This report details the progress made, throughout the first semester of my final year, at the final year project. It will highlight successes, failures and compromises throughout the initial semester: from submitting the proposal to the first client concept presentation.

Introduction

The focus of this report will be upon ‘the design process’, up to concept selection and how well this process has been adhered to. Research will be spotlighted, alongside key design features (aesthetics, ergonomics, materials etc…) also. There will be a detailed account of how the concepts are currently envisaged; also with the direction in which the project will be taken in the future.

At various points along the process, different aspects of the proposal were tweaked (with the agreement of the Project Supervisor) resulting in a different feel and manner of the product.

There was a turning point for the product after a particular piece of research was conducted, with this happening to a lesser extent, numerous other times. The result of this was a large brainstorming of ideas, but a lack of preparation in dealing with choosing a final concept.

Proposal

My final version (5^th) of the proposal (see Appendix A) was submitted on the 03/10/06, this differing massively from the original (see Appendix B).

Initially the project was begun and the design work centred on producing a wheelie bin, and work continued on that for over two weeks. The reason for this initial proposal was to alter the recycling system to allow for a more efficient collection, and an improved public experience from only having the necessary bins on a driveway.

Initial Ideas

Primarily, ideas were generated around this concept – concatenation of recycle bins – with several schemes being concocted. It was with these schemes that the idea of extending the recycling infrastructure to include the interior of the house. This principal would make sense; to encourage recycling, a ‘front end’ is needed to replace the typical three/four boxes lying on the kitchen/hallway floor or carrier bags hung handily on radiators. A premium product can be made to fit this situation, and answer the original proposal – so a series of proposal forms were submitted until the final (5^th) was settled upon.

The crux of the last proposal is the idea of moving recycling away from view, in the situation highlighted above, and integrating it wholly within the kitchen.

All premature ideas were committed to paper as a form of ‘ID click’, and promptly forgotten about. There were ideas of ways to crush materials, how to clean them, how to chop them and how to sort them.

Initially, the path followed was to place down as many different methods of making rubbish ‘fit into a smaller space’ as possible. This was quite extensive, and took the form of a brainstorm, not ruling out any future possibilities.

Analysis

In-depth analysis of the proposal was not fully completed for over two months, with it actually forming a continually evolving process. Each time it was thought a firm groundwork was completed, a point would be raised from research, and focus would be taken from continuing the project as a whole. It is this analysis, which has stolen most of the time available within the semester. Even after the construction of a detailed time plan, analysis was only allotted four weeks; the time taken was at least double.

The main problem being that simple core points needed defining much earlier on within the time scale in order to complete the project inside the fixed time.

However, the early analysis that was undertaken included the defining of waste to be accommodated within the product. The early breakthrough was the decision not to designate room for green/food waste. Reasons for this included:

· Through market research, it was decided the market segment being aimed for with the product would actually be green conscious enough already to have a composting bin

· There would be major problems keeping food waste within the product for up to a week, especially with compaction or sealing within a packet, due to gasses produced from decomposition

· Economically, local councils subsidise the purchase of composting bins for residents, and this could make the provision of one within this product un-viable

There were alternatives suggested for the storage of food waste – such as disposal through the sewer system, but it was decided that ultimately this principal would not help the original point of improving the recycling infrastructure.

Also analysed was the provision for shredding paper alongside plastics – but again both were decided to be un-viable due to the potential volume increase this would create (especially for paper – where the best method of compaction is to just lay it flat).

Another initial analysis topic was that of the ‘ease of use’. Originally, this was construed to mean just emptying of the system, so only a limited notion was suggested of sealing the bags. It was not (as noted above) until further thought was put to this issue that the entire process was considered. The process here, of the extended infrastructure, not only concerns that of the operations within the kitchen, but the transportation to the wheelie-bin and then to the kerb – a three-part process in fact.

Research

For this project, research was treat as a form of information collection; not used as a creative method, as the assumption was that current knowledge was correct and was only checked for clarification.

Extensive research was completed on the subject of actual recycling – with statistics being recovered on: recycling collection, material composition, collection practices, recycling suitability, recycling rates/trends, and habits.

