Designing an Ergonomic Computer Mouseumich.edu/~desci501/2011/Team10/APD11_T10_FINALREPORT.pdf · Designing an Ergonomic Computer Mouse Katie Bevier ... CONCLUSION ... The mouse is

Designing an Ergonomic Computer Mouse

Katie Bevier | Mohit Mehendale | Cy Abdelnour | Curtis Sawdon

APD 2011-Team 10

Abstract

Computer usage is at an all time high in the United States and many people use computer mice

on a daily basis for extended periods of time. Current computer mice designs are ergonomic,

expensive, and bulky, or lower cost and not as comfortable. Therefore, the team’s goal was to

develop a low cost ergonomic mouse. The final design, the Bicura mouse, can be used in the

horizontal (traditional) style or more ergonomic vertical style, where the hand is in a

“handshake” position. The design was verified through engineering and economic analyses

which are presented in the following report. Bicura is expected to sell for $30, which is priced

competitively with designs currently on the market. A marketing analysis indicated the mouse

would successfully sell and be profitable at this price point.

Final Report- Team 10

Analytical Product Design Page | 1

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION: NEED AND WANT................................................................................ 3

1.1 Previous Designs .............................................................................................................. 3

1.1.1 Evoluent Vertical Mouse .......................................................................................... 4

1.1.2 Pad N’ Click Gel Pads .............................................................................................. 4

1.1.3 3M Ergonomic Mouse .............................................................................................. 4

1.1.4 Logitech Trackball mouse ......................................................................................... 5

1.1.5 Patents ....................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Design Objectives and Requirements .............................................................................. 7

1.3 Concept Generation, Selection, and Analysis .................................................................. 9

1.3.1 Concept Design 1: Mouse Glove .............................................................................. 9

1.3.2 Concept Design 2: Reconfigurable Buttons .............................................................. 9

1.3.3 Concept Design 3: Gel Pads ................................................................................... 10

1.3.4 Concept Design 4: Horizontal/Vertical Mouse ....................................................... 10

1.3.5 Concept Design 5: Slide to Click ............................................................................ 11

1.4 Prototype Selection ........................................................................................................ 11

2. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 12

2.1 Prototype Evolution........................................................................................................ 12

2.2 Beta Prototype Analysis ................................................................................................. 14

2.3 Beta Plus Prototype: Modified Horizontal/Vertical Mouse ........................................... 15

2.4 Final Design Concept ..................................................................................................... 16

3. ENGINEERING FUNCTIONALITY ANALYSIS .............................................................. 17

3.1 Structural Model ............................................................................................................. 17

3.2 Objective Function and Constraints ............................................................................... 19

3.3 Formal Objective Function............................................................................................. 20

3.4 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) ...................................................................................... 20

4. EMOTIONAL AND AESTHETIC ANALYSIS .................................................................. 23

4.1 Proportionality ................................................................................................................ 23

4.2 Craftsmanship................................................................................................................. 24

4.3 Kansei ............................................................................................................................. 25



5. MICROECONOMIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 27

5.1 Demand Curve................................................................................................................ 27

5.2 Cost................................................................................................................................. 28

5.3 Profit Function................................................................................................................ 29

5.4 Breakeven Analysis ........................................................................................................ 30

6. MARKETING ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 31

7. SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS.......................................................................................... 33

8. PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ............................................................................ 33

9. PRODUCT BROADER IMPACT ........................................................................................ 34

10. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 35



1. INTRODUCTION: NEED AND WANT

As an engineering design team we are part of an established accessory computer manufacturer

such as Logitech.

A serious problem posed by individuals is the amount of time they spend on a computer. “What

is also interesting is that in the last few years, strong evidence has emerged that if you use a

computer mouse for more than 20 hours a week, your risk of carpal tunnel syndrome is

increased. It looks like the mouse may be more problematic than the keyboard, at least for carpal

tunnel syndrome” (NY Times, 2008). The natural position of a hand is in the handshake

position. When you walk, your palms are faced towards your body. Although the natural position

on a mouse is horizontal, it doesn’t help when you have to continue to use the same position for

prolonged periods of time. For example, when you sit in a chair you constantly move to find a

comfortable position. Once your body is tired of that position it will move again. By offering two

positions on the mouse we allow the user to rest the muscles that are forced into the horizontal

position. The horizontal position is not necessarily a bad position, it’s been a standard and we

understand some users will want that option.

Our goal is to capture as many users as possible and keep them using our computer mouse. When

products hurt the user, naturally they move onto another product. As long as we put in two

options for the user, they won’t have to switch to another product. This will make the Bicura

mouse a better investment for the long run and will significantly benefit the customer. Benefits

include lower chance of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, increased comfort, prolonged use of mouse,

less fatigue, decreased chance of Cumulative Trauma Disorders of the hands and lower medical

bills in the future by preventing awkward hand positioning. Other unseen benefits will be

increased productivity and fewer days off. The United States Department of Labor states that

carpal tunnel syndrome was the "chief occupational hazard of the '90's - disabling workers in

epidemic proportions" (NINDS, 2011). Bicura won’t just be an investment for health, but also an

investment for your occupation.

Our customers will be the 10-90 year range. The users include: students, office workers, telecom,

gamers, and the physically disabled. Most of the users (the younger majority) described using

the computer mouse daily. In regard to ergonomics, the Bicura’s shape is made to assist grip, the

weight to assist the less physically inclined, and the size to assist a larger array of hand sizes yet

limiting clutter on your workspace. The mouse is also wireless to ensure that there are no tangles

and increased complications. The layout on the buttons are straightforward, there are no

seriously new components added to the Bicura. This way the user has little to no problem

adjusting to the format. The price was also taken into consideration. We want most people to be

able to afford it regardless of financial stature.

1.1 Previous Designs

There are quite a few competing products in the markets that try to address the ergonomics issue

but they are either not as ergonomic as they need to be or are too highly priced which make them

inaccessible to most users. This section describes a few of the previous designs that are currently

available in the market.



1.1.1 Evoluent Vertical Mouse

One competing ergonomic mouse is the Evoluent Vertical Mouse. A vertical mouse has the

buttons and scroll wheel on the right side of the mouse. The user positions his or her hand on the

mouse like he or she is shaking hands. The reason that this mouse is more ergonomic than a

regular mouse is the user’s arm does not have to twist to use the mouse. This mouse appeals to

those who use a mouse for long periods of time because the user’s arm is in a more comfortable

position. The current price of the Evoluent Vertical Mouse is $100. Since this price is more than

most people are willing to spend on a computer mouse our team will provide a computer mouse

that is comfortable to use and is also affordable. We incorporated the vertical mouse design into

our final concept because the mouse has a level of comfort that is desirable to most customers.

Figure 1.1: Evoluent Vertical Mouse

1.1.2 Pad N’ Click Gel Pads

Another product on the market is the set of Pad N’ Click gel pads. The set of silicone gel pads

are put on the palm and buttons of a regular mouse to make clicking the buttons more

comfortable. The shape of the gel pads on the finger tips cause the finger to bend when clicking

that mouse rather than being extended like a regular mouse. This is preferable because the

slightly bent position of the fingers is more comfortable. Another advantage of the gel pads is

cost. Retailing at only $5, the Pad N’ Click gel pads are affordable to anyone giving the

company and a broad market of customers to sell to.

Figure 1.2: Pad N’ Click Gel Pads

1.1.3 3M Ergonomic Mouse

A third competing product is the 3M Ergonomic Mouse. This mouse has a stationary joystick

design and has the right click and left click buttons at the top of the joystick. Since the user



positions his or her hand in a vertical position the mouse is comfortable to use for long periods of

time. The mouse is recommended by the Arthritis Foundation because it reduces wrist and

carpal tunnel injuries associated with regular mice. The 3M Ergonomic Mouse costs $52 which

is a good price for those who frequently use the computer for long periods of time, but is

probably too high for the casual user.

Figure 1.3: 3M Ergonomic Mouse

1.1.4 Logitech Trackball mouse

The final competing product is the Logitech Trackball mouse. The trackball mouse is a

stationary mouse that has the normal buttons a regular mouse has but has a trackball that the

user’s thumb moves to control the cursor. The main advantages of this mouse is that the user

does not have to move his or her arm to move the cursor and the mouse can be used on surfaces

that are not flat. The main problem with the mouse is that prolonged use of the trackball can be

tiresome for the user’s thumb. The Logitech Trackball sells for $50 which may be too expensive

for casual mouse users.

