Proceedings of IDETC/CIE 2007 ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference September 4-7, 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

DETC2007-35695

EMPIRICALLY-DERIVED PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGNING PRODUCTS WITH FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE EVOLUTION
Darren A. Keese dkeese@mail.utexas.edu Andrew H. Tilstra tilstra@mail.utexas.edu Carolyn C. Seepersad ccseepersad@mail.utexas.edu Kristin L. Wood wood@mail.utexas.edu
Department of Mechanical Engineering The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712
ABSTRACT Product designers seek to create products that are not only robust for the current marketplace but also can be redesigned quickly and inexpensively for future changes that may be unanticipated. The capability of a design to be quickly and economically redesigned into a subsequent product offering is defined as its flexibility for future evolution. Tools are needed for innovating and evaluating products that are flexible for future evolution. In this paper, a comprehensive set of design guidelines is created for product flexibility by merging the results of two research studiesa directed patent study of notably flexible products and an empirical product study of consumer products analyzed with a product flexibility metric. Via comparison of the results of these two studies, the product flexibility guidelines derived from each study are merged, crossvalidated, and revised for clarity. They are organized in categories that describe how and under what circumstances they increase flexibility for future evolution. Examples are included to illustrate each guideline. The guidelines are also applied to an example application--the design of a new guitar string changer. 1. INTRODUCTION Product flexibility for future evolution is the capability for a product to be quickly and inexpensively redesigned to meet changing requirements. These changing requirements include shifting customer needs, advancing technology, and expanding markets. Since these changes are difficult to predict, product designs tend to evolve over time. In this context, product redesign is particularly challenging because it often takes place after a design has been finalized or launched and manufacturing tools and processes have been established. Such redesign activities are referred to as future evolution. To support this evolutionary process, design guidelines are needed for quickly and economically innovating or evaluating 1
designs that are flexible enough to accommodate unanticipated future changes.
Figure 1. The original Lids Off (left) and the new Lids Off Open-It-All Center (right) [1-2] Many types of products and systems are known to evolve over time, but the focus of this research is on electro- and thermo-mechanical consumer products of moderate complexity. For example, the Black and Decker Lids-Off product has proven to be relatively flexible for future evolution. The original Lids-Off product, as illustrated in Figure 1, is an innovative product that loosens the lids of jars. To increase its functionality and compensate for its relatively large footprint on the countertop, the manufacturer

are the Design for Assembly (DFA) and Design for Manufacturing (DFM) guidelines, which are used to reduce production cost and increase reliability and quality. Lists that have been adapted from multiple sources have been published by Pahl and Beitz, and Otto and Wood in well-known engineering design textbooks. [29,30] These guidelines are intended for application during design embodiment, and consequently are not applicable during concept generation and are not used to help innovate. Otto and Wood [30] also published a list of design guidelines for the environment, which aim to reduce the negative environmental impact of a product, and Pahl and Beitz [29] published a list of design guidelines for aesthetics. These guidelines are almost all applied during design embodiment, and therefore are not tools for innovation. They are similar in many ways to DFA and DFM, because they are closely tied to disassembly and material choice. A new area of guideline or principle development is transformational design. Transformers, in the extreme sense of transformer toys, open new avenues for product development and innovations. Singh, et al. [31] present a set of empirically derived transformer principles and supporting facilitators. They demonstrate these principles in the design of Micro-Aerial Vehicles (MAVs) [32]. The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS), developed by Altshuller, includes a set of 40 design principles for solving engineering conflicts between desired product characteristics. These principles are used during concept generation to drive innovation. This creates new possibilities for the designer rather than inhibiting design alternatives, as the above lists of guidelines do. These principles do not provide the user with a means of evaluating design alternatives; they instead lead designers toward innovating potential design alternatives. Each of the above lists of guidelines, with the exception of TIPS, is intended for a particular goal, including reduced manufacturing costs, faster production, improved customer satisfaction, and lower negative impact on the environment. While these goals are desirable, they are not necessarily aligned with product flexibility. Although some overlap is expected, the guidelines presented in this paper have been developed specifically for improving product flexibility for future evolution. 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The set of product flexibility guidelines presented in this paper was developed by merging the results of two different research studies: a directed patent study of notably flexible products and an empirical product study of consumer products analyzed with a product flexibility metric. Each of these studies was based on an inductive research approach. Rather than beginning with hypothesized guidelines, the study began by gathering empirical data and then using it to derive insights leading to hypothesized guidelines. To avoid possible bias between the research studies, each study was conducted independently without reference to the results of the other. The benefits of utilizing different methodologies to develop the guidelines include more comprehensive results and greater cross-validation. More comprehensive results were

