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
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