|
David Turocy
|
All Business Design
Team #6
Course #:
Section #:
Submitted to:
Date:
This design project was centered on the Colgate Motion Whitening Toothbrush. Our group, through a series of tests, found that the major problem with the toothbrush was the handle. We designed a new, enlarged, ergonomic handle for the toothbrush that reused all of the mechanical components of the stock toothbrush.
Table of Contents
1.0 Abstract............................................................................................................................................................
(David Turocy)
2.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................
(David
Turocy)
3.0 Mission Statement & Problem
Statement............................................................................................................
(David
Turocy)
4.0 Customer Needs Analysis.................................................................................................................................
(Gabe
Hartman)
5.0 External Research.............................................................................................................................................
(Gabe Hartman)
5.1 Literature and Patent
Search (Lab 1 Data)
5.2 Product Dissection (Lab 2 & Lab 3
Data)
5.3 Benchmarking (Benchmark Table)
6.0 Target Specification..........................................................................................................................................
(Gabe
Hartman)
7.0 Concept Generation.......................................................................................................................................
(Branden Belajac)
8.0 Concept Selection..........................................................................................................................................
(Branden Belajac)
9.0 Final Specification..........................................................................................................................................
(Branden Belajac)
10.0
Embodiment Design and Final Design Description..........................................................................................
(Frankie Vazquez)
11.0 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................
(Frankie Vazquez)
12.0 References.....................................................................................................................................................
(Frankie Vazquez)
The Colgate Motion Whitening Toothbrush is an electric toothbrush currently out on the market. Our group, using the design process, came up with a new design for the toothbrush handle. We first did external research to learn about the toothbrush and other competing toothbrushes. We then dissected the toothbrush to learn about the mechanics of the toothbrush. We interviewed end users of toothbrushes to find what they need from their toothbrush. Through the use of benchmarking and concept screening we narrowed down are ideas to four detailed concepts. We then chose the best based on the results from our concept selection. We developed a CAD model of our final concept and described how it would be used and produced.
The Colgate Motion Whitening is awkward in the user's hand and can be uncomfortable during use. Our solution was to develop a new and larger ergonomic handle that would make is easier for consumers to use. Below is a link to our new design's Mission Statement.
To evaluate the customer needs in a toothbrush, a series of eight interviews were conducted. In these interviews, the potential customers were asked to rate their current toothbrush and the Colgate Motion Whitening toothbrush, as well as, what they thought was important in a toothbrush. Once the interviews were complete, a customer needs table was constructed based on the answers from the interviews.
Table1: Customer Needs
| No. | Need | |
| 1 | The toothbrush | has the ability to clean tongue. |
| 2 | The toothbrush | is aesthetically pleasing. |
| 3 | The body | needs to be comfortable in hand. |
| 4 | The toothbrush | cleans teeth well. |
| 5 | The brush heads | need to be durable. |
| 6 | The toothbrush | must be affordable. |
| 7 | The power switch | must be easy to operate. |
| 8 | The bristles | need to be comfortable, but effective. |
| 9 | The battery cover | must be simple to remove. |
| 10 | The sound | must be minimal. |
| 11 | The battery life | must be long. |
| 12 | The toothbrush | is rechargeable. |
In our design process three lab activities were carried out for the Colgate Motion Whitening toothbrush. The lab activities were a form of research that provided information on whether or not there was a patent for the toothbrush, how the toothbrush was constructed, and how the toothbrush works. Also, a benchmarking table was created to see how the Colgate Motion Whitening toothbrush compared to other electric toothbrushes. We compared the toothbrushes on things such as noise intensity, aesthetics, battery life, and product cost. From this benchmarking table we determined that the Colgate Motion Whitening was ranked first because of its high marks in colors available, aesthetics, longevity of brush heads, simplicity of power switch, and battery life.