achieved because the two methodologies focused on different aspects of design and therefore each produced some unique guidelines. The use of two different methodologies provided validation for guidelines produced with both methods. When results from the two studies differed, insights could be made to help revise and improve the guidelines when they were merged. Figure 3 is a summary of the methodologies used to develop the guidelines. Section 3.1 includes an explanation of the methodology for the directed patent search and Section 3.2 includes an explanation of the methodology for the empirical study. Section 3.3 includes an explanation of how the results were merged. 3.1. Directed patent study methodology In the directed patent study, a filtered set of patents for devices were analyzed for characteristics related to flexibility, and the resulting insights were used to derive design guidelines. A more detailed description of this methodology is presented by Qureshi. [28] Qureshis work is an expansion and continuation of patent studies performed by Pinyopusarerk [24], Schaefer [25], Muoz [23], and Kuchinski [26] and utilizes the following methodology to derive guidelines for product flexibility. The first step in the directed patent study was to filter the millions of available patents to a manageable number for study. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) publishes millions of patents. Detailed information about the inner workings and design rationale for a wide variety of devices make the USPTO an excellent source for deriving insights into product flexibility. In order to maximize the research effort, the filtering process selected patents with a high likelihood of exhibiting characteristics related to flexibility. Three methods of filtering were used: keyword searches for patents referring to the term flexibility, searches for patents that have evolved using assignee names and chains of references, and keyword searches for words related to hypothesized design guidelines. Ninety patents, primarily in the mechanical domain, were filtered from the USPTO database for analysis. A unique feature of these patents was that they often detailed the evolutionary history of the product. Next, each of the selected patents was examined for information that could lead to insights into design characteristics influencing flexibility. To facilitate a thorough study of all of the patents, a data sheet of questions was prepared to guide the examination of a patent. Based on the Socratic Method, these questions aided the researcher in extracting pertinent information. Altshullers Laws of Development of Systems were used in the creation of the data sheet. Additionally, a Design Structure Matrix (DSM) was used to analyze the interactions between each of the components in the product. The information acquired from the data sheet and DSMs led to insights into design characteristics associated with flexibility for future evolution. These insights were collected and organized into design guidelines.

Discovered through the directed patent study Discovered through the empirical product study Figure 6. Merged set of guidelines for product flexibility for future evolution
Guideline 3 - Confining functions to as few unique components as possible If a single function is performed by multiple components, then a change to that function affects all of those components, resulting in increased cost. The sliding visor design in Figure 7 includes two mirrored cables which provide resistance to the motion of the visor and limit its degrees of freedom. This designs flexibility was improved by removing one of the cables and parametrically changing the other to maintain the resistance force. This was achievable because the cables work together to accomplish the same two functions (providing resistance and limiting degrees of freedom). In the improved design, there are fewer components to be redesigned and retooled if the product functionality changes in the future.
Guideline 5 - Collecting parts which are not anticipated to change in time into separate modules Separating unchanging parts into modules protects them from changes to other parts. Parts that are not anticipated to change may be standardized components or technologies that have stagnated in terms of development. The separate components of a typical desktop computer have been evolving at different rates for many years. The standard ATX computer tower case has allowed manufacturers to offer their customers the most current combination of components without costly redesign or significant changes to manufacturing processes. As the manufacturer offers new models of computers, the case with power supply can be reused for products with newer processor technology. Guideline 6 - Collecting parts which perform functions associated with the same energy domain into separate modules Technologies associated with different energy domains are likely to change in different ways. Therefore, they should be decoupled to prevent potentially independent changes from affecting each other. Inside a desktop computer, the processor, heat sink, and fan are three separable modules in the electrical, thermal, and mechanical energy domains, respectively. The processor is likely to change rapidly compared to the other modules, and as a separate module, can change without necessarily affecting the others. Parts Reduction Approach The following guidelines are intended to reduce the number of parts requiring manufacturing changes by 4.2.

