| Design No |
Objective |
Score Allocated |
Justification for the Score |
| 1 |
Safety |
-18 |
Handheld operation with exposed, spinning brushes is inherently less safe than an enclosed console. There is no containment for polish splatter, and the userβs hand is close to the attachment hub. |
|
Ease of Use |
-8 |
Requires continuous manual manipulation, holding the device steady, and manually changing attachments for different polishing stages. This is significantly more effort than placing a shoe into an automated console. |
|
Portability |
+14 |
This is a small, battery-operated, lightweight tool. It is easily transported and can be used anywhere, making it superior to all stationary console designs. |
|
Use of Standard Parts |
0 |
It uses standard, readily available components like a DC motor, basic switches, and a standard wall plug (for charging or direct power). |
|
Cost |
+5 |
Because it relies on fewer components, no complex sensor arrays, and a simple plastic or basic metal casing, the manufacturing cost would likely be the lowest of all designs. |
| 2 |
Safety |
Datum |
The unit is fully enclosed, separating the userβs hands from the moving parts during operation, establishing a good baseline for safety. |
|
Ease of Use |
Datum |
Requires the user to hold the shoe in specific positions against the corresponding brush and manually operate the power switch. This is the standard baseline experience for this type of machine. |
|
Portability |
Datum |
It is a large, stationary, mains-powered console. It is not designed to be moved once set up. |
|
Use of Standard Parts |
Datum |
It utilizes standard off-the-shelf components like DC motors, gear belts, and simple switches. |
|
Cost |
Datum |
Its cost represents the average baseline for a functional, multi-brush, enclosed electrical console. |
| 3 |
Safety |
+9 |
Like the datum, it is fully enclosed, but the automated cycle triggered by sensors means the brushes are only active when a shoe is present, slightly reducing accidental exposure time compared to a manual switch. |
|
Ease of Use |
+16 |
The design features a fully automated cycle triggered by an IR sensor array upon shoe insertion. It requires the least user effort. The screen provides clear timing feedback. It is superior in user experience. |
|
Portability |
-14 |
While it has a βcompact consoleβ goal, the addition of the screen, complex IR sensor array, timer module, and logic controller makes it heavier and more complex than the datum, further reducing its portability. |
|
Use of Standard Parts |
0 |
Standard controllers (Arduino/ESP32), IR sensors, and screens are used, but the reliance on a specific sensor array adds minor complexity over the datumβs simple switch. |
|
Cost |
-10 |
This is penalized for high cost. The inclusion of the sensor array, logic controller, timer circuitry, and the display screen significantly increases both component and assembly costs compared to the simpler datum. |
| 4 |
Safety |
0 |
Fully enclosed unit, providing the same baseline safety as Design 2. |
|
Ease of Use |
-8 |
While it has an automated cycle trigger, the design shows an external, separate 12V DC step-down adapter sitting on the machine. This is clunky and less integrated than the internal adapter of the datum, making setup slightly more difficult. |
|
Portability |
-7 |
It has a smaller form factor than the datum, but the external, bulky adapter hinders portability and adds clutter to the placement platform. |
|
Use of Standard Parts |
0 |
It uses standard components. |
|
Cost |
+5 |
By simplifying the internal mechanism and using a very basic, generic external power supply (wall-wart style), the manufacturing cost could be lower than the internal-adapter datum design. |
