# A New Configuration Method for Glass Substrate Transfer Robot Modules Based on Kansei Engineering
## 4 Process and Results
### Selecting Configuration Options for Glass Substrate Transfer Robots  
(1) Orthogonal design  
In accordance with Step 7, described in Section 3.3, Table 5 presents the screening results for the orthogonal design. As a result of the orthogonal design, 16 representative combinations were selected out of 128 possible configurations, thereby reducing the number of combinations that users must evaluate. Additionally, in order to make comparing and sorting the 16 combination scenarios easier for the user, we used 3D modelling software (C4D) to plot the effect of the 16 combinations in Table 5, as shown in Figure 6.  
(2) Conjoint analysis  
In accordance with Step 8, described in Section 3.3, this subsection describes the process and results of a conjoined analysis based on the preferential selection of a modular system for transfer glass substrates. In accordance with the conjoint analysis experiment, 35 target users (28 males and 7 females) ranked the 16 module combination options (see Figure 6) according to their preferences (the further left the configuration option ID number is, the more preferred it is by the user). Then, we calculated the ranking results using SPSS conjoint analysis for the 35 target users. The results are shown in Table 6: column 1 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Serial** & **Configuration** & **Base** & **Turn Shaft** & **Lift Shaft** & **Arm** & **Fork** \\ \hline
1 & 1 & B2 & TS3 & LS3 & AR2 & F1 \\
2 & 2 & B1 & TS4 & LS1 & AR2 & F2 \\
3 & 3 & B1 & TS3 & LS4 & AR1 & F2 \\
4 & 4 & B1 & TS3 & LS2 & AR2 & F1 \\
5 & 5 & B2 & TS4 & LS2 & AR1 & F1 \\
6 & 6 & B2 & TS1 & LS2 & AR2 & F2 \\
7 & 7 & B2 & TS3 & LS1 & AR1 & F2 \\
8 & 8 & B1 & TS1 & LS3 & AR2 & F2 \\
9 & 9 & B2 & TS2 & LS1 & AR2 & F1 \\
10 & 10 & B2 & TS4 & LS4 & AR2 & F2 \\
11 & 11 & B1 & TS2 & LS2 & AR1 & F2 \\
12 & 12 & B1 & TS1 & LS1 & AR1 & F1 \\
13 & 13 & B1 & TS4 & LS3 & AR1 & F1 \\
14 & 14 & B2 & TS1 & LS4 & AR1 & F1 \\
15 & 15 & B2 & TS2 & LS3 & AR1 & F2 \\
16 & 16 & B1 & TS2 & LS4 & AR2 & F1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Modular configuration options for glass substrate handling robots based on orthogonal design. Figure 6: The result of 16 module combination options. represents the robot's base modules; column 2 indicates the relative influence of each base module on the user's decision (how closely it conforms to the simplicity style); column 3 shows the submodules included in each base module; the utility value in column 4 indicates the degree to which each sub-module influences the user's decision, with a higher value indicating that the sub-module is more important if it has a greater influence on the user's perception of the robot's simplicity; column 5 is the standard error; in column 6, the internal validity is represented as a correlation between the measured preferences of the target user and the estimated preferences of the statistical model, and it is used to determine the reliability of the analysis results, which can only be interpreted if the reliability meets the requirements of joint analysis. According to Table 6, [PERSON]'s tau = 0.864 and p = 0.007, referring to the relevant usage experience [31] and thus suggesting that the results of this conjoint analysis have a reasonable degree of reliability. According to the results, the turn shaft module (35.040%) is the most important factor affecting the simplicity of the glass substrate transfer robot, followed by the lift shaft module (31.129%). The fork module (14.1127%) is in third place, followed by the arm module (12.437%) and, finally, the base module (7.267%). In addition, based on utility values (see column 4 in Table 6), we identified that B1, TS2, LS2, AR2, and F1 were the main submodules affecting the simplicity style of the robot, so we combined these submodules to obtain the best module configuration scheme, as in Figure 7.  
In addition, the modular combination of glass substrate transfer robots shown in Figure 7 has already been mass-produced and received positive user feedback.