Visor Fixed pulley Track Cable Spring Cable
Figure 7. Cadillac DeVille sliding visor design Guideline 4 - Dividing modules into multiple smaller, identical modules. Dividing modules into multiple identical modules facilitates reconfiguration and scaling of functional inputs and outputs. There is also greater freedom of motion and space between the components. The Lexmark T64x Sheet Tray in Figure 8 can be duplicated and stacked for increased paper input for the printer above. Improved versions of the tray could be designed in the future and interfaced with the current product.
Guideline 7 - Sharing functions in a module or part if the functions are closely related Any product change that affects one function in a group of closely related functions is likely to affect all functions in that group, thereby affecting all product components that perform those functions. Sharing closely related functions in a single part reduces the number of parts that must be changed if any of those functions is changed. In the Black and Decker Blower/Vac Mulch (Figure 9), the functions of storing the mulch and exporting the air that pulls the mulch are closely related, and the mulch bag shares these functions. (The bag is porous and air passes out through it.) These functions can be redesigned together with only one part change.

Power unit

Figure 9. Black and Decker Blower/Vac BV4000 Figure 8. Lexmark T64x Sheet Tray [38,39]
Guideline 8 - Using duplicate parts as much as possible without raising part count. Identical parts can be redesigned together so they can continue to be mass produced as a single part. The Black and Decker HedgeHog XR Pivoting Head Hedge Trimmer, pictured in Figure 10, has two blades which slide against each other to create shearing action. These are duplicate components and can be redesigned and remanufactured as one.
for new functionality. The pole is also a free interface to which a new snap-on part can be attached.
Opportunity for new interface

Free interface

Figure 12. Black and Decker Grass Hog String Trimmer Figure 10: The Black and Decker HedgeHog XR Pivoting Head Hedge Trimmer Spatial Approach The following guidelines are intended to facilitate the addition of new functionality and rearrangement or scaling of parts by Guideline 9 - Creating room on the exterior surfaces of the device, around interior modules, and around those parts which are designed to interface with humans If a change to a parts geometry, orientation, or location forces other parts to change to accommodate it, then those parts are dependent on it. Fewer of these dependencies results in fewer components affected unnecessarily by product changes. Figure 11 depicts a novel hacksaw design. An inventor saw the hollow space in the structural member of a hacksaw as a space where blades could be stored. Since the hollow space already exists, the design could be improved to store blades by simply adding a cap to cover the opening. 4.3. Guideline 11 - Extending the available area on the transmission components of the device Extending available transmission area allows additional future components to receive power from the engine or prime mover, with minimal effect on it. The Black and Decker LidsOff Jar Opener transmission shown in Figure 13 is contained within the large chamber at the top of the product. The transmission can be expanded to operate new functions, such as a can-opener, without requiring the top chambers footprint to change, which would cause the change to propagate to other parts.

Figure 13. Black and Decker LidsOff Jar Opener Guideline 12 - Locating those parts which are anticipated to change near the exterior of the device Parts that change are less likely to affect neighboring parts if they are at the product exterior, so those that are anticipated to change should be placed at the exterior. The Applied Materials Centura Wafer Machine in Figure 14 contains a central robotic arm that is unlikely to need updating as quickly as the testing chambers, because its movement is controllable. The exterior testing chambers can be reconfigured without changing the robotic arm.
Figure 11. Hacksaw having improved blade storage (US Patent) [40] Guideline 10 - Providing free interfaces and expansive, unobstructed surfaces for new interfaces Free interfaces allow new features to be added to the product without changing current components, which is less costly. Expansive, unobstructed surfaces for new interfaces allow new features to be added to the product with minimal risk of forcing accommodating changes to multiple parts. The wide, flat area near the handle on the Black and Decker Grass Hog String Trimmer in Figure 12 can be used for a new interface 8

