PERK Corp.

Design Report

Pranav Pannala, Evan Colenbrander, Ryan Miller, Kaleb Ryan

1
 Table of Contents

Title Page Number

Problem Definition 3
Design Requirements 3
Conceptual Design 4
6
Detailed Design
9
Performance Evaluation 10
Lessons Learned

2
 Problem Definition

During the COVID-19 pandemic mental health and the development of social skills have been
very important issues to address. According to research conducted by ZERO TO THREE in
2015, 91% of parents say that parenting is their greatest joy. The combination of this statistic
and the current conditions with the COVID-19 pandemic prove that the development of social
skills in children is a very important issue for parents in the United States. PERK Corps’ goal is
to find a way to help address these issues and improve social skills development for young
children.

Problem: Young children are currently growing up without developing essential

social skills and manners.

Problem Solution: Increase children’s education in social skills and manners

through the use of an interactive product.

Design Requirements

In order to ensure that our product is successful, there are a few key components that
are required. While the product’s targeted audience is children, it is important to also keep in
mind how the parents will view the product because they are the ones who will be buying the
RoboBuddy.

While outlining the design requirements, it is essential to consider what children enjoy
the most and what parents value the most. Children tend to enjoy fun activities and are drawn to
vibrant colors. Parents want their children to become social and make friends.

Source: https://sciencing.com/do-bright-colors-appeal-kids-5476948.html

3
Key Design Requirements:

● It must have an interactive component to keep the children engaged

● It needs a speaker and a microphone

● It should be durable and lightweight

● It needs to be aesthetically appealing

Ultimately, while these are all very important requirements to consider, it is crucial to

focus on the safety of the child using the product when working on each of these parts.

Conceptual Design

Alternative Concepts

Main Concept: Robot Design

Alternative Concept 1: Teddy Bear

This design was not selected because it was decided that the soft design would
not be strong enough to support the interior components of the RoboBuddy. Without a
rigid outside structure, it would be difficult for the interior electronics to be secured in
place. Also, with the use of three servos it would be hard to make the design similar to a
teddy bear because plush toys generally cannot be designed with moving parts. While
the aesthetic appeal might be better than other designs, the structural design would be
too difficult for it to be a possible design. The specific details from the design matrix are
listed below.

4
Alternative Concept 2: LCD Screen

The LCD design was not selected because it would not appeal to children. The
design involved a simple box with a LCD screen which did not involve many
aesthetically appealing aspects. Because the target users are children, it was necessary
to have a design that would be much more friendly. Also, it would be extremely difficult
to make the LCD screen design because this design would be much more complicated
compared to the other two. The specific details for the design matrix are listed below.

Evaluation of Alternatives

Teddy Bear Design Matrix Results

● 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 the materials can be ordered
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 Design Matrix Results

● 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.

5
 ● 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.

Selection of a Concept
Initially, PERK Corp. had decided to use the Teddy Bear concept for the final
design. However, upon reevaluation, it was found that certain factors had been
incorrectly weighted on the Individual and Team Matrices. The Teddy Bear would not
adequately support the internal electronic components, without a hard shell that would
demerit its safety and popularity values. Thus, it was decided to use the next best
concept as the final design, the Robot. It was quickly realized that the Robot was a
much more efficient design that better represented the product as a whole. With the
robot design, children are able to get more comfortable with robots which prepares
them for the technological advancements likely to come in the near future.

Robot Design Matrix Results

● 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.

6
 Detailed Design

Main Features and How They Work

RoboBuddy Body Features

● Rotating arms and head to engage children more effectively
● Soft colors and a fun design actively encourage children to learn
● A built-in speaker and microphone ensure clear communication between both
parties

RoboBuddy Code Features

● Recognizes and responds to phrases
● Encourages proper manners
● Facilitates the development of social skills
● Understands several accents
The code is available to view at: https://github.com/piglet1337/robobuddy

How the RoboBuddy Body Works

● Servos located within the inner shell of the robot rotate the arms and head at
periodic intervals.
● The speaker and microphone are connected to a Raspberry Pi in the inner shell
which processes the inputs and delivers the outputs.
● The body is powered by 4 AA batteries.

How the RoboBuddy Code Works

● Using JavaScript and HTML, a program was designed that uses speech
recognition to understand what a user is saying.
○ The program then uses speech synthesis to respond to the user.
● The code was programmed with conversation starters from credible sources on
child development.
● It responds to key words with pre-programmed responses.
○ It responds with the phrase “I’m sorry, I didn’t understand that,” when it
encounters an input that it does not have a programmed response to.

