APD-2011-04

Progress Report
D. Gold and SWAG LLC
Team 04: Kevin Leach – Lee Legis – Daniel Gold – Naren Mital – Robert Hepworth
ABSTRACT
SWAG will take the advantages of a tight, fitted compression shirt and combine it with the
storage capability of a small backpack, to produce a running pack with the versatility to use for
carrying items on both short and long runs. Runners often need to carry a couple of small items
with them for shorter runs, too few to use a full-sized runner’s backpack. As a result, they
usually decide to either carry these items in their pockets where they bounce around insecurely
or in their hands, which becomes cumbersome and distracting. In comparison, distance runners
like to carry a large number of items with them on their runs. These include keys, credit cards,
phones, music players, water and energy snacks. Thus, they are forced to purchase an additional
backpack type product to carry all of this stuff for these outings.
After searching through available products, we have found that the market is flooded with
products specific to one of these two needs, but fail to satisfy both. We have developed a concept
that will seamlessly address both of these needs, thereby eliminating the need for the customer to
purchase multiple products. Our product will have sufficient storage capacity for long runs, but
yet be unobtrusive for shorter trips as well. Our current beta prototype is the first physical model
to undergo testing and is proving to be meeting our desired needs thus far.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 4
Available Products ................................................................................................................................. 5
Further Research ..................................................................................................................................... 8
DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 8
Manufacturing Priorities...................................................................................................................... 10
CONCEPT GENERATION.......................................................................................................... 10
CONCEPT SELECTION.............................................................................................................. 12
CURRENT DESIGN CONCEPT ................................................................................................. 16
BETA PROTOTYPE .................................................................................................................... 17
FINA L PROTOTYPE .................................................................................................................. 19
ENGINEERING FUNCTIONALITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 21
EMOTIONAL AND AESTHETIC ANALYSIS.......................................................................... 24
Emotional Design ................................................................................................................................. 24
Craftsmanship ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Kansei Engineering .............................................................................................................................. 27
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 27
Microeconomic Study.......................................................................................................................... 28
Net Present Value ................................................................................................................................. 32
Breakeven Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 33
MARKETING ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 34
Conjoint Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 34
Profit Optimization .............................................................................................................................. 35
SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 36
Raw Material Extraction ..................................................................................................................... 36
Transportation ....................................................................................................................................... 36
Assembly/Production ........................................................................................................................... 36
Usage...................................................................................................................................................... 36
Recyclability ......................................................................................................................................... 37
Evaluation.............................................................................................................................................. 37
Life Cycle Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 38
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ................................................................................... 38
2
PRODUCT BROADER IMPACT ................................................................................................ 38
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 40
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 41
APPENDIX A – Currently Available Running Storage Products ................................................. 42
APPENDIX B – Concept Sketches.................................................................................................... 47
APPENDIX C – Survey #1 Data........................................................................................................ 50
APPENDIX D – Survey #2................................................................................................................. 52
APPENDIX E – Survey #2 Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 58
APPENDIX F – Sample Fabrics Tensile Testing Data ................................................................... 65
APPENDIX G – Physical Properties of Items to be Carried by Pack ........................................... 69
APPENDIX H – Kansei Engineering ................................................................................................ 70
APPENDIX I – Economic Analysis .................................................................................................. 74
APPENDIX J – Profit Optimization .................................................................................................. 75
APPENDIX K – Sustainability Analysis .......................................................................................... 76
APPENDIX L – Product Development Process .............................................................................. 78
APPENDIX M – Additional Previous Work .................................................................................... 79
NOMENCLATURE
Variable
m
L
W
H
R
C
Cf
Cv
Π
NPV
PV
FV
Pv
i
n
Description
Density
Mass
Length
Width
Height
Demand
Intercept of the Product Demand Curve
Price Sensitivity
Price
Revenue
Cost
Fixed Cost
Variable Cost
Profit
Net Present Value
Present Value
Future Value
Principle Value
Interest Rate
Time Period
3
INTRODUCTION
Cindy comes home from a long day of studying in the library and wishes to enjoy the nice
weather and do something for her well-being. She changes into her sport outfit and laces up her
running shoes. Because all her roommates left the house, she needs to take her keys along with
her, but she also wishes to listen to a new album she just loaded on her iPhone. Luckily, her slim
and fitting backpack enables her to comfortably carry all these things along with her. During her
run she meets Peter, who is working hard to get ready for the coming basketball season and
wants to put in a weight workout straight after his run. He needs his wallet for the M-Card, his
keys and a couple of power bars to stay fueled for both workouts. His slim backpack allows him
to carry all of these things and still doesn’t stop him from engaging in a pick-up game at a
basketball court, all without ever having to take off his backpack and expose it to the danger of
being stolen.
Doesn't this sound like a runner's dream, both casual and performance oriented? While walking
through the city on a warm day, you will definitely see many people jogging, and most will be
holding on to their belongings with their bare hands. Observing this led us to wonder about the
lack of suitable products that can carry basic items while running in a comfortable and nonirritating manner. With the 'Analytical Product Design' class giving us a perfect opportunity, we
have come up with a solution to this problem.
Our product’s goal is to satisfy the needs of runners of every level by merging the new trend of
performance enhancing, slim-fitted compression shirts with the convenience of classic
backpacks, forming a simple but unique piece of equipment.
Concept and technological specifications of our idea are not overly complicated, which left us
with more time during the design process to iterate and fully optimize our idea, and making our
product accessible to a broad range of users. The goal is to provide storage capacity for all
necessities, but still give the wearer the comfort as if he isn’t carrying anything at all.
The user will enjoy a running experience as if freed from any burdens but with all his essentials
accompanying him or her during the run. Surveys and talks with potential users have revealed
that the average student who regularly goes out to jog almost always faces this problem and is
therefore a possible buyer of this product. Runners of any age and level of expertise can enjoy a
benefit from our product, making for a very large target market of sports enthusiasts all over the
world.
BACKGROUND
There currently are a vast amount of products available specifically for the running enthusiast.
These products are tailored to one of two groups: the extreme runner or the casual runner. The
extreme runner takes his running very competitively, both with himself and others. They usually
go on longer than average runs, and therefore prefer to carry as much as possible when they go
on a run. Items they like to bring with them include phones, wallets, keys, iPods, water bottles,
energy gels, nutrition bars, reflective vests and head lights for night-time running. These
4
customers usually choose to wear either a utility belt on their waist or a backpack type item over
their shirt because these are the only products with enough carrying capacity for their runs. The
casual runner likes high performance apparel but rarely goes on extremely long runs. They prefer
bringing only the bare essentials with them which seldom includes more than an iPod and key.
They may not feel the need to invest in a backpack or utility belt for the rare long run and usually
carry their smaller amount of items in their pockets or hands.
Available Products
Products addressing the needs of these two groups can be broken down into six major categories.
These categories include running specific shirts and jackets, backpacks and hydration packs,
utility belts and waist packs, armbands, reflective vests and handheld water bottles. There are
numerous brands offering products in each of these categories as shown in Appendix A, Table 12
on page 42. A majority of these brands either focus on apparel (shirts, jackets, vests) or gear
(packs, arm bands, water bottles) with the exception of the larger companies (i.e. Nike, Adidas,
Under Armour, The North Face). Each of these product categories addresses a specific need for
the runner with little room for flexibility.
Running specific shirts and jackets provide the largest variety of brand options of any of the
categories. Shirt models are available in long and short sleeve, sleeveless and tank top varieties
either loose or form fitting. Pocket arrangements were minimal with no more than a couple small
pockets located on the chest or shoulder areas. They are tailored to carrying one small item like a
gym card or iPod and do not provide enough storage capacity for long runs. Materials used are
moisture-wicking and tailored for warmth or keeping cool through sweat evaporation. A unique
feature of several tight-fitting models was posture control and muscle support to help increase
oxygen intake and improve form. Running specific jacket options provide a slight increase in
storage with anywhere from two to four pockets but can only be worn in cool conditions.
Examples can be found in Appendix A, Figure 16, on page 43.
Backpacks and hydration packs have the second most brand variety but show a larger variety
within an individual brand. Options for carrying water include pockets specific for water bottles
or a hydration bladder with a clip for a drinking piece on the shoulder strap. The packs range
from smaller more streamlined versions with fewer pockets to full scale backpacks. There are
many different types of adjustable strap configurations ranging from over the shoulder and
around the arms to across the chest, abdomen and waist. Some of these configurations appear to
provide a snug fit to minimize bouncing while in use. Additional features include exterior
bungee cords for a rain jacket or extra clothes and adjustable size pockets. There is a wide range
of storage capacities available, but the smallest has more than in the other product categories.
They are designed for carrying a lot of different types of items on longer excursions. Examples
can be found in Appendix A, Figure 17, on page 44.
Utility belts and waist packs offer the second most storage capacity to backpacks. They come in
two varieties; waist packs and belts. Both are worn on the waist but the former is more like the
traditional fanny-pack with one large pouch whereas the latter is a belt with several small
pockets and holders. Most belts have the option to carry one or two water bottles along with a
couple of additional small pockets for a phone, wallet or keys. The packs usually offer slightly
more capacity with the ability to hold larger items. However, neither of these is suitable for
packing additional clothing making them all a step below backpacks for storage ability. They are
5
suitable for customers who prefer not to have something on their upper extremities but need a
good amount of storage capacity for longer runs. Examples can be found in Appendix A, Figure
18, on page 45.
Armbands, handheld water bottles and reflective vests round out the remaining categories. Each
of these is a smaller specialty item with a specific job. Most armbands are specifically designed
to hold an iPod or similar MP3 player with a couple of them having an additional small pocket
big enough for a key or credit card. They’re purpose is to provide the minimalist with a secure
way to hold their music player. Handheld water bottles provide a way to carry water while
running without having to wear an additional piece of clothing. Their ergonomic handles reduce
the stress experienced in your hand while carrying the bottle allowing use on longer runs. Many
of them come with a cover that has a small pocket or two similar to an armband. Both of these
products are used by those looking to carry one or two specific things while running. The
reflective vests are a specialty item for those that like to run at night. They normally do not have
more than one pocket for storage but were included in the analysis because they are an additional
item worn by runners similar to a shirt. Those with a pocket cannot hold anything of significant
weight securely without it bouncing around. They can be stowed in the pocket of a pack that is
already being worn or must be worn over the pack for visibility purposes. This can cause the
need to wear three pieces of apparel on the upper body (shirt, pack and reflective vest). Examples
of armbands, handheld water bottles and reflective vests can be found in Appendix A, Figures
19, 20, and 21 on pages 45 - 46.
