Ia 3 (SL)

Design project 3 (SL): Carton pourer
Criterion A I The Design Opportunity
Design Situation
Pouring drinks from unergonomic bottles and jugs can be messy,
especially for people (including children, the injured, and the elderly) with
limited hand mobility or grip.
The Current Problem (Source: Columbia Images)
Especially after refrigeration, juice and milk cartons are slippery and difficult to hold.
Research on children, parents and the elderly proved the universal nature of the problem
applies to all ages. With milk or juice present in every household of the initial 20 interviewees,
a solution is pivotal.
(Source: Adrian Brockwell/Getty Images)
Analysis of Design Opportunity

Following observational studies, a second interview was done with a stratified sample of 20 stay-at-home parents
with children under 13.
Do you refrigerate juice or milk in its Times per day that juice is poured Times per day that milk is poured for
store-bought packaging? for the child the child
No 2 4 2
5.0% 0 19.0%
28.6% 19.0% 19.0%
Yes 3
95.0% 52.4% 61.9%
Additionally, promoting children's "independence" was unanimously deemed important.

Parents had 2 main criterias: security and child-friendliness. However, as the perception map shows, current market
rivals have not been able to fulfill both these needs.
Secure
Cost
■: >£8
: <£8
Child-friendly,
Unpractical
Simple
1 Unsecure Word Count: 128
Design technology teacher support material 1

Criterion A I The Design Brief
A prototype that is child-proof, stable, and appropriate in a kitchen setting is needed. Testing must be done to
ensure that it stores easily and interferes minimally in daily activity.
The expected outcome is a product that provides grip and (with young children being the focus group) caters to
the anthropometrics and ergonomics of children. A prototype should also work for adults who may be injured,
have arthritis, or have other weaknesses in their hands.
A working prototype needs to be designed and produced within 2 months and be largely considerate of the
variety of carton sizes within the market. The prototype must be largely (if not wholly} made from the readily
available materials, components, and production processes available in school workshops.
Word Count: 122

Criterion A I Design Specification (I)
TARGET MARKET
Specification Justification
1.1 Must cater to the user's The focus group is young children experiencing trouble holding onto cartons.
needs The product will need to be high quality, aesthetic, and be affordable.
The market is income-earning parents and adults who have limited mobility due
to injuries or joint disease. In all cases, the product should be easy to wash,
disassemble, and store.
The grip must be useable for the 90th percentile of adults, because both
children and the elderly typically have parents or carers that access the product
for an equal amount of time.
FUNCTION
2.1 Must be able to grip milk To prevent mess, the product must be able to grip the milk or juice both when at
or juice both when room temperature and dry, and if the bottle is 'sweating' (by condensation) and
chilled and when not more slippery.
Secondary research suggests that:
grasping ability is only possible when the thumb is able to be opposed to
the fingers
stabilising ability is helped by the palm of the hand that creates a flat
base.
The product should provide a handle that allows users to comfortably have
access to both these factors. Adjustability may be a consideration.
2.2 Should cater to as many From primary research into the

shapes and sizes of local market, the majority of
bottles as possible currently sold goods are cuboids.
These should be the key focus.
- Plastic packaging seemed to already be relatively considerate

of ergonomic requirements.
2.3 Should be minimally

complex, taking no more
than 1 minute to switch
out the carton
t----+-------------1 With children being the focus group, the device must be simple to use so that it
2.4 Must be stable and is safe and minimizes injury. Safety should encourage use.
should not collapse
2.5 No sharp comers or

edges should be present

Criterion A I Design Specification (II)
AESTHETICS
3.1 Prototype must be cool or neutral According to secondary research, "85% of shoppers place color as a
colours primary reason for why they buy a particular product".
Providing connotations of freshness, this is essential to ensure that

the milk itself is reached for.
3.2 Handle must have a visible textured Ensures that the product appeals as child-friendly, while serving its
surface that allows for grip function of being easy to hold.
From secondary reading, a textured surface decreases the needed

