ipt

THE IPT JOURNAL ISSUE 02 - Fall 2011

Open socket on page 30

Mission on page 8

Amputee Profiles on page 78

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

Gracias

M

Sponsors

Page 3

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 contribu-tions to our work of de-veloping an affordable and appropriate pros-thetic arm for amputees in developing nations.

The Open SocketTM

The Mission 8

30

Amputee Profiles 78

Table of Contents

The Plan Ahead

The World Situation

110

92

Prototyping Methods 100

Credits

PRODUCER & EDITOREhsan Noursalehi

ASSITANT EDITORAdam Rule

AUTHORS Jon NaberAdam BooherAdam Rule

DESIGN & PHOTOGRAPHYEhsan Noursalehi

M

Contributors

Page 7

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.

The IPT Journal

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.

What is our mission

Page 9Page 9

?Read our 6 Bullet Mission

What is our mission

re-enable amputees around the world with simple, innovative, & affordable solutions.

1The M

ission

re-enable amputees around the world with simple, innovative, & affordable solutions.

Slums surrounding Guatemala City.

FACT:

~35 Million Amputees Worldwide

Page 11

The Mission Help Amputees That Don't Have Access To AffordableCare.

2

FACT:

Only ~2% of Amputees Worldwide Have Access to Appropriate Care

Help Amputees That Don't Have Access To AffordableCare.

Water tank provided by UNICEF to hurricane survivors near Zacapa, Guatemala.

Page 13

The Mission ProducE an innovative prosthetic socket that helps amputees in need.

3

ProducE an innovative prosthetic socket that helps amputees in need.

Adam Booher assembling a prototype arm.

FACT:

A traditional prosthetic arm in the US costs ~$5,000

Page 15

The Mission

4

Increase the effectiveness of aid organizations operating in the developing world.

Heberto holding a prosthetic arm provided to him by ROMP.

FACT:

Clinics in the developing world often wait months on donated parts from the US and Europe

Page 17

Increase the effectiveness of aid organizations operating in the developing world.

The Mission

Create social value within the framework of a financially sustainable non-Profit.

5

Create social value within the framework of a financially sustainable non-Profit.

Eidy, a seven year old amputee, with her mother.

FACT:

It is important to fit amputees with a prosthesis soon after amputation in order to promote physical and psychological recovery

Page 19

The Mission Partner with aid Organizations to distribute, and fit our product to amputees.

6

FACT:

Our first partner is the ROMP clinic in Zacapa, Guatemala.

Partner with aid Organizations to distribute, and fit our product to amputees.

The entrance to the ROMP clinic.

Page 21

Learn More at our new websitewww.supportipt.org

Support IPT

ipt

Learn More at our new websitewww.supportipt.org

Page 23

Autodesk is a worldwide leader in 3D design software. They develop tools that are used by engineers, design-ers, and the entertainment industry to produce cutting edge results. IPT uses several Autodesk products to help make innovative prosthetic technology a reality, specifi-cally Autodesk Inventor, Sketchbook Pro, and 3DS Max.

Autodesk Inventor is at the core of IPT’s product de-velopment process. With Inventor we can quickly cre-ate advanced computer models of our prosthetic arm technology without spending long hours building pro-totypes. Inventor also augments our prototyping pro-cess 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 cre-ate parametrized models of amputated limbs that can help us to achieve the best fit possible with our technol-ogy.

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 con-structed.

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 oth-ers to understand the vision behind our innovation.

Autodesk supports IPT by allowing us to use this soft-ware without cost. Much of our work would not be pos-sible without this generous support. Autodesk has also strongly supported the mission of IPT by building pub-licity for our work. IPT was honored as the Autodesk In-ventor of the Month for August of 2011 (autodesk.com/inventorofthemonth). Our continued partnership will help make IPT’s vision a reality. Thanks to Autodesk!

Autodesk Supports IPT

Support IPT

Adam Booher analyzes the stress on a computer model in Autodesk Inventor with Jon Naber.

Autodesk Supports IPT

Page 25

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.

Call To Action

M

Help the C

ause

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.

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.

Page 27

Illinois Launch is a new venture pipeline and incubator program at the Univer-sity of Illinois that is designed to help entrepreneurs develop their ideas into high growth, sustainable businesses. Il-lini 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 confer-ence.

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 Enter-priseWorks 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 Launch Supports IPT

Support IPT

IPT presents at Cozad New Venture competion.

