1. Suggestions for further improvement
1.1. Aesthetics
1.1.1. Working off the CAD renders and veneer door sampling, the visual qualities of the design could be improved through better proportions ratios when comparing the size of the stacked hexagonal componants compared the height of the doors
1.2. Functional Ascpects
1.2.1. The safety of the design could be improved with the use of the lazy suzanne as there is potential for the base to disconnect which could result in the main compartment seperating from the base.
1.2.2. The secondry funtion (O’Leary & Livett, 2017) of having the doors and lid open in syncronisation does improve the product both functioanl and aesthetically. By having the door and lid working on the same mechanism reduces the amout of engerniered parts requried and thus simplifing the design which will help with manufactoring and future maintance.
1.3. Suitability of Materials
1.3.1. The materials chosen work well together creating a harmonies blend of texture and colour to match with the theme of art nouveau. The use of solid timber combined with timber veneer and plywood help reduce the overall weight of the product while adding strength to high stress joints (timber veneer door panels have greater strength than solid timber due to the lamination proccess.
1.3.2. The inlay material chosen (abalone, copper and brass) while beautiful add a layer of complexity as far as CNC machining goes. The CNC machine is not equip to mill through metals and shell meaning I either have to hand dremel or CNC the negative space first and secondly laser/ water cut the inlay material to fit in exact CNC shapes to be added later and connected with expoxy resin adhesive
1.4. Sustainability
1.4.1. Extensive sustainabiliy measures have been used to ensure sustainability is at the forfront of the design process. Please find "Life Cycle Analysis" page on BowerBird.Co website for more information
2. Evaluate to specific evaluation criteria
2.1. Original Constraint:
2.1.1. **Sustainability and Materials Choice:** The vessel should be designed with sustainability in mind, using durable and environmentally friendly materials to align with contemporary values of minimizing environmental impacts. These factors could include the use of radiator pine and veneer combinations.
2.1.1.1. What
2.1.1.1.1. Meets modern sustainable design expectations including social, economical, environmental. SDG goals met
2.1.1.2. Why
2.1.1.2.1. Consumers are becoming more sustainable conscience with increased education about global warming impacts and human rights
2.1.1.3. How
2.1.1.3.1. Life cycle analysis - material sourcing - education - maintenance
2.1.2. **Size and Portability:** The semi-portable vessel must be compact and lightweight enough for one person move in order to accommodate dense living quarters and frequent moving. It should be easily transportable, allowing individuals to use it in various living spaces.
2.1.2.1. What
2.1.2.1.1. Can it be moved by one person
2.1.2.2. Why
2.1.2.2.1. To be renter friendly - people move around alot with little space for large pieces of furniture
2.1.2.3. How
2.1.2.3.1. Finished weight and shape of vessel can be moved by one person
2.1.3. **Storage Capacity and Organization:** The vessel must offer adequate storage and organization solutions to suit a range of vanity items, such as perfume bottles, lipsticks, earrings, necklaces, eyeglasses, and hair accessories. Effective storage is essential to maximize storage capacity and ease of item access.
2.1.3.1. What
2.1.3.1.1. Maximize storage area for storing modern vanity items
2.1.3.2. Why
2.1.3.2.1. Renter friendly - share house friendly - private vanity space limited to bedroom which can be small
2.1.3.3. How
2.1.3.3.1. Smart function design, customizable, use all surface area used
2.1.4. **Versatile Personalization:** The vessel's design should be versatile and allow for customization of organizer solutions to better suit each user's unique lifestyle needs in a contemporary context.
2.1.4.1. What
2.1.4.1.1. Customers are able to make the vessel work for them and there personal vanity needs
2.1.4.2. Why
2.1.4.2.1. Widens target market, solves problem of bearing functional jewerly box
2.1.4.3. How
2.1.4.3.1. Is the vessel customizable, are there a range of storage solutions available that can be moved/ removed with ease
2.1.5. **User-Centered Design:** The vessel should aid the user's lifestyle to support quality of life; this can be achieved through ergonomic considerations such as a rotating base and easy-to-operate doors.
