Target Customer Problems with plantar/dorsi flexion Able to respond Well into recovery (at least 6 months) Currently able to walk unassisted with AFO Important thoughts to take away from the interviews Our interviews thus far have been conducted on ten patients. All patients had negative or indifferent comments about their AFO fitting inside of a shoe, and all but one complained that they were unable to get their AFO on unassisted. In respect to the inability to get the AFO on unassisted it should be noted that most of the patients are older and exhibit high dependency on others for other task as well. Another key fact to take away from the interviews was the expected life cycle/durability that seems to be expected from the patients, most patients seek an AFO with a lifetime of up to 6 years. The surface that contacts the patient’s leg also seems to be in need of review, as most patients have to wear extra high socks, to avoid contact with the plastic AFO. Some of their complaints were stickiness, excessive sweating, and development of sores. One of the most important things to take away from the interviews is that most of the patients asked their doctors to reduce the amount of material in the AFO, most patients attributed this to wanting more flexibility, something beyond what just adding a hinge could do. Upon every attempt by the patient to have their doctor remove more material, the doctor disagreed with the patient’s requests. This means that we are missing a key bit of information still. We need to talk to someone about why they are hesitant to remove material from the brace. Is it purely to keep it from breaking? Or is it that the patient needs more resistance than they think? Customer Needs List Functionality Lifts foot up at appropriate time o Sit to stand o Stairs o Inclined surface o Level surface Constraints Fits into a shoe Ease of access Adjustability Light Weight Portable Inexpensive Able to be used on both sides of the body Safety Durability/fatigue life Biocompatible surface Able to be cleaned/sterilized Design Metric Functionality Metric Units Sit to Stand 75 to 45 deg Detects and Allows for adequate motion of the ankle while attempting to stand from a seated position Detects and Allows for freedom of the ankle so the patient could walk with successive foot motion up and down a flight of stairs Detects and Allows for freedom of the ankle so the patient could walk with successive foot motion up and down a flight of stairs Detects and Allows for motion of the foot during decent or assent of a ramp Detects and Allows for motion of the foot during decent or assent of a ramp Patient does not drag there foot on the ground. Units Test 70 to 85 deg Stairs Accent 82 to 58 deg Stairs Decent 82 to 45 deg Inclined surface accent Inclined surface decent Level Surface Test 82 to 46 deg 60 to 80 deg Importance (1-4) Ref 4 A Motion Control of a Robotic Walker for Continuous Assistance during Standing, Walking and Seating Operation 3 3 Fits into a shoe Binary Ease of access 10 Min Adjustability Light weight Portable Inexpensive Able to be used on both sides of the body cm <1 kg 10hr <1000$ Binary Attempt to fit into a shoe possibly using a floppy (find a better word) foot Attempt to put on with one hand, time results document relative range of motion necessary to complete task What rand of body types can this AFO fit? Use hard plastic AFO as benchmark for weight Operation length BOM Can it be used on both sides of the body? Ankle-Foot-Orthosis Control in Inclinations and Stairs 2 Ankle-Foot-Orthosis Control in Inclinations and Stairs 2 Ankle-Foot-Orthosis Control in Inclinations and Stairs 1 Constrains Metric Ankle-Foot-Orthosis Control in Inclinations and Stairs Importance (1-7) 2 3 5 4 1 6 7 Safety Metric Units Durability/ Fatigue Life Cycles Biocompatible surface Able to be Cleaned/Sterilized Binary Binary Test Fatigue test the AFO (or at least identify weakest component and test that) Documentation of material must support claim Documentation of material must support claim Importance (1-3) 3 2 1