Mindmap
Problem Specification Chart
| Stated or Observed User Problem | Root Problem: How our group defines the underlying cause of the problem (Five Whys) |
Solution Goals: How our group defines what the product solution achieves |
Metrics: How our group measures the success of our defined Solution Goals |
| Problem Category 1: Hose Maneuverability | |||
| Hoses are often difficult to unload from trucks. | – Reach up high to get hoses
– Hoses travel the length of the truck, over all other cabinets – Firefighters must physically grab hoses off the top of the truck |
-The solution allows the firefighter to unload the hose while standing on the ground -The solution enables a quick unloading of the hose from the truck with minimal tangling |
– Force to remove hose from the truck (lbs) – Time required to remove the hose from the truck (sec) -Height to reach the hoses on the truck (while standing on ground) (ft.) -REBA (Rapid Entire Body) Assessment for ergonomics |
| If hoses are laid out incorrectly, kinks form while the hoses are charged. | – Hoses are usually just dragged from a folded position, the folds get caught on obstructions
– The way the hose is laid out in the room causes problems (if not relatively straight) – Goal is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, firefighters often encounter obstacles. The route with least obstacles is not always the quickest Hoses are stored in a position on the truck allowing kinks to happen |
– The solution eliminates sharp bends from a deployed hose. – The solution enables the hoses to be easily reloaded onto the truck in a position ready for next use. |
– Time required to unload hoses (sec) – Time required to reload hoses back onto truck (sec) – Number of kinks in hose after initial unload (integer) – Minimum bend angle required to have hose charge correctly (degrees) |
| Hoses (charged or uncharged) get stuck on doorways, furniture, and stairwells, resulting in slower deployment, and are difficult to move through structure. | -Charged cause more of an issue
– The hoses must be charged, it takes time to charge and have to be ready – The door frame shape gets hose caught, cuts off flow of water and impedes movement – The side of hoses cause friction with surfaces -The hose starts out loose and flexible and becomes very linear, hard to maneuver. |
– The solution allows a smooth transition around sharp corners – The solution slides smoothly along barriers with no unnecessary force applied -The solution keeps hose charged and no kinks are able to be formed -The solution is easily and quickly deployed (integrated) at the same time as the hose |
-Force required to get hose unstuck (lbs) -Coefficient of friction of outside of hose – Mass per unit length of hose (slugs/ft) – Angle at which hose gets stuck on a corner/doorway (degrees) – Measuring flexibility (up/over/around) obstacles -Time of hose deployment (sec) |
| Problem Category:
Vehicle Accident Response |
|||
| First Responders being struck by oncoming traffic | – Lack of awareness of driver
– Bad weather causes additional accidents -Drivers don’t hit brakes in time. |
– The solution increases situational awareness for passing drivers, thus, allowing for more time to avoid accidents. -The solution is highly visible and clearly communicates what is ahead of them. -The solution can be deployed with little effort from first responders |
– Visibility (ft) -Time to deploy (sec) -Time to retract (sec) -Number of people required to deploy system |
| Lack of defined boundaries of accident area | – Situations arise in unforeseen locations.
– Rescuers/drivers are unfamiliar with terrain – Boundary can continually change based on traffic patterns – The accident impedes normal flow – Drivers have difficulty adapting to new traffic pattern. – Additional people added to scene – Need tools and resources immediately available for use Root Problem: Tools arrive on scene at different times, in varying locations |
– The solution clearly communicates the boundary between restricted and unrestricted area. – The solution is deployed quickly and removed easily. – The solution is adaptable to changing boundaries |
– Adaptable reach and size (modular) of boundary area (ft^2) -Average speed of cars driving past boundary (mph) – Time to alter the deployed system (sec) -Time to deploy temporary solution (sec) -Time to remove temporary solution (sec) |
| Additional accidents behind original accident | – Changing speeds (caterpillar motion) along highway – Lanes merging, on/off ramp changes Root Problem: Lack of awareness of upcoming traffic pattern changes. |
– The solution mitigates the possibility of additional accidents by raising driver awareness in advance of changed traffic patterns. -The solution keeps traffic speed as constant as possible |
– Average speed of cars driving past boundary (mph) – Throughput of cars at scene of accident – Keep traffic speed as constant as possible |
| First Responders fear/uncomfortable by oncoming traffic | – There is little to no protection for first responders from oncoming traffic
– There is no physical boundary/protection between rescuers and highway traffic |
– The solution is self-deploying, eliminating the need for human interaction – The solution offers trusted protection from oncoming traffic – The solution seeks to eliminate distractions for rescuers. |
– Amount of force the system can absorb (lbs) – Time to deploy (sec) -Time to retract (sec) – Reaction time of rescuers to oncoming danger (sec) |
| Problem Category: Victim Removal |
|||
