the grip cilp

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY

AMES, IOWA

I E 576

HUMAN FACTORS IN PRODUCT DESIGN

DR. MICHAEL DORNEICHDR. RICHARD T. STONE

INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

THE GRIP CLIP:A METHOD OF HOLDING A UTENSIL IN A QUASI-UNIVERSAL FASHION

TEAM 1: CATS NOT RATSOLIVIA JANUSZ

NICOLE KITTLESONKARTHIK SAJIKUMARTHOMAS SCHNIEDERS

9 DECEMBER 2015

I E 5 7 6 C A T s N o t R A T s P r o j e c t 3 P a g e | 2

Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................4Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................................5Chapter 2: Requirements.................................................................................................................6Chapter 3: Concept Generation.......................................................................................................8Chapter 4: Concept Selection........................................................................................................13Chapter 5: Design..........................................................................................................................15Chapter 6: Evaluation Methods.....................................................................................................17Chapter 7: Evaluation Results ......................................................................................................18Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions........................................................................................22Appendix A: References................................................................................................................24Appendix B: Microwaving Habits Survey....................................................................................25Appendix C: Microwaving Habits Results....................................................................................26Appendix D: Product Testing Instructional Guide........................................................................27Appendix E: Post-Study Questionnaire.........................................................................................28Appendix F:Post Study Results.....................................................................................................29Appendix G: Intellectual Property Disclosure and Record...........................................................31


List of FiguresFigure 1: Euro Spoon Rest with Ceramic Dish...............................................................................5Figure 2: Rooster Spoon Rest in Red..............................................................................................5Figure 3: Pot Clip Ladle Spoon Holder...........................................................................................5Figure 4: Joseph Joseph Elevate™ Kitchen Tools..........................................................................5Figure 5: Survey Results for Attribute Importance.........................................................................7Figure 6: Suction Cup with a Clip...................................................................................................8Figure 7: Velcro Strips.....................................................................................................................9Figure 8: Double sided Magnetic Tape...........................................................................................9Figure 10: Double Sided Tape.......................................................................................................10Figure 11: Concept I: Design with a lip Mechanism.....................................................................10Figure 12: Concept II: Design with a rod like mechanism............................................................10Figure 13: Concept III: Design with a hinge joint.........................................................................11Figure 14: Concept IV: Design with an adjustable slot.................................................................11Figure 15: Concept V: Design with a flexible wire.......................................................................11Figure 16: Concept VI: Design with a V like mechanism.............................................................12Figure 17: Concept VII: Design with a circular ring.....................................................................12Figure 18: Revised GPS Holder....................................................................................................15Figure 19: Iteration 1 of Sugru “V” Mechanism...........................................................................15Figure 20: Iteration 2 of Sugru “V” Mechanism...........................................................................15Figure 21: Final Prototype.............................................................................................................16Figure 22: Final Prototype holding a utensil.................................................................................16Figure 23: Final Prototype attached to glass surface.....................................................................16Figure 24: Surface area of mess of control and prototype.............................................................18Figure 25: Time comparisons between control and prototype......................................................18Figure 26: Time to complete for control and prototype................................................................19Figure 27: Error frequencies when using the product...................................................................19Figure 28: Error scores for each participant..................................................................................20Figure 29: Attribute ratings for the product...................................................................................20Figure 30: Drip plate sketch..........................................................................................................23

List of TablesTable 1: Responses to Scenario.......................................................................................................5Table 2: Price Willing to Pay for Product.......................................................................................6Table 3: Concept Generation Matrix for the attachment to the microwave..................................14Table 4: Concept Generation Matrix for the Utensil.....................................................................14


AbstractThis paper presents The Grip Clip: a Method of Holding a Utensil in a Quasi-Universal Fashion. The paper presents competitive products, design requirements, concept generation, concept selection via a Pugh matrix and concept selection matrices, prototype design, evaluation, discussion, limitation, and future work. Initial prototype testing demonstrates a reduction in the surface area of mess by 50% compared to placing a spoon on a counter. Limitations include inability to suction to porous materials and use of timing with a think aloud method. Overall, the Grip Clip presents itself as a viable product endeavor.


Chapter 1: IntroductionThe Grip Clip is a device designed to hold a single utensil and can be attached to almost any surface location. This product allows a utensil to be easily placed, keeps the utensil from getting bacteria on it, and the counter from getting dirty. After using a utensil to mix up food that will be put in the microwave, what does one do with the utensil to avoid getting the counter dirty or having to hold it? This product seeks to answer that question.

