Accelerated Prototyping of Cyber Physical Systems in an Incubator Context

Accelerating Cyber Physical Systems
Prototyping in an Incubator Context
A thesis submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of B. Tech -
Mechanical Engineering with Specialization in Design and Manufacturing + M Tech Product
Design
By
Sreyas Sriram
(Roll No: MPD14I015)
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DESIGN AND
MANUFACTURING, KANCHEEPURAM
April 2019

1
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the report titled “Accelerating Cyber Physical Systems
Prototyping in an Incubator Context” is submitted by Sreyas Sriram (MPD14I015) to
the Indian Institute of Information Technology Design and Manufacturing
Kancheepuram, is a bonafide record of work done by him under my guidance and
supervision. The contents of this report, in parts or full, have not been submitted to any
other Institute or University.
Dr.Sudhir Varadarajan
[Project Advisor]
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
IIITDM-Kancheepuram.
Chennai-600127,
India.
Place: IIITDM-Kancheepuram
Date: 29th
April, 2019

2
Acknowledgements
I owe my thanks to a long list of people who have helped me along the way.
Dr Sudhir Varadarajan, for the opportunity to work on a challenging research problem. His
constant feedback and mentorship has constantly helped me learn and iterate. He was a
mentor first and an instructor next!
Mr Shiva Tyagu, for the opportunity to work on his project and study the process of
prototyping. I learnt a lot about the prototyping process through our discussions and debates.
Mr Kalai Selvan, former Designer at MADEIT for his constant support and mentorship
during the prototyping process. He helped me learn several prototyping tools and rules of
thumb.
MADEIT Technology Business Incubator staff for their constant support!
Arjun, Abhinav, Jeffrey and Vijay for their discussions and inputs pertaining to the project
and beyond.
Govind and Surya for their Inputs on the Network Visualization Problem at a very critical
time, Thanks for your inputs!
Finally my parents for their constant support and motivation!

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………...…….………....4
2. ABSTRACT………...…………………………………………………...…….…....…....5
3. INTRODUCTION….…………………………………………………...…………….....6
4. PROTOTYPING HISTORY …………………..….…………………..……...………...10
5. PROTOTYPING ACTIVITY AND KEY CHALLENGES.............................................22
6. A REFLECTION ON DESIGN METHODOLOGY……………………..….….…....... 31
7. CONCLUSION............................................................................…………….………....44
8. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................44
9. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………...…….…......46
10. APPENDIX A (DOMAINS AND TOOLS)....................................................................48
11. APPENDIX B (SKELETON BOM AND MECHATRONICS BOM)...........................50
12. APPENDIX C (MODULARITY ANALYSIS OF PROTOTYPE).................................61
13. LIST OF IMAGES……………………………………………………………...………62
14. LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………...…...….63

4
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PLC Product Life cycle
COTS Commercial Oﬀ-The-Shelf
AM Additive Manufacturing
MVP Minimum Viable Product
POC Proof of Concept
CPS Cyber-Physical Systems
FBS Function-Behaviour-Structure
CAD Computer Aided Design
TBI Technology Business Incubator
BOM Bill of Materials
DSM Design Structure Matrix

5
2. Abstract
The thesis serves as an enquiry into the prototyping process of cyber physical systems
through action research by participating in the product development process of a start up in
an incubator setup, and use empirical data towards establishing a methodology for CPS
prototyping. Identified domain agnostic theories - Multi-disciplinary Matrices and Actor
Network theory to accurately paint a picture of challenges in working on Integrated Product
development in an emerging incubator setup and key directions moving forward.

6
3. Introduction
To understand the distinction between Mechatronics and Cyber Physical Systems definition,
we turn to [1]. Mechatronics has evolved since its introduction in 1960’s. There are different
definitions that exist, we use the following that only includes mechanics, Electrical and
Electronics and computer science in mechatronics: “Mechatronic systems are the result of the
integration of mechanical, electronic and information technologies”
CPS is a term that has a more recent origin, in the 2000’s. Rajkumar[1] defines CPS as
“physical and engineered systems whose operations are monitored, coordinated, controlled,
and integrated by a computing and communication core”. These two classes of products are
revolutionizing our lives today and offer better compactness and technology integration
potential.
Mechatronics is considered here as an evolution of electromechanical products, and CPS
come from a Cyber-Systems’ evolution. CPS, originates from an Information Technology
domain and has a strong software development and communication approach (Computation,
Communication and Control). CPS evolution has strong roots in systems engineering, hence
CPS’s design methodology is linked to Systems Engineering Approaches.
On the other hand, Mechatronics is presented as an evolution of traditional hardware products
, with a strong mechanical and Electrical/Electronic background. Mechatronics is supported
by Industrial Engineering approaches. According to Bricogne [1], The Hardware
Development of Mechatronics is supported by the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)
approach while CPS’s Software Development is supported by the Application Lifecycle
Management (ALM) approach.
[1] Summarizes Mechatronics and CPS to be two different classes of complex systems, with
their own distinct cultural background: Hardware development for Mechatronics and
Software development for Cyber Physical Systems.
It is interesting to examine the following aspects in the context of Mechatronics and CPS:
functional integration and physical integration. Functional integration and physical
integration are linked and we distinguish two approaches: Functional integration is more
software oriented (dematerialization), while the Physical integration is much more hardware
oriented (physical integration only).

7
Integration in terms of Mechatronics can be described in the form of different levels. The
lowest level is “separated”: mechanics and electronics are disjointed and the link between the
two elements is made by wires. The next level is termed as “joined”: the electronic parts are
fitted on the mechanical parts.
The third level is called “included”: the electronics is included in the mechanical parts, in this
level both the mechanical and electronic design are tightly joined. The highest level of
integration is “merged”: mechanical and electronics parts are fully merged. The printed
circuit board (PCB) is integrated in the mechanics.
[1] States that the assumption that different levels of integration require different rigor in
terms of design methodology and organisational structure. A low-tier integrated product does
not require the same methodology, processes, organizational structure or associated
procedures as a highly integrated one. A highly integrated-product will need a task force
organization, for example, whereas a low-level integrated product could be easily developed
in a classical manner.
In order to manage their increased complexity, design methods need to be developed to deal
with multi-disciplinary contexts to design CPS or mechatronic products.
Scope for radical shift in form development for integrated products: Existing literature does
not describe strategies for tackling form development for integrated products.
Tackling interdisciplinary problems require a deep domain expertise along with an
interdisciplinary “integration” focus - existing literature does not describe a meaningful way
to classify or manage this aspect of integrated product development of CPS/Mechatronics in
an incubator setup.

8
Function-Behaviour-Structure breakdown of the Microscope
One could look to Zhang et al [2] for a definition of the terms function, behaviour and
structure.
Structure: A system has a structure which is a set of entities connected in a meaningful way.
The system has a boundary which isolates the system from its environment.
Behaviour: The behavior of a system is about the response of the system when it receives
stimuli.
Function: A system must be useful from its existence, which implies its function. The
usefulness of a system is context-sensitive.
Figure 1: Intended Function-Behaviour-Structure Map of the Microscope Prototype(s)
The microscope attempts to leverage the advances in Image processing and Cloud technology
to capture multiple images of a sample and combine them to form an image of higher
resolution.
The key goal of the microscope is to capture the image of a sample (Function) while ensuring
that the image is accurate, the microscope does not wobble or move during operation and
assembly and setup of the microscope is intuitive (Behaviour).
1. The focus is on using low cost elements and thereby resulting in lower lifetime cost of
ownership.
2. There lies a larger emphasis on computation, hence the mechanical and electronics
are seen as supporting elements to achieve functionality.

