Comments on what you have learned from the design process and fabrication of the prototype.

 

Our group had many initial issues in both picking a project to fit the class specifications, and having the background and time to be able to successfully implement it. In switching gears to the customizable phone case project idea, we were better able to find focus. 

​

Primarily important is the definition of the problem to be solved, which took us some time to get to. We initially wanted to start printing models without any scientific basis; in doing the materials indices and manufacturing process selection, we were able to justify our design intuition before making 3D prototypes.

 

Additionally important is clear division of labour based on skill set. We often ended up working separately, for example, on materials indices or the mathematical modeling of a drop test. While this allowed for us to get a bit more done, it did create more room for error, as a mistake had been made, for example, in how to incorporate cost into the materials index. It might be advisable to have a system of checking each others' work. The website has removed that math error now.

 

Also, we quickly learned the importance of trying to 3D print models ahead of time. As we found, issues in print almost always come up, and it's nice to have buffer time.  

​

In terms of fabrication, looking back on manufacturing process selection section, it could be said that the results from the selection methods quite make sense, compared to how cases are made currently: injection molding and compression molding. But one thing that was different is that we haven’t end up getting compression molding suggestion, even if it is conventionally used in making some of elastomeric cases. This is mainly because the case we’ve designed has smaller thickness, which also means less mass, than the usual cases made by compression molding. From this, we’ve learned that even the goal of the product is the same, process can differ, depending on the specific characteristic of each product.

 

What refinements would you make if you were to make a new iteration of the design?

​

Our final case models were not as robust as we would hope for. The Object260 print was quite stiff and actually cracked slightly, despite having the best print quality. The Type A print was strong, but had a rough surface finish that hurt usability. 

 

The prototype we made with Carbon 3D printer didn’t come out as we expected it to be. Especially, the sides of the case were not formed properly. It was because air bubbles were developed during the production process. To prevent this kind of problem some cutouts should had been made so that the distortions are not made. Thus, we learned that we should add cutouts if we were to print things by Carbon 3D printer.

 

(Additional refinement ideas are mentioned on the Home page under Assessment of Prototypes with the gallery of captioned images)

​

Finally, it would be nice to have some starting models and ideas for users to customize their attachments. It would allow users with less CAD experience to still be able to enjoy the product without having to design all their own attachments. 

​

What challenges do you envisage with scaling up to manufacturing for your envisaged market size?

​

The main challenges that we envision with scaling up to our targeted market size are accessibility and competition. Our product is meant to be used a customizable iPhone case with as many attachments as our user base desires. The attachments can be made through a variety of methods, with 3D printing as a primary option.

 

Although our phone case and the myriad of attachments compatible with our universal docket design can be mass manufactured in a manufacturing plant, the main premise of our phone case design is customizability. The case’s appeal to users is the ability to create any attachment they desire, as long as it contains the universal docket design. Unfortunately, most people in mass market do not have access to the tools and skills needed to design and manufacture their own cases. In order to do so, a user must have basic knowledge of CAD programs and access to a fine resolution 3D printer. We found through testing that only the Object260 3D printer was able to produce attachments functional and durable enough to have daily use. Admittedly, we had limited test cases, but it is conceivable that users would also find print errors and tolerance issues if they had different 3D printers that could cause them frustration with our product. 

 

Even through mass manufacturing of our case and its docket design, it still faces competition with other cases. In a saturated market of cheap phone cases, our case stands out through its promise of customizability. Most consumers will not have a need for such a customizable case and might instead purchase a cheaper, less functional case design. Even if they wanted an extra feature on their cases, there are other companies that make wallet cases, battery cases, stand cases, etc. Furthermore, due to the implementation of the docket design, our case has larger dimensions than other cases, which may turn off potential users. Our case appeals to the niche market of users interested in full customizability over expense or aesthetics. In essence, this is not a product designed for mass scale-up, and that should be reflected in any marketing or distribution strategy implemented. 

​

Acknowledgements

​

We'd like to thank Professor Taylor for his detailed feedback and support, and Jacobs Hall and staff for use of their facilities and printers. 

​

​

​

​