A.

Analysis of a design opportunity

Design opportunity
In American culture, it is customary to eat breakfast at the beginning of the day, right
after waking up. Children and adults alike are taught that breakfast is the most
important meal of the day. However, many Americans don’t eat breakfast—53% of
10,000 American respondents said that they skipped breakfast at least once a week in
a survey by marketing firm Instantly conducted in August of 2015, in comparison to
39% of respondents to the same survey that said they skipped lunch at least once a
week (Fantozzi, 2015). The reasons for skipping breakfast range from convenience, as
45% percent of respondents to the survey said that they got breakfast from a “fast
food place” and 27% of respondents said that they got breakfast from a coffee shop
(Fantozzi, 2015), to 25% of respondents to another survey saying that they often
skipped breakfast to lose weight (Levitsky & Pacanowski, 2013).

My interest in issues surrounding breakfast eating habits of teenagers stemmed from

personal experience. Because I had to drive 20-30 minutes each way to/from school in
my 10th-12th grade years, I had to wake up before 6 am every day to get to school on
time, which caused sleep deprivation and impacted my well-being. In attempts to gain
more sleep and improve my health, I experimented with the time that I woke up to
make breakfast, the amount of time I spent getting ready, the kind of breakfast food I
ate, and whether I ate breakfast at all on a regular school day. Waking up earlier to eat
a better breakfast led to less sleep, which led to worsened sleep deprivation; spending
less time on getting ready left me just as unprepared for the school day as if I had not
eaten breakfast at all, because dressing for the day and properly providing myself with
nutrition are both important to me.

On a regular school day, I usually eat cold, dry packaged cereal for breakfast,
something shared by 31% of respondents to a telephone poll conducted by ABC News
in 2005 (Langer, 2005) and by 17% of respondents to a survey of my peers that I
conducted. Dry cereal most commonly comes in three ways—bagged, boxed, and in
bulk (pictured below).

A row of bulk
cereal and granola
at my local grocery
store.

1
 Left: a picture of an open
boxed cereal package
with an open protective
plastic bag inside
Right: a typical bagged
granola package

Typically, the process to open and close a cereal box takes multiple steps, from
breaking the seal to as shown below (sequentially from left to right and top to bottom):

This process takes time and sometimes results in unwanted effects on the packaging
itself, like the rip in the packaging that occurred in the second picture from the left in
the top row above. As detailed in the “Market and user research” section, other
designers have cited multiple failings in current packaging solutions in their efforts to
redesign the cereal box. Ultimately, cardboard cereal packaging costs time that many
of my peers that cite a lack of time as a reason for skipping breakfast can regain.

2
In all, if breakfast is truly the most important meal of the day, then there must be a way
that high school students like me can get adequate nutrition to start the day without
sacrificing sleep or time, no matter the circumstances.

Market and user research

The research conducted for the design opportunity served as a method to narrow the
issues at hand down to one specific problem to design for. Market and user research
took three different forms: surveying, primary interviews, and secondary research.

Surveying
Before starting work on the above design opportunity, I set out to find the most
pressing design issue that my peers face when eating breakfast, so I designed a survey
centered around breakfast experiences and collected responses from 45 of my peers.
The survey was structured with three different sections—upon beginning the survey,
respondents answered whether they usually ate breakfast on a regular school day or
not, and their response to that question would automatically lead them into either the
section centered around problems with eating breakfast or the section centered
around reasons to not eat breakfast. The flowchart below details the structure and the
questions in this survey.

What grade are you in?

On a regular school day, do you eat breakfast?
If YES: If NO:

Why do you eat breakfast on regular
school days?
What do you eat for breakfast most
often on regular school days?
Describe annoyances, if any, you face
when making/eating/cleaning up
breakfast on regular school days.
If you could change one thing about
breakfast, what would you change?
Why do you not eat breakfast on
regular school days?
What would you change about
breakfast (making, eating, cleaning
up) that would allow you to eat
breakfast in the morning?

Below are charts for the results for each of the questions. Responses to open-
response questions have been coded into categories of responses. Some respondents
gave responses that fell under multiple categories, so answer totals do not always add
up to the number of responses per section.

3
Initial questions (45 responses)

What grade are you in? On a regular day, do you

9th
10th
eat breakfast?
2% (1)
5% (2)
12th No
29% 40% Yes
(13) (18) 60%
11th (27)
64%
(29)

Breakfast-eaters section (27 responses)

Why do you eat breakfast What do you eat for

on regular school days? breakfast most often on
Desire regular school days?
Usefulness 4% (1) Sandwiches
3% (1) Yogurt
3% (1) 8% (3) Cereal
Routine 17% (7)
Grab-and-go
11% (3)
options
Necessity Baked
(incl. protein Fruits
53% (15) goods
Discomfort bars) 15% (6) 20% (8)
29% (8) 7% (3)
Eggs Oatmeal
20% (8) 10% (4)

Describe annoyances you Describe annoyances you

face when making face when eating breakfast
breakfast on regular school on regular school days.
days.
Discomfort (none)
Efficiency Discomfort (none)
3% (1) 11% (3)
4% (1) 11% (3) 18% (5)
Location
3% (1)

Inadequate
Inadequate resources Time
resources Time Bodily 43% (12)
14%
21% (6) 61% (17) restrictio
ns
11% (3)

4
 Describe annoyances you If you could change one
face when cleaning up thing about breakfast, what
after breakfast on regular would you change?
school days. Convenience- None
Inadequate related (1) 17% (5)
Size of resources 4%
cleanup 4% (1)
11% (3) Nutrition-
related
24% (7)
Time-
Time
None related
22% (6)
63% (17) 55% (16)

