Purple Team!
Mockups!
Open in New Window - All Presentation Slides (.pdf)
Presentation Video
Demo Video
Concepts
Versi Climber
A personal stair climbing cart that minimizes the pain of carrying loads up stairs.
View Product Contract in New Window
Contributors
Emma Rutherford: product contract, full assemblyShayna Ahteck: made spokes body and assemblyWill Reinkensmeyer: assembled axle with ratchet, full assembly, testingMarcelo Garcia: machining, assembled axle with ratchet, full assembly, testingJack Lin: presentation, product contract, meeting coordination, machining
Reviewer Feedback
Samuel Gollob
Concept
Presentation did not make clear exactly who would be using this. Elderly? College students? And in what setting - groceries? Up to their apartment or just up a couple of steps? Otherwise, the point of the concept was clear - a pull cart that would let you carry cargo up a set of stairs more easily than one with normal wheels. Without a clear user, it's not clear how strong this would be as a product.
Analysis
Liked that you spoke to users and identified the yanking and fear of falling problems, and how you integrated that in your goals/specs. An important analysis that was missing to me: what is the maximum force a user should need to apply?
Execution
To me the key question was your "stair-climbing" mechanism. A lot of time seemed to go into making parts of the cart body that did not answer that question, and in the end you implemented one mechanism that didn't seem to be structurally sound or to work... It was a good initial "embodiment" prototype, but I think a better use of time and top priority now would be to try a bunch of different mechanisms and see if you can get a feasbile stair-climbing approach.
Rich Wiesman
Concept
As I understood your concept, you were attempting to optimize a stair wheel to give the best feel to a person pulling a cart up stairs. There is certainly a significant number of competing products in this general market space. Here's a "10-best" list I found for stair climbing grocery carts: https://www.bestproductsreviews.com/grocery-carts-for-stairs?targetid=dsa-19959388920&matchtype=&device=c&campaignid=13697721320&creative=530350157976&adgroupid=132788019068&feeditemid=&loc_physical_ms=9001879&loc_interest_ms=&network=g&devicemodel=&placement=&keyword=$&target=&aceid=&adposition=&trackid=us_all_top_1_1&mId=407-132-4411&trackOld=true&gclid=CjwKCAjwzNOaBhAcEiwAD7Tb6GPEuUIwnkT5uxxvSpeBu1aMd_BUpVXhPwv4sWPHh6AfXtRUHVctaRoCuTwQAvD_BwE I looked a bit further to see if any had brakes or similar things to prevent roll away. I found a number with parking brakes, but none with ratchets for the main stair wheels. Your concept to use spring loaded spokes instead of the more common rotating three-wheel stair wheels is interesting, but I saw no analysis to support the fact that passive springs would adjust better to the sizing of a stair. There seemed to be some idea that stairs have a fixed rise over run sizing. That is simply not the case. As you have found, older stairs in buildings and houses have many different combinations of rise and run. While most newer building codes set particular limits on the rise and run, this still allows significant variations -- even in new construction. I believe that some careful modeling and analysis could tell you if you could come up with a design that worked better than the three-wheel stair wheel and if a spring loaded design could passively adjust as you want. In other words, some modeling and analysis could save you some model building time and, in fact, direct you to the best model form to try. The on/off ratcheting idea may be a good feature, and you might want to try this with a more conventional 3-wheel stair wheel cart (just buy one) and see how it works.
Analysis
You had a good idea about limiting variations in pull force with a better wheel geometry from a passively adjusting spring loaded wheel. As already said, I think you do the modeling and answer the question of how the wheel geometry needs to relate to different stair rise and run combinations. Then you can model how a passive spring adjusting device might behave., It should be faster and easier to do this through an analytical model rather than a set of physical models
Execution
There were obvious problems with your physical model, and, as already said, an analytical model is probably needed first and then physical models to test the findings, if the findings are promising.
Dabin
Concept
The fundamental concept of a cart that enables people who can't lift easily carry items up/down stairs makes sense, and certainly gets at addressing a pain point for users. What isn't very clear to me is how the proposed product differs from the variety of existing stair-climbing carts - Is there a gap that you are aiming to target with this concept? The slides and presentation mentions that the cart goes both up and down stairs but the focus has primarily been on the challenges with ascending stairs. I feel that figuring out stair descent could pose some potentially tricky challenges, particularly in finding a way to control the speed and jerkiness of a descent of a loaded cart. This is especially important if your target users are people with limited mobility and pain, who may not necessarily have the strength or dexterity to prevent a run-away cart or prevent the cart from smashing into the next step/the ground.
