Evaluation

Prototype Evaluation

To evaluate the prototype the requirements list was used. Each aspect mentioned in the list was graded on a scale from 1-5 with 1 being the lowest level of satisfying the requirement and 5 the highest. The requirements were subdivided into functional, use and safety, and aesthetics. This grading of the prototype can better determine points of improvement and how to achieve this.

Functional Requirements	Grading 1-5 (1 – not satisfied, 3 – partially satisfied, 5 – fully satisfied)	Explanation/Points of improvement
Should securely position food.	4	Food is mostly securely positioned with spikes (meat, fruit and vegetables). Bread is secured in 2 directions.
Should not be thicker than 100mm.	5	Board is 15mm thick. Could be made thinner with a different material.
Should be multifunctional (be used for different types of food)	4	Can be used for multiple types of food. May not be able to secure very small food items.
Should fit within a 570mm x 10000mm.	5	Board is 580mm x 350mm. Fits well within dimensions and large size is supported by multifunctionality.
Securing food should not disrupt use.	4	Spikes do not generally disrupt cutting. Walls do not disrupt putting spread on bread.

Use and Safety Requirements	Grading 1-5 (1 – not satisfied, 3 – partially satisfied, 5 – fully satisfied)	Explanation/Points of improvement
Should be dishwasher safe.	1	Prototype is made of wood and cannot be put into the dishwasher. Was made out of wood to reduce cost and is easier to modify during ideation and development phases.
Should not be heavier than 1.5kg/should not strain his shoulder.	4	Wood material is not intended to be the final material choice. Is heavier than if it were made of plastic.
Should be intuitive to use.	4	Was not tested with the final prototype. Use and structure is similar to the first prototype which was deemed as intuitive. Different colours are also assumed to increase the level of intuitive use.
Material should be food safe(non-toxic).	1	Paint used was not food safe.
Should not have any sharp edges or corners.	4	Most corners and edges were rounded. Spikes have casing to reduce risk of injury.
Material should not react with food acids and water	3	Material will not react with food. However, plywood can be damaged by water during cleaning.
Should be hygienic.	3	Spikes are intended for both meat and vegetables. Separating these would increase hygiene. Spikes can be removed separately for easier cleaning.

Aesthetic Requirements

Grading 1-5

(1 – not satisfied, 3 – partially satisfied, 5 – fully satisfied)

Explanation/Points of improvement

Should fit to the aesthetics of the co-designer.

Mostly fits to the style collage that was made with the co-designer.

Analysis of Results

The prototype scores highly on the functional and aesthetic requirements. All of these points scored a 4 or 5. There is little improvement needed in this area but possible improvements could be made by further refining or adding more requirements, particularly those based on the type of material and its properties. These can be used for the final product. The prototype scored lowly for the use and safety requirements, averaging at 2.9. This was largely due to the material (plywood) and paint (spray paint) used. The material was chosen due to availability and limit of resources. It was understood before making the prototype that these aspects may not score highly but can be useful for the evaluation and for the final design. For the final design a plastic would be highly desirable to satisfy the food safety, and cleaning requirements. The level of intuition was assumed to be high due to the co-design session done with the first prototype. The lower score on hygiene was caused due to a miscommunication. For the final design the size of the removable plate would be increased and an additional set of 3 spikes added separately from the rest to be used for fruit and vegetables. These additional spikes would be placed on the left side of the removable plate. This is done to reduce risk of the user injuring themselves when cutting meat. The spikes are out of the way of the user who is right-handed.

Project Evaluation

The overall project was done with a high level of satisfaction amongst group members. This was due to good communication between group members who felt comfortable with each other from the beginning. The organisation of the group was largely well done with every member eager to contribute. The willingness and eagerness of the co-designer was infectious and gave a great boost to the overall result of the project. There was constant communication between the group and co-designer. Despite a bit of difficulty in verbal communication there was great understanding between each other. The co-designer strongly insisted on creating a product to open his hand and the group was on track for the beginning of the project. The group then ‘hit a wall’ with ideas when it was suggested to change the concept direction due to it being too medical. This put the group behind as a lot of work had to be redone. With the help of the co-designer and tutor the group was quickly able to catch up on lost time. During this catch-up period the group experienced a bit of miscommunication with the prototype but quickly banded together to complete the project. Although group members were occasionally late to meetings the work was done with great quality and tasks divided equally. Each group member was able to express their strengths and worked well together. Although the project did not end up with the co-designer’s initial wish, they were satisfied with the chosen direction and were excited to see it develop and come closer to reality.

SPECIAL THANKS TO

Our co-designer
Our tutor (Armağan Karahanoğlu)
And all the project coordinators and TAs