Apd11 T10 Finalreport

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
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
Analytical Product Design Page | 1

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 Target Value
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 Target Value/Range
value
Maintain Functionality No. of functions (clicks, scroll At least all functions of a regular
etc.) mouse (Clicks and scroll)
Weight Grams < 150gms
Interface USB connectivity (Version 1.0 USB 1.0 compatible with 2.0
or 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.
High Cost
Trackball Mouse Evoluent Mouse
Joystick Vertical Mouse
Mouse
Average Outstanding
Comfort Comfort
Standard Mouse
Target position
Gel Pads
Low Cost
Figure 1.9: Product Positioning

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.

Mouse
Base
Moveable
Button
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.
Gel pad applied

to button
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.

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

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.
Fhand mass
Fhand
Fmouse mass = mg
30
h
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

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.
50 50
Number of Responses
Number of Responses
40 40
30 30
20 20
y = -0.0078x2 + 1.27x - 11
10 10
y = -0.2952x2 + 1.6667x + 31.629
0 0
-8 -4 0 4 8 40 80 120 160
Hump Location (mm from center) Mass (g)
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:

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.

Support Structure
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

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
2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
Quantity
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Selling Price
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

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.
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
Figure 5.2: Bicura Cost Estimates

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.
600,000 600,000
500,000 500,000
Quantity
Quantity
400,000 400,000
300,000 300,000
200,000 200,000
100,000
100,000
-
-
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
0 50 100 150 200
Hump Location
Weight (g)
Figure 5.3: Hump Location Survey Results Figure 5.4: Weight Survey Results
(mm from center)
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

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.
BICURA Profit Model

$40
$35
$30
Value (Millions)
$25 Revenue
$20 Costs
$15 Profit
$10
$5
$0
$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00
Selling Price
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

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.
Profitability Investment
Profit
$1,500,000 Net Present Value
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
-$500,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
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  50g  Outstanding  Wireless
 $30  100g  Above Average  Corded
 $45  150g  Average
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

the mouse), above average was assigned 1, and average was -6. The results of the survey were as
follows:
Price vs. Part-Worth Weight (g) vs. Part-Worth

1.50 1.50
1.00 1.00
0.50 0.50
0.00 0.00
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
-0.50 -0.50
-1.00 -1.00
-1.50 -1.50
Figure 6.2: CBC Survey Price Results Figure 6.3: CBC Survey Weight Results
Comfort vs. Part-Worth

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
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
( )

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

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
1
APPENDIX A1: ASSIGNMENT 2—TEAM PROCESS MODEL
User
Customer survey
Designer Designer Designer/Marketing Team Designer Designer
Brainstorm design alter-
Define project (product) Identify market and ini- Using product goals,
Define customer needs natives and solutions to
goals tial business plan funnel down to 1 design
Market customer needs
Study of existing market:

current products/designs
Designer/Engineer Designer/Engineer/Finance Designer/Engineer/Producer Designer/Test Engineer Designer/Engineer Designer/Producer Customer

Determine specifications Refine design for manu-
Estimate costs and refine Design validation Product validation
of design (CAD drawings, facturability and assem- Iterations of prototype Release for Production
business plan (prototype testing) (customer feedback)
material selection, etc.) bly
2
APPENDIX A2: ASSIGNMENT 2—TEAM ROLES WORKSHEET
3
APPENDIX A3: ASSIGNMENT 2—GANTT CHART
Assignments (as a team) Cy Abdelnour Mohit Mehendale

Testing (as a team) Katie Bevier Curtis Sawdon
ov
ov
ov
ec
ct
c
-O
No
-N
-N
-N
-D
De
31
14
21
28
12
7-
5-
10-Nov
11-Nov
12-Nov
13-Nov
14-Nov
15-Nov
16-Nov
17-Nov
18-Nov
19-Nov
20-Nov
21-Nov
22-Nov
23-Nov
24-Nov
25-Nov
26-Nov
27-Nov
28-Nov
29-Nov
30-Nov
10-Dec
11-Dec
12-Dec
13-Dec
31-Oct
1-Nov
2-Nov
3-Nov
4-Nov
5-Nov
6-Nov
7-Nov
8-Nov
9-Nov
1-Dec
2-Dec
3-Dec
4-Dec
5-Dec
6-Dec
7-Dec
8-Dec
9-Dec
Task
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
4
APPENDIX B1: ASSIGNMENT 3—DESIGN CRITERIA AND USER SCENARIO
WORKSHEET
5
6
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.
7
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.
8
APPENDIX B3: ASSIGNMENT 3—INFORMATION GATHERING
9
10
11
12
13
APPENDIX B4: ASSIGNMENT 3—SURVEY DESIGN AND CONDUCT
Questions Options Responses
Everyday 3
3-4 times per week 7
How often does your grandparent use a 1-2 times per week 5
computer mouse? 1-2 times per month 4
Never 8
Less than 15 minutes 6

