Mission on page 8
Open socket on page 30
Amputee Profiles on page 78
ipt
THE IPT JOURNAL
ISSUE 02 - Fall 2011
Sponsors
Gracias Advanced Arm Dynamics Autodesk, Inc. Clinton Global Initiative-University EnterpriseWorks Incubator Hosmer Dorrance Corporation Illini Union Bookstore Illinois Launch Intercollegiate Studies Institute Lemelson-MIT Foundation Trinity Lutheran School and Trinity Ladies Aid, Springfield, IL Shell Oil Company Skyrill.com UIUC Office of the Vice President for Public Engagement UIUC CITES Webstore UIUC Technology Entrepreneur Center Wagner Machine Shop
Thank you for Supporting our mission IPT owes much to its generous sponsors, who have made both financial and in-kind contributions to our work of developing an affordable and appropriate prosthetic arm for amputees in developing nations.
Page 3
Table of Contents
The Mission
The Open Socket
8
TM
30
Amputee Profiles
78
The World Situation
92
Prototyping Methods
100
The Plan Ahead
110
Contributors
Credits PRODUCER & EDITOR Ehsan Noursalehi
ASSITANT EDITOR Adam Rule
AUTHORS Jon Naber Adam Booher Adam Rule
DESIGN & PHOTOGRAPHY Ehsan Noursalehi
This is 100% Homegrown After Issue 01 of our online magazine, a lot of people asked us: who made the magazine for you? We are proud to say that we made it ourselves. Hope you enjoy Issue 02!
Please note that all patients and individuals identified in this magazine provided full consent to release their pictures and info. Page 7
The Mission Often when we tell someone about IPT, we get two things: first a lot of encouragement and second, a lot of questions. We thank you for the support and, we feel that our mission can usually answer many of your questions about IPT. So, here is the mission behind our non-profit organization in six short points.
The IPT Journal
What is our missio
?
r on
Read our 6 Bullet Mission Page 9
The Mission
re-enable amput around the worl simple, innovativ affordable solu
tees ld with ve, & utions.
FACT: ~35 Million Amputees Worldwide
Slums surrounding Guatemala City.
Page 11
The Mission
Help Amputees That Don't Have Access To Affordable Care.
FACT: Only ~2% of Amputees Worldwide Have Access to Appropriate Care
Water tank provided by UNICEF to hurricane survivors near Zacapa, Guatemala. Page 13
The Mission
ProducE an innov prosthetic socke that helps amput in need.
vative et tees FACT: A traditional prosthetic arm in the US costs ~$5,000
Adam Booher assembling a prototype arm.
Page 15
The Mission
Increase the effectiveness of aid organizations operating in the developing world.
f s
FACT: Clinics in the developing world often wait months on donated parts from the US and Europe
Heberto holding a prosthetic arm provided to him by ROMP.
Page 17
The Mission
Create social va within the frame of a financially sustainable non-Profit.
alue ework FACT: It is important to fit amputees with a prosthesis soon after amputation in order to promote physical and psychological recovery Eidy, a seven year old amputee, with her mother. Page 19
The Mission
Partner with aid Organizations to distribute, and fit our product t amputees.
d o The entrance to the ROMP clinic.
to FACT:
Our first partner is the ROMP clinic in Zacapa, Guatemala.
Page 21
Support IPT
Learn M at our n website
www.supportipt.or
More new e
ipt
rg Page 23
Support IPT
Autodesk is a worldwide leader in 3D design software. They develop tools that are used by engineers, designers, and the entertainment industry to produce cutting edge results. IPT uses several Autodesk products to help make innovative prosthetic technology a reality, specifically Autodesk Inventor, Sketchbook Pro, and 3DS Max. Autodesk Inventor is at the core of IPT’s product development process. With Inventor we can quickly create advanced computer models of our prosthetic arm technology without spending long hours building prototypes. Inventor also augments our prototyping process by allowing us to simulate the structural properties of our designs, and verify their integrity with its stress analysis tools. Finally, we use Autodesk Inventor to create parametrized models of amputated limbs that can help us to achieve the best fit possible with our technology. Autodesk Sketchbook Pro allows us to visualize layers of a design and see how they interact. With Sketchbook Pro we can take the drawing board to the next level, and plan out how our prosthetic technology will be constructed. Autodesk 3DS Max helps us to communicate our vision with others. With the help of Hussain Almossawi from skyrill.com, we were able to create a beautiful rendering of our prosthetic technology. These renderings help others to understand the vision behind our innovation. Autodesk supports IPT by allowing us to use this software without cost. Much of our work would not be possible without this generous support. Autodesk has also strongly supported the mission of IPT by building publicity for our work. IPT was honored as the Autodesk Inventor of the Month for August of 2011 (autodesk.com/ inventorofthemonth). Our continued partnership will help make IPT’s vision a reality. Thanks to Autodesk!
Aut Sup
todesk pports IPT
Adam Booher analyzes the stress on a computer model in Autodesk Inventor with Jon Naber.
Page 25
Help the Cause
Call To Action IPT is closer than ever before to providing affordable prosthetic arms to amputees in the developing world. We are in the final stretch of developing our product, preparing to replace grant support with sales revenue. As we enter this final stage between development and deployment, we need your help.
Here is what you can do: • Make a donation, specify its use, and watch it develop our product and launch our innovative organization. • Volunteer your technical or business expertise in solving the problems that IPT faces in manufacturing, distribution, and sales. • Become an early adopter of our technology, providing your upper extremity patients with a prosthetic arm that optimizes the intersection of comfort, function, and affordability. • Spread the word about IPT’s work with your colleagues, friends, and family.
Donations can be made through our website at www.SupportIPT.org/donate, or you can email us at info@SupportIPT.org. IPT is currently pending 501(c)(3) status, and is a Charitable and Nonprofit Organization in the State of Illinois.
Page 27
Support IPT Illinois Launch is a new venture pipeline and incubator program at the University of Illinois that is designed to help entrepreneurs develop their ideas into high growth, sustainable businesses. Illini Prosthetics Technologies was among the first round of Illinois Launch teams in 2010, and is one of Illinois Launch’s most successful startups to date! With the help of Illinois Launch, the IPT team visited Guatemala in July 2010, a trip that allowed team members to test their prosthetic arms with a number of patients at a partnering clinic. The IPT team is currently preparing for a return trip to Guatemala that will coincide with the Range of Motion Project (ROMP) clinic and a major orthopedics conference. Illinois Launch also gave the IPT team members opportunities to practice pitching to potential donors, to perform user testing of their product, and to network with and receive mentorship from Illinois entrepreneurs and service providers. The IPT team’s lab space and offices are currently located in EnterpriseWorks at Research Park, which was named by Inc. magazine in July 2011 as one of the “10 Startup Incubators to Watch”; these facilities were provided by Illinois Launch. For additional information about the Illinois Launch program, contact Amara Andrews at amara@illinois.edu. Be sure to follow us on Twitter @illinoislaunch to keep up with news about our teams and about upcoming events!