Analysis
There is some further analysis needed to sufficiently de-risk this concept - it was nice to see an example of the spring-spoke module you might use in the final realization of the product, but it wasn't clear what was used to inform this decision. Your specification sheet lists "smooth motion: max accel < 10m/s^-2" as a user need 1) Where did this threshold come from? is it from empirical testing with users? Is this value applicable only to stair ascent and do you need a separate threshold for stair descent? (for example, is this something you'd like to minimize to prevent items from breaking as the cart falls to the next step?) 2) Were your designs tested and evaluated against this benchmark (both stair ascent & descent), and was it acceptable? Other analysis on how users generally interact with carts and what they generally look for would be good to carry out: How large does a cart need to be? Is this a daily use cart, or is this supposed to be more like a dolly, only for heavier objects with less frequency? Does the addition of the spokes interfere with the normal cart usage? Is this a standalone cart, or is this an add-on that someone could use to convert an existing cart into a stair-climbing cart? If it is portable, does it need to fold, or is this something people would use around the house? How durable do the wheels and cart itself need to be? Some common complaints of the #1 stair climbing cart on Amazon are with durability, so that may be important to consider.
Execution
While the mockup was useful in giving an idea to reviewers of what a potential realization of your product could be, it didn't quite address some of the more critical aspects of the product. It would have been nice seeing some more quantitative metrics of "smoothness" or at least a comparison of your mockup to a normal cart to get a sense of relative performance and benefit of the additional spring module. If you go forward with this concept, it may also be good to compare against the common 3-wheel design to see how your module is better than existing solutions. Another thing that may be valuable to show is the adaptability to different stair heights, which was an attribute listed in the specifications. While a demonstration on a single set of stairs is certainly useful, a product that needs a degree of adaptability definitely should be tested (and demoed) on a couple different test conditions.
Kait Becker
Concept
Stair climber. User/use/concept all seem clear. The strength of this idea depends on what the other products on the market are, the robustness of the product, and the potential failure modes. In the other products on the market - do they reduce load and lock to prevent rolling back down the stairs as you say this will? It would be good to clarifying this in future presentations.
Analysis
What happens if the user lets go entirely while trying to pull the cart up the stairs? For the given spoke length, where is your spoke most likely to fail? What is the weight that you want to carry with the cart? What is the range of stair heights that you would mostly likely expect? (for picking your spoke length). You might be able to find this from building code specifications. What do the other products on the market cost? If your competitors don't have the ratcheting features, you can go higher in cost. I like the idea generally but the robustness (how many cycle and how much load to failure) as well as the failure modes of this product are what I would worry about most. I would assume your customers will try to overload the cart - so be very clear on your specified loading limits. Is it problematic if the customer is not a strategic cart loader and puts all of the heavy things up high and on the outer face, as far as possible from the wheels? Have you considered having a feature to slow the cart's descent when going down stairs?
Execution
The mockup presentation clarified some of the comparison to current products. Maybe show a picture of those and still mention them if allowed. I would recommend a wider cart for future demos. Consider also how the depth (vs height /width) affects the location of the center of gravity vs the wheels and spokes.
Rebecca Thorndike-Breeze
Concept
Stair-climbing Cart: The problem centers on making it easier to use a stair-climbing cart -- i.e., the user doesn’t need to work as hard to pull it up the stairs, and doesn’t have to worry about it rolling backwards. In the demo, it seemed like the mechanism also prevented going back up the stairs when switched to “descending mode.” This might have been a misunderstanding on my part, but it prompts this thought: another concern there might be the cart tipping over and falling down the stairs when descending.
Analysis
Your critical questions are important, and the demo showcased your process to answer them. I appreciated the mechanism demo (separate from the cart going up the stairs), to show the logic behind the ascending and descending design.
Execution
The model execution was not very sturdy, such that the spring-loaded spokes could not support the weight of the cart. Thus the model demo gave a sense of your vision, but did not seem to actually help get the cart up the stairs. I do not see why that spring loaded design is the right choice, based on this mock up demo.
