Analyze and Select Design

Current page:

The goal is to make informed decisions about how to progress the design/product development. In order to make these informed decisions we must analyze our current design status with reference to our intended functions/performance metrics and use structured decision making to select a path forward. After generating multiple design concepts, systematically evaluate alternatives and select the a solution that best meets project requirements.

Why This Phase is Critical

Changing course late in product development can be very costly and time-consuming. Making the evidence supported decisions after detailed design begins ensures the team continues on a suitable path forward and progresses effectively. It also allows for clear documentation of why and how decisions were reached when, inevitably, they are reexamined later.

The Analyze and Select phase ensures:

Objective Decision-Making: Reduces bias and personal preferences in favor of data-driven choices
Risk Mitigation: Identifies potential problems before significant resources are committed
Stakeholder Alignment: Ensures all parties agree on the selected direction
Resource Optimization: Focuses detailed design efforts on the most promising solution based on currently available information
Documentation: Creates a traceable record of why decisions were made

Three Key Components

Preliminary Design Evaluation and Calculations - Technical feasibility assessment
Structured Concept Selection - Systematic comparison to alternative options
Client Presentation and Defense - Communicating and justifying the selected design

Component 1: Preliminary Design Evaluation and Calculations

Purpose of Preliminary Evaluation

The preliminary design phase ultimately answers whether the idea is viable, exposing potential problems as well as possible solutions to those problems. Before investing significant time in detailed design, engineers must verify that concepts are technically sound and practically achievable.

What to Evaluate

Technical Feasibility

Can it actually work?

Does the concept violate any physical laws?
Are the required technologies mature and available?
Can the design achieve the required performance specifications?
Are there fundamental technical obstacles?

Bike Lock Example - Technical Feasibility Questions:

Can a 13mm hardened steel shackle withstand 3,000 lbs of cutting force?
Will a pin tumbler cylinder operate reliably in -20°C temperatures?
Can die-cast zinc alloy provide adequate strength for the lock body?
Is the locking mechanism geometry physically possible to manufacture?

Manufacturing Feasibility

Can we make it?

Do we have (or can we access) the required manufacturing capabilities?
Are the proposed processes cost-effective at target volumes?
Can required tolerances be achieved with available equipment?
Are materials readily available from suppliers?

Bike Lock Example - Manufacturing Assessment:

Die casting: In-house capability for 50K+ units/year ✓
Hardening process: Must outsource heat treatment ✓
Lock cylinder: Buy from specialized supplier ✓
Assembly: Semi-automated, 15 seconds/unit target ✓

Economic Feasibility

Can we afford it?

Does estimated manufacturing cost meet target cost?
Is required tooling investment within budget?
What is the projected ROI and payback period?
Are development costs reasonable?

Bike Lock Example - Economic Analysis:

Preliminary Calculations

Perform simplified engineering calculations to verify critical performance parameters. These are typically hand calculations using conservative assumptions.

Types of Preliminary Calculations

Structural Analysis:

Stress and strain under loading
Factor of safety verification
Deflection and deformation
Buckling analysis (if applicable)

Thermal Analysis:

Heat transfer rates
Temperature distribution
Thermal expansion effects

Fluid Analysis:

Flow rates and pressures
Pressure drops
Reynolds numbers

Kinematics/Dynamics:

Motion paths
Velocities and accelerations
Required forces and torques

Bike Lock Example: Preliminary Shackle Analysis

Design Concept: U-shaped shackle, 13mm diameter, hardened steel

Critical Loading: Bolt cutter attack (15,000 N applied at shackle center)

Simplified Calculation:

Documentation: This preliminary calculation shows the initial 13mm concept won't meet strength requirements. Recommend moving forward with 16mm shackle for detailed analysis.