This product can be applicable to other situations such as keeping a spoon by the coffee maker, or a knife for buttering toast. This product targets the everyday silverware/flatware one uses. There are currently a number of competing products, but the target of these products is larger cooking spoons. Spoon rests are widely available. The purpose of the spoon rest is to provide a spot where one can place their cooking utensils when they are dirty to keep the countertops clean. This product can be washed easily, but sits on your countertop taking up space, Figure 1 [11] Similar to the spoon rest, is the upright spoon rest, Figure 2. This product “allows utensils to sit upright while liquids drain in the removable ceramic bowl, making cleanup easy” [4]. The company Joseph Joseph developed a line of kitchen tools where a rest is built in, never letting the cooking portion of the utensil touch the counter top. This product was “designed to improve hygiene and minimize the mess made by placing utensils onto kitchen surfaces during use” [7]. Another product designed to hold a cooking spoon is the Pot Clip Ladle Spoon Holder, Figure 4. The product clips onto a cooking pot and then has a slot for the cooking spoon to fit into when not being used to stir [9].

Figure 1: Rooster Spoon Rest in Red [11]

Figure 2: Euro Spoon Rest with Ceramic Dish [4]

Figure 3 Joseph Joseph Elevate™ Kitchen Tools [7]

Figure 4: Pot Clip Ladle Spoon Holder [9]


Chapter 2: RequirementsAn online survey was created to understand microwaving habits and gain insight into the team’s product idea. A copy of the survey is located in Appendix B and the survey results in Appendix C. The survey was completed by 33 people. Of the participants 20 were female and 13 were male. Ages under 25 made up the biggest portion comprising 28 of the 33 participants. Four participants were between the ages of 26 and 50, and one participant was over the age of 50.

The survey contained the following scenario: Imagine you are heating up chili from the night before. You use a spoon to scoop the chili into a bowl to heat up. You place the bowl in the microwave for three minutes. What do you do with the spoon? The respondents were given options to choose from as well as say another option. The responses and respective number of participants choosing that response are shown in Table 1. The most popular response was placing the spoon on the counter.

Table 1: Responses to Scenario

# of Participants Spoon Activity

5 Hold the spoon the entire time

14 Place the spoon on the counter

6 Pace the spoon on a spoon holder

2 Put on napkin/towel

2 Lick spoon and place on the counter

Of the 14 people saying they place the spoon on the counter, after hearing their kitchen counters are dirtier than their toilet seats, only one person said they would continue placing their spoon on the counter.

Another survey question asked participants to rate how important the four different attributes were to the product. The averages and standard deviations for cleanability, stability, ease of use, and antibacterial are shown in Figure 5. All the averages hovered between five and six. Ease of use has the highest level of importance with 5.9, cleanability was a 5.7, antibacterial was a 5.6, and stability was a 5.4. The standard deviations were all between 2.3 and 2.6, giving no statistical significance between the attributes.


Figure 1: Survey Results for Attribute Importance

The last question asked was how much the participant would be willing to pay for this product. Results can be found in Table 2. Of the 31 participants that answered, 84% would be willing to pay less than $10 for the product.

Table 2: Price Willing to Pay for Product

Amount Willing to Pay # of Participants

<$5 14

<$10 12

<$15 3

<$20 2

Based on the analysis of the survey, requirements were created for the product and can be found in the following chapter.


Chapter 3: Concept Generation Concept generation is the main, and arguably, most important step in the design process. It is extremely important that the best concept is selected because the concept determines the direction of the rest of the process. Nearly 60-80% of the cost in developing a product is committed at this stage [3]. In engineering design, the concept generation phase has been generally considered as an early stage of design in a systematic approach [8].

The main problem was a need for a holding device for the utensil that can be attached to a microwave oven. In order to simplify the problem and to generate concepts, the main problem was divided into sub problems. The two sub problems, or design challenges, were (i) to design a mechanism to hold the product to the microwave and (ii) to design a part to hold the utensil.

After the initial analysis, the team looked for solutions to the sub problems. The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving [12], or TRIZ, was utilized at this stage to come up with solutions. This method of concept generation was used to come up with different contradictions in the design.

The first contradiction that the team identified was “The product should be hard enough to continue holding the utensil, but soft enough to slide in utensils of multiple sizes.” Many ideas were evaluated as a part of this contradiction like material properties, different or varying size holders and adjustable arms which can fit any size utensil. After evaluating the separation in time principle, it was concluded that changing the material property will be the ideal step.

The second contradiction the team came up was “The product should be sturdy enough so that it attaches to the microwave, but easily removable when needing to clean the product.” This contradiction was used to resolve the main problem of what mechanism to use while attaching the product to the microwave. After a number of brainstorming sessions, the team came up with different mechanisms through which the product can be attached. These included Velcro strips, suction cups, twistable parts, and magnetic strips. The principles of separation in time and separation of attached objects were used to come up with these solutions.

