PDLM of Coconut Climber

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies A

Project Report

On

COCONUT TREE CLIMBER Submitted in partial fulfillment of PLM Course

Under the guidance of

Prof. Dr. C. D. Naiju

Submitted By

Yalamoori Nitin - 13MMF0028

Revanth Kumar J - 13MMF0046

Ajinkya Sawant - 13MMF0021

G.P.Anurag - 13MMF0011

Himanshu Dusane - 13MMF0002

Manu Antony - 13MMF0037

Hareesh Sonavane - 13MAE0023

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies

NAME OF COMPANY


LOGO

TEAM MEMBERS C.E.O : Yalamoori N Nitin

MANAGER : Ajinkya Sawant

PRODUCTION HEAD : Revanth kumar

DESIGN HEAD : Himanshu Dusane

MARKETING HEAD : G.P.Aurag

QUALITY AND SAFETY : Hareesh Sonavne

FINANCE : Manu Antony

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................4

1.1 AIM ...................................................................................................................................4

1.2 OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................................................4

2. LITERATURE SURVEY ....................................................................................................5

2.1 MORPHOLOGY OF COCONUT TREE ...........................................................................5

2.2 MANUAL METHODS ......................................................................................................5

2.3 CRITICAL DISCUSSION ON HARVESTING METHODS .............................................6

3. PRODUCT SURVEY ..........................................................................................................8

3.1 SURVEY FORM ...............................................................................................................8

3.2 SURVEY RESPONSE.......................................................................................................9

4. CUSTOMER NEED, METRIC & IMPORTANCE ............................................................ 13

4.1 NEEDS ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.2 METRICS ....................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 NEEDS OF CUSTOMER AND THEIR IMPORTANCE ............................................ 14

4.4 METRIC UNITS FOR ABOVE MENTIONED NEEDS.................................................. 15

5. CONCEPT GENERATION ............................................................................................... 16

5.1 PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS........................................................................................ 16

6. CONCEPT SELECTION ................................................................................................... 18

6.1 CONCEPT SCREENING ................................................................................................ 19

6.1.1 PREPARE THE SELECTION MATRIX .................................................................. 19

6.1.2 RATE THE CONCEPTS ........................................................................................... 20

6.1.3 RANK THE CONCEPTS .......................................................................................... 20

6.1.4 SELECT ONE OR MORE CONCEPTS .................................................................... 21

6.2 CONCEPT SCORING ..................................................................................................... 23

6.2.1 RATE THE CONCEPTS ........................................................................................... 23

6.2.2 RANK THE CONCEPTS .......................................................................................... 24

6.2.3 SELECT ONE OR MORE CONCEPTS .................................................................... 24

7. OBJECT CLIMBER DESIGN ........................................................................................... 26

8. FUTURE SCOPE .............................................................................................................. 26

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies 1. INTRODUCTION

Coconut tree is one of the most useful plants in the world. It is grown in more than100

countries of the world. Indonesia stands first; Philippines stand second largest coconut producing country in the world and India is the third largest coconut producing country having an area of about 1.78 million hectares. Annual production is about7562 million coconuts with an average of 5295 nuts per hectare.

South East Asia is regarded as the origin of the coconut. It is mainly cultivated in Philippines, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Samoa, Solomon Islands and many more. The major coconut growing states in India are Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Assam, Goa, Diu and Daman, Lakshadweep and Gujarat. Kerala tops in production accounting 39 percent of total production in the country.

Although we continue to adapt different agricultural practices, climbing coconut trees is still manual. But, many difficulties exist because of physical structure of coconut trees. A professional climber with proper training could face these difficulties, as coconut trees do not have branches to hold while climbing. With increasing awareness in education among Indian youths, only few come forward for this profession. Hence, a coconut tree climbing system is required to substitute this manual climbing for farmers who carry out coconut plantation in large level.

Our project aims to design and develop a machine to climb coconut trees accounting many factors such as stability, safety of the worker, safety of the tree and to many more. Moreover, our system is easy to transport between farms and also suitable for different tree surfaces without losing control.

The different phases of our project include finding the need for design, conducting a survey, constructing need metric matrix, concept generation, concept screening and scoring. Finally a prototype is developed. 1.1 AIM To design a coconut tree climbing machine that suits Indian coconut trees. 1.2 OBJECTIVE A tree climbing machine is a potential solution to the existing problem of man power shortage. It is necessary to develop a vertical traction model which will not damage the tree and has suitable performance both mechanically and economically. The detailed objectives are

To identify and compare the different harvesting and climbing methods and select the most appropriate system.