Preliminary Evaluation Checklist

Use this checklist to ensure thorough preliminary evaluation:

Technical Assessment:

[ ] Performance requirements can be met
[ ] No physical impossibilities identified
[ ] Required technologies are available and mature
[ ] Critical dimensions and geometries are feasible
[ ] Preliminary calculations support feasibility

Manufacturing Assessment:

[ ] Manufacturing processes identified
[ ] Required capabilities available or accessible
[ ] Tolerances achievable with selected processes
[ ] Material availability confirmed
[ ] Assembly sequence is practical

Economic Assessment:

[ ] Preliminary cost estimate within target
[ ] Tooling investment acceptable
[ ] Development timeline reasonable
[ ] ROI analysis supports project
[ ] Supply chain risks identified

Risk Assessment:

[ ] Technical risks identified and rated
[ ] Manufacturing risks assessed
[ ] Market/business risks considered
[ ] Mitigation strategies outlined
[ ] Go/no-go decision criteria established

Preliminary Evaluation Documentation

Document your preliminary evaluation in a concise report:

Structure:

Concept Description: Brief overview with sketches
Evaluation Criteria: List of requirements being assessed
Technical Analysis: Calculations and feasibility assessment
Manufacturing Analysis: Process selection and capability review
Cost Analysis: Preliminary cost breakdown
Risk Assessment: Identified risks and mitigation strategies
Recommendation: Pass/fail decision with supporting rationale

Component 2: Structured Concept Selection - The Pugh Matrix

What is the Pugh Matrix?

The Pugh method is a qualitative technique used to rank multi-dimensional options of an option set, frequently used in engineering for making design decisions. The matrix uses a criteria-based approach to compare and evaluate multiple design options against a standard set of evaluation criteria to find the best possible solution.

The Pugh Matrix was developed by Stuart Pugh, a professor of engineering design at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, who recognized the need for a more objective and transparent decision-making process in product design and development.

Why Use the Pugh Matrix?

Benefits:

Encourages self-reflection amongst design team members to analyze each candidate with minimized bias
Provides structured, repeatable process
Creates documented rationale for decisions
Facilitates team discussion and consensus
Identifies hybrid solutions combining best features
Performs sensitivity analysis on criteria importance

When to Use:

Multiple viable design concepts exist
Decision criteria are multi-dimensional
Team consensus is needed
Objective comparison is required
Documentation of decision rationale is important

How the Pugh Matrix Works

A basic decision matrix establishes a set of criteria and a group of potential candidate designs, with one design selected as a reference candidate. Other designs are then compared to this reference and ranked as better, worse, or same based on each criterion.

Core Concept:

Select a baseline (datum) design for comparison
Score alternatives as +1 (better), 0 (same), or -1 (worse) than baseline
Sum scores to identify strongest concepts
May use weighted criteria for more refined analysis

Step-by-Step Pugh Matrix Process

Step 1: Establish Evaluation Criteria

List key criteria from which to evaluate concept options, which may include critical-to-customer, critical-to-business, critical-to-quality, and critical design characteristics.

Sources for Criteria:

Product Design Specification (PDS)
Customer requirements (Voice of Customer)
Technical requirements
Manufacturing constraints
Business objectives
Regulatory requirements

Bike Lock Example - Selection Criteria:

Criterion & Source & Importance \\

Security Level & Customer requirement & Critical \\

Weight & PDS - portability & High \\

Manufacturing Cost & Business constraint & Critical \\

Ease of Use & Customer preference & High \\

Weather Resistance & PDS - environment & High \\

Aesthetic Appeal & Marketing input & Medium \\

Mounting System & Customer feedback & Medium \\

Tooling Investment & Business constraint & High \\

Step 2: Define Design Concepts

Clearly describe each alternative design concept being evaluated. Include sketches, key features, and distinguishing characteristics.

Bike Lock Concept Alternatives: DATUM (Baseline): Concept A - Traditional U-Lock

16mm hardened steel shackle, U-shape
Die-cast zinc lock body
Pin tumbler cylinder (5-pin)
Plastic frame mount bracket
Estimated cost: $8.75/unit

Concept B - Heavy-Duty U-Lock

18mm hardened steel shackle, U-shape
Steel lock body (heavier, more robust)
Pin tumbler cylinder (7-pin, pick-resistant)
Metal frame mount with rubber coating
Estimated cost: $11.25/unit

Concept C - Folding Link Lock

Six 5mm hardened steel plates, articulated links
Compact folded design
Disc detainer cylinder
Integrated frame mount
Estimated cost: $10.50/unit

Concept D - Lightweight Cable-Reinforced

14mm shackle with steel cable core + hardened shell
Aluminum lock body with steel internals
Pin tumbler cylinder (5-pin)
Lightweight frame mount
Estimated cost: $7.90/unit

Concept E - Smart Lock U-Lock

16mm hardened steel shackle
Die-cast zinc body with electronic module
Smartphone app unlock + physical key backup
Standard frame mount
Estimated cost: $12.50/unit

Step 3: Build the Pugh Matrix

Draw a Pugh matrix with criteria listed vertically and design concepts listed horizontally, entering the current design as the baseline for comparative ranking.