9
The Approach
In the time frame of the project, it was planned that I would work with an incubatee and assist
them on product development to understand the know-how of prototyping components and
making design decisions. In the process observing the interplay of design and prototyping for
Cyber Physical Systems in the context of a technology business incubator.
Figure 2: A day in my life at a Technology Business incubator
The project is attempted as an action research project, the model followed is inspired by Dr.
Eileen Ferrance’s work [3]. The goal of the project is to identify an approach to work with
Cyber Physical Systems prototyping in an incubator context

10
4. Prototyping history: A reflection
The philosophy of the prototyping process was largely to develop prototypes leveraging the
existing infrastructure of the incubator. The goal was to develop a pre-production model of
the product to present to the first seed customer.
An overview of the various prototypes as a part of the company’s incubation are presented
below.
Figure 3: Key Prototyping Milestones
Data pertaining to the V1 prototype is unavailable, the study of prototyping is conducted
leveraging data on the V2 prototype BOM, V3 motorized prototype BOM , Static prototype
(which has a different functional requirement outside the scope of our discussion) BOM and
the Skeleton BOM and 20-20 Mechatronics BOM which I developed as a part of my
participation in the prototyping process.
A discussion on the composition of BOM - 3D Vs COTS
Now one must look at the composition of the different prototypes. I rely on prototype V2, V3 and
Static Prototype data as benchmark against the inputs from my personal prototyping journey working
on the 20-20 prototype.
Motorized Prototype V2 is documented to have been completed on 2nd July 2017. On the other hand,
Motorized Prototype V3 and Static prototype are documented to have been completed on the 14th of
Jan 2018. Unwrapping the BOM of the two prototypes result in the following structure composition.

11
Motorized V2 Prototype
Part Type System Composition Number of Components
COTS 39.47% 15
3D 60.53% 23
Machined 0.00% 0
Table 1: Motorized V2 Prototype Composition
Motorized V3 Prototype
COTS 47.50% 19
3D 50.00% 20
Machined 2.50% 1
Table 2: Motorized V3 Prototype Composition
Static Prototype
COTS 46.15% 12
3D 53.85% 14
Machined 0.00% 0
Table 3: Static Prototype Composition
Constraints of Analysis:
The BOMs for all elements are made removing all wiring requirements, and assuming that all the
components presented in the final BOMs by their respective contributors in Static and Motorized V3
Prototypes are reasonable approximations with +-10% components.
Wiring also has not been considered as a part of the BOM computation, meanwhile specific wiring
requirements which are required and verified have been considered. Conventional wiring has been
summed up and considered as 1 BOM component in cases of the 20-20 Prototypes.
Note: The exercise merely serves as a comparison between the snapshots of the system at different temporal
states and to serve as a point for reflection on why it might have come to be that way.

12
The structural decomposition indicates an increase in COTS components as a part of the prototyping
process.
Let us now contrast this information against the skeleton BOM (20-20 prototype, circa October, 2018)
and 20-20 Mechatronics BOM (circa February, 2019) versions of the 20-20 prototype.
Skeleton BOM - 20-20 Prototype
COTS 86.67% 169
3D 12.31% 24
Machined 1.03% 2
Table 4: Skeleton 2020 Prototype Composition
Mechatronics BOM - 20-20 Prototype
COTS 87.39% 201
3D 10.87% 25
Machined 1.74% 4
Table 5: Mechatronics 2020 Prototype Composition

13
One could summarize the study with through the following charts.
Figure 4: Structural composition of Prototype BOM
Figure 5: Contribution in Percentage (%) of different components
The number of components (intuitively) increase from V2 BOM to Mechatronic 2020 BOM.
The Composition of the BOM shifts from 3D driven to COTS driven.

14
Question: How does the movement from 3D focused to COTS focused strategy affect the
BOM of the prototype?
The movement of BOM from a 3D focused to a COTS focused prototyping process brought
with it an associated increase in number of components, from 40 in V3 to 230 in
Mechatronics 20-20 BOM ( 475 % increase ) , hence it becomes paramount to understand
what drives the increase in the BOM.
Figure 6: Fastener Contribution to BOM
Fasteners serve as the major shareholders in the recent 20-20 prototype BOMs, with nearly
55 % contribution in each case. Hence moving from 3D driven to COTS driven has added
low cost replaceable components and driven the prototype towards modularity.
Time to prototype - a discussion
In this section, I present the data on the following:
● Contributions of different project students and full time participants in the prototyping
process measured in man days.
● Time taken to iterate from one prototype to the next

15
Prototyping Timeline
The participation of different stakeholders towards the development of the Microscope
Prototypes is captured. The data documented in the start up’s task tracking sheet is referred to
for this study. The students/designers working full time on the project were only considered
for the analysis.
A total of 10 project students and 2 designers (one captured in the table) worked full time on
this project over a period of 714 days (1 year 11 months and 15 days) with a period of 129
days in between where no project students worked on the project. The project commenced at
the incubator on 19th Feb 2017 and is documented to have closed on 1st Feb 2019.
Legend:
1. M - Mechanical
2. E - Electrical and Electronics
3. C - Computing
4. ID - Industrial Design
5. SRE - My role in the product development process
6. K - Designer at Incubator who worked alongside me
7. GAP - Number of Gap days with no project student
8. RS, IC, NK, AK, AP, ASP, MJ and JP are other project students

16
Start date End date Contributor Prime Contribution Days
19-Feb-17 23-Jul-17 RS M-E-C 154
19-Feb-17 19-Mar-17 SS M 30
21-May-17 23-Jul-17 IC E-C 62
7-May-17 23-Jul-17 NK E-C 76
14-May-17 23-Jul-17 AK M 69
23-Jul-17 8-Oct-17 AP M-E 75
3-Aug-17 21-Jan-18 ASP M 168
3-Dec-17 18-Mar-18 JP M-ID 105
3-Dec-17 18-Mar-18 MJ M-ID 105
18-Mar-18 27-Jul-18 GAP M-E-C-ID 129
27-Jul-18 1-Feb-19 K M-E 184
28-Oct-18 1-Feb-19 SRE M-E 93
Table 6: Individual contributions to the prototyping process

17
Figure 7: Project student Timeline visualized

18
Next the milestones achieved have been documented and an average prototype to prototype
time computed.
Milestone Date
Prototype to
Prototype
Contribution
Kickoff at Incubator 19/02/2017 RS/SS
V1 Prototype 04/06/2017 105 RS/NK/IC
V2 motorized
prototype
02/07/2017 28 RS/NK/IC
V3 motorized
prototype
14/01/2018 192 ASP/AP
Static Prototype 14/01/2018 192 JP/MJ
Break begins
(development)
04/02/2018
Break ends
(development)
27/07/2018
Economics of 20-20
shifts
27/08/2018
20-20 Prototype 01/02/2019 377 K/SRE
Table 7: Prototype to Prototype time
When we examine the table presenting the prototype to prototype time, one notices that the time taken
from prototype version V3 to the 20-20 prototype is 377 days (a little more than a year).
One must look at this result closely, the time taken to go from Kickoff to V3 is 355 days (is little less
than a year).
The entire product has radically changed in form from V3 to the 20-20 version, computing the
“effective” time spent on the 20-20 would give us the time between K’s on boarding onto the project
and its final delivery

19
Effective time to prototype 20-20 is the time between 27th July 2018 and 1st Feb 2019 - 189 days or
6 months and 5 days, which is comparable to the time it took to iterate from V2 to V3.
Bottom-line - COTS focused prototyping was comparable (if not slightly faster) than the 3D focused
prototyping process.
V3 Prototype Vs 20-20 Prototype
The 20-20 Prototypes are the successors to the V3 Prototype. The key challenges that drove
the radical change in form of the prototype from V3 to 20-20 are presented below. The
evidences presented are a collage of inputs from the design documentation as well as
discussions with the entrepreneur and the in-house designer at the incubator.
Key challenges faced with V3 prototype:
1) 3D printing though intuitive and accessible posed several difficulties in terms time to
prototype. Surya [4] in his thesis described the various prototyping challenges he faced while
working with 3D: Warping, printing corners, Support structures for holes and hole directions
and build orientation as a parameter for consideration. It is also interesting to note that the 3D
printer broke down once during December 2018.
2) The following issues were reported which may or may not have contributed towards a shift
in perception of the community away from 3D:
Slippage of print due to poor adhesive bonding on build plate (Surya)
Grinding of filament due to high tension (Surya)
3) The desired behaviour(s) of the microscope were not achieved:
● The central cylindrical shaft (COTS) was not completely circular - it lacked
circularity , which was critical to capturing a good quality image
● The Structure was unstable and could not self balance
● Wiring through tube made the prototype unwieldy. This was initially chosen because
the alternative of using a metal jig was not feasible at the time.
● The relative adjustment of camera and lens was previously not possible and they were
at rest with respect to each other (loss of potential for fine adjustment)
4) Other aspects:
● 3D as a philosophy posed a challenge when it came down to fitment of mating parts.
This lead to loss in time and energy, it also resulted in frustration among the team.
● A key problem was the ease of assembly and disassembly - The assembly of the
prototype affected the way the output could be captured.