Additional products for carrying essentials for cardio-related activities include gym and duffel
bags and the Nike Shoe Wallet. The bags were not included in the analysis because they are a
means of transporting large items to and from a workout location as opposed to during a cardiorelated activity. They provide a very large amount of storage ability but are not a competitor of
our product. The Nike Shoe Wallet is a small portable pocket that clips to your shoelaces and
holds small essentials like a key or credit card. It is a lot like an armband that does not carry a
music player. There are several other brand names with similar products as well.
From our market analysis we see that there are numerous options to carry items while running.
Running shirts and jackets, backpacks and hydration packs, belts and waist packs, armbands,
reflective vests and handheld water bottles with pockets are all tailored to either large amounts of
storage or just enough for the minimalist. What is lacking is a product that is comfortable,
unobtrusive and versatile enough to do both. Our original problem statement of finding a better
way to carry items while running is one that current brands have split into two categories; long
runs and high storage or short runs with minimal storage. A gap exists in the market for a
product that can perform both of these jobs seamlessly. Our product will be unique in that it will
be simple enough to wear when a user needs only to carry a few small items but can also do the
job when the user feels ambitious enough to go on a longer excursion. It will have a seamless fit
on the body, wearing like it is not even there when empty. However, it will have enough storage
to carry keys, phone, credit card, water and snacks when needed. It will also have reflective
qualities, eliminating the need to also wear a reflective vest and thus having to buy an additional
piece of equipment.
6
Number of Pockets
Figure 1: Shoulder Pack compares well with competition for Pocket to price ratio
The North
7
Face
Salomon XT
Shoulder
6
Pack
CamelBak
5
Amphipod
4
Nathan HPL
3
GoLite
Nathan
Speedbelt
2
1
Fuelbelt
0
0
50
100
Price ($)
150
200
Figure 2: Shoulder Pack provides the most space for the price
9
CamelBak
Storage Capacity (L)
8
The North
Face
7
6
5
4
Salomon XT
Nathan HPL
3
Shoulder
Pack
2
Amphipod
1
FuelBelt
0
0
GoLite
Nathan
Speedbelt
50
100
Price ($)
150
200
7
Figure 3: Shoulder Pack Proves to be one of the lightest products on the market
1.4
Salomon XT
Weight (Lbs)
1.2
Nathan HPL
1
GoLite
0.8
CamelBak
FuelBelt
0.6
Shoulder
Pack
0.4
The North
Face
Amphipod
0.2
0
0
50
100
Price ($)
150
200
Further Research
In addition to the information already gathered, we still desired to learn more about preferred
pocket locations and material types for our product. The results of our survey analysis from the
following section helped approximate the number of pockets we required; however there was no
indication as to where users will want to locate specific items relative to their body. Also, the
primary material had to be a stretchy breathable type, but testing of prototypes provided us with
more information on adding different types of materials within the product to improve comfort.
Further research was also done to identify an ideal price point for our product. As is shown in the
following section, keeping the manufacturing price as low as possible was perhaps the most
important element our entire design and manufacturing process.
DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS
Our goal is to aid exercisers, particularly runners, in carrying their various items while doing
cardio-vascular exercises such as running. We planned to tackle this issue by designing a sport
pack that fits tightly on the shoulders, almost feeling like an extension of the body, so one can
run without their belongings bouncing around in their pockets. When coming up with our design
objectives and requirements, we first needed to define which criteria are most important to the
potential buyers of the product. Through the help of survey data, we produced the following
table of customer priorities by ranking.
8
Table 1: User Design Requirements
Property
Price
Ranking
1
Comfort/Fit (Material, Size, Weight)
2
Storage Space (Pocket Number, Volume)
3
Ease of Use
4
Aesthetics
5
Goal
$20 to $30
“Almost Unnoticeable”
Thin, Breathable
Less than 5 lb.
3, 6, or 9 Pockets
3, 6, or 10 Liters
Velcro, Zipper, Buttons,
etc.
Location of Pockets
75% Positive Reaction
From analyzing survey data, we found the cost of the product to not only be the most important
business design objective, but the most important customer priority in general. In these modern
economic times, every consumer-based product’s sales depend highly on its cost. Our survey
results were highly correlated with the price of the product, as most of the data results showed
the cheapest options being selected. We realize that the cost needs to be the highest concern
throughout our design and manufacturing process, as our customer base will be greatly swayed
in their decision of purchasing our product by the price of it. Our material and manufacturing
costs will be formed around the aim of keeping our product between $20 and $30 for the
customer.
We concluded that the next priority after cost was the overall comfort and fit of the product.
Since our product is essentially a clothing accessory, it will be judged largely on how it feels
while being worn. While good comfort is a hard property to numerically define, our team
declares good comfort as the product being almost unnoticeable when a user is wearing it. Two
of our other criteria will have a very strong influence on this comfort. First of these is the
material used. We require a very thin and breathable material comparable to those in sport
compression shorts or compression shirts, which contain mostly polyester and a portion of
spandex. Also highly related to the overall comfort will be the weight and size of the product,
therefore making them important design properties as well. We aim to make the weight of the
shoulder pack less than half a pound and the size to be similar to that of a small sports strap bag.
Behind comfort, storage space was our next objective. Users of our product will have various
items that they wish to bring along with them, and therefore our design must incorporate a wide
range of options to increase our customer base. From our survey, which required decisions to be
made between 3, 6, or 9 pockets and whether the total storage volume will be 3, 6, or about 10
liters, we found most people preferring around 6 pockets and opting for the highest volume of 10
liters. We realize, that as surveyors thinking abstractly, they desire for the volume to be the
highest they’re allowed to choose from. We will keep that in mind, but instead of taking the 10
liters literally, we’ve learned that storage space is an important property and customers want as
much of it as possible. Though, we must remember that overall comfort is more of a concern and
10 liters of volume could possibly detract from our desired level of comfort.
9
After the overall size and storage space are established, the next objective was making this space
simple and convenient to utilize for our buyers. We defined this as the ease of use criteria. The
pockets must be easily reachable for the user to quickly access and then store away their items.
However, additional decisions were still to be made, such as where the pockets were going to be
located and whether they would be accessed via zipper, Velcro, buttons, or have a mix of these in
our design.
Last but not least, was our final priority - the aesthetics of the design. While being efficient to
use and comfortable to wear, it must also blend with modern sporty trends and styles, otherwise
people won’t add it into their outfit. Also a hard property to numerically scale, we set our goal to
be a 75% positive reaction from people who visually see the product.
Manufacturing Priorities
Along with these consumer objectives, there were some manufacturing objectives that we had to
meet from our end in order to ensure the product was feasible to manufacture but also profitable
in the consumer market. Our overall expenses had to be less than the desired retail price range of
$40 - $60.
Like a good deal of our design objectives, feasibility and manufacturability were difficult to
quantify numerically on a scale, but we set a target on keeping the manufacturing process of the
prototype under a 2-week span. We laid out the manufacturing plan via a series of steps that’s
repeatable and feasible for hypothetical mass production.
CONCEPT GENERATION
As our team set out to design the perfect product for individuals to transport goods swiftly and
discretely by foot, we explored a number of different avenues of how to bring this to fruition.
Every design we explored was intended for the upper body, but they were each unique and
offered a variety of pros and cons.
Our first exploration was a backpack, as pictured in Appendix B, Figure 22 on page 47,
optimized to cling tightly around the back, essentially being an extension of the body. We saw it
as the evolution of a drawstring backpack, which has great ability to store items, but is very
clumsy and slaps against the body when jogging or running. Our representation of the backpack
is a very form-fitting model, with little to no extra room under the armpits so that there is no
need for one to utilize their hands to secure the pack to your body.
Another feature we explored in our form fitted backpack was a hood that zips out of the top to
reveal itself. The mentality behind this was that the hood would not only keep someone dry if
unfortunately caught in the rain, but also allow them to warm themselves up if they desired to
reach a full sweat before engaging in physical activity, in order to lose weight. The hood was a
design feature that we carried through a variety of our initial concepts, which we touch on below.
The advantage of the backpack is that it would provide ample storage and could accommodate
just about everything one would want to take to the gym. The tradeoff to a design of this nature
10
however is that with greater size, comes greater bulk and consequently less convenience and
comfort.
The second design our group explored was a vest, to be seen in Appendix B, Figure 23 on page
47. Meant to be a second layer (over your own shirt) the vest would provide storage for your
goods via pockets in both the front and the back of the vest. It would be removable from your
body, like the backpack, but would cover more of your body and ultimately disperse the goods
one carries. Pockets would seal through a combination of zip pockets, as well as ergonomically
conscience Velcro on the front and backside of the vest.
Ultimately, the biggest drawback our group foresaw in using a vest that goes over your clothing
is that it would have to be tight to adhere to your body and avoid the contents of the pockets from
slapping the wearer while in motion. A tight vest over potentially loose clothing is something we
were weary of because not only would it fail to be an aesthetically pleasing look, but it would
also create unwanted friction for the wearer.
Thirdly, we considered an arm sleeve, displayed in Appendix B, Figure 24 on page 48, as our
solution for carrying items while one is on the move. The form was inspired by a combination of
a compression sleeve and an armband traditionally worn around the bicep to hold an MP3 player.
This sleeve would ideally expand on that functionality and hold other items such as keys, money,
and identification.
The simplicity of a sleeve is something we may have expanded on had we chose this route, and
potentially added convertible functionality that would allow for the sleeve to turn into a draw
string back or a stubble ball that, when empty, could be rolled up and easily stowed in one´s
traditional pants pocket. As we saw it, a sleeve would free up your body, but your arms would
have a non-uniform feel, especially for anything secured below the elbow (as this part of a
runner’s body moves a great deal). Sleeves would be a bulk free way to travel, but the storage
capacity would be limited and the wearer would have to omit any items of substantial volume.
Our fourth potential solution was a compression shirt with pockets with a sketch in Appendix B,
Figure 25 on page 48. This held a unique set of advantages and disadvantages that the previous
three referenced above did not. A shirt is a no brainer to put on as it is un-obstructing and isn’t an
extra item to invest in or wear. Adding properly tailored, compression pockets to a breathable
workout shirt is a viable idea to help an individual transport goods as they run. However, we
decided the drawback to an all in one type product overwhelmed the simplicity of the idea.
The problem with a shirt-based design is that there was no room for customization. Everyone has
their own preference for the types of tops they like to exercise in, ranging from the lowest tech
cotton T-shirts, to moisture-resistant, quarter-zip, running specific, long sleeve shirts. Another
issue was that if our product were a base layer, with as much skin-to-product contact as a shirt
would offer, it is inevitable that it would have to be washed after it was worn to work out again
and again. We’d love to offer a product that people desire to wear every time they find
themselves working out, so we made the decision that our product has to be removable and not
synonymous with one’s shirt.
