Design Project I: Coffee Mug Designed for
One-Finger Disabled People
Group Members: Tristan Brosious, Katie Corridoni, Jake Lapiana, Jessie Durso
Our first project for this semester was to work with our group to come up with a
design for a coffee mug that is made specifically for people who are disabled and
would have a hard time using a regular coffee mug. We were to assume that the
person only had one finger, and maybe their thumb, on their hand, which would make
drinking from a regular coffee mug very difficult. To complete this project, we had to
use the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), classification trees, and a few other
methods to come up with the best design for our mug. A picture of our final design for
our mug can be found below, and a copy of our final
Below is a formal report of how we came to make the mug we
ended up with.
Design Project #1:
Coffee Mug Design for One-Finger Disabled Individuals
Team #2:
Tristan D. Brosious
Katie L. Corridoni
Jessie M. Durso
Jacob P. Lapiana
Pennsylvania State University
Abstract
Currently, there is an extremely small market for coffee mugs that can accommodate the needs of
a one-finger disabled individual. As engineers, we hope to resolve this issue and design a coffee
mug to make the lives of these individuals more convenient. After compiling general research
about our task at hand, we began by compiling customer needs and ranking them using the
Analytical Hierarchy Process. From these customer needs, we began to create concepts that we
could possibly incorporate into our design. These concepts were combined into twenty-five
general designs, and were screened via concept screening. After obtaining our top ten concepts,
we used concept scoring to pick a concept combination that we would go on to prototype.
Overall, we believe that our design process was successful and that we obtained an optimal
product to fit these needs.
Key Words: Disability, Convenience, Daily Living, Market Expansion
Unfortunately, many who are disabled are unable to enjoy small conveniences in their daily
routine. Oftentimes, individuals who are one-finger disabled find that holding a beverage in a
coffee-mug can be difficult task. Everyone deserves to enjoy their coffee, and we as engineers
hope to work through this issue to provide disabled consumers with an optimal product. Our
mission throughout this project is to design a coffee mug that can accommodate the needs of a
one-finger disabled individual. Though our primary market encompasses those who are disabled,
many non-disabled individuals may find that our product is easier to use and fits nicely into their
daily lifestyles. At the beginning of the design process, we have a few main goals that we would
like to accomplish. We would like our mug to be able to hold hot and cold liquids, and will
provide comfort for the consumer using it.
We asked our friends to imagine that they were disabled and unable to properly hold a typical
coffee cup. We asked them about the most important attributes that their ideal coffee cup would
have. They agreed that the cup should be lightweight and easy to hold, perhaps with padding to
cushion their finger. One friend suggested that the cup should have some kind of a lid, as spilling
may occur when adjusting to using the product. They also suggested that the hot liquid may be
an issue, and there should be an insulation or heat barrier to keep the heat away from the
consumer. A fun selection of colors and designs were also suggested to make the coffee cup be
fun and eccentric like other coffee cups. When asked what they would pay for such a product,
our friends said $15-$20 because they have not seen a product like this on the market before.
We began researching the market for this type of product. To our surprise, there is currently not a
large market for a product like this, perhaps not one at all. Many of the products we found were
designed for individuals with arthritis, or elderly individuals with limited gripping ability. The
"Hand-To-Hand Mug" was a lightweight, plastic mug that had a grooved outer surface to aid in
gripping (Coffee Mugs to Steady the Hand, 2015). We also found mugs that had large handles to
accommodate full palms on each side for stability, and some mugs even had thumb rests
(RehabMart, 2015). Although most of these mugs were made using plastic or other lightweight
materials, they retailed from $25-$40. Throughout our design process, we will make it a goal to
produce our mug with a durable materials that are still economical to the consumer.
Our team analyzed our suggestions and our research findings and compiled a list of some of the
most important attributes for our product. We organized these attributes using the Analytical
Hierarchy Process, creating five first layer and a number of second layer attributes for our
product. Our five, first layer attributes were characteristics of utmost importance to incorporate
into our design process. These attributes were: Portable, User Friendly, Efficient, Affordable,
and Environmentally friendly. We complimented these attributes with numerous second layer
attributes.