Basic (Unweighted) Pugh Matrix:

Criteria & Datum: Concept A & Concept B & Concept C & Concept D & Concept E \\

Security Level & S (baseline) & + & 0 & - & + \\

Weight & S & - & + & + & 0 \\

Manufacturing Cost & S & - & + & + & - \\

Ease of Use & S & 0 & - & + & + \\

Weather Resistance & S & + & 0 & - & + \\

Aesthetic Appeal & S & 0 & + & 0 & + \\

Mounting System & S & + & - & + & 0 \\

Tooling Investment & S & - & - & + & - \\

& & & & & \\

TOTAL + & - & 3 & 3 & 5 & 4 \\

TOTAL - & - & 4 & 3 & 2 & 2 \\

TOTAL S & - & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 \\

OVERALL SCORE & 0 & -1 & 0 & +3 & +2 \\

Scoring Rationale: Concept B vs. Datum A:

Security: + (thicker shackle, better cylinder)
Weight: - (heavier due to 18mm shackle and steel body)
Cost: - (higher material and component costs)
Ease of Use: 0 (similar operation)
Weather: + (steel body more corrosion resistant than zinc)
Aesthetics: 0 (similar appearance)
Mounting: + (more robust metal mount)
Tooling: - (requires more expensive tooling)

Concept C vs. Datum A:

Security: 0 (similar overall security rating)
Weight: + (folding design slightly lighter when compact)
Cost: + (articulated design, simpler manufacturing in some aspects but material costs moderate)
Ease of Use: - (folding mechanism less intuitive)
Weather: 0 (similar materials and coatings)
Aesthetics: + (modern, unique folding appearance)
Mounting: - (integrated mount less flexible)
Tooling: - (complex articulation requires specialized tooling)

Concept D vs. Datum A:

Security: - (cable core less secure than solid steel)
Weight: + (aluminum body reduces weight)
Cost: + (lower material costs)
Ease of Use: + (lighter, easier to handle)
Weather: - (cable construction susceptible to corrosion)
Aesthetics: 0 (similar U-lock appearance)
Mounting: + (lightweight mount easier to use)
Tooling: + (simpler, less expensive tooling)

Concept E vs. Datum A:

Security: + (electronic monitoring, theft alerts)
Weight: 0 (electronics add minimal weight)
Cost: - (electronics significantly increase cost)
Ease of Use: + (smartphone convenience, no key to carry)
Weather: + (sealed electronic compartment, good ratings)
Aesthetics: + (modern, tech-forward appearance)
Mounting: 0 (standard mount)
Tooling: - (additional electronics assembly tooling)

Initial Results: Concept D (Lightweight Cable-Reinforced) scores highest (+3), followed by Concept E (Smart Lock, +2).

Step 4: Apply Weighting (Optional but Recommended)

Determine a weighting factor for each criterion, which may be determined using pairwise comparison or simply ranking on a scale of 1 to 5.

Weighting Scale: 1 (Low importance) to 5 (Critical)

Criteria & Weight & Rationale \\

Security Level & 5 & Primary product function, critical customer requirement \\

Weight & 3 & Important for portability, but secondary to security \\

Manufacturing Cost & 5 & Must meet cost target or project fails \\

Ease of Use & 4 & Strong customer preference, affects adoption \\

Weather Resistance & 4 & PDS requirement, product must work in all conditions \\

Aesthetic Appeal & 2 & Nice to have, but not primary purchase driver \\

Mounting System & 3 & Convenience feature, moderate importance \\

Tooling Investment & 4 & Business constraint, affects ROI \\

Weighted Results:

Concept D remains strongest (+10)
Concept E second (+6)
Datum A baseline (0)
Concept B neutral (0)
Concept C weakest (-1)

Step 5: Analyze Results and Iterate

After the best design concept is identified, each criterion that performed worse than the datum should be examined, leading to design improvement on the selected concept.