Illinois La Supports
Photo Credit: Caitlin Riederer
IPT presents at Cozad New Venture competion.
aunch IPT Page 29
The Open Socket The story of how we went from 3 rough concepts in Guatemala to a functional product
By Adam Booher
(
Th Op Soc
he pen cket
)
TM
Page 31
The Open Socket
Flying over Mexico City on our way to Guatemala back in July of 2010.
A
t 1:53 am on the 19th of July, 2010 I walked down the dimly lit jetway into a relatively quiet Terminal at O’Hare International Airport. My body was tired, but welcomed the room to stretch after the cramped flight. I along with 3 of my classmates from the University of Illinois had just returned from a life changing journey. Jonathan Naber, Ehsan Noursalehi, Hari Vigneswaran and myself (Adam Booher) had just spent 10 days in Zacapa, Guatemala. There we had executed the first field test of our new and innova-
Page 33
The Open Socket David Krupa, Hari Vigneswaran, and Adam Booher, take measurements of Santos’ arms. The IPT Journal
tive prosthetic technology. We were excited and inspired by the results of that test. In Guatemala we had watched amputees tie their shoes and write their names with the arms we had developed, some for the first time since losing their arm. The prostheses we developed had worked on a fundamental level. Our trip to Guatemala had proven to all of us that our goal of creating a rapid fitting prosthetic arm was possible. That being said, we still had a lot of work to do. We now had a serious understanding of how important it is to achieve an intimate fit with a prosthetic device. With this, we realized that none of the designs we had tested that summer were up to par. Fortunately, our trip had also provided us with new inspiration. Not only did the Guatemalan amputees give us detailed feedback on our designs, they also shared with us their
Page 35
The Open Socket Heberto tightens his belt with our prototype.
inspiring optimism for life. We knew that armed with this information, along with the huge volume of notes, pictures, and video we had collected from our trip, we were prepared to make our vision a reality. We had a long journey ahead of us. It would be a journey filled with moments of both success and failure, but one that we were eager to undertake. We knew that a great deal of work was required to reach our goal of a world in which every amputee has access to the prosthetic care they need. Our team was and is committed to making that vision a real-
The IPT Journal
ity. After collecting our baggage at the airport however, our first priority was to get some sleep.
Back in the USA Within a few weeks of returning to the U.S., we were reunited with the two other members of our team, Luke Jungles and Richard Kesler. All 6 of us were beginning our final year at the University of Illinois as students in various disciplines of engineering. As classes began anew, so did our work with IPT. Only days after returning to campus, we convened our first regular meeting of the semester. Most of our work is done from our versatile office in Enterprise Works. We moved into the space at the end of the spring semester in 2010 as part of the Illinois Launch program. When we first arrived, the room seemed cav-
ernous and empty. Now, more than a year later, we have filled the space with power tools, computers, and many, many prototypes. We continue to appreciate the space as we use it for everything from intense sessions of prototype construction, to more subdued efforts in directing and expanding our organization. In our first meetings of the semester we focused on digging through the mountains of information we had obtained during our trip to Guatemala. Since Luke and Richard hadn’t been with us, we urgently worked to bring them up to speed. Using a large computer monitor, we worked our way through extensive video footage of the amputees trying out our prosthetic arms. We also dug through the pages of notes we had taken, carefully reviewing the feedback on each design from David Krupa. David is the prosthetist who organized our
Page 37
The Open Socket
trip and worked with us on the ground in Guatemala. Over the course of the next several weeks, we worked to create patient profiles of each of the individual amputees we had met. The purpose of this was to gain a better understanding of the needs that are specific to people in Guatemala. We spent long hours working after classes had finished for the day writing on our whiteboard and oversized sheets of paper. From this process we had 3 key realizations: 1. our design needed a lot of work 2. we needed to build a lot more prototypes ourselves 3. we needed to work with more amputees stateside With these realizations in
The IPT Journal
mind, we pushed forward. To expand our own prototyping capabilities, we purchased new tools and supplies for our office. All of us began bringing in empty boxes of our favorite breakfast cereals to use in constructing prototypes. We shoved the three large tables in our office together to create a large, collaborative surface, and got down to business. To invite new ideas on the design front, we forced ourselves to go back to the brainstorming stage and not be limited by the work we had done so far. Finally, we searched more extensively for amputees that would be willing to work with us, contacting organizations on campus and our connections in Chicago, initially with little result. Along with all of the tangible feedback from Guatemala, came new realiza-
tions about what our prosthetic arm technology needed to be. While what we had tested the past summer had worked as a rapid fitting, functional prosthetic arm; our technology needed to be much more than that. We now had a deeper ap-
committed to eliminating even the smallest sources of discomfort that could lead to blisters over the long term. Additionally, we had a greater desire to improve the overall appearance and completeness of the design. We felt that it was important to
Adam Booher, Richard Kesler, and Jon Naber discuss several low-fidelity cardboard prototypes.
preciation of what it means to gain a high quality of fit with an amputee’s residual limb. We were
consider how the user, and others around them, might perceive the device and interact with it.
Page 39
The Open Socket
In our brainstorming process we like to draw our ideas out using sharpies and notecards. Here you can see 261 individual ideas generated from a series of brainstorms.
