THE STOW-AWAY

Kyle Chen
Eric Coy
Ronak Patel
Jon Takosky

February 23, 2010

Team #1

Executive Summary
The team set out to design a new consumer household product. The objective of the
project was to create a product that eliminated the everyday problem of can storage. The design
process described in this proposal involved gathering/interpreting consumer needs, concept
generation, concept selection, and product refinement. The consumer need analysis showed the
different problems presented in current can storage systems. The concepts created eliminated
many of these problems. The concepts were refined and screened using a series of matrices. The
final concept, The Stow-Away, combined all of the best aspects of the initial concepts. The final
product has three main parts; a well-built outside housing case, three sturdy steel sliding tracks,
and finally three strong and durable vertical drawers. The combination of the three main parts
creates a product that allows the consumer to store their cans in an easy to see manner. The
Stow-Away is a new product that eliminates a household problem that many consumers
experience.
 Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Background 3
1.2 Task Description 3
2. Problem Definition 3
3. Customer Needs Assessment 4
2.1 Gathering Customer Input 4
2.2 Weighting of Customer Needs 5
4. Engineering Specifications 5
4.1 Establishing Target Specifications 6
4.2 Relating Specifications to Customer Needs 6
5. Concept Generation 7
5.1 External Search 7
5.2 Design Concepts 8
6. Concept Selection 10
7. Final Design 11
8. Conclusions and Recommendations 12
9. References 13
Appendices

Page 2 of 26
1. Introduction

1.1 Background
Stow- Away is an innovative can storage unit. Currently storing, finding, and removing cans
from a cabinet is a hassle. People have to move, remove, and dig through stacked cans to find the
can they are looking for. However, the Stow-Away takes the current repetitive and inefficient
task and transforms it into a simple and efficient one. The problem of stacking, finding, and
removing cans is a problem that affects a wide range of people. Homeowners of any age,
restaurant owners, and nursing homes are just some of the places impacted by the problem. Thus,
a potential market for the Stow-Away is both residential and commercial locations. In addition,
the Stow-Away can appeal to anyone who is looking for an easy, efficient, and productive way
of storing cans.

1.2 Task Description

The task was to develop a consumer product that would appeal to households in the United
States. The objective of the project is to design a new product based on consumer needs.
Furthermore, the product should help homeowners by making an everyday task easier. It should
be designed to be affordable and successful in the current market also. Furthermore, there was a
specific design process implemented to achieve the desired results. First, the team brainstormed
ideas about what household task to improve. Next, the team looked at a couple of the best ideas
and voted on which idea to pursue. Once an idea was chosen, the customer needs were identified
and ranked in order of importance. Afterwards, a list of target specifications was created. Once
proper metrics and values were established we began concept generation. We began concept
generation by developing four different concepts. In addition, an external search was conducted
to find related concepts. Next, we began concept selection by running our ideas through a
concept screening matrix. The concept screening matrix was used to choose a final concept.

2. Problem Definition

Stow-Away addresses the problem of can storage because current methods for can storage are
inefficient and place an unnecessary burden on people. This problem was identified by looking at
different problems around the house. The team realized that time is wasted in the kitchen and
looked to improve a process within the kitchen. Instantly, the team realized people waste time
stacking cans and even more time trying to find stacked cans in a cabinet. Once the team chose a
problem, a specific ideation method was used. First, the team looked over all the critical
customer needs and began to brainstorm. The brainstorm process led each team member to have
his own idea of what the solution should be. Thus, each member produced a sketch of what he
felt the solution should be. Each solution tried to remedy the overall problem, which was to make
storing and removing cans a more efficient process. In addition, the solution to the problem had

Page 3 of 26
to satisfy numerous constraints. First, it had to be able to store cans of various widths and
heights. Next, there has to be clearance at the top and a lip on the sides to make sure cans could
be stored and removed easily. Moreover, the unit has to be able to store a sufficient number of
cans; not to mention the entire unit has to be able to fit in a broad range of locations. It is vital
that the solution meet the constraints because the problem impacts both residential and
commercial locations. Furthermore, a high quality solution to his problem will help both
residential and commercial locations by making their lives not only easier but more productive.