Figure 1.4: Logitech Trackball Mouse

The product design that our team has generated solves the problem of an uncomfortable

computer mouse and does so in a way that is unique among the competition. The mouse that is

most similar to our design is the Evoluent Vertical Mouse; however this design can only be used



vertically and does not have the capability used horizontally like a regular mouse. The high

price of the Evoluent Vertical Mouse is an issue for many customers so our team designed an

ergonomic mouse that can be sold at a lower price.

1.1.5 Patents

United States Patent: 8022930

Inventor: Microsoft Inc.

Figure 1.5: Microsoft Ergonomic Mouse

Our product mainly competes against these mice. Typical horizontal mice are fashioned towards

these parameters. Our mouse similarly, but does not take on the exact form of the thumb

positioning. Since our product has two planes, there is no way that our product encompasses the

same ergonomic qualities of this specific patent. However, this patent was a stepping-stone for

most manufactures to create their layout.

United States Patent: 5576733

Inventor: Jack Lo

Figure 1.6: “Evoluent” Vertical Mouse

Similar to our design in the vertical position - as the abstract states the position is natural and will

aid the hand and wrist. This design influenced our decision in incorporating this idea into our

concept. Although our design can be somewhat similar our mouse isn’t entirely vertical. The

angle of our mouse is not close to the angle presented in the patent. Also the thumb in this patent

is not close to our design at all. If our design functioned like Jack’s it would not lay down

horizontally.

In short, after searching the database for similar ergonomic designs there is nothing like our

product. It is unique in the sense it hasn’t been attempted. The product has a different form and is

not typical to vertical or horizontal mice. It is the equilibrium of the two designs, yet not stepping

on the design parameters of either design.



1.2 Design Objectives and Requirements

The primary objective of the project is to design an ergonomic computer mouse for the general

population. Designing such a mouse requires selection of a number of variables and optimizing

values for these variables.

The objective of the project is to maximize the ergonomics and comfort of the computer mouse

for the computer user.

The other objective that is being targeted is to minimize the cost in achieving the desired comfort

and ease of use. A user would want to buy a mouse that is easy to use but at the same time would

not want to pay an exorbitant price for it. Various factors act as requirements or constraints for

the design of such a mouse. For example, one of the requirements is the functionality of the

mouse. It is important that the mouse has at least all the basic functions that a regular mouse

does.

The following table lists the objectives and the requirements for designing this computer mouse.

It also includes the metrics that can be used to measure these attributes and also the target value

or methods to measure the metrics.

Figure 1.7: Design Objectives

Objective Metric/Methods for obtaining

value

Target Value

Maximize ergonomics Survey/Jury Decision Approved by minimum 95% of

survey/evaluation users

Maximize comfort Survey/Jury Decision Approved by minimum 95% of


Minimize Cost Dollars ($) 30$

Figure 1.8: Design Requirements/Constraints

Requirements/Constraints Metric/Methods for obtaining

value

Target Value/Range

Maintain Functionality No. of functions (clicks, scroll

etc.)

At least all functions of a regular

mouse (Clicks and scroll)

Weight Grams < 150gms

Interface USB connectivity (Version 1.0

or 2.0)

USB 1.0 compatible with 2.0

Operating System Requirement OS versions (Win XX, Mac) Win 98 and above + MAC

Surface Texture Survey/Jury based Approved by minimum 95% of




Dimensions mm Based on shape/Ergonomic

analysis. Comparable to

competition

Durability No. of years - warranty 2 years

Good Appearance/ Aesthetics Survey/Jury based Approved by minimum 95% of


Recyclability No. of materials/parts recycled Minimum half of the

materials/parts to be recyclable

The business design objective can be identified as minimizing cost. This is aimed at achieving a

higher profit margin or can be used to provide a competitive price for the user.

Maximizing the ergonomics is specifically a user oriented objective since it sets the product apart

from what is currently on the market. A user would want to buy a mouse that is more ergonomic

and comfortable than a mouse which might not be as comfortable.

Product Positioning Chart

Looking at the two main objective attributes of ergonomics and cost, it should be noted that in

the current market, there are computer mice which are either not highly ergonomic or cost too

much, see Figure 1.9. There is a need of providing a high ergonomic design at a lower price so

that such a mouse is accessible to most users. The following product positioning chart establishes

the ‘market niche’ for our product.

Figure 1.9: Product Positioning

Standard Mouse

Joystick

Mouse

Trackball Mouse Evoluent MouseHigh Cost

Low Cost

Vertical Mouse

Gel Pads

Outstanding

Comfort

Average

Comfort

Target position



1.3 Concept Generation, Selection, and Analysis

This section describes the team’s conceptual design solutions, the analysis of the concept

designs, and the selection of a final design.

1.3.1 Concept Design 1: Mouse Glove

The mouse glove is intended to do away with the idea of a traditional computer mouse

altogether. This idea was generated from the Design Heuristics exercise in class, from the card

which suggested attaching the product to the user. The user wears the design as a glove, which

has several sensors built in, see Figure 1.10.

The user can define what sorts of motions constitute the right click, left click, and scroll

functions of a standard computer mouse. The user can also define more complicated functions or

commands associated with other hand gestures. This design was intended to improve ergonomic

issues by letting the user position their hand in whatever position is most comfortable for them,

and it also is beneficial for users who may have mobility issues in their hands or fingers by

eliminating the need to do traditional clicking and scrolling motions.

Figure 1.10: Mouse Glove

1.3.2 Concept Design 2: Reconfigurable Buttons

This design allows the user to reconfigure the locations of the buttons on the mouse. The mouse

would come with an ergonomic base and detachable, moveable “clickers” which can be moved

to different locations on the mouse base, see Figure 1.11.

This allows the user to position the buttons in the location which is most comfortable for them. It

is beneficial for users that may have joint pain or stiffness because they are able to position the

buttons where they are most accessible. A secondary benefit of this mouse is that it is easily

reconfigurable for right and left handed users, as they are able to easily switch the buttons to

their preference without having to change any configuration settings on their computer.



Figure 1.11: Reconfigurable Buttons

1.3.3 Concept Design 3: Gel Pads

The Gel Pads are not a redesign of the mouse but rather an additional feature the users can add to

their current mouse. The pads could be placed on the buttons or any other area the user wants to

have padding or lift, see Figure 1.12.

Figure 1.12: Gel Pads

The pads would help users with joint pain or stiffness because less motion is required for features

like clicking or scrolling than on a traditional mouse. The Gel Pads could also provide a more

ergonomic grip on the mouse.

1.3.4 Concept Design 4: Horizontal/Vertical Mouse

Current ergonomic mouse models include a vertical style which allows the user to use the mouse

so their hand is oriented like a handshake, as described above. The Horizontal/Vertical Mouse

concept design allows the user to use the mouse in the traditional horizontal style in addition to

the vertical style. The mouse would have two separate optical sensors so the user would be able

to turn the mouse 90 degrees and change from horizontal to vertical use, see Figure 1.13.

Mouse

Base

Gel pad applied

to button

Moveable

Button



Figure 1.13: Horizontal/Vertical Mouse

Using the mouse in a vertical fashion is more ergonomic because the forearm is not twisted like

when using a traditional computer mouse. The Horizontal/Vertical Mouse could also be utilized

by those who use the computer for long periods of time, as it allows for some relief between

different positions of the arm and wrist.

1.3.5 Concept Design 5: Slide to Click

The Slide to Click design retains the traditional look of a computer mouse but modifies the

traditional function motions. In this design the entire top of the mouse slides forward, backward,

or side to side to click or scroll, see Figure 1.14.

Figure 1.14: Slide to Click

This style of motion would be helpful for users who have pain or stiffness in their joints and

would have difficulty doing standard click or scroll motions. The user could use their entire hand

or palm to control the mouse instead of just their fingers.

1.4 Prototype Selection

The team analyzed the five concept designs by creating a Pugh chart and also discussing

qualitative assessments. The Pugh Chart can be seen in Appendix C1. Using the results of the

Pugh chart, the team was able to eliminate the Mouse Glove and Reconfigurable Buttons concept

designs. Although the Mouse Glove seemed attractive in terms of ergonomics, it was simply too

complicated to be used by a large range of users as the team had hoped for. Reconfigurable

Buttons was eliminated primarily because of poor scores in the Cost, Design for Assembly and

Manufacturability (DFAM), and Maintenance categories.