Photo Credit: Caitlin Riederer

Page 29

Illinois Launch Supports IPT

The Open Socket

By Adam Booher

The story of how we went from 3 rough concepts in Guatemala to a functional product

The Open

Socket(

The Open

Socket)TM

Page 31

The Open Socket

Flying over Mexico City on our way to Guatemala back in July of 2010.

Page 33

At 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 Na-ber, Ehsan Noursalehi, Hari Vi-gneswaran 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-

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

David Krupa, Hari Vigneswaran, and Adam Booher, take measurements of Santos’ arms.

Page 35

tive prosthetic technology. We were excited and inspired by the results of that test. In Gua-temala we had watched ampu-tees 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 devel-oped had worked on a funda-mental level. Our trip to Gua-temala had proven to all of us that our goal of creating a rapid fitting prosthetic arm was pos-sible. 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 in-spiration. Not only did the Gua-temalan amputees give us de-tailed feedback on our designs, they also shared with us their

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

Heberto tightens his belt with our prototype.

inspiring optimism for life. We knew that armed with this informa-tion, 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-

Page 37

ernous and empty. Now, more than a year later, we have filled the space with power tools, com-puters, and many, many proto-types. We continue to appreciate the space as we use it for every-thing 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 dig-ging 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 foot-age of the amputees trying out our prosthetic arms. We also dug through the pages of notes we had taken, carefully review-ing the feedback on each design from David Krupa. David is the prosthetist who organized our

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 re-turning to the U.S., we were re-united with the two other mem-bers of our team, Luke Jungles and Richard Kesler. All 6 of us were beginning our final year at the University of Illinois as stu-dents 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 semes-ter in 2010 as part of the Illinois Launch program. When we first arrived, the room seemed cav-

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

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 cere-als to use in constructing prototypes. We shoved the three large tables in our of-fice together to create a large, collaborative surface, and got down to business. To in-vite new ideas on the design front, we forced ourselves to go back to the brainstorm-ing stage and not be limited by the work we had done so far. Finally, we searched more extensively for ampu-tees that would be willing to work with us, contacting or-ganizations on campus and our connections in Chicago, initially with little result.

Along with all of the tangible feedback from Gua-temala, came new realiza-

trip and worked with us on the ground in Guatemala.

Over the course of the next several weeks, we worked to create patient pro-files 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 white-board 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

Page 39

committed to eliminating even the smallest sources of discom-fort that could lead to blisters over the long term. Addition-ally, we had a greater desire to improve the overall appearance and completeness of the design. We felt that it was important to

consider how the user, and oth-ers around them, might perceive the device and interact with it.

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 pros-thetic arm; our technology needed to be much more than that. We now had a deeper ap-

preciation of what it means to gain a high quality of fit with an amputee’s residual limb. We were

Adam Booher, Richard Kesler, and Jon Naber discuss several low-fidelity card-board prototypes.

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 IPT Journal

The Open Socket

ued in the free time we didn’t have. As we approached the winter break between se-mesters, we continued to brainstorm, building new prototypes out of cardboard, and sketching ideas on paper.

Additionally, we pushed to build our organi-

All of these ideas were points that we had considered be-fore, 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-

Page 43

design that would help us vi-sualize ideas, and communi-cate our vision with the world.

In our weekly meetings we also continued to develop the organization around our tech-nology, preparing our 501(c)(3) (tax-exempt) application, and working with the Institutional Review Board at the University to approve our testing with am-putees. Jon and Hari spearhead-ed much of the interaction with the offices of the University and our attorney. Both of these un-dertakings gave us a new appre-ciation 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 ampu-tee 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

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 informa-tion to IPT. Ehsan began tak-ing more courses in art and

Adam Booher and Luke Jungles brainstorm ideas as we work on our Senior Design project.

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 IPT Journal

The Open Socket

Spring Semester When we returned to campus several days before classes would start, we were able to hit the ground run-ning. Different team mem-bers 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 brain-stormed together. New tools like our bench grinder and table vise enabled us to work with more robust materi-als like steel and aluminum. Each one of the six mem-bers of IPT initially pursued unique concepts while turn-ing to the others for feed-back. Richard and Jon’s ideas eventually coalesced into one concept, and with these 5

the winter break arrived, we made plans to return to cam-pus 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 mov-ing forward with our 501(c)(3) status. I had the oppor-tunity to present about our work to groups at my grade school and church to build support for IPT in my home-town. Finally, we all had the chance to rest and prepare for the last semester of our undergraduate education, and a new year with IPT.