Josh Wiesman
Concept
What are the alternative solutions that exist for users today? Are these users often using carts without assists or would this be a significant change for them? The team has focussed on the stair assist part, but are they forgetting about other required features, such as ability to collapse for storage, payload or capacity of the cart, set-up and collapse functionality - should it fit into a trunk?
Analysis
See some of the comments above - additionally, how does this function with a loaded cart vs the empty cart being presented? Durability / strength of the climber feature with a loaded cart. How does the user turn off the climber feature completely? Lot's of human factors to consider with the user - given their limitations, what human factors should be considered for operation? Better clarity on where the specs came from would help - for example, pull force to weight ratio of 0.75 - why 0.75 vs 0.7?
Execution
See comments above - additionally, what type of maintenance / repairs can the user expect to perform vs alternative strategies. Where and how are parts available - some companies use bike or car parts for greater user flexibility when repairs are needed.
Kamala Grasso
Concept
At a high level, the concept is quite clear and I see it solving a user need. I know you started with a nice quote from a potential user but I couldn't tell if you had engaged other users to better understand the specific needs. Is foldability a key element? If so, how would your mechanism work with that?
Analysis
Are there any size constraints? To the question above, is foldability a key feature of carts that you need to maintain? Note - a few typos on your contract (stoping instead of stopping and +/1 instead of +/- on the second item)
Execution
The model gave me a sense of the overall concept. Unfortunately ,though, the spokes were so rickety that I couldn't get a good sense of how well it would work.
Sam Ihns
Concept
The concept is clear and the user need is apparent given the large amount of stair carts already on the market. But with such a saturated market, a critical element is finding exactly how you can innovate. Perhaps focusing in on a particular subgroup of users will help in identifying some design freedoms - for example, a 25 year-old with a prosthetic leg may be able to use both arms in a way that a 70 year-old with arthritis can not - however they may want to use the cart to lift generally heavier things. This is a fake example of course, but certainly sub-users do exist! Finding your niche, and more importantly !! finding actual users who can test and validate !! will make your lives much easier and help identify areas you can further innovate.
Analysis
Your product contract lays out concrete specifications that appear achievable. I am interested in where the metric of pull-force-to-weight ratio came from - was this specification determined through user testing/some authoritative source or by the team? If it is by the team, moving forward it will be very important to try and confirm this spec with users! One large user need that is not concretely described is that this device must fit into the user's lifestyle. This may mean the wheels can't be too large or heavy, or that the product must look the part of a lifestyle device as opposed to a more clinical, assistive cart. While it will become more of a focus later on in the course, the user-experience can still help inform your engineering decisions at these early stages.
Execution
The cart went up the stairs nicely, and I understand that the materials available to you (3d-printing, aluminum stock) don't necessarily lend themselves well to heavy lifting - which makes it difficult to really stress test these mechanisms. However, the strength of 3d printing is that you can modify your designs easily to test different setups - it will benefit the team to take advantage of this and rapidly iterate different wheel, spoke, and end-effector designs so you can really be confident in your ergonomics as you move forward!
Elizabeth Stevens
Concept
Stair-climbing cart: The presentation was informative. More rehearsal can make the delivery smoother and more engaging. I like the way the group is attending to the wide variety in stair sizes, and picking a feasible range. Is there a wide variety in user needs, or are users relatively uniform? Do people with arthritis have different kinds of experiences with stair carts, for instance, than those with scoliosis or autoimmune conditions? Or, would a 20 year old user have different needs than an 80 year old user? When you continue to conduct interviews, zero in on the users who are really excited by this functionality or really frustrated by the problem, because their comments will really help you design the best product.
Analysis
No feedback provided
Execution
This demonstration was one I really wanted to see, and the set up was well done. Is it possible to make the cart model sturdier next time? Even though it's a proof of concept, it's hard to work around human nature seeing a rickety cart when you want to inspire confidence in the product. Other than that, a clear and effective presentation (from a communication perspective).
Firehose Cleaner
A device to clean, dry, and store a firehose in order to cut down on time and effort spent on this process.