20
20-20 Prototypes
The driving philosophy of the 20-20 prototypes arose out of an unforeseen market shift in the
pricing of 20-20 Aluminium extruded rods. This was a driving factor to experiment in COTS
as the Al extrusions were previously considered appropriate.
High level Structural breakdown of the prototype:
● 3D was used in the form of stationary components : Brackets and Clamps
● 3D was used in moving interfaces in the form of connecting sliders.
● Laser cutting was used to build the central acrylic components - Camera and lens
holders.
● Static frame elements as well as onboard circuits and electronics were COTS.
● Transmission systems such as belts and pulleys were also COTS.
Key Challenges:
1. Lead time for parts are unpredictable and could lead to unforeseen stalls in the
prototyping phase
2. Fine tuning of COTS a challenge: Reduction of vibration of the Stepper motor an
interesting problem - use of liquids for lubrication is not possible because of a
possibility of modification of refractive index. Machine Grease is being explored as
an alternative to promote smooth operation and dampen vibration.
3. Lack of access to the right material for sliders (3D) - Sliders are currently made out of
3D printed PLA, which does not move smoothly over the vertical rails. Alternative
materials are limited by process capability of 3D printer. Attempted to design PLA
guide wheels as an alternative to sliders, but this proved to have an impact on the
design of the acrylic lens and camera holders. This idea proved to be time-consuming
and unsuccessful.
4. The potential of COTS is a function of the machining expertise of the designer and
availability of the right tools. The 20-20 Al extrusions had to be end milled to a
tolerance of +- 0.1 mm. As a novice machinist, working on poorly maintained in-
house equipment would mean poor outputs, which was the case where I lost 0.5 mm
of material while end-milling the 20-20 central column pillars for 200 mm height.
Additionally, requesting lab technician time or outsourcing basic operations for
prototype development proves to be time consuming.

21
Developing an MVP
Eric Ries’s Lean Startup [5] describes an MVP to be “that version of the product that enables a full
turn of the build-measure-learn loop with minimum amount of effort “. The goal of the 20-20
prototyping exercise was to build a functional mechatronic prototype, with reliable motion of sliders
that could be integrated with the onboard computation.
The prototype was then to serve as a pre-production prototype which would provide initial feedback
from the customer. Evaluating the orientation of the prototyping process on [6] heuristics results in
the following.
Variable Rating Design Heuristic
Testing The prototype has all functionality of a
production prototype.
Timing The prototype is to quickly reach a pre-
production stage
Ideation Ideas on part reduction as a part of the
prototyping process
Fixation Process dynamic, preference for tools readily
available in the incubator context
Feedback To be determined
Usability To be determined
Fidelity High fidelity prototype
Table 7a: Prototype to Prototype time
The MVP of the Super Resolution microscope can be described using the prototyping heuristic
framework presented in [6], the prototyping heuristic followed can be termed as evolutionary
prototyping. Evolutionary prototyping is a variant of iteration in which the design is iteratively refined
without replacement. The idea is that the design gradually transitions into a final workable product,
service, or system.
Evolutionary prototyping [6] - The prototypes from V1 to V3 were built on each other without
replacement. Similarly Skeleton 20-20 to Mechatronic 20-20 prototypes are built without
replacement. The 20-20 prototypes draw inspiration from the prior versions (V3).

22
5. Prototyping Activity and Key Challenges:
3D Printing
S.NO Build Part
name
Challenges Rationale for component
1 20-60 new
holder
2060new
holder
2 Enclosure
corner
enclosur
e corner
Melting of the PLA enclosure
corner, leading to loss of
perpendicularity.
To drive a screw into the wooden
enclosure and to maintain 90
degrees
3 Raspberry Pi
enclosure clamp
20-20
Rpiclam
p_2020
Used the clamp for the COTS
raspberry pi case
Rpi clamp was designed to secure
the raspberry pi onto the 20-20
bar on the top of the microscope
4 Slide Camera
holder New - 3
teeth version
Slide
holder
3d v1
It was difficult to reach
fitment of the slide on the
vertical column properly,
hence had to move to more
robust ways
To improve the stability of motion
of the slide by using three
interlocking teeth with the 20-20
on the sides
5 Slide holder no
tooth
slide
holder
3d
Inability to procure acrylic
wheels for 20-20 in the local
market, hence had to
experiment with 3d printing
for wheel design
Models of acrylic sliders using
laser cutting, desired to redesign
the slide so as to accommodate
wheels for slider motion
(experimental, to promote smooth
motion)
6 Slide lens
holder with
screw
slide
lenshold
er
3d_NE
W_SCR
EWFIX
We recreated the slide
structure for the lens holder
It was designed with a provision
for providing scope for easy
adjustment of the slide on the
column
7 Wheel 1 (11
mm rad with
5.25 mm rad
pocket and
wheel 2 (11.5
mm)
Wheel Wheel 1: Area of contact was
lesser than desired.
Elimination of the bearing
would mean reduction in the
number of parts
Wheel 2 : No challenges per
se , we increased dimension

23
of the wheel
8 Wheel 3
(12.425 mm
rad)
Wheel 3 Wheel 3 : We designed it, but
didn’t use it. We increased
the total diameter of the
wheel, but reverted to the
older slide design because of
the unavailability of nylon
wheels.
Iterated to solve some fitment
issues on the 20-20 and to move
smoothly. Modifying the slide
design resulted in a requirement
to have adjustable wheels along z
axis to ensure a better quality of
fit, but this did not work out
because PLA on Aluminium did
not give us a smooth motion,
using Nylon wheels for T slot
would give us a better motion.
This would mean that the wheel
came with their own roller
bearings.
9 Wheel left The design iteration did not
achieve its intended purpose
of smooth rolling of the PLA
wheel on the 20-20 rails
The wheel tends to slide rather
than roll, on closer examination
we checked if the reason was the
lack of a bearing or arose due to a
surface phenomenon. We came to
a realisation it was largely due to
the inability of the PLA to deform
and roll akin to a nylon wheel that
would do so in the same situation.
10 Wheel right
11 20-60 side
clamp
2060
holder
In the case of using a wheel
instead of a slider the design
of the side clamp should be
modified to prevent the clamp
from interrupting the motion
of the guide wheels.
Used in the first iteration using
the aluminium extrusion

24
12 Belt holder
carriage
belt
holder
carriage
Breakage of the centrepieces.
Poor mating with lens and
camera holder. Went through
two iterations of the design to
prevent these issues
Designed a belt carriage for the
lockdown of the belt
13 Corner brackets corner
bracket
Initially began using an open
source version of the corner
bracket, but then could not
continue to use them. This
was because both faces were
given slots of equal
dimension. Required one of
the faces to be free and to
have a larger slot to insert
fasteners. This led to a new
design of the corner bracket
Two 20-20 members in the same
plane cannot be connected using
internal brackets. Hence, had to
come up with a new mechanism
to hold the bars together
14 Motor holder motor
holder
There exist standard motor
holders (metallic) , these were
not available at the time of
prototyping which lead to
approaching 3d printing as a
viable option.
There were two iterations to the
3d printed models, this was
dictated by the relative orientation
of the pulley and the motors. In
the first case the motor shafts
were perpendicular to the pulley
axes respectively. In the second
case at 180 degrees to each other.
The first approach was abandoned
because the slide motion tends to
be interrupted by the motor body.
15 Slider Breakage when tightened
using screw, this lead to an
increase in the width of the
model. Nature of the contact
area (T slot ->
curvature/spline -> semi-
circular) was done to reduce
contact area, in order to get
the smoothest motion
possible
Larger surface of contact implied
a larger friction force and
destabilization of the lens and
camera holder.
Table 8: Challenges and Rationale for each prototype

25
Machining
Column height reduction - Using Bench Saw and End Milling for finishing
Height reduction from 500 mm to 285 mm
Tolerance requirement of +-0.1mm
End milling using a 3 axis manual Milling Machine
RPM - Not captured
Machining Wooden rollers - CNC milling machine (3 axis)
Milling 20mm wooden wheel
Excellent finish, yet long run time ( 15 minutes for roughing , 20 minutes for smoothing)
Abandoned due to two key reasons:
● Could not use existing Jigs towards holding the machining specimen. Designed
makeshift jigs which resulted in wobbling of the workpiece
● Oversight during selection of wood diameter - Selected too large a diameter (20 mm
for a 12.5 max requirement)
● Lack of finishing equipment to correct the error in judgement
Slide mounting, Insertion and ejection mechanism - COTS (Electrical conduits), Bench
saw (Acrylic/Wire cutter) and 3D printing
Initially began by searching for the Iron and steel square 1 inch and 1.25 inch pipes that could
be telescopic. Realised weight and cost could be greatly reduced by using readily available
plastic electrical conduits.
Now, it was machined on one side to secure the conduit to the microscope. The bottom part
of the conduit slides along the top part.
The holder was designed by 3d printing. The holder slides in between the top and bottom
halves of the conduit.

