1 Compact ible 1 1--- peace of mind 1 1 1 1 1--- 1 durabilit y 1 1 1--- SUM 5 5 2.5 1.5 4 2 Weights 26 22 12 7 20 3 10 weight strain stable cost compacti ble peace of mind durable SUM Design 1 8 8 9 3 6 9 6 49 Design 2 4 7 3 7 8 5 3 37 Design 3 7 7 5 6 5 7 8 45 WEIGHT ED Weighted SUM Design 1 20.8 17.6 10.8 2.1 12 2.7 6 72 Design 2 10.4 15.4 3.6 4.9 16 1.5 3 54.8 Design 3 18.2 15.4 6 4.2 10 2.1 8 63.9 With three conceptual designs to choose from we needed a way to systematically pick the best one. We did this by creating a pairwise comparison chart, which let us rate each objective. We crossed all of our objectives (Weight, strain, stability, cost, compatibility, preserve `peace of mind, and durable) against each other in order to find out which ones we believed to be the most important. We would ask ourselves “Is keeping the user stable more important than cost?” If we believed this to be so then it would receive a “Is keeping the user stable more important than cost?...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/02/2011 for the course ENGE 1114 taught by Professor Twknott during the Spring '06 term at Virginia Tech.

Page1 / 2

Evaluation_Selection - weight strain stable cost compact...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online