Analysis of Concept D (Winner): Strengths:

Excellent cost position (+5 weighted)
Good weight performance (+3)
Strong ease of use (+4)
Favorable tooling investment (+4)

Weaknesses:

Security concern (-5 weighted) - cable core less secure
Weather resistance (-4 weighted) - cable corrosion risk

Improvement Opportunities: Create a Hybrid Concept D+ by addressing weaknesses:

Increase cable core quality: Use stainless steel braided cable
Improve weather sealing: Add rubber boot over cable ends
Consider: Can we achieve Concept A security level while maintaining weight advantage?

Step 6: Consider Hybrid Solutions

The process can identify hybrid concepts that combine strengths from multiple alternatives.

Hybrid Concept: "D+"

Base: Concept D (lightweight, low cost, good usability)
Enhance: Upgrade cable to braided stainless (from Concept B philosophy)
Add: Improved weather sealing (from Concept E approach)
Result: Addresses security and weather weaknesses while maintaining advantages

Re-evaluate Hybrid D+:

Criteria & Weight & Concept D & Hybrid D+ \\

Security Level & 5 & -5 & 0 (improved to baseline level) \\

Weight & 3 & +3 & +2 (slightly heavier with upgrades) \\

Manufacturing Cost & 5 & +5 & +3 (materials cost increase) \\

Ease of Use & 4 & +4 & +4 (unchanged) \\

Weather Resistance & 4 & -4 & +2 (significant improvement) \\

Aesthetic Appeal & 2 & 0 & +1 (better finish on upgraded cable) \\

Mounting System & 3 & +3 & +3 (unchanged) \\

Tooling Investment & 4 & +4 & +4 (unchanged) \\

WEIGHTED TOTAL & & +10 & +19 \\

Hybrid D+ significantly outperforms original Concept D!

Step 7: Make Final Selection

Based on weighted Pugh analysis:

SELECTED DESIGN: Hybrid Concept D+

Lightweight cable-reinforced U-lock
Upgraded stainless steel braided cable core
Hardened steel shell
Aluminum lock body with steel internals
Enhanced weather sealing
Estimated cost: $8.90/unit (still under target)
Weighted score: +19 (best performance)

Rationale:

Meets security requirements (improved from Concept D)
Excellent weight and usability
Achieves cost targets
Addresses weather resistance concerns
Favorable tooling investment
Strong overall value proposition

Pugh Matrix Best Practices

Do:

Involve cross-functional team in scoring
Clearly define what each criterion means
Document rationale for each score
Use consistent scoring scale
Consider weighted and unweighted results
Iterate and create hybrid concepts
Perform sensitivity analysis on critical criteria

Don't:

Let personal bias influence scores
Include ambiguous or redundant criteria
Score without team discussion
Ignore negative scores on critical criteria
Stop after first matrix - iterate!
Forget to document assumptions

Common Pitfalls:

Incorrect, incomplete, and inadequate selection criteria fundamentally affect the quality of the decision
Granularity of scale may not differentiate well
Wrong team expertise leads to poor scores
Over-reliance on matrix without engineering judgment

Component 3: Present to Client and Defend Decision

Purpose of Design Presentation

After completing preliminary evaluation and concept selection, you must present your findings and recommendation to stakeholders (client, management, project sponsors). The presentation serves to:

Communicate the selected design solution
Explain the decision-making process
Demonstrate technical competence
Obtain approval and buy-in
Address concerns and objections
Align team on next steps

Presentation Structure

1. Restate Project Goals and Requirements

At the beginning of the presentation, re-state the business goals, which serves as your anchor for all subsequent discussions.

Bike Lock Example Opening:

"Before presenting our design recommendation, let's review our project objectives:

Primary Goals:

Deliver mid-market bike lock with Sold Secure Gold rating
Target retail price: $29.99
Manufacturing cost: $8.50/unit maximum
Launch: Q2 next year to capture cycling season

Key Requirements from PDS:

Security: 3,000 lbs shackle strength, pick-resistant
Weight: Maximum 3 lbs with mounting system
Environment: -30°C to +60°C, saltwater resistant
Life: 10 years service life, 15,000 cycles minimum

These objectives guided our concept evaluation process."

2. Overview of Design Process

Briefly explain the methodology used to arrive at the recommendation. This demonstrates rigor and builds confidence.

Example: "Our design team followed a structured three-step process:

Preliminary Evaluation: We developed five distinct concepts and performed initial feasibility analysis including strength calculations, manufacturing assessment, and cost estimation.
Pugh Matrix Analysis: We systematically compared all concepts against eight weighted criteria derived from the PDS and customer research.
Hybrid Optimization: Based on matrix results, we created an optimized hybrid design that addresses weaknesses while maintaining strengths.