26
Figure 8: 19.5 mm slider for placing slide
Figure 9: The slide holder fits smoothly through the grooves in the bottom surface

27
Carpentry
Designed and built a wooden enclosure for the microscope. The prototype enclosure was
designed with an intent of ease of assembly and disassembly in mind.
The box was visualised to be a set of telescoping wooden boxes which would ride one on top
of the other. It was fabricated using A wood saw and using hot glue (glue gun), the casing for
the Base and the motor housing were fabricated. The structure was rejected in favour of
moving directly to a metal outer frame.
An initial estimate of the dimensions is presented below.
Figure 10: Telescoping wooden boxes

28
Power electronics development
The power electronics on the microscope was an interesting problem to solve.
The functional requirements were:
1. 2 stepper motors for independent vertical motion of camera and lens holder
2. 1 Raspberry Pi 3
3. 1 Pi camera
4. 1 LED array 32 X 32
The circuit design phase was largely explorative, the goal was to come up with a circuit that
could take components off the shelf and work from day 1.
The requirements and component specifications (as available in the market)
Component Specifications Notes
Stepper Motors Either 5 V, 0.5A or 12 V, 2A
SMPS 5V, 5 A or 12V, 10 A SMPS stands for Switch-
Mode-Power-Supply. They
are used in many places in a
computer. In a modern
computer, a SMPS takes
rectified AC input, performs
power factor correction and
then converts the output into
one or more lower voltage
DC outputs.[7]
Raspberry Pi 3 5V 0.2 A (Active mode) and 5V,
2.5 A (Max current drawn)
Also a Rpi can supply a max
of 2 A through its
ports.
Pi Cam 5 V 0.25 A
LED Array 32 elements 5V 2A ( on an average ) and 5V
4A for full glow
Table 9: Components and Specifications

29
Methodology followed in circuit design:
1. Identify all central elements required
2. Document Voltage, Current and Power ratings of all central components
3. Document minimum voltage requirement, maximum current requirement and
maximum power requirement
4. Model the system in the form of a resistive network.
5. Choose power supply and power supply components required
6. Model the system as a resistive network
7. Come up with a final model of the circuit
Circuit model 1:
Figure 11: 5V 5A Power supply SMPS, 5 V 0.5A DC Stepper motor and Average Load (10W)
Disadvantages with circuit:
● Cannot run the entire LED matrix
● Circuit not capable of handling fluctuating loads

30
Circuit model 2: (Prototyped)
Figure 12: Power supply SMPS, 12V 2A Stepper motor and capable of handling max load (20W)
Disadvantages:
● The circuit overcompensates for the power required.
● Requires a buck converter to power the LED array and the Raspberry Pi
● The LED array can work at full glow
● The circuits can work with all components simultaneously

31
6. A reflection on the Design Methodology
The functional requirements are translated into vocabulary the organization can use to
describe its product for design, processing, and manufacture. The objective of this step is to
develop a list of design and technical requirements that should be worked on to satisfy
functional requirements.[8] In the prototyping process we work with working out structural
elements to reach an idealised behaviour.
In the case of the Super resolution microscope, the following functions were required
(classified by expertise required)
Core Functions
1. Reliably powering the microscope
2. Slide holding , mounting and ejection
Peripherals
1. Smooth vertical motion of the lens and camera holders
2. Efficient Routing of wiring
3. Holding mechanisms for the microscope electronics and peripherals
4. An external casing for microscope
5. Exposure of I/O elements
6. Making the microscope compact
Design thinking & Design Thinking for CPS
Design thinking makes use of research methods from other disciplines such as ethnographic methods
and other qualitative methodology. The acquired knowledge is then condensed into a sort of micro-
theory about the problem or the user needs, the 'point of view' (POV) that is afterwards used to
develop solution concepts in the 'ideation' step. [5]
It is here where innovative ideas are developed that aim at solving that previously identified problem
or address the users’ needs. The selected idea is then visualized or built ('prototype') in order to test it
and gather feedback from prospective users ('test'). According to the feedback the concept is iterated,
by returning to one of the previous steps.
Design thinking has been leveraged in the work of {CPD/PDD} where the authors attempt to combine
the creative problem discovery process of design thinking with the product development focus of
Agile methodology to describe the CPS prototyping process.
Design Thinking is used for the creativity and ideation stage and Agile Product Development for the
distribution and the management of the development tasks. The CPM/PDD theory aims to offer an

32
integrated product and process modelling. The product description is based on characteristics and
properties as well as the development process is driven by the required properties.
CPM/PDD theory assumes that structures and resources are in place that readily proliferate the
process of CPS development. In the case of an incubator, it in essence is yet another startup
attempting to build a strong social network to promote development of products.[9]
Lean start up
Lean start up is a trademark by Eric Ries and combines customer development with ideas of agile
software development, lean management (Womack, 2003), and open source software (Ries, 2011).
Since there is no explicit process model for lean start up, we refer to the customer development
process, which consists of four steps: ‘customer discovery’, ‘customer validation’, ‘customer
creation’, and ‘company building’ (Blank, 2006). In the customer discovery phase, the founders
discover the appropriate customer group and market segment and validate if the product solves a
problem for the customer group. This phase tries to find indications of a so-called ‘problem-solution
fit’. The goal is to discover a customer problem and to test if the problem is worth solving (Blank,
2006). [5]
Central to this is finding the minimal set of features for solving the core problem: the so-called
Minimal Viable Product (MVP).
Literature on lean startup for cyber physical systems prototyping is unavailable.
Agile Methodology
Agile methodology is a practice that helps continuous iteration of development and testing in the
SDLC process. Agile breaks the product into smaller builds (Functional decomposition).
In this methodology, development and testing activities are concurrent, unlike other software
development methodologies. It also encourages teamwork and face-to-face communication. Business,
stakeholders, and developers and clients must work together to develop a product.
[9] Proposes to apply Scrum in CPS - Scrum is an agile process that allows developers to shrink
development time. It serves a tool to rapidly and repeatedly inspect actual working software. It
emphasizes accountability, teamwork, and iterative progress toward a well-defined goal.
The Scrum Framework usually deals with the fact that the requirements are likely to change or most
of the time not known at the start of the project. This aspect of SCRUM is interesting, because the
prototyping process for CPS is exploratory in the case of a start-up.
In Scrum, collaboration is achieved in daily stand up meeting with a fixed role assigned to scrum
master, product owner, and team members. Scrum helps align different stakeholders and to help them
be aligned to product vision.
The Scrum CPS process revolves around the idea sprints (short term high intensity product
development). The methodology advocates two different sprint cycles - hardware sprint and design
sprint. The initial sprints are always design sprints starting with central parts of the architecture of the
CPS.

33
Design Sprints (Scrum CPS)
Design sprints are responsible for the system design. They produce designs for hardware and software
components. While for hardware this means an executable description of an abstraction of the future
hardware, the design for software is the software itself. We often differentiate in software engineering
between design and implementation. Design then contains architecture descriptions with the proposed
decomposition into components or interface descriptions.
Hardware Sprints (Scrum CPS)
Based on the design models and further detailing, the hardware engineers build prototypes which
show certain aspects of the future hardware. This includes laying out the hardware designs and
creating a bill of materials. Then we order the prototypes or assemble them ourselves. Programmable
logical devices can play the role of quickly adaptable hardware.
Design for X as a model for implementing concurrent engineering
Factors determining the behaviour and performance of the product over its entire life cycle are
reflected upon and fixed at the early design phase, reducing as much as possible the need for
corrective interventions further along the design pathway. Emphasis on D&M tools, DFMA tools and
Finite element methods to ‘model’ a big picture of the problem. [12]
DFMA tools can be viewed as alternatives to domain expertise and empirical knowledge. Focus of
crunching a linear product development process to obtain an efficient task overlap.