Page 41
The Open Socket
All of these ideas were points that we had considered before, but now we approached them with new resolve. As the fall semester wore on, we found ourselves often distracted from our work by the demands of the classroom. Ehsan, Luke, and myself were particularly busy with a senior design project relating to the creation of a prosthetic terminal device for use in developing countries. That project, sponsored by Shell Oil Company, allowed us to mix IPT with work we were doing in the classroom. Many a late night was had as we prepared reports and presentations for the senior design course. Our work in that class also resulted in the creation of one of the most intricate CAD models I have ever worked on. Even with the immense load of school, work on IPT contin-
The IPT Journal
ued in the free time we didn’t have. As we approached the winter break between semesters, we continued to brainstorm, building new prototypes out of cardboard, and sketching ideas on paper. Additionally, we pushed to build our organi-
Adam Booher and Luke Jungles brainstorm ideas as we work on our Senior Design project.
zation in new directions. In a class on entrepreneurship, Jon and I had the opportunity to reach out to foundations and corporations for new avenues of support. Jon, Luke, and Richard took a class on bio-mechanics with a lot of relevant information to IPT. Ehsan began taking more courses in art and
design that would help us visualize ideas, and communicate our vision with the world. In our weekly meetings we also continued to develop the organization around our technology, preparing our 501(c)(3) (tax-exempt) application, and working with the Institutional Review Board at the University to approve our testing with amputees. Jon and Hari spearheaded much of the interaction with the offices of the University and our attorney. Both of these undertakings gave us a new appreciation of being tenacious and having a keen attention to detail. Finally, towards the end of the fall semester we had a major logistical breakthrough. We were referred to an amputee in the Chicago area who was willing to meet with us and test our devices. Planning to meet with him in February, we now had a goal in sight. As
Page 43
The Open Socket
A lot of the inspiration behind our Open SocketTM comes from shoes which can fit anyone’s foot using a series of sizes and simple adjustability.
The Open Socket
the winter break arrived, we made plans to return to campus several days before the start of classes to push our design work even further. Even over the break from school, work on IPT continued. While all of us were grateful for the time away, we pursued new ideas over email and phone calls. On the business side, Ehsan continued work on our branding and website, while Jon made sure we were moving forward with our 501(c) (3) status. I had the opportunity to present about our work to groups at my grade school and church to build support for IPT in my hometown. Finally, we all had the chance to rest and prepare for the last semester of our undergraduate education, and a new year with IPT.
The IPT Journal
Spring Semester
When we returned to campus several days before classes would start, we were able to hit the ground running. Different team members brought in snacks to keep the team energized for the work ahead. With large blocks of time to spend working in the office, we built prototypes and brainstormed together. New tools like our bench grinder and table vise enabled us to work with more robust materials like steel and aluminum. Each one of the six members of IPT initially pursued unique concepts while turning to the others for feedback. Richard and Jon’s ideas eventually coalesced into one concept, and with these 5
ideas in hand, we began to prepare for our testing in February. The designs we had created varied from adapted versions of the “fingers” prototype tested in Guatemala the summer before, to a design with long contoured pieces that followed the shape
Heberto testing the “fingers” prototype.
of an amputee’s residual limb. Another had two segments that would constrain the arm and could be adjusted with shoelaces, while one more consisted
of two large contoured metal plates for the top and bottom of the arm. While prepping for the user test, each of us practiced our skills in front of the camera as we created videos demonstrating our prototypes. We then sent these videos to David Krupa from ROMP to obtain feedback. Finally, we prepared the appropriate consent forms, and planned logistics for the trip. In late February, we piled into two cars and made our way to the suburbs of Chicago for our test. Ehsan’s parents were gracious enough to let us stay at their house the night before, so we could arrive at the test location bright and early. The individual we were working with was an early riser, which agrees with some of our team members more than others. For the test itself, we were fortunate to be able to work at the Scheck and Siress office in Hickory Hills, Illinois. After meeting the individual we
Page 47
The Open Socket
were working with, we quickly learned he was a heavy duty user of his prosthetic arm. As such, he expected his device to perform whenever and however he needed it to without failing. This perspective resulted in him perceiving his prosthetic arm as more of a tool and less a part of his body. That being said, he still felt that comfort was very important, and encouraged us to make this a priority. In his words, if our device was not comfortable, no one would want to wear it and we would end up “fitting the closet.� As the test went on, we quickly moved through the different prototypes we had brought, noting strengths and weaknesses. The amputee we worked with was eager to give us his very direct feedback, which we found to be extremely valuable. This kept Luke busy at his computer keyboard as he pounded away try-
The IPT Journal
Adam Booher makes a component for a prototype using an angle grinder at our office in Enterprise Works.
Page 49
The Open Socket The IPT Journal
Luke Jungles and Hari Vigneswaran co-design with an amputee in Chicago.
Page 51
The Open Socket
ing to keep up with all of the notes and observations. After working with all of the devices we brought, including those we had previously tested in Guatemala, we decided to try something new. Taking pieces from some of the prototypes created for
the test, we worked with our new friend to quickly mock up a new idea. Using a steel bracket from a Guatemala prototype, we were able to construct a simple wrist unit to hold the terminal device. We then combined this with some of the wrapping structures from prototypes we had
Richard Kesler, Jon Naber, and Hari Vigneswaran quickly make adjustments to a prototype.
The IPT Journal
brought, and quickly fabricated a new piece from sheet metal. Fortunately we had brought our tools and supplies with us. With the help of the individual we were working with, and the staff at the Scheck and Siress workshop, we constructed a new prototype in less than an hour. The resulting design focused on compressing the arm from the sides, and holding the structure and the terminal device together with a bracket that ran down the lateral side of the arm. While the result was rough, we immediately saw the benefit’s of co-designing with amputees. We were able to very quickly grasp features and ideas that were important to the individual we worked with, and present them in a new prototype that he could immediately try out. Actively involving this individual in our process also encouraged him to share more of his ideas, and worry less about detracting
from the work we had already done. All in all, the interaction inspired us to work with more amputees, and push harder to newer and better designs. Back in Champaign, we set our sights on creating new prototypes for testing by the end of April, knowing that a deadline would encourage more efficient work. Taking a look at the feedback from our recent test we pushed some of the existing ideas forward, and also created new prototypes to try out new concepts. We continued to work with all levels of fidelity in our prototyping including paper, cardboard, and metal. We also obtained large sheets of plastic to experiment with thermoforming and combining them with other materials to form composites. As our prototyping progressed, so did the school semester. In March we exhibited
Page 53
The Open Socket
some of our work at the annual Engineering Open House on campus. We also gave business pitches at the Idea 2 Product competition in St. Louis, and the Cozad New Venture competition on the U of I campus. Before we knew it, the end of the semester was approaching, and the weight of final projects and impending graduation began to take its toll on our work efficiency. It was during this busy time that an idea for a prototype based around long plates closing circumferentially around the arm was first jotted down in Ehsan’s notebook beside the words “Open Socket.” As April arrived, we deemed it more efficient for us to stay on campus and conduct an internal review of our work. This was different than our initial plan of testing again with our contact in Chicago. The team constructed 4 new prototypes now incorporating
The IPT Journal
Some of the original sketches that were generated by Ehsan Noursalehi showing the concept behind the “Open Socket�.