View Product Contract in New Window
Contributors
Emily Scherer: ordering parts, CAD + design + machining of rotating brushes and sprinkler systemMike Burgess: Overall structure/architecture CAD + laser cutting + assemblyMorgan Mayborne: Compressed air drying system assembly + function/testingSpencer Yandrofski: CAD + Machining (Mill + Lathe) hand crank + assemblyTess Engst-Mansilla: CAD + Machining hand crank + assemblyLiv Parsons: Machining help floating on brush system and air drying system, product contract, slides, presentingEveryone participated in user interviews:
Reviewer Feedback
Samuel Gollob
Concept
The user was clear here, no complaints, and later in the presentation you added important details about the use case (in the firehouse for example). For presentation purposes, because it's a foreign concept to most people, think it would have been good to summarize how cleaning is currently done and what parts of it you are trying to speed up.
Analysis
Identified the risks of how clean it needs to be and how to dry faster (since it's the longest wait in the process). The specifications didn't give clarity on what you are going for - why 10psi, what about it helps dry? 3:1 gear ratio driven by what motor? It would be more valuable to know here what rotation speeds/torques/powers you need for scrubbing.
Execution
You went for a full body assembly which gave you a general system architecture understanding - that's OK. But the key functional questions are really about whether you can clean it to the right standards and how you can help dry it faster - even if you had separate assemblies for that, that would have been fine. I think these are still top-priority questions. I would also suggest putting ash / more accurate "debris" to what the hose would actually have.
Rich Wiesman
Concept
The fire hose cleaner concept needs more discussions with potential customers to make sure the problem and need are real and widespread enough to merit a product. It seems that you started down this concept path based on inputs from an MIT based volunteer fireman. You went on to learn similar things from the Cambridge fire department. However, when you said that Boston fire doesn't wash or dry their hoses the whole product concept came into question. You really need to reach out to other larger cities and towns and see if the problem is widespread and the need is real. Also, try contacting the companies that make these fire hoses and see what they say about cleaning and drying the hoses. After just a few minutes I found quite a lot of info on drying and cleaning firehoses. https://www.nafhc.com/hose-maintenance-and-care. Most suggest that modern hoses are made from materials that do not need to be dried and that drying is more for the storage area and other things. It's not even clear how much cleaning is needed. Is cleaning ore for cosmetics than for the good of the hoses? If you do find that there is a real and widespread need for hose cleaning and drying, then I believe that you can develop an effective machine to help with that cleaning as you wind a hose through the machine. Car washes can effectively and safely clean cars with painted finishes and even with convertible tops, so I am convinced that you can develop a pressurized cleaning system that will clean, and rinse hoses.
Analysis
I've already discussed the fact that further user interviews and discussions with larger cities and towns, and hose manufacturers to determine the needs and specs for the product. I believe you can develop a feed through cleaner, but you need to fully understand the real requirements first.
Execution
While your model went beyond the cardboard and paper sketch model, it didn't really demonstrate effective cleaning or even an understanding of the cleaning requirements. What sort of pressures and sprays can be safely used on the hoses? With pro[er pressures, detergents and spray patterns, are brushes really needed? Can you rotate a reel of hose at a high speed to throw off much of the water after cleaning? We discussed, at the demo, placing a roll of cleaned hose in a room temp vacuum chamber for several minutes and effectively drying that hose by boiling off most of the water.
Dabin
Concept
The concept of a firehose cleaner was very clearly presented - however, I would encourage some more user interviews to really nail down the target user, which may help inform what the most critical aspects of this product are.
Analysis
One main question that came to mind when seeing the demo was what happens if a single cycle through your device is not sufficient to remove most of the debris from the hose. The mockup that was presented goes directly from water -> drying -> spooling, so this doesn't really leave any room for multiple cycles. What is the main pain point for firefighters when cleaning it? Is it the physical exertion of scrubbing the hoses? Or is the main issue the fact that it takes ~ 2 days to dry? (aka time vs. effort tradeoff) Does your device really need to speed up the drying process, or is simplifying the scrubbing and brushing process enough of an incentive for stations to purchase this?