Robotic arm at center

Figure 14. Applied Materials Centura Wafer Machine [41] Guideline 13 - Reducing nesting of parts and modules. When components are nested within one another, expansion of the inner components may require each successive outer layer to be expanded to accommodate the new size. If the nesting is tight (i.e., if the inner part is more snugly fit into the outer nest part), then the risk is greater. Figure 15 shows two different coffee makers. The Bunn products carafe sits on the plate with open space surrounding it. The Mr. Coffee product has a nested carafe, tightly confined on three surfaces by the main unit. It is easier to make changes to either the carafe or the main unit in the Bunn product which does not have a nested carafe. Figure 16. Black and Decker VersaPak Tools [44] Guideline 15 - Reducing the number of fasteners used, or eliminating them entirely Reducing or eliminating fasteners reduces the number of parts and assembly steps affected by an interface change. A dual CD jewel case is an evolution of the standard single CD jewel case. Since the standard single jewel case does not use fasteners (its parts are held together with compliant interfaces), fasteners do not have to be redesigned or changed to create the evolved dual CD jewel case. Compliant interfaces such as this are one method of reducing fasteners. Guideline 16 Reducing the number of contact points between modules Reducing the number of contact points between modules reduces the size and number of interfaces, thereby reducing the likelihood of modifications forcing changes to neighboring parts. The DeLonghi Espresso/ Cappuccino Maker in Figure 17 contains a geometrically complex heating reservoir that is mounted to the casing with four screws at four coplanar points. It would therefore be easy to redesign the shape and size of the heating reservoir while maintaining the original interface with the casing. An alternative and less flexible design might have involved securing the reservoir at both the top and bottom. This would have resulted in contact points at both locations, requiring a change to the casing height if the reservoir height were changed.

Figure 15. Bunn and Mr. Coffee Machines [42,43] Interface Decoupling Approach The following guidelines are intended to reduce the communications between modules, and enable the device to function normally regardless of the orientation, location and arrangement of its individual modules, by Guideline 14 - Standardizing or reducing the number of different connectors used between modules Using common fasteners reduces potential compatibility issues in future design iterations. The common battery interface of the Black and Decker VersaPak Tools shown in Figure 16 allows evolution of the product line without change to the common battery module or the battery charger. 4.4.

Water reservoir module

Interface location Casing
Figure 17. DeLonghi Espresso/ Cappuccino Maker 9
Guideline 17 Simplifying the geometry of modular interfaces Simple interfaces reduce the likelihood of incompatibility with future interfaces. The toner cartridge in Figure 18 has electrical contacts on the cartridge that are flat, rectangular surfaces, which allow for several possible means of interfacing with the printer.
Figure 20. The Next Generation George Foreman Grill [46]

Electrical contacts

Figure 18. Toner cartridge Guideline 18 - Routing flows of energy, information and materials so that they are able to bypass each module at need If energy, information, and material flows can bypass modules, those modules can be removed or changed without causing a new flow requirement. The Electronic Circuit with Bypass in Figure 19 has two electric connectors that can interface with an intermediate circuit or directly with one another.
Guideline 20 - Using a framework for mounting multiple modules A framework reduces the number of interfaces between modules and therefore prevents individual changes from affecting one another. Additionally, new features can be added to the frame without affecting any other modules. Figure 21 shows the inside of the Black and Decker Blower/Vac. The three modules outlined in the picture are each mounted individually into the frame and are connected to each other only by cables. The framework can absorb changes to any single module without forcing accommodating changes in the other modules.