When using the Analytical Hierarchy Process, we found that User Friendly was our most
prioritized first layer attribute, followed by Efficient and Affordable. Among the second layer
attributes, we found that Easy to hold, Reliable, and Low Production Cost were the most in our
design process. Using the A.H.P. helped us to identify which characteristics and consumer needs
were the most important in our design process. These top rated attributes would eventually help
us to create our design concepts for the mug. The full ranking process can be found on pages 5-7.
Summary: Attributes and Ranking Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process
1. Portable(0.107735)
1.1 Lightweight (0.026622, 0.247104)
1.2 Durable (0.049916, 0.463322)
1.3 Compact (0.011231, 0.104247)
1.4 Versatile (0.019966, 0.185328)
1. User Friendly (0.370195)
2.1 Adjustable (0.026567, 0.071766)
2.2 Comfortable (0.100225, 0.370195)
2.3 Easy to Hold (0.133633, 0.360980)
2.4 Customizable (0.028636, 0.077353)
2.5 Safe for Consumer (0.081134, 0.219166)
1. Efficient (0.227812)
3.1 Insulated (0.044031, 0.193277)
3.2 Easy to Clean (0.028716, 0.126050)
3.3 Reliable (0.112059, 0.403361)
3.4 Sturdy (0.063175, 0.277311)
1. Affordable (.208828)
4.1 Easy to Purchase (0.061420, 0.294118)
4.2 Low Production Cost (0.110556, 0.59412)
4.3 Low Consumer Cost (0.036852, 0.176471)
1. Environmentally Friendly (0.08543)
5.1 Safe Chemicals (0.034172, 0.400000)
5.2 Recyclable (0.017086, 0.200000)
5.3 Manufactured with a small Carbon Footprint (0.034172, 0.400000)
User
Portable Friendly
First Layer
Environmentally
Affordable Friendly
Total
Efficient
Weight
Portable
1
0.20
0.25
0.33
2.00
3.78 0.107735
User Friendly
5
1
2
3.00
2
13.00 0.370195
Efficient
4.00
0.50
1
0.5
2
8.00 0.227812
Affordable
3.00
0.33
1.00
1
2.00
7.33 0.208828
0.5
0.50
0.50
0.50
1
Environmentally
Friendly
3.00
Total
0.08543
35.12
Table 1: Analytical Hierarchy Process for First Layer Attributes
Table 2: AHP. for Second Layer Attributes under "Portable"
Second
Layer - 1
Lightweight Durable
Compact
Versatile
Total
Table
3:
A.H.P.
for
0.247104
Weight
1.00
0.33
2
2
5.33
3
1
4
2
10
0.46332
Compact
0.50
0.25
1
0.5
2.25
0.104247
Versatile
0.5
0.5
2
1
4
0.185328
Lightweight
Durable
21.58
Total
Second Layer Attributes under "User Friendly"
Second
Layer - 2
Adjustable Comfortable Easy
to
Hold
Customizable Safe for
Consumer
Total
Weight
Adjustable
1
0.20
0.25
1
0.33
2.783333
0.071766
Comfortable
5
1
1
3
0.50
10.5
0.270735
Easy to Hold
4
1
1
6
2
14
0.36098
Customizable
1
0.33
0.17
1
0.50
3
0.077353
3
Safe for
Consumer
2
0.50
2
1
8.5
0.219166
38.78333
Total
Table 4: A.H.P. for Second Layer Attributes under "Efficient"
Second
Layer - 3
Insulated
Insulated
1
2
0.33
0.50
1
Reliable
3
Sturdy
2
Easy to
Clean
Easy to
Clean
Reliable Sturdy
Total
Weight
0.50
3.833333333
0.193277
0.50
0.5
2.5
0.12605
2
1
2
8
0.403361
2
0.50
1
5.5
0.277311
19.83333333
Total
Table 5: A.H.P for Second Layer Attributes under " Affordable"
Second Layer 4
Easy to
Purchase
Low Production
Cost
Low Consumer
Cost
Total
Weight
Easy to
Purchase
1
0.33
2
3.33
0.294117647
Low
Production
Cost
3
1
2
6
0.529411765
0.50
0.50
1
2
0.176470588
Low
Consumer
Cost
11.333
Total
Table 6: A.H.P for Second Layer Attributes under "Environmentally Friendly"
Second Layer - 5
Safe Chemicals
Recyclable
Small Carbon
Footprint
Total
Safe
Chemicals
Recyclable
Small Carbon
Footprint
Total
Weight
1
2
1
4
0.4
0.50
1
0.50
2
0.2
1
2
1
4
0.4
10
After identifying some of our most important customer needs, we began to create design
concepts for our future product. We worked with the attributes: Easy to Hold, Comfortable, and
Reliable, and brainstormed design ideas that would fulfill these customer needs.
