Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 38

MAE 451: DESIGN PROCESS & METHODS

PATIENT SANITATION LIFT MEMO 2
PATIENT SANITATION LIFT
MEMO 2

BENJAMIN STORTZ ZACHARY JANISH LIAM FLYNN LEANNE SKRABACZ HUMPHREY CHI HSUN WU

ADVISOR: DR. RAHUL RAI

OCTOBER 16, 2015

PREPARED BY:

TEAM #35

(This page is intentionally left blank)

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract

22

24

7

Problem Statement

7

Brainstorming ....................................................................................................................................

7

Morphological Matrix

Concept Selection

 

31

Appendix A: Gantt Chart Appendix B: WBS Chart Appendix C: Team Meeting Minutes

List of Figures

Figure 1: The team being briefed on the required functions of the product before brainstorming

9

Figure 2: Sketching of concepts during group brainstorming session

9

 

10

Figure 4: The team determining advantages and disadvantages of each concept

10

 

Figure

5:

Sketch

of

Concept

1

11

Figure

6:

Sketch

of

Concept

2

11

Figure

7:

Sketch

of

Concept

3

11

Figure

8:

Sketch

of

Concept

4

12

Figure

9:

Sketch

of

Concept

5

12

Figure 10: Sketch of Concept 6

12

Figure 11: Sketch of Concept 7

13

12

13

14

14

15

15

15

16

 

Figure 12: Sketch of Concept 8

Figure 13: Sketch of Concept 9 ..........................................................................................................

Figure 14: Sketch of Concept 10

Figure 15: Sketch of Concept 11

Figure 16: Sketch of Concept 12

Figure 17: Sketch of Concept 13

Figure 18: Sketch of Concept 14

Figure 19: Sketch of Concept 15

3

Figure 20: Sketch of Concept 16

 

16

Figure 21: Sketch of Concept 17

16

Figure 22: Sketch of Concept 18

17

Figure 23: Sketch of Concept 19

17

Figure 24: Sketch of Concept 20

17

Figure 25: Sketch of Concept 21

18

Figure 26: Sketch of Concept 22

18

Figure 27: Sketch of Concept 23

18

Figure 28: Sketch of Concept 24

19

Figure 29: Sketch of Concept 25

19

Figure 30: Sketch of Concept 26

20

Figure 31: Sketch of Concept 27

20

Figure 32: Sketch of Concept 28

20

Figure 33: Sketch of Concept 29

21

Figure 34: Sketch of Concept 30

21

 

23

25

 

List of Tables

Table I: Morphological Matrix with arrows showing the development of concept 31

24

Table II: Pros and Cons for Concept 1

 

26

Table

III:

Pros

and

Cons

for

Concept

2

26

Table IV: Pros and Cons for Concept 3

26

Table V: Pros and Cons for Concept 4

26

Table VI: Pros and Cons for Concept 5

26

Table VII: Pros and Cons for Concept 6

 

27

Table VIII: Pros and Cons for Concept 7

27

Table IX: Pros and Cons for Concept 8

 

27

Table X: Pros and Cons for Concept 9

 

27

Table XI: Pros and Cons for Concept 10

27

Table XII: Pros and Cons for Concept 11

27

Table XIII: Pros and Cons for Concept 12

28

Table XIV: Pros and Cons for Concept 13

28

4

Table XV: Pros and Cons for Concept 14

 

28

 

28

28

28

29

29

29

29

Table

XXIII:

Pros

and

Cons

for

Concept

22

29

Table XXIV: Pros and Cons for Concept 23

29

Table XXV: Pros and Cons for Concept 24

30

 

30

Table XXVII: Pros and Cons for Concept 26

 

30

Table XXVIII: Pros and Cons for Concept 27

30

Table XXIX: Pros and Cons for Concept 28

 

30

Table XXX: Pros and Cons for Concept 29

30

Table XXXI: Pros and Cons for Concept 30

31

 

31

31

Table XXXIV: Concept Scoring Matrix for the remaining 5 designs

32

5

(This page is intentionally left blank)

6

Abstract

The intent of this project team in the coming months is to design and prototype a more effective way to maneuver incontinent bedridden patients during the cleaning process. In this memo, the progress achieved in Memo 1where customer needs were identified and a preliminary Product Design Specifications were laid outis built upon by documenting the concept development process.

