Puppy Playground

Problem

Our client, a branch of the Duke Canine Cognition Center known as the Duke Puppy Kindergarten, was unable to afford the tools to provide sufficient enrichment for the puppies in their study. Our team worked to solve this problem by creating a safe and inexpensive playground for the kindergarten that can be used to stimulate cognitive enrichment.

Background

Our project is important because over 500,000 people are in need of a service dog in the U.S., but only 50% of the dogs that take service dog training tests pass. The Duke Puppy Kindergarten is testing whether early cognitive enrichment leads to more puppies ultimately passing these tests, but they need tools to provide this enrichment in order to conduct their research. Our users are the managers of the kindergarten, as well as the puppies themselves.

Figure 1.1 and 1.2. Staff and students engaging with the puppies by taking them on walks or playing with them inside their gated play area.

The Duke Canine Cognition Center is an organization dedicated to the study of dog cognition. The goal of their studies is to understand the flexibility and limitations of dog cognition and how it compares to other animals in order to better understand how our own minds evolved as well as help to support dogs in their many jobs within society. From being part of a family, to bomb detection, to assisting people with disabilities, canines play an invaluable role in our everyday lives.

Figure 2. Duke Puppy Kindergarten (Class of 2020) class photo, taken at the beginning of the semester.

Figure 3. Duke Puppy Kindergarten (Class of 2019) graduation photo, taken at the end of the semester.

These puppies can be seen around campus during the semester as students have the opportunity to volunteer their time and homes by housing, walking, and introducing these puppies to the rest of the Duke campus. The goal of this program is to introduce the dogs to as much stimuli as possible when they are young in hopes of obtaining better service dog test scores. Once the puppies are 18 weeks old, our client gives them to an organization that donates service dogs to people with disabilities known as Canine Companions. From there, the puppies undertake official service dog training and are off to play a pivotal role in the lives of their human counterparts.

Current Solutions

Most existing puppy playgrounds and similar tools are extremely costly, especially those that claim to have educational benefit. Conversely, the ones that are low-priced are typically unsafe and not enriching. This conclusion was made after getting opinions from our clients as well as doing additional research on the availability and functionality of puppy playgrounds online.

Objectives

After conducting outside research and completing multiple trips to the Duke Puppy Kindergarten, our team had identified the specific design objectives that would serve as a foundation for our prototyping process.

Due to our client's main purpose being enrichment for the puppies in their study, we identified this quality as the design's most crucial objective; otherwise, the playground would not be useful for their research. Next, the playground would have to be durable as the workers at the kindergarten mentioned the structure needing to be used for the next five years, the duration of their study. The product also needed to be portable since it was going to be continuously transferred from inside play areas to outside play areas. The product needed to be easy to maintain since the workers who take care of the puppies usually do not have the spare free time to allocate towards scrubbing down a large playground. Lastly, the product needed to be aesthetically pleasing as it may occasionally appear on social media or the nightly news.

A piecewise comparison chart was used to create our team's ranking of objectives (Table 1). The process of piecewise comparison is utilized by comparing candidates in pairs to judge which of each candidate is preferred overall. Each candidate gets 1 point for a one-on-one win and half a point for a tie.

Ranking of Objectives:

1. Enriching

2. Durable

3. Portable/Interchangeable

4. Easy to maintain

5. Aesthetically Pleasing

Table 1. Piecewise comparison chart.

Design Criteria

Along with being safe, inexpensive, and enriching, we are aiming for our playground to be durable, portable, have interchangeable parts, be easy to wash and maintain, and be aesthetically pleasing.

The first column includes the objectives and constraints our team came up with for the overall design of our project. Objectives are criteria that the team would like to incorporate to the best of our ability (seen in the Objectives section above), whereas constraints are criteria that must be met in order for the project to meet the standards set forth by the client. The second column gives a quantitative target value for the measurement of our design's overall performance. The third column gives justification for why these target values were selected as the standard.

Table 2. Design criteria chart.

Research

After extensive research, our team was able to put together an abundance of information which would allow us to design and construct an effective puppy playground able to meet all of the design constraints and objectives.