The team came up with five different mechanisms to attach the product to a surface. The first concept for attaching the product to the microwave was a suction cup with a clip. This is the type of attachment method that is used for a GPS holder, and is very secure when the clip forms a vacuum with the surface.

Figure 6: Suction cup with a clip [15]


The second concept was Velcro. The product would be outfitted with Velcro, and the product would come with a strip of Velcro to attach to the surface the consumer wants their product attached to.

Figure 7: Velcro strips [13]

The third concept was 3M™ adhesive. 3M™ have Command™ hooks that come with a plastic portion that is adhered to the wall. The hook portion is able to slide and be secure on the plastic potion. This could be applied to the Grip Clip. A plastic portion could be attached to the microwave with a command strip, which would allow the product to be removable. The holding portion would have a complementary part that would easily slide in and out of the part attached to the microwave.

Figure 8: 3M™ adhesive [17]

The fourth concept was a magnet. The holding portion would have a magnet and would come with a magnetic strip that could be attached to the microwave

Figure 9: Double sided magnetic strip [15]

The fifth and final concept was double sided tape. The holding portion of the product could be attached directly to the microwave using a double sided adhesive.


.Figure 10: Double sided tape [16]

The final contradiction that was formulated was that “The product needs to keep the food from spilling to the countertop but needs to be cleaned easily.” This contradiction was resolved by coming up with various mechanisms such as an umbrella cup at the top thereby collecting the drip on to the upside down umbrella. Another idea was a drip plate which could be removed from the hook and which would be dishwasher safe. A third idea was a hollow conical shape that would take in all the drip from the utensil. After discussing all these ideas, the drip plate was considered the ideal option because of its ease in cleaning and the ease in manufacturing.

From the concept generation phase, the team came up with seven potential design solutions for the holding mechanism. The first idea, shown in Figure 11, was to use a lip mechanism like that of an artificial heart valve. An artificial heart valve has leaflets that open or move upwards when blood exerts a force on the valve. In this case, the utensil slides through the product because of the elastic nature of the silicone material. The cuts in the material would allow for different sizes. The material would be strong enough to hold the utensil stationary, but flexible enough to easily get the utensil in and out. Silicone was selected for its antibacterial properties.

Figure 11: Concept 1: Design with a lip Mechanism

The second concept was to prototype a simple rod mechanism through which the utensil can be slid through and kept idle by having the rim of the spoon resting on the attachment. The prototype could be made with Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plastic or metal.

Figure 12: Concept 2: Design with a rod like mechanism


The third concept was a clip in latch design, Figure 13 below. In this concept, the product would consist of a hinge joint. The utensil would be placed in the middle and the two sides would come together and snap in order to hold it. Depending on the material in the inside of the product, the utensil might rest the edge on the top of the product, or just be held by the handle. The same kind of materials can be used in this case as well, which includes ABS or stainless steel.

Figure 13: Concept 3: Design with a hinge joint

The fourth concept was to have the spoon held by an adjustable slot. The advantage with this design is that it can be used to hold any utensil of different sizes. The slot can be moved in a direction perpendicular to the utensil so that it can hold it firmly.

Figure 14: Concept 4: Design with an adjustable slot

The fifth concept utilizes a flexible wire in a shape of circle which can be used to hold the utensil tight to the holder. The wire can change its diameter by simply pulling the extensions which can be used to hold the utensil of any shape or size. The materials used in this case would be a rubber coated wire.

Figure 15: Concept 5: Design with a flexible wire

The sixth concept was the idea of a “V” shaped mechanism to hold the utensil in place. A silicon material would then be used within the inside of the “V” shaped mechanism to prevent the utensil from sliding. This design allows for the user to easily insert and remove the utensil from the device.


Figure 16: Concept 6: Design with a V like mechanism

The seventh concept utilizes a circular curtain ring with considerable thickness with a small opening at one end. The material used in this case can be stainless steel or ABS plastic. When a utensil is slid inside, a force is applied on the ring by the utensil and the modulus of elasticity of the material allows the ring to extend. This allows the utensil to slide inside and contract once the force or pressure is taken off the system or ring. The ring diameter can be suitably selected to hold different sizes and shapes and to hold the utensil while not allowing the utensil to fall on the ground.

Figure 17: Concept 7: Design with a circular ring


Chapter 4: Concept SelectionWhen choosing a concept, it is important to compare the designs that were initially generated and choose the most viable option. Using a matrix diagram allows the designs to be compared to each other and to comparatively evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages with each design. It also allows the users to produce hybrid candidates by taking in one or more features from other designs.