The team then discussed the remaining concept designs: Gel Pads, Horizontal/Vertical Mouse,

and the Slide to Click. Although the Horizontal/Vertical Mouse and the Slide to Click had

similar scores, the team decided to eliminate the Slide to Click as it had similar scores to the



datum in many categories. This left the team with the Gel Pads and the Horizontal/Vertical

Mouse.

Based on the Pugh Chart, the team initially intended to include Gel Pads in the design. But the

use of these gel pads would not necessarily address the ergonomic issue since it helps in reducing

effort for clicking, which is not one of the primary concerns (since clicking does not involve high

application of force). The horizontal/vertical mouse was chosen with modification to the profile

of the mouse in all directions with an aim to maximize comfort.

2. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

The following section describes the iterations in the design which led to the development of the

final product.

2.1 Prototype Evolution

The alpha prototype was constructed using modeling clay. The team had concerns about the

user’s pinkie finger touching the base surface when in the vertical position, so the prototype

included a “lip” where the pinkie finger would sit.

Figure 2.1: Alpha Prototype

Upon discussion of this prototype, the team decided the mouse was unwieldy and unstable in the

vertical position. In order to make the mouse stable in the vertical position, the height of the

mouse needed to be increased. This would increase the surface area in the vertical position and

make the mouse more stable.



Figure 2.2: First Beta Iteration

The team developed a second clay model which was taller and rounder than the alpha prototype.

Upon discussing this design, the team decided that the mouse was still too unstable in the vertical

position. The team found a balance necessary between the height and the surface area in the

vertical position, as increasing height helps stability in the vertical position but makes the

horizontal position less comfortable. As a remedy to this conflict, the team decided to relax the

right angle between the horizontal and vertical position, and make the surface area of each

position equal.

Figure 2.3: Second Beta Iteration

The second beta iteration used a 30 degree angle between the mouse base and surface in the

horizontal position. The problem with this mouse was that it tilted towards the left, in the

horizontal position, so that the horizontal position was not truly horizontal. This was opposite to

the ergonomic “handshake” position. Thus, in the final beta prototype, the left edge of the mouse

is extended down to the base so the mouse is truly horizontal in the horizontal position. This led

to the beta prototype presented in the following section and shown in Figure 2.4.



Figure 2.4: Beta Prototype

2.2 Beta Prototype Analysis

A survey was conducted to decide on the design most preferred by users. Based on the horizontal

/vertical mouse Alpha Prototype and the user inputs from the survey, it was decided that the

height of the mouse was too high in the vertical position. This was a bit awkward to use and not

fully ergonomic in terms of the twist in the users’ arm.

To address the twist in the arm, the angle for the vertical position of the mouse was set to 30

degrees based on the survey results.

Figure 2.5: Back View of the Computer Mouse

To select the side profile of the mouse, the team set up control points along the side profile with

the ability to vary the shape of the mouse as shown in the figure.



Figure 2.6: Control Points on Side Profile of Mouse

The location of these control points were changed to give different profiles. A survey was

created including the profiles for the user to decide on the most comfortable position. Based on

the survey results, the profile shown above was chosen for the prototype.

2.3 Beta Plus Prototype: Modified Horizontal/Vertical Mouse

As described earlier, the horizontal/vertical mouse was intended to combine the functionality and

ergonomics of current standard and vertical computer mice. Utilizing two optical sensors, the

user will be able to rotate the mouse and use it either as a traditional horizontal mouse or as a

vertical style mouse.

The user has the option of rotating the mouse to a more comfortable position for the arm in the

vertical position. To accommodate the traditional mouse position style, the mouse can be used in

the horizontal position.

Figure 2.7: Horizontal Position of Mouse



Figure 2.8: Vertical Position of Mouse

The following image shows the side view of the mouse. This profile was based on the profile

chosen from the survey results.

Figure 2.9: Side Profile of Mouse Figure 2.10: Bottom view of Mouse

The Beta Plus Prototype has a shell made out of ABS plastic. This was made in the UM-3D lab

using rapid prototyping. Our primary focus is the ergonomic part of the mouse, for which this

shell is designed. The electronics for the mouse were used from computer mice available in the

market.

2.4 Final Design Concept

Figure 2.11 shows an artist’s rendering of the final design. The horizontal/vertical functionality

is retained, and the styling of the mouse was determined using an emotional and aesthetic

analysis as described in Section 4.



Figure 2.11: Final Design Concept

3. ENGINEERING FUNCTIONALITY ANALYSIS

An analysis of the mouse was completed to determine the mouse dimensions.

3.1 Structural Model

The mouse shape was modeled using Solidworks CAD software. To model the curve of the

mouse, a spline was fit among five data points as seen in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Solidworks Model, Side Profile

l

h



The H value represents how far forward or backward the maximum height is from the center of

the mouse (the hump location). Because the mouse model was symmetric, positive H values

could represent the hump location being at the H or –H location.

The mass, m, was calculated using Solidworks for l values ranging from 90 to 150 mm, h values

ranging from 35 to 65 mm, and H values ranging from 1 to 7 mm. The Solidworks model was

linked to FEA software, which verified that each combination of l, h, and H did not violate any

stress constraints placed on the model.

An equation was determined which calculated m based on l, h, and H:

Eq. 1

where

| |

| |

Eq. 2

An important engineering consideration for the mouse was whether the mouse would tip over

when in the “vertical” position. Figure 3.2 shows a schematic of the forces acting on the mouse

when in the vertical position, where is the center of mass along the axis of symmetry.

Figure 3.2: Forces acting on mouse in vertical position

is given by:

Eq. 3

Fhand was estimated using the force necessary to overcome the force of static friction, thus:

Eq.4

30

h

Fmouse mass = mg

Fhand

Fhand mass

α



µs, the coefficient of static friction, was estimated to be 0.25. Fhand mass was estimated assuming a

hand mass of 50 g applied along the axis of symmetry.

Eq. 5

In order for the mouse to not tip over, the sum of the moments created by the mouse mass and

hand mass had to be greater than or equal to the moment created by the hand force.

Eq. 6

A safety factor of 1.5 was added to Eq. 6, which led to the final constraint used in analysis:

Eq. 7

In addition to the anti-tip analysis, the team created a constraint which limited the height to

length ratio. This constraint was meant to limit the mouse from becoming too thin.

Eq. 8

3.2 Objective Function and Constraints

The team surveyed mouse users to determine the optimal mass and hump location. These results

were used in determining the objective function and additional constraints for the mouse. The

results of the survey are shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4.

Figure 3.3: Hump Location Survey Results Figure 3.4: Mass Survey Results

The optimization statement is meant to optimize the mass by minimizing the percent difference

from the optimal value, as indicated by the survey results. According to the survey results, the

optimal mass is 81.4 g and results in a y-value of 40.69. The optimization function, O, calculates

the percent difference between the optimal mass and the output mass:

y = -0.2952x2 + 1.6667x + 31.629 0

10

20

30

40

50

-8 -4 0 4 8

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

ses

Hump Location (mm from center)

y = -0.0078x2 + 1.27x - 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

40 80 120 160

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

ses

Mass (g)



Eq. 9

The survey results determining the hump location from center were used as a constraint function

as well. The survey results indicate the optimal hump location is at H = 2.82 mm from the center

of the mouse, resulting in a y-value of 33.98. The hump location was constrained to be within

10% of this optimal value:

Eq. 10

Using the constraints in Eq. 6, Eq. 7, and Eq. 9, in addition to the constraints on l and h below,

Excel solver was used to minimize the objective function and determine l, h, and H. See section

3.3 for the formal objective function.

90 mm ≤ l ≤ 150 mm

35 mm ≤ h ≤ 65 mm

The objective function was found to have a minimum value of 0.133 when l = 94.1 mm, h = 35

mm, and H = 2.48 mm. The mass of the mouse is then approximately 55 g (including batteries

and electronics).

For a screenshot of the Excel worksheet, see Appendix E.

3.3 Formal Objective Function

min O =

where m is defined in Eq. 1, subject to:

g1:

where Fhand is defined in Eq. 4 and Fhand mass is defined in Eq. 5

g2:

g3:

g4:

g5:

g6:

g7:

3.4 Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

FEA was carried out for analyzing the stress and displacement under a static loading.