First, we developed a strong understanding of the dogs themselves including a further understanding of the breed, their personality and demeanor, and how/why these dogs are chosen to go through the service dog training in the first place. Regarding their jobs as service dogs, we explored many of the most common tasks that they perform for their owners to better discern their typical duties. We looked into a variety of options for constructing the playground's shape as well as how to best incorporate the use of interchangeable parts in our overall design; features such as stairs, ramps, and dog toys were researched extensively to obtain a better understanding of the different elements our project may possess. To achieve the primary design goal of an enriching playground, our team investigated toys that are highly stimulating while being durable and safe. Essential characteristics for these toys included having a malleable outside with a hard rubber inside, being composed of safe materials, containing a variety of textures, and having the ability to sustain a dog's interest for long periods of time.

In order to best tackle this design challenge, our team divided the research into four main groups: existing solutions, background information, business perspective, and ideas directly governing the problem. We then brainstormed key words and phrases for each of these sections before diving into articles and data bases for further knowledge. Our "Need-To-Know List" is included below:

Existing Solutions (15):

• "Puppy playground"; search keyword to understand existing solutions

• Look into children's playground sets

• Durable materials for both weather and chewing resistance

• Toys, materials, and ideas that have been enriching for puppies in the past

• Toys that dogs have been seen to enjoy the most; most engaging, but not necessarily enriching at times

• Do-it-yourself (DIY) puppy playgrounds and the typical features associated with them (ie. ramp, stairs, tunnel)

• What sorts of jobs service dogs perform (ie. open doors, push buttons, flip switches)

• Specialization of service dogs for specific disabilities (ie. PTSD, anxiety, autism)

• Toys to avoid due to ineffectiveness of safety concerns

• Handicapped accessibility items (ie. ramps, handles)

• Metrics of a typical wheelchair length/angle

• Safe materials and characteristics of design (ie. rounded edges, no toxins)

• Toxins that have been known to be unsafe for dogs and humans

• Enrichment seen in dog agility courses

• Examples of interchangeable parts seen in play sets

Background (12):

• Golden retrievers; personality and demeanor

• Puppies 10-18 weeks old; typical movements and limitations associated

• Duke Canine Cognition Center; initiative/goals of the study/puppy testing

• Personality of service dogs; difference between service dogs and normal dogs (ie. calming presence, intelligence, trained)

• Canine training/tasks necessary to pass the service dog test

• Why current solutions don't work (due to enrichment quality and affordability)

• Definitions (ie. service dog, enriching)

• Enrichment effectiveness in various actions as it has been tested in studies on service dogs in the past

• Service dog commands/terminology

• Past research that has been proven to help service dog testing scores

• Cost and standards for testing

• Puppy chewing power; to what extent they can bite through objects

Business Perspective (3):

• Typical cost for materials (ie. treated wood, plastic)

• Pricing for various puppy playgrounds in addition to research on their individual effectiveness

• Considerations on how play sets have been created in the past (ie. woodworking, interchangeable parts, 3D printing)

Governs the Problem (5):

• Safety protocol for dog products

• Typical durability of the average dog toy

• Effectiveness/sustainability of puppy playpens; how long do most play areas last while still being effective for puppy enrichment?

• Limitations on design criteria as puppies get bored with old toys

• Materials that could be used to foster longevity

Decomposition Analysis

The list of solution ideas constructed was based on the design blocks we came up with during the decomposition phase of our design process. In this phase, we highlighted the four most general aspects of designing a playground -- features, materials, interchangeable parts/design, aesthetics -- then further decomposed each of the four into more specific features and functions (Figure 4).

After realizing there was too much overlap between design blocks, we combined and removed various aspects of each and revised our decomposition chart with the main concepts needed to be brainstormed being underlined. After the adjustments, the features section was divided into service dog functions/tasks and fun/active elements. The aesthetics aspect was split into theme and color scheme. The materials division was separated into interior and exterior materials with the interior constituting the structure of the playground and the exterior being characterized by its durability and how it ties back to the overall aesthetic of the structure. Lastly, the design/layout component was decomposed into the attaching mechanism and the overall layout. After our team agreed on the final decomposed list with each item's unique elements, we moved on to the brainstorming phase.

Figure 4. Decomposition analysis chart with four main design blocks being circled and the main concepts branching off from these blocks being underlined. Any further branching provides examples of that particular sub-block.