The Pugh Matrix provides a simple approach to taking these multiple factors into account when reaching a decision [2]. Fundamentally, it can be used where there needs to be a decision taken against a large number of alternative designs.

In simplistic terms, it compares a number of criteria against the designs that were developed. In a basic Pugh Matrix, one design is considered to be the baseline design and the other designs are compared against the baseline design to all of the criteria. The score for all the criteria in the baseline design is given as zero. The other designs are compared according to a set of rules. If the design is:

● Better than the baseline design in a particular criteria, it is given a ‘+’ in the corresponding cell.

● Worse than the baseline design in a particular criteria, it is given a ‘-’ in the corresponding cell

● The same as that of a baseline design, a ‘0’ is entered in the corresponding cell.

The overall evaluation is made by adding the plusses and minuses for each design concept. The concept with the highest total would be selected as the final design. In the case of a tie, the designs are again evaluated with adding more criteria or changing designs till a winner is clearly selected

The team finalized seven different designs from the concept generation phase for holding the utensil. The next phase in the concept selection matrix was to come up with criteria that should be evaluated for each and every design the team chose.

Two concept selection matrices were used: (i) a mechanism to attach the design to the microwave and (ii) a mechanism to keep the utensil in place. The first concept selection matrix covered how to attach the product to the microwave. The team came up with four different methods which include a suction back with clip, a Velcro strip, a 3M™ adhesive tape, and magnetic tape. A comparative evaluation was done on all four concepts. The criteria chosen were:

1. Easy to attach2. Easy to remove3. Stable to hold4. Manufacturing cost5. Easily attachable to all surfaces


6. Ability to stay clean The first concept generation matrix used double sided tape as the baseline design, as shown in Table 3. The total sum of all the plusses and minuses were added and the designs were evaluated based on this value. It was found that the suction back with a clip was the winner followed by a tie for Velcro, 3M™ [17] adhesive and the magnetic strip. Based on the results obtained, the suction back with clip was taken as the concept to attach the product to the microwave.

Table 3: Concept Generation Matrix for the attachment to the microwave

The second concept selection matrix was used for finding the best method to hold the utensil in place, Table 4, below. Nine criteria were used to evaluate each design. A slide in ring where the spoon can rest was taken as the baseline design for this matrix. A comparative evaluation was done on all the other seven designs with the baseline design. The criteria chosen included:

1. Hold at least one utensil2. Easy to clean3. Manufacturing cost4. Stability in use5. Being Universal6. Easy to put in the utensil7. Easy to take the utensil out8. Ease of attaching the concept to the microwave9. Ability to use with one hand

Concept 6, the design with the clip attachment, was the most advantageous concept.

Table 4: Concept Generation Matrix for the Utensil

At the conclusion of the concept generation phase, the design chosen was the suction with a clip holding attachment. This design proved to have the best scores for the criteria chosen, and was the one the team would move forward with.


Chapter 5: DesignAfter selecting the concept that best met the desired attributes for the Grip Clip, the prototype was created. The suction cup with a clip was the best option for attaching and securing the Grip Clip to a desired surface. A GPS holder was used for the suction cup with a clip. To make the device usable for the prototype design, the top section of the GPS holder was removed with a saw and can be seen in Figure 18 below.

Figure 18: Revised GPS Holder

Next, the mechanism to hold up the utensil itself was created. A “V” shaped mechanism was created out of Sugru and formed to the desired “V” like shape. Sugru is made from patented silicone technology and acts as a moldable glue that when formed into a desired shape dries into a rubber like material [5]. The intent of this mechanism was that the friction of the silicone material would hold the utensil in place as it was pushed back. It was created into a “V” so that utensils of different widths could be held up. Variations of this “V” like mechanism can be seen in Figures 19 and 20 below. The first iteration, as seen in Figure 19 was created so that the utensil could be slid back into the narrowest part of the shape and be held up by friction. Unfortunately, as the Sugru dried, it became slippery, causing the utensil to fall from its grip. The second iteration, as seen in Figure 20, was made with more of a circular center to allow the utensil to be held up at its widest point. This design worked, however, it could only be utilized by certain utensils.

The “V” shaped sugru was not tight enough or strong enough on its own to hold a utensil in place. The team then decided to use more of a clip “V” like mechanism so that there would be more pressure holding the spoon up and more support would be provided. It was decided that a clothespin would be the best option, because it was readily available, easy to use, and conferred the desired tensile properties. The back ends of the clothespin were cut off to allow it to fit on the

Figure 29: Iteration 1 of Sugru “V” Mechanism

Figure 20: Iteration 2 of Sugru “V” Mechanism


side of GPS holder. Each wooden piece of the clothespin was then covered with Sugru in order for the silicone material to allow for better cleanability. The Sugru created a pinch point on the clip, as seen in Figure 21 below, to easily open the clip if necessary. Sugru was also used to attach the clothes pin to the GPS holder. The final version of the prototype can be seen in Figures 21, 22, and 23 below.

