PUGH CHART
Objective:
-
To compare different design concepts against a common set of criteria
Method:
-
Create a table, list each option along the top and (preferably ranked) criteria along the left side.
-
Choose an option to be the reference design.
-
For each other option, evaluate it against each criterion ( + for better and - for less good/worse)
-
Analyze the data and decide what do do with each option and consider the next steps:
-
Eliminate designs with significantly lower scores on important criteria
-
Combine -> upgrade/add design
-
Change focus to criteria that are assessed vastly different
-
Decompose relatively general criteria that contain sub-criteria
-
Find rationale behind why I decided a criterion to be insignificant and re-evaluate
-
Key tips:
-
Do not simply add up the numbers! This chart serves as a reference when you decide, and should only help you clean things up, not deciding them.
Flexibilities:
-
As in my example, you can score not only +/-, but also any suitable scale.
-
Also, you can add comments in the grids for future reference.
-
When choosing options over functional objectives (i.e. material), you can rank the criteria first with a pairwise comparison matrix, and multiply raw score in each grid (1/-1) by the weight corresponding to the criterion. In this case, scores can be added up for the final decision because functional details like materials don't have as much flexibility. See following example:
PAIRWISE COMPARISON
Objective:
-
To rank the relative importance/preference of objectives/design concepts/alternatives.
Method:
-
Create a square matrix with objectives on the first row and first column.
-
Cross out diagonal entries in the matrix.
-
If one objective is more preferred than the other, score 1; otherwise, score 0.
-
Tabulate all the score horizontally and rank them in descending order - most critical to least.
Flexibilities:
-
As seen in this example picture, instead of 1 and 0, a scale from 1-3 of how critical it is used. The scoring scale is up to you to decide.
-
This activity does not require that each team member be highly knowledgeable about each asset. As long as there is at least one person who can explain satisfactorily to the rest of the group why the loss of one of two assets would have the greater or equal negative impact on the business, the group can reach a consensus about the asset pair.