Ultimately, it was realised that additional research was needed – including calculation. The vital missing data for this product was:

· The actual volume capacity of a wheelie-bin

· The dimensions this would then translate into

· The mass of each recyclable material collected per household

· The density of the pure form of these materials

With this data, finally, shape could be given to the product. Unfortunately the mass per household is, as yet unavailable – only a total for England. This does allow for a ratio of volume be constructed (using density and mass) which was used for proportioning the ‘collection’ part of the product. Ergonomically, using this data, sizes can be defined for maximum container size for each material.

Surprisingly, the above points toward paper accounting for 80% volume (ie not weight) of total recycling in the country (if all materials in compacted state). This has huge implications for the project, even though paper is the easiest material to compact.

It was decided, mid November, that choosing the small class of wheelie-bin (120l capacity) as standard for one weeks collection; would allow research to progress to collection of ergonomic data, as this would (for example) link weekly paper accumulation to a maximum collectable kilogrammatic value (the value for paper being 54kg).

Further research was also made to find suitable dimensions for the largest item the crushing section of the product needs to be able to accommodate. This was found to be a six-pint milk container for the width and depth, and a wine bottle for height clearance.

Idea Choice and Development

As discussed in design methods, the initial idea choice was considerably flawed: this was the containing of the product within a kitchen unit. As this was the then chosen idea, an operational flow diagram was created, detailing input-process-output. This was then developed to show the possible flow of waste through the product, with the intention of detailing methods of human interaction with the product. Unfortunately, this was analysed morphologically (see appendix C), and time was spent on sketching different variations of the idea.

During the above development, whilst detailing the input-process-output, a key aspect was overlooked (detailed in Proposal: Analysis); as a result, no variation of the idea was a viable solution to the original proposal.

After returning to development and analysis, a solution was suggested which answered the problem in full. The solution was for the product to facilitate in the transportation of the waste to the kerbside (avoiding pitfalls such as bringing mud in from outside).

Design Methods

Brainstorming

Through the project, specific intention was made of utilising different design methodologies. After forming all initial ideas on paper (creating the ID click), time was given to expanding this field by using brainstorming. Many aspects of the design were brainstormed, including:

· Ways of making … fit into a smaller space

· Types of waste

· Sorting methods

· Cleaning methods/problems

· Specifics of smashing bottles

Generally, after brainstorming, some aspects were drawn up and developed further. One very helpful result of this was the highlighting of the range of waste the product needs to deal with.

Alternative Methods

Semantics was used on a range of words related to the project. Apart from the traditional use for this method, it was useful as a method of generating lists of items with which the product will need to interact.

A mood board was created for the appearance aspect of the design. As the product was necessitated to fit (appearance wise) appropriately into the kitchen, it was decided to collate as many images as possible of different kitchens, and try locating some common ground. This proved to have both good and bad consequences for the progression of the project. On one hand, it offered some insight into design trends (suggesting an appropriate aesthetic) and on the other; it showed the potential for the product to occupy a space similar to that of an oven (wall-mounted position, raised from the ground). This was the first failure of the design process undertaken so far.

Because of this insight, the decision was made (as suggested in the proposal) to confine the workings of the product to the inside of a standard kitchen unit. Retrospectively, this proved to be fatally limiting, as after three weeks of development down this line, a creativity brick-wall was hit – constricting any true inspiration – and the conclusion was made to backtrack and return to the idea generation phase.

Ironically, the mood board did prove its use later, highlighting a general placement for my product within the kitchen environment. On most of the documented kitchen designs, there appears to be ‘dead-space’ unutilised on the ends of kitchen units – the decision was made to use this space, and the appropriate point was placed in the design specification.

Design Specification

Apart from the point on dead-space within the kitchen, the specification was filled out with points raised by following various design methodologies. Examples of these are: the facilitation of transporting waste to the kerb; the dimensions of waste the product should accommodate; the emptying of the unit in at least two separate sections (to abide by weight/ergonomic restrictions); the inclusion of safety redundancy/fail-safe system.