Non-breakfast-eaters section (18 responses)

Why do you not eat What would you change

breakfast on regular about breakfast that would
Location- school days? allow you to eat breakfast
related
4% (1) in the morning?
Convenience-
Inadequate related
resources 29% (6) Time-
8% (2) related
Equipment-
related 43% (9)
Sleep-
related Lack of 9% (2)
4% (1) time
60% (15) Nothing
5% (1)
Bodily Bodily
discomfort Nutrition-
discomfort
24% (6) related
9% (2)
5% (1)

From this survey, a few conclusions can be made: first, the fact that 40% of the
teenagers surveyed say that they do not eat breakfast indicates that there may be a
substantial population of high school students who do not eat breakfast, throwing the
idea that breakfast is the most important meal of the day out of the window. This meal
is eaten out of necessity, as 53% of breakfast-eating respondents said. Despite that,
61% and 43% of those same respondents say that a lack of time is an issue when
making and eating breakfast (respectively). When teenagers choose not to eat
breakfast, teenagers sacrifice this meal in exchange for time in the morning, as 60% of
respondents who stated they don’t eat breakfast cited a lack of time as the major
barrier to them eating breakfast on regular school days, and 43% of those same
responses said that they would change something time-related so that they were able
to eat breakfast. Finally, cereal, combined with other goods that traditionally come
packaged (oatmeal, yogurt, and grab-and-go options) make up 11 out of the 27

5
breakfast-eating responses (41% of responses), making packaged items the most
commonly-eaten items out of those surveyed. Therefore, a solution to the lost amount
of time through the lens of cereal box manufacturing would cover a large percentage of
the respondents to this survey.

Interviews
After conducting a survey of my peers on their habits relating to breakfast, I decided to
gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved with packaged breakfast goods
and these habits by interviewing a few respondents selected from the survey. Below
are my conclusions from the four peers I interviewed.

Peer 1 – male, 11th grade.

Student who is active in multiple academic clubs, with limited time to eat breakfast in
the morning. Is frustrated with the fragility of cereal box packaging, especially
concerning the tendency of cardboard to rip.

Peer 2 – male, 12th grade.

Student who carpools to school with parents for 45 minutes each way five days a
week. Eats cereal every day for breakfast because of how easy and quick it is to
prepare out of the box; however, doing dishes (bowl & spoon) afterwards wastes time
that this student could have used to get ready and leave the house earlier.

Peer 3 – female, 11th grade.

This student skips breakfast on school mornings and is able to wake up 30 minutes
later than they would if they ate breakfast. Not eating breakfast makes this student feel
sick, but they do not have enough time as it stands to eat breakfast so they don’t feel
sick.

Peer 4 – male, 11th grade.

This student wakes up early enough in the morning that they routinely find themselves
unable to eat breakfast at home, yet they are always hungry by the time school does
start. They said that a portable breakfast would solve this problem for them because
they would be able to eat the same kind of breakfast they already do but at a time
when their body can take in breakfast.

With these interviews, I narrowed down the scope of the design opportunity to
research portable solutions to eating breakfast, especially with a focus on cereal, the
most common packaged food indicated on the survey.

Secondary research
Now that I had an understanding of the problem, I researched pain points with
breakfast and with cereal boxes to get an understanding of the cereal packaging
market and understand why many students still skip breakfast. I also researched the

6
kinds of cereal box products and packaging solutions that were already available on
the market to guide my design thinking.

In 2011, a survey conducted by the NPD Group, called the Morning MealScape 2011
study, found that, out of a sample size of over 27,000 Americans, 28% of males ages
18-34 are likely to skip breakfast on a regular basis, with the percentage of females of
the same age being 18% and the common reasons being that “they weren’t hungry,
didn’t feel like eating or they were too busy” (“31,” 2017). This represents a significant
percentage of the population that skips breakfast due to time constraints, backing up
the findings of my survey.

In 2011, researchers at the Food Safety Laboratory in Zurich, Switzerland found that in
the case of recycled cardboard (which many cereal makers like Kellogg’s and the
British company Weetabix, commonly used in their cereal packaging) the ink that was
printed on newspapers used in the production of said cardboard could leak through
protective plastic packaging and into food (“Cereal,” 2013). Although Dr. Koni Grob of
the Laboratory “warned consumers against panicking in the face of research”
(“Cereal,” 2013), this still represents an oversight in the manufacturing of cardboard for
cereal boxes.

Other designers have tried to redesign the

cereal box to avoid the use of cardboard and
improve the user interactions with cereal boxes.
Adnan Esmail, a mechanical engineering
graduate from MIT, cited cereal boxes as being
“tedious to open/close” and “uncomfortable to
hold” in his redesign of the cereal box, the
finishing prototype of which is pictured to the
left (Esmail, n.d.).

Eric Jussaume, a graphic designer, created

another cereal box redesign focusing on the
user experience design surrounding cardboard
cereal boxes. The result, which transferred
typical cylindrical hot cereal packaging designs
to cold cereal, is pictured to the left (Jussaume,
2016).

General reusable solutions to problems involving the portability of breakfast already

exist, however. Silicone packaging, Tupperware, and food storage containers are
common and cheap. Below is a table outlining a few of the most bought food
packaging items on Amazon.