Execution
Although the integrated model was nice in showing how you envision the different components coming together, reviewers may have had more useful feedback if individual modules with greater detail were demonstrated instead. The mockup itself did not seem to answer any specific questions or address any of the specifications listed in the user needs table - it was difficult to tell from the mockup if any of the hose was actually being cleaned/if it was clean enough/if it was dry enough. For future reviews, it may be more helpful to target a specific question or module and get feedback on that from reviewers rather than go straight for the integrated system (save the best for last at final presentations)
Kait Becker
Concept
Hose cleaner: Clear user, use, concept. Sounds like a strong idea as long as there is desire/buy-in from fire houses. The biggest thing that gives me pause is making sure that the cost/footprint/ease of use makes it sufficiently desirable for your users.
Analysis
Do you think this can be made cheap enough that they would buy them? About how many fire houses are in the US? Can this be used indoors (for winter use in Cambridge, for example) or will it need to be used outside so as not to make a mess? Have you asked customer about crank power versus adding a motor?
Execution
Seems like a nice first pass. Do you need to rough water through the scrubbing wheel or might you be able to get more spray pressure to help blow away dirt when you don't need a rolling joint? A nozzle can also be spraying the brush to clear dirt. It seems like a bunch of dirt made it through the scrub brush. Do you plan to cycle the hose through multiple times and/or add more scrubbing rollers?
Rebecca Thorndike-Breeze
Concept
Firehose Cleaner: Questions of region, geography, climate, and specific station dimensions all seem relevant in defining the user need for this concept. The category of “firefighters” seems too broad to be useful in making design decisions, or even scoping the problem (as other reviewers have mentioned here.)
Analysis
What are the dangers of a 2-day dry time for hoses? Do fire stations only have a small number of hoses? What are the dangers of not being clean or dry enough? Does that make the hose more dangerous to use somehow? Your findings about working best in the station don’t seem grounded in user research -- space in the station, or in the garage of the station, may be at a premium. Seeing your mockup demo, the current embodiment itself would work well in a station, but the hoses are still very long, and would require a lot of floor space to be fed into the cleaner.
Execution
No feedback provided
Josh Wiesman
Concept
The user and concept it clear, but I am still not sure the problem has been validated - we heard mixed perspectives on this during the presentations. Will the time and results from this concept be worth it to the user or are the current solutions ok, but more labor intensive.
Analysis
I was surprised to not see further analysis on ways to clean / dry more effectively. Does the concept need all the feature still or would some of the features be better? Where did the specs come from, for example, what is significant about 10psi for drying? I would think that specs like - can accommodate a variety of lengths would be important.
Execution
See comments from above - additionally, consider breaking the various cleaning stages into individual demos vs trying to perfect everything at once. We can clean, we can dry, we can wrap, we can manage water / power / air inputs - the current demo lacked performance in some areas and distracted from the overall demo. How much water is going to be consumed during use - is that better or worse than current solutions?
Kamala Grasso
Concept
I think the overall concept was clear. But your target customer seemed a bit of a generic statement and not that helpful in informing your design. Do the fire stations that would be interested in this having specific characteristics? For example, not that much space to lay out hoses to dry? A certain frequency of needing to dry hoses that makes them laying out the sun not an effective approach?
Analysis
I would have liked to see a spec around the force used to turn the crank. And also on the size of hoses the setup can accommodate (this will drive some of your design choices).
Execution
The two key findings you called out in the presentation didn't really come from the mockup; they were from user reseaarch. I would have liked to see you be more explicit about what you learned from the model. In the Q&A you mentioned finding that drying is one of the more challenging steps and is naturally at odds with the cleaning step. This tradeoff of how "clean" you get it vs. how dry you get it is a key question you will need to address in your design. What matters more to your users?
Sam Ihns
Concept
Good polish on your presentation. The concept is clear both from your presentation and the complaints of firefighter friends (although as you noted in our in-person demo, different regions/stations will have different cleaning processes). The threat of carcinogens from the fire seems to be universal and a huge long term risk for firefighters. If your device can rid the hose of this dust/toxins that may in itself be a huge boost. More user outreach will be very helpful, even if some of it may be contradictory between stations. From there, and with a broader understanding of the diverse ways the hoses are dealt with, it may be easier to select a handful of users to be your core testing base for the remainder of the semester. It is not necessary to please everyone! If you identify a particular base of firefighters that may have similar needs, designing just for them may create a better product (and something more impactful)!