7
 Results of Analysis, Experiments, and Models
Original Tests Updated Prototype Tests

Our results show us that the product works best when used with almost every
accent. Compared to the previous tests with the computer microphone, the real
microphone performed significantly better. When looking at the graphs for both the male
and female voices, the new microphone clearly performs better with an average
accuracy never falling below 88%. Because the tests gave us very high accuracy
results, we do not expect any of these accents to have issues. The only accent that
raised concerns in the last test was the English accent. This time, the English accent
accuracy was raised to 99% and 96% so the previous test results are no longer a
concern.

8
 In contrast to our last test where particular accents had higher accuracies, our
data this time shows all accents maintaining high accuracies across all trials. Also
contrasting our old data, the male and female voices both had comparable accuracies.
Except for one outline trial with the Australian male accent, each trial scored over a 93%
average. With our past results, we concluded that the male voices tended to be much
deeper compared to the higher pitched female voices. This made the male audio harder
to pick up because it blended in more with the background noises. This time, this was
not as much of an impact because both the male and female voices were successful.
Our findings from the second accent test raise no noticeable issues that must be
addressed and the tests confirm that our RoboBuddy speech recognition system works
as intended. The new microphone showed significant improvements over the old trials.

When looking at the results for the second test, the accuracy for the female voice
scored a 99% at both 5 and 13 feet and scored 89% at 89 feet. The male voice scored a
94% at 5 feet and then a 67% and 72% at 10 and 13 feet. Most users would not be
standing on the farthest possible side of a room when using the product so this data
tells us that the product will be functional at standard distances. When the user starts to
move farther away from the microphone the range results can drop but we do not
believe this will be a significant issue because most conversations will happen in a
closer range.

When looking at the male vs female data we can see that the male voice did
perform worse than the female voice. Again, this is due to the male voice being a lower
pitch compared to the female voice. Because the RoboBuddy is being used with
children we can expect the children to have accuracies that align more with the female
voice than the deep adult male voice.

Manufacturing Details
The 3D plastic components will be designed in OnShape. These components will
then be manufactured and printed on a 3D printer. Once the components are
completed, the electronic parts will be added to the 3D printed pieces. All the
components will be manually assembled to finish the RoboBuddy product. Now onto the
electronic components. The Raspberry Pi does generate trichloroethane, acetane, and
more chemicals during the manufacturing process. Additionally, copious amounts of
sodium hydroxide and other wastes are produced. The microphone and speaker emit
possibly hazardous chemicals during the plastic manufacturing process. The foam on
the microphone could also be a harmful pollutant if it is ingested by wildlife and/or
children.

9
 Performance Evaluation

Our physical circuit performed very well. After conducting our three tests, we found no issues
that needed to be addressed to improve the RoboBuddy circuit. The results from the accent
were very impressive with a 97% overall accuracy average across all the trials. The distance
test average was slightly lower, but still impressive. The average across all the distance test
trials ended up being 87%. While this value is lower than the accent tests, it is not a concern
because most users will not be using the product from the other side of a room.

Accent Test Overall Results: 99, 100, 99, 96, 100, 100, 88, 93 97% Average

Distance Test Overall Results: 99, 89, 99, 94, 67, 72 87% Average

10
 The physical 3D printed example model also helped to confirm that the RoboBuddy was
designed properly using OnShape.

Lesson Learned

Although we are very happy with the product that we produced, we believe that
there are some things that we would improve on our machine. If we could, we would
use our own circuit board designed specifically for the RoboBuddy. This would make the
RoboBuddy more effective and cheaper to produce. Additionally, we would have loved
to use a filtered AI to give more advanced conversation with our clients and to make the
RoboBuddy seem more friendly and human-like. Ultimately, budget restraints and lack
of technical experience has kept us from achieving these goals, but if we were to pursue
this in the future, we would implement these changes.
This project taught us a lot about the design process. It taught us how to think
outside of the box and determine multiple ways about going about processes. For
example, during the brainstorming process, we had to think of creative solutions to
world problems and once we had a basic idea, we needed to find out different methods
of solving said problem. This really opened our eyes to the intricacies of the design
process. Additionally, we learned about the marketing components that are woven into
the design of a product. In our case, we had to research colors and features that would
make a product more appealing to children.
At the center of this project was collaboration. At every point along this
semester-long journey, we all had to work together, functioning as one unit, to make this
project work. This project taught all of us about the importance of compromise. From the
brainstorming process, all the way to the final presentation, our group had to work
together and compromise on aspects of our project and presentations. We also learned
how to build on each other’s ideas to create something greater than the sum of our
parts.

11