7
 Product Price Product Price Product Price
Glasslock 4- $16.99 OXO Good $16.95 SnapLock by $11.79
Piece Rectangle Grips POP Progressive 1-Cup
Oven Safe Container – Storage Container -
Container Set Airtight Food Blue, SNL-1006B
Storage – 3.4 Easy-To-Open, Leak-
Qt for Cereal Proof Silicone Seal,
and More Snap-Off Lid,
Stackable, BPA FREE

These reusable food storage solutions are competitors in the potential market for a
portable cereal storage product, but there is still space for innovation as none of the
companies in the food storage industry have tried to create solutions targeted directly
towards the issue of a lack of time as a barrier to eating breakfast.

Design brief
Problem statement
Teens are busy and have to balance sleep and nutrition in the morning on a regular
basis; most teens choose to sacrifice one or the other, which means sacrificing leading
to the question: how might the process of breakfast preparation be made more time-
efficient? Part of this involves the design of cereal boxes, which add to the time of
breakfast preparation by not only requiring the careful opening of packaging to avoid
tearing, but also the transfer of foodstuffs from one container into another as part of
many steps of preparing dry cereal for breakfast.

Goal
Develop a working prototype of a long-lasting cereal box with modular, portable
portioned containers to make breakfast-eating take less time and to make it so that
less students skip breakfast.

Target market
Segmentation Characteristics
Demographic Males and females ages 15-18
Geographic United States
Psychographic High school students who are busy and hardworking, so they have
very little time to eat breakfast if they stay up late doing homework
and want to catch up on sleep. Many skip breakfast due to lack of
time and subsequently pay for it by being hungry and
undernourished at school. These students also eat cereal for

8
 breakfast on a regular school day and are frustrated with the
current mainstream cereal packaging solutions available.
Behavioral The most commonly bought cereal within this target market are
boxed cold cereals; buying behavior is hard to alter.

Major constraints
This working prototype can only be developed with the access to school equipment
that is available, including 3D printers and a laser cutter, as well as limited materials;
this makes the manufacturing methods limited unless outsourcing 3D-printing is an
option.

Criterions
• The final design should be able to be used as a food container which can be
used for eating and carrying food.
• The final design should be durable and hold up to repeated use (including
opening, rinsing, and storing) for a period of at least a year.
• The final design should be able to be used easily—that is, in carrying, opening,
and eating out of the module containers.
• The final design should, in some way, decrease the amount of time the user
spends eating breakfast on regular school mornings.

Design specifications
Characteristics of the target market
See “Design brief” section for detailed segmentation of the target market/audience.

Purpose/goal/need for the product

The target market needs a design that cuts the time taken to eat breakfast down
overall; peers mentioned the lack of portable solutions for their breakfast, especially
cereal. Therefore, the goal for the product is to be a long-lasting cereal box with
modular, portable portioned containers to make breakfast-eating take less time and to
make it so that less students skip breakfast.

Situation or environment within which the product will perform

This product is intended for use in a household scenario. Many American households
house cereal boxes, as well as other breakfast-making equipment, in closed storage
compartments, like drawers, pantries, and cabinets. These closed storage
compartments are generally designed to be kept dry at an ambient room temperature
of 17-20°C, so the product will be expected to perform in those conditions. Cereal
boxes are often taken out of these closed storage compartments, so the product
should perform in conditions warmer and colder than ambient room temperatures by
3°C. Because this product will be bought to replace single-use cereal boxes, the
product should withstand repeated usage over a period of at least a year. Furthermore,
this product is also intended for use in situations outside the household, as one of the

9
product’s functions is to be portable, so the product must perform well in situations of
repeated openings and closings, as well

Capabilities/limitations of appropriate technologies and materials

Because of its ubiquity in the cereal box design market, cardboard is an obvious
choice for an appropriate material for this product. However, its faults as a material
have already been established, so cardboard is not an appropriate material in this way.
Cardboard makes a product of this kind easy to manufacture and recycle, but it is also
a weak material, ripping apart and puncturing easily.

Appropriate technologies and materials include fused-deposition modeling and a

combination of joining and subtractive manufacturing techniques involving the cutting
and fusing together of items. Fused-deposition modeling (FDM) is a versatile form of
3D-printing—models of many different colors and shapes can be created through
fused deposition modeling. In-class MakerBot printers primarily use 1.75mm PLA
filament, which is not only not food-safe but does not have the highest resolution,
meaning that the printer can’t print to the greatest degree of precision possible. PLA
filament can be coated in food-safe materials to allow the product store food which
can be eaten out of the product.

On the other hand, manual cutting and building of some items is an appropriate
technology to use here depending on the material with which parts of the product are
being manufactured. For materials that are easy to cut by hand, like cardboard, it’s a
viable way of manufacturing; however, for more durable materials that will most likely
be used in this product, laser-cutting is a more viable option because it allows material
components to be precisely cut for assembly, opening up options for materials such as
acrylic.

Therefore, the product will be tested and judged according to the following
design specifications:
• The design fulfills the criterions described in the design brief.
• The design communicates the purpose/goal/need for the product.
• The design performs well within the situation or environment within the design is
intended to perform.

Marketing specifications
Characteristics of the target market
See “Design brief” section for detailed segmentation of the target market/audience.

Market research and analysis

The majority of the market uses cardboard or paperboard boxes as the main material
in cereal boxes, and this, coupled with other one-time-use packaging, provides
problems for consumers. Market research indicates that although there are pre-

10
existing solutions to the portability of cereal and other breakfast items, there is still
space for innovation as nothing has been cereal-focused.

User need
The target market needs a portable, reusable, and user-friendly way to prepare and eat
breakfast in a manner that leads them to spend less time on breakfast than they do
usually. The end user usually balances nutrition and sleep by forgoing one or the other,
and this design should remove the need for that.