To develop the concept of a tree climbing machine. To determine the feasibility of the tree climbing system considering the interaction

between the machine and the tree. To assess the economic feasibility of the design under Indian condition.

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies 2. LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1 MORPHOLOGY OF COCONUT TREE The coconut belongs to the family of palms, Palm included under the lower group of flowering plants known as the monocotyledons.

2.2 MANUAL METHODS It’s very hard to learn the necessary skills to climb coconut trees. The few first times, peoples

barely managed to get a few feet off the ground. In addition to fear, the soft skin on the palms of hands and soles of feet made climbing difficult. During the initial climbing the skin of palm, chest and foot skin may be disturbed. This is what happens when people slide down hugging a coconut tree as hard as they can. There are two basic techniques and they are easy to learn. After that the user just need to practice and to forget about soft skin. It will probably get cut a bit the first time on the tree, but after continuous practice it will be fine. All techniques should be done barefoot and barehanded. A long sleeve T-shirt might save the user’s skin from abrasion against the tree especially when the people are learning. Front foot technique is shown below.

The first method is the front-foot technique. It is similar to rock climbing. The rock climber stuff their hands inside cracks, pull on them and push on the legs in opposition and walk up the rock. This front foot

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies technique to climb coconut tree is very similar. The climbing person has to put his hands close to each other on the back of the trunk, and pull one foot in front of the other one in front of the climbing person on the tree. By keeping pressure on the trunk with the balls of the climbing person’s feet and toes, walk up alternating moving feet and hands. Technically it seems to be the easiest to learn but requires good balance and arm strength. Fig 2.3 shows the ill effect of front foot technique.

A - Feet of a coconut tree climber (> 20 years of experience), showing callosities (arrows) in the ankle region. B - Right foot of a coconut tree climber with amputated medial toes (arrow), C - Occupational mark (arrows) in palmar aspect of hands in a coconut tree climber. D - Occupational mark (arrows) the forearm skin in a coconut tree climber.

2.3 CRITICAL DISCUSSION ON HARVESTING METHODS There are many difficulties with the harvesting methods. They are

It is a dangerous job: Climbing a height of 24 meters and working at this height is very difficult and while certain workers can do it, they would rather do safer and easier jobs.

It is a slow operation: using coconut tree climber operator can work faster and reduce harvesting times and other methods mentioned in section 2.2.

It is an expensive operation: Using coconut tree climber can decrease harvesting costs. There is the shortage of workers to do the cultural operations. Most of the workers do not like climbing tall trees because it is dangerous and so coconut are not

harvested from these trees. The tree trunk is rough and the leaves have very sharp spines which can injure the worker. Snakes go into the tree crown to eat bird's eggs and chicks. They can bite the workers climbing

the tree. Workers have fallen from trees as a result.

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies However machines which have been designed so far are not suitable for the coconut groves in India and many other countries for the following reasons:

Operator safety is not resolved because they must still work at a considerable height. Tree spacing is not standardized, so the machine may not achieve the required turning circle. In many places the spacing between trees is used to cultivate other crops, so themachine cannot

move and work. There are many irrigation channels and borders which machines cannot pass over easily. Mechanized harvesters are expensive.

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies 3. PRODUCT SURVEY

A survey was conducted to know the feasibility of the product in the market. Before designing our product following survey forms were prepared and were distributed to 30 landlords nearby Vellore.

3.1 SURVEY FORM Age: Gender:

1) How many coconut trees do you have in your land? 1) <100 2) 100-500 3) 500-1000 4) >1000

2) If you were to buy a coconut tree climbing machine, which of the following would you prefer?

Manually operated machine Electrically operated machine

3) Which device you would you prefer for climbing?

A) Standing type climber B) Sitting type climber C) Automated climber (No need of human effort to climb)

4) How many coconut trees can a person climb in one day? 1) 10-20 2) 20-30 3) 30-40 4) 40-50

5) How much time does he take to climb a coconut tree? 1) <1 min 2) 1-2 min 3) 2-5 min 4) >5 min

6) What is the amount of money you pay for a person to climb a tree? 1) Rs. 20-30 2) Rs. 30-50 3) Rs. 50- 80 4) >Rs. 80

7) Which of the following would you prefer?

(1) One time investment on a coconut tree climber for years to come. Which can also be operated by women? (2) Paying for labour in daily basis.