Analysis
While you do a good job identifying some core user needs, the engineering specifications you list (gear ratio, brush velocity, air pressure) may overly restrict your potential solutions (what if a brush is not the best way of removing debris? what about other methods of drying the hose? etc). Keeping your engineering specs a bit more broad and solution oriented can help at this stage. I recall you had a different product contract out at your demo that had something about the grayscale percentage of the hose as a way to quantify cleanliness - this is more along the lines of what you can and should be using! Although I am curious about the specific use of color as a method of determining cleanliness. If there are certain carcinogens your product can clean, perhaps a tangible measurement of carcinogen left on the hose would be a strong spec. Your contract line for "no external spool" is strong and appears to come from speaking with users. Nice :)
Execution
This model was a clear product embodiment and conceptually made sense. However, it may have been useful to explore more of a breadth of concepts to clean and dry the hose rather than committing to one at this stage. This is still something you can (and should!) do post-mockup! There is little doubt in my mind that you brilliant engineers can create this product: the incredibly difficult part is knowing exactly what to create. The fact that this mockup is a product embodiment, however, can be used to your advantage in that you can show it to potential users and perhaps even change out scrubbers/drying mechanisms to try different ways of approaching them.
Elizabeth Stevens
Concept
Firehose cleaner: The presentation was clear and well-rehearsed. I like the way the group is attending to the current industry standards (hanging the hose up for days). Did user needs vary much by location, or were they fairly uniform? How often do fire stations throw away hoses? What makes them no longer usable? Is it mildew damage? Is there an environmental impact to this waste?
Analysis
No feedback provided
Execution
From a communication standpoint, the product mechanism and value were clearly and quickly conveyed using your model. It quickly gets the point across, so the audience can dig into the finer details.
Automated Food Masher
A kitchen device that can mash any food to a chunky consistency rather than blending - avocados for guacamole, potatoes for mashed potatoes, bananas for banana bread, etc.
View Product Contract in New Window
Contributors
Cameron Kokesh: helped with logistics and organization, conducted user interviews, end effector research and design, presentation layout and product contract Jason Salmon: remade the piston mechanism and conducted product testingJohn Malloy: conducted testing on the end-to-end machine, remade the bowl, conducted user interviews and helped w slidesJROD: General hands for various end effectors and other parts fabrication (mill)Michael Lu: remade the piston mechanism and created the simple on/off switch, conducted product testingPaige Forester: assigned lead for milestone, organized tasks and meetings, collected information for presentation, research different bowl shapes, created survey, conducted user interviews, presenter
Reviewer Feedback
Samuel Gollob
Concept
Not sure that I bought the decision to pivot to home cooks... interviewed just four restaurant people, when I think there is a clear market there for faster mashing with hand-made-like consistency. Going the domestic level means you have to compete for counter space with other appliances for a relatively niche product that wouldn't have that same bulk time-savings allure.
Analysis
Liked your force and volume specifications, but missing a time target. The total time is your key output. Liked the expansion to beyond avocadoes, but would be good to then specify more envisioned uses.
Execution
The mockup was pretty complete, showing an aesthetic while still focusing on the question of the mashing mechanism. Liked that you tried different plungers and bowl speeds. In my mind I just kept thinking of using a normal cake mixer with one of their fancier attachments, and I think your goal should be to differentiate from them somehow (texture, speed, ease of use, whatever you go for). I think a comparison between yours and using a cake mixer is key moving forward.
Rich Wiesman
Concept
The avocado masher was a sort of cute specialty concept. You found that restaurants actually liked the hand mashing aspect -- and this was no surprise to me as a customer of that hand smashed guac. Now you are looking at adapting your idea to mashing many foods in ways that a blender or similar device cannot. My problem now is that I question that everything you are proposing is not already available in a product like a KitchenAid mixer by using different attachments., I started looking at these and found a long list of attachments just for mashing various foods. (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba-USJbOJ8k). Or: https://hintofhelen.com/perfect-mashed-potato-kitchenaid-recipe/ Or: https://steigerfamilyfarms.com/how-to-make-applesauce-with-your-kitchenaid/ If your concept is to make a cheaper alternative to the KitchenAid, then that alone may be a poor idea to pursue. I think you need to look carefully at what your customers want and what is already available and what the difference between the two might be. Unless your product is strictly intended for students, then you need to reach out to a bigger population (beyond MIT) of potential users and find out what they want and what is not provided by existing products like the Kitchen Aid mixers and attachments.