3. Customer Needs Assessment

The Stow-Away’s potential customers can be homeowners, restaurant owners, or anyone who
wants to store cans in a more efficient and productive way. The target age for the product ranges
from college students to grandparents because of the product’s ease of use. The customer needs
were gathered by direct observation and discussion in the team. Furthermore, discussion within
the team was carried out in an organized manner. Each team member listed four customer needs
that they felt were important, and then the team collaborated to combine similar needs and create
a hierarchy of needs. Primary and secondary needs were found by creating a hierarchy of needs.

3.1 Gathering Customer Input

The team gathered customer input to determine the quality of the idea and to determine the
potential market for the product. Interviews were the primary method used to gather customer
input. The interviewees included people from both residential and commercial locations.
According to Table 1 below, this product has a high potential to be successful residentially.
Nearly 75% of the people interviewed said that storing, finding, and removing cans is a hassle
for them. Of this 75%, 60% of the people said that they would buy the Stow-Away or a similar
product for their kitchen. 30% of the people said they may buy it, and factors like price were a
big influence on their decision. 10% of the people said they were content with the current
situation. The results show that over half of the people that are annoyed by the problem would be
interested in buying the Stow-Away to solve the problem. According to Table 2 below, this
product does not appeal to franchise restaurants. Franchise restaurants did not want to change
either their work environment or their training program. However, some local restaurants said
they would be interested in the Stow-Away as a means of improving productivity.

Table 1. Summarized results of residential interviews

Question Answer Percent of interviewees
Do you think it is a hassle to store, find, and remove Yes 75%
cans
Are you interested in the Stow-Away Yes 45%
What do you consider the most important factor when Price 35%
buying a product like the Stow-Away

Page 4 of 26
Table 2. Summarized results of commercial interviews
Question Answer Percent of interviewees
Do you think it is a hassle to store, find, and remove Yes 60%
cans
Are you interested in the Stow-Away Yes 40%
What do you consider the most important factor when Price 40%
buying a product like the Stow-Away

3.2 Weighting Customer Needs

The customer input made it easy to weight the customer needs. It is very important to weight
customer needs. Weighting customer needs drives the concept generation and selection process.
Weighting the customer needs makes it clear which needs are critical and need extra attention.
Therefore, the team generated concepts and tried to guarantee that these needs were met. Not
only does weighting customer needs allow the team to create a product for the customers, but it
drives the selection process. Weighting customer needs is a critical part of the concept scoring
matrix. Overall, weighting customer needs is an essential part of a successful design process.
Table 3 below shows customer needs and their respective weighting values.

Table 3. Weighting customer needs by AHP method

Customer Need Weighing (from AHP)
Strength 17%
Durability 19%
Safety 33%
Storage Capacity 8%
Ease of Use 10%
Appearance 7%
Inexpensive 6%

The needs listed in Table 3 are specific to the product. First, strength means that the material of
product is strong enough to support the load. Next, durability means the product will not wear
and the shelves can open and close for many cycles. Safety means that the shelves will not come
out or topple over. Furthermore, storage capacity means that the unit can hold a sufficient
number of cans. Finally, ease of use refers to the fact that the product should open and close
easily, people of all ages can use it, and storing or removing cans should be an effortless task.

4. Engineering Specifications

After determining customer needs, the team turned the needs into engineering specifications. The
team did this by looking at each individual need and translating the need into one or more
metrics. The metrics were then assigned a corresponding value or range of values. Additionally,
if the product satisfied the established metrics and values, then it would satisfy the corresponding
Page 5 of 26
need as well. The critical needs gave rise to the critical metrics, and these were the metrics used
in our decision matrix. These metrics are that the Stow-Away be easy to handle, easy to use, easy
to assemble, able to handle to a large load, durable, inexpensive to manufacture, safe, and able to
hold a large number of cans.