This process began by generating a Problem Statement, which distills the essence of the problem being addressed by the product. With the problem well-defined, a brainstorming session was then conducted, in which 30 design concepts were conceived. Following this brainstorming session, a Morphological Matrix was developed by performing a functional analysis and functional decomposition for the product, which then led to a well-informed additional conceptual design. In order to filter down these 31 concepts to the most promising solution, the group began by discussing each concept and identifying 3 pros and 3 cons for each design, and choosing the 10 most viable concepts based on these pros and

cons. From here, Pugh’s Method was employed as a concept screening matrix to identify the 5 best

remaining concepts, which were then scored with a Scoring Matrix to determine the overall best design that will be developed further. The concept with the highest score, Concept 31 (Figure 36), was the design that was generated after the Morphological Matrix was developed, underscoring the usefulness of identifying the key functions of the product during the concept development process. Finally, Revised Product Specifications were developed based on feedback from the concept screening process and team discussion. These Revised Product Specifications mark the end of Memo 2.

Problem Statement

When designing any product with the intent of solving a problem, it is critical that a well-defined problem statement is generated which captures the essence of the problem to be solved. A properly developed Problem Statement is used to guide the concept development process, and acts as a cohesive for constraining the further development of the product to purely those functions, features, and attributes that have a role in solving the problem at hand. Thus, before any concept brainstorming took place, the team generated a problem statement, which follows:

Problem Statement: The current method of maneuvering incontinent bedridden patients during the cleaning process is time-consuming and involves a high amount of effort and discomfort on behalf of the patient and caregiver, and devices currently on the market to assist with this process are ineffective, difficult to clean, and/or prohibitively expensive.

With the problem now well-defined, the team was then able to continue on in the development process, which began with a brainstorming session.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming sessions are a very effective tool for devising preliminary concepts for the product, which can then be assessed for their individual strengths and weaknesses and filtered down into the single most promising solution that will be developed and refined further to create the final product design.

7

Thus, once the Problem Statement was defined, the team conducted such a brainstorming session to generate a large number of potential solutions. The conditions and process that guided this brainstorming session are laid out as follows:

Brief: To prepare the group for the brainstorming session, the customer needs identified in Memo 1 (with Kano’s model and Hierarchical Model) were reviewed, as well as the Problem Statement that was generated. A copy of each of these was provided for each group member for referral during the brainstorming session.

People: All group members (Ben, Zack, Liam, Leanne, and Humphrey) were present for the brainstorming, in addition to two friends that were non-group members in order to get an influx of

“fresh” ideas from people who had not already been familiar with the project.

Set: In order to facilitate open discussion and a large amount of space with which to sketch concepts, the brainstorming session was held in the Group Study area of Capen Hall on the University at Buffalo north campus, at 3:00pm on October 5. The team was stationed at a large table, and graph paper, pencils, and snacks were provided. Two laptops were also available on the table to assist in the visualization of concept ideas during sketching (e.g., seeing how pulleys are typically mounted to a steel frame).

Process: In order to “clean the slate” before the session began, each member was instructed to listen to a favorite song of theirs without words, while keeping their eyes closed and focusing on their breathing. Next, the problem statement was again recited, and members were instructed that they would have 30 minutes to generate as many concepts as possible, with a target of at least 4 concepts each. The rules, which were then recited to the members, were as follows:

  • 1. Quantity, not quality

  • 2. Absolutely no criticism

  • 3. Weird ideas are good

  • 4. Transform others’ ideas rather than detract from them

  • 5. Go with the flow, and have fun!

Once the rules were recited, the timer was set to 30 minutes and the brainstorming began. Pictures of various stages of this session are depicted in Figures 1-4, and the concept sketches that resulted are provided in Figures 5-34.

