Requirements—derived from user needs and organizational goals—often translate directly into constraints (e.g., a vehicle must carry up to 1 000 kg). However, some requirements are inherently qualitative or high‐level, rendering them difficult to formalize as strict constraints. Furthermore, new designs are frequently bounded by legacy aspects that cannot be altered.

Evaluating and satisfying constraints is a core activity in engineering design. These constraints come from diverse sources: some represent functional relationships (e.g., Ohm’s law), others are imposed by regulatory codes or industry standards, and still others reflect design goals or stylistic preferences of the designers. The capacity to model and handle a wide variety of constraints is essential for any engineering design system.

Verified: These categories are widely recognized in engineering and systems disciplines, including ISO 9241 standards, engineering design textbooks, and systems engineering manuals (such as the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook and works by Ulrich & Eppinger).

Regulations are a particularly significant source of constraints in many industries. For example, automotive design is heavily shaped by emissions legislation—without a compliant engine, a vehicle cannot be marketed. The aerospace sector is similarly governed by strict certification requirements. While safety-critical products are subject to the most rigorous standards, even less regulated products face legislative constraints, such as those related to material usage. All design efforts are further constrained by time, budget, and available resources, though the severity of these constraints may vary.

The expertise available within the design team and across the supply chain also influences both the solution and the process of arriving at it. Many constraints are explicitly defined in product specifications as target values, acceptable ranges, or detailed descriptions of desired functions or behaviors. Others may be stated in broader organizational policies, yet not clearly articulated for individual projects. For example, a company might pursue a general innovation goal across its product line without assigning specific innovation targets to each design project—yet designers remain aware of this expectation.

Some constraints are left unstated for various reasons. Certain expectations are considered too obvious to mention—for instance, the requirement that clothing be safe to wear is rarely spelled out but implicitly shapes material choices, such as flammability. Experiential constraints are based on perceptual judgments and guide designers through conscious evaluation. Tacit constraints, on the other hand, influence designers’ decisions and methods without necessarily being consciously recognized.

Each constraint must be examined individually to assess the feasibility of designing mobile robots capable of wireless communication for path guidance, orientation, and position, as well as the ability to navigate a maze. Numerous factors influence the overall design of such a project. Objectively, some of these may act as limiting constraints, while others may pose no significant hindrance.