Brainstorming

For each of the decomposed features and functions, we utilized the writing slip method of writing one idea per card for as many ideas as we could think of. As a group, we decided to brainstorm for each sub-block individually except for those specifically pertaining to materials (exterior components and interior/structural components) as we worked with our Technical Mentor, Chip Bobbert, to identify the most cost-effective materials for our design. Lastly, we decided to brainstorm various characteristics of these two sub-blocks (exterior and interior/structural components) in order to further our understanding of their respective functions as a whole.

After everyone was content with their lists, we discussed and explained each of our ideas within the group; this process inspired extra ideas we had not originally thought of to add to our existing solutions. We then recorded a consolidated list of all of the brainstormed ideas, omitting any overlap. Our team left this stage of the design process with roughly 50 ideas pertaining to each subcategory.

Screening Matrices

The third step in our selection process was the construction of screening matrices in which we narrowed our list of possible solutions. Our team created two screening matrices, one focused on fun features and the other focused on enriching features; these were all features we were looking to incorporate into our overall design. We were then able to remove the lowest ranking ideas such as the rolling log, the sliding doors, and the tug-o-war; this allowed us to focus on the more feasible design solutions (Table 3 and 4). The screening matrices also helped us identify the more dominant ideas that should be used in our design such as the grate, pit, and paw stand (Table 3 and 4). This stage in the design process was crucial for our team to gain a better understanding of the most feasible and ideal solutions while removing weaker ones.

Pugh screening matrices were utilized to make these distinctions. The Pugh screening matrix is a criteria-based decision matrix which uses criteria scoring to determine which of several potential solutions should be selected. One of the criteria is set as the baseline; this is represented by the whole column being set to 0 (stairs/ramp). The remaining criteria are then evaluated against the baseline scoring as a positive (+), negative (-), or equal (0) in meeting the criteria. The total are then summed by column and each feature is ranked.

Table 3. Pugh screening matrix for 'Fun' elements.

Table 4. Pugh screening matrix for 'Enriching' elements.

Weighing Design Criteria for Utilization in the Scoring Matrix

In order to establish the "scoring" of the scoring matrix, the original design criteria needed to be weighed in order of importance. To decide the weight of each design criterion, we looked at the rankings from our design criteria chart (Table 2). After a short discussion, our team was able to decide on final weights.

Enrichment had 30% because it was one of the most important design criteria expressed by our client (Table 5.1). Durability had 25% because it must be puppy-proof and should last for at least 5 years (Table 5.2). Ease of maintenance had 20% because the client would have to clean the playground, but the puppies would be unaffected (Table 5.3). Portability had 20% because the client will have to transport the playground, but again, this design criteria would have no effect on the puppies (Table 5.4). Lastly, ease of transformation had 5% because aesthetic is not as significant to our users, the puppies (Table 5.5).

Table 5.1-5. Weights/scoring for design criteria from Table 1.

Scoring Matrix

Lastly, our team used a scoring matrix to rank the eleven features we agreed were most feasible and ranked high enough on the screening matrices (Table 6). The weight of each criterion was determined after a discussion within the group based on which of the criteria was most important to the success of the project. After assigning values based off of our selected standards, we were able to rank all of the features; this process removed a few additional ideas that would not contribute to the success of our project as much as others. Our team was also able to further identify the most important features and, ultimately, the ones that we looked to emphasize in our overall design.

A Pugh scoring matrix was also used to make distinctions between different features for our design. Similar to the screening matrix, criteria scoring is used to determine which of several potential solutions should be selected. Each feature is ranked on a 1-5 scale with the baseline being set as a 3. The weights established in Tables 5.1-5.5 are then multiplied by each respective score. Lastly, the columns are each summed and the features are ranked.

Table 6. Pugh scoring matrix for a combination of the highest ranked 'Fun' and 'Enriching' elements, taken from Tables 3 and 4.

* = The pit was chosen as the standard for enrichments because it is used in many existing solutions. The paw stand was chosen as the standard for durability as it has medium durability potential. The paw stand was chosen as the standard for ease of maintenance as it is neither easy nor difficult to clean off with a hose. The grate was chosen as the standard for portability because it can be moved with average effort. The stairs/ramp was chosen as the standard for ease of transformation as they can be painted, but are set in their shape and design.