Page 55
The Open Socket
both metal and plastic in their designs. On April 22 we convened in a conference room in Enterprise Works to conduct a review of our progress. Knowing it would be a long session, each of us was sure to bring food to sustain us through the day. Each person explained the design they had spearheaded and the team gave constructive feedback and brainstormed new ideas. Unfortunately, at the end of the meeting we left without a clear direction, not knowing what the next steps should be. At a high level we had produced a huge number of prototypes since our trip to Guatemala, but we lacked a clear path leading us forward. Soon, finals were upon us, and then Graduation weekend. During the course of this week we held the fi-
The IPT Journal
nal collegiate meeting with all 6 founding members of IPT. Our college experiences had all been heavily influenced by our work as a team, and it was sad to see some of us move on to new and exciting opportunities. IPT’s most valuable and effective resource was and still is its team, and it was definitely hard to see some of them go.
School’s Out As summer began, the remaining members of IPT convened in our office to plan the direction forward. Jon, Ehsan, and myself would continue to be heavily involved, and Richard would contribute as much as possible as he began his Ph.D. studies at the U of I. In our first days in the of-
Luke Jungles, Richard Kesler, Hari Vigneswaran, Jon Naber, Adam Booher, and Ehsan Noursalehi take a picture with the Alma Mater.
fice, we realized that we needed to chart a clear path that would lead us from where we were to a single product we could begin to distribute to amputees. With this goal in mind, we spent two long days in a conference room outlining our plans on the large whiteboard walls. Timelines were drawn, multiple plans were discussed and
many cups of coffee were consumed. And at the end of those two days we made two clear decisions: 1) we would move our Guatemala trip back from July of that year to October, and 2) we were going to force ourselves to narrow the field of prototypes down to one single design. These meetings were a
Page 57
The Open Socket
turning point for our work. Now, with a clear plan in hand, we began to build momentum. Things moved slowly at first. Right away we decided to re-evaluate the prototypes we had most recently constructed. This time we would explicitly identify the strengths and weaknesses of each one next to a clear set of product specifications. To do this we created a document outlining what we identified as the requirements for our product. We also built a spreadsheet using one of our favorite tools, Google Docs. This spreadsheet was designed to allow us to all simultaneously review each prototype, enter our observations for each requirement and then compile this data into one sheet we could review as a group. This new method proved to be extremely effective. While we had initially hoped to re-
The IPT Journal
duce the field from four designs to two and then later condense to one, we were all strongly convinced the Open Socket concept would be the best design to pursue. Now we had a design to champion with our new direction. After working through the process of deciding which design to push forward, we took time to identify how we could improve the single idea we were championing. By reviewing the features and problems with the design in its current form, we were able to create a set of goals for improvement, and begin brainstorming ideas for how to get there. As usual we all collaborated around the tables in our office, laying out many pages of notes and ideas. Major problems included the attachment of the terminal device, and the way the plates were secured
to each other. Again returning to our tried and true methods of prototyping, we sketched on paper, built many models with cardboard, and experimented with methods of forming plastic and metal into composites. One of our goals with this design was to create a composite structure that appeared seamless from both the inside and outside. Another goal was to incorporate both rigid and flexible sections in strategic locations. To accomplish these goals we experimented with heat sealing plastic sheets over metal, gluing the layers together, and other methods of construction. Eventually, we became interested in the prospect of sewing the layers together and began experimenting with fabrics and plastics using the sewing machine belonging to our officemates at Intelliwheels, Inc.
Since sewing on a ma-
chine was a skill none of us initially possessed, we learned on the job. Learning as we go has always been a hallmark of our process. While we are not experts in many of the areas we seek to innovate in, the new perspective that results, allows us to innovate more freely, and sometimes break free of the existing conventions in the fields of prosthetic design and engineering. That being said, we always make a point to seek out advice and insight from experts in the field. We feel that as young engineers who are constantly learning and expanding our knowledge, we are well geared to innovate. With all of this innovation going on, our office became more and more active. Over the course of a day we would consistently fill the working tables with prototypes under construction, papers outlining new ideas, and coffee cups to keep us sustained. Our desks be-
Page 59
The Open Socket Adam Booher sews a prototype together using Intelliwheel’s sewing machine.
We share an office with Intelliwheels. Learn more about them at www.intelli-wheels.com
Page 61
The Open Socket
came covered with receipts from purchasing supplies, and notes on organizations we were contacting. Sticky notes populated the edges of our computer monitors, reminding us of tasks we needed to accomplish. Finally, the floor would catch the debris from our work: metal shards, scraps of paper, and pieces of thread left behind from our work. After a long day’s work, we would clean up our space just so we could come in the next day and fill it with more of the clutter of progress. We sincerely have to thank Intelliwheels for understanding the constant presence of design debris in our shared office.
Closing In As our prototyping progressed, so did our orga-
The IPT Journal
nization. We met with people we knew in our community who had experience starting companies and non-profits. These individuals lent their advice on building our organizational structure. One of these friends connected us with Bill Taylor, an amputee living in the Champaign-Urbana area who was willing to work with us. As successful as our test had been in Chicago earlier in the year, we were eager to meet with Bill and involve him in our work. Working with Bill was a significant opportunity to improve how we would validate our design. When we first met with him we were impressed by his interest and willingness to help. We were also excited to learn that he had experience in Central America building radio stations for people there. All of these
traits make Bill and excellent person seek out advice from. In addition to Bill, our connections at ROMP and Northwestern University Prosthetics-Orthotics Center (NUPOC) had set up an opportunity for us to come work with 2 amputees at NUPOC’s center in downtown Chicago. Preparing to test with these 3 individuals, we worked feverishly to construct a prototype that functioned in the way we envisioned. Several breakthroughs were made as we incorporated layers of fabric and plastic, along with metal plates that were contoured to match the shape of an arm. We also involved nylon straps in our design to allow for adjustment and secure closure. During this process, our sewing skills improved with the help of our friend Shawna who shared an interest in our work as a leg amputee herself. Help also came from my Aunt Sara,
Developing our design with 3 amputees in Illinois.