Figure 21: Final Prototype Figure 23: Final Prototype attached to glass surface

Figure 22: Final Prototype holding utensil


Chapter 6: Evaluation Methods After the prototype was created, twenty different participants were tested using the prototype. The participants were tested using a think aloud method, and each participant was given the same scenario. The scenario was, “You are heating up chili. You use a spoon to mix your chili half way through the heating process. You place the bowl in the microwave for three minutes. What do you do with the spoon?” After the scenario was given, the team measured the time it took for the participant to walk them through how they completed the scenario. The three minutes for microwaving were subtracted from the total time. After they were given time to explain their answer, the participants were given the prototype and told that the device was created to attach to the microwave so that it could hold up a spoon, fork, or knife. The participants were then told that they would be running through the same scenario as mentioned above where they would be heating up chili in the microwave, except this time using the prototype to hold the spoon. Each participant was then asked to walk the team through the process as they performed it while they were being timed. Again the three minutes for microwaving were subtracted from this total time. After each participant was done running through each scenario, the surface area of mess was calculated. The surface area of mess was measured at the widest part using a hand ruler and rounding to the nearest tenth of a centimeter. This value was then squared.

While the participant ran through the scenario, the team kept track of the participants’ scores, which started at zero, a perfect score. If the product was placed upside down or the participant could not stick to the surface, one point was added. If the utensil was placed upside down in the device, two points were added. If the product failed to stick to and stay on the surface, five points were added. If there was a product defect (i.e. product lost suction or broke), ten points were added. When the participant finished testing, all points were totaled. These method can be seen in Appendix D: Product Testing Instructional Guide. Following testing, each participant was then asked to fill out a Post-Study Questionnaire which can be found in Appendix E, with results in Appendix F. For the first seven participants, a pilot study was performed without timing, surface area of mess, or an error count. This was done, so initial usability testing could be completed to confirm the validity of the prototype.


Chapter 7: Evaluation Results Twenty participants were used to test the product. For the surface area of the mess, the time, and the frequency of errors, only thirteen people were recorded, but all twenty answered the post study questionnaire in Appendix E.

The area of the mess created was measured and the averages and standard deviations are shown in Figure 24. There was less mess created with the use of the prototype than the control. The average mess was 3.1 square centimeters with standard deviation 0.6 for the control and 1.43 square centimeters with a standard deviation of 1.22 for the prototype. Also in the control, the spoon was placed on the counter, both creating the mess and exposing the spoon to the bacteria on the counter. Using the prototype the spoon never touched a surface leaving the spoon bacteria free. The mess came from dripping down onto the surface below the spoon.

Figure 24: Surface area of mess of control and prototype

The time taken to complete the think aloud technique is shown in Figure 25. This time was found by taking the overall time and subtracting the microwave time of three minutes. The time for both the control and the prototype can be seen for each participant. The average time taken for both the control and prototype were very similar as shown in Figure 26. The average time for the control was 44.4 seconds with a standard deviation of 8.87 seconds and the average time for the prototype was 43.8 seconds with a standard deviation of 17.9 seconds.


Figure 35: Time comparisons between control and prototype

Figure 46: Time to complete for control and prototype

While the participant was using the prototype, the errors they made were noted. The frequency of each error is shown in Figure 27. The most common errors were attaching the product upside down and inserting the utensil upside down.

Figure 57: Error frequencies when using the product


Each error was assigned a value based on how critical the error was and the values are shown in Appendix F. Figure 28, below, shows the error scores for each participant. The worst score was a nine. There were five participants who did not make any errors when using the product.

Figure 68: Error scores for each participant

Overall, 20 people were introduced to the product and tested using it out. Of the twenty people 11 were female and nine were male, 14 participants were under 25, four were between 26 and 50, and two were between 51 and 75. The microwave was used daily by 17 of the participants, with two using it 3-4 times per week, and one not using it very often. When faced with the task of heating up chili, ten of the participants said they would place their spoon on the counter. Of these ten participants, five said they would not do this after learning how much bacteria was present on the counter top. Of the other ten participants, two said they would hold the spoon, three used a spoon holder, and five said they would put it on a container.