grip on a handle by increasing friction. This should compensate for
clients' lack of grip strength.
3.3 Prototype must be easy to This will improve product adoption. Key features should be
understand eye-catching to help guide younger clients to use the prototype.
MATERIAL SELECTION
4.1 Material choices should be The minimisation of material waste should reduce the negative
environmentally conscious impact of the product on the environment.
4.2 Material should have a high High strength-to-weight ratio (prevents added weight)
strength-to-weight ratio
4.3 Material should be available in a Must provide idea-pleasure to user and make it aesthetically
variety of colours desirable
4.4 Material must be resistant to water Ensure durability and allow easy cleaning. The moisture from carton
'sweat' should not pose a problem.
4.5 Material must have little to no Must be suitable to place around food products
toxicity
4.6 Precautions should be taken to Additional finishing may help to ensure the longevity of the product,
ensure that the product is durable but will need to be FDA and NSF approved when commercially
and moisture resistant produced. The presence of self-finishing qualities will be ideal

Criterion A I Design Specification (Ill)
PRODUCTION CONSTRAINTS
5.1 Product's quality must be Prototype will be manufactured in the school workshop using the
maintained throughout readily available resources.
manufacturing.
Traditional manufacturing, 3D printers, and CNC machines within the
workshop should aid the manufacture of the prototype.
SIZE
6.1 Base should not exceed Placing upper bounds (based on a survey of local fridge door
115x115mm spacings) helps ensure that the product is easy to access and store.
6.2 Maximum height of 290mm
6.3 Handle must have a maximum Accommodates for the 5th percentile of female hands
38mm diameter
6.4 Minimum 140mm handle height Accommodates for the largest male hand
6.5 Should be as slender as possible Product should provide as much physio-pleasure as possible, while
still performing its desired function. Optimising fridge space was a
priority for many surveyed.
QUANTITY
7.1 Prototype should be manufactured This is the amount of time given for this component.
within 10 hours
7.2 Prototype will be more expensive With the prototype being one-off production, it will not be as cost
than the final product efficient as it would be when commercially produced. Similar products
in the market are below £8.00.
Word Count: 726











Criterion BI Final Design and Justification
Criterion B has helped to create a solid models for comparison.

User group feedback was as follows:
• Hanging design was seen as "inconvenient" and "clumsy" given the pivoting mechanism. The consensus
was a lack of control during milk pour. Parents disliked the idea of having to keep the fridge door open for
long periods of time, since loss of coolness may cause other food to spoil.
• The standing, rotational design was the most straightforward and was deemed best to teach children with.
Additionally, it alleviates all aforementioned problems.
In review of specification 6.3, the target user group (especially arthritic clients) preferred a handle diameter of
approximately 50 mm because it provided the most comfort.
In review of specification 6.4, a standing design would not require a minimum height since its location makes this
ergonomic consideration redundant.
For the relevant specification points:
1.1 Met
2.1 Met
2.2 Met
2.3 Met
2.4 Met
2.5 Met
3.1 Met
3.2 Met
3.3 Met
6.1
Met
6.2 Assembly of the
physical component
6.3
models in this
6.4 structure was stable
6.5 Met
The design poses 2 additional specification points:
Specification Justification Further Investigation
2.6 Must allow for a For the product to be 'effective', the user group The device facilitate a full milk pour but
complete pour requested that the pour should allow for all the must still be stable and compact.
contents of the carton to be emptied out. Potentially look into the effect of using
Otherwise, it must be un-attachable to allow for a weighted case on stability.
the final pour to be effective.
2.7 Must be easy to The product must be easy to insert and remove Further development of adjustability
access from the fridge. Optimising fridge space was a may allow for a more compact product.
re-mentioned priority for many surveyed.
16 Word Count: 246