Our team was able to narrow down our solution options by eliminating five features that ended up producing lower results in our matrices. Ranking the scoring matrix helped us to better understand that our top features were the stairs/ramp, tunnel, bridge, and saloon doors, respectively. These features were ranked in terms of their effectiveness in fulfilling our prior design criteria (Table 2). We were then able to effectively choose which features would be included in our final solution.

After discussing as a team and working through both the screening and scoring matrices, we came to the realization that the structural aspect of our design should be based on the features ranked highest in each matrix. In the end, these features are what will give the dogs their enrichment and the design of the playground should be based upon which ones we include. Due to this, we did not build a matrix for the overall structure of the playground.

Considered Final Solutions (4)

As our team began to piece the features together into one all-encompassing puppy playground, we were tasked with incorporating our highest ranked base/layout features as well. Four possible solutions for the base of our project can be seen below. Each solution has the ability to incorporate a number of interchangeable features, although some more than others.

1. Enrichment/Fun Bases: There would be two main structures connected by a bridge or tunnel with various detachable enriching features that ranked highly in our matrices. One of the bases would be dedicated to the enriching features while the other would be dedicated to the fun features.

2. Hexagonal Centerpiece: The centerpiece would be a hexagonal prism about 3.5 feet tall and have an array of detachable objects connected on all of its sides. The inside of the hexagon would be hollow and serve as a nook for the dogs to hide inside. The detachable pieces would be able to be brought inside for the dogs to play with when there is inclement weather.

3. Tunnel Focus: There would be two intersecting tunnels in an 'X' shape with the detachable components, consisting of an assortment of features, built around and on top of them. The detachable components would be able to be brought inside.

4. Traditional Playground: There would be one stationary playground that incorporates all of our desired features, but without the portability of the other designs. This design would incorporate many of the features listed, but may have less flexibility when it comes to rearranging the pieces.

Candidate Solutions (2)

With the complexity of our project, our team was able to decide on two candidate solutions which both incorporate the features and fulfill our design criteria. Our first solution consisted of one hexagonal base and had the ability to attach and interchange additional pieces to the six sides of the centerpiece. This solution allows for flexibility in the design due to its ability to switch pieces around and incorporate a large number/variety of pieces. Our second solution consists of two bases, one being primarily enrichment-focused and the other being geared more towards activity and fun. This solution would allow for a segment between bases, such as a tunnel or bridge, and would also have the potential to incorporate many of the features and variety we are hoping to include in our design.

In order to choose the best solution for our project, we started sketching out what each playground may look like in order to prototype those into low/medium-fidelity solutions. From there, we planned on talking with our client about which design, or which aspect of the design, excited them the most. Our team would then base our final solution off the feedback received from our client, the Duke Puppy Kindergarten.

Final Design (Sketch)

After all the required research and brainstorming was completed, our team agreed on a final design incorporating portable ramps, stairs, tunnels, bridges, mirrors, a variety of textures, toys, and two bases. With this being said, our final design consisted of several key features and was one of the more complex playgrounds of its kind.

The center base of our design can be described as the shell of a hexagonal prism constructed from pressure treated wood (Figures 5.1 and 5.2). It has six sides, a roof, a hollowed interior, and no bottom. The base is 27 inches tall and the length of each of its sides are 18 inches long. The diagonal of its hexagonal face is 36 inches long. The front and back walls have a rounded cut-out door so that the puppies can access the interior of the structure; this cut-out will be 18x13 inches.

Figure 5.1 and 5.2. Sketch of center base from the side and top, respectively.

In addition to the base itself, there are a variety of components that are meant to attach to the base including the stairs, ramps, bridge, and tunnel.

The stairs and ramp are both designed to be made with pressure treated wood. The stair structure has two side walls, a back wall, and steps in the front (Figure 6.1). Its dimensions are 40x18x27 inches. Intuitively, the width of the steps are 18 inches as well. The length of each step is 10 inches long with a height of 6.75 inches; there are to be 4 total steps for each staircase. Similarly, the ramp has two side walls and a back wall, but has a flat front instead of steps (Figure 6.2). Its dimensions are also 30x18x27 inches in order to match the stairs. Additionally, there is a cut-out in each of the ramp's two side walls so that puppies may pass through it. The openings' dimensions are the same as the base's openings; the edge of these openings are 2 inches from the backside of the structure. Both structures connect to the base with an interlocking structure built in the back of each piece.