Each participant was asked to rank four attributes of the product on a 1-10 scale. Cleanliness was evaluated with 1 being very dirty and 10 being perfectly clean. Stability was evaluated with 1 being very unstable and 10 being very stable. Intuitiveness was evaluated with 1 being not at all intuitive and 10 being very intuitive. Ease of use was evaluated with 1 being very difficult and 10 being very easy. The averages and standard deviations for each attribute can be seen in Figure 29. Ease of use was slightly higher with an average of 8.7, while intuitiveness was 8.3, cleanliness was 8.2, and stability was 8.1.

Figure 79: Attribute ratings for the product


When asked about what could be improved about the product, five participants wanted something to catch the drips, one participant wanted more colors, and one participant wanted a more streamlined design. Fourteen of the participants said they would buy the product. The prices they would be willing to pay for it ranged from $2 to $40. Five participants said $5 or less, three said $10 or less, two said $15, one said $30, and one said $40.


Chapter 8: Discussion and ConclusionsThe prototype was able to reduce the (approximate) surface area of mess by 50%, however there was high variability in the measured values for the prototype. The authors would like to stress again the approximate nature of the surface area. This may be caused by the innate lack of accuracy when measuring approximate surface area. The surface area was measured with a hand ruler to the nearest tenth of a centimeter and then squared. Without completing an agar plate test to count the number of bacteria and using equation (1), below, it is extremely difficult and outside of the scope of this project to accurately count bacteria. The team believes that the results are still indicative of a large decrease in surface area mess, and therefore bacteria count. More importantly, the Grip Clip succeeds in keeping the utensil off of the kitchen counter, drastically reducing the likelihood of bacteria transfer.

The formula for determining the number of bacteria per square centimeter [6] is given as:

Bacteria per sq . cm= ( plate count ) (2 ) (10 )sq .cm∈cylinder

(1)

With the limitation that porous and irregular surfaces are not suitable for sealing. According to Dr. Adolph Gehrmann’s article in the American Journal of Public Health, this equation is suitable in ‘making counts from plates and other utensils in the household’ [6]. According to medical daily [1], sponges have the highest bacteria count in the house, with the average sponge holding ‘upward of 10 million bacteria per square inch, around a quarter of a million times more than your average toilet seat’ [1]. That is a reduction in bacteria from ~30 million bacteria down to ~15 million bacteria on average in our prototype testing.

The Grip Clip prototype saw a number of errors performed when being used. The most common were attaching the Grip Clip upside down and inserting the utensil upside down. Neither of these errors are drastic. The Grip Clip was designed to be placed upright or upside down and still be fully functional. With this iteration of the product, inserting the utensil upside down may be a lack of intuitive feedback on how the product is to be used and could lead to food being spilled on the Grip Clip.

The future work seeks to address these issues. Based on user feedback, the next iteration of the Grip Clip will include a removable drip plate to further reduce, and hopefully negate entirely, any mess from dripping off of the utensil. An example of what this drip plate may look like is seen in Figure 30 on the following page. With Sugru, it is easy to create various colors for the product and any full scale manufactured silicone would also be available in various colors. With respect to a more streamlined design, the final product would be created from a mold and would not be as variable as the prototype.


Figure 30: Drip plate sketch

Based on discussion during the usability testing, the team found that the product was not always intuitive to use and some feedback from the testers included asking for instructions on how to use the product. A simple, thin, cardboard, cutout with an image of the product being properly used could be included in the package. The primary packaging could easily be mass manufactured using vacuum forming with high impact polystyrene sheeting (HIPS), a thermoplastic that when heated can be placed around a wooden mold of the Grip Clip (with an allotted three degree draft angle) and retain its shape.

The cost of producing the prototype was approximately $8.25. Without considering the cost of retooling or purchase of machines, it is expected to cost a small fraction of this; easily underneath the $5 that 100% of our participants (who were willing to buy the product) would be willing to pay for the final product.

One limitation the Grip Clip has is its inability to suction to porous material (e.g. concrete). This is due to the suction cup being unable to create a vacuum. The product is primarily designed for kitchen use, more specifically for attaching to a microwave. That being said, the Grip Clip is capable of holding a plethora of items of similar thickness as typical flatware/silverware. One example is a pencil/pen holder for a lab station. The Grip Clip’s suction cup allows it to suction to most, if not all, non-porous, flat surfaces such as a plastic microwave door, a chalkboard, glass windows, etc.

An additional limitation brought up in the team’s week 12 application exercise is that the think aloud method implemented with timing participants may not work out properly. This is because the think aloud method explicitly makes participants stop, think, and describe what they are doing and will not provide accurate readings of how long it takes for participants to use the product. The effectiveness of measuring time as a dependent variable could be proven or contested with an ANCOVA analysis. This analysis would evaluate the dependent variable time across a number of independent variables while controlling the effects of the covariates, in this case age, gender, error score, and surface area of mess. This analysis was not completed in time for the report. There is no plans to alter the suction cup design at this point.