5.1 Literature & Patent
Search
Table
2:
Benchmarking of Four Products
| Selection Criteria | Weight | Colgate Motion Whitening | Oral B Power Stages | Colgate SpongeBob | Oral B Cross Action | ||||||||
| Rating | Value | Score | Rating | Value | Score | Rating | Value | Score | Rating | Value | Score | ||
| Has tongue cleaner | 3% | 1 | N | 0.03 | 1 | N | 0.03 | 1 | N | 0.03 | 1 | N | 0.03 |
| Colors available | 10% | 5 | 5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.1 | 3 | 3 | 0.3 | 4 | 4 | 0.4 |
| Quality aesthetics | 10% | 4 | 8 | 0.4 | 4 | 8 | 0.4 | 3 | 7 | 0.3 | 2 | 5 | 0.2 |
| Hand forms to handle | 10% | 3 | 6 | 0.3 | 2 | 3 | 0.2 | 1 | 1 | 0.1 | 4 | 8 | 0.4 |
| Brush head vibration frequency | 12% | 3 | 15 | 0.36 | 3 | 15 | 0.36 | 3 | 15 | 0.36 | 3 | 15 | 0.36 |
| Longevity of brush heads | 7% | 5 | 12 | 0.35 | 3 | 8 | 0.21 | 3 | 8 | 0.21 | 5 | 12 | 0.35 |
| Product Cost to customer | 10% | 3 | 7.49 | 0.3 | 3 | 7.29 | 0.3 | 3 | 7 | 0.3 | 2 | 8 | 0.2 |
| Simplicity to operate power switch | 7% | 4 | 8 | 0.28 | 5 | 9 | 0.35 | 3 | 6 | 0.21 | 5 | 10 | 0.35 |
| Brush head comfort | 12% | 3 | 7 | 0.36 | 3 | 7 | 0.36 | 2 | 5 | 0.24 | 3 | 7 | 0.36 |
| Simplicity of removing battery cover | 3% | 3 | 4 | 0.09 | 1 | 1 | 0.03 | 1 | 1 | 0.03 | 5 | 10 | 0.15 |
| Sound measurement | 6% | 2 | 80 | 0.12 | 4 | 66.7 | 0.24 | 3 | 76.5 | 0.18 | 1 | 81 | 0.06 |
| Battery life | 7% | 4 | 5.47 | 0.28 | 1 | 1.056 | 0.07 | 2 | 1.99 | 0.14 | 5 | 10.2 | 0.35 |
| Rechargeable | 3% | 1 | N | 0.03 | 1 | N | 0.03 | 1 | N | 0.03 | 1 | N | 0.03 |
| Total | 100% | ||||||||||||
| Total Score | 3.4 | 2.68 | 2.43 | 3.24 | |||||||||
| Rank | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | |||||||||
The new specifications were developed and based upon customer needs, which were made apparent through interviews we conducted. When all the information was collected from the customers, we developed the target specifications for the improved toothbrush. To improve the Colgate Motion Whitening toothbrush we constructed target specifications that helped us generate a concept.
Table 3: Target Specifications
| Metric No. | Need No. | Metric | Imp | Units | Marginal Value | Ideal Value |
| 1 | 1 | Has tongue cleaner | 2 | Y/N | N | Y |
| 2 | 2 | Colors available | 4 | Integer | >3 | >4 |
| 3 | 2 | Quality aesthetics | 4 | Subjective | >5 | >8 |
| 4 | 3 | Hand forms to handle | 4 | Subjective | >5 | >9 |
| 5 | 4,8 | Brush head vibration frequency | 5 | Hertz | >5 | >9 |
| 6 | 5 | Longevity of brush heads | 3 | Weeks | >4 | >10 |
| 7 | 6 | Product Cost to customer | 4 | $ | <10.00 | <7.00 |
| 8 | 7 | Simplicity to operate power switch | 3 | Subjective | >5 | >8 |
| 9 | 8 | Brush head comfort | 5 | Subjective | >8 | 10 |
| 10 | 9 | Simplicity of removing battery cover | 2 | Subjective | >6 | >8 |
| 11 | 10 | Sound measurement | 3 | Decibels | <85 | <75 |
| 12 | 11 | Battery life | 3 | Hours | >2 | >4 |
| 13 | 12 | Rechargeable | 2 | Y/N | N | Y |
For generating concept ideas, we constructed a morphology chart. As seen above, it consists of three columns: Power Source, which lists possible ways to provide power to the toothbrush; Switch, which is comprised of multiple on/off switch concepts; and Other, which consists of different ideas for improvements.
