In one line: Choose among concepts with a structured, two-stage comparison against shared criteria. The real benefit is that the team’s reasoning becomes visible and debatable.
Core idea
Every team selects concepts somehow: by intuition, by the loudest voice, by vote, or by building prototypes of everything. Structured methods do better because they make criteria explicit, keep customer needs central, and leave a record of why a choice was made. Ulrich and Eppinger describe a two-stage method [1], building on Stuart Pugh’s concept-selection matrix.
How it works
Stage 1: concept screening (Pugh-style)
- Choose a reference concept, such as an existing product or a strong benchmark.
- Rate every other concept against it on each criterion as better (+), same (0) or worse (−).
- Sum the marks, rank the concepts, and combine and improve: merge strong features, fix weak points.
- Select a few concepts to carry forward.
Stage 2: concept scoring
- Weight the criteria by importance.
- Rate each surviving concept on a finer scale, for example 1–5, against a reference.
- Compute weighted totals and rank again.
- Check sensitivity: does the winner change if the weights shift a little?
Throughout: criteria come from customer needs and business goals, and the matrix supports a decision but does not make it. The team should be able to explain the winner without the spreadsheet.
In practice
A common reflection is that structured selection is less about the arithmetic than about the conversation. Laying concepts side by side against agreed criteria exposes disagreements about what matters, which are better resolved before design than after. For technical trade-offs governed by physics, the matrix should be backed by analysis, so that a concept isn’t rated “better” on a criterion where a fundamental limit says it can’t be (see Trade-off Analysis).
Questions to ask yourself
- What criteria did we actually use to choose our current design, and were they written down?
- Would the decision change if we weighted the criteria differently?
- Did we combine the best features of losing concepts, or just discard them?
Connections
- Inputs: Concept Generation, Product Specifications. Related matrix: House of Quality.
- Next: Concept Testing. The underlying skill: Trade-off Analysis.
- Capabilities exercised: Decision Making, Negotiating and Compromise, Communicating and Advocacy.