This analysis was carried out in both the horizontal and the vertical positions. A uniformly

distributed load of 50N was applied on the top surface. This force of 50N is the average force

applied by the hand while pressing based on results of a study to measure Hand Force Data (by

Angela DiDomenico Astin) The results of the analysis are displayed below.

Figure 3.5: Horizontal Position-Stress Analysis

Figure 3.6: Horizontal Position-Displacement Analysis



Figure 3.7: Vertical Position-Stress Analysis

Figure 3.8: Horizontal Position-Stress Analysis

As expected, the maximum stress and displacement are at the buttons of the mouse. These

buttons will be constrained by electronics – attached to the actual clicker on the circuit board.

This will account for reduction in stress and displacement on the plastic shell and buttons.

To provide more strength to the mouse shell, support structures were incorporated in the design

based on existing structures used in computer mice. These structures can be seen in the image

below.



Figure 3.9: Support Structure provided for both Horizontal and Vertical Positions

4. EMOTIONAL AND AESTHETIC ANALYSIS

Our main goal for aesthetics was to create a product that speaks to the masses. Our product is

intended for everyone, but we want it to leave a mark in the customer’s brain. Since our product

is unique, it needs to look unique.

Visceral: The first impression of our product will be, “That’s an interesting looking mouse, and I

want to try it.”

Behavioral: The product is comfortable at touch. The contour on the hand seamlessly makes the

user one with the product. It fits like a glove and tends to any user. It’s new but still familiar.

Reflection: After the user uses the product they should feel accomplished. They tried something

new and they like the change. The product will make the user feel distinguished since it’s a

unique design.

The emotional feeling will be a comfort not felt before in a compact mouse. Many people will be

surprised that such a small mouse can deliver such comfort.

4.1 Proportionality

Bicura Dimensions:

Length: 100mm

Height: 45mm

Width: 52 mm (= Height + (Height * cos 30))

32+20=52

32+84= 116

Support Structure



Figure 4.1: Bicura Shown with Golden Ratio

As you can see mathematically the dimensions don’t satisfy the golden rule.

Although our product doesn’t fit the proportionality of the golden rule perfectly the product

makes up for it in symmetry. As you can see the side profile is perfectly symmetric, nothing is

distracting.

The Eleven Means of Proportionality:

A=B+C

97=52+45

The mouse doesn’t fulfill any of the proportionality tests, but it comes the closest to the tenth

form 3:5:8; only 3 mm off. This can again be justified with the engineering analysis and the

ergonomic positioning of our product- it has to fulfill the dimensions of comfort; aesthetic

dimension is our second concern. The product comes so close to the measurement that the

proportionality is not noticeable to the naked eye.

4.2 Craftsmanship

Our prototype hasn’t yet reached the engineering part of components ready for production. This

idea of craftsmanship will be hypothetically speaking since we do not have the resources for

production. We will describe the process in which to utilize production in a way to ensure top

quality aesthetically and technically.



Tactile Attributes: A combination of textures will be integrated, rubber and plastic to add to the

ergonomics. However, these textures will be seamlessly integrated. With minimal parts and

injections molding, the issue of sharp edges will not be a problem. After all, the whole mouse

was created on the basis of warmth and roundness.

Visual Attributes: All the visuals will be sleek and glossy. The mouse will be constructed to fit

the profile of a car. Cars; the body profile and the colors inspired the mouse design.

Auditory Attributes: The parts will be quite like a luxury car; to inspire the feeling of value and

not cheapness. Although sounds may occur when moving the mouse, nothing mechanical of the

sort will originate internally.

Functional Attributes: All the functional attributes are as follows: weight (optimized for a

perfect balance), the tip from horizontal to vertical, the clickers (little to no pressure), durability,

the optimal sizing, the location of the mouse’s curve, minimum components, computer chips,

and wireless capability to destroy clutter.

The biggest concerns with customers include the weight and battery access. We noticed that

when someone picked up a plastic electronic, there had to be a certain weight to indicate it

wasn’t cheap. If we are making a $30 mouse, it better not feel cheap. If it does, then people will

think we are selling a low quality product claiming it is amazing in quality and comfort.

The batteries are important, because a number of people just want to use AA batteries instead of

charging. People tend to forget to charge electronics making it hindering to the customer.

However, if there is a AA battery inside, it has to have an easy access point.

4.3 Kansei

Having a strict understanding of design through Japanese knowledge the test was simple to

perform and easy to understand. With this test we wanted to determine what colors and what

shape would be the best to appeal to the masses. However, uniqueness was a main concern. To

establish grounds of a new product you must differentiate yourself from competitors. Although

our design does just that, we still have to push aesthetically as well.

We made 8 designs and sent out a survey and had people rate the mouse based upon beauty,

style, and uniqueness. The results of the survey can be seen in Appendix F. These three attributes

are the most important to our aesthetic representation of our product. The results yielded B2 as

the shape and color that dominated in all three categories. As you can see below B2 is in Figure

4.2, and represented by the red dot in Figure 4.3.



Figure 4.2: Eight Survey Designs

Figure 4.3: Pareto Values of Different Designs

Regardless the top two scoring mice were the black mice – B1 and B2. The white mice didn’t

score high in either shape. The reason being, people have seen it synonymously with Apple and

have grown old of the trend. It doesn’t mean they don’t like the product; it’s just not unique

anymore.

Our final aesthetic design encompasses all three of the attributes. Based on the regressions, black

combined with a light hint of white speaks style and beauty. The shape also contributes; the



unique shape of models B1-4, opposed to the typical mouse shape gives it more unique attractive

qualities. It stands out among the other mice on the market. Overall our mouse is unique and

stylish, distinguishable on the market. These three attributes lead to the final aesthetic model and

completely agrees with the customer tendencies.

5. MICROECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Our firm conducted an economic analysis of our product to determine our most profitable design.

Using the profit function we related the objective functions to the demand curve and the costs

that will be incurred to design and manufacture it. Our company is responsible for the design

and manufacturing of the mouse shell, the assembly, and the shipping of the product. The

manufacturing of the electronics, battery, and packaging are outsourced.

5.1 Demand Curve

Estimating a demand curve is necessary for the economic analysis because we need to know how

our customers will react to changes in the price of our product. The traditional demand curve is

a function of price.

Eq. 11

Figure 5.1: Computer Mouse Demand Curve

To estimate the demand for our product we used sales data from Logitech, a competing computer

mouse producer. Using Logitech’s financial reports we found Logitech sold 30.9 million

computer mice in fiscal year 2011. To get the number of mice sold we assumed that the average

price for a mouse was $20. We estimated that 1.9 million were sold at a price of $15 per mouse,

950,000 were sold for a price of $30 per mouse, and 240,000 mice were sold at a price of $60 per

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Qu

an

tity

Selling Price



mouse. We fit a least squares regression line to the data to get values for θ and λP in the demand

equation.

Eq. 12

5.2 Cost

The total cost (C) of producing our product is a function of fixed costs (Cf), variable costs (Cv),

and the quantity that is sold.

Eq. 13

The fixed costs for our product include injection molding machines, salaries, rent, and general

overhead such as utilities. The variable costs can be broken down into two subcategories:

material costs and labor costs. The variable material costs include the electronics, optics,

battery, plastic, and packaging. The variable labor costs include assembly, packaging and

shipping, and miscellaneous additional assembly such as rework of the products. We based our

cost estimates on the costs that comparable businesses undertake.

Figure 5.2: Bicura Cost Estimates

Variable Costs-Materials Purchase Cost Quantity Cost per Product

Electronics 2.00$ 1 2.00$

Optics 1.00$ 2 2.00$

AA Battery 0.50$ 1 0.50$

Plastic Cost-Shell 0.18$ 1 0.18$

Packaging 0.50$ 1 0.50$

Variable Costs-Labor Time (s) Hourly Wage Cost per Product

Assembly 30 20.00$ 0.17$

Pack & Ship 25 20.00$ 0.14$

Misc. Add'l Assembly (Mat'l

Handling, Rework) 30 20.00$ 0.17$

Total Variable Costs 5.65$

Fixed Costs Cost per Year

Salaries 340,000$

Rent 26,000$

Depreciation 20,000$

Insurance 23,000$

Marketing 75,000$

R&D 50,000$

Other 26,000$

Total Fixed Costs 560,000$



5.3 Profit Function

The profit function is obtained using the demand curve and the cost function. The profit function

will give us the price of our computer mouse that will result in the maximum profit. In the

simplest form of the profit equation, profit is the difference between revenue and cost.

