22.12.2012 Views

Prosthetic Arm Force Reducer Team 1 – Halliday's ... - Ohio University

Prosthetic Arm Force Reducer Team 1 – Halliday's ... - Ohio University

Prosthetic Arm Force Reducer Team 1 – Halliday's ... - Ohio University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

User Need Criteria<br />

Producer<br />

Criteria<br />

Concept<br />

Table 5.2.1 <strong>–</strong> Concept Scoring<br />

Fabricated<br />

Hook<br />

Otto Bock<br />

Model 10A60<br />

Mechanical Adv.<br />

System<br />

User Need Criteria Standards:<br />

1) Reduced User Input <strong>–</strong> Does this concept have the potential to provide a significant<br />

reduction in user input force required?<br />

2) Increased Grip Strength <strong>–</strong> Does this concept have the potential to provide an increase<br />

in grip strength over Tim’s current hook?<br />

3) Serviceable <strong>–</strong> Could this concept be serviced by the user without the assistance of a<br />

professional?<br />

4) Reliable <strong>–</strong> Will this product function correctly without regular maintenance so as not<br />

to reduce the users’ productivity?<br />

5) Corrosion Resistant <strong>–</strong> Can this concept be made out of materials that can withstand<br />

the agricultural environment?<br />

6) Affordable <strong>–</strong> Will this concept provide enough value to the customer that they can<br />

justify the cost?<br />

7) Simplicity of Use <strong>–</strong> Will this concept be as easy to use as the customer’s current<br />

application?<br />

8) Light Weight <strong>–</strong> Will this concept be light enough so as not to discomfort the user with<br />

added weight at the wrist or forearm?<br />

UProducer Criteria:<br />

1) Easily Manufactured <strong>–</strong> Does this team, as the producer of the product, have the skills<br />

and tools necessary to create and build all parts?<br />

2) Affordable <strong>–</strong> Can this product be made cheap enough that it can be sold at a profit and<br />

still provide significant value to the customer?<br />

3) Marketable <strong>–</strong> Would this concept provide a feature that would interest customers?<br />

4) Original <strong>–</strong> Does this concept provide a feature that is either new or vastly improved<br />

over current products in the market?<br />

Otto Bock<br />

Spring Upgrades<br />

Importance<br />

Factor (0-1)<br />

Rating [( 1-exceeds spec, 0-does not meet spec)*imp. factor]<br />

Reduced User Input 1.0 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.00<br />

Increased Grip Strength 1.0 0.50 0.60 0.00 0.90<br />

Serviceable 0.9 0.36 0.72 0.72 0.63<br />

Reliable 0.9 0.36 0.72 0.63 0.54<br />

Corrosion Resistant 0.8 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.48<br />

Affordable 0.6 0.18 0.42 0.54 0.42<br />

Simplicity of Use 0.5 0.25 0.45 0.40 0.35<br />

Light Weight 0.4 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.32<br />

Easily Manufactured 0.9 0.09 0.90 0.63 0.90<br />

Affordable 0.8 0.24 0.40 0.72 0.40<br />

Marketable 0.8 0.16 0.64 0.40 0.48<br />

Original 0.5 0.40 0.25 0.40 0.25<br />

TOTAL 4.1 6.7 6.3 5.7<br />

Relevance (1-highest, 4-lowest) 4 1 2 3<br />

22

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!