Figure 2: EMS Model
Table 4: Morphology Chart
| Function | |||
| Means | Energy | Switch | Other |
| 1 | Battery | Two-button | tongue cleaner |
| 2 | Rechargeable Battery | Slide | Large brush heads |
| 3 | Outlet power | Rocker | Ergonomic handle |
| 4 | Hydrogen fuel cell | One-button | Thick grips |
| 5 | Crank | Screw off battery cover | |
In the Concept Selection step, developed eight different concepts based off of our morphology chart. We then selected four of the best concepts after creating a concept screening matrix and took these to the Concept Scoring step. Here, we created a range of criteria and ranked each brush accordingly. From this, we were able to determine which concept would be the best based on the scores. We did away with Concepts 3 and 5 because they scored the lowest. Concepts 7 and 8 tied for first. However, we ultimately chose Concept 8 because, after analyzing concept needs, we determined that updating the ergonomics of the toothbrush would be best.
Table 5a: Concepts
| Concept | Description |
| 1 | Crank, One-Button, Thick Grips |
| 2 | Battery, Slide, Screw-off |
| 3 | Battery, Rocker, Screw-off |
| 4 | Hydrogen Fuel cell, Two-button, Large Brush heads |
| 5 | Outlet power, two-button, ergonomic handle |
| 6 | Battery, Two-Button, Screw-off |
| 7 | Rechargeable, slide, Tongue cleaner |
| 8 | Battery, Two-Button, Ergonomic Handle |
Table 5b: Concept Screening Matrix
| Concept Variants | ||||||||
| Selection Criteria | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Has tongue cleaner | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | 0 |
| Colors available | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quality aesthetics | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hand forms to handle | + | 0 | 0 | + | + | 0 | 0 | + |
| Brush head vibration frequency | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Longevity of brush heads | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| Product Cost to customer | 0 | - | 0 | - | + | 0 | - | 0 |
| Simplicity to operate power switch | 0 | + | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | 0 |
| Brush head comfort | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Simplicity of removing battery cover | 0 | + | + | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
| Sound measurement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Battery life | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | + | 0 | + | 0 |
| Rechargeable | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | 0 |
| PLUSES | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| SAMES | 12 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 8 | 11 |
| MINUSES | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| NET | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| RANK | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| CONTINUE? | N | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y |
| - = WORSE | ||||||||
| 0 = SAME | ||||||||
| + = BETTER | ||||||||
| Selection Criteria | Weight | 3 | 5 | 7 | 8 | ||||||||
| Rating | Value | Score | Rating | Value | Score | Rating | Value | Score | Rating | Value | Score | ||
| Has tongue cleaner | 3% | 3 | N | 0.09 | 3 | N | 0.09 | 4 | Y | 0.12 | 3 | N | 0.09 |
| Colors available | 10% | 3 | 5 | 0.3 | 3 | 5 | 0.3 | 3 | 5 | 0.3 | 3 | 5 | 0.3 |
| Quality aesthetics | 10% | 3 | 5 | 0.3 | 3 | 8 | 0.3 | 3 | 5 | 0.3 | 3 | 8 | 0.3 |
| Hand forms to handle | 10% | 3 | 5 | 0.3 | 5 | 10 | 0.5 | 3 | 5 | 0.3 | 5 | 10 | 0.5 |
| Brush head vibration frequency | 12% | 3 | 15 | 0.36 | 3 | 15 | 0.36 | 3 | 15 | 0.36 | 3 | 15 | 0.36 |
| Longevity of brush heads | 7% | 3 | 12 | 0.21 | 3 | 12 | 0.21 | 3 | 12 | 0.21 | 3 | 12 | 0.21 |
| Product Cost to customer | 10% | 3 | 7.49 | 0.3 | 3 | 7 | 0.3 | 3 | 7.49 | 0.3 | 4 | 7.25 | 0.4 |
| Simplicity to operate power switch | 7% | 4 | 8 | 0.28 | 3 | 7 | 0.21 | 4 | 8 | 0.28 | 3 | 7 | 0.21 |
| Brush head comfort | 12% | 3 | 7 | 0.36 | 3 | 7 | 0.36 | 3 | 7 | 0.36 | 3 | 7 | 0.36 |
| Simplicity of removing battery cover | 3% | 5 | 9 | 0.15 | 3 | 4 | 0.09 | 3 | 4 | 0.09 | 3 | 4 | 0.09 |
| Sound measurement | 6% | 3 | 80 | 0.18 | 3 | 80 | 0.18 | 3 | 80 | 0.18 | 3 | 80 | 0.18 |
| Battery life | 7% | 3 | 5.47 | 0.21 | 4 | ∞ | 0.28 | 5 | ∞ | 0.35 | 3 | 5.47 | 0.21 |
| Rechargeable | 3% | 3 | N | 0.09 | 3 | N | 0.09 | 5 | Y | 0.15 | 3 | N | 0.09 |
| Total | 100% | ||||||||||||
| Total Score | 3.13 | 3.27 | 3.3 | 3.3 | |||||||||
| Rank | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||
| Rating | |||||||||||||
| Much worse | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Worse | 2 | ||||||||||||
| Neutral | 3 | ||||||||||||
| Better | 4 | ||||||||||||
| Much better | 5 | ||||||||||||
In comparison to the original toothbrush, our new model only consists of
one primary change. This
change is the shape of the handle:
a more ergonomic and aesthetically pleasing figure.
