Team Decision Matrix

Evaluation Holy Telescopic! Studding Studs Lots o’ Threads

Criteria

Wt. Val1 Wt * Val1 Val2 Wt * Val2 Val3 Wt * Val3

Durability 0.2 5 1 8 1.6 7 1.4

Ability to do 0.3 8 2.4 7 2.1 7 2.1

tasks

Ease of 0.1 6 0.6 7 0.7 5 0.5

manufacturing

Ease of 0.2 9 1.8 2 0.4 7 1.4

transport

Ease of freeze 0.1 5 0.5 4.5 0.45 8 0.8

Cost 0.1 4 0.4 6 0.6 5 0.5

Total 1 6.7 5.85 6.7

Holy Telescopic:
Padded handle with a telescopic rod going into hole inserts inside of the tool head. Easy to move around and do tasks, may have problems with parts
freezing in place. The telescopic rod allows the products to fit in smaller spaces during transportation and the hole insert will make the product more
durable with keeping the tool head in place. The use of bolts to keep the tools in place will allow for easier removal and a better seal. The creation of the
telescopic rod will make the process more costly.

Are there a large number of parts?

There is a relatively large number of parts that need to be connected

Are there a large number of different kinds of parts?

Yes, there is a relatively large number of different parts

Are there parts with complicated geometry?

The parts have fairly complicated geometry to them

Can some parts be purchased?

You could probably find something that you could use relatively easily on the market

Do you have the skills to make all of the parts?

I personally would actually be able to make the parts as I have access to a lathe, but it would be difficult

Is it a modular design?
It is modular enough, there are definitely ways to add to it

Are there opportunities to simplify manufacture of the design by:

• Reducing the number of parts?
• Reducing the number of different kinds of parts?
• Simplifying the shape of some parts?
• Purchasing some parts?
• Redesigning the parts that are difficult to make?
• Modularizing the design?
This whole design relies on the telescoping rod and its interactions with the tool rod itself. It is hard to reduce the number of parts of a telescopic rod
because they fit into each other. Therefore they all must be different parts, however, the shape itself could be simplified to be a bit easier to make by
making the lock itself simpler.

Manufacturing Errors:
● More exact parts could have errors in placement and therefore not work
● Rod may not fit perfectly inside the tool head when frozen
● Bolt holes may be misplaced
● Telescoping might not be completely aligned

Environmental Changes:
● Obviously, if the weather got warmer, it would be quite unfortunate for our tool
● If it got way too cold the parts may freeze and be unable to shift

Wear from Usage:

● Over time, the locks for the telescoping rod may wear out, preventing it from staying in position
● The telescoping mechanism itself may not slide correctly
● The pykrete head will get worn out from continuous use
● Chance for the head to slip off if too much shock is put on it

Studding Studs:
A single rod with studs throughout, it is extremely durable due to it being a solid piece. The studs on the top end hold in the tool head and prevent it
from shifting. Can be flipped around to have a tool head on either side of the symmetrical rod, however, it is very inconvenient to transport due to it not
being able to collapse in any way.

Are there a large number of parts?

The number of parts is quite large because it accounts for the inside mechanisms of the handle and all the tiny studs keeping the head on the rod.
Are there a large number of different kinds of parts?
No, the parts are mostly the same material and the studs are worked into the rod.
Are there parts with complicated geometry?
Yes, the studded grip and studded head.
Can some parts be purchased?
No parts are able to be purchased.
Do you have the skills to make all of the parts?
With the right materials, possibly. There is still the issue of metal working which none of us are really capable of.
Is it a modular design?
Yes, but could be improved to be even more modular.
Are there opportunities to simplify manufacture of the design by:
• Reducing the number of parts?
• Reducing the number of different kinds of parts?
• Simplifying the shape of some parts?
• Purchasing some parts?
• Redesigning the parts that are difficult to make?
• Modularizing the design?

Manufacturing Errors:
The studs would make manufacture more complex and costly, if the studs are damaged the entire tool might be unusable. The mold might not retain it’s
shape after being stretched in cold environments.
Environmental Changes:
As with all the designs there is the worry of the head melting. There is also the worry of the ice around the studs melting and getting loose.
Wear from Usage:
The studs connecting the parts could get stuck or harder to move over time.

