Home | Abstract and Introduction | Customer Needs | Research | Benchmarking | Product Dissection | Target Specifications | Concept Generation | Final Product | References
In order to design the best possible toothbrush we possibly could we made a morphology tree with many different power, switch, attachments, and accessory options. Then we went through trial and error with many designs featuring different attachments and machinery to make a top twenty concepts. Then we narrowed the concepts down to the top twelve designs that would go through screening. Throughout the screening of the concepts a top toothbrush was discovered and made into our final product redesign. Shown below are the concepts and the their respective product breakdowns.
| Concept Variants | ||||||||||||||
| Selection Criteria | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M (reference) | N (redesign) |
| Cleaning Effectiveness | + | + | + | + | 0 | + | + | 0 | - | 0 | + | - | 0 | + |
| Battery Life | - | + | 0 | - | + | - | - | 0 | + | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | + |
| Cost | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | + | 0 | - | - | + | 0 | - |
| Ergonomics | + | + | + | 0 | + | + | + | 0 | 0 | + | - | 0 | 0 | + |
| Aesthetics | + | + | + | + | - | + | + | - | - | + | - | - | 0 | + |
| Noise Level | 0 | 0 | + | - | + | + | 0 | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | 0 | + |
| Quality | + | 0 | + | + | + | + | + | 0 | 0 | + | + | 0 | 0 | + |
| Durability | 0 | + | + | 0 | + | + | 0 | - | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| Features | 0 | 0 | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | + | + | + | 0 | + |
| Attachments | 0 | + | + | + | + | + | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | + |
| PLUSES | 4 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 9 |
| SAMES | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| MINUSES | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| NET | 2 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 4 | -3 | -1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| RANK | 9 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 12 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 0 | 1 |
| CONTINUE? | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | 0 | WINNER |