Eq. 14

We assume the quantity of mice sold depends on our design attributes of weight and comfort in

addition to the price. Weight is derived from the dimensions of our mouse (determined in the

engineering analysis) and comfort is assumed to be directly related to the hump location of the

mouse. This can be represented by the following equation.

Eq. 15

A survey was conducted to determine preferences for weight and the hump location. The

responses from the survey were translated into demand. The slopes of the graphs indicated λw =

34,500 and and λH = -4750.

Figure 5.3: Hump Location Survey Results

(mm from center)

Figure 5.4: Weight Survey Results

The quantity equation then becomes:

Eq. 16

The quantity equation could then be plugged into the profit function, which leads to the final

equation:

Eq. 17

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Qu

an

tity

Hump Location

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

0 50 100 150 200

Qu

an

tity

Weight (g)



Excel Solver was used to determine the optimal price, weight, and hump location to maximize

profits. Using a selling price of $35.04, a hump location of 6 mm towards the front of the mouse,

and a weight of 50g, the estimated profit is $29.7 million per year.

Figure 5.5: Bicura Profit Model

5.4 Breakeven Analysis

The team felt the analysis above overestimated the profits of the Bicura mouse, as the analysis

did not take into account changing market share based on the product attributes. To more

accurately assess the revenues and costs of producing the Bicura mouse, a breakeven analysis

was performed. By analyzing the computer accessories market the team determined the market

size for Bicura to be 25.2 million mice per year, growing at a rate of 1.8% per year. Conservative

estimates of market share between 1.5-2.5% were used in analysis. The results of the analysis

can be seen below.

Year

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Market Size 25.2 25.6536 26.115365 26.585441 27.063979

Demand 0.38 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.68

Market Share 1.50% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.50%

Profit (pretax) $360,430 $638,337 $606,127 $570,358 $840,193

Profit (post tax) $216,258 $383,002 $363,676 $342,215 $504,116

Revenue $1,134,000 $1,539,216 $1,566,922 $1,595,126 $2,029,798

Investment $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0

Fixed Cost $560,000 $593,600 $629,216 $666,969 $706,987

Variable Cost $213,570 $307,279 $331,578 $357,800 $482,618

Figure 5.6: Bicura Breakeven Analysis Chart

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00

Valu

e (M

illi

on

s)

Selling Price

BICURA Profit Model

Revenue

Costs

Profit



Initial investment was estimated to be $400,000, and the fixed costs were assumed to be

$560,000 each year with the net present value calculated for each year beyond 2011. The interest

rate was assumed to be 6%. As seen in Figure 5.7, the Bicura mouse is expected to breakeven

between years one and two.

Figure 5.7: Breakeven Analysis

When compared to the economic engineering analysis, the breakeven method results in smaller

profits, but the team felt this method was more realistic in estimating Bicura sales. The

breakeven method allows for more flexibility in pricing and market share; whereas the

engineering method seeks to solely maximize profits. Therefore, for a conservative and realistic

estimate, the team chose to use the results of the breakeven analysis over the engineering

analysis.

6. MARKETING ANALYSIS

The team performed a marketing analysis to determine interest in the Bicura mouse and predict

market share. A choice-based conjoint survey was conducted which determined the users’

preference for price, weight, comfort, and wireless/corded functionality. The survey choices

were as follows:

Price (P) Weight (w) Comfort (c) Functionality

$15

$30

$45

50g

100g

150g

Outstanding

Above Average

Average

Wireless

Corded

Figure 6.1: CBC Survey Design

Respondents were given the choice of three mice with varying characteristics from each of the

attributes above, or the option to not choose any of the three designs. Outstanding comfort was

assigned a value of 6 (representing the hump location at 6 mm from center towards the front of

-$500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Profitability Investment

Profit

Net Present Value



the mouse), above average was assigned 1, and average was -6. The results of the survey were as

follows:

Figure 6.2: CBC Survey Price Results Figure 6.3: CBC Survey Weight Results

Figure 6.4: CBC Survey Comfort Results

To determine the profit of the Bicura mouse, a market size of 1 million was assumed. For the

marketing analysis, the team assumed the choice percentage output by the logit model would

represent the market share obtained within the ergonomic mouse market, as opposed to the

mouse market as a whole. Thus, a smaller value of 1 million was used for this analysis, instead

of the 2.52 million assumed in the breakeven analysis.

For varying attributes, the part worth is given by the spline interpolation of the part worth values

versus the attributes (seen in Figures 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4). The percentage of consumers who choose

our product is given by:

( )

Eq. 18

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

$10 $20 $30 $40 $50

Price vs. Part-Worth

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Weight (g) vs. Part-Worth

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

-7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7

Comfort vs. Part-Worth



Thus, the demand function is:

Eq. 19

The costs are:

Eq. 20

And the profit model is given by:

Eq. 21

The design attributes for weight and comfort were linked to the engineering model and Excel

solver was used to optimize the profit. For a snapshot of the Excel spreadsheet, see Appendix G.

The profit was optimized when w= 53.1 g, c = 6 mm, and P = $39. This gave corresponding part

worth functions of 0.14, 0.55, and -0.58, with a no choice part worth of -0.5. The percentage of

consumers who choose our product is then 64% which yields a profit of $20.8 million.

7. SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS

SimaPro 7.2 was used to analyze the environmental impact assessment of the Bicura Mouse

Assembly.

The method used for analysis was EcoIndicator 99(H). The mouse assembly was set up in

SimaPro with the different parts being the Outer Shell (which contains the structure of the

mouse), the base, the electronics in the mouse and the battery.

The various materials and processes involved in the manufacturing of the parts were taken into

account to carry out the environmental impact assessment. The figure F1 in Appendix F gives a

snapshot of the mouse assembly.

The figure F2 in Appendix H shows the impact of the mouse assembly on the various categories

of the broader categories of air-emissions, human health impact and resource impact. The

various other visualizations of the impact of the mouse assembly are included in the Appendix F

for better understanding of the Environmental Impact.

This analysis helps in being better informed while choosing the various materials and processed

used in the production of the Bicura mouse. Analyzing the impacts, it is seen that the electronics

and the batteries account for the highest impact on the environment out of the entire assembly.

Our design has been modified for minimum mass and hence minimum use of materials so as to

reduce the impact on the environment as much as possible.

8. PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS



The process that was used by our group to develop our final product, shown in Appendix I, was

slightly different that the one we expected before we started, shown in Appendix A1. The

greatest difference between the two processes was that the microeconomic analysis and the

engineering analysis were done at the same time. It was advantageous for us to do the two

analyses concurrently because we avoided having to redesign the product twice instead of taking

into account both analyses at the same time. We also had a time constraint that was placed on

our group so in order to meet our deadline we did the microeconomic analysis and the

engineering analysis at the same time.

Another difference in the two processes was the place of the iteration on the process. We found

that at many different points we had to make changes to our design. Most of the changes

occurred after the engineering and economic models were made and analyzed. The most

significant change we made in the redesign parts of the process was the angle of the vertical

position of the mouse.

9. PRODUCT BROADER IMPACT

Our product has an impact on the society we are in. It creates a new perspective on mice today.

It innovates the position of the mouse. If it were to be produced it could make a large impact on

people’s experiences. After the design expo we had a good amount of people interested in it.

They liked the comfort and really understood what we were going for. The product we created

definitely expresses that through the different attributes it holds. Every one of our teammates

pressed different issues with design they would like to fix: the economy, education, film and

nature.

Katie discussed design and education. Although you can’t see any education present in the

design (except the final presentation work), we did fulfill Katie’s idea of being “well rounded.”

Our product has a vast array of possibilities that can work for a lot of different people. It gives

people the freedom to choose between two functionalities. Although it’s limited to two positions,

you still get more than a traditional mouse. People have said, “why don’t you just design it for

the ergonomic position, not the horizontal position?” Well the goal of our mouse is to provide

the customer with multiple actions so it can suit anybody. If we give them something short of

excellence, they won’t remember our product.