8

Figure 1: The team being briefed on the required functions of the product before brainstorming Figure

Figure 1: The team being briefed on the required functions of the product before brainstorming

Figure 1: The team being briefed on the required functions of the product before brainstorming Figure

Figure 2: Sketching of concepts during group brainstorming session

9

Figure 3: The team comparing and discussing their sketched concepts Figure 4: The team discussing the

Figure 3: The team comparing and discussing their sketched concepts

Figure 3: The team comparing and discussing their sketched concepts Figure 4: The team discussing the

Figure 4: The team discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each concept

10

Concept Sketches:

Concept Sketches: Figure 5: Sketch of Concept 1 Figure 6: Sketch of Concept 2 Figure 7:

Figure 5: Sketch of Concept 1

Concept Sketches: Figure 5: Sketch of Concept 1 Figure 6: Sketch of Concept 2 Figure 7:

Figure 6: Sketch of Concept 2

Concept Sketches: Figure 5: Sketch of Concept 1 Figure 6: Sketch of Concept 2 Figure 7:

Figure 7: Sketch of Concept 3

11

Figure 8: Sketch of Concept 4 Figure 9: Sketch of Concept 5 Figure 10: Sketch of

Figure 8: Sketch of Concept 4

Figure 8: Sketch of Concept 4 Figure 9: Sketch of Concept 5 Figure 10: Sketch of

Figure 9: Sketch of Concept 5

Figure 8: Sketch of Concept 4 Figure 9: Sketch of Concept 5 Figure 10: Sketch of

Figure 10: Sketch of Concept 6

12

Figure 11: Sketch of Concept 7 Figure 12: Sketch of Concept 8 Figure 13: Sketch of

Figure 11: Sketch of Concept 7

Figure 11: Sketch of Concept 7 Figure 12: Sketch of Concept 8 Figure 13: Sketch of

Figure 12: Sketch of Concept 8

Figure 11: Sketch of Concept 7 Figure 12: Sketch of Concept 8 Figure 13: Sketch of

Figure 13: Sketch of Concept 9

13

Figure 14: Sketch of Concept 10 Figure 15: Sketch of Concept 11 14

Figure 14: Sketch of Concept 10

Figure 14: Sketch of Concept 10 Figure 15: Sketch of Concept 11 14

Figure 15: Sketch of Concept 11

14

Figure 16: Sketch of Concept 12 Figure 17: Sketch of Concept 13 Figure 18: Sketch of

Figure 16: Sketch of Concept 12

Figure 16: Sketch of Concept 12 Figure 17: Sketch of Concept 13 Figure 18: Sketch of

Figure 17: Sketch of Concept 13

Figure 16: Sketch of Concept 12 Figure 17: Sketch of Concept 13 Figure 18: Sketch of

Figure 18: Sketch of Concept 14

15

Figure 19: Sketch of Concept 15 Figure 20: Sketch of Concept 16 Figure 21: Sketch of

Figure 19: Sketch of Concept 15

Figure 19: Sketch of Concept 15 Figure 20: Sketch of Concept 16 Figure 21: Sketch of

Figure 20: Sketch of Concept 16

Figure 19: Sketch of Concept 15 Figure 20: Sketch of Concept 16 Figure 21: Sketch of

Figure 21: Sketch of Concept 17

16

Figure 22: Sketch of Concept 18 Figure 23: Sketch of Concept 19 Figure 24: Sketch of

Figure 22: Sketch of Concept 18

Figure 22: Sketch of Concept 18 Figure 23: Sketch of Concept 19 Figure 24: Sketch of

Figure 23: Sketch of Concept 19

Figure 22: Sketch of Concept 18 Figure 23: Sketch of Concept 19 Figure 24: Sketch of

Figure 24: Sketch of Concept 20

17

Figure 25: Sketch of Concept 21 Figure 26: Sketch of Concept 22 Figure 27: Sketch of

Figure 25: Sketch of Concept 21

Figure 25: Sketch of Concept 21 Figure 26: Sketch of Concept 22 Figure 27: Sketch of

Figure 26: Sketch of Concept 22

Figure 25: Sketch of Concept 21 Figure 26: Sketch of Concept 22 Figure 27: Sketch of

Figure 27: Sketch of Concept 23

18

Figure 28: Sketch of Concept 24 Figure 29: Sketch of Concept 25 19

Figure 28: Sketch of Concept 24

Figure 28: Sketch of Concept 24 Figure 29: Sketch of Concept 25 19

Figure 29: Sketch of Concept 25

19

Figure 30: Sketch of Concept 26 Figure 31: Sketch of Concept 27 Figure 32: Sketch of

Figure 30: Sketch of Concept 26

Figure 30: Sketch of Concept 26 Figure 31: Sketch of Concept 27 Figure 32: Sketch of