(1) (2)

8) How much money are you willing to spend on the climber? 1) 10-20k 2) 20-30k 3) 30-40k 4) 40-50k

9) Which of the following reasons would discourage you from buying a coconut tree climber?

A) Cost of the equipment B) Fear of new technology C) Safety issues D) You doubt the Reliability of the equipment

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies 3.2 SURVEY RESPONSE 1. How many coconut trees do you have in your land?

2) <100 5) 100-500 6) 500-1000 7) >1000

2. If you were to buy a coconut tree climbing machine, which of the following would you prefer?

Manually operated machine Electrically operated machine

3. Which device you would you prefer for climbing?

A) Standing type climber B) Sitting type climber C) Automated climber (No need of human effort to climb)

Number of Trees owned by Survey Participants

<100 Trees

100-500 Trees

500-1000 Trees

1000 Trees

0204060

Number of Trees owned by Survey Participants

Manually / Electrical Motor operated machine

manuallyoperated

electricallyoperated 0

51015202530

ManuallyOperatedMachine

ElectricallyOperatedMachine

Manual v/s Electrically Operated Machine


4. How many coconut trees can a person climb in one day?

5) 10-20 6) 20-30 7) 30-40 8) 40-50

5. How much time does he take to climb a coconut tree?

5) <1 min 6) 1-2 min 7) 2-5 min 8) >5 min

6. What is the amount of money you pay for a person to climb a tree?

Preference of Type of Machine

Standing TypeClimber

Sitting TypeClimber

AutomatedClimber (NoHuman EffortNeeded)

0

100

Preference of Type of Coconut Tree Climber

Average Number of trees Climbed By a Human

10-20 Trees

20-30 trees

30-40 Trees

40-50 Trees

0

50

100

20-30trees 30-40

Trees 40-50Trees

Average Number of trees Climbed By a Human

Time Spent By a Person Per Tree

2-5Minutes>5 minutes

0

100

2-5Minutes >5

minutes

Time Spent By a Person Per Tree


Rs. 20-30 Rs. 30-50 Rs. 50- 80 >Rs. 80

7. Which of the following would you prefer:

(1) One time investment on a coconut tree climber for years to come. Which can also be operated by women? (2) Paying for labour in daily basis.

8. How much money are you willing to spend on the climber?

10-20k 20-30k 30-40k 40-50k

Wage Paid To Climb A Tree

Rs. 20-30Rs. 30-50 0

100

Rs. 20-30Rs. 30-50

Wage Paid To Climb A Tree

Preference of Survey Participants

One-TimeInvestment onTree ClimberPaying Dailywages ToLabour

0100

One-Time

Investment on

Tree Climber

Paying Daily

wages To

Labour

Preference of Survey Participants

Amount Willing To Spend on Tree Climber

Rs. 10,000-20,000

Rs. 20,000-30,000

Rs. 30,000-40,000

0204060

Amount Willing To Spend on Tree Climber

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies 9. Which of the following reasons would discourage you from buying a coconut tree climber?

A) Cost of the equipment B) Fear of new technology C) Safety issues D) You doubt the Reliability of the equipment

Reason For Not Buying Tree Climber

Cost ofEquipment

Fear of NewTechnology

Safety Issues

Doubt onReliability

0204060

Reason For Not Buying Tree Climber

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies 4. CUSTOMER NEED, METRIC & IMPORTANCE

From the survey results following needs of the customer are found

4.1 NEEDS 1. Lasts for long period. 2. Is light weight 3. Is affordable 4. Easy to use 5. Should not crash 6. Ability to move on uneven surfaces 7. Easy to fit between trees 8. Ability to work on uneven tree surfaces 9. Ability to work on different tree diameters 10. Can be easily accessed for maintenance 11. Climbing speed 12. Operator safety 13. Allows easy replacement of worn parts 14. Need of rubber at sharp parts where operator works 15. Can be maintained with readily available tools 16. Low energy usage 17. Easily grips tree 18. Easy to install

4.2 METRICS A metric or performance metric is a measure of an organizations activities and performance. Performance metrics should support range of stakeholders need from customer, stakeholders to the employee.

While traditional metrics are finance based inwardly focusing on the performance of an organization, metrics may focus on performance of an organization; metrics may also focus on the performance against customer requirement and value.

In project management, performance metrics are used to assess the health of the project and consist of the measuring of seven criteria- safety, time, cost, resources, scope, quality, and actions.

Developing performance metrics follows process of

Establishing critical process/ customer requirement. Identifying specific, quantifiable output of works. Establishing targets against which results can be scored.