Other specification points were decided upon as a way to close other potential avenues of development. The decision to accommodate a maximum of 120 litres of compacted waste was done for this reason; without it, the product could have grown, or shrunk as to need emptying at either too frequent or infrequent an interval.

Concepts

Concepts are the weakest part of the project to date. With a lack of time after the mishaps at the ideas stage, the concepts put forward were weak, and most probably too varied. Concept number one (see appendix D) shown at the Concept Pitch Presentation is the most viable of the three. Concept three has good development, but the result is lacking to say the least.

The concepts were arrived at by producing three similar space packages, with the same internal workings. The differentiation is the method of interaction with the kitchen. This works in the following way:

· Concept One: Integrated into the kitchen – ie attached

· Concept Two: Fits into the kitchen – ie uses an unused corner – best use of dead-space

· Concept Three: Freestanding

In retrospect, this is possibly the wrong way to work with concepts, as the choice between them is too great. A possible way forward here is to choose one of the concepts, develop this one, and then resubmit three from that.

Conclusion

It is a shame the early portion of this project has been consumed by wastefully pursuing an unviable idea. Care will be taken for this not to happen in the future.

To conclude, extra time needs to be spent on the concepts before the project can continue into the next semester. This extra time has now been allotted, and hopefully the project should be back on track for a second concept pitch in January/February.

References

BSi, (2002) ISO/TR 14062:2002 Environmental Management. Integrating Environmental Aspects into Product Design and Development. London British Standards Institution

EU, (1994) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC Packaging and Packaging Waste.

Keynote, (2005) Market Report 2005. Non-Metal Recycling, pp1-87

Keynote, (2000) Market Assessment. Recycling and the Environment, pp1-103

Wang, Shuwang; Liu, Zhifeng; Liu, Guangfu; Huang, Haihong, (2005) Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering Design for recyclability method based on recycling element, p 102-106

Additional – Statistics from individual council websites

Appendices

APPENDIX A

Major Design Project Approval Form

Issue Number: 5

Project Title: *unconfirmed*

Recycle Waste Collector

Name: Tom Tidswell

Date Submitted: 03/10/06

Contact N^o: 07841403961

Summary of Product

A collection facility to collect waste in the kitchen, under the worktop. A premium product, to do to the ordinary waste bin what the dishwasher did for the sink. It needs to fit, and perform perfectly in this environment.

Specific Challenge

The solution needs to integrate with the existing recycling system, whilst suggesting a simplified solution to the existing problem of multiple wheelie bins on a driveway.

Most Important Wants

1	Who will buy the product? – Wealthy adults with a large kitchen and green lean Who will use the product? – Everyone in the household of the above

2	Target manufacturing price– £20-50 Designed retail price – £210-250 (rough price of three wheelie bins)

3	Production quantity –

4	Must accept all council collected recyclable waste

5	Must fit into the kitchen Must allow for different design tastes currently used in kitchen design

6	Some households have two or more wheelie bins outside for recycling; this system should be able to hold and compact this into one small bin for a week

7	As a premium product, ease of use is crucial

Most Important Wishes

a	Aim for a recycling system where all recycling is placed in one kerbside bin

b	Cleaning of the waste before collection

APPENDIX B

Major Design Project Approval Form

Issue Number: 1

Project Title: *unconfirmed*

Recycle Waste Collector

Name: Tom Tidswell

Date Submitted: 17/9/06

Contact N^o: 07841403961

Summary of Product

A modern wheelie bin designed towards coping with the modern consciousness regarding recycling. It will have to solve a few major problems that have not been addressed with current versions:

1) With the government imposing more and more tax on landfill, the solution should address the increasing possibility of local councils charging by weight the rubbish meant for landfill.

2) The current view of one ‘bin’ per type of waste seems to be flawed – in that there may not be space (as things progress) for an ever increasing number of bins on a driveway.

3) The implications of the above mean there could be a risk of individuals dumping rubbish in other peoples bins – this needs to be addressed also.

Specific Challenge

(See the above three points)

Most Important Wants