34
CPS Thinking?
Cyber physical systems require new thinking, radically different from our existing methods and
processes. Several attempts to model CPS prototyping/ Product development have been attempted.
I’ve explored material from different standpoints , Academia and Academics who’ve tried to build
IOT/AR-VR/Smart Products in a Research lab setup , Large corporations attempting to build teams
around interdisciplinary projects and how to tackle them, Start-ups who’ve focused on getting to
market fast.
Rapid Prototyping literature for CPS prototyping in a start up setup are unavailable, hence it becomes
paramount to understand how existing design methodologies
As CPS lie at the intersection of multiple disciplines such as mechanical engineering, electrical
engineering, control engineering, software engineering and physics, the CPS engineering process is
multidisciplinary as well.
One key input from research ﬁndings reported in [Florian et al] is that the complexity strongly
depends on the domain of the cyber-physical systems under development.
To date, to the best of our knowledge there are no comprehensive accounts on the engineering
methods for CPS. [11]
The analysis and design of CPS maybe a difficult task as it frequently requires taking into account
many, possibly heterogeneous, components evolving in a dynamic and partially predictable
environment. Indeed, human interactions with CPS are by essence not totally predictable. [11]
● It is also stated in [11] that Organisations struggle to meet the right balance of active
feedback, market readiness and product focus through the development process for CPS.
● Additionally the prototyping process of CPS is dependent on the product. In mechanical
engineering or software products the process drives the product while on the other hand with
CPS the product drives the process.
● It is also very difficult to define what an MVP means in the context of CPS prototypes. MVP
is defined as : “A Minimum Viable Product is that version of a new product which allows a
team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least
effort.” or in lay terms : “the smallest thing you can build that lets you quickly make it
around the build/measure/learn loop”
● How might one define an MVP for a CPS? In the case of the microscope, the MVP exists
only when the entire microscope is functional and could take a picture of a sample (which
puts it very close to a complete product).

35
Previously, we introduced different design processes that exist and some of which were used to model
CPS prototyping. In the study of design decomposition, there emerges the distinction between three
different domains: product, problem, and process. In the process-domain, decomposition involves the
structuring the design activity into tasks, assigning them to human resources, the management of the
interactions between different tasks, and the distribution and management of information flows.
The decomposition in the product-domain is “conventionally” considered one of the key aspects of
effective product design. In the case of a CPS product/prototype, it becomes very difficult to separate
different product domains.
Most of the previously introduced models to CPS prototyping explain the product domain and but do
not discuss the inherent difficulties in the process of prototyping CPS for an incubator context: Some
of which are as follows
1. Lack of alignment among stakeholders
2. Differing levels of competency among participants in the prototyping process and its impact
on product development
3. How availability of certain tools in the ecosystem affect the design of products
Hence to describe the prototyping process I hope to test whether actor network theory could serve as
a good model to understand the prototyping process for cyber physical systems in an incubator setup.
Actor Network Theory
ANT has emerged from the social study of science and technology and attempts to make sense of the
dynamics at play among disparate elements with varying degrees of flexibility. While ANT is
applicable to many social settings, it is particularly suitable in explaining project behaviour. ANT
focuses on the interactions occurring among the actors who collaborate to achieve some goal, and in
doing so create an actor-network (Law, 2012). Project execution occurs in dynamic situations that
consist of complex interactions among heterogeneous entities - (Law, 2012) calls this heterogeneous
engineering. Hence, ANT offers the ability to describe whether the net of all interactions among these
entities supports achieving the objective of the project.
In ANT terminology, an interaction between actors is facilitated by some form of intermediary. An
intermediary can itself become an actor; for example a software component under construction can
have errors (code defects), the correction of which absorbs effort and causes delays [12]. Thus, actors
can be seen as elements of a project that interact through intermediaries.
Some elements of an actor-network (i.e. the actors, intermediaries, and their interaction) can be
thought of as a black-box. In ANT terminology, a black-box is an artefact that embodies a number of
elements (which itself would be a network) where their internal interaction is concealed from the
outside world. An outsider interacts only with the artefact’s external features but not with its internal
constituents (Monteiro, 2001). [12]
The mechanism for embedding programs of action in technical artefacts (e.g. the functional

36
specification in Figure 1), with the aim of guiding the artefact user to operate in a certain way, is
called inscription in ANT terms. A weakly inscribed program of action weakens the irreversibility of
an actor-network. Irreversibility in ANT refers to the degree of stability in an established actor-
network and its resistance to going back and changing things already done. A strong inscription
resists reversibility attempts (Monteiro, 2001). For example, requirements informally described by the
client may be weakly inscribed during the Design and lead to reversibility at the Build and Test phase
if the client then modifies their requirements. ‘Weak inscription’ here refers to ‘room for
interpretation’ as well as poor definition of system requirements
A stable actor-network enables steady progress in producing project deliverables. Although,
irreversibility may sound contrary to the desirable quality of agility in software projects, there is a
need even for software produced using agile approaches to become eventually a stable project
deliverable.
An ANT study can examine the construction of a network focussing on the attempts of the focal actor,
an actor of interest to the area under study whose viewpoint of the network is being examined; such as
the project student. The focal actor may attempt to establish a network and mobilise the actors within
it to achieve particular purpose. This process is called translation in ANT (Callon, 1986). [12]
Alignment indicates the degree of agreement between the actors on, and their commitment to, their
role in the network (Callon 1991, pages: 144-146). In project terms, during the execution of a
software project, the Test manager of Increment 1 may attempt to maintain the Test phase’s progress
on schedule through developing agreement with the Build and Design managers. A weakly aligned
actor-network is one which the actors’ commitment is not guaranteed. This may be due to the actor
being unable to commit to their role in the network (perhaps due to competing priorities), rather than
not wanting to (though the latter is possible too). A weakly aligned actor-network exerts constraining
influences on achieving the network objectives. Conversely, a strongly aligned actor-network is one
which the actors remain committed to their role in the network, which exerts empowering influences
on achieving network objectives.
Coordination in ANT refers to the extent to which a network is governed by rules inscribed in the
interaction among the actors, aiming to stabilise the actor-network (Callon 1991, page: 146-147).[12]
Obligatory passage points are a feature of actor-networks, usually associated with the initial
(problematization) phase of a translation process. An OPP can be thought of as the narrow end of a
funnel that forces the actors to converge on a certain topic, purpose or question. The OPP thereby
becomes a necessary element for the formation of a network and an action program. The OPP thereby
mediates all interactions between actors in a network and defines the action program. Obligatory
passage points allow for local networks to set up negotiation spaces that allow them a degree of
autonomy from the global network of involved actors. [13]

37
What are expected outcomes of ANT analysis?
The outcome of an ANT analysis can be a description, model, or explanation of the area being
investigated (McLean & Hassard, 2004), aiming to ‘learn from the actors’ (Latour, 1999) through
tracing of associations (Latour 2005, page: 8, Underwood 2014, page: 357) by following project
management activities (Callon 2012, page: 92) rather than imposing existing frameworks. This, as
Akrich et al. (2002) put it, helps to ‘render the mechanisms of success and failure intelligible and
ultimately more manageable’ (page: 191) [13].
Study of Prototype evolution using network evolution
We turn to a methodology that is domain agnostic and provides us an opportunity to grapple
interdisciplinary problems. The DSM (Design Structure Matrix) methodology makes use of
homogeneous networks and provides the possibility of analysis for better insight into them. [14]
In general, in order to handle interdisciplinary problems we turn to the MDM which represents a DSM
on a higher level of abstraction: if the domains are considered as single elements, the DMMs represent
the dependencies between these elements. It is not required that all subsets of a MDM are filled; if no
dependencies exist between two specific domains the corresponding subset of the MDM is empty.
Conventional graph properties can be studied and insights built. We employ the MDM to construct
the Network model of the 20-20 prototype at Skeleton BOM and Mechatronics BOM stage. The
MDM matrices are constructed for the prototypes and the networks are visualized as follows.

