04. Concept Selection
| Sl No. | Objectives |
| 1. | Musical bot has to be automated |
| 2. | Musical bot has to be user friendly |
| 3. | Musical bot has to be portable |
| 4. | Musical bot should be able to switch between the tunes in minimum possible time |
| 5. | Musical bot should use minimum required materials and not look too crowded. |
| Objectives | Weightage | Justification |
| Musical bot has to be automated | 9 | A highly automated bot requires minimum human interference, hence is given a high priority |
| Musical bot has to be user friendly | 8 | A user friendly bot interacts in the best way with the client and thus is given a high priority |
| Musical bot has to be portable | 6 | The bot has to be portable enough to be carried and placed near the drum |
| Musical bot should be able to switch between the tunes in minimum possible time | 7 | A large time delay is not appreciable, as it shows the lack of efficient use of motors, hence should be taken care of. |
| Musical bot should use minimum required materials and not look too crowded. | 5 | A too crowded bot with unnecessary components is not aesthetic and also increases some junk load on the motors, with cost. |
| Objectives | Weightage | Design Idea 1 | Design Idea 2 | Design Idea 3 | Design Idea 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| automation | 9 | datum | ++ | - | - |
| user friendly | 8 | Datum | ++ | - | + |
| portable | 6 | Datum | + | - | + |
| ability to switch between tunes in minimum possible time | 7 | Datum | + | ++ | ++ |
| use minimum required materials and not look too crowded | 5 | Datum | ++ | – | – |
| +Score | - | 0 | 57 | 14 | 28 |
| -Score | - | 0 | 0 | 33 | 19 |
| Total | - | 0 | 57 | -19 | 9 |
| Objective | Score given | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Musical bot has to be automated | DATUM | A highly automated bot requires minimum human interference, hence is given a high priority |
| Musical bot has to be user friendly | DATUM | A user friendly bot interacts in the best way with the client and thus is given a high priority |
| Musical bot has to be portable | DATUM | The bot has to be portable enough to be carried and placed near the drum |
| Musical bot should be able to switch between the tunes in minimum possible time | DATUM | A large time delay is not appreciable, as it shows the lack of efficient use of motors, hence should be taken care of. |
| Musical bot should use minimum required materials and not look too crowded. | DATUM | A too crowded bot with unnecessary components is not aesthetic and also increases some junk load on the motors, with cost. |
| Objective | Score given | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Musical bot has to be automated | ++ | As it uses an external device for indication and control sub systems completely, it is most automated model |
| Musical bot has to be user friendly | ++ | It is more user friendly as the user can just operate the entire bot on a phone |
| Musical bot has to be portable | + | The bot is light and more portable than the datum |
| Musical bot should be able to switch between the tunes in minimum possible time | + | As the DC motor is used, it can switch between the tunes on the command from the code |
| Musical bot should use minimum required materials and not look too crowded. | ++ | As only the essential components are used, it makes the bot compact and does not look as crowded as datum |
| Objective | Score given | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Musical bot has to be automated | - | As the user needs remote control and many other things to operate, the bot is not so automated as Datum |
| Musical bot has to be user friendly | - | The bot uses separate devices to display and operate the systems, so not as user friendly as datum |
| Musical bot has to be portable | - | Due to use of excessive parts, it is not that portable as that of Datum |
| Musical bot should be able to switch between the tunes in minimum possible time | ++ | The Servo motor can easily get adjusted to change in the positions and direction of rotations than the stepper motor, used in the datum |
| Musical bot should use minimum required materials and not look too crowded. | – | Due to use of unessential excessive components, the bot looks too crowded than datum |
| Objective | Score given | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Musical bot has to be automated | - | As the user needs IR Sensor and potentiometer to operate, the bot is not that automated as Datum is |
| Musical bot has to be user friendly | + | As all the user controls are on the bot, it is more user friendly compared to datum |
| Musical bot has to be portable | + | As all the components are fixed with the bot, the bot is more portable compared to datum |
| Musical bot should be able to switch between the tunes in minimum possible time | ++ | The Car door lock motor, with the same functional speed as that of servo motor, can easily get adjusted to change in the positions and direction of rotations than the stepper motor, used in the datum |
| Musical bot should use minimum required materials and not look too crowded. | – | Due to use of unessential excessive components, the bot looks too crowded than datum |