11
The fifth and final product that our group explored, and ultimately chose to move forward with,
is a design that takes inspiration from visualizing a blend between a traditional backpack and
shoulder pads used in football. Sketches of this design are presented in Appendix B, Figure 26 on
page 49.
The shoulder pad design sits high on your back, an area we identified in runners to move
relatively little. Perched on the wearer’s shoulder blades, we picture the pack resting snuggly,
while avoiding any movement that would slap the wearer on the back as he or she travels. The
design also includes two very tight straps, which firmly hold the pack on your upper back, while
containing enough stretch to be easy to remove when tugged at under the arms.
This design will have sufficient volume to hold a fair amount of workout essentials (including
the zip-away hood referenced earlier) without overwhelming or weighing down the wearer as he
or she travels. We anticipate that casual individuals, who find themselves jogging, all the way to
serious runners, will have in interest in our product’s marriage of an ergonomic location, high
tech and properly used materials, and savvy design specifications.
CONCEPT SELECTION
In selecting a final design concept, the rapid prototypes we produced in class proved to be of
great help. They presented us with the first chance to visualize how our concepts actually felt and
looked like and we were able to determine flaws that previously weren't identified. Table 2 on
page 13 summarizes our observations.
The analysis of our survey data also proved to be of great help in selecting our final concept.
From the CBC analysis we determined that price is by far the number one purchasing factor. The
extremely wide margin between price and either number of pockets or total storage space may
partially be due to the narrow group of survey takers. A more varied group will be used in an
additional survey. The CBC analysis also showed that customers want as much storage space as
they can get for the price, but they chose the middle range for the number of pockets. This shows
that it will be important to keep price down, provide ample storage space for flexibility but not
overdo the amount of pockets. This data is shown in Appendix C, Figures 27 - 29 on page 50.
Additionally, we were able to see what items users tend to carry while running or performing
other forms of exercise. Data shows that people carry less and smaller items while running than
when doing other physical exercise. This is shown in Appendix C, Table 13 on page 51.
After long and heated discussions within our team, a comparison of all the concepts and the
generation of new ideas, we eventually came up with a concept selection that we all agreed upon.
A Pugh selection matrix analysis assisted us in identifying the compression shirt with integrated
pockets and the shoulder pack as the two ideas that best fulfill our design criteria. This is shown
in Table 3 on page 13.
12
Table 2: Comparison of Pros and Cons of Rapid Prototypes
Rapid Prototype
Product

Pros


Cons

Slim-Fitted
Compression Shirt
Backpack
with Pockets
large storage space  can be
comfortably worn
even without
weight placed at a
carrying items
very stable and
non-moving
 pouches are easily
location
accessible
backpack is an old
and very well
 little storage space
established
offered
concept
 washing after
every use is
pouches not
accessible without
inconvenient
taking off the
product
Table 3: Pugh Selection Matrix
Back
Pack
Weight
Cost
5
1
Comfort
4
2
Storage Space
4
3
Ease of Use
3
2
Aesthetics
2
2
Manufacturing
4
2
Costs
Feasibility
2
1
Total
45
Sleeve
Shoulder
Pack
Shoulder Pack




new and fresh
design
weight placed at a
very stable and
non-moving
location
pouches not
accessible without
taking off the
product
not easy to put on
and get off
Shirt
Vest
3
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
49
2
61
3
57
3
42
13
The weight of each design property was determined from the survey analysis and our
manufacturing objectives. Each concept was then rated from 1 to 3, according to our estimate of
its relationship to the specified property, 1 being a poor rating and 3 being the best.
The most promising concept appears to be the shoulder pack. This was an idea that came up after
the first iterations and evolved out of the insight that backpacks have been a popular
transportation and storage device for ages, but modifications can made that optimize their use for
runner specific needs, resulting in the creation of a unique product.
The shoulder pack possesses various advantages to its competitors, an important one being its
versatility. The size and storage space make it possible to carry more than just a few essentials
such as keys, a credit card or a few dollar bills, therefore making it a great companion for longer
runs when extra provisions and perhaps an additional overlay of clothes are required. The goal is
to allow people to run freely and comfortably, whether the shoulder pack is empty or full. After
comparing the potential specifications of our shoulder pack with the competition, our concept
stacks up very well in number of pockets, storage capacity and weight in relation to price.
Having six pockets is about average on the market but from our survey data we determined this
is the optimum number. The storage capacity of our design is in the bottom third of the market
but it is the most storage provided in relation to the price. Finally, we will have one of the
lightest products on the market. These relationships are shown in Figures 1 - 3 on pages 7 - 8.
Lower back pain is an often occurring side effect of either a heavy or poorly located load on the
back. Many tend to wear their backpack too low, forcing the upper body to be overly tilted to the
front to balance the weight. Other commonly used products in the running segment are waist
packs, but these can bounce around when running at a faster pace leading to irritation around the
waistline. The weight placement of the shoulder pack distributes load over a commonly strong
segment of the upper body, relieving stress from the lower back. The spandex straps provide a
tight fit that will not bounce around on any movement the user might perform.
While attempting to gain a segment of the large sport oriented backpack market, our product will
face harsh competition from numerous existing designs. However, we are convinced that the
product will be seen as unique from the revolutionary displacement of weight on the shoulders,
stretchy-comfortable fit, and versatility for casual to serious runners. We aim for a wearing
experience that can be compared more closely with a compression shirt, something that fits like a
second layer of skin as opposed to the bulky feeling of a backpack.
The basis of our shoulder pack design will be a piece of gear that wears like a shirt across the
upper back and shoulders. Straps wrapping around the underarms hold the pack in place, and are
easily adjustable via strips of Velcro. The final idea was for the user to be able to slip the pack on
and off easily and quickly. Pockets for items that need to be accessed more frequently during
exercise are located on the straps themselves whereas bigger or heavier items can be stored in the
larger pockets on the back. An additional feature considered was the use of a reflective material
to eliminate the need to wear a reflective safety vest at night. A visual mockup of the shoulder
pack is shown on the following page in Figures 4 and 5.
14
Figure 4: Alpha Prototype – Front View
Figure 5: Alpha Prototype – Rear View
Preliminary analyses included discussions with several students who are occasional or daily
runners, and these discussions confirmed our assessment that the storage of personal belongings
while running is a widespread dilemma. The results of the survey conducted within the APD
15
class have helped us to assess the needs of students who engage in physical activities, more
precisely running outdoors.
The next steps in refining our current design concept were to specify the exact measurements and
select the appropriate materials in order to go ahead and produce the first working prototype. On
the basis of this prototype, first test runs were performed by us in order to assess functionality
and efficiency. At the same time a second and more specified survey was made and handed out
within the targeted group of users. This new found feedback assisted us in identifying problems
in the Alpha Prototype. The next and final prototype, referred to as the Beta Prototype, was then
constructed with all the necessary modifications to optimize efficiency. The Beta Prototype was
then rigorously tested by us again. After this test phase, we possessed the solution that fulfilled
all the needs of the target users and our personal objectives as manufacturers.
CURRENT DESIGN CONCEPT
Our project (SWAG) has evolved in both its form and function by streamlining each respectively
since our proposal. Through a combination of functionally driven engineering tests and aesthetic
personal choices, we made design decisions regarding the fabric SWAG will be made from.
Since our original proposal, we redesigned SWAG to offer a more customizable fit. And finally,
pocket position and function along with the surface our product covers on one’s body is a
decision we refined through various iterations.
Our first step in continuing to evolve our alpha prototype was to create a second survey to get
more information from our potential user base. The primary goals of this survey were to
determine the preferred pocket locations and functionalities, learn which items people tend to
access the most during their runs and also to determine if the addition of a hydration bladder is a
desired quality. After analyzing the data, which included answers from 73 potential users, we
then had well defined answers for each of these questions.
The first thing that we learned is that keys, MP3 players and cell phones are the three items
carried most often and in that order. The bar graph, shown in Appendix E, Figure 32 on page 59
illustrates this. However, the items that are accessed most often while a person is running are
wallets, MP3 players and keys in that order. This is shown in Appendix E, Figure 34 on page 60.
This lead us into questions pertaining specifically to pockets, and the most important information
attained was that most people want less than six total pockets and would like them to be a
combination of pockets dedicated to holding specific items and versatile ones. The dedicated
pockets of highest importance are an MP3 player pocket, one for keys, and a cell phone pocket in
that order. Figures 38 - 40 in Appendix E on pages 62 - 63 explain the breakdown. This is very
critical information when designing our pocket sizes and configuration.
When questioning the users about hydration bladders, 74% said that they would be willing to try
using a hydration bladder while running, but 63% said they didn’t have any experience with one
and only 22% said they would be willing to pay an additional $10 - $20 to have one. This is
illustrated in Appendix E, Figures 35 - 37 on pages 61 - 62. The remaining design updates were
done by building and testing the prototype as is described in more detail in the following section.
16
BETA PROTOTYPE
We started our redesign by trimming the fat from the original design, creating a product that is
easier to utilize and slimmer than previous renderings. In earlier versions of SWAG we were
driven by the look and volume of shoulder pads that create forms of their own as they rest on the
wear’s upper body. In later iterations of the design, we’ve created a product that resembles more
of a compression shirt’s (minus the sleeves) look and feel, which clings tight to the body and
follows the natural form of the wearer. This change was made in an effort to maximize mobility
for the person wearing SWAG as well as an effort to reduce material costs.
The fabric we chose to craft SWAG out of (Italian Stretch Nylon) was a favorite of ours because
of its ability to stretch and retain its original shape. It is additionally a fabric that offers a lot of
strength, compared to other stretch nylons. The Italian Stretch Nylon also comes in a light grey
color, which has a slight shimmer. We enjoyed the look of the color and feet it embodied the
stealth like aesthetic we’d like to project into SWAG.
Another change we made to our project, and then subsequently tweaked, were the strapping
systems for SWAG. In our earliest prototype, which was a rough sketch model constructed from
cardboard tubing and yarn, we recognized that making our product simple to put on and take off
is highly important in optimizing usability for the customer. Our first inclination was to have
SWAG come with straps already formed into loops, which the user slipped his or her arms into
and out of. Removal of the product would be similar in procedure to that of a very tight
backpack. We quickly realized that this prospect was inconvenient at best, and unattainable at
worst for any individual that lacks above average flexibility or is simply too big in the upper
body region to wear or remove the product.