38
Skeleton BOM 20-20 Prototype Network
Figure 13: Network Visualization of Skeleton Prototype - Grouped by Part type (COTS,3D and Machined)

39
Mechatronics BOM 2020 Prototype Network
Figure 14: Network Visualization of Mechatronics Prototype - Grouped by Part type (COTS, 3D and Machined)

40
What are the important network parameters for our discussion?
Betweenness centrality and Degree are important network parameters in our discussion.
Betweenness centrality: Betweenness centrality measures the extent to which a vertex lies
on paths between other vertices. Vertices with high betweenness may have considerable
influence within a network by virtue of their control over information passing between others.
They are also the ones whose removal from the network will most disrupt communications
between other vertices because they lie on the largest number of paths taken by messages.
[15]
High degree terms are connected to a relatively large number of nodes, identifying nodes
which have high degree as well as high betweenness could give us an understanding about
components which are not easily replaceable in a network.
Element Sourcing System Level Degree Betweenness Centrality
Wiring and Cables COTS Electrical 12 0.387784
500mm,20-20 column COTS Mechanical 8 0.380296
Corner External Brackets 3D Mechanical 6 0.080371
120mm,20-20
vertical_support_level0
COTS Mechanical 6 0.07051
GT2 Idler Pulley COTS Mechanical 5 0.17134
Table 10: Elements sorted by betweenness with highest degree (Skeleton 2020 Prototype)
Element Sourcing System Level Degree Betweenness Centrality
81.5mm, 20-20 column COTS Mechanical 10 0.374106
Stepper Motor COTS
Electrical and
Electronics
8 0.157445
195 mm, 20-20 column COTS Mechanical 7 0.293866
Raspberry Pi 3 COTS Computing 5 0.12572

41
Table 11: Elements sorted by betweenness with highest degree (Mechatronics Prototype)
One can spot the central column elements to have a larger degree as well as betweenness
centrality, this tells us that the central COTS components interface with multiple components,
and serve as a frame for the prototype.
The case of the 81.5mm 20-20 bar is interesting to study, the 81.5 mm bar is previously not
present in the case of the Skeleton BOM but possesses the highest degree among all
components in the succeeding iteration. Examining the edge relations, help us realize that the
component is polymorphic. Ie, it is present in different parts of the prototype performing
different functions, hence when the different “pieces” of the 81.5 mm 20-20 are considered
the emergent whole has a high degree as well as betweenness centrality.
These example points to the fact that the graph model (MDM) is very effective at explaining
the engineering and design change in the prototype as it evolves from the skeleton BOM to
the Mechatronic BOM.
But we are yet to test the social aspects of product development. Now we turn to actor
network theory.
Nodal analysis of the Skeleton BOM and Mechatronic BOM
A sample of 5 elements which were uncommon between the new and old BOM was
considered from the new BOM. An enquiry into why the nodes were absent in the old BOM
was conducted. The results are presented below.
Component Rationale
20-20 Aluminium piece (195 mm)
Absent in skeleton 1, emerged out of shortening of the 500mm
central column structure
20-20 Aluminium piece (81.5mm)
Absent in skeleton 1, two 155mm 2020 elements present on
level 1 on which stepper motor was mounted. The stepper
motor now fitted onto the horizontal bar. Also used for
mounting Rpi in the Mechatronic prototype
M4 x 10 mm
Increase in connections due to added components in the form of
horizontal level 1 members which used external brackets
instead of internal brackets due to lack of inventory
Corner External Brackets
Reduction in corner external brackets, due to removal of 4 of
the brackets for holding up the motor holders
USB AB Cable
The power electronics were considered only in the new
iteration. The prior BOM did not contain electrical and
electronic systems defined at a high granularity

42
Table 12: Nodal Analysis of the Mechatronic Prototype
Edge sets
The edge mapping was classified into three bins:
● Edges common to both the mechatronic prototype as well as the skeleton BOM
● Edges present only in the Mechatronic Prototype
● Edges present only in the Skeleton Prototype
Intersection Mechatronic Prototype Skeleton BOM
1,2 1,4 1,3
1,14 1,24 1,15
1,41 1,30 1,16
2,14 1,33 1,17
2,15 2,3 1,19
2,16 2,40 1,40
3,4 2,41 1,47
3,14 4,13 11,19
3,15 4,17 11,20
3,16 4,37 18,30
3,19 4,41 20,42
3,41 4,44 24,27
4,12 4,45 24,28
4,14 5,45 24,29
5,15 9,18 24,41
5,16 10,45 24,32
5,17 18,25 26,41
6,19 18,26 27,41
6,20 18,33 28,41
6,22 18,41 29,41
6,23 23,43 30,41
7,18 24,26 31,41
8,12 24,35 41,32
9,12 24,40
10,12 25,26
10,15 26,34

43
10,16 27,28
11,22 28,30
11,23 28,34
12,42 29,34
13,18 29,36
13,42 29,44
17,18 31,40
19,22 32,44
19,23 36,44
20,22 37,38
20,23 37,40
21,42 38,39
26,30 40,44
29,30
30,31
Table 13: Edge List
Some of the cases from the edge list tabular column were selected and an enquiry was conducted into whether
actor network theory could be employed to describe the prototype change and rationale.
Actor Network Concepts used to describe a few cases:
In an ideal situation, a change in form would imply a functional driver that alters the structure of the
product/prototype, or the structure affecting itself that forces a form change.
But in the real world, it is possible to identify situations where there exist a change in the structure of
a prototype that does not imply a functional driver and could emerge out of external factors.
1) Lubrication to be avoided on system interfaces due to possible interaction with optical phenomena -
The acrylic lens and camera holder (intermediary) did not seem to move smoothly when powered in
hand - The designer and I decided to attempt to purchase COTS guide wheels for T slot profile to
reduce friction - COTS guide wheels were unavailable in the market - This led us to attempt to
prototype wheels out of PLA - The PLA wheels in turn forced us to redesign the Lens and camera
holders in PLA - Finally came a full turn when we tried motion of acrylic slider using a powered
motor, it seemed to work smoothly - hence we abandoned the new lens and camera design.
This case can be explained by treating the 20-20 column member (1-2 edge, node 1, both
prototypes) as a mediator who requires to be lubricated for smooth motion, when interacting with
the 3D Printer, the design team could not come up with a design that covered the functional
requirement of the sliders, with the existing tools and techniques. The guide wheel (another

44
mediator) was unavailable for purchase in the open market. Hence the market is forces drove the
team to attempt to prototype using local infrastructure.
2) In the case of the Mechatronics prototype we could not satisfy the requirement for internal
brackets, as the team ran out of internal brackets (mediator). On the other hand they had extra
external brackets, this led to the team use the corner external brackets in the place of internal brackets.
This is the case of inscription, if the team had prior paid more attention to documentation and
inventory, the problem would not have arisen. Poor inscription led to the situation.
3) The Entrepreneur requested us not to remove the horizontal level 1 support (1-4 edge, node 4,
Mechatronics prototype) below the vertical column (81.5 mm in the Mechatronic BOM) - He cited
that the design change would require more time from the design team and the project was to be
wrapped up by February. The resulting vision of the team and its ability to give its best, led us
onward. This can be modelled by the “rights of passage” element of the actor network theory
4) Knowledge of V2 prototypes were lacking and the design engineer had only recently joined the
team at the incubator. The CEO of the incubator also left his position due to personal reasons. The
CEO of the startup was geographically separated as well. Our ability to learn from the past and drive
the new iteration of the prototype was largely due to the translation of the network by the project
student.
5) Chose the 12 V 10 A SMPS because of an inventory constraint - we did not have 5V motors
(mediator), hence the choice for the 12V10A SMPS though might have more than compensated our
requirement. This could be explained by the Alignment metric, since the design team and the
entrepreneur were constantly communicating the priorities for time to prototype was high.
Additionally the larger amperage made sure that the current supply will not be limited for the
requirement.
7. Conclusions
The primary contribution of this research project is to identify a suitable methodology which could
serve as a foundation for a model to explain Cyber physical systems prototyping. MDM (Multi-
dimensional Matrices) and Actor Network Theory prove to be very useful in modelling complex
interdisciplinary problems. They exhibit potential to act as building blocks for a new theory for Cyber
Physical Systems prototyping.
8. Key Recommendations
Incubators:
● It becomes necessary for incubators to possess a repository of tools and components
which could be used during the prototyping process for rapid prototype realization
● Additionally a digital repository of CAD tools and off the shelf models will help the
startup/design team fail fast.

