CONCEPT SCREENING MATRIX
| Success Criteria | Reference | Design A-
Chris |
Design B-
Jay |
Design C-
Aaron |
Design D-
Nitisha |
Design E-
Group |
| Stability | 0 | + | – | + | – | + |
| Minimal Blockage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| Maintenance | 0 | – | – | + | – | – |
| Durability | 0 | + | – | 0 | – | + |
| Safety | 0 | 0 | + | – | – | 0 |
| Sum +’s | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Sum 0’s | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Sum -’s | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Net Score | 0 | 1 | -2 | 1 | -4 | 2 |
| Continue? | Reference | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
During concept screening, each team members AEV design was evaluated for its stability, minimal blockage, maintenance, durability and safety. The original design was kept as a reference. A plus sign meant that the design was more positive to that specific characteristic than neutral or negative. Zero’s meant that that design was neutral in comparison to the reference model. A negative sign meant that the design did not meet that characteristic. After all designs were scored, the three vehicles with the largest net score were chosen to continue on to concept scoring.
CONCEPT SCORING MATRIX
| Reference | Design A-
Chris |
Design B-
Aaron |
Design E-
Group |
||||||
| Success Criteria | Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score |
| Stability | 20% | 3 | 0.60 | 3 | 0.60 | 3 | 0.60 | 4 | 0.80 |
| Minimal Blockage | 15% | 2 | 0.30 | 2 | 0.30 | 4 | 0.60 | 3 | 0.45 |
| Maintenance | 15% | 1 | 0.15 | 2 | 0.30 | 3 | 0.45 | 2 | 0.30 |
| Durability | 25% | 3 | 0.75 | 4 | 1.00 | 3 | 0.75 | 5 | 1.25 |
| Safety | 25% | 2 | 0.50 | 2 | 0.50 | 3 | 0.75 | 4 | 1.00 |
| Total Weighted Score | 2.30 | 2.70 | 3.15 | 3.80 | |||||
| Continue? | No | No | Yes/Develop | Yes/Develop | |||||
Once the three AEV designs from concept screening were chosen, they then went through a concept scoring matrix. Each characteristic from concept screening was evaluated again, but on a percentage-based system this time. After each characteristic was converted into a decimal value (weighted score), the design’s weighted score would be added up. This time, the two designs with the highest weighted scores were chosen to be further continued for testing and developing. The designs chosen to be continued were Aaron’s design and the group design.
References: Carmen, AEV Resources Concept Screening & Scoring