Figure 6.1 and 6.2. Sketch of larger ramp and stairs, respectively.

The bridge and tunnel encompass a second set of structures; these are longer and used to connect one base to another. Both structures were designed to be constructed with pressure treated wood. The bridge is constructed from a flat bottom and railings (Figure 7.1). The railings are 10 inches tall while the bottom is 30x18 inches. The tunnel is constructed from a flat bottom, two half-oval shaped bases, and flat planks connecting the two bases together (Figure 7.2). The openings are 18x20 inches while the length of the whole structure is 30 inches. Both structures connect to a variety of other parts such as ramps, stairs, and a smaller base by means of interlocking pieces.

Figure 7.1 and 7.2. Sketch of bridge and tunnel, respectively.

Lastly, there is a smaller base which has a set of its own interchangeable/connecting features (due to the change in size). This base is an 18x18x13.5 inch rectangular prism designed to be constructed with pressure treated wood (Figure 8.1).

The structure connects to the bridge and tunnel as well as a smaller ramp and stairs (Figure 8.2 and 8.3). These stairs and ramp are designed to be constructed with pressure treated wood and have slightly smaller dimensions than their larger counterparts (Figure 6.1 and 6.2). The smaller stairs are 18x20x13.5 inches. The dimensions of the steps are the same as the large stairs's dimensions, but there are only two steps rather than four. There are no side openings on this smaller structure. Both structures attach to the smaller base with interconnecting parts.

Figure 8.1. Sketch of smaller base.

Figure 8.2 and 8.3. Sketch of smaller ramp and stairs, respectively.

CAD Design

Our CAD model of the entire structure was a big influence on subsequent prototypes as it gave a base visual as well as relative dimensions to establish the correct shapes (Figure 9). Although the features are not to scale, they are all included and able to be rearranged.

Many features from the Fusion360 software were utilized in the creation of this model including sketch, extract, shell, chamfer, assembly, and many others. As my first major CAD design project on Fusion360, this structure is a great representation of the complexity that can be created with some of the simpler functions.

Figure 9. CAD drawing of final design using Fusion360 software.

Prototyping (Low/Medium-Fidelity)

Our team's first prototype was a low-fidelity prototype meant to provide a visual highlighting the shape and dimensions of the structure rather than precise measurements.

Made with cardboard, the prototype was built to model the path between the center hexagonal base and the smaller square base. We used a box cutter to cut the pieces of cardboard into the appropriate shapes and tape to secure the pieces in place. The piece of cardboard between the two bases represents the tunnel/bridge that will go there later on in construction (Figure 10). From this, we learned that we needed to have a better model of the entire structure in order to work out the dimensions used in the final solution.

Figure 10. Side view of low-fidelity prototype made of cardboard and tape; this image includes only the two bases and connection, but Figure 11 includes all components of the design.

The primary goal of this low-fidelity structure was to build a visual representation of the CAD design seen in Figure 9. Although this model was not to scale, it helped give us a better understanding of what the dimensions of our final puppy playground should be. The prototype also helped our team see which components needed which attachment mechanisms. We decided to move onto a medium-fidelity prototype in which the structural integrity was improved and potential attachment mechanisms could be included.

Figure 11. Side view of low-fidelity prototype made of cardboard and tape (all components included).

Our medium-fidelity prototype was printed with Fusion360's CAD software and Duke-sponsored 3D printers (Figure 12). The goal of this prototype was to demonstrate an attachment mechanism without having to use a lot of materials.

To construct the prototype, we hot glued magnets to the stairs and ramps in places where they would attach to the centerpiece and glued either magnets or nails onto the corresponding parts; the nails were used to function as magnets, we just did not have enough magnets for each potential attachment (Figure 12). Even though the main purpose of the magnets was to represent where our final attachment mechanism would be best utilized, we quickly learned that it would be difficult to use magnets or anything similar in the final design. We decided that the next prototypes would need to include the pin-and-hook and/or slide-and-click attachment mechanisms to obtain a more stable and durable connection.

Figure 12. Side view of medium-fidelity prototype made by 3D printing and constructed with magnets and hot glue.