5.1. Identification of product requirements The design process described by Otto and Wood [30] was used to formulate the problem, identify customer needs with importance levels, and establish a list of functions for the product to perform. These steps included the creation of a project mission statement, surveys (derived from a template developed by Green and coauthors [47]) of guitar players (the intended customers), and the creation of black box models, function structures, and activity diagrams. As summarized in an abridged list in Table 2, the survey responses identified a wide range of tasks that customers would like the product to perform. The wide range of desired functions presents many possibilities for realizing the product and may lead to a variety of future changes in the product. If the first iteration of the product does not accomplish all of these tasks, there is an opportunity for the product to evolve to include more of them. Therefore, flexibility for future evolution is an especially important consideration for this product. 5.2. Concept generation In the concept generation phase, the guidelines for flexibility were used to supplement the use of a morphological matrix, TIPS analysis, and team brain-writingthree wellknown tools for concept generation. The purpose of the morphological matrix was to suggest solutions in several energy domains for each of the functions identified in the function structure. Altshullers Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS) was used to suggest solution principles for potential conflicts in the system [30]. In the team brainwriting session, participants sketched solution concepts, added to each others ideas, and used the guidelines for flexibility to help generate ideas. The coupling of flexibility guidelines with these techniques aided in creating and enhancing solutions that contributed to the overall flexibility of the final product. For example, to meet the customer need of pulls out bridge pins, the function structure identified that there are two separate but closely related functions that need to be performed: import pin and pull pin. Guideline 3 states that functions should be
confined to as few components as possible. This guideline led to a concept in which a slotted tool is used to pry the pin out. Such a tool could be embodied in a single part, so it could be easily redesigned for potential future needs, such as accommodating larger or smaller bridge pins for new guitars. In some string changing products, a bridge pin puller is incorporated into the two halves of a pair of string clippers, a design that violates Guideline 3. Guideline 7, which states that closely related functions should be shared, should not be applied here, because clipping strings and pulling pins are not closely related functions. This less flexible design would require multiple parts to be redesigned for future changes to the size of bridge pins. It was found that some of the guidelines for flexibility echoed principles suggested by the TIPS analysis. Altshullers principle of removal closely matches Guideline 19, Creating detachable modules, so solutions based on this principle generally satisfy Guideline 19. Also, Altshullers principle of dynamism matches Guidelines 3 and 21, which are, respectively, to confine functions to as few unique components as possible and to use compliant materials. This insight led to concepts involving tools that fold for storage.

Tuning key interface with shaft and bevel gear

Top frame half

Compound spur gear Compound spur-bevel gear

Bridge-Pin Notch

Plungers with racks
Hexagonal interfaces for screwdriver bits

Bottom frame half

Figure 27. CAD isometric exploded view of the string changing product
Table 3. Effect of applying guidelines for flexibility for future evolution in the design project Change modes - Incorporate clippers into casing - Incorporate pliers into casing - Add funnel to casing - Include a snap-on device for holding strings taut - Extend the bridge pin puller from the casing body - Add rocking leverage to the bridge pin puller - Change torque and lessen plunger distance Applied guidelines for flexibility for future evolution 10. Providing free interfaces and expansive, unobstructed surfaces for new interfaces 20. Using a framework for mounting multiple modules Effect of applying guidelines For each of these change modes, only one component is affected: one of the casing halves changes geometrically. There is ample space for new interfaces on the exterior of the product (Guideline 10), so new parts can be attached to the exterior without forcing rearrangement or redesign of interior components or functional features. The casing framework (Guideline 20) allows the new feature to be incorporated without affecting the functions of other features. The bridge pin pullers geometry can be changed without affecting the geometry of any component other than the casing it is molded into. This is because the casing functionally isolates it from other functional components (Guideline 20), and it has ample room around it for shape change (Guideline 9). As few gears as possible were used for the transmission (Guideline 3), which reduced the potential number of gears to redesign to change the torque. There is space around the interior transmission components (Guideline 9) and they are not nested within the casing Guideline 13), which provides room for the transmission to change shape without affecting the casing. The framework for mounting the casing (Guideline 20) allows some elements of the transmission to change geometry without forcing accommodating changes to adjacent components.