This structured approach ensures our recommendation is objective and data-driven."

3. Present Alternative Concepts Considered

Bringing alternatives—especially those that aren't the right solution—complicates the conversation but forces well-articulated explanation for choices, and if you can't convince stakeholders that your solution is better, either you aren't communicating well or you don't understand their needs.

Show, don't just tell:

Include sketches or renderings of each concept
Highlight distinguishing features
Briefly note strengths and weaknesses
Explain why concepts were not selected

Bike Lock Example:

"We evaluated five concepts:

Concept A - Traditional U-Lock (Baseline) [Show image]

Standard approach, proven design
Good balance of features
Mid-range performance across all criteria

Concept B - Heavy-Duty U-Lock [Show image]

Excellent security, robust construction
Issues: Too heavy (3.8 lbs), cost overrun ($ 11.25 vs. $8.50 target)
Would require price increase to $39.99, outside target market

Concept C - Folding Link Lock [Show image]

Unique aesthetic, compact storage
Issues: Complex mechanism affects usability, expensive tooling, no cost advantage
User testing showed 40

Concept D - Lightweight Cable-Reinforced [Show image]

Excellent weight (2.3 lbs) and cost ($7.90)
Initial concerns: Cable core security and weather resistance
Identified as promising base for optimization

Concept E - Smart Lock [Show image]

Strong user interest in smartphone features
Issues: Cost ($ 12.50), requires $95K additional tooling for electronics
Recommended for Version 2.0 product line extension"

4. Explain the Evaluation Methodology

Walk through your Pugh Matrix or other selection tool.

Presentation Tips:

Show the actual matrix (weighted preferred)
Explain each criterion and its importance
Describe the scoring rationale
Highlight critical trade-offs
Be transparent about assumptions

Example: "We used a weighted Pugh Matrix to objectively compare concepts.

[Show matrix on slide]

Eight criteria were weighted based on their importance:

Security (5/5): Core product requirement
Manufacturing Cost (5/5): Business constraint
Ease of Use (4/5): Strong customer preference
Weather Resistance (4/5): PDS requirement ...

Initial scoring showed Concept D with highest score (+10), but identified two concerns: security and weather resistance.

Rather than accept these weaknesses, we developed a hybrid solution..."

5. Present Your Recommended Solution

Clearly present the selected design with supporting rationale.

Structure:

Overview: What is it?
Key Features: What makes it special?
How It Addresses Requirements: Map to PDS
Technical Validation: Show preliminary calculations
Advantages: Why it's the best choice
Risks and Mitigation: Honest assessment

Bike Lock Example:

"Recommended Design: Hybrid Concept D+ - Lightweight Reinforced U-Lock

[Show detailed rendering]

Key Features:

14mm hardened steel shell with stainless steel braided cable core
Aluminum lock body with steel internal mechanism
Pin tumbler cylinder (5-pin, brass)
Enhanced weather sealing with rubber cable boots
Integrated frame mount bracket

How It Meets Requirements:

Requirement & Target & Concept D+ & Status \\

Security & 3,000 lbs & 3,200 lbs (calc) & ✓ Exceeds \\

Weight & <3 lbs & 2.5 lbs & ✓ Meets \\

Cost & $ 8.50 & $8.90 & \~ Acceptable* \\

Weather & 5 years outdoor & Stainless core + sealing & ✓ Meets \\

Cycles & 15,000 & 18,000 (est) & ✓ Exceeds \\

*$ 0.40 over target manageable with modest retail price adjustment to $30.99

Technical Validation: [Show key calculation slide]

Shackle strength analysis: 3,200 lbs before failure (FS = 1.07)
Corrosion testing: Stainless cable shows <2
Cycle testing: Preliminary prototype achieved 18,000 cycles without failure

Advantages:

Lightweight: 17
Cost-Effective: Near target cost, positive ROI
User-Friendly: Reduced weight improves daily usability
Manufacturable: Leverages existing die-casting capability
Differentiated: Cable-reinforced construction is unique in market segment

Risks and Mitigation:

Risk: Cable core design unproven in production Mitigation: Prototype testing phase, work with cable specialist supplier
Risk: Weather sealing effectiveness Mitigation: Environmental chamber testing before tooling commitment
Risk: Cost may creep during detailed design Mitigation: Target costing approach, design-to-cost discipline"

6. Show Next Steps

Outline what happens after approval.