Our next iteration involved straps that trailed out of the back of SWAG, and came up under the
armpits utilizing a hook and eye system to secure the straps to the dangling material around the
sternum. This idea offered a snug fit around the wear´s torso, but it didn´t provide any sort of
customizability, and left a rather awkward layer of fabric dangling above one´s abdominals. In
the next rendition we did away with the front section that lay over the wearer´s chest. We
redirected the straps to still come up under one´s armpits, but head up (instead of across) and
attach to material covering the front of the shoulders. We also changed the closure system to
Velcro instead of hooks and eyes. As a result of these modifications, there was now nothing to
slip over the wearer´s head. The customizability this provides is appealing to us as manufactures,
but there is still the possibility of another fastener that brings more strength.
With the chest segment of the product removed, other locations had to be explored to place the
easy access front pockets, and the now vertical straps offered us new areas to explore. We were
unsatisfied with items placed in the formerly available chest region, and thus decided to
implement pockets into these front straps. There are also two pockets in the back, which we are
in the process of designing to accommodate as many individuals’ needs as possible. Figures 6 - 7
on page 18 show the Beta Prototype.
17
The next steps were honing in the pocket locations, sizes, and closing mechanisms. The decision
was made to use zippers to close the pockets, opposed to Velcro, magnets or straps. That, as well
as potential sizing options, were the next steps in making SWAG everything we want it to be.
Figure 6: Digital Rendering of Beta Prototype
Figure 7: Beta Prototype in a test run
18
FINAL PROTOTYPE
Our design concept is a wearable product that offers unobtrusive storage capacity for runners
and/or commuters who move quickly on foot. After exploring placement and designs, we
decided that a form fitted product situated high on your back would marry the best of a
backpack, with the best of a compression shirt. Our earliest renders showed a product with more
volume that protruded out of the back. However, after we started prototyping, we settled for a
tighter compressed form.
Our final prototype is predominantly constructed out of an Italian stretch nylon. In addition we
sparingly use Silkara, which acts at the waterproof material in select areas of SWAG. The design
has unibody straps that come down under the wearer’s armpits and run up around to form loops
and Velcro to material that hangs down on the wearer’s front deltoids. From our earliest
prototype made out of yarn and cardboard, we knew the straps would be a key element to
crafting a comfortable product that was feasible to get on and off. We utilized earlier prototypes
to play with other strapping systems such as straps across the chest that hooked to each other in
your sternum area. We decided on Velcro because it offers a customizable fit, that hooks and
eyes do not.
Our final design has five pockets, three across the back and two easily accessible pockets located
on the straps. The three back pockets are all fastened shut with zippers. The left back
compartment of SWAG has a unique shaped pocket that comes to a point at the bottom and is
designed for one’s keys. Mirrored to the right of that pocket are two pockets stacked on each
other. Both are rectangular, and accommodate items such as wallets, cards, electronics, pocketsized notebooks, or any other small items you may want with you on the go. Finally, on the back
is a loop next to the left pocket, which the wearer can run his or her headphones under so they
stay situated when you run with music.
Earlier versions had fewer pockets, but based upon survey data we decided five was the magic
number. Once we received the survey data that demonstrated different users had a variety of
needs, we decided a combination of dedicated pockets with a specific function, as well as general
compartments were an ideal mix. Early on we had pockets with no closures, but we determined
zippers on the back would best protect the wearer’s contents.
The two pockets on the front are sized so that the left one accommodates your MP3 player or
phone and offers a discreet Velcro closure so the wearer’s device is not in jeopardy of falling out.
We used Velcro as the closure for the front because we did not want headphone cords severed by
zippers. On the right side strap we placed a pocket sized for cards to easily slip in and out of at
the user’s intent. The top seam is sewn over so that cards won’t accidentally fall out.
Lastly, we explored branding and a unique way to make our mark with the SWAG insignia on
our product. What we would ideally include is tonal reflective print with our logo on the back of
the pack. That is a discreet technique to brand our product, but a final touch that would perfectly
pop up when hit by light.
19
Figure 8: Digital Rendering of Final Prototype
Figure 9: Final Prototype
20
ENGINEERING FUNCTIONALITY ANALYSIS
Upon ordering 8 sample fabrics, we first measured the length, L, width, W, and height, H, and
then took their mass, m, before using Eqn. 1 below to determine the density of each. All of the
data attained from the engineering analysis can be seen in Table 4 on page 23. The optimal fabric
for this product is a light, thin, breathable, but stretchy material in order to increase the overall
comfort of our product. To determine which fabric(s) best fit the engineering requirements,
tensile tests on the different samples were conducted. The goals of these tests were to determine
how much load each fabric can sustain without suffering any permanent deformation of shape,
and how the material itself looks after the test. We desired to find a material that exerts a low
force back onto the Instron Tensile Machine while being stretched, has a high memory of its
original shape, and also is resistant to ripping or tearing.
Eqn. 1
After analyzing our data, we found that each of the 8 samples is more than strong enough to
support the loads created by the various items that our product will be carrying. Our product will
stretch around the upper body, resting on the shoulders of the user and therefore we know that
the gravitational force of an object won’t be applied in its entirety to the fabric. The person’s
shoulders and chest will apply an indeterminable normal force back. But, with a safety factor of
2, we confirmed that all the samples have the capability to sustain a longitudinal load much
greater than will be required.
Upon the initial feeling of the sample fabrics, we expected the Italian Nylon Lycra to be the
optimal fabric as it felt very similar to a compression shirt’s material - light, thin, and fairly
elastic. It was also the least dense of the 8 samples and therefore would result in the lightest
product. After analyzing the results of our tests, we confirmed that this fabric was the best for
our purposes. It sustained, with the desired safety factors, sufficient load to carry the maximum
expected weights of our users’ items. Not only that, but upon inspection of the fabric samples
post-testing, the Italian Nylon Lycra looked almost identical to before. It had no tear or rips, and
reverted back to its original size very quickly. This is best for our design objectives. All the
tested samples can be seen in Appendix F, Figure 48 on page 68.
The load applied to the fabric was plotted against the strain produced in order to analyze various
properties that will affect the performance and comfort of our product. Two of the graphs can be
seen below, in Figures 10 - 11, the Italian Nylon Lycra and Silkara, which are chosen as our
primary and secondary fabrics for the Final Prototype, respectively. The remainder of the
materials’ tensile graphs can be seen in Appendix F, Figures 42 - 47 on pages 65 - 67. These
fabrics were not best suited for the product, and thus not chosen.
21
Figure 10: Italian Nylon Lycra Provides the Most Stretch and Meets Strength Requirement
Italian Nylon Lycra
Load (N)
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Strain
Figure 11: Silkara Provides High Strength with Low Stretch
550
Silkara
Load (N)
450
350
250
150
50
-50 0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Strain
Upon analyzing the various graphs, we first desired to confirm that the forces exerted on the
fabric while our product is in use all reside in the linear elastic region of the curve, as anything
higher could result in a permanent shape change of the product. The Italian Nylon Lycra’s linear
elastic region ends at around a 0.6 strain, which means at about 1.6 times its original length.
Anything past that is in danger of permanently deforming the material. From data we recorded
on 13 different MP3 players and 13 cellular phones online, we found the heaviest item to be an
mp3 player of about 0.79 Lb. or 3.5 N as is shown in Tables 14-15 of Appendix G on page 69.
With a safety factor of 2, we can see that the Italian Nylon Lycra easily supports a load of 7 N in
its linear elastic region. There is no danger of the fabric being stretched beyond its limits or
permanently deforming in any way. One more thing to note is that for the strains applied (0 to
≈0.7), the load on this fabric was significantly lower than the others. The maximum load attained
during the testing of the Italian Nylon Lycra was about 30 N, while some of the other samples
exerted loads of 300N or greater, such as the Silkara, on the Instron Tensile Machine. This
means that when this nylon is worn fairly tightly, it will not apply a large pressure onto the user’s
upper body, another testament to the stretchy nature of this fabric and why it is optimal for our
product.
22
The Silkara on the other hand, was much more difficult to stretch, as it required a load of 375 N
to produce a 0.1 strain, or in other words, stretch it to 1.1 times its original length. Along with the
Italian Nylon Lycra, this is one of the two selected materials. The reason for this is because it can
be used as an inside liner for the pockets, as it is water resistant and the product may be used in
rain. This will not be used as our primary fabric, and therefore will not be stretched during the
use of the product.
From our optimization analysis, in order to keep our product under a half a pound which we
identified as the threshold for good comfort, the density and thickness of the primary fabric
should be under 0.31 g/cm3 and 7mm respectively. This is a fairly low density for a fabric, as it
can be seen that none of our fabrics were that light, but a few were close and the difference it
would make to the overall weight is next to negligible. Out of all the samples tested, the fabric
with the lowest measured density was the Italian Nylon Lycra at 0.33 g/cm3. The thickness of the
fabric is much lower than the 7 mm threshold at only 0.6 mm. The resulting weight of our
product with this fabric would be approximately 0.4 lbs., which will result in a high level of
comfort, and is therefore the best of the tested fabrics based on density.
Table 4: Experimental Fabric Properties
Max
Max
Density
Fabric
Load
Strain (g/cm3)
(N)
Elastic
Modulus
(N)
Additional Properties
great stretch and recovery, good
strength and abrasion resistance,
long term resistance to body
acids, retains shape
cotton/lycra knit, good abrasion
resistance and endurance, very
breathable
high abrasion resistance and
endurance
cotton/lycra knit, good abrasion
resistance and endurance, very
breathable
Italian
Nylon Lycra
27
0.65
0.33
30
Equestrian
4-Way Herring
106
0.48
0.35
40
Spandura
43
0.41
0.36
60
Equestrian
4-Way Stretch
105
0.20
0.40
70
Waterproof
Breathable Tex
529
0.19
0.44
2700
completely waterproof
Silkara
411
0.15
0.47
4200
treated with a DWR (Durable
Water Resistant) finish
515
0.36
0.61
2600
1.3 oz, uncoated, 30 denier, heat
and light inhibitors
2593
0.31
0.62
9900
urethane coated, heaviest nylon
on market
Master Nylon
(Silicone Impregnated
Ripstop)
Master Nylon
(1050D)
23
EMOTIONAL AND AESTHETIC ANALYSIS
Analysis on this personal level was divided into multiple segments, as it is an impossible
property to quantify. We broke it down into 3 sections - Emotional Design, Craftsmanship and a
Kansei Engineering analysis based on a short survey.