Testing Plan

Our team's prototype was tested according to the five design objectives of enrichment, durability, ease of maintenance, portability, and aesthetic appeal. In order to accomplish this testing, we chose one test per criterion that would best measure the success of the prototype. Completing this testing was useful in determining whether the design was functional and accomplished the goals we had for the project, as a whole. The five specific tests will be introduced and expanded on in the proceeding paragraphs.

Test for Enrichment of Design

Our team will use a user-defined scale to measure the performance of our design with regards to its ability to enrich and stimulate the puppies (Table 7). In performing this measurement, we will look at both the number and quality of the enriching parts of our design. As a team, we decided that we would accept anything above a 1 (not enriching) as a pass, but our goal would be to achieve a 3 (very enriching). Only one test will be performed because the outcome will be the same regardless of the number of times we complete the test. This test will be performed by our clients and all of the volunteers at the Duke Puppy Kindergarten since they are the experts on the puppies, they are knowledgable about this project and its purposes, and they can give an accurate and reliable assessment. Our client will be invited to come see the prototype and bring the puppies to play on it; this will allow our client to see the design in action for the most accurate assessment.

Table 7. Enrichment user-defined scale.

Test for Durability of Design

The first step in testing the durability of the playground's design would be to test the maximum load by means of Fusion360's CAD modeling simulations; this test would inform our team on the total weight the structure can hold and therefore the maximum amount of puppies that can be on it at the same time. Our client expressed that each part should be able to hold two large puppies (45 lbs each) for ideal functionality and safety. Therefore, anything below a 3 (can hold <60 lbs) on our quantitative ranking chart would be considered a fail; if this were to occur, we would redesign and retest until the prototype passes. This test will only be repeated one time as the result is computer-generated off of a set of given numbers and therefore should produce the same result each time.

The second step in testing the durability of the playground's design would be to test the maximum load in a real-world scenario; this would be accomplished by placing weights up to 100 lbs on the structure and determining if the playground is able to keep its integrity. This test would put the CAD simulation into action and determine if the structure is constructed correctly. The same weight scale would be used as discussed in the CAD model testing. This test will be repeated three times in order to account for possible human errors and will be completed by our team.

Testing for Ease of Maintenance of Design

The structure's level of difficulty associated with maintenance will be based on a test in which the client/user will time how long it takes one person to clean the entire play structure. We have chosen to test the amount of time it takes for one person to clean the structure because there is only one hose at the facility and the client has expressed that most of the time there will be only one person tasked with cleaning the structure at a time. The client will use a timer to obtain measurements which they will then input into our survey; the survey is on a scale from 1-5. Our team created this scale with input from the client in which it was stated that an ideal time to clean each part would be anything under two minutes; our target value during testing will be at least a 3 (2-3 minutes). This test will be repeated five times in order to provide enough data points to get a representational average.

Testing for Portability of Design

Our team will test the weights of each portable piece (stairs, ramps, tunnel, bridge, and hanging toys) present in our design to determine its portability based on a user-defined scale. Although size and shape are important factors of portability, the main focus of this test is to determine the weight of each piece. A digital scale will be used to weigh each piece. Pieces larger than the scale will be picked up by a team member before stepping on the scale. After the total weight is calculated, the weight of the team member will be subtracted from the total weight to determine the weight of the piece. The weighing of the pieces will occur once a day for three days because different levels of moisture in the air can alter the weight of the pieces. We will use the average of these three tests and communicate our results to the client to ensure they agree with our assessment.

Average weights ranking at a 4 (10-18 lbs) or above would be considered passing and ideal for lightweight portability. A piece receiving a ranking below a 4 will be redesigned and retested until the weight is at a passing ranking. Our team will conduct the actual measuring of the different parts of the puppy playground.

Testing for Aesthetic Appeal of Design

Lastly, our team will use a survey installed in the sign-in form on the iPad at the Duke Puppy Kindergarten to test for the aesthetic appeal of our design (Table 8). The survey will have the participants grade the aesthetic of our design based on a user-defined scale as well as give any input the user may have for improvements. Our target value for the aesthetic is a 5 (excellent) with any grade below a 3 (moderate) considered to be a fail. A failing grade would bring us to a reevaluation of the aesthetics of our design along with reading participant suggestions for improvement.