Analysis
My biggest concern here is that your product specs seemed to be based on a very narrow user base -- possibly only students. If your product is intended for a broad base of home cooks then you need to see what the existing mixers and attachments, owned and used by many home cooks, does not supply. I would not expect student cooks to have mixers and attachments.
Execution
I felt that your mockup model didn't really go significantly beyond your sketch model. One issue may be that you did not have clear specs to design to. That is, your research was insufficient to understand what your product needs to do to go beyond other existing products in the market. You were talking about design details of your next gen model, but you really need to know what the model (product) needs to accomplish before you can design to meet those needs.
Dabin
Concept
The concept is very clear - a masher for soft foods. The most critical thing about this concept is to figure out if you are aiming for restaurants or home chefs - Do home chefs really make the volume of guacamole/other mashed food to necessitate a whole new specialty device? If the proposed value-add is the "correct" consistency, this may be hard to really motivate - I feel like this depends on a variety of factors external to the device (for example, the ripeness of the avocado). If this is a one-off specialty device, it'll be more important to figure out the balance between making a useful tool that isn't too expensive or too big (but avoid going all the way to the other end of the spectrum).
Analysis
Modularity and ease of cleaning are definitely important specs - I like that you demonstrated different attachments and settings. Instead of making a stand-alone device, you may want to consider other options, such as adapting common household items to work with your mashing attachments (kitchen-aid/hand mixers/blenders). It'll be important to figure out what the tradeoff between space/functionality is for your product, and where it stands among the multitudes of blenders and food processors that are on the market.
Execution
Mockup was overall helpful in demonstrating some key aspects of the concept - one comment is that it may be helpful to figure out some sort of qualitative - numerical scale (like the pain scale) to get a more standardized set of responses from users when testing output of your device (only because I can't think of a better quantitative method).
Kait Becker
Concept
Avocado Masher: The user/use/concept is clear. While this is fun, the need/strength of the idea seems low. Having a separate machine for this seems like an aggressive addition to a home kitchen, for the space that it would take up, and the time spent setting up/breaking down/cleaning the product. How many avocados does a restaurant go through? Maybe this could be played up as an addition to some of the robotic restaurants if it fun to watch but I'd want to ask potential user what they might pay for this / if they would buy it because I'm worried the market is pretty small.
Analysis
There's a high need for safety precautions. How would the price of this compare to a kitchenmaid or rice cooker? How much use would it get compared to those products?
Execution
The mockup seemed to mash the avocados well. Covering the assembly with a product-like mockup out of the foam board was a nice touch to get a little of the functions and looks like element. Some of your mashers looked like a rough version of potato mashers on the market. Maybe just buy one for parts next time for a more polished look and to save time.
Rebecca Thorndike-Breeze
Concept
Food Masher: I agree with the other reviewers that it was good to pivot to home chefs, because restaurants don’t want to lose their handmade guacamole. If you’ve never had guac made fresh at your table at a restaurant, Try It! So fun. But that leads to another issue raised above: home cooks love the process, and want to handmake their own guac. You can buy your own molcajete and make fresh guac just like they do in the restaurants. Are you focused on avocados, or are you shifting to a more general food masher? Is there a need for food that is mashed in a way that current food processors can’t do? I’m not sure.
Analysis
No feedback provided
Execution
Seeing your masher in action, I find I agree with the reviewer above re moving toward a mixer add-on, rather than a new machine. You would then only need to worry about designing the components for food safety, rather than a whole new appliance.
Josh Wiesman
Concept
Further work should be done to dial in the new user group - do not try and be everything for everyone. Have a focussed user (primary) and clarity on adjacent users / markets as part of your growth story. For example, we are now focussed on new parents who want to make their own baby food - we are better than the alternative blender bases solutions because... What is the value proposition for the product, ie competitive advantage and technology solution.
Analysis
Does this need to be a new stand-alone appliance or could it leverage existing appliance such as a kitchen aid mixer (think about the pasta maker attachments). What are you replacing in the kitchen, what trade-offs does a user make? Your risk assessment moving forward will need to consider a number of electrical and mechanical considerations. What could the user do wrong and what could happen, how could the design prevent mis-use? Take a second look at the market figures - try and right size based on examples from class.