Competition
Other portioning boxes serve close to the same person as a portability-focused cereal
box. However, none of the companies in the food storage industry have tried to create
solutions targeted directly towards the issue of a lack of time as a barrier to eating
breakfast, so it is highly likely that this product will be in entire class of its own.

Therefore, the product will be tested and judged according to the following
marketing specifications:
• The product is marketable to the target market.
• The product meets the needs to the users of the target market.
• The product fulfills the design specification criteria in the context of the use
cases of the target market.

11
B. Conceptual design
Development of ideas
My development of ideas took on two stages: idea generation and detailed sketching.

Idea generation

12
Detailed sketching
Idea 1 – divided pouring container
This container, made out of an acrylic or
acrylic-like transparent plastic food-safe
material, has storage components with
dividers that can be removed to pour cereal
into another container or bowl.
Pros: simple intended usage case
Cons: unwieldy shape and size; individual
sections are not detachable from the product;
loading cereal into the container is difficult

Idea 2 – modular container box

This box, made out of an acrylic or acrylic-
like transparent plastic food-safe material,
houses four smaller boxes that serve as food
portioners and that can be removed from the
main box to serve as portable eating
containers.
Pros: Individual containers allow for easy
carrying of breakfast food out of the house;
simple shape is easier to manufacture than
the pouring containers; rectangular shape is
familiar to cereal boxes
Cons: many different-sized components
complexify usage and manufacturing
process by requiring precisely-fitted parts,
which would be hard to produce by 3D-
printing alone

13
Idea 3 – cereal distribution system
This idea is made out of multiple parts—a
chute down which cereal is poured into
three boxes, which can be detached and
used as portable cereal containers once
they are done filling up in order.
Pros: less manual work involved to load
cereal into boxes
Cons: complex construction; complex filling
process

Concept modeling
In addition to creating detailed sketches of my top three ideas, I created cardboard
prototypes and CAD models to explore how these ideas would physically work and
how users could interact with them.

Idea 1 – divided pouring

container
When making a physical
prototype of this model, I
realized that not only would
the dividers need handles
to raise up and down, but
also that each section of
the container would have
to have openings for users
to easily put items in.

14
 Furthermore, if users were to put in items
without the dividers up, spillage into the
other dividers would occur, complicating
the usage of this design.

This design was also hard to carry and

handle, thanks in part to the supports
attached to the bottom of each section.

Idea 2 – modular container box

When making a physical prototype of this
model, I found it hard to get the
dimensions of the small boxes to line up
with the container boxes themselves. I
also observed that a large amount of
cardboard was being used, potentially
representing a lot of waste. If this product
is going to last a long time during usage, it
should be constructed out of long-lasting
materials that do not break as easily as
cardboard, because a lot of money would
be spent just on materials manufacturing
otherwise.

The design ended up resembling a cereal

box a lot more than the previous
prototype, which was an indication of this
design being more successful at
communicating its function.

15
 Idea 3 – cereal distribution system
Making this prototype was complicated
because I chose to create the detachable
boxes first, leaving the top cereal chute until
the end of the prototyping process for this
idea. I found it difficult to attach the boxes, let
alone figure out a simple and user-friendly
system to detach them. Overall, this prototype
was easier to handle than the divided pouring
container, but it seemed as if this was just too
complicated and too time-consuming to have
a place as a solution here.

Justification
I chose Idea 2, the modular container box, for its
relevance as a solution to the needs outlined in Section A.
Not only is it a less complicated solution both in terms of
manufacturing and in terms of user interactions with the
product, but it also resembles a cereal box the most and
fulfills the criteria of being usable as a container while
eating and carrying food.

Left: An isometric view of an assembled version of Idea 2.

Design specification Prediction- evaluation

against design
specification
The final design should be Fulfilled
able to be used as a food
container which can be
used for eating and
carrying food.

16
The final design should be Fulfilled
durable and hold up to
repeated use (including
opening, rinsing, and
storing) for a period of at
least a year.
The final design should be Yes
able to be used easily—
that is, in carrying,
opening, and eating out of
the module containers.
The final design should, in Fulfilled to some extent
some way, decrease the
amount of time the user
spends eating breakfast
on regular school
mornings.
The design communicates Fulfilled
the purpose/goal/need for
the product.
The design performs well Fulfilled to some extent
within the situation or
environment within the
design is intended to
perform.

17
C. Development of a detailed design
Materials and components
For this working prototype, materials were selected based on the following criteria,
which were developed from the design specifications:
• Materials chosen must be cheap to buy and use (as well as be available in the
classroom).
• Materials chosen must be easy to work with—that is, they are easy to cut, mold,
and drill into, and they also come in easily wieldable initial sizes.
• Materials must be physically strong to fulfill the durability and longevity
requirements of the final product.
• Materials chosen must also be food-safe. This means:
o Materials must not leak chemicals or fragments into food being stored in
the product,
o Materials must work well with epoxies used to protect food sanitarily,
o Materials must not collect food fragments or absorb liquids (i.e. milk).
Below is a table listing all potential materials for use in manufacturing of the refined
prototype and how they compare to the above criteria.

