In Praxis, we were asked to create a design brief elaborating upon a Splarktz – daily annoyance - we found in our lives. Later we were assigned another group’s design briefs. My group and I were asked to create an aftermarket solution to extract the last few servings of lotion/soap in pump dispenser bottles.
 
To mitigate the challenge of adapting to all bottles, we reframed the Splarktz to just 12-21 oz bottles. It narrowed our stakeholders, but clearly defined the requirements. As we now work with products of similar sizes and other properties (viscosity, density etc), delineating requirements was efficient and quick.
 
Using divergence techniques given to us, we brainstormed and resolved 8 solutions. Finding none of them satisfactory, we reframed the brief to allow some certainty in our target product. This allowed us to open the bottle, metaphorically and physically, as we brainstormed newer solutions that involved opening the bottle. The process of brainstorming, even with the aid of techniques, was long. We spent much more time on generating, comparing, and agreeing on ideas than we did in the actual write up. This extended consultation ensures that we have covered most of the foundation ie stakeholders, requirements, constraints, etc. As we want to avoid an overhaul later on.
 
During the preliminary design stage, my team generated varied ideas. One used a personal safety device for breaking car windows as a means of puncturing the lotion bottle. Another used flaps inspired by veins in the human body to separate soap. Our chosen idea used the common syringe in combination with a tube to extract the lotion. The design called for a mechanism to rotate the tube/syringe. This called for something that translates lateral motion into rotational motion. I remembered back home in China I had seen mops that employed rotation to dry; it did this through a plunging motion of the shaft. Though I don’t know what the exact mechanism was, I guessed that it must have employed some sort of track, so we implemented a track inside the syringe to provide rotation. Another problem we encounterd was making a grip that doesn't rotate with the syringe, again I borrowed from anoter sector and suggested we use ball bearings, as it allowed a stationary grip attached to a rotating syringe.
 
The spiral track was a difficult mechanism to describe, even with pictures. So, to help my teammates understand, I created a low-fidelity prototype using a syringe, a ball bearing, and a paperclip (see image). Even then, some observers were still confused as to how the syringe would provide suction, as it was cut open to provide the track. In response I created a 3D rendering and animated it to demonstrate how we envisioned the mechanism to work in reality (see animation).
 
The animation above aided our design critique. Also, we reconsidered each design concept using engineering tools such as Pugh charts and pair-wise comparison matrices. This time, we remembered to iterate, and we discovered some in consistencies in our rankings. We carefully considered the reasoning and concluded that our chosen design was still superior. The arguments we used to justify to ourselves the decision also helped us answer questions during our design critique.