4.1 Establishing Target Specifications and Metrics

Figure 1 below shows the target specifications set by the team, the target specifications include
metrics and both marginal and ideal values for each metric. The values were determined by using
the customer needs, interviews, and personal experiences of the team members.

Metric Need Marginal

Ideal Value
No. Nos. Metric Imp. Units Value
1 1 Holds a certain load 4 lbs. >10 >15
2 1,2 Last for many uses 5 Cycles >10,000 >15,000
3 2,3 Side Lip 4 in. >0.05 >0.1
Drawer stays in
Pass Pass
4 3 cabinet 5 Binary
Volume of storage
12 16
5 4 space 5 Cans
6 5 Opens smoothly 4 Binary Pass Pass
Base
Cabinet
Countertop
Base Wall
Cabinet Cabinet
7 5 Compatibility of unit 3 List Countertop Refrigerator
8 5 Installation time 2 Min. <25 <15
9 6 Looks good 3 Subj. Yes Yes
Unit manufacturing
35 25
10 7 cost 5 US$
Figure 1. Target specifications for the Stow-Away

4.2 Relationship of Engineering Specifications to Customer Needs

Figure 2 below shows a QFD for the Stow-Away to describe the relation between engineering
specifications and customer needs. There are nine customer requirements that are related to five
engineering requirements. If the product met the engineering targets for the engineering
requirements, then the product would satisfy the customer requirements as well.

Page 6 of 26
 Engineering
Requirements

Weight supported

Side lip height

Cans stored
Lifetime

Cost
Holds a certain load X
Customer Requirements

Last for many cycles X

Side lip to prevent fall off X
Holds drawers securely X X
Volume of storage space X
Opens/Closes smoothly X X
Looks good X X
Cabinet Compatibility X
Inexpensive X
15,000 Cycles
Units

Cans
lbs

in.

$
0.1
15

16

35

Engineering Targets

Figure 2. QFD chart for Stow-Away

5. Concept Generation

5.1 External Search

The team conducted an external search targeted at finding existing solution to a similar problem.
The team put a heavy emphasis on this process as a means of understanding the current market
and competition, as well as giving the team a basis for benchmarking. The patents and literature
that were searched gave the team an understanding of the market. Afterwards, the team was able
to effectively benchmark.

5.1.1 Search Patents

The team used a keyword search to look for patents. The team found that there was an existing
cabinet with vertical drawers. However, there were still numerous differences separating the two
ideas from each other. Other patent searches were conducted to see the different methods of can
storage that are patented. The results of the search showed various ways to complete the task but

Page 7 of 26
none of the ideas were that similar to the proposed design. Lastly, patent searches were
conducted to look for a sliding method to determine how the cabinet would open and close. The
results found were similar to the of the can storage methods. There are similar methods, but none
of the ideas were that similar to our idea. The results of the patent search gave us an idea of what
was protected. Appendix C has the cover pages of patents the team found valuable.

5.1.2 Search of Market:

The team continued with the external search by looking for products already on the market.
Webpages and catalogs were the primary methods used by the team to determine what products
are currently on the market. The can storage market is a competitive one. The concept most
companies used is one where cans are stored in a horizontal manner and similar cans are stacked
together in a row. Moreover, the cans are allowed to roll so the user could easily stack and
remove the can. Figure 3 shows an example of a current can storage unit on the market.

Figure 3. Can storage unit from Shelf-Reliance

5.1.3 Benchmark Products:

Benchmarking began once the team had completed searching for patents and current ideas in the
market. Currently, there are many viable solutions to the problem of can storage. On the other
hand, all the methods are similar and require users to stack similar if not identical cans together.
The team proposed a new solution to this existing problem. The proposed solution would allow
the user to stack and organize cans in the conventional method while eliminating the problems
associated with it. Nonetheless, the team decided that the principal competitor would be Shelf-
Reliance [ref 9 ]. Currently Shelf-Reliance has released many units for can storage that are either
free standing or can be placed in a cupboard, pantry, or cabinet. Thus, using Shelf-Reliance as a
benchmark drove concept generation for the team. The team tried to make sure the design would
not only match but exceed the both the features and quality of Shelf-Reliance products.