Execution
See comments above, additionally, since you have a good sense of function (mashing) it would have been nice for you to start to highlight / work on some of the differentiating factors, ie, attachments, bowl design, handle placement, etc. Start to think about what the mashed food will used for - how will transfer take place and how can you make that a positive experience for the user. As mentioned above, if your user is more clearly defined you can start to work on these defining features and functions.
Kamala Grasso
Concept
I like that you were clear about your pivot away from professional chefs to home cooks. My sense is that the user needs and priorities are very different for the two so it is helpful to be clear. This is a product for people that love kitchen gadgets - and are willing to buy single purpose items. William Sonoma shoppers immediately came to mind. But for many customers, cabinet space and counter space are at a premium. Is this a product that would be of enough value to take up some of that valuable space? Would an attachment to a device like a stand mixer or food processor make more sense?
Analysis
I like that you called out cleanability in the design - I think it makes sense to go a step further and think about what parts need to be dishwasher safe (a more specific spec for cleanbility). The size of the unit seems pretty large in your contract - 22" is a very tall appliance. DO you know how this compares to other common appliances?
Execution
Your mockup seemed well executed and allowed you to test out a key element - effectiveness at mashing. As a consumer product, design will be key here so that it something to explore for the next step. Many people buy appliances because they look cool. I would encourage you to spend some time with other CE appliances (and users of these appliances) to get a feel for what is important.
Sam Ihns
Concept
I really like the pivot to the home-cook market and identification that the process of cooking itself - the ritual of mashing - is an intrinsic part of the guac process at many restaurants. I actually think this may be the same for home users: if someone just wants some chips and guac they can purchase pre-made guac, so perhaps the cooking process itself is why they make it themselves. I personally find the process of cooking very relaxing and that is likely common among other home chefs. When designing for the home market you are now also competing for valuable counter/drawer space. Even if your masher can create perfect mashed potatoes, if it takes up 20x the space of a potato masher people may not buy it simply for that reason. You have done a great job exploring other things you can mash and it might make sense, given your new focused market, to explore other food operations you can also do. Whisking, emulsifying, kneading, grinding, mixing, etc. could all be accomplished with a very similar mechanism to what you have! A tangential path you could take with this product is to sell it as an attachment to an existing mixer. Many dedicated home chefs may already own tools like food processors and mixers - if there was a way to isolate your unique mashing mechanism and create a universal attachment for an existing machine it may increase value. Just a random thought!
Analysis
You successfully identify some clear user needs which is great. I am curious where the 4.5lbs of mashing force came from, but I'm no mashing expert so it seems to be a correct range :)
Execution
Yep, model seemed to serve it's purpose. Testing a variety of end-effectors is very very useful at this stage! You switched your rocking mechanism since the sketch model and mentioned it can decrease the overall size of your product (also good). It may be a good exercise to really dig deep into the movements and mechanics that produce a good mash - I don't believe straight up and down will produce the best: intuitively adding some rotation or xy movement of the end-effector would produce better results based off of how humans make mashes manually. I'm excited to be proven wrong though! Just would like to see some data or deep-dive into this. Great work across the board purple!
Elizabeth Stevens
Concept
Avocado masher: Well-rehearsed, clear talk. I like the way the group has differentiated the needs of restaurant chefs vs. home chefs, noticing more barrier to adoption by traditional Mexican restaurants. Is there any difference in the needs of different restaurants (American vs. Mexican cuisine, chain vs. high-end, etc.). For home chefs, what's the user need? Is it just capitalism - that millennials love avocado toast and wedding registries, or is there a real value? Is it a talking point among friends ("You have to try it, it does X.") Will it make kids healthier? Is it relaxing to watch - like those youtube videos of slime? Are there users who are really excited about this functionality, and what excites them? Or what pain points are they really frustrated by? Is there any possibility it could be an assistive technology for users with upper limb mobility problems? Or could it be a toy/product for children to let them make their own food - like an easy bake oven? Who are the people for whom the "toll it takes on the body" is most relevant?
Analysis
No feedback provided
Execution
From a communication standpoint, the product mechanism and value were clearly and quickly conveyed using your model. It quickly gets the point across, so the audience can dig into the finer details.