45
● Hiring expert designer - instructors becomes paramount - Designers serve as mentors
in the product development process for the often novice Project students. A strong
ability to teach would be beneficial to the prototyping process.
● Incubators need to rethink student engagement models - projects as transferable credit
could be a good idea to motivate students towards prototyping for an entire semester
(E.g., working with a startup for an elective course)
● Need to develop the general quality of social interaction around the incubator - to
facilitate the development of an actor-world.
Project Student:
● Project students are no longer to regard themselves as students in the network but as
active drivers in change making (as a CPO of product), hence they are as responsible
for helping the prototyping process build focus and momentum.
● Giving and taking Feedback is a vital part of building a rapport within a startup team -
Effectively communicate with the incubatee and the design team. Students play a
strong role in shaping the actor-network for the startup, hence effective
communication and social networking comes into picture.
Startups:
● Enforcement of documentation norms and practices is vital for gaging progress.
Movement to gamified platforms of social interaction as a mode of communication.
● Sync ups/ Meetings subject to mentorship requirement of intern as well as the existing
schedule.
● Defining key functional requirements at the beginning of the product development
process, and iteratively checking goal orientation of the project.
● Defining prototyping milestones along the product development process.

46
9. References
1. Guerineau, B., Bricogne, M., Durupt, A. and Rivest, L. (2016). Mechatronics vs. cyber physical
systems: Towards a conceptual framework for a suitable design methodology. 2016 11th France-Japan
& 9th Europe-Asia Congress on Mechatronics (MECATRONICS) /17th International Conference on
Research and Education in Mechatronics (REM).
2. Zhang, W., Lin, Y. and Sinha, N. (2011). ON THE FUNCTION-BEHAVIOR-STRUCTURE MODEL
FOR DESIGN. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association.
3. Pamar, S. (2018). RAPID PROTOTYPING STRATEGY OF ELECTRO-MECHANICAL PRODUCTS
USING ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING (AM) AND COMMERCIAL OFF-THE-SHELF (COTS)
COMPONENTS. Undergraduate. IIITDM Kancheepuram.
4. M. MUELLER, R. and THORING, K. (2012). DESIGN THINKING VS. LEAN STARTUP: A
COMPARISON OF TWO USER-DRIVEN INNOVATION STRATEGIES. Leading Innovation
Through Design. [online] Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234066097_DESIGN_THINKING_VS_LEAN_STARTUP_
A_COMPARISON_OF_TWO_USER-DRIVEN_INNOVATION_STRATEGIES [Accessed 29 Apr.
2019].
5. Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., Otto, K. and Wood,
K. (2017). Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Design
Science, 3.
6. Techopedia.com. (2019). What is a Switched-Mode Power Supply (SMPS)? - Definition from
Techopedia. [online] Available at: https://www.techopedia.com/definition/12378/switched-mode-
power-supply-smps [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].
7. Mital, A., Desai, A., Subramanian, A. and Mital, A. (2014). Designing for Functionality. Product
Development, pp.269-334.
8. Luedeke, T., Köhler, C., Conrad, J., Grashiller, M., Sailer, A. and Vielhaber, M. (2019). CPM / PDD in
the context of Design Thinking and Agile Development of Cyber-Physical Systems. [online] The Design
Society - a worldwide community. Available at:
https://www.designsociety.org/publication/40906/CPM+%2F+PDD+in+the+context+of+Design+Thin
king+and+Agile+Development+of+Cyber-Physical+Systems [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].
9. Research gate. (2019). Adapting scrum development method for the development of cyber-physical
systems. [online] Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jouke_Verlinden/publication/262419522_Adapting_scrum_devel
opment_method_for_the_development_of_cyber-
physical_systems/links/00b7d537b2469bb185000000.pdf [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].
10. Wessling, F., Gries, S., Ollesch, J., Hesenius, M. and Gruhn, V. (2017). Engineering a Cyber-Physical
Intersection Management – An Experience Report. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp.17-32.
11. Giudice, F., Ballisteri, F. and Risitano, G. (2009). A Concurrent Design Method Based on DFMA—
FEA Integrated Approach. Concurrent Engineering, 17(3), pp.183-202.
12. Research gate. (2019). [online] Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289342087_Exposing_the_influencing_factors_on_software_
project_delay_with_actor-network_theory/citation/download [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].
13. En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Obligatory passage point. [online] Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligatory_passage_point [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].
14. M. Maurer and U. Lindemann, "The application of the Multiple-Domain Matrix: Considering multiple
domains and dependency types in complex product design," 2008 IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Singapore, 2008, pp. 2487-2493. doi: 10.1109/ICSMC.2008.4811669
15. Sci.unich.it. (2019). Betweenness Centrality. [online] Available at:
https://www.sci.unich.it/~francesc/teaching/network/betweeness.html [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].
16. En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Degree (graph theory). [online] Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_(graph_theory) [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].

47
10. APPENDIX A - Domains and Tools involved
Prior to studying the microscope, I made a list of domains that would be touched upon while
prototyping the microscope.
Some of them are:
1. 3D Printing
2. Laser Cutting
3. CNC Milling
4. Finite Element Analysis - Stress analysis
5. Finite Element Analysis - Thermal analysis
6. DFMA
7. DFAM
8. Paper and Foam models
9. Software modules
10. Raspberry Pi and Arduino Uno
On studying the prototyping process I realised that several of the above tools and analysis
techniques were not necessary towards the successful prototyping of the current iteration of
the Microscope. I’ve constructed a table below to explain why.
Prototype A - Skeleton BOM 2020 Prototype B - Mechatronics BOM 2020
Tool/Analysis Technique Implementation Rationale
3D Printing Yes
Used 3D printing to
prototype a new mechanism
for manipulating the slide
(Upwards and downwards
motion).
3D was not an essential
element to Prototype B and
hence was used only to test
the above concept
Laser Cutting
No, but could be possibly
used in the future steps
The Prototyping process
does not require laser cutting
for any of the prototype
components
CNC Milling Yes
Machining (Milling) was
used to prepare Acrylic
slides to mount the Camera
and the sensor.
Finite Element Analysis- No, Not relevant The central column and base

48
Stress are made of Aluminum 20-
20 extruded frame can bear
well above the existing load
capacity in the prototype ,
hence the activity is not
required.
Finite Element Analysis-
Thermal
No, Not relevant
The Prototype B uses
standard off the shelf
Stepper motors and their
operation is smooth and
speed of slide movement is
not a required parameter for
study in the prototyping
stage.
DFMA No,Not relevant
The component complexity
of the product is low and the
manufacturing is small scale,
hence DFMA might not be
significant (an optimistic
estimate of 5-10 pieces a
day)
DFAM
No, Was relevant in
Prototype A when core was
3D.
The core of Prototype B is
COTS, hence DFAM will
largely not apply.
Paper and Foam Models
Yes, For visualizing
enclosures and modules
Paper and foam modules are
useful for visualizing system
integration and enclosures
(Next steps)
Software module
development
No
Presently the computing is
fixed and the structure of the
prototype is largely
manipulated from a
Mechanical and electronics
lens.
Working with Raspberry Pi
and Arduino
No,Previously covered in
Prototype A.
Integration was attempted in
prototype A and early stages
of Prototype B.Not relevant
presently.
Table 1A: Tools/Analysis required or done as a part of the prototyping process.