Emotional Design
We based our emotional design on the research by Donald Norman[16] who defined the term as:
“A framework for analyzing products in a holistic way to include their attractiveness, their
behavior and the image they present to the user – and the owner.” He suggested approaching the
issue from three different positions: Visceral Design (first impression the user perceives from a
product), Behavioral Design (how the user experiences interaction with a product) and Reflection
(what lasting feeling the user is left with).
Visceral Design:
We designed SWAG as such that from a first glance the new user will not perceive our design as
a back-pack or storing device. It appears like a thin and elastic piece of clothing resembling a
compression shirt. Only after further investigation will the user notice the Velcro driven closing
mechanism of the straps and the underlying pouches with zippers. This will help us convince the
potential customer that our product is very different from all other storing devices on the market
and that we have invented a new and innovative concept for transporting items while running.
Behavioral Design:
After the first contact with our product the customer will be curious if it performs as advertised
and will give it a try. That is when our extended research and iterations during the development
will soon win him over for us. The user will recognize the exceptional fit and well-chosen
materials. As soon as the wearer picks up pace and actually begins running with it, if we have
accomplished our design objectives properly, he will have completely forgotten of its existence.
Our intent is for the user to store their items in SWAG, strap it on with the easily adjustable
Velcro closing mechanism, and go for a run. The only time the runner shall take his mind off of
his run and think of SWAG is when in need of one of the stored items or when a fellow runner
compliments him on his storage device and is curious about its origin and performance.
Reflection:
The thoughts one has after the use of our product will depend on the user and how often he has
worn SWAG. A common or well-advanced runner, used to carrying his necessities in his hands or
pockets, will be pleasantly surprised of the experience wearing it and will appreciate having
found a storage possibility that doesn't disturb his physical activities.
After multiple uses and growing familiarity though, SWAG will become a regular companion
when jogging, like running shoes, to the point where not much thought or consideration is
devoted to the product as long as it works and fits fine consistently. But by having SWAG
become a vital part of a runner’s routine, we will have succeeded in our design and
manufacturing efforts.
24
Craftsmanship
Craftsmanship corresponds to the aforementioned Visceral Design, as it gives the customer an
immediate appeal of a product being well made and well functioning. Unlike quality that reveals
itself only after first hand usage, craftsmanship can be immediately assessed during the very first
sights of a product.
In order to emphasize good craftsmanship, we attempted to define which design attributes
perceived from the user and which design variables we can control, will influence the overall
craftsmanship of the product. We then went into more detail about the specifics that support our
claims for good craftsmanship. This is shown in Table 5, on the next page.
25
Table 5: An analytical approach for Craftsmanship improvements
Perceived Attributes of
Craftsmanship
Visual Attractiveness
Influencing Design
Variables



Colors
Pocket Location
Stitching
Decisions Made in Consideration of
Craftsmanship



Dark silver and purple were
chosen as being non-genderspecific and in trend of modern,
vibrant neon colors with a
futuristic appeal
Survey data helped us design
pockets in the front for items
frequently used and generic
pockets in the back for items
seldom used
We used threads of the same color
as the underlying fabric to blend in
and used the classic top stitch
pattern
Tactile Feel

Material Selection

Selection only included highquality materials of which we
chose considering elasticity,
durability and water repelling
capability
Ease of Accessibility



Strap Design
Closing Mechanism
Sizing

Strapping system re-iterated
through design process and
improved to the current design, but
still remains challenging to firsttime users
Velcro is a light weight closing
mechanism that allows for quick
and easy adjustments
Elastic Italian Nylon Lycra
provides a snug fit for various
statures


Comfort



Material Selection
Sizing
Strap Design



High-quality materials chosen
considering elasticity, durability
and water repelling capability
Elastic fabric provides snug fit for
different statures
Strapping system re-iterated
through design process and
improved to the current design, but
still remains challenging to firsttime users
26
Kansei Engineering
Kansei engineering is a method to translate emotions into design properties and therefore design
a product with the intent to trigger certain emotions in the user. While considering the three
design attributes of aesthetics, a sense of security when storing items, and comfort while wearing
the product, we used a survey to assess the preferences of potential buyers in terms of the 2
prototypes.
Over the three aforementioned attributes we were able to improve two, comfort and security, in
the new Beta Prototype. However, people seemed to prefer the Alpha Prototype in the
department of aesthetics, where only 40% sided with the Beta Prototype. This data can be seen in
Figures 49-51 in Appendix H on page 70 - 71.
The design variables that were changed between the Alpha and Beta Prototype were then
explored further. A survey was created to determine, based on potential users’ preferences, the
influence that some of altered design variables had on the attributes of aesthetics, security, and
comfort of the product. The design variables considered in the survey were positioning on the
back, back surface covered, strap on mechanism, presumed storage capacity and location of the
pockets. The resulting data can be seen in Figures 52 - 56 in Appendix H on page 71 - 73.
The survey data clearly reveals that hardly any of the presented design variables influenced
decisions on aesthetics, security or comfort negatively. This can be explained by the bias of
asking people to pick the better design. In picking the superior design people will be concerned
in the variables influencing their decision positively and not negatively. But we can assume that
variables influencing the choice positively for one design, affected the inferior design equally
negatively.
The positioning on the back and the surface covered seemed to be most influential on the
aesthetic appeal and comfort, whereas the other variables have either slight or no influence at all.
Same can be said about assumed security of fit and item storage, but with the addition of pocket
location as a variable. Apparently people feel their items are better secured if the pockets on the
front are located on the straps covering Pecs and flanks of the chest than if they are located
around the deltoids.
This leaves us with the conclusion that our main area of concern, the strap on mechanism, will
only show slight improvements in aesthetic and emotional appeal to the customer, even if we
were able to make it more intuitive. This conclusion puts us a little more at ease with our current
solution and lets us degrade the quest for an improved strapping method.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Our economic analysis includes a Microeconomic study, Net Present Value and Break Even
analysis. The microeconomic study includes the determination of price versus demand for our
product’s market as well as a breakdown of our costs. The Net Present Value analysis gives the
current value of an investment in our product assuming an eight year life span. The Break Even
27
analysis shows how long it will take to recoup an investment in our product. The following
sections explain each of these analyses in more detail.
Microeconomic Study
In order to obtain the necessary numbers for our microeconomic analysis we had to collect sales
data of similar products already existing in the market. The most comparable products to our
design are hydration backpacks and waist packs. The market leader in this segment is Camelbak
Products LLC[10]. Unfortunately, they do not provide sales information on their website, nor
were they willing to provide data about the annual demand of certain products to us via e-mail or
phone, claiming that as a privately held company this would violate their policies.
After receiving no response from The North Face Inc.[11] or 'www.runningwarehouse.com', we
addressed BIVOUAC [12], a local outdoor and sports store in Ann Arbor. They were more than
willing to go through their books and share their sales information with us. We then found 4
similar stores in Ann Arbor, and we assumed that the additional online sales acount for 2 more
stores. Further assuming Ann Arbor to be an average city based on population, we could now
predict how many similar back packs designed for runners were used per 100,000 inhabitants of
the United States (using Ann Arbor with its 113,934 habitants in 2010 as a scale). Table 6 on the
next page summarizes our investigations and assumptions.
28
Table 6: Summary of Similar Product's Calculated Sales Based on Assumptions
Product
Price
(US$)
Key Attributes
Bivouac
Sales
(qty./yr.)
Ann Arbor Including
Online sales
(qty./yr.)
United States Including
Online Sales
(qty./yr.)
10
60
187,200
6
36
112,320
3
18
56,160
Camelbak
Classic
$39
Storage Capacity: 5 L
Pack Weight: 190 g
Torso Length: 38 cm
www.camelbak.com
Camelbak
Hydropak
$49
Storage Capacity: 4 L
Pack Weight: 160 g
Torso Length: 33 cm
www.camelbak.com
Camelbak
Mule
$89
Storage Capacity: 13 L
Pack Weight: 670 g
Torso Length: 41 cm
www.camelbak.com
This information was used to create a price, P, versus demand, 𝑄, curve and also determine the
price sensitivity, 𝜆, and intercept of the product demand curve, 𝜃, of similar products on the
current market. The analysis was performed in two steps; first, performing a simple
microeconomic analysis based solely on the price sensitivity and then adding variations to the
design and their effects on the demand to obtain an assumption for the design elasticity.
Because of the similarity in carrying capacity of the ‘Hydropak’ and ‘Classic’ products to our
design, we chose to only include these two data points in our analysis. We had additional sales
numbers from a larger product by Camelbak LLC (the Mule) and could have obtained more
information on hydration packs from Osprey, which have similar sizes. However, because these
packs are designed for 3+ hour hikes and carrying larger amounts of gear, we chose to neglect
this data to eliminate possible disturbance to our analysis. Additionally, the ‘Hydropak’ and
‘Classic’ products have similar features but at different prices which make them the ideal
29
candidates to determine the price sensitivity of a product of this category. The demand curve
represented by these two packs is shown in Figure 12 below.
Figure 12: Demand Decreased Linearly with Price as Expected
Camelbak
Hydropak
300000
(# buyers)
Assumed Annual
Demand in the U.S.
350000
250000
y = -12480x + 798720
Camelbak
Classic
200000
150000
100000
Demand
50000
Linear (Demand)
0
$0
$20
$40
$60
Price
(US$)
The demand function of a product is represented by Eqn. 2 below. In this product category,
θ = 798,720 and λ = 12,480. This equation lets us estimate what quantity we could sell for a
given price. Our total revenues, R, and costs, C, are found using Eqn. 3 and Eqn. 4 below. The
high variable costs, Cv, per unit of $22.49 and the fixed costs, Cf, of $15,900 demand that we sell
our product for at least $24.00 to be profitable. Profits, Π, are maximized at a retail price of
$45.00 and could potentially be beyond $5 Million per year, calculated using Eqn. 5 below.
Tables 7 and 8 on page 31 show our variable and fixed costs per pack, respectively assuming we
would try to be a fresh start-up company. Figure 13 on page 31 displays the cost, revenue, and
potential profits at different price points for our product.
𝑄
𝜃
Eqn. 2 [13]
C = Cf + Cv×Q Eqn. 4 [14]
R = Q×P Eqn. 3 [13]
Π = R – C Eqn. 5 [13]
30
Table 7: Breakdown of Variable Costs Per Pack for us as a Start-Up
Cost
Element
Quantity Needed
(US$/qty.)
Italian Nylon Lycra
14.75
0.6667
(per yd.)
Silkara (per yd.)
9.95
0.1667
Zippers (per one)
2
4
Clasps (per one)
1
2
Labor (per hr.)