Criterion

Does acrylic
Does E-flute plastic fit the
Do 5mm 4’x8’
cardboard fit the criteria?
wood planks
criteria? Does 1.75mm
fit the criteria?
PLA filament
fit the criteria?
Material Cardboard is Acrylic plastic is PLA filament Wood planks
must be cheap and does cheap to buy, but is economical are cheap to
cheap to not require to work accurately for the buy and can
buy and special with it, a laser amount of be cut and
use. equipment to cut, printer is filament joined with a
bend, or join. recommended. obtained per variety of
purchase. A tools.
one-time
purchase of a
3D printer
also allows a
Material Cardboard is Acrylic plastic has PLA filament Wood planks
must be easy to cut, specific adhesives is easy to are easy to cut
easy to bend, or join. and tools that work with for and join;
work with. maximize its prototyping however,

18
 usability versus through bending and
other materials. computer- forming wood
aided design is a time-
programs like consuming
Fusion 360. process with a
However, greater risk of
drilling material
through it wasting.
results in
structural
weakness in
printed items.
Material Cardboard bends Material fulfills PLA filament Wood planks
must be too easily and is this requirement. resists of this
physically susceptible to breakage thickness can
strong. puncture. when printed easily split
thick. upon hard
impacts or
through
human force.
Material is Cardboard will Material is food- Material is Wood, unless
food-safe. not withstand safe. food-safe. covered with
liquids. However, epoxy, will
creases that worsen with
can trap food repeated
form when exposure to
using this food items and
material with will shed
a 3D printer. fragments in
return.

After considering the materials above, the materials with the most positive results
across the criteria were chosen. Below is a table listing all components and the
materials that will be used for them, as well as justifications for the usage of each
material in this prototype.

19
 Component Picture Material Justification
1: Acrylic A durable, cheap, and light-
containing plastic weight material (in
box comparison to wood) that is
easy to laser-cut and that
allows for contents to be seen
through the box. The use of
acrylic here creates a rigid
outside structure that is easy
to transport and protects
modules and their contents.

2: module Polylactide Easy and somewhat cheap

cap (PLA) material that can be heated to
filament be deposited in any shape.
Can be reheated to mold
again.
3: module Polylactide Easy and somewhat cheap
container (PLA) material that can be heated to
filament be deposited in any shape.
Can be reheated to mold
again.

Manufacturing techniques
The manufacturing techniques that were used for this product kept the materials that
were being used for the prototype in mind.

For Component 1:
• Laser cutting, a subtractive method of manufacturing, as it allows acrylic to be
cut precisely for assembly.
• Acrylic cement gluing, a joining method of manufacturing, as acrylic cement is a
strong free-flow bonding agent that will ensure the durability of this product as
well as its aesthetics (because it’s transparent).

For Components 2 and 3:

• 3D-printing, an additive method of manufacturing, because it is a cheap and
accessible method of creating models in the classroom. My school’s design lab
owns a MakerBot Replicator and a MakerBot Replicator Mini; I used both of
them to speed up the overall prototype production timeframe.

20
 • Coating, an additive method of manufacturing, specifically for food-safe epoxy
which will prevent chemicals from leaking from the PLA filament into food and
prevent bacteria from building up in the cracks between layers of filament.
• Velcro, a joining method of manufacturing, because it is a material solution that
is flexible, cheap, and versatile for hinging and joining.
• Supergluing, a joining method of manufacturing, because it is cheap, invisible,
strong, can bond most materials to each other.

I also considered using screwdriving as a method of manufacturing; however, this was

too intrusive to the design and would have not worked as well with the acrylic and
plastic materials being used. Furthermore, other methods of additive manufacturing do
not have the speed of prototyping that fused-deposition modeling does. Cutting
materials using knives or saws introduced human error into the manufacturing process,
which would lead to an inconsistency in the quality of manufactured products.

Design proposal
Isometric, front, and
side views of
Component 1:
containing box, made
out of acrylic plastic (all
measurements in mm.)

21
Isometric, top, front,
and side views of
Component 2:
module cap, made
out of PLA filament
(all measurements in
mm.)

Isometric, top,
front, and side
views of
Component 3:
module
container, made
out of PLA
filament (all
measurements in
mm.)

22
Manufacturing plan
Component Step Instruction Time Risks & quality
assurance
1. Containing 1 Laser-cut the acrylic 7 Lasers are dangerous and
box (acrylic) sheets according to min. there is a risk of hazardous
the design proposal to fumes from the laser
make the six sides of cutter. Classroom exhaust
the containing box. fans are connected to the
laser printer and are turned
on prior to activating the
laser cutter in order to
alleviate risks.
1. Containing 2 Join the six laser-cut 15 Acrylic cement has fumes
box (acrylic) acrylic parts using min. that can be harmful to
acrylic cement to humans and cause
create the containing irritation in the eyes and to
box. the skin, so using this
adhesive is a risk to human
health if adequate
precautions are not taken.
Gloves and safety
eyeglasses are worn while
working with acrylic
cement to prevent harm.
2. Module cap 3 3D-print four module 12 The 3D printer must be
(PLA) cap models according hr. supervised during all hours
to the design each of operation to respond if
proposal. = fires occur. The prototype
720 may need to be sanded to
min. satisfaction if the 3D-
each. printed raft on top of which
3D-printed items sit at the
end of printing leaves extra
filament behind on the
model.
3. Module 4 3D-print four module 4.5 The 3D printer must be
container container models hr. supervised during all hours
(PLA) according to the each, of operation to respond if
design proposal. 270 fires occur. The prototype
min. may need to be sanded to
each. satisfaction if the 3D-
printed raft on top of which
3D-printed items sit at the

23
 end of printing leaves extra
filament behind on the
model.
4. Module 5 Coat the inside of 20 Food-safe coating makes
container each module min. sure that chemicals from
(PLA) container part with each. the printed PLA filament
food-safe epoxy. don’t leak into the food
stored in the modules and
that bacteria don’t get
lodged in the spaces
between layers of filament.
Precautions must be taken
to avoid getting epoxy on
the outside of the
container.
3. Module 6 Leave the epoxy- 24 The length of this step is to
container covered (interior) hr., ensure that the food-safe
(PLA) module container to 1,440 epoxy cures properly.
cure. min.
2 & 3. Module 7 Join container and 10 Precautions must be taken
container and cap models to create min. with superglue because of
cap (PLA) modules using Velcro each. its ability to bond skin to
and superglue. (Velcro objects.
is cut into 5 cm strips,
overlapping in the
middle, and attached
to ceiling of module
and middle of one
side of module.)
All components 8 Insert modules into ~1 The prototype may need to
the container box so min. be sanded to satisfaction if
that the edges of the there is excess material on
modules roughly the printed module caps or
match the edges of containers that prevent the
the rounded module from being easily
rectangular inserts in inserted inserted/removed
the container box. from the containing box.
Total time: 227.21 hr. = 5,453 min.