2.1.5.1. What
2.1.5.1.1. The vessel should be easy and logical to use regularly
2.1.5.2. Why
2.1.5.2.1. Encourage regular use of vessel, happy customer = happy maker
2.1.5.3. How
2.1.5.3.1. Test use on different people (old/young) if doors/ lid opens with little force. hanging accessories can be moved with little strain yet stronge enough to hold weight of vanity items
3. Evaluate the design, planning and prodcution processes
3.1. **Design Activities**
3.1.1. How could you have stretched your design idea?
3.1.1.1. Creative games like SCAMPER
3.1.1.2. Earlier collabaration with industry experts such as jewlers, cabinet makers, machanical engeneiers
3.1.1.3. Greater in-depth target market research
3.1.1.4. Allow more time for idea development
3.1.2. What methods could you have used to make your design more innovative or interesting?
3.1.2.1. Continues target market evaluation
3.1.2.2. Continues referal back to SCAMPER activity
3.1.3. What activities might have improved your design aesthetically?
3.1.3.1. More CNC testing, all CAD testing was unsuccessful in some way, if i had more time I would have presisted with refining the CNC to achieve my desired result
3.1.4. What activities might have improved the functional aspects of the solution in your design?
3.1.4.1. More rapid prototype testing and experimentation
3.1.4.2. Greater collabartion with industry experts
3.1.5. Did your working drawings provide enough accuracy and detail?
3.1.5.1. Hand drawing is not a strength of mine, my rough sketches provided enough detail to help explain and visulise my ideas.
3.1.5.2. My CAD drawing provide great detail and are accurate with measurments. My CAD drawings will act as my materials list during production
3.2. **Planning Activities**
3.2.1. Did you follow your sequenced work plan?
3.2.1.1. I followed my workplan as best as I could, some testing took much longer than expected (CNC testing) which lead to finding alternative paths for the method - which requires more testing.
3.2.2. Where your sequenced work plan and timeline realistic?
3.2.2.1. No, my workplan timeline worked towards testing new elements each week - however some testing took more time than expected and new skills i had to learn again took longer than expected due to machine sharing, limited workshop access and my lack of previous experince. I did not manage to complete all the sampling I was hoping to.
3.2.3. Did you accurately calculate the time needed for each step? What steps required more/less time than anticipated?
3.2.3.1. No I did not accuratley calculate the time needed for each step. The CNC testing took a total of 2 lessons instead of 1, the veneer lamination proccess needed to happen multiply times as the design evolved in order to test new elements, the hand roatering was a very time consuming practice as I had never used a hand router to try and create a realistic CNC effect. This incorrect planning of time resulted in me not completing all my sampling as i had hoped.
3.2.3.2. The availably of the interviewed industry experts was another elements which impacted my time and plan flow as I tried to work with their availablies
3.2.4. What changes did you make to your original (designs or plans) and why were those changes made?
3.2.4.1. The size of the doors changed in height becoming shorter, after making the scale model (1:2) I was still struggling to visulise the full size the product, to aid this i draw a flat front view of the product following the CAD mesurements which demostrated the overall height. I determined the height was to tall to meet the criteria of portability - therefore I removed 10cm from the height of the doors shrinking the product overall.
3.2.4.2. The inner functional side of the doors changed from all doors being complelting magnetic so the accessory holding componants could move around to have inset bars, shelfs and brass mesh. This change was a result of collabative discussion with industry expert - a jeweler.
3.3. **Prodcution Activities**
3.3.1. Was your product modified during production? If so, why?
3.3.1.1. The model height was modified due to the size of the full scale flat drawing - I fell the tall height did not meet the set criteria of portability
3.3.1.2. The lid and changed from a lift off function to a mechanised fan opening which syncronaised with the doors. This was due to creative conversations with Danyon
3.3.2. Did you work safely?
3.3.2.1. Yes, I worked saftety in the workshop enviroment by abidding to all saftey regulations: Workboots (Australian Safety Standard AS 2210.3:2019) Cotton work shirt Heavy Cotton Straight Legged Workpants (not close fitting) P2/N95 Face Mask (Australian/New Zealand Standards (AS/NZS 1716:2012 - with no exhalation valve Safety Glasses (AS/NZS 1337.1:2010 – Personal eye protection) Hearing Protection (Australian Standard AS/NZS 1270:2002, Class 5) (Australian Catholic University, 2022)
3.3.3. Did you manage your time effectively?
3.3.3.1. I managed my time as effectivey as possible even though i did not complete all my sampling has planned. Each lesson I arrived with a plan of what I wanted to achieve which sometimes happened and sometimes did not. I tried to midigate this by attending extra workshop time and completeing what I could at home
3.3.4. Did you have an adequate knowledge of and experience in using the equipment and processes needed for making your product? Could skill trials and practice have assisted you?
3.3.4.1. There were a number of skills I lacked experince with like how to the table router, CNC and hand dremel to create complex textures. I was suprised at the amount of engenering involved with such a project and did not take into account the amount of triganometry working with hexagons would require. The lack of knowledge I struggled with the most was the machanicl engering portion to make the lid open and close in sync with the doors - I recruited the help of a machanical enginer.