The new model scores better in aesthetics, ergonomics, and cost.
The new shape actually requires less material than the previous
one, thus, production cost is reduced.
Table 6: Final Specifications
| Feature | Current Specs | New Specs |
| Has tongue cleaner | N | N |
| Colors available | 5 | 5 |
| Quality aesthetics | 8 | >8 |
| Hand forms to handle | 6 | >9 |
| Brush head vibration frequency | 15 | 15 |
| Longevity of brush heads | 12 | 12 |
| Product Cost to customer | 7.49 | 7.25 |
| Simplicity to operate power switch | 8 | 8 |
| Brush head comfort | 7 | 7 |
| Simplicity of removing battery cover | 4 | 4 |
| Sound measurement | 80 | 80 |
| Battery life | 5.47 | 5.47 |
| Rechargeable | N | N |
10.0 Embodiment Design and Final Design Description
A CAD model of our new handle design can be seen below.
The primary change in its shape is that it is wider in diameter
toward the center of the handle and thinner in diameter towards the
ends. When looking at its
profile, the sides bow out.
This new shape feels better in the user’s hand and provides a more
enjoyable brushing experience.
Another benefit of this new shape is it’s cost.
Because the ends of the body are thinner, the brush handle has
less surface area and thus requires less material to be molded.
This ultimately lowers the cost of the final product by about
$0.24. Also below is a
picture of the components of the original toothbrush (which remain
unchanged in the new model) placed above a to-scale print of the new
handle. Here it is clear
that the components easily fit inside the redesigned handle.
We took a considerable amount of time in our toothbrush redesign,
strictly following the design process and using much care in each step.
After analyzing each concept, we came to conclude that Concept 8
best satisfied customer needs.
It’s newly shaped handle performs a variety of functions: not
only does it improve the toothbrush’s ergonomics and feel more
comfortable in the user’s hand, it adds a new aesthetic appeal.
The new handle uses less material which reduces cost and the impact on
the planet. The bigger and more form fitting handle will also make
brushing an easier experience for the elderly and physically disabled.
This appeal will help boost sales of the toothbrush.
Its appearance will allow it to stand out among the rows of
boring, nearly identical toothbrushes and catch people’s attention while
shopping. The shape encompasses
the image of the “future of the toothbrush” and customers will be
intrigued to tempted to buy. These
features are shown and explained in the set of picture in section ten. Since, ultimately, satisfying the customer is the aim of every design
project, our final design proves to be an unrivaled success.
"Colgate Motion Electric Toothbrush". Colgate. Jan. 13, 2009 <http://www.colgate.com/app/ColgateMotion/US/HomePage.cvsp>.
"Colgate Motion Battery Powered Whitening Toothbrush, Soft 1 ea". Amazon.com. Jan. 13, 2009 <http://www.amazon.com/Colgate-Battery-Powered-Whitening-Toothbrush/dp/B001KYTTUC/ref=pd_sim_hpc_1>.
Chan, John Geoffrey. "Modular
electric toothbrushes". Google Patents. Jan. 13, 2009 <http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=IQCpAAAAEBAJ&dq=0226223+A1>.