Figure 31: Sketch of Concept 27

Figure 30: Sketch of Concept 26 Figure 31: Sketch of Concept 27 Figure 32: Sketch of

Figure 32: Sketch of Concept 28

20

Figure 33: Sketch of Concept 29 Figure 34: Sketch of Concept 30 At the end of

Figure 33: Sketch of Concept 29

Figure 33: Sketch of Concept 29 Figure 34: Sketch of Concept 30 At the end of

Figure 34: Sketch of Concept 30

At the end of the brainstorming session, 30 concepts were developed (Figures 5-34), which exceeded the original goal of 20 concepts total over the 30-minute time limit. The team then compared and discussed the concepts (Figures 3-4) and provided feedback on each idea.

With the brainstorming session complete, the team then continued with the concept development by creating a Morphological Matrix with which to generate further ideas.

21

Morphological Matrix

A morphological matrix is a concept development tool wherein the top level functions that the system must perform, as well as various methods for achieving these functions, are identified and placed in a matrix that allows for simplified generation of product concepts. In order to generate new ideas from a source other than the brainstorming session, the team developed such a Morphological Matrix, which began with the performing of a Functional Analysis and Decomposition and corresponding development of a Function Structure, shown in Figure 35.

Functional Analysis

Level 0

The purpose of this system is to lift or lower the patient in order for medical personnel (nurses, caretakers, or others) to clean and sanitize the patient and bedding.

Level 1

This level describes the top-level functions of the system. The two inputs for this system are force and electricity.

Force Input

This input is human effort which is used to maneuver the patient onto the sling

(function A) This input also includes to human effort used to lift the sling (function B), and flows to

holding the sling in place (function C) The resulting output of functions A C is the patient lifted

For lowering the patient, the force input will be used to unlock the sling position (function D)

and the sling will lower gradually (function E) The resulting output of functions D E is the patient lowered

Electricity Input

In alternate designs, this input will be used to lift the sling (function B), and flows to holding

the sling in place (function C) The resulting output of functions B C is the patient lifted

This input will also be used to unlock the sling position (function D) and the sling will lower

gradually (function E) The resulting output of functions D E is the patient lowered

Level 2

This level describes the auxiliary functions of the system.

In mechanical designs, the force input will be used to fold the unit into a storage configuration

In alternate designs, the electricity input will be used to fold the unit into a storage configuration

22

Function Structure:

OVERALL FUNCTION

Function Structure: OVERALL FUNCTION SUPPORTING SUB-FUNCTIONS AUXILIARY FUNCTION Figure 35: Function Structure for the patient lift

SUPPORTING SUB-FUNCTIONS

AUXILIARY FUNCTION

Figure 35: Function Structure for the patient lift

Here, the functional analysis resulted in the determination of the key functions of the product, with a decomposition of functions into Overall (Primary), Supporting (Secondary), and Auxiliary (Tertiary) functions identified as depicted.

Using this Function Structure as a guide, the team then created a Morphological Matrix identifying various methods by which each sub-function could be performed, and then used this matrix to generate an additional product concept. Table I shows this matrix, with blue arrows showing the development of the additional concept.

23

Table I: Morphological Matrix with arrows showing the development of concept 31

   

SUB-FUNCTIONS

 
 

Maneuver

Use hands

   

Patient

(human force)

Sling already

onto Sling

to slide sling under patient

under patient

L

I

F

Raise Sling

Pulleys and cable

Pulleys and cable

Hydraulics

Electromechanical

Lever

Hand

T

(Motors)

crank

/

L

   
L
     

O

Hold Sling at

Ratcheting

Electromechanical

Hand brake

W

Height

mechanism with

brakes

(lever)

E

lock

E lock

R

           
 

Unlock ratcheting

Unlock ratcheting

Release

P

Unlock Sling

mechanism

mechanism by

Release brake

brake

A

Position

with lever

pulling (like

with lever

electronically

T

 
T window blinds)

window blinds)

I

E

         

N

Lower Sling

Rotational dampers

Motor resistance

Crank with

T

Gradually

on pulley

(lower electro-

handle

mechanically)

 

Sling winds itself

Sling winds up

Sling winds up

Structure folds

Storage

up electromechanically

by hand

by hand

This tool proved to be quite useful in identifying further product concepts, and resulted in a more refined additional concept, shown in Figure 36:

24

Figure 36: Sketch of Concept 31, developed from analysis of the Morphological Matrix With 31 concepts

Figure 36: Sketch of Concept 31, developed from analysis of the Morphological Matrix

With 31 concepts now identifiedbetween the brainstorming session and the development and usage of a Morphological Matrixthe team then moved on to the Concept Selection stage in to filter the concepts down to the single most promising one.

