An Open Access Journal
Table 2 Criteria used for Pugh Matrix assessment
Objective | # | Criteria | Description | Weight (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Design | 1 | Radically different | Is the concept/solution radically different to current/existing practice? | 10.53 |
2 | Versatile and scaleable | Can the design be scaled up/down geometrically (such as length) and so is it versatile enough to be adapted to different types of track switch applications (speeds of operation)? | 7.31 | |
3 | Retrofitting | Is the solution retrofittable to the existing switching and crossing parts without many changes required in the existing system (track and vehicle)? | 0.88 | |
4 | Modularity | Is the design modular enough so that one can replace a faulty component with “off the shelf” components (or line replaceable units) without requiring to do any special manufacture? | 7.6 | |
5 | Allows track continuity | Does the design allow track continuity (i.e. no track gaps causing vertical loads)? | 7.31 | |
Manufacturing | 6 | Existing machinery / process can be used? | Can the outcome of the design be manufactured using existing production methods and machines without needing to develop a new manufacturing process/machinery? | 1.46 |
Maintenance | 7 | Easy maintenance | Can the product be maintained easily? Could the maintenance be carried out with minimal labour, minimal machinery requirements and minimal track access time? | 7.02 |
8 | Allows maintenance to be done offsite | Can the maintenance be performed offsite (i.e. replace parts on-site and repair the broken/failed part/component offsite)? | 3.8 | |
Logistics | 9 | Deployability | Can the product be deployed easily using minimal labour, minimal machinery and minimal track access time? | 7.31 |
10 | Plug and play? | Does the product allow “plug and play” such that one can fit the parts and it is ready to use straight away? | 7.31 | |
Operation | 11 | Energy efficiency | Could the product be efficient in its energy use? | 1.46 |
12 | Speed of switching | Can the switching operation be carried out in a quick enough time window? | 4.39 | |
13 | Improvement in loading? | Does the concept offer improvement in static and dynamic loading from existing designs? | 5.56 | |
14 | Weather resistance | Does the concept offer resistance to most adverse weather conditions such as extreme heat, snow or flooding? | 6.72 | |
Safety | 15 | Risk of derailment can be reduced | Can the concept reduce the risk of derailment? | 8.19 |
16 | Allows safe run-through | Does the concept allow safe run-through when the train approaches from the wrong side of the switch? | 3.22 | |
17 | Reduction of out of correspondence | Is the concept robust enough to limit the “out of correspondence” (unsafe) state where the switch is not set to any route? | 6.72 | |
Other | 18 | Time to market | Does the concept require a minimal development effort before implementation? | 1.46 |
19 | Cost | Is the solution likely to cost more than reasonably expected in comparison to the opportunity cost? | 1.75 |