While the merged set of guidelines currently covers a wide range of situations, it is not exhaustive. Although each of the research studies approached an asymptote for the number of identified guidelines, approximately a third of the guidelines produced by each study are unique to that study. This statistic suggests that further guidelines may be developed through a new research approach or by expanding the previous approaches to new domains. The unique guidelines would also benefit from the validation of being discovered through different means. The guidelines are known to improve flexibility for future evolution because of the methods used to find them. It would be beneficial to designers to know if and how these guidelines affect other forms of flexibility. For example, product family design may be closely linked to these guidelines, because of its similarities to flexibility for future evolution. In both cases, cost savings are realized by using as many common parts, assemblies, and manufacturing processes as possible among similar products. Also, it would be helpful to investigate the applicability of these guidelines to additional product domains, beyond the moderately complex, mechanical and electromechanical consumer products considered in this research. For example, more complex products and alternative energy domains (e.g., thermal, electrical) would be interesting to investigate. Also, it would be helpful to conduct a detailed comparison of the flexibility guidelines with other types of guidelines and principles, such as Design for Assembly or Design for Manufacturing guidelines or TIPS principles. For example, Guideline 13 (Reducing nesting of parts and modules) and Guideline 15 (Reducing the number of fasteners 14
used, or eliminating them entirely) both overlap with guidelines for Design for Assembly, and several overlaps with TIPS principles were cited in Section 5. The different sets of guidelines should be compared to understand when they are complementary, when they conflict, and how potential conflicts can be circumvented or reconciled. Finally, the guidelines for flexibility for future evolution have been integrated into the design process in a relatively ad hoc manner. To maximize their impact, they should be integrated within each stage of the design process. In the future, a customized design process could be developed that highlights the guidelines. It may also be useful to create a specific method for evaluating designs based on the guidelines presented here. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided from the Cullen Endowed Professorship in Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, and the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMMI0600474. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Baltimore, MD, Paper No. DETC2000/DTM-14565. [15] Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P. and Otto, K. N., 2000, "Modular Platform-Based Product Family Design," Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Advances in Design Automation Conference, Baltimore, MD, Paper No. DETC2000/DAC-14238. [16] Siddique, Z. and Rosen, D. W., 2000, "Product Family Configuration Reasoning Using Discrete Design Spaces," Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Baltimore, MD, Paper No. DETC2000/DTM-14666. [17] Fujita, K., 2002, "Product Variety Optimization under Modular Architecture," Computer Aided Design, 34(12), pp. 953-965. [18] Ishii, K., Juengel, C. and Eubanks, C. F., 1995, "Design for Product Variety: Key to Product Line Structuring," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Design Engineering Division, 83(2), pp. 499-506. [19] Martin, M. and Ishii, K., 1996, "Design for Variety: A Methodology for Understanding the Costs of Product Proliferation," Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Irvine, CA, Paper No. DETC96/DTM-1610. [20] Fujita, K. and Ishii, K., 1997, "Task Structuring toward Computational Approaches to Product Variety Design," Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Advances in Design Automation Conference, Sacramento, CA, Paper No. DETC97/DAC-3766. [21] Tseng, M. M. and Jiao, J., 1999, "Methodology of Developing Product Family Architecture for Mass Customization," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 10(1), pp. 3-20. [22] Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002, "Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 213-235. [23] Muoz, M. L., 2004, "Product Design Flexibility," M.S. Report, Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Texas, Austin, TX. [24] Pinyopusarerk, C., 2004, "Empirical Study of Product Flexibility Fundamentals," M.S. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Texas, Austin, TX. [25] Schaffer, T., 2004, "Extraction of Product Flexibility Design Principles from Patent Literature and Their Application in the Design Process," M.S. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Texas, Austin, TX. [26] Kuchinski, B., 2005, "Development of Product Flexibility Principles for Engineering Design," M.S. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
[27] Keese, D. A., 2006, "Flexibility for Future Design Evolution: Guidelines and Measurements," M.S. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Texas, Austin, TX. [28] Qureshi, A. M., 2006, "Flexibility: Design for Evolution," M.S. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. [29] Pahl, G. and Beitz, W., 1996, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 2nd Ed., Springer, London. [30] Otto, K. and Wood, K., 2001, Product Design, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. [31] Singh, V., Skiles, S., Krager, J., Wood, K. L. and Jensen, D., 2006, "Innovations in Design through Transformation: A Fundamental Study of Transformation Principles," Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Philadelphia, PA, Paper No. DETC200699575. [32] Skiles, S., Singh, V., Krager, J., Wood, K. L. and Jensen, D., 2006, "Adapted Concept Generation and Computational Techniques for the Application of a Transformer Design Theory," Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Advances in Design Automation Conference, Philadelphia, PA, Paper No. DETC2006-99584. [33] Palani Rajan, P. K., Wie, M. V., Campbell, M., Otto, K. and Wood, K., 2003, "Design for Flexibility - Measures and Guidelines," International Conference On Engineering Design, Stockholm, Sweden, ICED. [34] Palani Rajan, P. K., Van Wie, M., Campbell, M. I., Wood, K. L. and Otto, K. N., 2005, "An Empirical Foundation for Product Flexibility," Design Studies, 26(4), pp. 405438. [35] Keese, D. A., Takawale, N. P., Seepersad, C. C. and Wood, K. L., 2006, "An Enhanced Change Modes and Effects Analysis (Cmea) Tool for Measuring Product Flexibility with Applications to Consumer Products," Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Advances in Design Automation Conference, Philadelphia, PA, Paper No. DETC2006-99478. [36] Office Depot, 2007, "Office Depot Brand Patriot Multifunction Task Chairs, Black at Office Depot", http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?level=SK&id= 363871&Nr=200000&N=201652&An=browse. Accessed: May 24, 2007. [37] Amazon.com, 2006, "Back to Basics Coffee Solution Coffeemaker", http://www.amazon.com/BACKBASICS-COFFEE-SOLUTIONCOFFEEMAKER/dp/B000K2BAHU/sr=81/qid=1162154393/ref=sr_1_1/002-56035787443217?ie=UTF8&s=kitchen. Accessed: October 26, 2006. [38] Lexmark International, I., 2006, "T64x 500-Sheet Tray", http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/product/home/781/0, 6970,204816596_846011175_569714445_en,00.html?t abId=1. Accessed: October 2, 2006. [39] Lexmark International, I., 2006, "Lexmark T644", http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/product/home/691/0, 16