5.2 Design Concept

Upon completion of a detailed external search, the team came up with possible solutions to the
problem. Three of the feasible concepts are shown below in Figures 4-6. To generate the concept
each team member drew up what he felt would be the best solution while keeping the benchmark
in mind. The team used individual concept generation followed by a team meeting as the primary
ideation method. Appendix D shows a table of advantages and disadvantages for each concept.

Page 8 of 26
5.2.1 Design Concept 1:

This concept has 3 sliding drawers. Each

drawer comes equipped with 2 shelves.
Moreover, each shelf has a side lip to prevent
cans from falling off the sides. The material
used will be a strong, durable plastic for the
shelves and overall casing while a metal will
be used for the rails. The unit will ideally hold
8 cans in each drawer allowing for a capacity
of 24 cans. The unit will be able to be stored
in various locations as well.
Figure 4. Design Concept 1

5.2.2 Design Concept 2:

This concept has 2 sliding drawers. Each

drawer comes equipped with 4 shelves and each
shelf has a side lip as a safety measure. The
material used will be composite wood for the
whole unit expect for the rails that are metal.
The unit also has a side shelf to store bigger
objects and non-canned objects. The unit will
ideally hold 12 cans in each drawer allowing for
a 24 can storage space. The unit is meant to be
stored in cabinets.
Figure 5. Design Concept 2

5.2.3 Design Concept 3:

This concept is one large sliding drawer with 4

shelves. The drawer allow cans of various sizes
and heights to easily sit on the shelf. The
shelves would be made of plastic, overall casing
would be made of wood, and rails would be
made of metal. The unit will ideally be able to
store 4 cans in each shelf allowing for a total of
a 16 can storage place. The unit can easily be
stored anywhere because it is narrow.
Figure 6. Design Concept 3

Page 9 of 26
6. Concept Selection

After the concepts were generated, the next step was to screen the concepts using different
matrices. The first matrix used a reference concept to rate the concepts. The designs were then
ranked it and the team decided that three of them should be continued. The three that were
continued are shown in the concept generation part of the memo.

CONCEPT VARIANTS
SELECTION
A B C D E (REF.)
CRITERIA
Ease of Handling 0 0 0 0 0
Ease of Use 0 - + + 0
Ease of Assembly - + + - 0
Load Handling 0 - - + 0
Load Capability 0 + 0 0 0
Durability - 0 - + 0
Manufactoring Cost 0 + 0 - 0
Safety + 0 - + 0
PLUSES 1 3 2 4
SAMES 5 3 3 2
MINUSES 2 2 3 2
NET 0 1 -1 2
RANK 3 2 4 1

CONTINUE Yes Yes No Yes

Figure 7. Concept Screening Matrix

These three concepts were then put through a concept scoring matrix. The scoring matrix was
made up from the consumer needs and weighted scores. The scores were weighted based on
what the team found was most important to the consumer. The three most important selection
criteria are safety, durability, and load capability. After the designs were rated by the matrix,
they were ranked. This ranking was then used to decide which of the products to develop
further.