In conclusion, the Grip Clip provides a practical, inexpensive, reasonably priced, and a useful way to hold a utensil while microwaving.


Appendix A: References[1].7 Items That Are Home To More Germs Than A Toilet Seat. (29 July 2014). Retrieved 8

December 2015, from http://www.medicaldaily.com/wash-your-hands-7-household-items-hold-more-germs-toilet-seat-295346

[2].Burge, S. (n.d.). The Systems Engineering Tool Box. Retrieved 7 December 2015, from http://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/uploaded/documents/Pugh-Matrix-v1.1\

[3].Duffy, A. H. B., Andreasen, M. M., Maccallum, K. J., and Reijers, L. N. (1993). “Design coordination for concurrent engineering.” Journal of Engineering Design, 4, pp. 251-261.

[4].Euro Spoon Rest with Ceramic Dish. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 November 2015 from http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/1/1/55135-spectrum-euro-spoon-rest-ceramic-dish.html

[5].FIX THAT THING. (2015). Retrieved 7 December 2015, from https://sugru.com[6].Gehrmann, A., (1913). “The Counting of Bacteria on Surfaces.” The American Journal of

Public Health, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp. 68-70.

[7].Joseph Joseph Elevate™ Kitchen Tools. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 November 2015, from http://www.josephjoseph.com/en-us/product/elevate-kitchen-tools

[8].Pahl, G., Beitz, W., (1995. “Engineering Design: Systematic Approach. Spring, Berlin.

[9].Pot Clip Ladle Spoon Holder. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 November 2015, from http://www.lightinthebox.com/pot-clip-ladle-spoon-holder-random-color_p618911.html

[10]. Pugh Matrix. (n.d.). Retrieved 7 December 2015, from http://www.whatissixsigma.net/pugh-matrix/

[11]. Rooster Spoon Rest in Red. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 November 2015, from http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/1/1/323466-home-basics-rooster-spoon-rest-red.html

[12]. What Is TRIZ? (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2015, from http://www.triz-journal.com/triz-what-is-triz/

[13]. Velcro & Tupperware. (2013, February 26). Retrieved December 9, 2015, from http://yellowmobile.net/2013/02/26/velcro-tupperware/

[14]. Magnetic tape- adhesive backed. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2015, from http://embossingtapesupplies.com.au/magnetic-tape-adhesive-backed-0-9mm-thick.html

[15]. Garmin nuvi 760 Review (GPSmagazine.com). (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2015, from http://www.gpsmagazine.com/2007/10/garmin_nuvi_760_review.php#.VmeEPrgrLRZ

[16]. Double sided tape. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2015, from http://www.vetco.net/catalog/images/3M-114DC.jpg

[17]. 3M 17081 Command™ Designer Hooks. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2015, from http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-18765/3M-Office-Tape/3M-17081-Command-Designer-Hooks?pricode=WY476&gadtype=pla&id=S-18765&gclid=CLre9pC-z8kCFQkxaQodKV0NUg&gclsrc=aw.ds

http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-18765/3M-Office-Tape/3M-17081-Command-Designer-Hooks?pricode=WY476&gadtype=pla&id=S-18765&gclid=CLre9pC-z8kCFQkxaQodKV0NUg&gclsrc=aw.ds



http://www.vetco.net/catalog/images/3M-114DC.jpg

http://www.gpsmagazine.com/2007/10/garmin_nuvi_760_review.php%23.VmeEPrgrLRZ%20

http://embossingtapesupplies.com.au/magnetic-tape-adhesive-backed-0-9mm-thick.html%20

http://yellowmobile.net/2013/02/26/velcro-tupperware/%20

http://www.triz-journal.com/triz-what-is-triz/%20

http://www.triz-journal.com/triz-what-is-triz/%20

http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/1/1/323466-home-basics-rooster-spoon-rest-red.html

http://www.lightinthebox.com/pot-clip-ladle-spoon-holder-random-color_p618911.html

http://www.josephjoseph.com/en-us/product/elevate-kitchen-tools

https://sugru.com/

http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/1/1/55135-spectrum-euro-spoon-rest-ceramic-dish.html

http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/1/1/55135-spectrum-euro-spoon-rest-ceramic-dish.html

http://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/uploaded/documents/Pugh-Matrix-v1.1%5C

http://www.medicaldaily.com/wash-your-hands-7-household-items-hold-more-germs-toilet-seat-295346

http://www.medicaldaily.com/wash-your-hands-7-household-items-hold-more-germs-toilet-seat-295346


Appendix B: Microwaving Habits Survey1. What is your age?2. What is your gender3. Imagine you make are heating up chili from the night before. You use a spoon to scoop

the chili into a bowl to heat up. You place the bowl in the microwave for three minutes. What do you do with the spoon?

a. Hold the spoon the entire timeb. Place the spoon on the counterc. Place the spoon on a spoon holderd. Place the spoon in the sink or dishwasher and use a new onee. Other. Please specify.