Concept Selection

The concept generation process is excellent for formulating many potential solutions to the problem being solved by the product; however, the goal is to make a single, optimal product, and the Concept Selection process helps in funneling these ideas down to the most viable. In using various methods for filtering and “ranking” ideas, the team sought to determine the best concept, which would continue on to be developed further. This concept selection process consisted of two “stages”: a subjective filtering method, and an objective scoring method. The subjective method was utilized first, and consisted of the development of a Pros and Cons list for each concept. The results of this analysis are given in Tables II- XXXII:

25

Table II: Pros and Cons for Concept 1

Pros

Cons

Sling design maximizes comfort

Not versatile only raise whole body easily

Accessible ceiling mounted

Ceiling mount introduces added cost for customers

Simple mechanical device (no electronics)

Hard to get sling under patient

Table III: Pros and Cons for Concept 2

Pros

Cons

Sling design wide to accommodate rolled patient position

Very hard to maneuver patient onto sling

Accessible in most patient rooms

Ceiling mount introduces added cost for customers

No hydraulics or electronics

Take a long time to clean entire sling

Table IV: Pros and Cons for Concept 3

Pros

Cons

Extremely simple utilizing well known devices

Tipping entire bed could be dangerous and unstable

Cheap materials

Would take a long time to raise bed with mechanical jack

Mimics motion of nurses during cleaning process

Could have issues with other equipment when tipping bed

Table V: Pros and Cons for Concept 4

Pros

Cons

Versatile able to raise legs and upper body

Lot of components

Allows large range of motion

Bed mounted and ceiling mounted

Simple mechanical device

Separate controls for each part not easy to use

Table VI: Pros and Cons for Concept 5

Pros

Cons

Simple mechanical system

Patient held against bed rail could be uncomfortable

Easy to operate (caregiver)

Can’t maneuver to appropriate angle

Padded cushions

Assembly complex

26

Table VII: Pros and Cons for Concept 6

Pros

Cons

Full maneuverability able to reach 90 degree angle

Big design structure takes up a lot of space

Simple mechanical system

Could be a pain to mount to bed

Ease of operation for caregiver/nurse

Patient held against bed rail

Table VIII: Pros and Cons for Concept 7

Pros

Cons

Easy to fold

Less rigid structure

Takes up less space more compact

Additional time required to set up

Easier to maneuver under patient

More components more complex assembly

Table IX: Pros and Cons for Concept 8

Pros

Cons

Easy to operate, does not involve electrical parts

Not portable

Don’t need to spent effort to left a body

Can’t roll the patient

Easier to clean

Need to separate the top and bottom slings

Table X: Pros and Cons for Concept 9

Pros

Cons

3-D maneuverable

Hard to put the hammock under the body

Can left the patient and to the side or up

Not portable

Easy to clean

Hammock is not safety for patient

Table XI: Pros and Cons for Concept 10

Pros

Cons

3-D maneuverable

Take too much time to put on the vest

Safe

Frame is not portable (vest is)

Easy for to clean

Uncomfortable

Table XII: Pros and Cons for Concept 11

Pros

Cons

Portable frame

Hard to put the sling under the body

Comfortable

Might need two people to operate

Safe

Hard to raise the patient high

27

Table XIII: Pros and Cons for Concept 12

Pros

Cons

Foldable design to stow out of way

Difficult to integrate with existing beds

Convenience of always being in room

High cost

High maneuverability of the patient

Difficult to manufacture

Table XIV: Pros and Cons for Concept 13

Pros

Cons

Out of the way design retracts into fixture on ceiling

Difficult to integrate with existing beds

High maneuverability

High cost

Can lift whole person

High structural requirements for ceiling strength

Table XV: Pros and Cons for Concept 14

Pros

Cons

Always there no need to move patient

May be hard to reach

No user force needed

Strap system may be too uncomfortable

Easy for one person to operate

High cost of integration

Table XVI: Pros and Cons for Concept 15

Pros

Cons

Always there no need to move patient

Difficult to integrate into existing beds

No user force needed

High structural requirements

Easy access to bed sheets for cleaning/replacement

High cost

Table XVII: Pros and Cons for Concept 16

Pros

Cons

High adjustability to fit patients

Complex frame (high part count)