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies Metrics for the above mentioned needs

1. Monster cycles to failure 2. Total mass 3. Unit manufacturing cost 4. Industrial standard tests 5. Good suspension 6. Overall dimension 7. Speed better than human being 8. Operator safety instruments 9. Usage for people 10. Time to assemble and dissemble for maintenance 11. Special tools requires for maintenance 12. Power consumption 13. Sufficient coefficient of friction 14. Time to install 15. Skill required for installation 16. Industrial standard test.

4.3 NEEDS OF CUSTOMER AND THEIR IMPORTANCE S.No Part Need Importance

1. Coconut Tree Climber Lasts for longer Period 3

2. Coconut Tree Climber Is light weight 3

3. Coconut Tree Climber Is affordable 4

4. Coconut Tree Climber Easy to use 4

5. Coconut Tree Climber Should not crash 5

6. Coconut Tree Climber Ability to move on uneven surfaces 4

7. Coconut Tree Climber Easy to fit between trees 3

8. Coconut Tree Climber Ability to Work on Uneven Tree Surfaces 5

9. Coconut Tree Climber Ability to Work on Different Tree Diameters 5

10. Coconut Tree Climber Climbing Speed 2

11. Coconut Tree Climber Operator Safety 5

12. Coconut Tree Climber Can be easily accessed for Maintenance 3

13. Coconut Tree Climber Allows easy replacement of worn parts 2

14. Coconut Tree Climber Need of rubber at sharp parts where operator

works 5


15. Coconut Tree Climber Can be maintained with readily available

tools 3

16. Coconut Tree Climber Low energy usage 4

17. Coconut Tree Climber Easily grips the tree 5

18. Coconut Tree Climber Easy to install 4

4.4 METRIC UNITS FOR ABOVE MENTIONED NEEDS

Metric number

Need No’s Metric Importance Units

1. 1 Monster cycles to failure 2 Cycles

2. 2 Total Mass 3 Kg

3. 3 Unit Manufacturing Cost 4 Rs.

4. 5 Industrial Standard Tests 5 Subj.

5. 6,8,9 Good suspension 5 ---

6. 7 Overall dimensions 5 mm

7. 10 Speed better than human being 3 mm/sec

8. 11 Operator safety instruments 5 List

9. 4 Usage for people 4 Manual

10. 12,13 Time to assemble/dissemble for maintenance 3 Sec

11. 13,15 Special tools required for maintenance 3 List

12. 16 Power consumption 4 Watt

13. 17 Sufficient coefficient of friction 5 ---

14. 18 Time to install 5 Sec

15. 18 Skill required for installation 3 List

16. 14 UV Test duration to degrade rubber parts 4 hours

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies 5. CONCEPT GENERATION

The Activity of Concept Generation • A good concept is sometimes poorly implemented in subsequent development phases, but poor concepts can rarely be manipulated to achieve commercial success. • Concept generation typically consumes less than 5% budget and 15% of the development time. • Because the concept generation activity is not costly, there is no excuse for lack of diligence and care in executing a sound concept generation method.

5.1 PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS After identifying customer needs and establishing target product specifications, the team

should ask. • What existing solutions could be adapted for this application? • What new concepts might satisfy these needs and specifications? • What methods can be used to facilitate concept generation process?

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies The following three concepts were generated.

MODEL 1

MODEL 2 MODEL 3

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies 6. CONCEPT SELECTION

1. Concept selection is the process of evaluating concepts with respect to the customer needs and other criteria, comparing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the concepts, and selecting one or more concepts for further investigation.

2. We will focus here on the selection of an overall product concept. However, the method presented can also be used later in the development process when the team must select sub-system concepts, components, and production processes.

3. Although concept selection is ultimately a convergent process, it is frequently an iterative convergent-divergent process and may not produce a dominant concept immediately.

4. A large set of concepts is initially windowed down to a smaller set, but these concepts may subsequently be combined and improved to temporarily enlarge the set of concepts under consideration.

Through several iterations a dominant concept is finally chosen. • All teams use some method for choosing a concept. • The methods vary in their effectiveness and include the following:

External decision. Product champion. Intuition. Multivoting. Pros and cons. Prototype and test. Decision matrices.

• A structured method offers several benefits: A customer-focused product. A competitive design. Better product-process coordination. Reduced time to product introduction. Effective group decision making. Documentation of the decision process. Better team buy-in on the decision

Overview of the Concept Selection Methodology:

• We will consider here a two-stage concept selection methodology, although the first stage may suffice for simple design decisions.

