Product design specification

A product design specification (PDS) is a statement of what a not-yet-designed product is intended to do. Its
aim is to ensure that the subsequent design and development of a product meets the needs of the user. Product
design specification is one of the elements of product lifecycle management.
The PDS is a specification of what is required but not the specification of the product itself. Describing the actual
product is done in the technical specification, once the product has been designed. The difference is important
since describing the product itself at the stage of creating a PDS, effectively constrains the range of alternatives
that are considered during the design process.
The distinction can be seen as the difference between "What does the product do?" and "How will the product do
it?"

Points to cover in a PDS

This section gives detailed advice on writing a PDS under the 29 headings listed below. It is therefore a good idea
to write your PDS under these headings, leaving out only those that clearly do not apply.
1.Performance

11 Size

21 Shipping

2 Economy

12 Weight

22 Industry standards

3 Target production cost

13 Maintenance

23 Shelf life / storage life

4 Quantity

14 Materials

24 Testing

5 Manufacturing facilities

15 Special processes

25 Safety

6 Product life span

16 Ergonomics

26 Personnel

7 Customers

17 Appearance

27 Market constraints

8 Competition

18 Finish

28 Political and social factors

9 Service life

19 Quality and reliability

29 Design time

10 Environment

20 Packing

Concept Evaluation
In order to evaluate concepts effectively, some sort of criteria are needed against which concepts can be evaluated
in a semi-quantitative manner.
Concept evaluation is a form of analysis, but it rarely takes on the highly quantitative aspects in, say, stress
analysis. Again, the key is thinking operationally. For example, consider the first project in this course. You were
given a product and told to discover the problems with it, then address those problems.
Without knowing all the physical characteristics of the product (sizes, materials, weights, etc.), you probably found
it difficult to think through what the problems were.
A tool you can use is to consider the implications of simple physics with respect to the operation. Which way do
the forces act? Where (roughly) do they act, and in what direction? What are the consequences of forces being
exerted at those locations?
Given those forces, what effects would they have on the operation of the product? Inversely, given typical actions
that occur during operation, what kinds of forces act on the product?

Decision matrix
A very popular tool for evaluating concepts is a decision matrix.
The selection criteria are based on the main product characteristics of a problem. It is clear from the PDS that the PCs drive all other
requirements, so it makes sense to use those PCs as labels for groups of requirements.
The weights for each criterion describe quantitatively how important each criterion is with respect to the other criteria. If safety is of the greatest
importance, so it has the highest weight. Establishing the weights is a very important part of the decision matrix.
There are many different scales that can be used for assigning ratings, but very few rules for deciding which scale is best. Generally, one wants
as coarse a scale as possible (because, after all, the concepts are only vaguely defined), and as simple a scale as possible (designing is hard
enough without have acrane equations to solve just to calculate these ratings). A reasonable weighting scale is given below; this is the scale that
was used in the decision matrix. This scale is often used in the automotive industry.

A decision matrix for a construction ladder

Criteria Weight
Functionality
10%
Durability
10%
Quality
13%
Affordability
15%
Fabricability
5%
Usability
15%
Maintainability
1%
Safety
18%
Marketability
13%
Total Score
Rank
Continue?

A
Reference Ladder
Rating
Weighted Score
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
3
No

Concepts
DF
Swing Lock
Rating
Weighted Score
0
0
1
0.1
0
0
0
0
2
0.1
0
0
0
0
1
0.18
0
0
0.38
1
Yes

E
Multi-pose
Rating
Weighted Score
1
0.1
1
0.1
2
0.26
-1
-0.15
1
0.05
-1
-0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
2
No

A linear weighting system

Rating

Meaning

-2

Greatly inferior compared to the criterion

-1
0
1
2

Somewhat inferior
Satisfactory
Somewhat superior
Greatly Superior

Another commonly used scale is a five point scale in the range {0-4}. Sometimes, negative numbers are not preferred by engineers, based on
personal biases, so a fully positive scale is used. Ratings must be agreed upon by the design team as a whole, either by fiat or by democratic vote
or some other mechanism.
The ladder concepts are labeled using both a generic name (e.g. "A") and a descriptive phrase that uniquely identifies it with respect to other
concepts. The concept labeled "DF" arose from a combination of two older concepts that had been labeled "D" and "F." More on this notion of
combining concepts later.
Also note that concept A is marked as the reference concept; this is a concept used to denote the existing product on the market that the new
concept is supposed to improve upon. The reference concept might also be a product made by a competing firm, and that is to be outperformed
by your new product.
The weighted score is simply the product of the rating and the weight for a given concept and criterion.
The weighted scores are then summed, and the concept with the highest score is selected.

