PERK Corp.

Individual & Team Decision Matrix

San Marin High School

03/09/2021

Pranav Pannala, Evan Colenbrander, Ryan Miller, Kaleb Ryan

 Valuation Criterion Description
We selected five design components for our evaluation criteria:
● Safeness
● Efficacy
● Affordability
● Aesthetic
● Popularity

1. Safeness: Our design is targeted towards parents and children so safety is a high
priority. We decided to give the safeness category the most weight so that we can
ensure a safe design is selected.
2. Efficacy: Efficacy was given the second most weight. In order for our product to be
successful, it is important for all the features to work correctly. We want to prioritize
designs that will be consumer-friendly and easy to use.
3. Affordability / Aesthetic: These two options were given equal weight because they will
both allow the product to appeal to consumers. Keeping the product price low will allow
us to easily compete with similar products. Having a visually appealing design will
encourage consumers to purchase the product.
4. Popularity: Popularity was given the least amount of weight because while it is important
for our product design to be popular, the other evaluation components are much more
important for making a successful design.
 Individual Matrices
Individual Matrix: Pranav
Evaluation Teddy Bear LCD Screen Robot Design

Criteria Wt. Val1 Wt. x Val1 Val2 Wt. x Val2 Val3 Wt. x Val3

Safeness 0.35 9 3.15 6 2.10 6 2.10

Efficacy 0.25 8 2.00 1 0.25 7 1.75

Affordability 0.15 7 1.05 9 1.35 3 0.45

Aesthetic 0.15 9 1.35 1 0.15 7 1.05

Popularity 0.10 9 0.90 2 0.20 4 0.40

Total 1.0 8.45 4.05 5.75

Individual Matrix: Evan

Evaluation Teddy Bear LCD Screen Robot Design

Criteria Wt. Val1 Wt. x Val1 Val2 Wt. x Val2 Val3 Wt. x Val3

Safeness 0.35 9 3.15 6 2.1 8 2.8

Efficacy 0.25 7 1.75 1 0.25 7 1.75

Affordability 0.15 6 0.9 9 1.35 5 0.75

Aesthetic 0.15 9 1.35 3 0.45 8 1.20

Popularity 0.10 9 0.9 3 0.30 8 0.80

Total 1.0 8.05 4.45 7.3

Individual Matrix: Ryan

Evaluation Teddy Bear LCD Screen Robot Design

Criteria Wt. Val1 Wt. x Val1 Val2 Wt. x Val2 Val3 Wt. x Val3

Safeness 0.35 10 3.5 6 2.1 8 2.80

Efficacy 0.25 8 2 2 0.5 6 1.5

Affordability 0.15 4 0.6 10 1.5 2 0.3

 Aesthetic 0.15 8 1.2 2 0.30 8 1.20

Popularity 0.10 10 1 3 0.30 6 0.60

Total 1.0 8.30 4.70 6.40

Individual Matrix: Kaleb

Evaluation Teddy Bear LCD Screen Robot Design

Criteria Wt. Val1 Wt. x Val1 Val2 Wt. x Val2 Val3 Wt. x Val3

Safeness 0.35 9 3.15 6 2.10 8 2.80

Efficacy 0.25 8 2.00 2 0.50 8 2.00

Affordability 0.15 4 0.60 8 1.20 3 0.45

Aesthetic 0.15 8 1.20 3 0.45 8 1.20

Popularity 0.10 9 0.90 3 0.30 6 0.60

Total 1.0 7.85 4.55 7.15

PERK Corp. Team Matrix

Evaluation Teddy Bear LCD Screen Robot Design

Criteria Wt. Val1 Wt. x Val1 Val2 Wt. x Val2 Val3 Wt. x Val3

Safeness 0.35 9 3.15 7 2.45 8 2.80

Efficacy 0.25 7 1.75 1 0.25 7 1.75

Affordability 0.15 5 0.75 9 1.35 3 0.45

Aesthetic 0.15 9 1.35 2 0.30 8 1.20

Popularity 0.10 9 0.90 3 0.30 6 0.60

Total 1.0 7.90 4.65 6.80

 Conclusions
Teddy Bear
● Safeness: The Teddy Bear design received a safeness score of 9 because the stuffed
interior and soft exterior make for a fun and safe educational tool.
● Efficacy: The Teddy Bear design received an efficacy score of 7 because it would
adequately serve as a housing unit for the mechanics of the RoboBuddy. It would be
able to house the internal electronics as well as provide appendages for the servos to
move.
● Affordability: The Teddy Bear design received an affordability score of 5 because while
they may be relatively cheap for sale, the cost of individually sourcing the fabric and the
stuffing can be pretty expensive. Until we reach a point where we can order the materials
in bulk, the design remains fairly expensive.
● Aesthetic: The Teddy Bear design received an aesthetic score of 9 because it is a tried
and tested children’s toy that has proven its popularity among youngsters over the years.
It employs a cute and cuddly design that children respond well to.
● Popularity: The Teddy Bear design received a popularity score of 9 because, among
those surveyed, the most common idea for the visual design of the product was that of a
teddy bear.

LCD Screen
● Safeness: The LCD Screen design received a safeness score of 7 because it has a rigid
outer shell and pointed corners so it doesn’t hold up compared to the safer designs.
● Efficacy: The LCD Screen design received an efficacy score of 1 because this design is
based on text-based inputs and outputs. This would make the design difficult to interact
with and young children who cannot type or read well would have difficulties using the
product.
● Affordability: The LCD Screen design received an affordability score of 9 because it
incorporates fewer components than the other two designs. The LCD Screen has no
moving parts, speakers, or microphones so less money will be needed to manufacture
the design.
● Aesthetic: The LCD Screen design received an aesthetic score of 2 because its design is
a simple rectangular prism making it relatively simple. The other designs incorporate
more interesting design features that are visually appealing.
● Popularity: The LCD Screen design received a popularity score of 3 because unlike a
teddy bear or robot, the LCD Screen is not a recognizable design.

Robot
● Safeness: The Robot design received a safeness score of 8 because the rigid outer shell
will be covered with silicone so it will have a soft exterior that will not harm the
consumers. With this outer shell it will still be harder than a teddy bear so it did not
receive as high of a score.
 ● Efficacy: The Robot design received an efficacy score of 7 because it would adequately
serve as a housing unit for the mechanics of the RoboBuddy. It would be able to house
the internal electronics as well as provide appendages for the servos to move.
● Affordability: The Robot design received an affordability score of 3 because in
comparison to the other two designs it would be more expensive because it would be
3D-printed, and child-safe silicone tends to be expensive.
● Aesthetic: The Robot design received an aesthetic score of 8 because while it is an
aesthetically pleasing design, we are not completely sure if kids would all enjoy it like
they would the teddy bear.
● Popularity: The Robot design received a popularity score of 6 because while it was not
suggested as much as the teddy bear design in the survey we created, it was still a
popular idea especially among students.

Results
Based on the decision matrix results we chose the teddy bear. Our three individual decision
matrices and our team matrix all gave the teddy bear option the highest score. The individual
matrix average score for the teddy bear was 8.16 and the team score was 7.90. The average
score for the robot was 6.65 and the team score was 7.15. The average score for the LCD
screen design was 4.44 and the team score was 4.65. These results clearly show that the teddy
bear design has more beneficial features than the other two options.