Criterion CI Materials and Processes (I)
The comparison table can help to identify the ideal material that will meet the requirements of the prototype.
Ranking each material from best to worst, the material with the lowest total score is best suited
Materials
Specifications Cast Acrylic ABS PES

Aluminium (Polyethersulfone)
(23) (14) (15) (22)
4.1 Material choices should be environmentally conscious 4 1 2 3
4.2 Material should have a high strength-to-weight ratio 1 2 3 4

4.3 Material should be available in a variety of colours 4 1 2 3
4.4 Material must be resistant to water 1 2 4 3
4.5 Material must have little to no toxicity 1 1 1 1
Based on Criteria B, the following properties would also help to fulfill the requirements of the prototype
(4.7) Must be lightweight 4 2 1 3
(4.8) Must be flexible and drop-resistant 4 2 1 3
(4.9) Good thermal insulator 4 3 1 2
(4.10) Must be approved by the FDA for food contact Yes Yes Yes Yes
Having met all the criterion, Acrylic is best suited for the creation of the main body and base. It's excellent
self-finishing properties, machinability, and clarity fulfill specification 4.6
However, acrylic is slippery (especially when wet) and this compromises a user's grip on the product. To ensure it
fits Specification 1.1 and 2.1 (and to accommodate 3.2), a visible texture grip can be used.
Secondary reading suggests that rubber is the best for this purpose. A weight test demonstrated this.
After the rubber dots The weight test raised

were added, the concerns on the self-adhesive
component could sustain back of the rubber dots.
500 grams more.
Superglue can fuse the two
surfaces together and keep it
in place
Manufacturing Techniques:
• Hand Tools such as the band saw will cut the acrylic rods and tubing to their appropriate lengths. A skilled
manufacturer will maximise the prototype's accuracy.
• The laser cutter provides precise cuts relative to traditional mechanical cutting techniques. Environmentally
conscious, it consumes a small amount of power and optimises the use of material. This non-contact process
means that material quality will be maintained. Hence, mass production will be more efficient and consistent.
• The line bender will be used because concept modelling suggests that it is sturdy and does not compromise
aesthetic properties. The line bender allows a straight bend (with a small radius) to be formed in the acrylic,
and this creates curves that optimise safety considerations.
17 Word Count: 248











Criterion DI Testing Strategy
A success-based test strategy would help to provide a high-quality system that is efficient through
consideration of all endpoints.
Interview the client, presenting the prototype and asking for Direct interaction with the client
1 allows for a better
feedback on its aesthetic properties.
understanding of how well the
product meets the success
criteria.
Observe assembly of the product after being given only Clients will be timed in steps 2 to 4
2
the standardized set of instructions *. (to help evaluate Specification 2.3).
Clients will be asked on their
opinions at the end.
Present the client with any further assistance needed,

3
then observe the client using the product
Observe the client's ability to disassemble

4
the product
Record clients' individual anthropometric This will identify different parts of the market,
5 particularly niche clients with a lack of hand mobility.
measurements
This will filter down relevant feedback for different user
groups upon redesign.
6 Give clients a questionnaire that The questionnaire will allow the client to give
evaluates the design against the quantitative data on their opinions on the prototype.
specifications **.
Word Count: 174
28

Criterion DI Testing Completed
Based on the reviews of 25 potential clients 13 (more than 50%) of whom fit into the category of
"lacking mobility".
* Standardized Instructions Given:

"Depending on the carton size, slide either guiders A or guider B into
the appropriate slots of the transparent holder (follow engravings).
Slide the two clear 'handle' pieces into the cylinder, then onto the
unlabelled slots. Place the completed holder onto the blue base."
It took an average of 44 seconds to assemble.