Page 63
The Open Socket
who contributed not only her sewing advice, but a vintage industrial Singer sewing machine. After constructing a large and small version of our design, we again piled into our cars and drove to Northwestern’s Medical campus on Lakeshore Drive in Chicago to meet with the staff and amputees there. Once in Chicago, we were excited to work with Horace and Mike, two amputees who normally help NUPOC to instruct new prosthetists on how to fit a prosthetic arm. We also had assistance from Jared Howell, Craig Heckathorne, and Tom Karolewski who are faculty members and directors at NUPOC. During the testing we increased our knowledge of the process of setting up a cable and harness system for an amputee. We also learned about the lives and prefer-
The IPT Journal
ences of Horace and Mike. Horace shared his positive outlook on life, while Mike explained why he preferred a cosmetic prosthetic hand over the more common functional hook. Both individuals tried on the prototypes we had brought, and confirmed our optimism about the path we were pursuing. With feedback from Horace and Mike and the advice of the staff from NUPOC we constructed a new list of design directions to pursue. Upon returning to Champaign we also met with Bill to test fit the device and hear his thoughts. The day we tested with Bill found him performing some remodeling work at the home where his daughter was living. With our new knowledge of cable and harness systems, setting the device up for Bill only took a few minutes, and
Adam Booher prepares a harness for user testing.
Page 65
The Open Socket
Bill Taylor does some handy work installing a power socket using our prototype prosthetic arm.
in no time at all he was using our prototype to rewire an electrical outlet and pick up heavy objects like a table and concrete block. This testing confirmed our impression that Bill was a heavy duty user of prosthetic devices. Bill was also able to lend his feedback and advice. With all of this valuable information we returned to
The IPT Journal
our office to press forward. From the time of these tests in late June, we increased our production of high fidelity prototypes tremendously, constructing designs that experimented with different ways of attaching the terminal device, new closure mechanisms, and different material combinations. We
solicited advice from our former classmates in their respective fields of engineering, including insight on material choices for fabric, plastic and metal. Over the course of the next month and a half we constructed more than 7 high level prototypes, and again asked Bill Taylor to stop by our office and lend his advice. This test fitting with Bill was similar to the last, in that he was able to demonstrate the functionality of the device. This time, however, he added more feedback in the areas of construction and placement of the cable and harness attachment. We came away from this interaction feeling both very close and very far from the final design. We knew we were close because of how well our most recent prototype was functioning. As a result we could also clearly see the aspects of the design that needed to be improved. Again forcing ourselves to step back and think about the design as
a whole proved to be extremely useful. This time we pushed ourselves to brainstorm using note cards and Sharpie markers. In one session we identified the features that needed improvement and in another we noted ones that we liked and wanted to preserve. We wrote the features we identified on note cards and spread them out across the tables in our workspace to create two massive frameworks. From the framework of shortcomings we were able to brainstorm potential solutions. Again sketching on paper and building models in cardboard we explored several ways of approaching the design. limiting the fidelity of our prototypes allowed us to test new concepts for their merit very quickly. This time though, instead of testing completely new designs, we were pushing forward small features such as how to secure the top and sides of the
Page 67
The Open Socket
Ehsan Noursalehi and Adam Rule spread out ideas on a table as they try to identify all of the problems associated with one of the prototypes.
The Open Socket
device, and the exact construction of the wrist unit. While this process briefly took us away from high fidelity prototyping, it helped guide us to our final design. During this final push we identified better ways of resolving the wrist structure and ways to smooth out the overall feel of the device. We worked to eliminate sources of abrasion or discomfort on the internal faces of the socket by incorporating a sock as the inner lining, a more traditional feature of prosthetic arms. We also designed the device to hide beneath a cosmetic sleeve that would improve its overall appearance and protect it. Finally, we began using new synthetic materials that would enable us to improve the overall structure while simplifying the construction process.
The IPT Journal
With all of these design improvements in hand, we began the final prototyping phase. We rapidly built several prototypes to solidify the implementation of the features we had devised. Every move was made to improve the overall fit, increase the ease of use, and strengthen the device for use in the field. With all of these motivations, we were impressed by the results. The prototypes are finally approaching the ideas we all have about what a successful design should be. With these recent developments we are currently pushing to make the design ready for testing in Guatemala in a few short weeks. We will continue to test with Bill Taylor as we nail down each aspect of the design. As I write, we are currently preparing to produce a large volume of complete prototypes
for testing in Guatemala. We will let you know how it goes when we get back, but we are extremely optimistic about our trip. Looking back on our progress since stepping off of our return flight from Guatemala, I see the signs of a successful and vibrant organization. On the design front we created multiple generations of prototypes with many unique concepts. In the summer months alone, we created more than 15 unique, high fidelity prototypes. Our process has led us from loose ideas to a single design that we believe can achieve our goals. Our organization has progressed in many other areas as well, including strengthening our not-for-profit, and building support for it. At the end of the day, however, our prosthetic technology will determine if our vision becomes a reality.
At IPT we are driven to
make our product the best it can be, and to serve the amputees who are in need all over the world. The Open Socket is at the core of our mission of providing amputees with access to affordable prosthetic care, and the process described in this article is one giant step forward in our journey toward making this vision a reality.
What is the Open Socket? So what is the Open Socket? How does it actually work? We’ve talked a great deal about the process we went through to develop it. At this point I’m sure you’re wondering how it actually works. As the name implies, the Open Socket can be rapidly fit to a wide ranges of sizes and
Page 71
The Open Socket
Introducing the Open SocketTM... The Open SocketTM is IPT’s revolutinary rapid-fitting prosthetic arm technology for below elbow amputees
Open Socket TM
Standard Attachment
Terminal Device
The IPT Journal
Harness
Tricep Cuff
Cable
3D visualization courtesy of Hussain Almossawi of Skyrill.com Page 73
The Open Socket
shapes of amputees’ residual limbs. The characteristic that allows our device to do this is its dual rigid and flexible nature. The overall structure is made up of metal, plastic, and synthetic fabrics that contribute to the flexibility and stability of the device. The inner surface is formed by a plastic material that ensures a smooth contour with the amputee’s residual limb. This plastic surface is also very similar to the nature of custom fit prosthetic devices in its feel and behaviour against the skin. As we move away from the amputee’s arm, 4 metal plates define the shape of the device. These pates run lengthwise along the amputee’s arm with small seams in between them. This structure makes the device both rigid and malleable to the user’s arm. In other words,
The IPT Journal
using only their hands and simple tools, someone with minimal training can contour the metal plates to fit the amputee’s arm. The whole body of the device is protected by a synthetic fabric structure. The structure is then securely closed using a simple strapping system. The top of the
A collection of our protoype iterations spread out in our office.
device is defined by a composite piece of metal and plastic that works similarly to the tongue of a shoe. This allows the Open Socket to readily accommodate multiple sizes and shapes of residual limbs. Finally, the whole structure is enclosed in a fabric sleeve for protection and aesthetic quality.