13
1/13
Total Cost Per Pack
Table 8: Breakdown of Fixed Costs for us as a Start-Up
Element
Rent
Computer/Office Supplies/Furniture
Utilities
Sewing Machines
Total
Cost per pack
(US$)
9.83
1.66
8
2
1.00
22.49
Cost
$6,000.00
$4,300.00
$3,600.00
$2,000.00
$15,900.00
Figure 13: Results of the Microeconomic Analysis
20
15
Mil.-US$
10
5
0
-5
RevenueR = Q×P
Revenue
-10
Cost C = Cf + Cv×Q
Costs
-15
ProfitΠ = R - C
Profit
-20
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Product Prices (US$)
31
In a refined microeconomics analysis we assumed that the design attributes most influential to
the customer’s demand and best quantifiable were surface area and weight of the shoulder pack.
So we assigned 1 m2 and 0.5 lbs as base values and proposed that for every cm2 and every gram
we stay under this base value we increase demand by 80 units and 200 units respectively. The
reasons we chose the mentioned values for the design sensitivity were higher priority on weight
minimization than reducing the surface and experimenting with different values showed that
these numbers produced realistic shifts of the demand curve. This design elasticity, due to the
increased demand, would lead to additional profits of more than $250,000 a year based on the
measurements calculated by our engineering analysis.
It is important to note the differences in optimum design attributes between the engineering and
microeconomic analyses. The economic model calls for using less material and therefore
reducing the storage capacity in order to decrease material costs and increase demand. Therefore
the design should have smaller pocket dimensions based on the economic model whereas the
engineering model calls for larger pockets to accommodate for the average size of the items most
often carried by runners. The economic model also calls for the use of Velcro instead of zippers
to once again reduce variable cost and increase demand. However, our engineering analysis
preferred the strength and security of zippers.
Net Present Value
It is very important to take into account the value of money over time when determining the
potential success of an investment. The future value, FV, of an investment can be determined by
using Eqn. 6 below where Pv is the principal value at the given time, n is the lifetime period and i
is the interest rate for the time period. This future value can then be used in determining the Net
Present Value, NPV, of investment costs, operating costs, profits, and the company salvage
value. After the NPV of each of these is calculated, Eqn. 7 below is used to determine the total
NPV of the investment. A negative value is assigned to the investment and operating costs while
the annual income and salvage value remain positive. After summing, if this value is positive the
investment will produce a profit at the end of its usable life.
(
)
Eqn. 6 [15]
∑(
)
Eqn. 7 [15]
The high fixed costs of being a start-up made us realize that we weren’t going to be profitable
enough to attract investors for our new business. That is why we chose to change our business
plan and further analysis in to selling our patent and work to a larger company already
established in the sports wear market.
We also acknowledge that investment costs for a company purchasing our design would need to
include costs for advertising in order for sales to meet our calculated demand. After investigating
the costs of different types of advertisements we suggest an online and magazine advertising
campaign. This will target the specific audience more directly and maximize the investment. We
don’t advise television and newspaper advertisements because the former is very expensive for a
short 30-second advertisement and the latter reaches too broad of an audience not necessarily
interested in what we have to offer. Magazine advertisements can be put in specific magazines,
such as Runner’s World, that reach the target audience. This is also the case with online
32
advertising. Our investigation showed that advertising will cost $3000 per magazine or website
per month. Therefore, we suggest advertising in several magazines along with an online
campaign with an estimated budget of $100,000.
As stated in the previous section, the annual income and operating costs were both predicted in
our economic analysis based on selling our product at a price of $45. The salvage value was
found by estimating the end of life value of our assets. We decided on a three year end of life
value of 85% for sewing machines.
Assuming no changes are made to the product we estimate the useful life of SWAG at 3 years.
Most products of this variety usually have a life of around 2 - 5 years before they either go out of
fashion or a better product comes out on the market thus reducing the demand. A summary of
our total costs, income, salvage value and useful life is shown in Table 8 below. An APY value
of 15% was used based on the size and risk of this investment.
As is shown in Table 9 below, the Net Present Value of investing in the purchase of SWAG for
$650,000 is about $2,000,000. This is based on many calculated assumptions, however if
somebody decided to invest in purchasing the rights to our product they will see a 200% return
on investment in only 3 years.
Table 9: NPV of Financial Returns
Year
Initial Investment Cost
Profit – Year 1
Profit – Year 2
Profit – Year 3
Salvage Value
Total NPV for 3 yrs.
Return on Investment
Principle Value
$650,000
$1.7 Mil
Net Present Value
$990,000
$1.5 Mil
$1.2 Mil
$900,000
$1800
$900,000
$600,000
$1100
$2.0 Mil
200%
Breakeven Analysis
The purpose of the break even analysis is to use the Present Value, PV, of the initial investment,
yearly profit, and salvage value to determine the number of time periods needed to recoup the
investment. This can be done using excel solver.
(
)
Eqn. 8 [15]
PV(investment)-PV(rate, periods, profits) = 0
Eqn. 9[15]
By using the yearly profit values of Table 9 above in Eqn. 9, we determined it will take about 9
months to break even. This seems like a very short time period as initial investments usually take
longer than a year to recoup. This is possibly the cause of the assumptions we had to make
during the microeconomic analysis to approximate the demand.
33
Figure 14: Investment Breaks Even by the End of the First Year
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
US$
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
1
2
3
-$500,000
-$1,000,000
Investment
Year
Profit
Net Present Value
MARKETING ANALYSIS
The following section contains a conjoint market analysis, estimated sales volumes and a profit
optimization study. The conjoint analysis was based off the data from our Survey #1 which we
administered to a potential user base. Using this data along with the calculated market demand
from the microeconomic study we determined the expected market share of our product. After
obtaining the projected sales from this market share value, the base and variable costs were
implemented to determine the maximum profit and the selling price at which this will occur. The
following sections on pages 34 - 36 explain each of these further.
Conjoint Analysis
The conjoint market analysis method was used to determine the expected percent market share of
the SWAG product. A conjoint market analysis uses the part worth data from a Choice-BasedConjoint (CBC) survey to determine the probability that a person will choose one product over
another by varying design attributes. For SWAG, a CBC survey was administered using
Sawtooth survey software and varying three design attributes with three levels for each attribute.
The attributes, levels and their part worth values are shown in Figures 27 - 29 of Appendix C on
page 50. The part worth values represent how strongly the design attribute level affects a
person’s decision to purchase the product. The larger the absolute value of the part worth
number, the stronger the effect the attribute level has on a person’s choice. A negative value
represents a dislike for that attribute level, possibly deterring the individual from purchasing the
product. As stated in the Design Objectives section on pages 8 - 10, users want the price
34
minimized, storage capacity maximized and the number of pockets less than six. For purpose of
calculation, we related storage capacity to the overall weight of the product to determine the
optimum selling price and the variable cost based on the engineering constraints.
The part worth values and the total market demand (as found in the microeconomic study on
page 29) were then implemented into the Spline function of the Excel solver tool. The solver
optimized the part worth values of our design parameters to maximize profit (as is explained in
the following section) while determining the expected percent market share. This percentage was
then multiplied by the total market demand to find the expected sales. Our calculations showed
an optimum selling price of $45 which is outside the attribute levels of our CBC survey, but
price is not a design constraint so this is not a concern. A market share of 61% was also
determined. It must be noted that this is a maximum number and does not take into account the
amount of advertising needed to reach this number. A summary of the percent market demand
and expected sales volumes for the first three years after introduction into market is shown in
Table 10 below. A decrease in market share by 20% of the previous year’s share per year was
used in these calculations. This assumption was made with the idea that no changes will be made
to the product over the first three years. If changes or improvements are made to the product,
market share can be expected to stay higher. Also, 61% market share may seem like a very high
number for a first year product; however, our total market demand number is very conservative.
With roughly 36 million runners in the United States, our total market demand of 360,000
represents only 1% of this.
Table 10: Expected Sales Over First 3 Years
Projected Sales
Year
Market Share
(total units)
1
61%
215,000
2
48%
170,000
3
39%
140,000
Projected Revenue
(US$)
$9,900,000
$7,800,000
$6,400,000
Profit Optimization
As was stated in the above section, Excel solver was used to optimize the profit not the percent
market share. It would be possible to increase the market share and overall sales, however our
goal with this product is profit maximization not market dominance. The profit was optimized
simultaneous to the market calculation but also considered cost. As was explained in the Net
Present Value section on page 32, the costs associated with starting this product will mainly be
due to our demanded price, because we are selling the rights to this product to a large company
with most of the needed resources already. The variable cost from this optimization was
determined to be about $25 per unit. Profit was then determined by subtracting the total costs
from the total sales revenue. The profit for each of the first three years is shown in Table 9 on
page 33. The detailed Excel calculations are shown in Table 16 of Appendix I on page 74 and
Figure 57 of Appendix J on page 75.
The design parameters determined from the profit optimization varied slightly from those found
in the microeconomic analysis. The desire for storage space increased slightly in the profit
optimization which called for larger pocket dimensions and more material. This slightly
increased our variable cost per unit from $22 to $25. This also meant an increase in weight from
35
225 grams to about 400 grams. However, this was still below our design constraint of 450 grams.
The number of zippers also increased by 1, to a total of 5 because of the addition of a pocket.
Table 11: Cost Structure for an Established Sports Equipment Company
Variable Costs
Cost (US$ per unit)
Fixed Cost
Labor
$1.50
Sewing Machines
Shipping and Transport
$2.00
Marketing (annual)
Materials
$21.50
Manufacturing Rights
Total
$25
Total (year 1)
Cost
$2,000
$100,000
$650,000
$752,000
SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
For the purpose of this analysis, we are considering the impact of one SWAG product over its
lifetime.
Raw Material Extraction
The Materials we selected are Italian Nylon Lycra and Silkara. Italian Nylon Lycra consists of
80% Nylon and 20% Lycra. Silkara is made predominantly from Antron polyester. All of these
originate from crude oil and therefor require oil and energy to extract and produce. Antron
polyester is a PET and Lycra is a polyurethane. Based on the results of our engineering analysis,
the product will weigh approximately 0.5 pounds, 0.4 pounds Italian Nylon Lycra and the
remaining weight will be the Silkara, zippers, and threading. The material will therefore compose
of 0.1415 kg Nylon, 0.036 kg Polyurethane and 0.045 kg PET.
Transportation
Given that the SWAG product will travel on average 500 miles in its lifetime – from when the
materials are sent from the supplier to its purchase by the customer. This value is based off
assumptions that we use a local supplier and that the product is then shipped nationwide. This
value is fairly difficult to estimate as we can’t anticipate from where the bulk of the orders will
come from and that can range from 0 to 2400 miles. However, the most densely populated part
of the nation is the eastern half of the country, where the base of the product is most likely to be.