Lots o’ Threads:
All parts are modular, allowing for swift replacement of anything damaged. Heads can be molded without the rod attached, decreasing the overall size
required. If a tool needs to be lengthened, it can have additional rods added to it. With few unique parts, it could be manufactured easily, and the
maximum number of tools would be covered only by the amount of head attachments.. This works wonders with the fill line mold as it would require
little to no effort to make more and more heads.
Are there a large number of parts?
Yes and no. This design has a low minimum parts, but can be expanded to use more.

Are there a large number of different kinds of parts?

No. The handle is a repeating part, and the attachment to the ice is a separate one.

Are there parts with complicated geometry?

Yes. Each part will require complicated threading to allow them to fit together.

Can some parts be purchased?

Yes. Pykrete is nearly free. A prototype could be made from existing multitool parts.

Do you have the skills to make all of the parts?

We do not know how to make threaded tubes.

Is it a modular design?
Yes.

Are there opportunities to simplify manufacture of the design by:

• Reducing the number of parts?
This is seemingly the minimum without increasing complexity, or reducing functionality
• Reducing the number of different kinds of parts?
Minimum of 2 + the mold
• Simplifying the shape of some parts?
Parts are incredibly simple.
• Purchasing some parts?
Yes, some can be purchased, but we have not worked out compatibility issues.
• Redesigning the parts that are difficult to make?
This has been done extensively.
• Modularizing the design?
 The design is very modular.

Manufacturing Errors:
● Incorrect threading will render the parts unusable

Environmental Changes:
● Tool head will melt under heat.

Wear from Usage:

● Overtightening will cause the tool to break

Individual Decision Matrix Andersen Teoh

Evaluation Holy Telescopic! Studding Studs Lots o’ Threads

Criteria

Wt. Val1 Wt * Val1 Val2 Wt * Val2 Val3 Wt * Val3

Durability 0.2 6 1.2 8 1..6 7 1.4

Ability to do 0.3 8 2.4 7 2.1 5 1.5

tasks

Ease of 0.1 7 0.7 5 0.5 8 0.8

manufacturing

Ease of 0.2 9 1.8 5 1 8 1.6

transport

Ease of freeze 0.1 5 0.5 6 0.6 8 0.8

Cost 0.1 4 0.4 8 0.8 6 0.6

Total 1 7 7.6 6.7

Individual Decision Matrix - Wesley Fink

Evaluation Holy Telescopic Studding Studs Lots O’ Threads

Criteria

Wt. Val1 Wt * Val1 Val2 Wt * Val2 Val3 Wt * Val3

Durability 0.2 4 0.8 7 1.4 6 1..2

Ability to do 0.3 8 2.4 8 2.4 7 2..1
tasks

Ease of 0.1 6 0.6 3 0.3 5 0.5

manufacturing

Ease of 0.2 8 1..6 2 0.4 7 1..4

transport

Ease of freeze 0.1 4 0.4 5 0.5 9 0.9

Cost 0.1 6 0.6 6 0.6 5 0.5

Total 1 6.4 5.6 6.6

Max Decision Matrix

Evaluation Holy Telescopic! Studding Studs Lots o’ Threads
Criteria

Wt. Val1 Wt * Val1 Val2 Wt * Val2 Val3 Wt * Val3

Durability 0.2 7.5 1.5 6 1.2 6 1.2

Ability to do 0.3 5 1.5 7 2.1 8 2.4

tasks

Ease of 0.1 6 0.6 6 0.6 6 0.6

manufacturing

Ease of 0.2 8 1.6 4 0.8 5 1

transport

Ease of freeze 0.1 6 0.6 8 0.8 6 0.6

Cost 0.1 5 0.5 7 0.7 6 0.6

Total 1 37.5 6.3 38 6.2 37 6.4

Decision Matrix - Tanner Spence

Evaluation Telescopic Studded Lots o Threaded

Criteria

Wt. Val1 Wt * Val1 Val2 Wt * Val2 Val3 Wt * Val3

Durability 0.2 6 1.2 7 1.4 8 1.6

Ability to do 0.3 10 3 6 1.8 7 2.1

tasks

Ease of 0.1 5 .5 8 .8 6 .6
manufacturing

Ease of 0.2 8 1.6 2 1.6 7 1.4

transport

Ease of freeze 0.1 6 .1 5 .5 8 .8

Cost 0.1 4 .4 3 .3 5 .5

Total 1 40 7.4 31 6.4 41 7