24
Final prototype

Top: final assembled prototype. Bottom left: acrylic containing box without modules.
Bottom right: module, open.

25
D. Testing and evaluation
When testing the product against the marketing and design specifications outlined in
Section A, it was important to consider the product in its actual intended use cases. To
this end, I took the product to each of the four peers that I interviewed and observed
their uses of the product. I then interviewed those peers to get their overall opinions on
their experiences with the product. Lastly, I used the product on my own to test for
mechanical and material problems in normal usage. Relevant conclusions from testing
are detailed in the following two tables.

Evaluation against design specifications

Design specification Achieved? Justification
The final design should Yes All peers agreed that the final design is a food-
be able to be used as safe option that can be used as a food
a food container which container for eating and for carrying food.
can be used for eating
and carrying food.
The final design should No The answer to
be durable and hold this is
up to repeated use conclusive
(including opening, much before a
rinsing, and storing) for year has
a period of at least a passed, as
year. while initially
testing this
product in the
classroom,
one of the
large pieces
of acrylic that
is part of the
containing
box detached
from the rest
of the body,
as shown to
the right.

26
The final design should Yes
be able to be used
easily—that is, in
carrying, opening, and
eating out of the
module containers.
The final design Somewhat
should, in some way,
decrease the amount
of time the user
spends eating
breakfast on regular
school mornings.
The module is easy to handle because of its
small size and its
curved design.
The module
container fits a
decent amount,
and
maneuverability
of different eating
tools (spoon, fork)
inside the module
container is good.
One area that time has been saved is in
cleanup—it took a quick rinse with water and a
dry paper towel wipe-down to return a module
to its original state.
Below left: before cleanup described above.
Below right: after cleanup described above.

However, because the process of putting

cereal into the modules consumes a
considerable amount of time, the user can
only save time if they spend time beforehand
setting up the modules, balancing the time
savings out.
The design Somewhat While the first
communicates the prototypes bore a
purpose/goal/need for resemblance to
the product. rectangular cereal
boxes, the final
prototype diminished
that connection
slightly because of
the way the colors of
the modules contrast
with the colors of the acrylic containing box.

27
 The design performs
well within the
situation or
environment within the
design is intended to
perform.
Somewhat In addition to the issue with the acrylic cement
bonds breaking, there was extra filament on
the top and bottom of the module cap,
meaning that a lot of force had to be used to
eject the module cap and container from the
containing box
because the
irregularities in the
3D-printed filament
got caught on the
edges of the
rounded
rectangular cutouts.

Evaluation against marketing specifications

Marketing specification
The product is
marketable to the target
market.
The product meets the
needs to the users of the
target market.
The product fulfills the
design specification
criteria in the context of
the use cases of the
target market.
Achieved? Justification
Somewhat This final design did not generate a large
amount of enthusiasm in my interviewees.
One wondered what teenager would be
interested in a different cereal box design that
they could take with them. Other peers
demonstrated slight interest in the idea, but
judging from personal observation, the target
market for this product and the product itself
are not a perfect match.
Somewhat As detailed above, this design is able to
implement many of the design specifications
into itself but does not fully meet the criteria
based on the needs of the target market.
Somewhat As detailed above, this design is able to
implement many of the design specifications
into itself but does not fully meet the criteria
based on the use cases for this product by
the target market.

Next steps
Considering the feedback that was given to me on the final prototype and the shortfalls
of the prototype from my own testing, I have outlined a few changes I want to make to
a next iteration of the prototype below.

Problem Solution
The front face of the acrylic Remove the need for separate materials and
containing box started detaching adhesives in manufacturing by using

28
from the rest of the box because not
enough of its surface was bonded
with the surface of the side acrylic
panel in gluing.
The Velcro hinge wasn’t an
adequately strong hinge to hold the
two module parts together, so the
module parts kept disconnecting.
industrial 3D printers to print a uni-body
containing box out of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) filament.
Add a hinge to the CAD model of the module
cap and container; when this prints on an
industrial 3D printer with a higher resolution,
the hinge will be able to function properly
without installing an external hinge. The
cutouts on the containing box will have to be
expanded to include the footprint of the
hinge as well.
Top: A container module with the hinge
(bulge, left) added.
Bottom: The top portion of a finished product
assembly, showing both the container
29
modules with hinges and hinge cutouts in the
container box.

30
E. Commercial production
Materials and components
As detailed in the “Next Steps” section, the final prototype had problems with materials
that were inadequate for the purposes of the product. Specifically, parts of the acrylic
containing box detached from the assembly due to problems with acrylic cement
curing, and the Velcro hinge was frequently getting disconnected. To remove the risks
associated with using multiple different materials, the materials used in commercial
production are different from the materials used in the production of the final
prototype.

For Components 1, 2, and 3:

• Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) filament. This filament, which makes up a large
percentage of plastic bottles, is sturdy, affordable, and recyclable. It is also
food-safe, giving it an advantage over other filaments frequently used with rapid
prototyping and manufacturing systems and fitting the use case of this product
perfectly.