6970,204816596_653293751_492036787_en,00.html?t abId=1#top. Accessed: October 26, 2006. [40] U.S. Patent 6,820,341, Snider, G. S., November 23, 2004. [41] Potti, K. and Aybar, M., 2005, "Employing a Simulation Technique to Predict and Improve Equipment Productivity", http://www.micromagazine.com/archive/02/09/potti.ht ml. Accessed: November 18, 2006. [42] Amazon.com, 2006, "Bunn A10 Pour-O-Matic Coffee Brewer", http://www.amazon.com/Bunn-A10-Pour-OMatic-Coffee-Brewer/dp/B00004RFQG/sr=814/qid=1162154981/ref=sr_1_14/002-56035787443217?ie=UTF8&s=kitchen. Accessed: October 26, 2006. [43] Amazon.com, 2006, "Mr. Coffee Fttx85 10-Cup Thermal Programmable Coffeemaker", http://www.amazon.com/Coffee-FTTX85-ThermalProgrammable-Coffeemaker/dp/B0008JHFQU/sr=110/qid=1162155019/ref=sr_1_10/002-56035787443217?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden. Accessed: October 26, 2006. [44] Amazon.com, 2006, "Black & Decker Vp1000k Versapak Cordless Multi-Tool Combo 4-Pak", http://www.amazon.com/Black-Decker-VP1000KVersaPak-Multi-Tool/dp/B000056HSX/sr=831/qid=1162155920/ref=sr_1_31/002-56035787443217?ie=UTF8&s=hi. Accessed: October 26, 2006. [45] U.S. Patent 4,426,850, Reedy, W. R., January 24, 1984. [46] Amazon.com, 2006, "George Foreman Grp99 Next Generation Grill with Removable Plates, Silver Metallic Finish", http://www.amazon.com/GeorgeForeman-GRP99-GenerationRemovable/dp/B0002KINSY/sr=82/qid=1162156385/ref=sr_1_2/002-56035787443217?ie=UTF8&s=kitchen. Accessed: October 26, 2006. [47] Green, M. G., Linsey, J. S., Schmidt, K., Seepersad, C. C. and Wood, K. L., 2006, "Design for Frontier Contexts: Classroom Assessment of a New Design Methodology with Humanitarian Applications," ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL, American Society for Engineering Education.