Mohit discussed design and the economy. The financial analysis of the product and the design

for production is a good way of displaying Mohit’s ideologies. He was concerned with price

from the beginning. He pressed to the group that if we couldn’t make this mouse for a reasonable

price, we might as well forget about trying to sell it. The mouse also had to be something that

could make a reasonable shift in our economy if it were to be produced. This is why we shifted

our demographics from being just for the elderly, to the youth and elderly. Our product then

became a compact design for cost issues as well. All keeping in mind we had to make something

people would want to buy over a traditional mouse.

Cy discussed design and nature. The mouse doesn’t explain a motive of nature, but we did lean

into making a design that counts. Something that is different and innovative. It also adds to

user’s experiences using the computer. They enjoy comfort knowing they didn’t have to sacrifice

much money to obtain it. The main point he discussed was making the older designs obsolete,



“lose, lose” situations. When that happens to older products, people will drift to ours. The

product we created combines the best of both mice.

Curtis wrote about how movie directors influence culture. They either positively influence or

they negatively influence culture through their images. Our product encompassed a positive

image. Newly innovating a product that has already been made goes hand in hand with movies.

Movies are created all the time, but only the ones that positively move our culture are acclaimed.

Nobody thinks Jaws 3 was a good movie, same thing - different title. That’s what we didn’t want

to do with our mouse. Same mouse - different title, we went for, different mouse - different title.

All in all, the product reflects every teammate’s ideas and passions. We came up with a multi

positional mouse that is compact, affordable, easy to use and most of all unique. Although we

did not maximize each other’s wishes, when designing with a group, seldom does that ever

happen. Instead we took everyone’s ideologies and combined it into a team effort to emulate our

goals.

10. CONCLUSION

Computer usage is at an all time high, and there is currently a void in the computer mouse

market for products which are low in cost, ergonomic, and portable. The team observed this

problem, and set out to create a mouse which fulfills this void. By observing products currently

on the market and brainstorming ideas for new designs, the team chose to pursue a design which

can be used in the horizontal (traditional) style or in the vertical style, where the hand is held in a

handshake position. The handshake position is the most ergonomic position of the arm when

using a computer mouse.

By utilizing both planes, the user can choose which position they feel is most comfortable. They

can also switch between the two positions, which allows for relief from holding their arm in one

position for an extended period of time.

The initial iterations of the design used the true horizontal and vertical positions (90° angle

between the planes) but were unstable in the vertical position. To reduce the chance of tipping,

an engineering analysis with an anti-tip constraint was completed which indicated the optimal

mass and dimensions of the mouse. The “vertical” position of the mouse was then relaxed to a

30° angle from horizontal.

An aesthetic analysis was used to determine the final features of the mouse including the color,

shape, and surface texture. A marketing analysis indicated that price and comfort were the most

important factors to the consumer. A conservative breakeven analysis indicated production of the

Bicura mouse would breakeven between the first and second year and reach a net present value

of $1.6M after five years.



REFERENCES

Abrahams, P. 2007, “Elderly people and disabled people have different accessibility

requirements.” IT Analysis. http://www.it-

analysis.com/business/compliance/content.php?cid=10144, October 2011.

BBC. 2005. “New PC to encourage older users.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8352606.stm,

October 2011.

Graham, R. 2005. “Digital Divide Puts Many Seniors At Disadvantage.” Kaiser Family

Foundation. http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia011205nr.cfm, October 2011.

Makris, P. 2001, “Accessibility of Ubiquitous Computing:

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. 2011. “Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Fact

Sheet” http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/carpal_tunnel/detail_carpal_tunnel.htm

NYTimes. 2008. “The Latest Thinking on Computer-Related Pain”

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-repetitivestrain-

expert.html?pagewanted=all

Providing for the Elderly.” virtual.inesc.pt/wuauc01/procs/pdfs/makris_final.pdf, October 2011.

U.S. Census. http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html, October 2011.

DiDomenico Astin, Angela, 1999- Finger force capability: measurement and prediction using

anthropometric and myoelectric measures

http://www.it-analysis.com/business/compliance/content.php?cid=10144

http://www.it-analysis.com/business/compliance/content.php?cid=10144

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8352606.stm

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia011205nr.cfm

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/carpal_tunnel/detail_carpal_tunnel.htm

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

1

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A1: ASSIGNMENT 2—TEAM PROCESS MODEL ............................................... 2

APPENDIX A2: ASSIGNMENT 2—TEAM ROLES WORKSHEET ......................................... 3

APPENDIX A3: ASSIGNMENT 2—GANTT CHART ................................................................ 4

APPENDIX B1: ASSIGNMENT 3—DESIGN CRITERIA AND USER SCENARIO

WORKSHEET ................................................................................................................................ 5

APPENDIX B2: ASSIGNMENT 3—OBSERVING PEOPLE ...................................................... 7

APPENDIX B3: ASSIGNMENT 3—INFORMATION GATHERING ........................................ 9

APPENDIX B4: ASSIGNMENT 3—SURVEY DESIGN AND CONDUCT ............................ 14

APPENDIX B5: ASSIGNMENT 3—QFD MATRIX ................................................................. 17

APPENDIX C1: ASSIGNMENT 4—DESIGN SELECTION MATRIX (PUGH CHART) ....... 18

APPENDIX C2: ASSIGNMENT 4—DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT ............................ 19

APPENDIX C3: ASSIGNMENT 4—DESIGN HEURISTICS SKETCHES .............................. 21

APPENDIX D: ASSIGNMENT 5A—MODELING DESIGN FUNCTIONALITY ................... 35

APPENDIX E: ASSIGNMENT 5B—ENGINEERING FUNCTIONALITY ............................. 38

APPENDIX F: EMOTIONAL AND AESTHETIC ANALYSIS SURVEY RESULTS ............. 39

APPENDIX G: MARKETING ANALYSIS EXCEL SNAPSHOT ............................................ 40

APPENDIX H: SIMAPRO RESULTS ......................................................................................... 41

APPENDIX I: FINAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS .............................................. 47

2

APPENDIX A1: ASSIGNMENT 2—TEAM PROCESS MODEL

Customer survey

User

Study of exis ting market:

current products/designs

Market Define customer needs

Designer

Define project (product)

goals

Designer

Identify market and ini-

tial business plan

Designer/Marketing Team

Brainstorm design al ter-

natives and solutions to

customer needs

Designer

Using product goals,

funnel down to 1 design

Designer

Determine specifications

of design (CAD drawings,

material selection, etc.)

Designer/Engineer

Estimate costs and refine

business plan

Designer/Engineer/Finance

Refine design for manu-

facturability and assem-

bly

Designer/Engineer/Producer

Design validation

(prototype testing)

Designer/Test Engineer

Iterations of prototype

Designer/Engineer

Release for Production

Designer/Producer

Product validation

(customer feedback)

Customer

3

APPENDIX A2: ASSIGNMENT 2—TEAM ROLES WORKSHEET

4

APPENDIX A3: ASSIGNMENT 2—GANTT CHART

Cy Abdelnour Mohit Mehendale

Testing (as a team) Katie Bevier Curtis Sawdon

Assignments (as a team)

31-Oct

7-Nov

14-Nov

21-Nov

28-Nov

5-Dec

12-Dec

Task 31

-Oct

1-N

ov

2-N

ov

3-N

ov

4-N

ov

5-N

ov

6-N

ov

7-N

ov

8-N

ov

9-N

ov

10

-No

v

11

-No

v

12

-No

v

13

-No

v

14

-No

v

15

-No

v

16

-No

v

17

-No

v

18

-No

v

19

-No

v

20

-No

v

21

-No

v

22

-No

v

23

-No

v

24

-No

v

25

-No

v

26

-No

v

27

-No

v

28

-No

v

29

-No

v

30

-No

v

1-D

ec

2-D

ec

3-D

ec

4-D

ec

5-D

ec

6-D

ec

7-D

ec

8-D

ec

9-D

ec

10

-De

c

11

-De

c

12

-De

c

13

-De

c

Acquire several computer mice for Beta Prototype creation

Assignment 8 (Creation of Beta Prototype)

Project Progress Report

Assignment 7

Project Progress Report Presentation

Testing of Beta Prototype

Assignment 10 (Business Plan Draft)

Assignment 9

Thanksgiving Break

Business Plan Presentation

Engineering and Functionality Analysis

Emotional and Aesthetic Analysis

Microeconomic Analysis

Marketing Analysis

Sustainability Analysis

Business Plan Report

Product Description

Nomenclature

Product Development Process

Product Broader Impact

Conclusion

New Survey

Re-Test Beta + Prototype

Reiteration

Project Final Report

Creation of Final Expo Prototype

Design Expo Poster

5

APPENDIX B1: ASSIGNMENT 3—DESIGN CRITERIA AND USER SCENARIO

WORKSHEET

6

7

APPENDIX B2: ASSIGNMENT 3—OBSERVING PEOPLE

LOOK AT WHO, WHAT, WHERE AND WHEN.