Page 47

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 demon-strating our prototypes. We then sent these videos to David Kru-pa from ROMP to obtain feed-back. 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 lo-cation bright and early. The in-dividual we were working with was an early riser, which agrees with some of our team members more than others. For the test it-self, we were fortunate to be able to work at the Scheck and Siress office in Hickory Hills, Illinois. After meeting the individual we

ideas in hand, we began to pre-pare 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

of an amputee’s residual limb. Another had two segments that would constrain the arm and could be adjusted with shoe-laces, while one more consisted

Heberto testing the “fingers” prototype.

The IPT Journal

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 encour-aged 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 ampu-tee we worked with was eager to give us his very direct feed-back, which we found to be extremely valuable. This kept Luke busy at his computer key-board as he pounded away try-

Page 49

Adam Booher makes a com-ponent for a prototype using an angle grinder at our office in Enterprise Works.

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

Page 51

Luke Jungles and Hari Vigneswaran co-design with an amputee in Chicago.

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

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 struc-tures from prototypes we had

ing to keep up with all of the notes and observations.

After working with all of the devices we brought, including those we had pre-viously tested in Guatemala, we decided to try something new. Taking pieces from some of the prototypes created for

Richard Kesler, Jon Naber, and Hari Vi-gneswaran quickly make adjustments to a prototype.

Page 53

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 ex-isting ideas forward, and also created new prototypes to try out new concepts. We contin-ued to work with all levels of fidelity in our prototyping in-cluding paper, cardboard, and metal. We also obtained large sheets of plastic to experiment with thermoforming and com-bining them with other ma-terials to form composites.

As our prototyping pro-gressed, so did the school se-mester. In March we exhibited

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 work-shop, we constructed a new prototype in less than an hour. The resulting design focused on compressing the arm from the sides, and holding the struc-ture 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 individu-al we worked with, and present them in a new prototype that he could immediately try out. Ac-tively involving this individual in our process also encouraged him to share more of his ideas, and worry less about detracting

The IPT Journal

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 com-petition on the U of I campus. Before we knew it, the end of the semester was approaching, and the weight of final proj-ects and impending gradua-tion 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 be-side the words “Open Socket.”

As April arrived, we deemed it more efficient for us to stay on campus and con-duct 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

Page 55

Some of the original sketches that were generated by Ehsan Noursalehi showing the concept behind the “Open Socket”.

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

nal collegiate meeting with all 6 founding members of IPT. Our college experiences had all been heavily influ-enced by our work as a team, and it was sad to see some of us move on to new and ex-citing 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 for-ward. Jon, Ehsan, and myself would continue to be heav-ily 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-

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 spear-headed 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-

Page 57

many cups of coffee were con-sumed. And at the end of those two days we made two clear de-cisions: 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

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 be-gin to distribute to amputees. With this goal in mind, we spent two long days in a confer-ence room outlining our plans on the large whiteboard walls. Timelines were drawn, mul-tiple plans were discussed and

Luke Jungles, Richard Kesler, Hari Vigneswaran, Jon Naber, Adam Booher, and Ehsan Noursalehi take a picture with the Alma Mater.

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

duce the field from four de-signs 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 champi-on with our new direction.

After working through the process of deciding which design to push for-ward, we took time to identi-fy how we could improve the single idea we were champi-oning. By reviewing the fea-tures 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, lay-ing out many pages of notes and ideas. Major problems included the attachment of the terminal device, and the way the plates were secured

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 re-cently constructed. This time we would explicitly iden-tify the strengths and weak-nesses of each one next to a clear set of product specifica-tions. To do this we created a document outlining what we identified as the require-ments for our product. We also built a spreadsheet us-ing one of our favorite tools, Google Docs. This spread-sheet was designed to allow us to all simultaneously re-view each prototype, enter our observations for each requirement and then com-pile 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-

Page 59

chine was a skill none of us ini-tially possessed, we learned on the job. Learning as we go has always been a hallmark of our process. While we are not ex-perts in many of the areas we seek to innovate in, the new per-spective that results, allows us to innovate more freely, and some-times break free of the existing conventions in the fields of pros-thetic 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 innova-tion going on, our office became more and more active. Over the course of a day we would con-sistently fill the working tables with prototypes under con-struction, papers outlining new ideas, and coffee cups to keep us sustained. Our desks be-

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 plas-tic and metal into composites.