In conclusion, we assume the average product travel distance is about 500 miles. Our calculation
for the Mpt can been viewed beneath:
⁄
Eqn. 10
Assembly/Production
The assembly per product is very insignificant in terms of its contributions to energy usage and
impact on the environment. The sewing process for a trained and skilled worker is approximately
5 minutes. Given that the power consumption of a sewing machine is 150 W, our calculation for
the assembly is the following:
⁄
Eqn. 11
Usage
The only energy used during the product’s life is for its washing. We assumed a washing
machine uses 0.63 kWh of electricity, for a 2 kg load of laundry. Given that our product weighs
36
0.22 kg, 9 washes of our product (assuming user washed with a full load of other clothes) will
contribute around 0.63 kWh of the electric usage. From our 2nd survey we discovered most
people run around 2 - 3 times a week, thus we can take that as 2.5 times per week on average.
Another assumption we made was that the product would last around 3 years. Given that it is
used and washed regularly the total of kWh can be assumed to be:
⁄
⁄
⁄
Eqn. 12
Not only will washing the product consume electricity it will use a substantial amount of
washing powder in its lifetime. Washing detergent contains a chemical called sodium
triphosphate, and this constitutes on average for 50% of the detergent’s total mass.
Again using the same assumptions as before (2.5 washing cycles a week, 3 years of usage) and
taking an average bottle of washing detergent, containing 90 oz. (2.55 kg) then the sodium
triphosphate content is 1.275 kg. A 90 oz. bottle will typically do 60 average size washing cycles
of 2 kg laundry, making it 0.75 oz. (0.021 kg) detergent per washing cycle. Over the period of
the products life the following amount of sodium phosphate will have polluted the water:
⁄
⁄
⁄
Eqn. 13
Recyclability
For this case, we have decided to assume that after the product is disposed of, it will be put into a
landfill. Although incinerating the materials may recover some of the energy used to produce the
products, the burning of nylon is known to give off harmful gases and therefore not considered.
Going along with modern trends of being green and environmentally friendly, we could
potentially encourage buyers to take the product to a textile recycle bin. Items are then separated,
with the good quality items being reused and the damaged textiles being turned into cleaning
cloths or rags in the industry.
Evaluation
Consider 1 pt as being one thousandth of the overall environmental impact contributed annually
by an average European inhabitant. The overall impact of one SWAG product is 1.09 pt, as seen
in Figure 15 on page 38. Remembering what 1 pt represents, this is an extremely low figure. 94%
of this value comes from the washing of the product, which in this case was assumed to be done
after every use. If we could perhaps find a material that is even more breathable and sweat
resistant than the Italian Nylon Lycra, the user may just wash it once a week and this would
reduce the environmental impact by more than 50%. A more detailed breakdown of the
environmental impact can be seen in Figure 59 of Appendix K on page 77.
37
Figure 15: Environmental Impact of SWAG
Environmental Impact
1.2
1
Pt
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Human Health
Ecosystem quality
Resources
Total
Life Cycle Analysis
The life cycle of a SWAG product goes through various stages - Raw Material Acquisition,
Transport, SWAG Production, Distribution, Use, and lastly Recycle/Disposal. These stages
require different inputs, such as energy and fuel. A diagram describing the Life Cycle in full
detail is shown in Figure 58 in Appendix K on page 76.
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The product development process was a long and complex web of methods. It began first with
forming an idea and spanned till the output of a completed product. Important processes in
between were definition of the Functional Requirements, creation of Design Concepts, and
Prototype Building/Testing. A full process diagram can be seen in Figure 61 in Appendix L on
page 78.
PRODUCT BROADER IMPACT
Our team’s values were to make sure our athletic equipment encouraged physical exercise, and
also did not lead to harm of the user and/or their opponent. From the beginning our mindset was
that great athletic equipment promotes participation in that given sport, and feeds in to further
athletic endeavors. We recalled buying a brand new pair of basketball shoes at a young age, and
that feeling of needing to play immediately to test out the new shoes and prove they enabled you
38
to jump higher. Likewise, having a new pair of workout headphones, or even the right
compression shorts encourages the owner to hit the gym.
Knowing that our team wanted to design for athletes was a great jumping off point for us, but we
had to look across the spectrum of sports supplies and recognize with great innovation
sometimes arises great danger. Football helmets obviously protect the wearer from head trauma,
but at the same time are used as a weapon when opponents launch themselves at one another.
Aluminum bats do not shatter, as wood bat tend to do when hit in the wrong spot, but there are
adverse risks to aluminum bats. Despite the fact they can launch the ball significantly farther and
faster than wood bats, aluminum bats have been shown to cause physical damage to infielders
that can’t react in time, especially pitchers. Broken Jaws and other injuries have resulted from
aluminum bats.
The last example we’ll note is a shoe NIKE came out in 2009 called the Hyperize. It was their
lightest shoe ever, and accordingly many of their sponsored athletes began to wear the Hyperize
to play in the NBA. After multiple players wearing the Hyperize injured their ankle on the
Detroit Pistons, their trainer, Arnie Kander, publically banned the shoe and called it a “glorified
slipper”. In an attempt to make the lightest possible shoe, NIKE designed a dangerous product
that stripped the entire essence of a basketball sneaker: support and protection.
With this all in mind, our group wanted to innovate what we saw in the marketplace in a manner
that would not only inspire participation, but also avoid any physical harm that could be
unintentionally sustained by our product. Through our design we would like to believe that
SWAG owners would be more likely to go out for a run, because now he or she has the perfect
way to accommodate his or her belongings. As for our value of avoiding any collateral harm, we
believe SWAG is a very safe product that through normal usage is unable to afflict physical
injury.
39
CONCLUSION
We have designed a runner’s pack that met our expectations and offers storage capability for all
necessities and fit that is unobtrusive and comfortable. Multiple surveys assisted us in
establishing the needs and demands of our intended users. This helped us locate pockets and their
purpose and get a feeling for aesthetic preferences and how to design accordingly. Engineering
analysis led us to select Italian Nylon Spandex and water-repellant Silkara as the materials of
choice and several iterations in prototype design let us constantly improve comfort and
functionality. Taking on the economical aspect of product design showed us that we had come up
with a product that could be sold to a larger sports brand and double their initial investment
within 3 years based on our market analysis and profit maximization.
We have also gained a lot of knowledge out of the work on this project. Besides the numerous
teachings that we received from the lecture we also gained additional benefits. Everyone within
our team gained an introduction into sewing and our head of Design Process Daniel Gold
probably learned the most when making the prototypes and was able to greatly improve his
sewing skills. This will benefit him in his future work in fashion design and studying abroad in
Italy.
The work we invested in economic analysis helped us realize that there is far more to a
successful product than simply engineering, designing and manufacturing. There are a lot of
hidden costs included in starting a company and we at one point even faced the realization that
we were not going to be able to be sufficiently profitable as a start-up and had to modify our
business plan in selling our idea to an existing larger company.
The process of defining the user’s needs and demands also presented us with more of a challenge
than expected. Successfully conducting surveys and analyzing the data was a main part of our
work and quantity as well as quality proved to be key.
All in all has this project left us with a great and comprehensive overview of the many facets of
product design and ignited our interest for this topic.
40
REFERENCES
[1] Papalambros, P.Y., and D.J. Wilde, Principles of Optimal Design. 2d Ed. Cambridge University
Press, New York, 2000.
[2] www.runningwarehouse.com (October 2, 2011)
[3] www.nike.com (October 2, 2011)
[4] Papalambros, P.Y., APD Lecture – Creativity & Blockbusting, ctools.umich.edu, APD 2011
[5] Papalambros, P.Y., APD Lecture – Information Gathering, ctools.umich.edu, APD 2011
[6] Montazeri, Soodeh, APD Lecture – Survery Design Part I, ctools.umich.edu, APD 2011
[7] Papalambros, P.Y., APD Lecture – Idea Generation, ctools.umich.edu, APD 2011
[8] Papalambros, P.Y., APD Lecture – Design Process, ctools.umich.edu, APD 2011
[9] Hoffenson, Steven, Creating a Survey in Sawtooth, ctools.umich.edu, APD 2011
[10] Camelbak Products LLC; 2000 South McDowel, Suite 200; Petaluma, CA 94952
www.camelbak.com
[11] The North Face Inc; 2013 Farallon Drive: San Leandro, CA 94577
www.thenorthface.com
[12] BIVOUAC; 336 South State Street; Ann Arbor, MI 48104
www.bivouacannarbor.com
[13] Papalambros, P.Y., APD Lecture – Basic Microeconomic Models, ctools.umich.edu, APD 2011
[14] Papalambros, P.Y., APD Lecture – Cost Modeling Resources, ctools.umich.edu, APD 2011
[15] Papalambros, P.Y., APD Lecture – Investment Analysis, ctools.umich.edu, APD 2011
[16] Donald Norman. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. December 23, 2003
[17] http://www.mpoweruk.com/electricity_demand.htm
[18] http://www.carbonfootprint.com/energyconsumption.html
[19] Capozucca, Peter. "Sustainability Strategy 2.0." Deloitte. Deloitte Development LLC, 2011.
Web. 8 Sept. 2011.
[20] "FAQS." George Foreman Cleaning Solutions. Armgardt Design, Inc., 2009. Web. 08 Sept.
2011. <http://www.letgeorgecleanit.com/>.