The participants of our survey will be volunteers at the Duke Puppy Kindergarten as well as the visitors of the puppies. Our team will partner with the managers of the Puppy Kindergarten (client/volunteers) to be able to conduct the survey in their building.

Table 8. Aesthetic appeal user-defined scale to be implemented inside the Duke Puppy Kindergarten.

Instruction Manual/How-To Video

To supplement the construction of the puppy playground and allow for further longevity of the playground's purposes, both an instruction manual and how-to video were created to lay out the steps of putting the playground together. The how-to video is simply a visual of the instruction manual, therefore, only the video was included.

Cost of Materials

A variety of materials would be used in the construction of our final product and were, therefore, included in the overall Bill of Materials. A breakdown of the costs by both material and feature can be found in Table 9, but a summary of these costs will be included here. Bennett Bierman was tasked primarily with the Bill of Materials in our project so much of this breakdown is a by-product of our team's ability to divide and conquer in various aspects of our project.

Materials used in the construction of our prototype included various types of wood, paint/primer, screws, hinges, a variety of dog toys, plastic chains, and a plastic dog tub. As one would assume, some of these materials are structural elements while others are meant for enrichment/aesthetic purposes. The cost of wood can be best deconstructed into its functionality; this includes classifications such as planks, sheets, joists, posts, and stair risers The wood's functionality can be further characterized by the type of wood used such as pressure-treated decking board, plywood, and pressure-treated pine. The dimensions of each feature were then taken, multiplied by the amount needed, and further multiplied by the cost per unit. The cost of various colors of paint and primer were calculated in a similar way. Two types of screws were used, namely bugle-head and hook screws; the cost of both the screws and hinges were calculated by multiplying the cost per unit by the number of packs of screws/hinges needed. The toys are a less permanent feature of the design and can be chosen by the researchers at the Duke Puppy Kindergarten; some of the puppies' favorite toys may even be reused, making this component fairly cost-effective. If bought, each dog toy is assumed to cost, on average, $12. Miscellaneous costs such as a spool of sidewall string, plastic chains, and a dog tub are not included in the overall breakdown (Table 9) as we were not planning on adding them on until the structure was complete; these values would be added to the overall cost in a later stage of the our prototype. Table 9, seen below, gives an overall visual of the materials needed and their costs for the structural components of the puppy playground.

Note: A volume of 128 gallons of oil-based paint including Secondary Duke Blue, Dark Blue, Dark Grey, and other custom colors would be necessary at $29.98 per unit. A volume of 2 gallons of wood primer would be necessary at $26.97 per unit. The cost of miscellaneous additional toys would be added to the overall cost, if purchased. 30 feet of a spool of sidewall string would be necessary at $4.99 per unit. 25 feet of white plastic chains would be necessary at $19.60 per unit. A dog tub would be necessary, priced $18.71 at available stores.

Table 9. Bill of Materials for entire puppy playground where the top table shows the breakdown of components into materials and the bottom table shows the cost per unit.

Much of the direction of materials and pricing was made possible due to instruction from our Technical Mentor, Chip Bobbert. Chip was invaluable in helping our team select materials, construct prototypes, and ultimately, scope the project into something attainable for completion by the end of the semester. Our utilization of pressure-treated wood was a by-product of Chip's advice and counsel throughout the pricing phase.

Concluding Words

At the end of the day, I believe our entire team was proud of the design we were able to create and the potential it may have to serve the Duke Puppy Kindergarten in the future. Although our team was unable to follow the project through to a final, deliverable product (due to COVID-19 when we were sent home to finish the semester online), we were able to complete our goal of creating a more cost-effective and enriching playground design than those on the market today.

If we were able to continue with this project one day, we would need to begin with the actual construction and testing of a high-fidelity prototype in order to accomplish a final product suitable for our client, the Duke Puppy Kindergarten. After this, our team would want to continue making improvements on our design in order to make our product marketable and easier to manufacture for use by the general public.

Project Notes

Methods of Organization/Communication:

• GoogleDrive (shared documents)

• Trello (organization board)

Software/Tools:

• Fusion360 (CAD design/printing)

• Oscilloscope

Skills:

• Computer Aided Design (CAD)