One of our goals with this design was to create a com-posite structure that appeared seamless from both the inside and outside. Another goal was to incorporate both rigid and flexible sections in strategic lo-cations. To accomplish these goals we experimented with heat sealing plastic sheets over metal, gluing the layers together, and other methods of construc-tion. Eventually, we became interested in the prospect of sewing the layers together and began experimenting with fab-rics and plastics using the sew-ing machine belonging to our officemates at Intelliwheels, Inc.

Since sewing on a ma-

The Open Socket

We share an office with Intelliwheels. Learn more about them at www.intelli-wheels.com

Adam Booher sews a prototype together using Intelliwheel’s sewing machine.

Page 61

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

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 orga-nizational structure. One of these friends connected us with Bill Taylor, an amputee living in the Champaign-Ur-bana area who was willing to work with us. As successful as our test had been in Chi-cago 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 in-terest and willingness to help. We were also excited to learn that he had expe-rience in Central America building radio stations for people there. All of these

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. Fi-nally, the floor would catch the debris from our work: metal shards, scraps of pa-per, 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 sin-cerely have to thank Intelli-wheels for understanding the constant presence of design debris in our shared office.

Closing In As our prototyping progressed, so did our orga-

Page 63

traits make Bill and excellent person seek out advice from.

In addition to Bill, our connections at ROMP and Northwestern University Pros-thetics-Orthotics Center (NU-POC) had set up an opportu-nity for us to come work with 2 amputees at NUPOC’s center in downtown Chicago. Prepar-ing to test with these 3 indi-viduals, we worked feverishly to construct a prototype that functioned in the way we envi-sioned. Several breakthroughs were made as we incorporated layers of fabric and plastic, along with metal plates that were con-toured 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 sew-ing 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.

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

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 func-tional hook. Both individu-als tried on the prototypes we had brought, and con-firmed 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 de-sign 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 remodel-ing work at the home where his daughter was living. With our new knowledge of cable and harness systems, set-ting the device up for Bill only took a few minutes, and

who contributed not only her sewing advice, but a vin-tage industrial Singer sewing machine. After construct-ing a large and small ver-sion 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 am-putees 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-

Page 65

Adam Booher prepares a harness for user testing.

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

our office to press forward.

From the time of these tests in late June, we increased our production of high fidel-ity prototypes tremendously, constructing designs that experimented with different ways of attaching the ter-minal device, new closure mechanisms, and different material combinations. We

in no time at all he was us-ing our prototype to rewire an electrical outlet and pick up heavy objects like a table and concrete block. This test-ing confirmed our impres-sion that Bill was a heavy duty user of prosthetic de-vices. Bill was also able to lend his feedback and advice. With all of this valuable in-formation we returned to

Bill Taylor does some handy work installing a power socket using our prototype prosthetic arm.

Page 67

a whole proved to be extreme-ly useful. This time we pushed ourselves to brainstorm using note cards and Sharpie markers. In one session we identified the features that needed improve-ment and in another we noted ones that we liked and wanted to preserve. We wrote the fea-tures we identified on note cards and spread them out across the tables in our workspace to cre-ate 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 ap-proaching the design. limiting the fidelity of our prototypes al-lowed us to test new concepts for their merit very quickly. This time though, instead of testing completely new de-signs, we were pushing forward small features such as how to secure the top and sides of the

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 con-struction and placement of the cable and harness attachment. We came away from this interac-tion 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

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 IPT Journal

The Open Socket

With all of these design improvements in hand, we began the final prototyping phase. We rapidly built sev-eral prototypes to solidify the implementation of the fea-tures 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 re-sults. The prototypes are fi-nally approaching the ideas we all have about what a successful design should be.

With these recent de-velopments we are currently pushing to make the design ready for testing in Guate-mala 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 pre-paring to produce a large vol-ume of complete prototypes

device, and the exact con-struction 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 sock-et by incorporating a sock as the inner lining, a more tra-ditional feature of prosthetic arms. We also designed the device to hide beneath a cos-metic sleeve that would im-prove 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.

Page 71

make our product the best it can be, and to serve the ampu-tees who are in need all over the world. The Open Socket is at the core of our mission of providing amputees with ac-cess 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 actual-ly work? We’ve talked a great deal about the process we went through to develop it. At this point I’m sure you’re won-dering how it actually works.

As the name implies, the Open Socket can be rapidly fit to a wide ranges of sizes and

for testing in Guatemala. We will let you know how it goes when we get back, but we are extreme-ly optimistic about our trip.