41
APPENDIX A – Currently Available Running Storage Products
Table 12: Running Specific Products Available by Major Brand Names
Type of Product
Offered By:
Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Asics, BOA,
Brooks, Craft, K-Swiss, Mizuno, New
Shirts and Jackets
Balance, The North Face, Pearl Izumi, Puma,
Runner’s World, Salomon, Saucony, Skins,
Sugoi, Zoot, 2XU
Nike, Adidas, CamelBak, Inov-8, Nathan, The
Backpacks and Hydration Packs
North Face, Salomon, Under Armour, Asics,
Brooks
Nike, Amphipod, CamelBak, FuelBelt, GoLite,
Utility Belts/Waist Packs
Nathan, Salomon
Armbands
Nike, Fuelbelt, Apple, Proform, Belkin
Reflective Vests
Nike, Adidas, Amphipod, Brooks, Nathan
Handheld water bottles with pockets
Nike, Adidas, Amphipod, FuelBelt, Nathan,
42
Figure 16: Examples of Shirts and Jackets
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/
43
Figure 17: Examples of Backpacks and Hydration Packs
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/
44
Figure 18: Examples of Utility Belts and Waist Packs
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/
Figure 19: Examples of Armbands
http://www.google.com/#q=ipod+armband&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo
=u&ei=2w2KTomLoivsALw_MWLDw&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=image&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CI
8BEMwDMAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=c1e423f54a5aaf72&biw=1920&bih=1081
45
Figure 20: Examples of Reflective Vests
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/
Figure 21: Examples of Handheld Water Bottles
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/
46
APPENDIX B – Concept Sketches
Figure 22: Concept 1 – Molded Backpack
Figure 23: Concept 2 – Form-Fitting Vest
47
Figure 24: Concept 3 – Sleeve Pouch
Figure 25: Concept 4 – Compression Shirt
48
Figure 26: Concept 5 – Shoulder Pack (Alpha Design)
49
APPENDIX C – Survey #1 Data
Figure 27: Price Has Largest Effect on Buyer Motivation
Relative Effect
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
8
10
-0.5
-1
Price ($)
Figure 28: Buyers Prefer Middle Range of Available Pockets
Relative Effect
1
0.5
0
0
2
4
6
-0.5
-1
Number of Pockets
Figure 29: Buyers Prefer More Storage Capacity
Relative Effect
1
0.5
0
0
5
10
15
-0.5
-1
Storage Capacity (Liters)
50
Table 13: Summary of How Many Users Carried What Items While Running or Exercising
Running
Other Physical Activity
Cell Phone
17
22
MP3 Player
15
17
Water Bottle
9
18
Keys
21
23
Wallet
10
17
Padlock
2
4
Other
4
6
(glasses, towels)
(glasses, ankles braces, light
jacket, coat, change of clothes)
Total
74
101
51
APPENDIX D – Survey #2
Second Survey handed out to obtain information to improve Alpha Prototype
52
53
54
55
56
57
APPENDIX E – Survey #2 Data Analysis
Information obtained on items often carried, preferred amount of pockets, and hydration
integration possibilities
Figure 30: Survey Demographic
Gender
30%
70%
Male
Female
Figure 31: Survey Question – “How often do you go running in a week?”
58
Figure 32: Survey Question - “Please check the items that you typically bring with you
when jogging.”
Cell Phone
27
MP3 Player
38
Wallet
Female
Male
Total
6
Keys
56
Water Bottle
11
Others
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 33: Survey Question – “Are there any items you wish you could bring but have to do
without for convenience sake?”
25
20
20
15
10
5
0
11
3
Phone
Water/Water
Bottle
3
9
Wallet
7
2
Sweat Rag
1
2
Female
Male
Total
Extra Layer of
Clothes
59
Figure 34: Survey Question – “Assign values to the following items indicating how often
you do or wish to access them while running.”
60
Figure 35: Survey Question – “Have you had any experience with a hydration pack?”
Figure 36: Survey Question – “Would you consider a hydration pack for running instead of
a common water bottle?”
61
Figure 37: Survey Question – “Would you be willing to pay an additional cost of $10-$20 to
have a removable hydration bladder with your pack?”
Figure 38: Survey Question – “How many pockets would you prefer to have on the pack?”
62
Figure 39: Survey Question – “Would you like pockets to be designed specifically for
individual items, versatility or a combination of both?”
Figure 40: Survey Question – “What items would you like pockets dedicated to?”
2
Other
28
Water Bottle
48
Keys
Total
Male
Female
19
Wallet
52
MP3 Player
43
Cell Phone
0
20
40
60
63
Figure 41: Survey Question – “Would you find a fully waterproof pocket useful?”
64
APPENDIX F – Sample Fabrics Tensile Testing Data
Figure 42: Equestrian 4-Way Herring Bone Tensile Test Data
500
Load (N)
400
300
200
100
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Strain
Figure 43: Equestrian 4-Way Stretch Tensile Testing Data
500
Load (N)
400
300
200
100
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Strain
65
Figure 44: Waterproof Tex Tensile Testing Data
500
Load (N)
400
300
200
100
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Strain
Figure 45: Spandura Tensile Testing Data
500
Load (N)
400
300
200
100
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Strain
66
Figure 46: Master Nylon – Silicone Impregnated Rip Stop – Tensile Testing Data
500
Load (N)
400
300
200
100
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Strain
Figure 47: Master Nylon – 1050D Ballistics – Tensile Testing Fabric Data
2500
Load (N)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Strain
67
Figure 48: Fabric Samples after Testing
68
APPENDIX G – Physical Properties of Items to be Carried by Pack
Table 14: Properties of MP3 Players
Weight
(oz)
Force
Exerted
(N)
Height
(in)
Width
(in)
Depth
(in)
Volume
(in3)
10.7
2.97
5.4
6.3
1.6
54.4
3.56
0.98
4.4
2.3
0.3
2.8
0.44
0.74
4.9
0.12
0.21
1.36
1.14
1.5
4.1
1.2
1.6
2.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.8
4.0
6.4
1.78
0.5
5.6
3.1
8.7
2.1
0.58
3.9
1.8
0.4
2.8
Trio
9.6
2.67
4
1.8
0.5
3.5
GoGear Vibe
2GB Video
MP3 Player
Sansa Fuze
16GB Internet
Tablet
Sansa Clip
1.4
0.39
1.7
3
0.4
2.0
12.6
3.50
3.6
1.7
0.4
2.4
2.1
0.58
3.1
1.9
0.3
1.8
4.6
1.28
5.3
2.6
0.4
5.5
0.9
0.25
0.6
1.4
2.2
1.8
Weight
(oz)
Force
Exerted
(N)
Height
(in)
Width
(in)
Depth
(in)
Volume
(in3)
4.9
1.36
4.5
2.3
0.375
4.0
5.6
1.55
5
2.6
0.5
6.5
4.8
1.33
4.7
2.5
0.5
5.9
4.1
4.6
3.4
6.2
4.9
5.8
4.2
3.7
6.1
4.2
1.13
1.27
0.94
1.72
1.36
1.61
1.16
1.02
1.69
1.16
4.9
4.5
3.8
4.7
5
5
4.9
4.3
5
3.8
2.9
2.1
2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.1
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
1
1.7
5.9
5.8
7.4
6.2
7.8
6.
6.8
6.5
8.2
Brand
Philips
Apple
Apple
Apple
Apple
Samsung
Sony
Mach
Speed
Philips
Coby
SanDisk
Archos
SanDisk
Item
Android
Connect 16GB
Ipod Touch
64GB
Ipod Shuffle
Ipod Nano
Ipod Classic
Galaxy Player
5.0
Walkman 16GB
Table 15: Properties of Smart Phones
Brand
Apple
Item
Iphone 4s
DROID Bionic
Motorola
4G
DROID
HTC
Incredible 2
Samsung
Intensity
LG
Cosmos 2
LG
Revere
HTC
Thunderbolt
Pantech
Breakout 4G
Samsung
Stratosphere
Samsung
Fascinate
Blackberry Curve
LG
Revolution
Motorola
Barrage
69
APPENDIX H – Kansei Engineering
Figure 49: Aesthetic Preference
More people surveyed preferred the Alpha Prototype over the Beta Prototype in terms of
aesthetical quality
Beta Prototype
40%
Alpha Prototype
60%
Figure 50: Security Preference
More people surveyed preferred the Beta Prototype over the Alpha Prototype in terms of
perceived security
Alpha Prototype
30%
Beta Prototype
70%
70
Figure 51: Comfort Preference
More people surveyed preferred the Beta Prototype over the Alpha Prototype in terms of
perceived comfort
Alpha Prototype
45%
Beta Prototype
55%
Figure 52: Influence of the Positioning on the Back
16
14
12
10
Aesthetics
8
Security
6
Comfort
4
2
0
very positively
slightly
positively
neutral
slightly
negatively
very negatively
71
Figure 53: Influence of the Back Surface Covered
9
8
7
6
5
Aesthetics
Security
4
Comfort
3
2
1
0
very positively slightly positively
neutral
slightly negatively very negatively
Figure 54: Influence of the Strap On Mechanism
12
10
8
Aesthetics
6
Security
Comfort
4
2
0
very positively slightly positively
neutral
slightly
negatively
very negatively
72
Figure 55: Influence of the Presumed Storage Capacity
12
10
8
Aesthetics
6
Security
Comfort
4
2
0
very positively
slightly
positively
neutral
slightly
negatively
very negatively
Figure 56: Influence of the Location of Pockets
12
10
8
Aesthetics
6
Security
Comfort
4
2
0
very positively
slightly
positively
neutral
slightly
negatively
very negatively
73
APPENDIX I – Economic Analysis
Table 16: Net Present Value Detailed Calculations
Investment Cost (Base Cost + 6 months of product production)
Annual Operating Cost - Year 1
Annual Operating Cost - Year 2
Annual Operating Cost - Year 3
Profit - Year 1 - 61% Market Share (includes corporate income tax of 50%)
Profit - Year 2 - 48% Market Share (includes corporate income tax of 50%)
Profit - Year 3 - 39% Market Share (includes corporate income tax of 50%)
Salvage - Year 1
Salvage - Year 2
Salvage - Year 3
Useful Life (years)
Rate (%APY)
-$652,000.00
$5,385,095.10
$4,266,442.74
$3,413,159.19
$1,696,526.00
$1,219,265.50
$893,135.00
$1,900.00
$1,850.00
$1,800.00
3
0.15
NPV
-$991,610.50
$8,190,056.51
$6,488,726.10
$5,190,988.48
$1,475,240.00
$921,939.89
$587,250.76
$1,249.28
$1,216.41
$1,183.53
PV of Sum of Yearly Profits
PV of Sum of Yearly Profits Plus Salvage Value
$2,984,430.65
$2,985,679.93
Total NPV of Investment after 1 year
Total NPV of Investment after 2 years
Total NPV of Investment after 3 years
Percent Return on Investment
$484,878.78
$1,406,785.79
$1,994,003.68
201.09%
74
APPENDIX J – Profit Optimization
Figure 57: Excel Worksheet
75
APPENDIX K – Sustainability Analysis
Figure 58: Life Cycle Analysis Diagram
Diagram depicting the complete life cycle of a SWAG product
76
Figure 59: Environmental Impact
A more detailed breakdown of the environmental impacts of a SWAG product
Resp. organics
0%
Carcinogens
10%
Fossil fuels
34%
Resp. inorganics
36%
Minerals
0%
Land use
3%
Acidification/
Eutrophication
3%
Ecotoxicity
1%
Ozone layer
0%
Climate change
13%
Radiation
0%
Figure 60: Sima-Pro Network Tree
77
APPENDIX L – Product Development Process
Figure 61: Flow Diagram of the Product Development Process
78
APPENDIX M – Additional Previous Work
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106