Most (92%) did not need assistance following instructions.
** Final Questionnaire:
2. Could you see this product being used in your
1. Is the product straightforward to use and household?
assemble?
No
40
Yes
960% 4. Do you feel that you have a secure grip on the product?
3. Would you be comfortable to leave a child

alone with this product?
De nds on��i!!_on
4\. 0
Yes Yn
,2
No
8.0
5. Would you recommend the product to a friend

or family member? 6. If yes, who would the product be best suited for?
No
Yes
<l6.0
Word Count: 82
29

Criterion DI Evaluation (I)
Testing the product against the design specification:
Target Market I Success: 100%

Comments
A success rate of 96% of clients interviewed would recommend the product. Market
research suggested that the two primary markets were parents of young children and
adults with limited wrist mobility or grip strength.
Function I Success: 71 %
Specification Comments
The handle's little contact with the carton meant condensation is not a major issue, while
2.1
the rubber dots add grip.
Though later generations may accommodate to different carton sizes, the prototype
2.2
accommodates for the 2 most common sizes in the Indonesian market.
96% of interviewees had no difficulty in assembling the product, suggesting it is

2.3
minimally complex.
When the carton is full, the structure does not collapse. It is also stable because of its
2.4
flat, longer base.
While all sharp edges were sanded, hands-on client group feedback raised some
2.5
concerns over the horns.
2.6 Even clients with limited wrist mobility found it easy to completely pour out the carton
2.7 Mobility is high, even when using one hand.
Aesthetics I Success: 66%
Prototype's central body uses only cool colours (blue and acrylic). The guiders are
3.1
brighter which aided consumer's assembly.
3.2 The rubber dots on the handles add grip.
The arrow on the base is only visible under certain lighting. Otherwise, the product is
3.3
easy to understand.
Material Selection I Success: 100%
4.1 The choice of acrylic fulfills specification points. No additional finishing techniques were
needed as acrylic's pre-existing self-finishing qualities, ensuring the product was not
4.2
toxic.
4.3
When dropped from 85 cm, fractures did form
4.4 (see images). However, this should not pose major issues
4.5 since the average table height is 75cm.
4.6
Production Constraints I Success: 100%
Prototype was wholly manufactured in the school workshop. Quality checks ensured that
5.1
product specifications were met.
30

Criterion DI Evaluation (II)
Size I Success: 80%

6.1 Base measures 150 x 150 mm
Carton wrap's height is 280 mm. This fits the criteria since the base will not be placed in
6.2
the fridge
6.3 50 mm handle diameter (specified in Criterion B).
The handle's new location on the side of the carton negated its height as a factor in the
6.4
design process.
The product's slender design incorporates only essential elements. Later generations may
6.5 incentivise users to disassemble the product to allow more compact structures to be
placed into the fridge.
Quantity I Success: 100%
7.1 Prototype was completed within expected time
Mass production can help reduce the prototype's total cost of £50.80, as stated in the bill
7.2
of materials.
Based on the specification, the prototype was 80% successful.
Market Potential: Compared to its competitors, identified

through secondary research, the prototype's unique selling point
is its ability to sit on the table and rotate. Rivals tend not to
promote such products for arthritic patients, setting a prime niche
market. Additionally, the use of acrylics and rubber, which is
uncommon in most market competitors galvanises the product,
makes it easy to clean, and is more sustainable.
Assembly: Based on the research gathered by both observation
and questionnaire, 96% of clients interviewed had no difficulty in
assembly. The remaining 1 client had difficulty but was able to
operate the product.
Aesthetic: Testing suggested that the prototype's aesthetics
catered to the requirements of representative clients that it was
tested against. The testing group's wide variety of ages ensured
that the product can accomodate for most (if not all) members of
a household, increasing market potential.
Functionality:Testing feedback from clients claimed that the product was "innovative" and found it "useful ...
especially for (their) children," claiming that it is "relatively compact" and "easy to fit in [kitchen] cupboards".
This suggests that the product is a simple addition to clients' lives. 96% of clients surveyed said that they would
recommend the product to a family member or friend, with 79.2% specifying that it would appeal to young children
and 20.8% claiming that it appeals to people who lack wrist mobility or grip strength.
Word Count: 683
31

Criterion DI Potential Improvements (I)
With an 80% success rate, there is still room for improvement:
85 cm drop test (higher than average table)

broke one guider.i-----------------J
There are two potential solutions to increase durability:

• A wider inner tab
• Using a thicker acrylic
The drop
test
fractured
the
handle.
N.b. Main holder slits will need to be expanded

to suit revised dimensions of guider
A cushioned material (a good

shock absorber) would be
Based on survey, tapered handle may better accommodate for
better. Appropriate machinery
arthritic clients' hand positions.
is required.
The milk carton rocks too much.

