## 3 Applicability of the Presented Approaches for Micro Assembly on RMS
### Evaluation of Different Product Development Approaches Regarding Micro Assembly on RMS  
The four product development approaches described in Section 2 are assessed by using the established pairwise comparison. The results of the pairwise comparison of all product development approaches are shown in Table 1. Of all approaches, SAPB has the clearest structure when it comes to developing a new product. CE does this job in a rather broad way, which helps to integrate production and cutting time costs, but is not as detailed as SAPB in designing and developing the product itself. TRIZ has good techniques to help solve very specialized problems within the development of a product. But these techniques are only loosely connected, and one can get lost in the details. LD mainly works with the MVP. While this is good for fitting a product to a customer need, it is not perfectly suited for contracting work that dominates the field of micro assembly on RMS. LD is clearly and deliberately less structured than the other methods.  
When it comes to integration of production into the product development process, CE is doing best with the intertwining of product and process design, as well as the interdisciplinary teams. This is very handy when developing products for a micro assembly RMS. SAPB only designs the product, but has no clear and defined links to production, even if those links could be possible during the later design phases. TRIZ is a similar case. Only if the mini-problems are formulated in a way that takes production in account it may be considered, otherwise not. LD production is an inferior problem that needs to be solved after the customer need is satisfied. Nevertheless, the strong iterative and heavily-prototyped procedure can be very helpful in designing production processes, too.  
Designing a product so that it fits the RMS is of uppermost importance in the field of micro assembly. This can only be done by encouraging the potential customer to be involved in the development process. SAPB defines the clarification of the task before the conceptual design. Often this happens by creating specification documents. In a lot of cases, these documents are written before an exact process can be defined and solely focus on the product itself. If they are part of a binding contract such documents are hard to change in the later development phases, even if it is clear that they do not fit production needs and harm the development without any benefit for the underlying product. TRIZ has a similar problem. CE is able to reduce it by integrating production experts in the interdisciplinary core team without completely solving the problem. LD integrates the customer in the development of the product and does not depend on clear specifications. The strong iterative process has no strict goal besides satisfying the customer need. This can greatly help to adapt the product design to production requirements in the later design phases.  
The main premise of CE is to shorten the needed development time by overlapping the different phases of the development process. LD and TRIZ both need a lot of time to execute the different given development methods. SAPB is more streamlined but still lacks the optimization CE has. So, the best technique for a fast, less time-consummating product development approach is CE.  
Overall, there is no approach that fits all the needs that are found in Section 2 for a micro assembly-based product development for RMS. Each approach has different strengths and weaknesses. But a lot of the presented methods are combinable. In the next step, a novel product development approach is proposed based on a recombination of the existing presented and assessed techniques.