15-30 minutes 12
When your grandparent uses their
30-60 minutes 3
computer mouse, for how long do they
usually use the mouse in one sitting? More than 60 minutes 0
Grandparent does not
use computer mouse 6
Thumb roller-ball
stationary mouse 3
Joystick 2
Does your grandparent use a specifically Vertical mouse 1

designed ergonomic mouse? If so, how
would you describe the style? Other style ergonomic
mouse 0
Use regular-style
mouse 14
Do not own mouse 7
Wired
12
Does your grandparent prefer a wireless Wireless 10

or wired mouse? Why?
N/A 3
Don't care 2
14
1 - Very Comfortable
0
2 - Comfortable 5
On a scale from 1-5, how comfortable
3 - Neutral 9
does your grandparent find their current
mouse? 4 - Uncomfortable 7
5 - Very
Uncomfortable 1
Don't know 5
Does your grandparent use a scroll wheel Yes 6

to scroll through pages?
No 21
Does your grandparent ever complain Yes 6

about having pain in their hands or arms
after using the computer for a while? No 21
in the joints of
the hand and
wrist
Wrist
Wrists
If yes, where is the pain located?
top of hand,
fingers
Forearm -
tendons
Wrist.
Where does your grandparent most often

use their computer? Assign 100 points Home 78.14%
among the following locations
representing percentage of time. Work 2.03%
Café/Public Location 7.22%
15
Other(Please Specify) 12.59%
Place Name for other
location In park
1-2 times per week 8

1-2 times per month 10
How often does your grandparent call
friends or family for computer support? A couple of times per
year 4
Never 5
$0-15 0
If you were to purchase a computer $16-30 9
mouse for your grandparent, what is the
most you would be willing to spend? $31-45 8
$46-60 6
$61-75 4
Average Rank
Suppose you were looking to purchase a Price 3.18

computer mouse for your grandparent,
Ergonomic Design 2.25
rank the following attributes in terms of
most important(1) to least important (5) 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
Yes 16
Whether Arthritic Sufferer or Not
No 11
16
APPENDIX B5: ASSIGNMENT 3—QFD MATRIX
17
APPENDIX C1: ASSIGNMENT 4—DESIGN SELECTION MATRIX (PUGH CHART)
Datum Design #1 Design #2 Design #3 Design #4 Design #5

Regular Mouse Glove Reconfigurable Gel Pads Horizontal/Vertical Slide to Click
Computer Mouse Buttons Mouse
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 2 0 --- --- 0 -- -
Manufacturability)
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
18
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 Inputs: Electricity, petroleum NOx, hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, SO2
Outputs: plastics, metals, rubber Output: Power for machinery,
mining, casting
____________________________________________________________________________________
In-house production
Inputs: Raw materials Inputs: Electricity, petroleum NOx, hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, SO2
Outputs: Finished mice Output: Power for machinery
____________________________________________________________________________________
Distribution
Inputs: Packaging Inputs: Petroleum NOx, hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, SO2

Outputs: Packaging waste Output: Transportation
____________________________________________________________________________________
Use:
 operation
Inputs: Batteries, mouse pad, Inputs: Electricity or Chemical waste, NOx, hydro-
packaging chemicals (battery) Carbons, CO2, CO, SO2
Outputs: Packaging waste, used Output: Mouse power
Batteries, used mouse pads
 servicing
Inputs: Components, spare parts Inputs: Electricity NOx, hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, SO2
Outputs: Used parts Output: Serviced mouse
____________________________________________________________________________________
End-of-Life system:
 recovery
Inputs: Used mouse materials Inputs: Electricity, petroleum NOx, hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, SO2
Outputs: Recycled materials Output: Transportation,
Energy to recycle
 disposal
Inputs: Used mouse materials Inputs: Electricity, petroleum NOx, hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, SO2
Outputs: Waste Output: Transportation,
Energy to dispose of waste
19
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
20
APPENDIX C3: ASSIGNMENT 4—DESIGN HEURISTICS SKETCHES
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
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
35
3. Product Development Process Model
User
Customer survey
Designer Designer Designer/Marketing Team Designer Designer
Brainstorm design alter-
Define project (product) Identify market and ini- Using product goals,
Define customer needs natives and solutions to
goals tial business plan funnel down to 1 design
Market customer needs
Study of existing market:

current products/designs
Designer/Engineer Designer/Engineer/Finance Designer/Engineer/Producer Designer/Test Engineer Designer/Engineer Designer/Producer Customer

