The design process model that we felt most appropriate to follow, was the Socially Engaged Design Process Model, as shown above. It emphasizes collaboration and co-design with the people and communities that would use this solution.

Though we identified key stakeholders fairly early in the project, we used ecosystem mapping to ensure that we were looking beyond the obvious ones. The ecosystem map shown above thinks about the ways in which various people and groups are connected to our problem space.

We researched and analyzed benchmark solutions that were relevant to our problem space to understand what solutions already exist and to ensure that we would not be infringing on existing intellectual property. We looked at existing market solutions from a variety of contexts, such as, external chair recline mechanisms, reclining couches, beach chairs, baby car seats, and more.

Sketching and prototyping went hand-in-hand for our ideation process. We used various ideation techniques for sketching (brainstorming, morphological analysis, Design Heuristics) and transformed these ideas into low fidelity prototypes early to realize potential design challenges early on.

Our team valued more than just voting during the concept selection process. We used strategies like Plusses, Potentials, and Concerns to narrow our idea pool and push new, improved concepts forward.

Prototypes were useful in being able to further refine of our design solution. We used them for empirical analyses, such as testing the friction of the sliding wheels with respect to different chair materials, visualizing chair tipping risks, and developing the portability straps, as shown in the photo above.

A CAD model was drafted to visualize various components of the design before constructing it, but since this project required a degree of design flexibility with regards to exact parts used, we did not solely rely on this model for final construction. The 3D model was primarily useful for analytical investigations, such as estimating the device’s weight and center of mass for risk analyses.

We used numerical, computational, and empirical methods of analyses to analyze critical engineering questions related to product size, wheel friction, part and material load capacities, and device durability. More specific risk analyses for strap durability and device stability were investigated, resulting in some design modifications for a safer outcome.

As shown above, the final prototype consisted of a wooden frame that could be fastened to most chairs using straps, a tilting seat insert with various removable cushions, a head rest, and collapsible leg rest, child safety seat belts, and chair anti-tippers.

To confirm that our final design met the stakeholder’s requirements, verification methods were performed for each engineering specification. Some of these were analyzed through product testing with real children, as shown in the photo above.

This project was inherently ethical as it aimed to serve the health and well-being of a particular population. Within this problem, however, we faced a couple ethical dilemmas:

1. Navigating how much to prioritize the caretaker versus the primary user

2. Deciding on an acceptable budget for our low-income end-users while still maintaining the quality and reliability of the device

3. Addressing the liability of the device considering it would be transported, assembled, and used in another country