• The first stage is called concept screening and the second stage is called concept scoring. • Each stage is supported by a decision matrix which is used by the team to rate, rank, and

selects the best concept(s).

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies • Concept screening:

– The method that we are going to use was developed by Stuart Pugh in the 1980s and is often called the Pugh Concept Selection Method.

– It is a quick, approximate evaluation aimed at producing a few viable alternatives. o During the concept screening stage, rough initial concepts are evaluated relative

to a common reference concept using the concept screening matrix. o At this preliminary stage, a coarse comparative system is used since detailed

quantitative comparisons are difficult to obtain and may be misleading. o After some alternatives are eliminated, the team may choose to move on to the

concept scoring stage.

• Concept scoring: It is a more careful analysis of these relatively few concepts in order to choose the

single concept most likely to lead to product success. During the concept scoring stage, the team members conduct a more detailed

analysis and a finer quantitative evaluation of the remaining concepts using the concept scoring matrix as a guide.

Throughout the screening and scoring process, several iterations may be performed, with

new alternatives arising from the combination of the features of several concepts. Both Stages, concept screening and concept scoring, follow a six step process which

leads the team through the concept selection activity. These steps are: Prepare the selection matrix. Rate the concepts. Rank the concepts. Combine and improve the concepts. Select one or more concepts. Reflect on the results and the process.

6.1 CONCEPT SCREENING • The product for this example is an coconut tree climber. • Concept generation led to three possible concepts shown in section 5.

6.1.1 Prepare the Selection Matrix The inputs for the matrix are: Rows Selection criteria. Columns Concepts generated by the team.

• All the concepts generated by the team should be presented at the same level of detail to allow a meaningful comparison and an unbiased selection.

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies • If the team is considering more than about 12 concepts, the multivote technique may be

used to quickly choose a dozen or so concepts to be evaluated. • The selection criteria:

• Are usually expressed at a high level of abstraction and typically include from 5 to 10 dimensions.

• Should be able to differentiate among the concepts. • Should not include many relatively unimportant criteria because each criterion is

given equal weight. • The selection criteria are chosen based on:

Customer needs (usually some of the primary needs) that the team has identified. Needs of the enterprise (such as low manufacturing cost or minimal risk of

product liability). • The team chooses a concept to become the benchmark, or reference concept, against

which all other concepts are rated. • The reference concept can be:

An industry standard. A straightforward concept with which all the team members are very familiar. A commercially available product. A best-in-class benchmark product that the team has studied. An early generation of the product. Any one of the concepts under consideration. A combination of subsystems assembled to represent the best features of different

products.

6.1.2 Rate the Concepts A relative score of “better than” (+), “same as” (0), or “worse than” (-) is placed in

each cell of the matrix to represent how each concept rates in comparison to the reference concept for each particular criterion.

At this stage in the design process, each concept is just a general notion of the ultimate product, and more detailed ratings are usually meaningless.

When available, objective metrics can be used as the basis for rating a concept. These metrics help to minimize the judgmental nature of the rating process.

o Absent of objective metrics, ratings are established by team consensus (or other methods such as secret ballot).

o At this point the team may decide that some selection criteria need further investigation and analysis.

o The next slide shows the matrix for the syringe example with the concepts rated

6.1.3 Rank the Concepts The team sums the number of “better than,” “same as,” and “worse than” scores

and enters the sum for each category in the lower rows of the matrix.

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies Next, a net score can be calculated by subtracting the number of “worse than”

ratings from the “better than” ratings. Finally, the team rank-orders the concepts.

At this point the team can identify one or more criteria which really seem to differentiate the concepts. The next slide shows the syringe example with the concepts ranked. Notice how ties are handled.

6.1.4 Select One or More Concepts The team members decide which concepts are to be selected for further refinement and

analysis. The number of concepts selected for further review will be limited by team resources

(personnel, money, and time). The team must decide whether another round of concept screening will be performed or

whether concept scoring will be applied next. The syringe development team decides four concepts (A, DF, E, and G+) will be taken to the Concept Scoring Phase for further comparison


CONCEPT SCREENING

CONCEPTS

S.NO SELECTION CRITERIA A B C

1 Manufacturing Cost + - -

2 Overall dimensions + - -

3 Speed - + +

4 Maintenance + - -

5 Ease of installation + - -

6 Power consumption 0 - -

7 Ease of Handling - + +

8 Skill Required - + +

9 Stability - + +

10 Weight + - -

11 Transportation + - -

12 Safety - + +

SUM OF ‘+’ s 6 5 5

SUM OF ‘0’ s 1 --- ---

SUM OF ‘-’ s 5 7 7

NET SCORE 1 -2 -2

RANK 1 3 3

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies 6.2 CONCEPT SCORING

A computer spreadsheet is the best format to facilitate ranking and sensitivity analysis.

