Barbara Laughlin Hudson Hadd Jon Hosch

February 18, 2015

The design challenge our group was presented with was pretty straightforward.
We were told that we worked for a flashlight manufacturer that is losing market share to a
competitor. As a result, our group is assigned to understand how the competitors
flashlight works, come up with ways to improve it for a variety of customers, and
propose a redesign that could be manufactured and marketed to put our company back on
top. We then had to discuss our findings in a technical report.
The design challenge could be broken up into two parts. The first user need is to
understand the competitors flashlight and with that, understand the market for flashlight.
The second user need is to redesign the flashlight to make it more universally appealing.
To recap, the first user need was to understand our rivals flashlight as well as
better understand what the market demands of flashlights. To complete this task we first
created an action function table. This task is crucial because it demonstrates each action a
user takes to work the flashlight and what function that component is providing. With this
task we are able to see the steps of using the flashlight as a whole and then break it down
to discuss the necessity of each part. In doing this step, we better understood the elements
of the flashlight and saw how it completes its overall function. We also understood the
simple actions needed to work the flashlight (pick up, charge, turn on, etc.) After
identifying the functions of each action, we could then brainstorm ideas of how to
improve or change the flashlight. For example, the action charge would have the
function of accepting power/energy, converting energy, and storing energy. Knowing this
information we then came up with designs ideas for how to make that action more
efficient, successful and unique like charge by body heat, solar powered, shake weight
charge, charge by swinging, etc.
We now know and understand the actions and functions of the rival flashlight and
are brainstorming ideas for a redesign; however, we still need to understand the flashlight
more in relation to the users needs. To fill in these gaps, our group constructed an affinity
analysis table. In order to construct this table, we first interviewed people in various age
groups, asking them simple questions and figuring out their concerns about the flashlight.
Questions included what do you like about the flashlight, how would you typically use
this flashlight, and is the product effective/work well? This allowed us to gather
information based on the opinions of users. The users tended to mention similar ideas that
then allowed us to group the responses into categories. The categories we established
were appearance, construction, brightness, mechanics, and entertainment. Categories
where then ranked by frequency, meaning how often or how much emphasis the
interviewed people mentioned that category. This allowed us to identify the most
important aspects to customers.

Below is our affinity analysis table. As you can see, appearance had the highest
frequency, indicating a lot of concern about the look of the rival flashlight. A lot of
emphasis was put on the brightness of the flashlight so we decided to rank those two
equally when considering importance. This table helped us identify which needs were
greatest to the users.
Need

Frequency

Importance

Rank
Frequency
2

Rank
Importance
4

Construction
Brightness

Mechanics

Appearance

Entertainment

Indoor Uses

Outdoor Uses

The affinity analysis table made it clear what categories needed to be improved in order
that have a better flashlight for our users. However, we still do not understand the
limitations and actual evidence of how well this rival flashlight works. To find this
knowledge, we conducted tests in the categories appearance, construction, brightness,
mechanics and entertainment. The data collected from each test gave us a baseline for
how well our new flashlight should work. This baseline data is a minimum expectation of
our flashlight. In order to have a better flashlight, we want to have stronger and higher
data than the baseline data. These tests enable us to set performance targets for each of
these categories.
Below is a description of each test:
Benchmarking Appearance:
Purpose=to measure how pleasing the product is
Method=survey; give 5 people a set of 7 different options they would like the
flashlight to be in the shape of. The 5 people will rank them 1-7, 1 being the best
and 7 being the worst. The ratings were then added up and the shape with the
lowest score was the most wanted shape.

Flashlight
Shapes

Person #1

Person #2

Person #3

Person #4

Person #5

Totals

Cylinder

34

Square

29

Duck

18

Penguin

12

Llama

Dog

21

Cat

17

Benchmarking Construction:
Purpose=to establish how durable and well built the product is
Method=drop test; drop flashlight from increasing heights until it breaks
Number of cm
125cm
Greater than 125cm

Comments
Survived
Did not survive; wires popped out

Benchmarking Brightness:
Purpose=measure intensity (lux) or brightness of the flashlight
Method=lumen test; plug flashlight to lumen measuring device and find the
readings after 1cm, 5cm, 10 cm, 50 cm
Distance (cm)
1
5
10
50

Lumen Reading
344
207
60
18

Benchmarking Mechanics:
Purpose=to understand how well the product can survive in certain climates and
environments
Method=crank flashlight and turn the light on. Place the flashlight under water
and examine when the light no longer works. Measure in seconds, starting from
0sec when the flashlight is under the water.
Time Underwater
1 min

Comment
No longer works

Benchmarking Entertainment:
Purpose=measure how entertaining, satisfying and overall pleasing the product is
Method=survey; results from 2 young kids, 2 teens, and 2 adults. Give them the
flashlight and let them play with it for 1 minute, they will then rank their
enjoyment from 1-5, 1 being the worst and 5 being the best.
Rank

Child 1
3

Child 2
4.5

Teen 1
4

Teen 2
4

Adult 1
5

Next our group disassembled the

flashlight so that we could see the
weaknesses and strengths of the current
build of the flashlight. This step also
shows us exactly how the parts and the
flashlight work. From this we
understood how to take our redesign
ideas and better see it in the flashlight.
We could see where we could take our
ideas and exchange them for the old
system, therefore making a better
flashlight. We noted the materials used
and how they either increased or
decreased efficiency in the flashlight.
To the right is the expanded view of the
flashlight after disassembly:

Adult 2
2

Lastly, we made a functional model of the flashlight after deconstruction. We have two
functional models; one prediction and one actual model. These models tell us what
functions and features must be included in the flashlight in order for it to work. The
model not only shows how the flashlight work but it shows the transfer of energy. This
allows us to understand where we can redesign energy flow to again have a greater
efficiency and more successful flashlight.
Below is our final functional model:

Import
Human
Energy (HE)

Transmit
(EE)

Convert
(EE) to
Chemical
Energy (LE)

Hand

Convert
(HE) to
Mechanic
al Energy
(ME)

Convert
(EE) to Light
Energy (LE)

Store (CE)

Hand to (ME)

Transmit
(ME)

Export
(LE)

Convert
(CE) to
(EE)

Convert (ME)
to Electrical
Energy (EE)

Transmit (EE)

In conclusion we see room for improvements in the following areas. From the
disassembly we understand that there is a loss of energy due to the distance between the
copper wires and the magnet. By making these two objects closer together we get a
stronger energy connection. We also found that the copper wires are thin and not very
durable (as seen in the benchmarking construction drop test) and by using thicker wires
we can increase durability and energy (caused by having more electrons). We discovered
that a stronger plastic would also help improve the durability of the flashlight as a whole
(discovered by the benchmarking construction drop test). From interviews and the
benchmarking appearance test, there is room for improvement in the look of the
flashlight. People like entertaining shapes and colors that a different and fun (said in

interviews). The baseline tests showed us that there is room for improvement in the
brightness of the flashlight (with a performance target of higher than 18 lux at a distance
of 50 cm away). The flow of energy can be redesigned also. We discovered that some
energy was lost through heat and sound. These areas of improvement were taken into
account in our redesign and proposed flashlight.
Our proposed flashlight is a non-battery operated, human powered, energy
converter. It turns your human power into electromagnetic (light) energy through a series
of conversions. A lose magnet inside a copper tube serves as the generator for this
flashlight, this generator converts human energy into mechanical energy by the magnet
moving through the tube, then, into electrical energy by the copper coils receiving a
charge from the magnet. This eliminates the problem of sound from gears, because there
are none. From the generator, thick gaged copper coils run to a circuit board that
transmits the electrical energy to a large battery that converts the electrical energy to
chemical energy, this allows for energy to be stored. Then, when the switch is flipped to
its on position, the circuit is closed and energy is converted from the battery (chemical
energy) back to electrical energy. Finally, this electrical energy is converted to
electromagnetic energy through multiple LEDs to create light.
Our users made it very clear to us, when we interviewed them, that they were
unhappy with a few things: brightness, noise, and appearance. The original flashlight did
not meet these needs. So, upon redesign, we addressed these issues directly. First, we
solved the brightness problem by adding a larger battery, for more stored energy, multiple
LEDs, brighter bulbs in general, and a light focusing cone surrounding the LEDs in order
to create more powerful and more direct beam. Next, to solve the noise issue, we
consolidated a large amount of the components of the original flashlight into a single
generator; we shortened the process of converting human energy into electrical energy
with our three in one magnetic generator. By eliminating the gears, we eliminated the
noise. Finally, we completely changed the appearance of the flashlight, making it look
more like a rectangle and less like an animal. This also expanded our user categories from
just kids, to teens and adults as well. Also, we added neon colors, so that helped too. This
leads us to all of our possible designs below.
This idea is similar to the original animal flashlight,
with two exceptions; we solved both the problems of
brightness and appearance. The design to the left
operates in the same basic fashion as the original
except the lights are now LEDs focused by a reflector
cone. Then we added very vibrant neon colors to, one,
make it easy to find in an emergency, and, two, to
make it fun for the kids.

This design is the only one of the

three that meets all of the most
necessary user needs: brightness,
noise, and appearance. A generator
that produces electrical energy
powers this flashlight. When the
flashlight is shaken, a magnet slides
using copper coils, thus sending a
charge to them. This solves the noise
problem because, now, there are no
gears. Next, the copper coils run to a
circuit board that transmits electrical
energy to a very large battery which,
in turn, converts it to chemical and
stores it, then, once a switch is
flipped and a circuit is closed, the
battery converts chemical back to
electrical. Then wires move the
electrical energy through many LEDs
that produce light. A reflector cone
then focuses this light. This solves the
issue of brightness. This design is
available in 5 fun colors.
This design is the most kid friendly
out of the three. However, that
doesnt mean that its not a good
flashlight. This llama shaped selfpowered machine works similar to the
original design, with the exception of
two things; its brighter and more
appealing. We added large LEDs for
the llamas eyes and a bigger battery
to power the new and improved
lights. Then, well, we made it look
like a llama. For some reason, when
conducting our interviews, people
said that they really just wanted a
flashlight that looks like a llama.

Pugh Table:
Current
flashlight

Redesign A

Redesign B

Redesign C

Look

+1

+1

+1

Construction

+1

+1

-1

Brightness

+1

+1

+1

Mechanics

+1

+1

-1

Use

+1

+1

-1

Import HE

+1

+1

HE ME

+1

+1

ME EE

+1

Transmit ME

+1

+1

Total

-1

This table is how we determined what redesign idea best suited our user needs. This Pugh
Table functions as a kind of scoring mechanism. The flashlight that scored the highest in
all of the categories is the one we selected and thus we were ready to present the 2nd
design to our supervisors.
Now that we have a clearly defined design, there are a couple of final steps to take. The
first one would be to build a prototype of the flashlight. Using the working model, we
could easily test against the performance targets. Assuming that our prototype
successfully met the performance targets, we could test it out in focus groups against our
baseline data that we originally collected in the beginning in order to see if the
improvements that we made were truly present in the final design. Once all that is
accomplished, we could go move ahead with mass production and take back the market
for flashlights over our competitor.