ASK YOURSELF (AND OTHERS) "WHY"

AROUND THE BUSINESS SCHOOL

Who is the person?

Person 1. This person carrying a backpack, so we think they are a student. We are at the

business school, so it is likely many of the people here are business majors and this person might

be as well.

Person 2. This person is probably a student here for a professional function. Since he is

wearing a suit, and it is relatively late (9pm) it is probably a business school student. It doesn’t

seem like professionals would be at the business school in a suit this late.

Person 3. This woman is probably a student because she is wearing a backpack and does not

look very old. In addition to her backpack she is holding a purse and a cell phone. She is talking

with a group of students who are probably business students.

Who are they with?

Person 1. He is with one other person at a table surrounded by couches. It seems like they

are working together because they are both leaning towards each other at the table with their

heads down. They are not talking and it seems like they are serious and concentrating on

something.

Person 2. He is alone, but there are many other people wearing suits. Some of them are

talking. Their body language seems friendly as they are facing each other directly.

Person 3. She is with some other people talking to them and also talking on the phone at the

same time. She is somewhat turned away from the group indicating that she is not fully involved

in the conversation. The other people in the group are smiling, so it seems like they are more

involved.

8

How are they dressed?

Person 1. He is wearing a white t-shirt and indicates that he is in a casual environment. We

can’t really make judgments based on his current apparel because it’s a casual environment so

there isn’t really any expectation to dress nicely.

Person 2. He is wearing a suit, and talking on a cell phone. He also has a nametag on. It

doesn’t look like he has any other objects with him.

Person 3. She is wearing a pink t-shirt and jeans.

What are they doing?

Person 1. It seems like he is focusing on his work, and he has his head down. He is not

smiling, so it doesn’t really seem like he is enjoying himself. He is not making many movements

so it seems like he is reading or thinking. Seems like he is easy going.

Person 2. He is walking and talking on a cell phone. It’s hard to tell whether he is enjoying

this, he’s not frowning. He’s pacing while talking on the phone, which could indicate that he is

nervous. He doesn’t seem like he has a plan for where he is headed when he is walking.

Person 3. She is smiling while talking on the phone so it seems like she is enjoying her

time. She is standing with the group while talking. It seems like she is just going with the flow.

Where are they?

Person 1. He is in a somewhat crowded area, with a little echoing background noise. Even

there is some noise, it seems like he is focused.

Person 2. The surroundings are crowded with many other people in business attire. He is in

an atrium, so there is some background noise of echoing and people talking. The surroundings

are very clean and neat, which could influence him to be more professional.

Person 3. The surroundings are somewhat noisy because conversations are echoing. It does

not seem like it is affecting her behavior.

9

APPENDIX B3: ASSIGNMENT 3—INFORMATION GATHERING

10

11

12

13

14

APPENDIX B4: ASSIGNMENT 3—SURVEY DESIGN AND CONDUCT

Questions Options Responses

How often does your grandparent use a

computer mouse?

Everyday 3

3-4 times per week 7


1-2 times per month 4

Never 8

When your grandparent uses their

computer mouse, for how long do they

usually use the mouse in one sitting?

Less than 15 minutes 6

15-30 minutes 12

30-60 minutes 3

More than 60 minutes 0

Grandparent does not

use computer mouse 6

Does your grandparent use a specifically

designed ergonomic mouse? If so, how

would you describe the style?

Thumb roller-ball

stationary mouse 3

Joystick 2

Vertical mouse 1

Other style ergonomic

mouse 0

Use regular-style

mouse 14

Do not own mouse 7

Does your grandparent prefer a wireless

or wired mouse? Why?

Wired 12

Wireless 10

N/A 3

Don't care 2

15

On a scale from 1-5, how comfortable

does your grandparent find their current

mouse?

1 - Very Comfortable 0

2 - Comfortable 5

3 - Neutral 9

4 - Uncomfortable 7

5 - Very

Uncomfortable 1

Don't know 5

Does your grandparent use a scroll wheel

to scroll through pages?

Yes 6

No 21

Does your grandparent ever complain

about having pain in their hands or arms

after using the computer for a while?

Yes 6

No 21

If yes, where is the pain located?

in the joints of

the hand and

wrist

Wrist

Wrists

top of hand,

fingers

Forearm -

tendons

Wrist.

Where does your grandparent most often

use their computer? Assign 100 points

among the following locations

representing percentage of time.

Home 78.14%

Work 2.03%

Café/Public Location 7.22%

16

Other(Please Specify) 12.59%

Place Name for other

location In park

How often does your grandparent call

friends or family for computer support?


1-2 times per month 10

A couple of times per

year 4

Never 5

If you were to purchase a computer

mouse for your grandparent, what is the

most you would be willing to spend?

$0-15 0

$16-30 9

$31-45 8

$46-60 6

$61-75 4

Suppose you were looking to purchase a

computer mouse for your grandparent,

rank the following attributes in terms of

most important(1) to least important (5)

Average Rank

Price 3.18

Ergonomic Design 2.25

Simple Design (Easy to

understand) 1.81

Durability 3.7

Weight 4.03

Average Age of Respondents 23

Average Age of the Grandparent 76.7

Whether Arthritic Sufferer or Not Yes 16

No 11

17

APPENDIX B5: ASSIGNMENT 3—QFD MATRIX

18

APPENDIX C1: ASSIGNMENT 4—DESIGN SELECTION MATRIX (PUGH CHART)

Datum Design #1 Design #2 Design #3 Design #4 Design #5

Regular

Computer Mouse

Mouse Glove Reconfigurable

Buttons

Gel Pads Horizontal/Vertical

Mouse

Slide to Click

Design Criteria Weight

Ergonomics/Comfort 3 0 + +++ ++ +++ ++

Cost 3 0 --- -- - -- --

Aesthetics 2 0 0 - - - 0

Durability 2 0 -- -- - 0 0

Ease of Use 3 0 -- 0 + ++ +

DFAM (Design for Assembly and Manufacturability)

2 0 --- --- 0 -- -

Portability 1 0 + 0 0 0 0

Weight 2 0 ++ 0 0 - 0

Maintenance 2 0 --- -- - 0 0

+ 0 8 9 9 15 9

0 20 2 6 5 5 9

- 0 31 22 9 14 8

Total Points 0 -23 -13 0 1 1

19

APPENDIX C2: ASSIGNMENT 4—DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

MET Matrix Worksheet Material Cycle | Energy Use | Toxic Emissions (input/output) (input/output) (output) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Production and supply of all materials and components Inputs: Crude oil, trees, chemicals Outputs: plastics, metals, rubber

Inputs: Electricity, petroleum Output: Power for machinery, mining, casting

NOx, hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, SO2

____________________________________________________________________________________ In-house production Inputs: Raw materials Outputs: Finished mice

Inputs: Electricity, petroleum Output: Power for machinery


____________________________________________________________________________________ Distribution Inputs: Packaging Outputs: Packaging waste

Inputs: Petroleum Output: Transportation


____________________________________________________________________________________ Use:

operation Inputs: Batteries, mouse pad, packaging Outputs: Packaging waste, used Batteries, used mouse pads

Inputs: Electricity or chemicals (battery) Output: Mouse power

Chemical waste, NOx, hydro- Carbons, CO2, CO, SO2

servicing Inputs: Components, spare parts Outputs: Used parts

Inputs: Electricity Output: Serviced mouse


____________________________________________________________________________________ End-of-Life system:

recovery Inputs: Used mouse materials Outputs: Recycled materials

Inputs: Electricity, petroleum Output: Transportation, Energy to recycle


disposal Inputs: Used mouse materials Outputs: Waste

Inputs: Electricity, petroleum Output: Transportation, Energy to dispose of waste


20

DfE Improvement Options Worksheet DfE Strategies Improvement Options 1. New Concept Development 1. Feasibility study of recycling