The inputs for the matrix are: o Rows Selection criteria. o Columns Concepts that have been identified for analysis. o The concepts have typically been refined to some extent after the concept

screening stage and may be expressed in more detail

Usually the team adds more detail to the selection criteria. (Instead of using some of the primary needs, the team may use some of the secondary or tertiary needs).

The team also adds importance weights to each one of the selection criterion.

Several different schemes can be used to weigh the selection criteria such as assigning an importance value from 1 to 5, or allocating 100 percentage points among them.

The importance weights are often determined subjectively by team consensus.

As in the concept screening stage, the team identifies a reference concept.

6.2.1 Rate the Concepts Because of the need for additional resolution to distinguish among the competing

concepts, a finer scale must be used to rate the concepts.

A scale from 1 to 5 is recommended:

o 1 Much worse than the reference.

o 2 Worse than the reference.

o 3 Same as the reference.

o 4 Better than the reference

o 5 Much better than the reference

A single reference concept can be used for the comparative ratings. However, this is not always appropriate.

Unless the reference concept is of average performance relative to all the criteria, the use of the same reference concept for the evaluation of each criterion will lead to “scale compression” for some of the criteria.

To avoid scale compression, the best alternative is to use different reference points for the various selection criteria.

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies The reference points may come from several of the concepts under consideration, from

the comparative benchmarking analysis, from the target values of the product specifications, or other means.

The reference points for each criterion must be well understood to facilitate direct one-to-one comparisons.

Using multiple reference points does not prevent the team from designating one concept as the overall reference for the purposes of ensuring that the selected concept is competitive relative to this benchmark.

6.2.2 Rank the Concepts Weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the raw scores by the criteria weights.

The total score for each concept is the sum of the weighted scores:

n = number of criteria.

wi = weighting for the ith criterion.

rij = raw rating of concept j for the ith criterion.

Sj = total score for concept j.

Finally, each concept is given a rank corresponding to its total score.

6.2.3 Select One or More Concepts The final selection is not simply a question of choosing the concept that achieves the

highest ranking after a first pass through the process. The team should explore in detail this initial evaluation by conducting a sensitivity

analysis. By investigating the sensitivity of the ranking to variations in a particular rating, the team

members can assess whether uncertainty about a particular rating has a large impact on their choice.

In some instances, the team may select a lower-scoring concept about which there is little uncertainty instead of a higher-scoring concept that may possibly prove to be unworkable or less desirable as they learn more about it.

Notice that given the resolution of the scoring system, small differences are generally not significant.

n

iijij rwS

1

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies The team may decide to select the top two or more concepts. These concepts may be

further developed, prototyped, and tested to obtain customer feedback If necessary, the team may also create two or more scoring matrices with different

weightings in order to obtain the concept ranking for different market segments Continuing our coconut tree climber product, following is concept scoring matrix.

CONCEPT SCORING

CONCEPTS

SELECTION CRITERIA

WEIGHTAGE %

A B C

Rating Weighted score Rating Weighted score Rating

Weighted score

Manufacturing Cost 20 4 0.8 1 0.2 2 0.4

Overall dimensions 10 4 0.4 3 0.3 3 0.3

Speed 5 3 0.15 4 0.2 4 0.2

Maintenance 3 5 0.15 2 0.06 3 0.09

Ease of installation 7 5 0.35 1 0.07 2 0.14

Power consumption 5 5 0.25 2 0.1 2 0.1

Ease of Handling 5 3 0.15 4 0.2 5 0.25

Skill Required 8 2 0.16 3 0.24 3 0.24

Stability 7 2 0.14 5 0.35 4 0.28

Weight 10 4 0.4 2 0.2 3 0.3

Transportation 5 4 0.2 3 0.15 2 0.1

Safety 15 3 0.45 5 0.75 5 0.75

Total score 3.6 2.82 3.15

Rank 1 3 2

COCO-CLIMB Agriculture Technologies 7. OBJECT CLIMBER DESIGN

CAD DESIGN OF CLIMBER

8. FUTURE SCOPE

1. To automate at low cost. 2. Automatic climbing and plucking system using electronic sensors. 3. Fully compact system generation by using light and good strength materials.

Documents

PDLM of Coconut Climber