Integrated in bed always there

High cost

Good support of patient when lifting

Difficult to clean

Table XVIII: Pros and Cons for Concept 17

Pros

Cons

Inexpensive

Still requires physical force input

Always integrated to bed no setup time

Difficult to integrate into existing beds

Easy to operate/clean

May not provide adequate access underneath patient

28

Table XIX: Pros and Cons for Concept 18

Pros

Cons

Lifts patient completely off the bed for easy cleaning

Could get in the way of cleaning, being attached to the bed

Always in the room

Possibly uncomfortable for patient

Easily disinfected

Straps could get tangled

Table XX: Pros and Cons for Concept 19

Pros

Cons

Easily disinfected

Lift could get in the way of cleaning

Always in the room/attached to the wall

Not very comfortable for patient

One caregiver to operate

Possible extra lifting required to move patient

Table XXI: Pros and Cons for Concept 20

Pros

Cons

Easily disinfected

Lift could get in the way

One caregiver to operate

Possible extra lifting required to move patient into slings

Always in the room

Not very comfortable

Table XXII: Pros and Cons for Concept 21

Pros

Cons

Easily disinfected

Not very comfortable

Always in the room

Lift could get in the way

Low cost

Possible extra lifting required to move patient

Table XXIII: Pros and Cons for Concept 22

Pros

Cons

Only requires one caregiver to operate

Not very comfortable

No lift system needed, just use straps

Possible unnecessary jerking of patient

Easy to store

Does not wipe clean easily

Table XXIV: Pros and Cons for Concept 23

Pros

Cons

Easy to store

Possibly not turn patient on side completely

Easy to clean and disinfect

Could get in the way during cleaning process

Only requires one caregiver to operate

Not very comfortable

29

Table XXV: Pros and Cons for Concept 24

Pros

Cons

4-point sling for ultimate maneuverability

Ropes/cables can get in the way of cleaning

Small/lightweight slings

Pulleys require some lifting strength

Can be easily wiped clean

Not portable

Table XXVI: Pros and Cons for Concept 25

Pros

Cons

Cheaper than 4-point sling/lift

May not provide adequate access for cleaning

the patient’s back

Only one sling to clean

May be uncomfortable

Fewer cables to get in the way of cleaning

Can only lift legs (no turning/rolling of patient)

Table XXVII: Pros and Cons for Concept 26

Pros

Cons

Built into bed frame

Difficult/expensive to implement in current bed designs

Completely electrical (no force input required by user)

Not portable

Compact and easily moved out of the way when not in use

Difficult and expensive to manufacture

Table XXVIII: Pros and Cons for Concept 27

Pros

Cons

Simple, lightweight

May not provide adequate access for cleaning

the patient’s back

Can be stored under bed

Still requires force input by the caregiver

Easily wiped clean

Potentially uncomfortable

Table XXIX: Pros and Cons for Concept 28

Pros

Cons

Easy to clean

Not portable

Can adjust the size of the sling for various body sizes

Uncomfortable

Stable (hangs from ceiling)

May require two people to operate

Table XXX: Pros and Cons for Concept 29

Pros

Cons

Easy to clean

Entirely hand-powered

Portable

Needs patient be in sitting position

Safe and comfortable

Hard to position the sling under the body

30

Table XXXI: Pros and Cons for Concept 30

Pros

Cons

No force input required by caregiver

Difficult to manufacture

Lifts patient completely out of bed (for changing sheets)

Expensive

Robust and can handle a lot of weight

Not portable and very bulky

Table XXXII: Pros and Cons for Concept 31

Pros

Cons

Low cost

Not portable

Can also use to roll the body (rather than just lift)

Potentially uncomfortable

3-D maneuverable

High structural requirements (only one section hanging from the ceiling)

After analyzing and discussing the pros and cons of each concept, the team was able to filter down the concepts to the 10 best, which were then subjected to Stage 2 of the concept selection process: the objective method.