Determine specifications Refine design for manu-
Estimate costs and refine Design validation Product validation
of design (CAD drawings, facturability and assem- Iterations of prototype Release for Production
business plan (prototype testing) (customer feedback)
material selection, etc.) bly
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, Identification of customer and any design
Company Finances restraints
Brainstorm Alternative Designs Customer Needs/Project Goals Several prototypes
Narrow down to 1 design Design Alternatives/Specs/Needs First prototype

Determine prototype Design Spec/Customer Needs Material Selection e.g. (Plastic/rubber etc.)
specifications
Cost Estimation Material Selection Costs/Specs/DFAM
Design for Costs of tooling, testing, fixtures, DFAM
Manufacturability/Assembly equipment, material, labor, energy
Design Validation DFAM/Iterations Design Validation
Iterations Design Validation Release for Production/Iterations
36
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.
37
APPENDIX E: ASSIGNMENT 5B—ENGINEERING FUNCTIONALITY
Excel Worksheet Screenshot
38
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)
39
APPENDIX G: MARKETING ANALYSIS EXCEL SNAPSHOT
40
APPENDIX H: SIMAPRO RESULTS
Figure F1: Mouse Assembly Snapshot
41
Figure F2: Impacts by Individual Categories
42
43
44
45
46
APPENDIX I: FINAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
User
Designer Designer Designer
Designer
Customer Survey
Come up with Multiple Funnel Down Creation of

Define customer needs Design Ideas a Prototype
to One Design
Study Existing
Products/Designs
Market
Designer/Economist
Designer/Producer
Microeconomic Designer Designer

Designer Marketing
Analysis
Analysis
Material Selection Designer Make Changes Aesthetics Make Final Final Design
to Design Analysis Changes and Prototype
Engineering Sustainabilit
Analysis y Analysis
47

Apd11 T10 Finalreport

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Apd11 T10 Finalreport

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Designing an Ergonomic Computer Mouse

Katie Bevier | Mohit Mehendale | Cy Abdelnour | Curtis Sawdon

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

Analytical Product Design Page | 1

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

Analytical Product Design Page | 2

1. INTRODUCTION: NEED AND WANT

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

1.1 Previous Designs

Analytical Product Design Page | 3

1.1.1 Evoluent Vertical Mouse

Figure 1.1: Evoluent Vertical Mouse

1.1.2 Pad N’ Click Gel Pads

Figure 1.2: Pad N’ Click Gel Pads

1.1.3 3M Ergonomic Mouse

Analytical Product Design Page | 4

Figure 1.3: 3M Ergonomic Mouse

1.1.4 Logitech Trackball mouse

Figure 1.4: Logitech Trackball Mouse

Analytical Product Design Page | 5

Figure 1.5: Microsoft Ergonomic Mouse

Figure 1.6: “Evoluent” Vertical Mouse

Analytical Product Design Page | 6

1.2 Design Objectives and Requirements

Figure 1.7: Design Objectives

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

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

Minimize Cost Dollars ($) 30$

Figure 1.8: Design Requirements/Constraints

Weight Grams < 150gms

Analytical Product Design Page | 7

Dimensions mm Based on shape/Ergonomic

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

Figure 1.9: Product Positioning

Analytical Product Design Page | 8

1.3 Concept Generation, Selection, and Analysis

1.3.1 Concept Design 1: Mouse Glove

Figure 1.10: Mouse Glove

1.3.2 Concept Design 2: Reconfigurable Buttons

Analytical Product Design Page | 9

Figure 1.11: Reconfigurable Buttons

1.3.3 Concept Design 3: Gel Pads

Gel pad applied

Figure 1.12: Gel Pads

1.3.4 Concept Design 4: Horizontal/Vertical Mouse

Analytical Product Design Page | 10

Figure 1.13: Horizontal/Vertical Mouse

1.3.5 Concept Design 5: Slide to Click

Figure 1.14: Slide to Click

1.4 Prototype Selection

Analytical Product Design Page | 11

2.1 Prototype Evolution

Figure 2.1: Alpha Prototype

Analytical Product Design Page | 12

Figure 2.2: First Beta Iteration

Figure 2.3: Second Beta Iteration

Analytical Product Design Page | 13

Figure 2.4: Beta Prototype

2.2 Beta Prototype Analysis

Figure 2.5: Back View of the Computer Mouse

Analytical Product Design Page | 14