Figure 1: Design Concepts
Our design concepts are outlined in Figure 1. To make our product easy to hold, we had ideas for
a wider shape, two handles, a hand cavity, and a finger/thumb rest. To make our product
comfortable, we had ideas to add removable cushioning, round contouring, lightweight materials,
and a large cavity for different hand sizes. To make our product reliable, we had ideas to add a
sliding lid, insulating materials, a non-conductive outer material, and a capacity to hold at least 8
oz. of fluid. After creating unique concepts, we used concept screening to identify our best
concept combinations for our design. All of our concept combinations can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Concept
Combinations
Figure 2 shows the twenty-five concept combinations that were obtained from the original design
concepts in Figure 1. We used Concept Screening to narrow in on our top ten design
combinations. We chose "A1B1C1" (highlighted in red) as our screening standard, a
combination that includes a wide base, a cushioned handle, and sliding lid. Our selection criteria
were our five first layer attributes. A summary of our concept screening process can be found on
page 9. Through our screening, we decided to keep the following 10 concepts, which were the
highest rated:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A4B3C4 - Finger Cavity, Lightweight Material, 8oz. Capacity
A2B2C2 - Two Handles, Round Cavity, Insulating Materials
A2B3C4 - Two Handles, Lightweight Material, 8oz. Capacity
A1B4C3 - Wide, Large Handle, Non-Conductive Materials
A3B2C4 - Hand Cavity, Round Cavity, 8oz. Capacity
A4B3C1 - Finger Cavity, Lightweight Material, Slide Lid
A2B1C4 - Two handles, Cushioning, 8oz. Capacity
A2B4C1 - Two Handles, Large Handle, Slide Lid
A4B2C3 - Finger Cavity, Round Cavity, Non-Conductive Materials
•
A1B3C2 - Wide, Lightweight Material, Insulating Materials
Selection Criteria
A1B4C2 A2B1C3 CA3B4C3 A4B3C4 A2B2C1 A3B3C3 A2B2C2 A1B1C
Easy to Hold
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
0
Reliable
-
+
0
+
+
+
+
0
Low Production Cost
0
-
0
+
-
0
0
0
Comfortable
-
0
-
+
0
-
0
0
Durable
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
Sum +'s
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
0
Sum 0's
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
5
Sum -'s
2
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
Net Score
-1
1
1
2
1
-1
2
0
Rank
6
4
4
3
4
6
3
5
Continue?
No
No
No
A4B3C2 A2B3C4 A1B2C4 A1B4C3 A2B2C4
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
A3B2C4 A4B3C1 A2B1C4 A3B3C2
0
+
0
+
+
0
+
+
0
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
+
-
0
0
-
-
0
+
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
0
3
No
2
Yes
4
No
2
Yes
3
No
3
2
Yes
4
Yes
No
5
No
A4B1C4 A3B2C2 A2B1C4 A2B4C1 A4B2C3 A3B4C1 A1B3C2
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
-
0
+
0
-
-
-
0
+
+
+
0
+
2
2
3
4
2
2
4
2
2
2
1
3
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
1
3
4
4
2
1
3
4
2
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
After finding our top ten concept combinations, we chose A4B4C4 (highlighted in green) as our
scoring standard. Through concept scoring, we were able to pinpoint our highest rated concept
combination that will be showcasing in our design. This scoring process is summarized below:
A4B3C4
Selection Criteria
Weight
A2B2C2
Rating Weighted Score Rating
A2B3C4
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Easy to Hold
30%
3
0.9
2
0.6
5
1.5
Reliable
20%
3
0.6
4
0.8
4
0.8
Low Production
Cost
10%
3
0.3
2
0.2
3
0.3
Comfortable
30%
3
0.9
3
0.9
4
1.2
Durable
10%
3
0.3
2
0.6
3
0.3
Total Score
3
3.1
4.1
Rank
7
6
2
No
No
No
Continue?