The objective method for filtering the remaining concepts was adapted from Pugh’s Method, where a

concept screening matrix was created for the 10 designs which was used to develop the 5 most

promising concepts. These remaining 5 concepts were then placed into a Concept Scoring Matrix, which identified the final concept that the team would move forward in developing. This Concept Screening Matrix and Concept Scoring Matrix are show in Tables XXXIII and XXXIV, respectively:

Table XXXIII: Concept Screening Matrix for the remaining 10 designs

Table XXXI: Pros and Cons for Concept 30 Pros Cons No force input required by caregiver

31

Table XXXIV: Concept Scoring Matrix for the remaining 5 designs

Table XXXIV: Concept Scoring Matrix for the remaining 5 designs Performing the concept screening resulted in

Performing the concept screening resulted in a clear winner in Concept 31, which also happened to be the concept that was developed last, after creating and using the Morphological Matrix. This result gives further support for utilizing this helpful tool when generating conceptual designs for a product.

Using feedback from the concept screening process as well as team discussion, the Revised Product Design Specifications can now be detailed.

Revised Product Design Specifications

The product design specification stage of the design process is critical to help sort and lay out the requirements of the product being designed. The customer and engineering requirements were originally determined (in Memo 1) using surveys and interviews taken during the initial stages of the design process. Similarly, the function of the product and certain design requirements such as the performance requirements were laid out, using input from a QFD matrix as well as customer needs. And, now that the concept selection process has been completed, some minor revisions to the product design specifications can be made.

Function:

The lift will be attached to the ceiling involving a pulley system that will have two easily-cleaned pads that are placed under the patient, one placed under the shoulders/upper back and the second under the knees/upper calf. Instead of performing the rollover technique and “stiff arming” the patient in the back to keep them on their side, this lift will perform the technique using the pads and the pulley system to keep the patient on their side; or, alternatively, it can simply lift the lower half of the body. The lift will be inexpensive to the extent that one could feasibly be installed in every room.

Customer requirements (in order of importance):

  • 1. Must be able to be disinfected easily

  • 2. Safety of both the patient and the caregiver

  • 3. Must be readily available

32

4.

Must be able to be operated by one person

  • 5. Must have the ability to be performed fairly quickly

Engineering Characteristics (in order of importance):

  • 1. Medical-grade, easily cleanable materials used

  • 2. No sharp edges, points, or loose hanging loops that could be tripped on

  • 3. Must have the ability to attach to the ceiling to have one in every room

  • 4. <50 lbs force required for lifting

  • 5. Must take less than 2 minutes to deploy under patient

Design requirements:

  • 1. Physical and Operational Characteristics:

    • a. Performance requirements: The lift will have the ability to roll a patient to their side or just

lift their lower half of their body for cleaning. The lift will have the ability to be operated by one caregiver with minimal force required. The sling on the lift will be padded and have the

ability to be easily disinfected for repeated use.

  • b. Safety: The lift will have a locking system that will prevent the patient from being dropped

drastically so the patient stays in the position required for the cleaning. The sling will be easy to clean to prevent spreading of diseases or infections. The straps will have the ability to be moved to the sided to get out of the way of any other operations that need to be performed or to prevent a patient accident with the straps.

  • c. Accuracy and Reliability: The lift should be able to perform the required lift of the patient smoothly.

  • d. Life in Service: The lift should be able to function for a minimum of two years. The slings

of the lift should be able to function for a minimum of one year. The ideal service of the lift shall be six years.

  • e. Shelf Life: The lift should be at least two years and the slings should be at least one year.

  • f. Operating Environment: The lift will be designed to be used indoors all of its product life. The lift and slings will be designed to withstand a large temperature range and still be able to

perform the operation smoothly. The lift doesn’t require any electricity so can be performed

if a power outage occurs.

  • g. Ergonomics: Allows for maximum patient comfort and easy operability by caretaker.

  • h. Size: The preliminary size goal of the mechanism that is attached to the ceiling would be

about 2’x2’ cube.

  • i. Weight: The preliminary weight goal of the total lift should be 100 pounds or less.

33

  • j. Materials: Utilizes steel and aluminum for the primary structure, steel cables to take on

loading of the patient, and a padded fabric sling with a rigid support skeleton. Other

materials utilized include plastics and rubber which will be optimized for low-cost.