Example: "Upon approval, we recommend:

Phase 1 (Weeks 1-4): Functional Prototyping

Build 10 functional prototypes
Conduct strength testing to failure
Perform 10,000 cycle endurance test
Environmental chamber testing

Phase 2 (Weeks 5-8): Design Refinement

Detail design based on test results
Supplier selection for cable and seals
Cost validation with quotes
Design for manufacturing review

Phase 3 (Weeks 9-16): Certification & Tooling

Submit for Sold Secure testing
Order production tooling ($75K)
Prepare manufacturing process documentation

Target Tooling Release: Week 16 Target Production Start: Week 20"

Component 3: Analysis (Analytical & Computational)

Purpose of Engineering Analysis

Engineering analysis validates that the design meets functional requirements before manufacturing. Analysis identifies potential failures, optimizes designs, and provides confidence that the product will perform as intended. Two primary analysis approaches are used:

Analytical Analysis (Hand Calculations)

Purpose:

Quick verification of critical design parameters
Sanity checks on computational results
Understanding fundamental behavior
Design optimization

Common Analytical Methods:

Stress calculations (tension, compression, bending, torsion)
Beam deflection equations
Pressure vessel formulas
Heat transfer calculations
Fluid flow equations
Fatigue life estimation

Advantages:

Fast results for simple geometries
Transparent assumptions and calculations
Easy to verify and document
No special software required
Builds engineering intuition

Limitations:

Limited to simplified geometries
May not capture complex interactions
Conservative assumptions often necessary

Bike Lock Analytical Example:

Computational Analysis (FEA, CFD, etc.)

Finite Element Analysis (FEA):

Simulates stress, strain, and deformation
Handles complex geometries and loading
Identifies stress concentrations
Predicts failure locations
Optimizes material distribution

Other Computational Methods:

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD): Airflow, water flow, heat transfer
Dynamic simulation: Motion analysis, collision detection
Thermal analysis: Heat distribution, cooling
Fatigue analysis: Cyclic loading life prediction
Topology optimization: Material layout optimization

FEA Best Practices:

Simplify Geometry Appropriately

Remove small features that don't affect stress distribution
Use symmetry to reduce model size
Ignore purely cosmetic features
Keep critical features that affect loading

Apply Realistic Boundary Conditions

Accurately represent supports and constraints
Apply loads at correct locations and directions
Consider load distribution (point vs. distributed)
Account for thermal effects if relevant

Use Appropriate Mesh

Refine mesh in high-stress regions
Use coarser mesh in low-interest areas
Verify mesh convergence (results stable with finer mesh)
Choose element type suitable for analysis (tetrahedral vs. hex)

Validate Results

Compare with hand calculations where possible
Check that deformations are reasonable
Verify force equilibrium
Look for stress concentrations in expected locations
Compare with test data if available

Bike Lock FEA Example: Lock Body Stress Analysis:

Objective: Verify lock body can withstand 20,000 N pulling force on shackle

Model Setup:

Imported CAD geometry (simplified - removed logo, small radii)
Material: Zinc alloy (E = 85 GPa, ν = 0.33, σ_y = 280 MPa)
Constraints: Fixed all surfaces where lock mounts to bike
Loads: 20,000 N distributed around shackle hole

Mesh:

Tetrahedral elements
0.5mm element size in shackle hole region
2mm element size elsewhere
Total elements: 125,000
Mesh refinement study: Results converged at this density

Results:

Maximum stress: 245 MPa (in radius at base of shackle hole)
Factor of Safety: 280/245 = 1.14 ... MARGINAL
Maximum displacement: 0.8mm

Conclusions:

Increase radius at base of shackle hole from 2mm to 3mm
Re-analyze with modified geometry
Target FOS greater than 1.5 for production

Analysis Documentation

Document all analysis thoroughly:

Objective: What are you trying to verify?
Assumptions: Material properties, loading conditions, boundary conditions
Methodology: Analytical equations or FEA setup
Results: Numerical results, plots, stress contours
Interpretation: Pass/fail against requirements
Recommendations: Design changes if needed

Include in design package:

Calculation sheets (hand calcs)
FEA reports with setup details and results
Comparison of multiple design iterations
Validation against test data (if available)