Centre of gravity is too - - - - ... Altering handle's
A dampening system would help.
far forward position or weight can
StabilitJdeteriorates as carton is emptied prevent adding extra
weight
Implementing a stopping mechanism

could help limit tipping:
Prototype when Prototype with Prototype with Stops the carton from over-rotation
carton is full of water half-full carton empty carton and/or backward rotation
Acrylic's'slippery finish]reduced grip, especially when wet.
L Two potential solutions:

• Felt padding (though not waterproof so it may compromise the ability to wash the
prototype easily)
• Sanding the bottom of the structure to create texture
32

Criterion DI Potential Improvements (II)
Re-design could have more height options:

Revised design:
Numerous
pre-set
heights
available
Some sharp edges were identified and

Two height options allows multiple should be rounded
purposes
Subsequent versions
Holder sometimes slip� could add stopper

off of base rings
l
©
Using multiple colours (by layering acrylic) would help to
make the cow and the instructions (i e. the 'pouring direction arrow)
more visible.
33 Word Count: 180

Ia 3 (SL)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ia 3 (SL)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design project 3 (SL): Carton pourer

Criterion A I The Design Opportunity

The Current Problem (Source: Columbia Images)

(Source: Adrian Brockwell/Getty Images)

Analysis of Design Opportunity

Additionally, promoting children's "independence" was unanimously deemed important.

1 Unsecure Word Count: 128

Design technology teacher support material 1

Criterion A I The Design Brief

Word Count: 122

Design technology teacher support material 2

Criterion A I Design Specification (I)

2.2 Should cater to as many From primary research into the

These should be the key focus.

- Plastic packaging seemed to already be relatively considerate

2.3 Should be minimally

2.5 No sharp comers or

Design technology teacher support material 3

Criterion A I Design Specification (II)

Providing connotations of freshness, this is essential to ensure that

From secondary reading, a textured surface decreases the needed

Design technology teacher support material 4

Criterion A I Design Specification (Ill)

6.2 Maximum height of 290mm

Word Count: 726

Design technology teacher support material 5

Design technology teacher support material 6

Design technology teacher support material 7

Design technology teacher support material 8

Design technology teacher support material 9

Design technology teacher support material 10

Design technology teacher support material 11

Design technology teacher support material 12

Design technology teacher support material 13

Design technology teacher support material 14

Design technology teacher support material 15

Criterion BI Final Design and Justification

Criterion B has helped to create a solid models for comparison.

For the relevant specification points:

The design poses 2 additional specification points:

Specification Justification Further Investigation

16 Word Count: 246

Design technology teacher support material 16

Criterion CI Materials and Processes (I)

Specifications Cast Acrylic ABS PES

4.2 Material should have a high strength-to-weight ratio 1 2 3 4

4.4 Material must be resistant to water 1 2 4 3

4.5 Material must have little to no toxicity 1 1 1 1

(4.7) Must be lightweight 4 2 1 3

(4.8) Must be flexible and drop-resistant 4 2 1 3

(4.9) Good thermal insulator 4 3 1 2

After the rubber dots The weight test raised

17 Word Count: 248

Design technology teacher support material 17

Design technology teacher support material 18

Design technology teacher support material 19

Design technology teacher support material 20

Design technology teacher support material 21

Design technology teacher support material 22

Design technology teacher support material 23

Design technology teacher support material 24

Design technology teacher support material 25