All of these features work
together to create a system that is comfortable, durable, and affordable. The Open Socket can quickly and easily provide an amputee with the same functionality as a custom fit socket. While custom fit sockets provide a high quality of fit with an amputee’s residual limb, they require specialized equipment, extensive training, and time to individually fabricate. The Open Socket seeks to provide nearly the same quality of fit, but do so in a way that requires no special equipment, minimal training, and very little time to fit to the user. If your organization would be interested in testing our Open Socket technology to see if it can help you provide prosthetic aid to more amputees, please contact us. It is our goal to provide amputees access to the care they need, and we would love to work with you.
Page 75
Support IPT
Support Mission a Donat
www.supportipt.or
t The n, Make tion
rg/donate Page 77
Amputee Profiles Learn about three of the local amputees who helped us develop the Open SocketTM
By Jon Naber
Horace Murph Jr Age: 58
r.
Horace Murph Jr. likes to take it easy. His favorite days are those when he can sit on his porch and watch the passersby. Deeply religious and unwaveringly positive about life, Horace has gone through some tough experiences in the past, not the least of which was his amputation. In 1973, Horace was working in a factory when his right arm was stuck in a powerful punch-press machine. After his damaged limb was amputated at a local
Page 79
Amputee Profiles
Open Socket TM
hospital, Horace found the motivation to recover within weeks. He drew strength from the encouragement of people in his life to continue socializing and living in the style he had embraced before his amputation. Horace went on to work for a city police department, and is now happily retired. 38 years later, Horace has experienced in total three custom-made prosthetic arms following his amputation. He has become completely comfortable with his current prosthesis, and prefers to not remove it because it makes him feel whole and complete. Horace can stay relaxed knowing that his prosthetic arm is exactly what he needs.
Amputee Profiles
Mike Ngyuen, has coped with change throughout his life. As a special forces soldier in the Vietnam War, Mike saw a once peaceful nation in conflict, and upon immigrating to the United States, he witnessed the shift of a nation from industrial prowess to digital dominance. Another change that he experienced - perhaps the most personal of all - was the loss of both of his arms below the elbow. In 1976, Mike was involved in a horrific accident with a punch-press machine in his factory job. Having been trained in the physical rigor of the special forces, Mike’s lifestyle before the accident had included kickboxing and playing tennis. Although he wondered if he would ever return to these activities, Mike
Mike ngyuen Age: 57
Page 83
Amputee Profiles
committed to recovering, finding proper prosthetic care, and continuing to progress in life rather than living in despair. Today, after having had six different custom-fabricated sockets and ten cosmetic-functional hands over the past 35 years, Mike is experiencing change. With both of his high-quality prosthetic arms, Mike is able to button his shirt, work on his desktop computer as a day trader, and use the touch screen of his phone. Since his amputation, Mike has raised four children to adulthood and has never given up his independent spirit. He is a true testament to the importance and power of proper prosthetic care.
Open Socket TM
Page 85
Amputee Profiles
Bill Taylor does a little bit of almost everything. Having studied engineering physics in college, Bill’s life work is to build radio stations for the indigenous people of Central America. He has lived throughout Central America for long periods of time in the past, and built solid relations with the people of these countries. In 2005, Bill lost his arm below the elbow, putting an indefinite hold on his normally dexterous and rigorous activities of working on cars, wiring household electrical connections, and building radio towers. Following the severalmonth-long process of waiting for insurance approval, being fit with and adjusting a custom socket, and
Bill Taylor Age: 65
Page 87
Amputee Profiles
Open Socket TM
learning to use his new prosthetic arm, Bill was eventually able to re-engage his passion of keeping busy and being handy. Today Bill continues to do all sorts of things – from remodeling his daughter’s house to building bonfires and planning his next trip to Central America. He is acutely interested in the future of prosthetic arm technology, and hopes that by sharing his experiences as a below-theelbow amputee with other recent amputees he can help them through the rough road to recovery.
Page 89
Support IPT
Hosmer, one of the world leaders in prosthetic devices, has placed their support behind the mission of IPT. During the upcoming October 2011 field test in Guatemala, the OpenSocketTM will employ the use of Hosmer’s 5XA terminal devices (hooks) during product testing. Inserted into the universal wrist of the OpenSocketTM platform, these terminal devices will allow the amputee patients to carry out a variety of activities for daily living that require dexterity, including writing with a pencil, eating with a fork, and tying a shoelace. The Hosmer 5XA has the approval of amputees worldwide, and IPT is proud to partner with Hosmer as a supplier of terminal devices for our product testing in Guatemala.
Hosmer Supports
A Homser aluminum hook is one of the most commonly used prosthetic hooks around the world.
IPT
The World Situation A look at amputation in the developing world through numbers
By Adam Rule Slums outside of Guatemala City
The World Situation
Diving Into the Data
Page 93
The World Situation
IPT began with a simple story: a story of hope. Men, women and children who had been outcasts because of a missing foot or leg able to walk, run, climb trees, to smile again because of a simple prosthesis. More than a story, this is reality for hundreds of people in India thanks to the Jaipur Foot. We wondered: Could we make this dream a reality for arm amputees as well?
but it cannot relay the magnitude of worldwide need. To this end, data compliments narrative. While “becoming a statistic” is often thought of as the epitome of rejection, stats don’t have to be sterile when viewed in the right light. Instead, they can unveil the hidden multitudes of stories we don’t know and focus our ears to hear them. We hope you’ll use the figures here to realize the depth of the need for a simple, innovative, and affordable prosthetic arm.
Stories are compelling but by no means are they comprehensive. The success of the Jaipur foot tells us something significant about rehabilitation in India,
A Note About Data
The IPT Journal
There is no longer any
doubt that the world is experiencing an information revolution. In 2010, humanity produced as much data every two days as it had in all of history up until 20031. Its hard to imagine in such a lush information landscape that the following could be said by the World Health Organization:
...in 2010, humanity produced as much data every two days as it had in all of history up until 2003 “Global data on the need for [amputee] rehabilitation services, the type and quality of measures provided, and estimates of unmet needs do not exist.2” While industrialized nations like the US continue to proliferate statistics and reports,
many developing regions still lack a basic understanding of their residents’ health. All is not lost though. While our understanding is not complete, it is not completely lacking. Let’s start by looking at the US.
