Talk:Automatic can opener redesign

From DDL Wiki

We received your second report, but it was difficult to assess your design concepts with sketches or explanations. It looks like you conducted a helpful survey, but we found no evidence of observations or learnings from observation. The report appears as though it may be incomplete, since there were many grammar errors. The Pugh chart also contains no weights (are all customer needs equally important?). We have spoken with Prof. Michalek, who notes that you do have sketches and observational research, but we cannot find documentation. The documentation in report 2 is below our expectations.

Based on our understanding of your concepts from conversations with Prof. Michalek, it appears that you intend to do an iterative redesign of the existing can opener by adding all of the features you list: a status LED (for what? battery charge?), some kind of change to the manual override to make it more accessible, non-slip grips, waterproofing, and a change of battery type. We assume that the manual override and battery changes (and possibly the waterproofing) will require changes to the overall layout of the device, and the remainder of your design effort will be focused on detailed design work – particularly packaging. We’d like to see a circuit design for the LED, layout of components for the manual override, including calculations of gear rations to demonstrate that the required input torque from the user is reasonable, a material analysis of the non-slip grips with manufacturing and assembly changes indicated, analysis of the extent of waterproofing and any negative effects, such as frictional resistance from seals, and an analysis to determine battery life and sufficiency of current for the application after the change of batteries. Testing will also be necessary to evaluate these features, particularly the waterproofing.

We look forward to seeing your prototypes in the design review.