Page 10 of 26
 Concept
1. Three rows, 2. One row, Four 3. Two rows, Four
Two shelves shelves Shelves
Selection Weighted Weighted Weighted
Criteria Weight Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
Ease of
Handling 5% 3 0.15 2 0.1 3 0.15
Ease of Use 15% 4 0.6 3 0.45 3 0.45
Ease of
Assembly 10% 2 0.2 3 0.3 3 0.3
Load Handling 10% 3 0.3 2 0.2 3 0.3
Load Capability 20% 4 0.8 2 0.4 3 0.6
Durability 15% 3 0.45 3 0.45 3 0.45
Manufacturing
Cost 10% 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3
Safety 15% 4 0.6 3 0.45 3 0.45
Total
Score 3.4 2.65 3
Rank 1 3 2
Continue? Yes No No
Figure 8. Concept Screening Matrix

As it is seen in the matrix above, concept one received the highest total score with a score of 3.4;
concept three came in second with a score of 3; and concept two came in third with a score of
2.65. These statistical numbers make sense based on the way the matrix was weighted. With
load capability weighted the highest, it makes sense that concept one scored the highest and
concept two scored the lowest. Although the team decided that concept one would be the one
that the team continued and felt that some of the features on other concepts should be included in
our final design. The team looked at each of the concepts and combined the features into the
best possible combination.

7. Final Design

For the final design of the Stow-Away, the group looked at each of the concepts and collected
the best aspects. The final design implements these aspects in an aesthetically pleasing design
that is both strong and durable. The product is designed to hold 24 average sized soup cans. The
design also has the ability to hold larger cans. The final concept has three main parts; the outside
housing case, the sliding shelf, and the sliding track.
The group decided on a 16.75” by 17.25” by 16” plastic housing case. The housing case
consists of four sides and a back to hold the vertical drawers. The case is constructed out of a
strong plastic that is able to hold the weight of the cans and shelves. The back of the case
includes built in screw holes. These screw holes deal with safety concerns. The holes allow the

Page 11 of 26
product to be attached to the back wall of a cabinet to prevent the unit from falling out of the
cupboard.
The steel sliding rails/tracks are attached to the top and the bottom of the housing case.
Steel was used in order to make a strong product that is capable of holding the weight of the
cans. The sliding rails allow the vertical shelves to smoothly slide out of the case making all the
cans visible. The smooth sliding action was designed with ease of use in mind. The team also
had safety in mind when designing this product. Each of the sliding rails has a stopping
mechanism that prevents the shelf from sliding entirely out of the case. Each of the rails also has
a mechanism that prevents the shelves from sliding out when not in use.
The shelves were designed to be made out of a see through acrylic. The clear acrylic will
be strong enough to hold the weight of the stored cans. The acrylic also gives the consumer the
extra benefit of an unobstructed view of the cans. Once again, the team wanted to create a safe
product, so a small lip was implemented on each side of the shelves. This small lip will prevents
the cans from falling off of the shelf. Each shelf was designed with extra room above the cans,
making the cans easy to remove.
With the final concept decided on, the team began to figure out the building cost. The
team started by looking at the price of plastic sheets to make the outside housing case. After
searching the internet, the average cost for the case was found to be ten dollars. The acrylic
sheet for the shelves ended up costing five dollars. The final part of the design, the sliding rails
were found on average to cost seven dollars. The cost of production and labor was estimated to
be eight dollars. In total the cost of making one unit was an estimated thirty dollars. In order to
make a profit the product has a selling price of thirty five dollars.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

The Stow-Away has a large audience that would greatly benefit from the convenience and
functionality of the storage system. The final design differentiates itself from other products by
strongly focusing on making canned food storage more efficient. The Stow-Away appeals to
customers by recognizing the inconvenience of traditional storage methods. The Stow-Away
implements three vertical drawers, giving the consumer the ability to pull out entire columns of
cans with clear visible access to every can. The final design also stresses the importance of
safety by utilizing stopping mechanisms and side lips. Safety was stressed due to the large
number of canned foods bought by families with older members [ref 1]. The safety features
along with other innovative features sets our product apart from the competition. The original
ideas in the Stow-Away are not found in any other product on the market. These unique aspects
along with lack of competitors create a product that will be able to be patented. This new design
in can storage will be very successful in the consumer market. The low cost of thirty five dollars
will appeal to a large demographic. This low price along with the innovative, durable design will
produce a successful product, generating a large profit margin.