49
11. APPENDIX B - Skeleton BOM and Mechatronics BOM
Skeleton BOM - October, 2018
Serial
Number
Components Quantity Comments Status Comments
1 20-20 Aluminium
piece (120 mm)
8 Available
2 20-20 Aluminium
piece (250 mm)
4 Available
3 20-20 Aluminium
piece (500 mm)
6 Available
4 20-20 Aluminium
piece (155 mm)
2 Available
5 M4 x 10 mm 32 Available
6 M3 x 10 mm 12 Available Slide
7 M3 x 8 mm 8 Available Used for Stepper
Motor
8 M4 x 25 mm 2 Available Used for Belt
9 Locknut M4 2 COTS Available
10 M4 T nut 34 COTS Available
11 M3 Nut 20 COTS Available
12 GT2 Idler Pulley 2 No tooth Available No teeth
13 GT2 20 Teeth
Pulley
2 Stepper
Motor
Available
14 Corner Brackets 20 Internal
Bracket
Available

50
15 Corner External
Brackets
8 External
Brackets
Available
16 20-60 3D Printed
side clamp
4 3D Available
17 Motor Holder 2 3D Available
18 Stepper Motor 2 COTS Available
19 Slider 8 Internal
Vertical
Available Internal slider for
camera and lens
holder
20 Belt Holder 2 Available
21 Belt Tightener 2 COTS Available
22 Camera Holder
Acrylic
1 Machined Available
23 Sensor/Lens Holder
Acrylic
1 Machined Available
24 Arduino Uno
R3/Raspberry Pi
1 COTS Available Testing with Uno,
Rpi on standby
25 CNC shield 1 COTS Available
26 Camera module 1 COTS Available
27 LED modules 1 COTS Available
28 Buck connector 1 COTS NA
29 Power adapter 1 COTS NA
30 AC Plug 1 COTS NA
31 Output PC Display 1 COTS NA
32 Mounting board 1 COTS NA

51
33 I/O Module 1 COTS NA
34 Wiring and cables 1 COTS NA
Table 2A: Skeleton BOM of the Super Resolution Microscope (October, 2018)

52
Prototype BOM with Mechatronics completed
Serial
Number
Components Quan
tity
Notes
1 20-20 Aluminium piece (120 mm) 8 COTS
4 20-20 Aluminium piece (81.5mm) 2 COTS
5 M4 x 10 mm 32 COTS
6 M3 x 10 mm 12 Slide(COTS)
7 M3 x 8 mm 8 Motor(COTS)
8 M4 x 25 mm 2 Belt(COTS)
9 Locknut M4 2 COTS
10 M4 T nut 34 COTS
11 M3 Nut 20 COTS
12 GT2 Idler Pulley ( No teeth) 2 No tooth(COTS)
13 GT2 20 Teeth Pulley 2 Stepper Motor(COTS)
14 Corner Brackets 22 Internal Bracket(COTS)
15 Corner External Brackets 6 External Brackets(3D)
16 20-60 3D Printed side clamp 4 3D
17 Motor Holder 2 3D
18 Stepper Motor 2 COTS
19 Slider 8 Internal Vertical (3D)
20 Belt Holder 2 Internal (Slide), COTS
21 Belt Tightener 2 COTS
22 Camera Holder Acrylic 1 Machined ( Did not use the 3d printed
holder)

53
23 Lens holder 1 Machined (Did not use the 3D printed
holder)
24 Arduino Uno 1 COTS
25 Motor Driver (stepper) 2 COTS
26 CNC shield 1 COTS
27 Pi Camera module 1 COTS
28 LED array 30X30 (15 cm X 15
cm)
1 COTS
29 Buck convertor LM 2596S 1 COTS
30 Power adapter 12V 10A SMPS 1 COTS
31 AC Plug 1 COTS
32 Output PC Display 1 COTS
33 Stepper motor cable 2 COTS
34 0.5 mm² for CNC shield and buck
convertor
4 COTS
35 USB AB Cable 1 Arduino to system (COTS)
36 Micro USB cable 1 Buck convertor to RPi (COTS)
37 Electrical conduit 1.5 inch 1 COTS
38 Slide holder - test sample holder 1 3D
39 Test sample and glass slide 1 COTS
Table 2B: Prototype BOM with Mechatronics completed

54
3D Printing Activity
S.NO Build Part name
Layer
height
Infill
density
Print
time
Bounding box mass
1
20-60 new
holder
2060new
holder
0.15 60% 47 min 60*25*5 8g
2
Enclosure
corner
enclosure
corner
0.15 60% 12 min 20*20*10 2g
3
Raspberry Pi
enclosure clamp
20-20
Rpiclamp
_2020
0.15 60% 35 min 28.5*40*20 5g
4
Slide Camera
holder New - 3
teeth version
Slide
holder 3d
v1
0.15 60%
4h 18
min
92*100*10 41g
5
Slide camera
holder no tooth
slide
holder 3d
0.15 30%
3h 59
min
80*100*10 38g
6
Slide lens
holder with
screw
slide
lensholde
r
3d_NEW
_SCREW
FIX
0.15 30%
3h 46
min
92*80*15 35g
7
Wheel 1 (11
mm rad with
5.25 mm rad
pocket and
wheel 2 (11.5
mm, 5.25 mm
pocket)
Wheel 0.15 60% 25 min 23.5*23.5*15 3g
8
Wheel 3
(12.425 mm rad
, 5.25 rad
pocket)
Wheel 3 0.15 60% 19 min 24.8*24.8*8.8 3g
9 Wheel left 0.15 60% 24 min 20*26.4*16 3g
10 Wheel right 0.15 60% 24 min 20*26.4*17 3g
11 20-60 side 2060 0.15 60% 1hr 46 70*30.6*30.6 15g

55
clamp holder min
12
Belt holder
carriage
belt
holder
carriage
0.15 60% 49 min 38*30*14.6 7g
13 Corner brackets
corner
bracket
0.15 60% 51 min 39*28*20.2 7g
14 Motor holder
Motor
holder
0.15 60%
2hr 21
mins
52*53*38 21g
15 Slider 0.15 60% 21 min 11.3*25*16.5 3g
Table 1B: 3D printing of components

56
Prototype Images
Figure 1B: 20-60 new holder - Served as a new side clamp design
Figure 2B : Enclosure corner
Figure 3B : Raspberry Pi enclosure clamp 20-20

57
Figure 4B: Slide Camera holder New 3 teeth version
Figure 5B: Slide holder-no teeth
Figure 7B: Camera holder

58
Figure 8B: Lens module with Screw
Figure 9B: Wheel 1 and 2
Figure 10B : Wheel 3

59
Figure 11B: Belt holder Carriage
Figure 12B: Corner external brackets

60
12. APPENDIX C - Modularity Analysis of the prototypes (Scope for future
work)
Modularity Analysis of the two Prototypes (Skeleton BOM Vs Mechatronics Prototype)
Figure 1C: Network Visualization of Skeleton BOM - Grouped by different Modules

61
Figure 2C: Network Visualization of Mechatronics BOM - Grouped by different Modules

62
13. List of Images
Figure 1 Intended Function-Behaviour-Structure Map
of the Microscope Prototype(s)
Figure 2 A day in my life at a Technology Business
incubator
Figure 3 Key Prototyping Milestones
Figure 4 Structural composition of Prototype BOM
Figure 5 Contribution in Percentages(%) of different
components
Figure 6 Fastener contribution to BOM
Figure 7 Project student Timeline visualized
Figure 8 19.5mm Slider for placing slide
Figure 9 Slide Holder
Figure 10 Telescoping Wooden Box
Figure 11 5V 5A Power Supply SMPS
Figure 12 Power Supply SMPS
Figure 13 Network Visualization of Skeleton
Prototype
Figure 14 Network Visualization of Mechatronics
Prototype

63
14. List of Tables
Table 1 Motorized V2 Prototype Composition
Table 2 Motorized V3 Prototype Composition
Table 3 Static Prototype Composition
Table 4 Skeleton 20-20 Prototype Composition
Table 5 Mechatronics 20-20 Prototype Composition
Table 6 Individual Contributions to the Prototype
Process
Table 7 Prototype to Prototype time
Table 8 Challenges and Rationale for each prototype
Table 9 Components and Specifications
Table 10 Elements Sorted by betweeness with highest
degree (Skeleton 20-20)
Table 11 Elements Sorted by betweeness with highest
degree ( Mechatronics)
Table 12 Nodal Analysis of Mechatronic Prototype
Table 13 Edge List

Accelerated Prototyping of Cyber Physical Systems in an Incubator Context

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Accelerated Prototyping of Cyber Physical Systems in an Incubator Context

Ähnlich wie Accelerated Prototyping of Cyber Physical Systems in an Incubator Context (20)

Mehr von Sreyas Sriram

Mehr von Sreyas Sriram (6)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Accelerated Prototyping of Cyber Physical Systems in an Incubator Context