What is concept screening and scoring?
Concept screening and scoring matrices are used to narrow down different designs that are created in the preliminary process. In concept screening, the process is more general. The different designs are compared to a reference vehicle and if the criteria was better, it received a plus (or a +1), if it was equal, an equal sign (or a 0) was given, and it was worse, the design got a minus (-1). The two designs with the highest score based on criteria move to the next step, the scoring matrix. This matrix is more descriptive because instead of comparing with plus signs and minus signs, a score out of 5 is given for each set of criteria. Each criteria point is weighted based on how important it is in the final product. In the end, the scores are counted up and the design with the highest score is declared the winner!
The criteria for these designs are as followed:
Stability: How balanced and firmed fixed the overall vehicle is
Minimal Blockage: The parts and designs don’t get inhibit the vehicle’s motion
Maintenance: How easy will it be for team members to fix the vehicle (for example if a wire becomes unplugged)
Durability: How much the vehicle will be able to withstand pressure, damage, or wear
Safety: How much the riders of the vehicle will be able to be protected with the vehicle
The Concept Screening and Scoring Guides for Division J’s members can be found below:
The individual designs along with detailed descriptions can be found here.
Each design contained different pros and cons:
Liam’s design was cubic and blocky, providing more stability and durability. The letters also kept all the wires and arduino code on the inside, greatly reducing a source of danger and the chance that wires may get caught in the track. The design is also open on one face to allow for maintenance. A negative to the design was the complexity of the letters and the chance of blockage.
Stephanie’s, much like Liam’s, was also very blocky adding stability and durability because of the width and cube like shape of the casing. Most of the technical aspect will be hidden inside the casing of the AEV, which makes maintenance very compact and accessible while taking any dangers of straw wires and loose materials falling off of the track.
Next, Zahra’s design was very cube like and blocky, but wider than the other designs to maintain space for the cargo. The design therefore is very durable and stable, yet there are issues with blockage on the track. However, the added space makes maintenance much more accessible, while being safe. Zahra had their design be selected to move on to the next round of scoring.
Lastly, Dan’s design was more unique in his shape. As his design was more thinner and narrower, the design would be stabilized by the wings. Much like the other designs, Dan designed his so that the arduino and battery can be accessed from the top, to make maintenance and safety easier. The aerodynamic and unique design of Dan’s AEV was what allowed his design to be chosen to move on to the next round of scoring. In this round, the designs of Zahra and Dan were scored mathematically.
Conclusion:
Dan’s design had a higher percentage due to to the issue of blockage in Zahra’s Wall-E design. In their design, they placed goggles to somewhat went around the wheels of the AEV which may pose an issue if the track becomes uneven. Both designs had a strong durability and stability plus easy maintenance, but in the end, blockage is a factor that is equally as important to the team.