2. Optimize packaging to minimize waste/create dual purpose packaging (mouse pad as packaging)

3. Include instructions or help DVD with mouse 2. Physical Optimization

1. Design to minimize material usage (minimize plastic usage in shell, minimize number of assembly components) 2. Create design that is simple to manufacture and assemble 3. Use weights instead of additional material if necessary

3. Optimize Material Use 1. Use low impact materials (recycled rubber or plastic) 2. Utilize recycled materials for packaging

3. Minimize material usage (thin shell, hollow parts, using weights instead of adding material)

4. Optimize Production 1. Utilize clean energy for production, if possible

2. Minimize number of assembled components to decrease energy put into assembly

5. Optimize Distribution

1. Look to decrease number of shipments through shipment sizes (utilizing full vs. not full containers) 2. Manufacture, assemble, and pack to ship in house to decrease effects of distribution, also keeps technology in-house

6. Reduce Impact During Use 1. Encourage reusable battery usage

2. Encourage battery disposal through recycling on packaging 3. Use corded mouse to draw power from computer instead of batteries

7. Optimize End-of-Life Systems 1. Anticipate mouse recycling program

2. Encourage responsible recycling of electronics (through packaging or marketing) 3. Allow mouse to be disassembled so plastic parts could be recycled through the user’s local recycling program

21

APPENDIX C3: ASSIGNMENT 4—DESIGN HEURISTICS SKETCHES

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

APPENDIX D: ASSIGNMENT 5A—MODELING DESIGN FUNCTIONALITY

1. Design Selection

The conceptual design is a computer mouse which can be used horizontally and vertically.

Traditional mice are used horizontally, and a vertical mouse uses buttons on the side of the

mouse. A vertical mouse is more ergonomic than a horizontal mouse because the user does not

have to twist his or her arm at the elbow. This reduces strain on the arm. We identified this

concept as beneficial using a Pugh chart that compared several of our initial concepts. We are

also looking into including aspects of the other concepts on the Pugh chart, but for the purpose of

this exercise we will focus on the horizontal/vertical mouse.

2. Design Requirements

Ergonomics: optimize the design for maximum comfort in both horizontal and vertical

positions

Cost: minimize cost to improve profits and availability to consumers

Size: optimize size to fit 95% of users. Should not be too large or too small for the said

percentage of users.

Weight: optimize weight to balance use and functionality. Should not be too heavy or too

light, depending on type of user and the use.

Appearance/Aesthetics: The mouse should be visually appealing.

Durability: needs to last during warranty period and have lifetime similar to current

computer mice. Should not require replacement of parts at least during warranty period

Surface Texture: comfortable feel to most users

Ease of Use: Should be simple and easy to understand by users. Should feature plug-and-

play application

Design for Assembly and Manufacture: The entire design should consider the ease of

production to reduce costs, maximize profitability

Materials Specification: The selected materials should be easily available, cost effective,

durable

Circuit Board Design: simple design that accommodates mouse size and shape

Optics: needs dual or swivel design to accommodate horizontal or vertical capability

Maintenance: Should have a lower maintenance and availability of spare parts is

necessary for any repair/replacement necessity

Power/USB requirements: Power requirements in Volts required by the mouse for

operation. Should be compatible with the USB port and draw adequate power

Operating System Requirements: Compatibility with various Operating Systems in the

market is very important.

Recycling: Reduce impact on environment from disposal through recycling. Should not

be a hassle to recycle.

Materials Acquisition: This should be from domestic suppliers to benefit local economy

36

Customer survey

User

Study of exis ting market:

current products/designs

Market Define customer needs

Designer

Define project (product)

goals

Designer

Identify market and ini-

tial business plan

Designer/Marketing Team

Brainstorm design al ter-

natives and solutions to

customer needs

Designer

Using product goals,

funnel down to 1 design

Designer

Determine specifications

of design (CAD drawings,

material selection, etc.)

Designer/Engineer

Estimate costs and refine

business plan

Designer/Engineer/Finance

Refine design for manu-

facturability and assem-

bly

Designer/Engineer/Producer

Design validation

(prototype testing)

Designer/Test Engineer

Iterations of prototype

Designer/Engineer

Release for Production

Designer/Producer

Product validation

(customer feedback)

Customer

3. Product Development Process Model

Inputs Outputs

Customer Survey Users (Elderly people) Ergonomic Requirements/Cost Estimation

Study existing products/designs Competitors/ Existing Mouse Designs Ergonomic Requirements

Define Customer Needs Design Specs for mouse/User Response Project Plan Creation

Define Project Goals Customer Needs/User Response Characteristics of product

Identify Market & Business Plan Existing Market Segmentation,

Company Finances

Identification of customer and any design

restraints

Brainstorm Alternative Designs Customer Needs/Project Goals Several prototypes

Narrow down to 1 design Design Alternatives/Specs/Needs First prototype

Determine prototype

specifications

Design Spec/Customer Needs Material Selection e.g. (Plastic/rubber etc.)

Cost Estimation Material Selection Costs/Specs/DFAM

Design for

Manufacturability/Assembly

Costs of tooling, testing, fixtures,

equipment, material, labor, energy

DFAM

Design Validation DFAM/Iterations Design Validation

Iterations Design Validation Release for Production/Iterations

37

Release for Production Iterations/Design Validations Release for Production/Design Validation

Product Validation Customer feedback Redesign of product

4. At the design phase we can decide define who our customer is and what his or her needs

are. We can also decide which of the customer’s needs, we will choose to address with

our product. In the design phase our team can narrow down the number of product ideas

we have to a single design. After a design is chosen the materials the product will be

made from can be selected. We can then decide how the product will be manufactured

and assembled. An estimation of the costs that will go into the materials, manufacturing

and assembly of the product will be completed in the design phase. In the last part of the

design phase the product will be tested and any flaws in the product will be corrected.

All of the design requirements above are directly based on the decisions made in the

design phase. Requirements like capital requirement, capital generation, advertising &

marketing, investments etc. are not related to the design phase directly (though they

might be based on the cost factor) but depend on the business plan as a whole.

5. A number of design characteristics (z) can be quantified and a number or value can be

associated with each of these as we decide on the target values for the product. These

values may have to be optimized based on the design and the iterations that are made.

The aim here would be to be as close to the target value as possible.

A list of the design characteristics that can be quantified are:-

Volume/Size: Expressed in mm3. This is a function of the dimensions

(quantifiable in mm) An example would be :-

z1= (x1 * x2 * x3)

Weight: expressed in grams. This is a function of the dimensions (quantifiable in

mm) and the density of the materials being used. An example would be :-

z1= (x1 * x2 * x3) * density

Shape : The shape would be dependent on the ergonomics and comfort of the

mouse design which are major design characteristics too

6. The list of design requirements that can be quantifiable using models from engineering

analysis is:

Volume/Size: Based on ergonomic analysis, it can be quantified. A jury

evaluation and/or user survey can be done to analyze how ergonomic the said size

and volume is.

Weight: Again, based on the ergonomic analysis, it can be quantified.

38

APPENDIX E: ASSIGNMENT 5B—ENGINEERING FUNCTIONALITY

Excel Worksheet Screenshot

39

APPENDIX F: EMOTIONAL AND AESTHETIC ANALYSIS SURVEY RESULTS

X1 = Color (Blue = 1 and Negative = -1)

X2 = Color (White = 1 and Black = -1)

X3 = Shape (Overlay = 1 and Original = -1)

40

APPENDIX G: MARKETING ANALYSIS EXCEL SNAPSHOT

41

APPENDIX H: SIMAPRO RESULTS

Figure F1: Mouse Assembly Snapshot

42

Figure F2: Impacts by Individual Categories

43

44

45

46

47

APPENDIX I: FINAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Customer Survey

Study Existing

Products/Designs

Define customer needs Come up with Multiple

Design Ideas Funnel Down

to One Design

Creation of

a Prototype

Material Selection

Microeconomic

Analysis

Engineering

Analysis

Marketing

Analysis

Sustainabilit

y Analysis

Final Design

and Prototype

Make Changes

to Design

Make Final

Changes

Aesthetics

Analysis

Designer Designer Designer

Market

User

Designer

Designer

Designer

Designer

Designer/Economist

Designer

Designer/Producer

Documents

Designing an Ergonomic Computer Mouseumich.edu/~desci501/2011/Team10/APD11_T10_FINALREPORT.pdf · Designing an Ergonomic Computer Mouse Katie Bevier ... CONCLUSION ... The mouse is