4. Do you currently use anything to hold your dirty kitchen utensils? If yes, please list the items you use.

5. Did you know your kitchen is dirtier than your toilet seat? Your kitchen sink, countertops, and sponges all contribute to the amount of bacteria in the kitchen. Does this make you rethink what you do with your spoon?

6. Our group is inventing a product to hold your silverware while you microwave your food. The idea is to have a product that will attach to your microwave that will hold your fork, spoon, or knife while you microwave your product. What are your initial thoughts about this product?

7. How important are the following qualities to the success of the product for you? (All on scale 1-10)i. Ease of cleaning productii. Stability - How secure the utensil is in the productiii. Ease of use - How easy is it to place the utensil in the productiv. Antibacterial - How clean the product remains while in use

8. How much would you be willing to pay for this product? Please specify.


Appendix C: Microwaving Habits Results**Full results in attached Excel sheet**


Appendix D: Product Testing Instructional Guide

Think-aloud protocol usability testingProvide participants with scenario below and have them think aloud their method.

Imagine you are heating up chili. You use a spoon to mix your chili half way through the heating process. You place the bowl in the microwave for three minutes. What do you do with the spoon?

Keep track of time to complete (subtract microwave time). **If no mention of what they do with their utensil, prompt them with “What do you do with your utensil while your chili is being heated?**

Good. Now here is a new product my team developed. *Hand them product* Let’s run through that same scenario again, but now with this product. We will actually be making chili this time. As a reminder, you want to heat up chili in the microwave from the night before and have this product. Walk me through what your process is as you do it.Keep track of time to complete (subtract microwave time). Keep track of number of errors using product

Placed product upside down: 1Could not stick product to surface: 1Product failed to stick to stay on surface: 5Product defect (i.e. product lost suction; product broke): 10Utensil placed upside down: 2Total score:

Measure surface area of mess on counter (if applicable)

**If no mention of what they do with their utensil, prompt them with “What do you do with your utensil while your chili is being heated**


Appendix E: Post-Study Questionnaire1. Age:2. Gender:3. How often do you use a microwave?4. Do you currently use anything to hold your dirty kitchen utensils? If yes, please list the

items you use.

5. Did you know your kitchen is dirtier than your toilet seat? Your kitchen sink, countertops, and sponges all contribute to the amount of bacteria in the kitchen. Does this make you rethink what you do with your spoon?

6. On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is as dirty as without the product and 10 is perfectly clean, how clean did you think the product remained while in use?

7. On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is not at all stable and 10 is perfectly stable, how stable did you think the product was (how secure the utensil is in the product)?

8. On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is not at all intuitive and 10 is perfectly intuitive, how intuitive did you think the product was to use?

9. On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is very difficult and 10 is very easy, how easy or difficult was the product to use?

10. What did you like, if anything, about the product?11. What would you change, if anything, about the product?12. Would you buy this product? If so, how much would you be willing to pay?


Appendix F: Post Study Results**Full results in attached Excel sheet**


Appendix G: Intellectual Property Disclosure and RecordTitle of Invention: A Method of Holding a Utensil in a Universal Fashion

Brief Summary:The product is a utensil holder that can be attached to a location such as a microwave and can hold a single fork, spoon, or knife. This product allows a utensil to be easily placed, keeps the utensil from getting bacteria on it, and the counter from getting dirty. After using a utensil to mix up food that will be put in the microwave, what does one do with the utensil to avoid getting the counter dirty or having to hold it? This product can be applicable to other situations such as keeping a spoon by the coffee maker, or a knife for buttering toast. This is a novel product because there is no device to hold to silverware that can be attached to any surface. This device is easily attachable and removable, and can be attached in any orientation. This device prevents the utensil from touching any surface while being stored.

Detailed description of invention:Final Report, See Body of this paper

Date of Conception:October 28, 2015Prior Art References:2,742,771 | 24 April 19562,605,624 | 5 August 1952Spoon HolderJoseph Joseph Elevate Kitchen toolsVertical Spoon HolderGPS suction cupClothespinSugruPot Clip Ladle Spoon Holder

the grip cilp

Documents