‘Concepts’ Report

SENSOR SYSTEM FOR FALL PREVENTIONGabriel Caraus, Andrii Semenov, Mark Brinkhuizen, Rick Venema, Gideon KooistraHANZE INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING | MINOR: TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE

IndexIntroduction...........................................................................................................................................2

Morphology............................................................................................................................................3

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................3

Pugh Matrix............................................................................................................................................4

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................4

Belief maps.............................................................................................................................................5

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................8

Conclusion..............................................................................................................................................9

1

Introduction

In this report the concept design phase of Ullman is explained based on the fall prevention project. In this phase the morphology chart method is used to generate ideas based on the sub functions and after that choose different concepts. To evaluate the concepts the Pugh matrix is used as the next step in this phase. To make sure it is right the criteria used in the matrix will be checked in the belief maps. In the end of this report a concept is chosen to use in the next phases of Ullman

2

Morphology

The first step is the morphology chart. The chart is using the sub functions to generate concepts, at first for each sub function and after that combining the concepts to a full concepts that includes every sub function.

Table 1, morphological chart

Conclusion

The final concepts that we chose are given in table 1, we used different colours. The yellow one only has two sub functions, that is because you cannot measure the other sub functions with on a belt. The concept that we are going to use as the baseline concept is the green one (concept 1).

3

Pugh Matrix

The Pugh matrix is the next step in this phase. It is an extra check, the question that will be answered in this chapter is: did we chose the right baseline concepts or are the other concepts better based on the criteria?

The criteria that we use to check the concepts are based on the house of quality, the most important ones are used. The criteria get a new important rate in the matrix. The alternative concepts are get a score the score: better, same or worse. Based on that they receive a score at the end. If the score is better than the baseline concept it is a better alternative.

Table 2, Pugh matrix

Conclusion

The scores of the alternatives are all below zero. That means that they are worse than the baseline concept. So the green concept is still the best option based on the Pugh matrix.

4

Belief maps

To extra check the criteria the belief maps are made. For every criteria a map is made, the scoring is done by everybody of the group to get the best results. The scoring is based on satisfaction and knowledge about the criteria of the product.

DurabilityCriteria satisfaction Certainty knowledge

Andrii Semenov 0,5 0,6Gabriel Caraus 0,5 0,5Mark Brinkhuizen 0,6 0,5Gideon Kooistra 0,3 0,6Rick Venema 0,5 0,5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Crite

ria S

atisf

actio

n

Certainty knowledge

Durability

CostsCriteria satisfaction Certainty knowledge

Andrii Semenov 0,6 0,6Gabriel Caraus 0,5 0,5Mark Brinkhuizen 0,5 0,5Gideon Kooistra 0,4 0,6Rick Venema 0,5 0,5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Crite

ria S

atisf

actio

n

Certainty knowledge

Costs

5

Looks familiarCriteria satisfaction Certainty knowledge

Andrii Semenov 0,4 0,7Gabriel Caraus 0,5 0,5Mark Brinkhuizen 0,5 0,5Gideon Kooistra 0,3 0,4Rick Venema 0,5 0,5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Crite

ria S

atisf

actio

n

Certainty knowledge

Looks familiar

Weight of the deviceCriteria satisfaction Certainty knowledge

Andrii Semenov 0,6 0,6Gabriel Caraus 0,5 0,5Mark Brinkhuizen 0,5 0,5Gideon Kooistra 0,5 0,5Rick Venema 0,5 0,5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Crite

ria S

atisf

actio

n

Certainty knowledge

Weight of the device

Safe to useCriteria satisfaction Certainty knowledge

Andrii Semenov 0,6 0,6Gabriel Caraus 0,5 0,5Mark Brinkhuizen 0,5 0,6Gideon Kooistra 0,5 0,8Rick Venema 0,5 0,5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Crite

ria S

atisf

actio

n

Certainty knowledge

Safe to use

6

Battery lifeCriteria satisfaction Certainty knowledge

Andrii Semenov 0,7 0,6Gabriel Caraus 0,5 0,5Mark Brinkhuizen 0,5 0,5Gideon Kooistra 0,8 0,4Rick Venema 0,5 0,5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Crite

ria S

atisf

actio

n

Certainty knowledge

Battery life

Blood pressure measurementCriteria satisfaction Certainty knowledge

Andrii Semenov 0,6 0,8Gabriel Caraus 0,5 0,5Mark Brinkhuizen 0,6 0,5Gideon Kooistra 0,5 0,6Rick Venema 0,5 0,5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Crite

ria S

atisf

actio

n

Certainty knowledge

Blood pressure measurement

Movement recognition

Criteria satisfaction Certainty knowledgeAndrii Semenov 0,6 0,8Gabriel Caraus 0,5 0,5Mark Brinkhuizen 0,5 0,6Gideon Kooistra 0,6 0,7Rick Venema 0,5 0,5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Crite

ria S

atisf

actio

n

Certainty knowledge

Movement recognition

7

Oxygen levelCriteria satisfaction Certainty knowledge

Andrii Semenov 0,6 0,7Gabriel Caraus 0,5 0,5Mark Brinkhuizen 0,5 0,5Gideon Kooistra 0,5 0,7Rick Venema 0,5 0,5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1Cr

iteria

Sati

sfac

tion

Certainty knowledge

Oxygen level

Not disturbingCriteria satisfaction Certainty knowledge

Andrii Semenov 0,7 0,6Gabriel Caraus 0,5 0,5Mark Brinkhuizen 0,6 0,6Gideon Kooistra 0,6 0,8Rick Venema 0,5 0,5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Crite

ria S

atisf

actio

n

Certainty knowledge

Not disturbing

Conclusion

It can be seen that the scores are almost all in the middle of the map. That means not much knowledge and not much satisfaction. That means that we do not have much knowledge in this area. What is completely obvious because we are students and have not much experience with this type of product in the sector. Also with the satisfaction the same problem

8

Conclusion

We did all the steps off the concept design phase of Ullman. We choose to go on with the baseline concepts that includes:

- Shirt- ECG+PPG- ADAFRUIT 9-DOF BNO055- ADAFRUIT solutions

The risks that we have is that we do not have much experience with these type of product in the sector, what we have to keep in mind. To deal with this risk we should include our client in every step of the Ullman method. To use her experience as much as we can.

9