The Pugh Method of Creative Concept Evaluation

1. The Pugh Method of Creative Concept Evaluation

3. Cost Impact of Decisions Committed Manufacturing Cost 85% CONCEPT PROTOTYPE PRODUCTION Design Cycle Phase

4. Influence on Product Cost (Car Example) PRODUCT COST INFLUENCE ON COST 5% 5% 20% 70% Overhead 30% 15% 50% 5% Labor Materials Design Reduce Design Cost

5. Comparison of Engineering ChangesUS and Japan Number of Engineering Changes Processed Job #1 US COMPANY JAPANESE COMPANY -24 -18 -12 - 6 0 6 Months

6. Problem Solving Process Data Collection, Analysis PROBLEM DEFINITION Brainstorming IDEA GENERATION Pugh Method IDEA EVALUATION IDEA JUDGMENT IMPLEMENTATION Related Task Goals, Objectives Customer/Needs Analysis List of Criteria CONCEPTUAL IDEAS Cost Analysis IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING OPTIMIZED SOLUTIONS Final Review Go/No Go Decision BEST SOLUTION Pilot Program/Prototype

7. What Is the Pugh Method? It is an iterative creative idea or concept evaluation technique that uses criteria derived from the “voice of the customer” in an advantage-disadvantage matrix. Each concept is evaluated against a datum using a three-way evaluation scheme. EVALUATION SCALE + means substantially better ― means clearly worse (or flawed) S means more or less the same

8. Building the Pugh Evaluation Matrix • Enter the numbered list of criteria in left-hand column. • Select a datum (best existing concept); enter next to criteria. • Number the new concepts, list sequentially across the top in subsequent columns. • Evaluate one concept at a time against the datum, for each criterion. • Add up all positives and negatives separately at the bottom. • Critically evaluate the results (horizontally and vertically). Concepts 1 2 3 4 D A T U M Criteria Total + Total −

9. Team Role in the Pugh Method • Discussions reveal arbitrary criteria. Team members gain insight into the problem and clearly understand the criteria which become better defined. • The discussion also leads to creative leaps between different concepts and idea synthesis, as flaws are attacked together and the team experiences synergy. • The resulting new concepts are better than the original ideas. No flaws are overlooked; late changes are eliminated, and invulnerable products are developed that will succeed in the marketplace. 4. The team develops consensus about the best solution.

10. Pugh Method Case Study (in Entrepreneurship Book)Kitchen Lighting Example Problem Briefing A large Pullman-type kitchen in a 1950s house is quite dark at night, worst at the sink and chopping board located in front of the window. The cherry paneled ceiling has an average height of almost 11 ft and is traversed by a 14 in. x 6 in. wood-laminate beam supporting a flat roof. All walls, countertops and metal wall cabinets are beige; the vinyl floor has a brownish brick pattern. Bottom cabinets are brick-red. Main lighting is with fluorescent tubes lying on top of the wall cabinets and with spotlights over the sink; all are ugly, look cheap, and are hard to clean. None of the lighting fixtures provide adequate lighting.

11. Problem Definition Statement Improve the general and task lighting in the kitchen while upgrading the lamp quality and matching or complementing the fixture style in the adjacent dining and living rooms, at reasonable cost and without remodeling the kitchen or covering the beauty of the paneled ceiling. Ref. Sink Cook Beam Dining

12. Table 4 Pugh Evaluation Round 2 New or Improved Lighting Concepts

13. Table 5 Pugh Matrix Round 2: Kitchen Lighting Concepts DATUM

14. Comments to Kitchen Lighting Example: Round 2 Concepts #9 and #10 are eliminated (#9 does not provide sufficient light to help solve the basic problem; #10 obstructs the daytime view of the nicely paneled ceiling). Concept #11 (which had no negatives) is carried forward unchanged. Concepts #7 and #8 are combined into new Concept #12. Since the customer was not familiar with the “wall washer” fixture, the supplier suggested she see one in use at the MTU bookstore (she especially liked the warm quality and brightness of the light).

15. Comments to Kitchen Lighting ExampleRound 3 • Concept #12 is shown to be superior (no negatives); it solves the original problem with added value (flexibility and lighting that exceed the customer’s expectations). • Round 3 confirmed the superiority of combining Concepts #7 and #8 (with further improvements). It overcame the two serious flaws of Concept #8. • Concept #11 (without negatives in Round 2) now rated very poorly against the high-quality datum of Round 3. Also, the “hot” halogen bulb is a safety concern. • Note how the list of criteria became more “demanding” in each round. • The total cost of $742 was acceptable to get such a functional as well as attractive system.

16. Kitchen Lighting Example: Conclusions • The Pugh method was crucial for clarifying criteria, generating options, and identifying the optimal solution (with input from the supplier and research by the customer). • The best solution did not emerge until Round 3. • The customer is very pleased with the new lighting, both initially and over time. None of the fixtures have required adjustment or bulb replacement (now in the second season). • The slight delay in start-up of the wall washers has not proved to be annoying, since the spots respond immediately when the switch is operated. On the contrary, the two-stage sequence increases appreciation for the bright, warm light supplied by the wall washers.

17. Pugh Method Matrix for Heat Transfer Syllabus (Partial List) KEY: S = Satisfactory + = Advantage ― = Disadvantage Dimensionless Parameters Energy Balance Convection Corr. Boundary Layers Heat Exchangers Fin. Diff. Methods Temp. Chart Use Product Solution