Limb Loss in the US Current estimates place the United States population at 310,348,000 people3. The most recent Center for Disease Control health survey found 0.7% of people have one or more amputations4. This means that there are 2,172,000 people in the US with an amputation. Experts estimate that by 2050, this number will jump to 3,600,0005. The World Heald Organization and US Department of Defense
Page 95
The World Situation
estimate that 8% of all amputations are trans-radial (below elbow), the type of amputation IPT is seeking first to address6. By this figure, 173,800 people in the US could benefit from IPT’s current prototype.
has a disability needing prosthetic or orthotic services. Using the most recent population estimates for Asia, Africa, and Latin America, there are 27.41 million people
average income of $300 per year Limb Loss Worldwide Though there is great need in the US, our focus, for now, lies outside the States in the developing regions of the world. The 2011 WHO Report on Disability states that roughly 0.5% of the developing world population
The IPT Journal
in these regions in need of prosthetic or orthotic care, and of these, 2,192,000 have trans-radial amputations. Consequently, there are as many trans-radial amputees in the developing world as there are total amputees in the US. When all nations are accounted for, some 35
million people, 2.8 million of whom have trans-radial amputations, are in need of prosthetic and orthotic care worldwide.
Cost Cost is a significant barrier to obtaining a prosthesis. In the States, prosthetic limbs can easily cost between $5,000 and $15,0007. While the glut of health care spending in the US and relative prosperity of the nation make this cost easier to absorb, such a price is simply beyond the means of people in the developing world where rural families average an income of $300 per year. Due to lower labor and materials costs, a typical prosthetic limb in developing countries costs between $125 and $1,875, but even at this price it can take a
decade or more to earn enough money for a prosthesis. Adding to the cost is the fact that limbs wear out, or are grown out of in the case of children. Children need to be refit every 6-12 months and adults need replacement limbs every 3-5 years. Consequently, a person may go through dozens of prosthetic limbs in their life time, putting a total rehabilitation cost in the thousands of dollars.
...children need to be refit every 6-12 months and adults need replacement limbs every 3-5 years Many regions simply cannot sustain this cost. The average health expenditure per capita in Latin America and the Caribbean is less than $550 a year, and in Sub-Saharan Africa,
Page 97
The World Situation
3/4 of Developing nations do not have an O&P School health spending is below $80. Even if amputees from these regions devote all of their resources towards obtaining a prosthesis, they may not be able to afford one. Household final consumption expenditure per capita (a measure of how much the average person spends in a year) in Latin America is under $4,600 a year, and in SubSaharan African, its less than $650. Put simply, with prosthetics costing up to $1,875, in order for an amputee in SubSaharan Africa to purchase a limb they may have to go without food, housing, clothing, and
The IPT Journal
all other commodities for nearly three years.
Health Care A survey of the world prosthetic landscape would not be complete without a look at how many orthotic and prosthetic (O&P) professionals can provide care. Even if a patient has the money to afford a prosthesis, there may not be accessible facilities to
be fit with one. While there is no clear estimate of how many O&P professionals currently work in the developing world, the UN estimates that 180,000 professionals are needed to service the current number of amputees. As of 2005, a mere 24 prosthetic schools operated in developing regions, turning out a maximum of 400 trained O&P professional each year. To make matters worse, more than three-quarters of developing nations do not even have a single O&P school in-country. The need for trained professionals far outweighs the supply
We hope to address both issues of cost and care with a simple, innovative, and affordable device. We want the story of hope to be that of every amputee.
Will you help us write this story of hope?
1. http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/04/ schmidt-data/ 2. WHO / World Bank 2011 World Report on Disability 3. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/SortingTables/tab-sorting_population.htm 4. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm
A Way Forward IPT is rising to this challenge by developing a low cost prosthetic that an be fit by persons other than trained O&P professionals.
5. Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence oflimb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:422-9 6. http://www.oandp.org/publications/ resident/pdf/DevelopingCountries.pdf
Page 99
The IPT Approach We use a variety of prototyping methods to streamline the design process without leaving the comfort of our office
By Adam Booher
The IPT Journal
The IPT Approach To Prototyping Our Secret Ingredient
o g
Jon Naber tries on a prototype constructed out of polyethylene sheets Page 101
The IPT Approach
The Pen
When we start thinking about a design idea, we first work on paper. We use markers, pencils, pens, and paper to sketch out our ideas. In this phase we force ourselves to only use what detail is necessary. If we only have an idea for one feature of a design, we draw that part in detail, and then roughly sketch the remaining components. This approach allows us to quickly visualize and preserve ideas. It also helps us to easily share them with others on the team. Working with paper can help us grasp the subtleties of the curve of a person’s arm, and appreciate all of the factors that will affect a design. We force ourselves to stay at this level as long as possible before picking up more powerful tools.
The IPT Journal
Jon Naber quickly points out a feature on a sketch of his concept.
Page 103
The IPT Approach
Cardboard
When we have squeezed out all the information we can working with paper, we grab our scissors, duct tape, and cardboard and begin to work in three dimensions. While working in 2D can help us to visualize many aspects of the design, we can’t appreciate how something feels until it is tested against someone’s arm. This requires us to prototype in 3D. We choose to work in cardboard because it is just as easy to construct something as it is to alter it later. If we build a cardboard prototype and want to change something, it’s usually as easy as pulling out the scissors or duct tape. Additionally, cardboard can replicate the properties of everything from sheet metal, to fabric. Sometimes we like what we see in cardboard, and sometimes we don’t, but in both cases we often go back to pencil and paper to push our designs even further.
The IPT Journal
Richard Kesler constructs a prototype out of cardboard.
Page 105
The IPT Approach
The Angle Grinder After building a solid design on paper and prototyping it in cardboard, we bring out the heavier tools and produce a more refined prototype. We are very fortunate to have an office space in Enterprise Works where we can easily go from working on the computer developing a CAD model, to grinding down a piece of metal or sewing together layers of fabric. When we work with more robust engineering materials, we focus on learning things that we can’t when using other mediums. Full scale engineering prototypes allow us to test with amputees as well, and this is the key feedback we look for.
The IPT Journal
Adam Booher works on shaping a metal component using an angle grinder.
Page 107
The IPT Approach
The Results Our prototyping process allows us to quickly iterate and try new ideas. It also encourages all members of the team to get involved in each level of design and construction. Having built many of the devices we test with our own hands gives
The IPT Journal
us unique insight that we would not have if we outsourced the construction to someone else. We feel that active prototyping is an important part of any design process, and can make the difference between a good product and a great one.
Our Prototyping Process Allows us to quickly iterate
Generataions of prototypes are laid out on a table. The oldest concepts to the left were developed in July 2010 and the newest one at the right was developed in May 2011.