  • k. Aesthetics, Appearance, and Finish: The lift shall be aesthetically pleasing and fit in with

the rest of the hospital room’s aesthetics. The slings of the lift should be aesthetically please

but also have a finish that allows for them to be disinfected easily.

2. Production Characteristics:

  • a. Quantity: 5,000 per year

  • b. Target Product Cost: $800 or under

In using the feedback from the concept generation process and team discussion to revise the Product Design Specifications, the product can now continue into later stages of development with a rock-solid set of functional and engineering requirements to guide the design.

34

Appendix A: Gantt Chart

Appendix A: Gantt Chart 35

Appendix B: Work Breakdown Structure

Appendix B: Work Breakdown Structure Appendix C: Team Meeting Minutes Date Time Location Attendance Minutes 10/8/15

Appendix C: Team Meeting Minutes

Date

Time

Location

Attendance

Minutes

10/8/15

3:00pm

Capen

Everyone

Brainstorming session:

Library

o

Come up with at least 2 unique

o

o

o

concepts based on customer needs feedback - 30mins Sketched designs, annotated aspects

of the design Each came up with 2 new concepts

Took pictures and documented

brainstorming process Weekend work:

o

Come up with at least 4 more unique

o

concepts post-brainstorm Think about pros/cons of each

Laid out plan for next week:

36

       

o

Next meeting (Monday):

  • Finalize pros/cons

o

  • Morphological matrix (if we have time) Tuesday:

  • Funnel down concepts to 10 then 5

  • Look at project proposal form for senior design

10/12/15

3:30pm

Capen

Everyone

Discussed senior project

o

o

o

  • Quadcopter controls problem

Library

Proposal - what is required

When is proposal due?

 

Discussed different ideas for self-

defined project:

 
  • Quadcopter & ground unit communication autonomously

  • Electro-mechanical creeper for car repair

  • Electro-mechanical lift for cars

o

  • Engine and turbo design for efficiency in cars Finalized and submitted survey form

  • Top 3 preferences: self-defined, self-defined, bridge in a box

  • Self-defined #1: quadcopter controls problem

  • Self-defined #2: electro- mechanical creeper for automotive repair Finalized pros and cons for each concept

o

o

Reviewed all design concepts

Made any necessary revisions

Next meeting:

o

Pick top 10 ideas from pros/cons

10/13/15

2:00pm

Capen

Everyone

Senior design project need to update drone

o

o

Library

idea

Look for what already has been done

Tethered quad for crowds?

Identify top 10 ideas from pros and cons:

o

Design numbers:

  • 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 19, 20, 25, 26,

28,31

  • Not 4!

Constraints for pugh’s method screening

matrix:

o

Easily disinfected

o

Minimal required force for lifting

o

One person operation

o

Safe for patient and caregiver

o

Low cost

37

o o  Comfortable for patient Durable Accessibility Action Items: o o Type up pros and
o
o
Comfortable for patient
Durable
Accessibility
Action Items:
o
o
Type up pros and cons for tomorrow’s
meeting in tabular form
10/14/15
2:00pm
Capen
Ben, Zack,
Library
Leanne,
Senior design project
Need to write proposals
Develop quadcopter idea further
Have prosthetic arm design as backup
plan
Look into problems that could be solved
with a tethered quadcopter
Different idea - collapsible large stage
for performances
Scoring matrix
Add weights to design constraints
Create excel file for scoring matrix
Morphological matrix
Signal diagram development
o
Humphrey
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Designed level 0, 1, 2
Need to draw diagram in MS Word for
final copy
Tabularize meeting minutes for final copy
Next meeting:
o
o
Split up remaining work for final copy
10/15/15
3:00pm
Capen
Everyone
Library
Functional Decomposition
Finalize block diagram
Discussed auxiliary functions
Functional analysis (write up what is in boxes
and see pdf) - Humphrey
Draw up block diagram in word - Liam
Tabularize meeting minutes - Zack
Gantt chart - Zack
WBS - Zack
Morphological matrix - computer version -
Leanne
Formatting - Ben
Paper version of morphological matrix and
functional structure (decomposition) - Zack and
Ben
Email function structure to Leanne and
Humphrey
Email picture of paper version of morpho
matrix
Weighted screening matrix - Zack
o
o

38