Page 12 of 26
9. References

[1] Buzby, Jean C., and Biing H. Lin. Canned Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in the
United States. Rep. no. AP032. United States Department of Agriculture, Sept.
2008. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP032/AP032.pdf>.

[2] Day, Jennifer Cheeseman, Projections of the Number of Households and Families in
the United States: 1995 to 2010, U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Current Population Reports, P25-1129, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1996

[3] Eskin, N A M. Food Shelf Life Stability. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.

Catalog Number: 000410

[4] Heenan, Jane. Can Your Kitchen Pass the Storage Test. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
Catalog Number: 971023

[5] Janson. United States Patent 6,231,138

United States Patent and Trademark Office, May 15, 2001. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.uspto.gov>.

[6] Kirwan, Mark. Food Packaging Technology in the United States. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
Catalog Number: 021125

[7] "Marry Anne Beecher." APT Bulletin 32.2/3 (2001): 27-37. JSTOR. Web. 21 Feb.
2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1504736>.

[8] Rau. United States Patent 4,140,223

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Feb. 20, 1979. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.uspto.gov>.

[9] Shelf-Reliance, 2009 ShelfReiliance, LLC, Web. 21 Feb. 2010.

<http://www.shelfreliance.com/food-rotation-systems>.

[10] United State Patent and Trademark, Web. 21 Feb. 2010. <http://www.uspto.gov>.

[11] Weng. United States Patent 6,238,031

United States Patent and Trademark Office, May 29, 2001. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.uspto.gov>.

Page 13 of 26
[12] Wright. United States Patent 5,226,714
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Jul. 13, 1993. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.uspto.gov>.

Page 14 of 26
Appendix A

Interview Demographics
Table A.1. Residential Market Demographics
Age Marital # of # Interested in Stow-
Range Status Children People Away
17-24 Single 0 6 3
25-35 Single 0 4 2
Married 0-3 4 2
35-45 Married 0-3 2 1
45-55 Married 0-3 2 1
55+ Married 0-3 2 0

Table A.2. Commercial Market Demographics

Restaurant # of # Interested in Stow-
Type Locations Away
Local 3 2
Franchise 2 0

Interview Questions
1. Do you store cans by stacking them in a cabinet?

2. When you try to find a can in the cabinet do you usually dig around to find what you are
looking for?
-If answer was no, skip to question 5
-If answer was yes, continue to question 3

3. Does the process of trying to find a can annoy you?

4. Do you think the process of trying to find cans a waste of time?

5. Would you be interested in a new way of storing cans?

6. The Stow-Away is a new way to store cans. It allows you to stack cans in vertical
drawers. You are able to pull out one drawer at a time and look at 2 shelves each
containing 4 cans to find what you are looking for. Therefore, you never have to dig
around or waste time looking for cans. The Stow-Away can be put on your counter, in
you cabinet, or in you refrigerator. Is this something you would be interested in?

7. What do you feel would be the most important factor when purchasing an item like the
Stow-Away?
Page 15 of 26
Interview Input Data/Quotes
“I would not buy it because it would not fit in with the work environment. There are set locations
for where everything is, which is explained in employee training. The Stow-Away means we
would have to re-construct our training program, which I do not want to spend time doing”
-Vina Patel, Manager of Subway Restaurants

“I think that this is a great idea. I would buy it to make things easier to find and put away. As a
realtor I notice there are some kitchens make it difficult for the homeowners to use their cabinets
easily. Not to mention some homes do not even have enough cabinet room. The Stow-Away
would really help these people make the most of their kitchen space.”
-Paula Takosky, Mother

“The Stow-Away would definitely make our apartment a lot cleaner. When people look for cans
they throw cans around until they find the can they are looking for. The worst part is instead of
restacking the cans; they leave the cans all over the place. The only time the cabinet is clean is
when we run out of cans and have to buy more groceries.”
-Eric Webb, College Student