The decision matrix

A decision matrix for a construction ladder
Concepts
A
Reference Ladder

DF
Swing Lock

E
Multi-pose

Criteria

Weight

Rating

Weighted Score

Rating

Weighted Score

Rating

Weighted Score

Functionality

10%

0.1

Durability

10%

0.1

0.1

Quality

13%

0.26

Affordability

15%

-1

-0.15

Fabricability

5%

0.1

0.05

Usability

15%

-1

-0.15

Maintainability

1%

Safety

18%

0.18

Marketability

13%

Total Score

0.00

0.38

0.21

Rank

Continue?

No

Yes

No

Steps to Use/Construct Pugh matrix:

Choose or develop the criteria for comparison.

1.

Examine customer requirements to do this.

Generate a set of engineering requirements and targets.

Select the Alternatives to be compared.

2.

The alternatives are the different ideas developed during concept generation.All concepts should be compared at the same level of
generalization and in similar language.
Generate Scores.

3.

Usually designers will have a favorite design, by the time it comes to pick one. This concept can be used as datum, with all the other being
compared to it as measured by each of the customer requirements. If the problem is to redesign an existing product, then the existing product can
be used as the datum.
For each comparison the product should be evaluated as being better (+), the same (S), or worse (-).
Alternatively, if the matrix is developed with a spreadsheet like Excel, use +1, 0, and 1 for the ratings.
If it is impossible to make a comparison, more information should be developed.
Compute the total score

4.

Four scores will be generated, the number of plus scores, minus scores, the overall toal and the weighted
total.

The overall total is the number of plus scores- the number of minus scores.

The weighted total is the scores times their respective weighting factors, added up.

The totals should not be treated as absolute in the decision making process but as guidance only.

If the two top scores are very close or very similiar, then they should be examined more closely to make a
more informed decision.

Variations on scoring

5.

A number of variations on scoring Pughs method exist. For example a seven level scale could be used for a finer scoring system where:

+3 meets criterion extremely better than datum

+2 meets criterion much better than datum

+1 meets criterion better than datum

0 meets criterion as well as datum

-1 meets criterion not as well as datum

-2 meets criterion much worse then the datum

-3 meets criterion far worse than the datum

http://www.enge.vt.edu/terpenny/Smart/Virtual_econ/Module2/pugh_method.htm

Applying The
Decision Making Model In Five Steps

1. State The Problem - The first and arguably the most important step in the decision making model in five steps is to identifying
the problem. Until you have a clear understanding of the problem or decision to be made, it is meaningless to proceed. If the
problem is stated incorrectly or unclearly then your decisions will be wrong.

2. Identify Alternatives - Sometimes your only alternatives are to do it or don't do it. Most of the time you will have several feasible
alternatives. It is worth doing research to ensure you have as many good alternatives as possible.

3. Evaluate The Alternatives - This is where the analysis begins. You must have some logical approach to rank the alternatives.
Two such logical approaches are discussed at Example Of A Decision Matrix and at Sample SWOT Analysis. It is important to
realize that these analysis methods are only one of the five steps in the decision making model.

4. Make A Decision - You have evaluated your alternatives. Two or more of your high ranked alternatives may be very close in the
evaluations. You should eliminate all of the alternatives that were low ranked. Now it is time to go back and examine the inputs you
made to evaluation criteria for the close high ranked alternatives. Do you still feel comfortable with the inputs you made? When you
have made any changes it is time for some subjection. You have eliminated the alternatives that do not make logical sense. Now it
is time to let your subconscious work. Review all the details of the remaining high ranked close alternatives, so they are completely
clear in your mind. Completely leave the project alone for a few days. When you return to the project, the decision will likely be very
clear in your head. This only works if you have done your homework!

5. Implement Your Decision - A decision has no value unless you implement it. If you are not good with implementation, then find
someone that is. Part of the implementation phase is the follow up. The follow up ensures that the implementation sticks.

http://www.business-analysis-made-easy.com/Decision-Making-Model-In-Five-Steps.html

Concepts

Selection
Criteria

DF

G+

Weig
hts

Sc
or

Sc
or

Sc
or

Sc
or

Handling
ease

0.1
5

0.1
5

0.2

0.2

5%

Ease of
use

0.4
5

0.6

0.6

0.4
5

15%

Readibility
of settings

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.5

10%

Metering
accuracy

0.7
5

0.7
5

0.5

0.7
5

25%

Durability

0.3

0.7
5

0.6

0.4
5

15%

Ease of
Manufactu
re

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

20%

Portability

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

10%

Total
Score

2.75

3.45

3.10

3.05

Rank