A1B4C3
Rating
Weighted
Score
5
A3B2C4
Rating
Weighted
Score
1.5
4
4
0.8
2
A4B3C1
A2B1C4
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted Score
1.2
3
0.9
4
1.2
3
0.6
4
0.8
4
0.8
0.2
3
0.3
3
0.3
3
0.3
5
1.5
4
1.2
3
0.9
5
1.5
4
0.4
2
0.2
4
0.4
2
0.2
4.4
3.5
3.3
4.1
1
3
5
2
Yes
No
No
No
Highest Rated Concept
A2B4C1
A4B2C3
A1B3C2
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted Score
5
1.5
3
0.9
4
1.2
4
0.8
3
0.6
2
0.4
3
0.3
3
0.3
3
0.3
4
1.2
4
1.2
3
0.9
3
0.3
4
0.4
2
0.2
4.1
3.4
3
2
4
7
No
No
No
Through concept scoring, we had pinpointed our highest rated concept combination, A1B4C3.
This design incorporated a wide base, large handle, and non-conductive materials into the mug's
design. Nonetheless, we realized that we had to focus our efforts on designing a optimal handle
for our mug.
Our mug features a large, rounded cavity that is meant to accommodate a palm of any size
comfortably. The cavity's opening is larger at one end, and smaller at the other for a finger to
come out of (if necessary). This is to prevent the finger from supporting the weight of the mug
completely, leaving some of the weight on the consumer's palm. We also included a small thumb
rest for added support to the consumer if necessary. Oftentimes, thermos' made of stainless steel
are lightweight and generally non-conductive if insulated properly. Therefore, our mug will be
designed from stainless steel, which is on the market for $1,560 / ton ( $0.78 / pound) (Industrial
Metal Prices and Charts, 2015). This is a economically efficient for our product. The mug will
retail for $20, and ideally, we would sell our mug with removable cushioning for the handle. The
figures below show a general design of our mug , generated on SolidWorks.
Figures 3-7: SolidWorks Generated Coffee Mug Design
We found that prototyping our mug with clay was the hardest part of our design process. Overall,
we believe that our mug is ideal for a person with a one-finger disability. Our mug is able to
house 8oz. of fluid as we had hoped, and we fulfilled our concept combination of having a wide
base and a large handle. Analyzing the mug through the first layer attributes, our mug relatively
portable: it is lightweight and durable, versatile to accommodate differences in the disability, and
generally compact. Our mug is also user friendly, being comfortable, easy to hold, and safe to the
consumer. We could make our mug customizable by providing numerous color and design
options for the consumers. Though our mug is not necessarily adjustable, it is versatile to allow
the consumer to adjust their grip based on their disability. Our mug is also efficient, being
insulated, easy to clean, reliable, and sturdy. Priced at $20, our mug is affordable to the
consumer, and using stainless steel is also affordable to us as producers. When marketing our
product, we would be sure to offer our product both online and in stores to make sure that it is
easy to find and purchase. In terms of our environmental footprint, stainless steel is relatively
sustainable compared to other materials. It can be recycled, but does leave a small carbon
footprint when produced (Why is Stainless Sustainable?, 2015).
To make our product better in the future, we would be sure to incorporate a lid into our design to
prevent spilling and add to the mug's traveling capabilities. In addition, we would design two
handles that would allow our mug to be compatible with the left hand as well. For additional
comfort and stability, we could try to incorporate finger grooves, similar to the ones exhibited on
the arthritis-friendly mugs we had found after researching. Overall, we believe that we have
designed a successful product and fulfilled our goal outlined in the beginning of the semester.
We hope that the market for these kind of mugs will increase to make the lives easier for those
who are one-finger disabled.
Works Cited
Coffee Mugs to Steady the Hand. (2015, February & March). Retrieved from The
Wright Stuff: http://www.thewright-stuff.com/coffee-mugs-to-steady-the-handprovide-gripping-ability/
Industrial Metal Prices and Charts. (2015, February & March). Retrieved from
Quandl: https://www.quandl.com/c/markets/industrial-metals
RehabMart. (2015, February & March). Retrieved from RehabMart:
http://www.rehabmart.com/category/Cups,_Mugs_and_Accessories.htm
Why is Stainless Sustainable? (2015, February & March). Retrieved from
Sustainable Stainless: http://www.sustainablestainless.org/why-stainless