| Back injuries/hernias for rescuers are common due to heavy loads being lifted in awkward positions | – Proper lifting technique is key – even in unideal situation. Assistance with lift would be even better – Fall victims are typically stuck in some way- rarely in the middle of a room Root Problem: Victims almost always on ground, first responders must bend down to lift |
– The solution allows for rescuers to assist victim without bending over. -The solution is comfortable for the victim and eliminates unnecessary strain on injured areas -The solution prevents further injury to the victim |
-Force required by rescuer to lift victim (lbs) -Distance required to bend down for use (inches) -Time to remove victim from situation (sec) -Comfort of victim during use (1-10 pain scale) -REBA (Rapid Entire Body) Assessment -Adaptable for host of unforeseen situations |
| Most current victim removal methods in a fire typically involve more than one rescuer | – An unconscious victim is cumbersome and difficult to lift. Root Problem: Heavy and awkward body types and little to no help from victim |
– The solution only requires one person to facilitate the rescue -The solution removes excess load away from the rescuer -The solution is lightweight -The solution is easily maneuverable around changing environments and difficult terrains (i.e. tight corridors, stairways) -The solution is easily deployable – must be usable in zero visibility |
-Number of rescuers required to use system (integer) -Force required by rescuer during use (lbs) -Weight of solution (lbs) – Time to deploy (sec) -Time to retract (sec) -REBA assessment |
| Victims can suffer injuries while being rescued; smoke inhalation, burns, etc. | – May have sustained injury during accident/removal Root Problem: No protection for victims during removal |
-The solution in fact protects the victims during rescue – The solution is portable, and easily deployable by rescue personnel |
– Comfort of victim during use (1-10 pain scale) – Weight of system (lbs) – Number of rescuers needed to operate system (integer) – Time to deploy (sec) – Time to retract (sec) |
| Problem Category: Pet Safety | |||
| Dogs, Cats, Birds, etc, hide deep within the structure, often trap themselves with little chance of surviving or being rescued. | – Pets sense danger
– Pets do not run out outside to safety Lack of pet-accessible exits |
– The solution creates accessible exits for trapped pets in emergency |
– Time to find animal in structure is decreased (sec) -Comfortability of device if worn by pet (visual observation and evaluation ) |
| Locked cages, closed doors, inaccessible exits, can trap pets inside the structure with no way of allowing open access in case of emergency or while owners are away. | – Locks are designed for human use, not animal use.
– Owners are unaware of developing situation Animals have no way to alert or communicate danger |
-Temperature of activation (*F) – Percentage of false alarms (%) – Performance: speed of the unlocking mechanism (sec) -Regulatory approval |
CONSTRAINTS:
- Most solutions must be resistant to high temperatures
- Solutions must be operable by a single person
- Solutions must be portable and easily stored in compact places
- Must be cost effective, as most government entities operate on low budgets
- Must be extremely reliable in all situations
- Must be intuitive and easily trainable for a host of unique situations
- Solutions must be operable when used in low-visibility environments
- Solution must be lightweight
- Solution is often required for urgent and hurried situational use.
- Solution increase safety for rescue/victim environment
REFLECTION SUMMARY:
To begin the task, each of the four problem areas were assigned to a team member and specific problems were brainstormed individually. Then, we came together to discuss the problems, and began to break down each issue to find the root problems. Using the “Five Whys” method as a team, we came up with issues about each problem area and narrowed them down until we decided on a root cause. We wrote solution goals and metrics for each problem area as a team.
There were a few challenges encountered when completing this assignment. First, trying to place ourselves in the situations that cause problems for our users was a challenge to visualize, especially since every emergency situation is unique (for example, no two car accidents are exactly the same). However, we could base our ideas on what the standard procedure is for each emergency. Articulating precise problems was somewhat challenging though, especially since we had to rely mostly on the stories of emergency responders. Secondly, when approaching the root cause of each problem we had to know when to stop asking “why” and realize we had arrived at the root cause, in order to avoid getting too detailed and missing the main point.
Over the course of the task, we learned an effective strategy for defining problems and finding their causes. The Five Whys method is an effective way to find the root cause because it creates a way of thinking that actually helps one get to the bottom of an issue instead of just guessing subjectively at which issue is the main cause. This method taught us a new way of thinking to better define problems. Additionally, the solution goals and metrics part of the project taught us how to set ourselves up to create an effective solution by creating benchmarks to strive for.
The specifications that are most likely to change are the actual problems defined and their solution metrics. As we move forward, it is possible that some of the problems we defined are not the widespread issues we initially believed them to be. Additionally, our metrics may change depending on the solution, since they will likely have to adapt to the solution to ensure it meets the task requirements while also adding value for the user.