“I am not interested at all because I do not want to change or build anything. I rather leave things
the way that they are.”
-Jane Chen, Grandmother

Page 16 of 26
Appendix B

AHP Matrix

Table B.1. Actual AHP Matrix for Stow-Away

Strength Durability Safety Storage Ease Appearance Inexpensive
Capacity of
Use
Strength 1/1 1/2 1/3 2/1 3/1 4/1 3/1
Durability 2/1 1/1 1/2 2/1 3/1 2/1 2/1
Safety 3/1 2/1 1/1 4/1 3/1 3/1 4/1
Storage
Capacity 1/2 1/2 1/4 1/1 1/2 2/1 2/1
Ease of Use 1/3 1/3 1/3 2/1 1/1 2/1 2/1
Appearance 1/4 1/2 1/3 1/2 1/2 1/1 2/1
Inexpensive 1/3 1/2 1/4 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/1

Table B.1 shows the actual AHP matrix used to determine the weights of the various customer
needs.

Page 17 of 26
Appendix C

Figure C.1 Cantilevered Pull-Out Shelf System

Page 18 of 26
Figure C.2 Sliding Track Assembly For Drawers

Page 19 of 26
Figure C.3 Pivoting Drawer Slide System

Page 20 of 26
Figure C.4 Tierred Rotatable Spice-Cans Storage Unit

Page 21 of 26
Appendix D
Concept 1:
Pros
 Three easy to see rows
 Holds cans in an easy to see manner
 Not too tall
 Fits in the cabinet and various other
places
 Safety lip prevents the cans from
falling off
 Durable outside case
 Strong shelves that support all of the
weight
 Strong post that hold up the shelf
Concept 2:
Pros
 Two rows with four shelves
 Ability to hold a good amount of cans
 The side shelf also helps with storage
 The easy to grab handle makes it easy to
open
 Nice decorative wood finish
 The height of it makes it easy to see if
placed in a lower cabinet
 Track allows the rows to slide out
easily.
Concept 3:
Pros
 One row with four shelves
 Compact design makes it convenient to
place in different places
 The sliding rail makes it easy to slide in
and out of the case
 The durable design makes it a strong
product
 The stopping mechanisms on the rails
increase the safety aspect of the design
 Can easily go into a kitchen corner
 Can go in to a lower cabinet due to the
height
Cons
 A lot of moving parts
 Each row only has two shelves
 May not hold enough cans to be
completely practical
 Inconvenient if placed below the line
of sight
 May be hard to see everything if
placed in the corner of a cabinet
 No handle to grab
Cons
 Tall and may not fit in too many
cabinets
 Due to the type of material might not
be the best option for the refrigerator
 The height may cause problems if
placed in a higher cabinet
 May not fit in too a basic cabinet if the
shelf isn’t taken out
 May be hard to use if it has to be
placed against a wall
Cons
 Tall and may not fit in too many
cabinets
 The lack of size will decrease the
volume of cans it will be able to hold
 The height may make the removal of a
cabinet shelf a necessity
 May have troubles putting the product
in the refrigerator
 The lack of a side lip may allow the
cans to fall of the sides of the shelves
 If placed in a higher cabinet the cans
may be too hard to reach
 The lack of a handle may be a
hindrance
Page 22 of 26
Appendix E

Figure E.1 Dimensioned (in.) isometric view of the outside housing case.

Figure E.2 Dimensioned (in.) front view of the case.

Page 23 of 26
Figure E.3 Dimensioned (in.) isometric view of the shelf

Figure E.4 Dimensioned (in.) front view of the shelf.

Page 24 of 26
Figure E.5 Dimensioned (in.) top view of the shelf

Figure E.6 Dimensioned (in.) isometric view of the sliding track

Figure E.7 Dimensioned (in.) side view of the sliding track.

Page 25 of 26
Figure E.8 Dimensioned (in.) front view of the sliding track.

Page 26 of 26