Based on the materials criteria defined in Section C, PET filament, a plastic, was
chosen over other materials for its ease of usage, price, and transferability of
manufacturing methods from the initial refined prototype—that is, the same
manufacturing and drafting methods are able to be used, reducing the time and cost of
manufacture. Metals and alloys would require more advanced equipment to cut, join,
and mold, and their procurement would be more expensive than the procurement of
filament. Wood materials would (as mentioned in the “Materials and components”
section under Section C) be susceptible to shedding of small fragments and absorption
of liquids in this use case, which does not follow the aforementioned materials criteria.

Manufacturing techniques
For mass-production, the current single-prototype production time of 227 hours, or
roughly 9.5 days, is unacceptable as commercial production requires the product to be
produced at a much faster rate and on an increasing scale. For this reason,
manufacturing techniques have to be revised.

For commercial production, multiple manufacturing techniques were considered. For

the product to see the most success in the commercial manufacturing process, the
following criteria for manufacturing techniques were established:
• The manufacturing technique used must be relatively cheap to employ.
• The manufacturing technique used must be compatible with the materials
chosen for use in commercial manufacture.
• The manufacturing technique should be compatible with any preceding
prototyping work done (i.e. CAD modelling).
• The manufacturing technique should not result in a significant amount of waste
material.

31
 • The manufacturing technique should roll out products in a speedy time frame
(less than 30 minutes per product).
Below is a table showing each considered manufacturing technique and how they
compare against the manufacturing technique criteria.

Criterion Does 3D printing Does extrusion Does

(fused deposition blow molding fit thermoforming fit
modeling) fit the the criteria? the criteria?
criteria?
Technique must be Usually involves This technique Tooling costs are
relatively cheap. one device (a 3D involves an generally low, but
printer), lowering assembly-line-like relevant heating
the costs of setup which systems may cost
procuring a fitting requires multiple time and money to
manufacturing machines. This set up.
system. raises costs.
Technique must be PET is a kind of This technique is This technique is
compatible with 3D-printing relevant to relevant to
materials. filament. manufacturing with manufacturing with
plastics, but PET plastics, but PET
filament is not filament is not
easily insertable easily insertable
into a into a
thermoforming thermoforming
system. system.
Technique should CAD models can This technique This technique
fit previous be exported as STL does not fit does not fit
prototyping work. files and printed previous previous
with any 3D printer. prototyping work. prototyping work.
Technique should Manufacturing is all Scrap that results This technique
not result in a additive—all from this does not waste
significant amount materials that manufacturing material not used in
of waste. aren’t used are left technique can be the final product.
for the next print. recycled,
minimizing the
environmental
impact of this
technique.
Technique should Print jobs can take Cycle times are A cycle of
be a relatively fast a while; this can be generally rapid, thermoforming
method of alleviated by using lasting a couple involving feeding
manufacturing. multiple printers at minutes at most. sheets of plastic
once However, using into the system can
thin PET filament take up to 8

32
 rolls is challenging minutes. However,
with this setup. using thin PET
filament rolls is
challenging with
this setup.

Considering the above comparisons of potential manufacturing techniques, the

following technique was chosen for commercial production.

For Components 1, 2, and 3:

• 3D-printing, an additive method of
manufacturing, because it is a time-
and material-efficient method of
rapid production, at least in the early
stages of commercialization. A
Fusion3 F410 (pictured, right) can
print as fast as 250 mm per second
with PET filament compatibility
(Nadel, 2019), making it a good
choice for rapid production of this
product. Furthermore, using an
industry-grade 3D printer alleviates
some of the risks that come with
storing food in PLA containers
without coatings, as bacteria can
build up in ridges formed by 3D-
printing models with less precise
consumer-oriented printers.

33
Design modifications for commercial manufacture
Below are revised drawings of the design proposal outlined in section C. Changes are
circled or highlighted in yellow.

Isometric, front, and side views of

Component 1: containing box,
made out of PET filament (all
measurements in mm.)

Isometric, front, side, and bottom

views of Components 2 and 3
combined: module cap and
module container, made out of
PET filament (all measurements in
mm.)

34
F. Marketing strategies
When developing possible marketing strategies that would get my product into the
hands of consumers most effectively, I approached the task by using the “Four P’s”
solution, which involves considering the product itself, the price of the product, the
place(s) in which the product is sold, and what specific promotional tactics can be
used to promote the product.

Product
When starting the development of the marketing strategy, I considered the product as
it relates to the target market’s needs and how it solves them, as shown in the table
below.

Need of target market Solution to need offered by product

Product that saves time in preparation,
eating, and cleanup of breakfast
Product that enables the carrying of
breakfast out of the house
Product that is durable, long-lasting
Portioned cereal, easy-clean packaging
with less hassle than traditional
cardboard cereal box packaging
Modules can be taken out of containing
box
The product is built with materials that
are stronger than traditional cardboard
cereal box packaging solutions.

Furthermore, considering that my market research uncovered no other companies

attempting to build a cereal box design like this, the solutions offered by the product
also serve as the product’s unique value proposition.

To underscore the solutions to the target

market’s needs that the cereal box solution
provides, I created a brand name and a
logo for the product that encapsulated the
portability, sustainability, and uniqueness
of the design (pictured, left). The “Go” in
“GoBox” represents how one can take this
design on the go; the green color then
indicates the durability and sustainability of
recyclable plastics as cereal packaging,
and the abstract shape behind the “Go” is intended to emulate the shape of individual
modules in the containing box of the product.

