Comparison of design concepts

When a morphological table is known for a class of engineering systems (like it is known for a class of wall wind bracings in an industrial steel building, which is discussed in the previous section), it may be used to formally compare these systems. The Author often uses such comparisons for two purposes. 

it is the best way to explain the differences between two design concepts, which may be subtle and difficult to grasp when reading a text or even looking at drawings. For example, we may need to explain the difference between a wall wind bracing in the form of a truss and in the form of a braced frame, discussed in the previous section. 

Ai = Steel, A2 = Linear Members, A3 = Rigid and Hinged, A4 = Diagonal 

These descriptions differ only in one value of the single symbolic attribute A2 Joint Type, that is, Hinged versus Rigid 8c Hinged. On the 

The second important application of a morphological table in the context of comparison is the determination of novelty of a new design concept with respect to a known one. In fact, the Author has conducted research on the subject, and his PhD student Kenneth Shelton (2007) has developed a sophisticated novelty assessment method (Shelton 2008) with roots in morphological analysis. This method has been applied in the area of the conceptual design of global communication satellite systems. Unfortunately, because of the complexity of such systems and their sophistication, this application cannot be presented here, but it can be found in (Shelton 2008). 

---