CARAFE FITS LIST

10 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GL312

Betty Crocker

BC1732
4 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS404

Black & Decker

DCM-90WH
12 Cup: GLCup: GL212, GL312, GL220

remove pause and serve

BC1734

DE790B

Smartbrew DCM2000

DCM1200

12 Cup: GL220

DLX850

12 Cup: GL312

Spacemaker Models

10 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GL200

DCM1300

n/a no carafe

DCM1330

HCC100

TCM700

n/a thermal carafe

DCM1350

ODC150

10 Cup: GLCup: SS410

TCM805

DCM1400

ODC25N

12 Cup: GL200

TCM830

n/a Thermal

DCM18S

n/a single serve

ODC325
12 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GL200

DCM2500

ODC405

DCM3200

ODC425

no fit

600BUA

DCM400

4 Cup: GLCup: SS404

ODC440

800BGFUA

DCM500

ODC450
no fit 10 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GL200

800BUA

DCM580

Aromaster

DCM675BMT
4 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SS412

DCM900-04

Espresso: EXP100

DCM901-04

DCM902

SDC2AG

DCM903

Page 1 of 9

As of November, 2008

12 Cup: GL212

10 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GL200 Espresso: EXP100

POUR-O-MATIC

Capresso
12 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS410

Cuisinart

DCC-1000

DCC-1000BK

10 Cup: GL210

Breville

800ESXL

DCC-1100BK

ESP8XL

DCC-1150BK

10 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS410
10 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS410

DCC-1200

B8/B10

DCC-1200BCH

DCC-1200BW

10 Cup: GLCup: GL212

DCC-1200W

DCC-200

10 Cup: GLCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS412

DCC-2200

12 Cup: GL312 (14 cup coffeemaker)

DCC-450

4 Cup: GL204
12 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS412

GR Series

DGB-500

DGB-500BK

DGB-500R

DGB-600BC

Page 2 of 9

DGB-700BC

Hamilton Beach

43244C

DGB-900BC
Thermal Carafe 12 Cup: GL312

Mini Drip HB784

4 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS404

DTC975

thermal carafe, no fit

Jerdon

CM101W

DeLonghi

BAR4EE

CM103B

Keurig

Delonghi

DCF212T

Kitchen Selectives

Gaggia

KitchenAid

KCM414OB
n/a can't test -- no sample available 10 Cup: GL210 or GL200 remove pause and serve

CLASSIC

KCM511

COFFEE

KCM5250

ESPRESSO

KCM534ER

14 Cup: GL220

106591

106702

106718

n/a Party Perk

Page 3 of 9
10 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS410
Espresso: EXP100 Espresso: EXPCup: GL210 remove pause and serve Espresso: EXP100

Melitta

ACM10A4

ACM10B4

ACM10E4

12 Cup: GLCup: GL220

ACM10G

ACM10G4

10 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: GLCup: GL220

ACM10H

FME2-11

ACM10M/4

FME2-14

ACM10MI/4

ACO12T

FME4-14

ME2DMCBT

FMF 5-14

ME2TMB

FND111

MEMB1B

not yet checked

KM1000

Moulinex

XP2070

Espresso: EXPCup: GL220

XP4030

Page 4 of 9

Mr. Coffee

CBS900

4 Cup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GL220 no fit

CBTU45

n/a party perk

MR. Coffee

12 Cup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS410

CMX1000

ECM150

ECM20-23

CMX400
4 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS404

BLX210

DRTX84

ECMP50

BLX213

Elite Models

CBS700

Page 5 of 9

FTTX85

FTXSS23GTF

ISX23BP

FTTX95

FTXSS43GTF

FTX25-1

4 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS410

FTX26-1

HCB50X

MC1212

MCS201

ISTX95

Page 6 of 9

NL5GTF

PRX30D
12 Cup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GL220

PLX20BP-2

PLX23BP-2

PLX26BP-2

12 Cup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GL200

UTC100

TFTX85

UTC300

TFX Series

UTC303

Page 7 of 9

Norelco

HB5187

Proctor Silex

Phillips

HD Sensio

Mr. Coffee Concepts
4 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GL200
Coffeemaker unavailable for testing

CT663eB

10 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GL220

Express HB5122

HB5124

HB5183

HB5184

HB5185

HB5186

HB5186-C

Page 8 of 9

A8335W

West Bend
4 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: SS404

C40107

C40207

D40101

10 Cup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GLCup: GLCup: SSCup: GL200

A415AL

Sunbeam

6000 Series

Toastmaster

TCM10PW

untested

TCM12W

12 Cup: GL220 remove pause and serve 12 Cup: GL220 remove pause and serve

Page 9 of 9