Price
Considering the target market of teens and young adults who don’t have an
abundance of money to spend on purchases, the price of the product must be low
while still maintaining a margin of profit—that is, just above break-even point. To find

35
the break-even point, I compiled the different costs factoring into the commercial
production of this product as defined in section E and created a break-even chart
relating the costs to the break-even revenue number.

Fixed costs
• Fusion3 F410 printer: $4,599 one-time

Variable costs
• 1 kg of 1.75 mm clear translucent PET
filament: $24.99 from MatterHackers
o Divided by projected 4 assembled
products per 1 kg of filament ≈ $6.25 per
assembly

Left: break-even chart. (Fixed costs in red,

variable costs in blue, total costs in green,
1000-unit line in black)

After charting the costs onto the break-even

chart, calculations yielded a $10,849 revenue
that is needed to break even after producing
1000 units. This simplifies down to $10.85 as
the lowest price of the product possible while
breaking even in a reasonable timeframe.

Usually, cereal packaged in cardboard boxes

costs around $3.50, so this box would be
selling for price points that are around 3x
higher than regular cereal boxes. However,
the target market can be easily influenced by
psychological pricing—pricing the product at
$10.99, for example, will yield to a higher rate
of perceptions of value gained from a
purchase of the product than if the product
was selling for $10.50. Psychological pricing
ending in $0.99 tricks consumers’ minds that
they’re buying something that’s cheaper than
it actually is. Furthermore, at a certain price
point, a balance is struck between perception
of quality and affordability, where the target
market thinks that the price of a product is
worth the purchase. Therefore, the price of
this product (per assembly) will be $10.99.

36
Considering the prices of other products (listed in the “Secondary research” under
Section A), which ranged from $16.99 per unit to $11.79 per unit, this product will be
priced cheaper than all competing products mentioned at full cost. Modifying the price
as a promotional technique will make the product even cheaper than competing
products.

Place
Cereal products are usually sold where other foodstuffs are sold, like grocery stores,
convenience stores, and supermarkets. Initially, I thought about partnering with cereal
manufacturers to replace cardboard boxes by using the product as the standard cereal
packaging, but that would result in many containing boxes being stashed into storage,
thrown into landfills, or incorrectly recycled, causing more waste to enter the
environment or causing consumer hatred towards the product once it is not able to be
reused anymore.

Therefore, this product will be sold not through cereal manufacturers, but through
grocery stores as a separate cereal container solution. This will be conveyed through
the placement of the product in stores, using the endcaps of aisles and the bulk cereal
section (as shown in section A) as the points of presentation for the product. These
specific points of presentation are easily accessible and frequented by the target
market, which increases the chance of the product’s exposure to the target market. A
potential display scenario, at the bulk cereal section of a grocery store, is shown below
(with the product itself at the bottom of the picture).

37
Promotional strategies
Considering how the place that the product is going to be displayed and sold is
accessible to the target market, the promotional strategies for this product have to be
relevant to the target market as well. First, demand needs to be generated for this
product, and one way that could happen is through sales promotions. The target
market does not have a lot of money to spend on this product, so in the first month
after it hits the shelves in grocery stores, customers who buy at least 2 lbs. of bulk
cereal will get the GoBox for 50% off retail price. This promotion would encourage the
target market to put the product to use right after purchase, increasing the potential for
satisfaction with this product. Satisfaction with the product would then lead to the
usage of word-of-mouth promotion, as satisfied customers will want to pass their
satisfaction to others, which will increase sales for the product.

Another strategy to use to promote the GoBox would be in-store displays that highlight
the reusability and durability of the product, as well as its relation to the improvement
of breakfast habits, as the eating of breakfast is often associated with physical and
mental strength. A physical manifestation of this could be banners that are hung inside
of the store from the ceiling, like the one pictured below.

38
By featuring sales promotions and a slogan like “breakfast, on your go” serve to attract
customers to the product by not only the prospect of a valuable deal, but also by the
prospective benefits towards the customers’ breakfast experiences.

39
Bibliography
Cereal box health warning after recycled cardboard study. (2011, March 8). Retrieved
April 4, 2019, from The Telegraph website:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8367881/Cereal-box-health-
warning-after-recycled-cardboard-study.html

Esmail, A. (n.d.). Redesigned cereal box. Retrieved March 10, 2019, from Adnan
Esmail: my portfolio website:
http://web.mit.edu/adnane/www/adnan/portfolio/pde/cereal.html

Fantozzi, J. (2015, August 18). More Than Half of Americans Skip Breakfast at Least
Once a Week, Study Says. Retrieved February 7, 2019, from The Daily Meal
website: https://www.thedailymeal.com/news/healthy-eating/more-half-
americans-skip-breakfast-least-once-week-study-says/081815

Jussaume, E. (2016). Cereal packaging redesign. Retrieved April 4, 2019, from EJ

Studios website: http://ejstudios.net/cereal-packaging-redesign/

Langer, G. (Ed.). (2005, May 5). What's for Breakfast? Liver and Grits! [PDF]. Retrieved
from https://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/981a1Breakfast.pdf

Levitsky, D. A., & Pacanowski, C. R. (2013, May). Effect of skipping breakfast on

subsequent energy intake. Retrieved from Elsevier website:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

Nadel, B. (2019, February 14). Fusion3 F410 review. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from
Business.com website: https://www.business.com/reviews/fusion3/

31 Million Americans Skip Breakfast Each Day. (2017, December 6). Retrieved April 4,
2019, from HuffPost website: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/31-million-
americans-skip_n_1005076?ec_carp=3264094400681939526

40