Page 109
The Path Ahead Our plan for product testing, fundraising, and growth
By Jon Naber
The IPT Journal
Looking Into the Future
Jon Naber thinks about ideas on the couch in our office at Enterprise Works.
Page 111
The Path Ahead
Following our return from Guatemala in July 2010, IPT launched the next phase of our work to bring affordable prosthetic arms to people in developing nations. Our wonderful experience working with ROMP made it clear that their partnership would be critical as we moved from short-term iterative testing to longer-term design validation and production. We formalized our partnership with ROMP in October 2010, laying out a three-pronged approach for collaboration and impact. The key components of this plan are the following:
1. IPT will continue to develop the product at our Champaign headquarters, navigating short and long-term testing, on the way to eventual production. 2. ROMP will continue to assist in organizing patient testing of IPT’s product both in the United States and in Guatemala, and work to connect IPT with other prosthetics-focused organizations working in Central America. 3. Both IPT and ROMP will collaborate in fundraising for the initial launch of IPT’s product at the ROMP clinic in Guatemala.
The IPT Journal
This partnership has brought a new urgency to our work, and as Adam Booher discussed in “The Open Socket�, IPT has since executed two iterations of product development with patients in Chicago and Champaign, emerging with one concept which will be our first product in partnership with ROMP.
PRODUCT TESTING In October, IPT will return to the ROMP clinic in Zacapa, Guatemala to begin longerterm user testing of our design. This testing will be conducted both with some of the same amputees we met during our July 2010 trip to Guatemala and with entirely new amputees. We will push the current
boundaries of our testing as we deploy our arm with amputees for several days at a time, observe their use of the arm outside of the clinical setting, and look for information that cannot be discovered in our stateside tests. In addition to product testing, IPT will be witnessing an orthopedic-focused mission which is spearheaded by ROMP and Hearts in Motion, another Zacapa-based NGO. During this two-week-long clinic, orthopedic surgeries, prosthetic and orthotic fittings, and rehabilitation procedures will be provided to a number of people with disabilities who come to the ROMP facility and adjoining hospital for care. IPT will be keen to observe this process, network with the medical staff, and conduct adhoc user testing with amputee patients.
Page 113
The Path Ahead
At the end of the trip IPT will also take a couple of days to visit other prosthetics clinics and organizations in Guatemala which could act as early adopters of our technology. As we initially did with ROMP, IPT will be seeking to plant seeds with the potential future distributors of our product. We look forward to listening to these adopters’ needs, sharing insight into prosthetic technology, and building collaborative relationships.
critical moment in our organization’s history. Our product is on the verge of long-term testing, our coalitions with NGOs are being built, and we are working to secure the necessary capital to launch our production.
THE PATH AHEAD
Based on the results of our user testing in Guatemala during October, IPT will make appropriate design modifications and gradually begin to transition to the permanent deployment of our arm with Guatemalan amputees through the ROMP clinic. In parallel, IPT will begin to secure a higher-volume manufacture of our product and the necessary capital infusion.
Looking beyond our upcoming testing, IPT is expecting a highly productive year at a
As our arm gains validity with the amputees served by ROMP, IPT will begin to distribute our arm
The IPT Journal
IPT will begin to distribute through additional Guatemala based NGOs and clinics through additional Guatemalabased NGOs and clinics, and eventually, through organizations based in the other countries of Central America. IPT’s strategy is to make substantial impact with amputees in the Central American region before we eagerly look to deploy our arm to other regions of the globe which have experienced a high incidence of amputation, such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia.
way challenges will abound, problems will occur, and lessons will be learned. But we believe that with internal perseverance, public support, and innovative product and business development, our dream of a world in which every amputee has an affordable and appropriate prosthetic arm will come true. We will keep you posted!
One region at a time, we will work to proliferate our product through organizations working with amputees in the developing world. Along the
Page 115
The Team
Richard Kesler
Jon Naber
The Founders
Adam B
Photo Credit: L. Brian Stauffer.
Luke is now a student at Johns Hopkins University.
Ehsan Noursalehi
Luke Jungles
Booher Hari Vigneswaran
Hari is now a medical student at Brown University.
Page 117
The Team
The Leadership
Jon Naber
Adam Booher
Founder, President
Director of Product De
Jon Naber came up with the original idea to develop a prosthetic arm for the developing world. He assembled a team of motivated classmates as an undergraduate. Now, he works full time on devloping IPT as an organization, establishing key partnerships with other organiazations, and fundraising.
Adam Booher is the man product. He figures out h our designs off of a sheet and bring them into the r Adam works full time on development and uses hi time to make sure IPT is smoothly on a daily basis
Ehsan Noursalehi
evelopment
Creative Director
n behind the how to take t of paper real world. n product is free running s.
Ehsan Noursalehi is a creative strategist. Working on everything from how the product should look and function, to how our website should represent IPT. As a current graduate student of Industrial Design, Ehsan assists the team part time working on auxillary projects to help grow the organization and develop the next IPT product.
Page 119
The Team
Emeritus BioEngineer
Richard Kesler
Richard is currently earning his PhD in Bioengineering at the University of Illinois, and his key interests include biomechanical motion analysis and orthotic device design.
Patient Relations Hari is now a medical student at Brown University, and has helped IPT in managing patient interactions during user testing in Guatemala and Chicago.
Hari Vigneswaran
Mechanical Engineer
Luke Jungles
Luke is studying for an MS in Bioengineering Innovation and Design at John Hopkins University, and his main focus there is the development of biomedical products for developing world applications.
New Staff Technical Consultant
Adam Rule
Adam Rule has a bachelors dgree in Industrial Engineering from the University of Illinois and is currently pursuing a master’s degree at the Univeristy of Washington related to Human Computer Interactions. Adam has a keen attention to detail and human perception of information. IPT consults him on a variety of technical issues.
Public Engagement
Michelle Lenzen
Michelle Lenzen is an advertising student at the University of Illinois. She is very active, working for the Technology Entrepreneurship Center, hosting workshops for Illinois Launch, and advising various student startup companies. She helps IPT with branding, fundraising activities, and public engagement.
Grant Writer
Thomas Frankie
Thomas Frankie is a Civil Engineering graduate student at the University of Illinois. Thomas has extensive experience managing cross-institutional NSF grants. He is currently helping IPT in very extensive grant writing efforts and is working to secure funding for IPT’s long-term testing and production.
THE IPT JOURNAL ISSUE 02 - Fall 2011