Looking back on our progress since stepping off of our return flight from Guate-mala, I see the signs of a success-ful and vibrant organization. On the design front we created multiple generations of proto-types with many unique con-cepts. In the summer months alone, we created more than 15 unique, high fidelity proto-types. Our process has led us from loose ideas to a single de-sign that we believe can achieve our goals. Our organization has progressed in many other areas as well, including strengthening our not-for-profit, and build-ing support for it. At the end of the day, however, our prosthet-ic technology will determine if our vision becomes a reality.

At IPT we are driven to

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

Terminal Device

Standard Attachment

Open Socket TM

Introducing the Open SocketTM...The Open SocketTM is IPT’s revolutinary rapid-fitting prosthetic arm technology for below elbow amputees

Page 73

Cable

Tricep Cuff

Harness

3D visualization courtesy of Hussain Almossawi of Skyrill.com

The IPT Journal

The Open Socket

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 syn-thetic fabric structure. The structure is then securely closed using a simple strap-ping system. The top of the

shapes of amputees’ residual limbs. The characteristic that allows our device to do this is its dual rigid and flexible nature. The overall struc-ture is made up of metal, plastic, and synthetic fabrics that contribute to the flex-ibility and stability of the device. The inner surface is formed by a plastic mate-rial that ensures a smooth contour with the amputee’s residual limb. This plastic surface is also very similar to the nature of custom fit pros-thetic 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 ampu-tee’s arm with small seams in between them. This struc-ture makes the device both rigid and malleable to the user’s arm. In other words,

A collection of our protoype iterations spread out in our office.

Page 75

together to create a system that is comfortable, durable, and af-fordable. The Open Socket can quickly and easily provide an amputee with the same func-tionality as a custom fit socket. While custom fit sockets pro-vide a high quality of fit with an amputee’s residual limb, they require specialized equip-ment, extensive training, and time to individually fabricate. The Open Socket seeks to pro-vide nearly the same quality of fit, but do so in a way that re-quires 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.

device is defined by a com-posite piece of metal and plas-tic that works similarly to the tongue of a shoe. This allows the Open Socket to readily ac-commodate multiple sizes and shapes of residual limbs. Fi-nally, the whole structure is enclosed in a fabric sleeve for protection and aesthetic quality.

All of these features work

Support The Mission, Make a Donationwww.supportipt.org/donate

Support IPT

Support The Mission, Make a Donationwww.supportipt.org/donate

Page 77

Horace Murph Jr.Age: 58

Amputee Profiles

By Jon Naber

Learn about three of the local amputees who helped us develop the Open SocketTM

Horace Murph Jr.Age: 58

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

Am

putee 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.

Am

putee 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 ngyuenAge: 57

Page 83

Am

putee 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

Open Socket TM

Page 85

Am

putee 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 several-month-long process of waiting for insurance approval, being fit with and adjusting a custom socket, and

Bill TaylorAge: 65 Page 87

Am

putee 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-the-elbow amputee with other recent amputees he can help them through the rough road to recovery.

Page 89

Hosmer, one of the world lead-ers in prosthetic devices, has placed their support behind the mission of IPT.

During the upcoming October 2011 field test in Guatemala, the OpenSocketTM will em-ploy the use of Hosmer’s 5XA terminal devices (hooks) dur-ing 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 activi-ties for daily living that require dexterity, including writing with a pencil, eating with a fork, and tying a shoelace.

The Hosmer 5XA has the ap-proval of amputees worldwide, and IPT is proud to partner with Hosmer as a supplier of terminal devices for our prod-uct testing in Guatemala.

Support IPT

Hosmer Supports IPT

A Homser aluminum hook is one of the most commonly used prosthetic hooks around the world. Hosmer

Supports IPT

Slums outside of Guatemala City

The World Situation

By Adam Rule

A look at amputation in the developing world through numbers

Page 93

The World Situation

Diving Into the Data

The IPT Journal

The World Situation

but it cannot relay the magnitude of worldwide need. To this end, data compliments narrative. While “becoming a sta-tistic” is often thought of as the epitome of rejec-tion, stats don’t have to be sterile when viewed in the right light. In-stead, 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 afford-able prosthetic arm.

A Note About DataThere is no longer any

IPT began with a sim-ple story: a story of hope. Men, women and children who had been outcasts because of a miss-ing foot or leg able to walk, run, climb trees, to smile again because of a simple prosthesis. More than a story, this is real-ity for hundreds of people in India thanks to the Jaipur Foot. We wondered: Could we make this dream a reality for arm ampu-tees as well?

Stories are compelling but by no means are they comprehensive. The success of the Jaipur foot tells us something significant about rehabilitation in India,

Page 95

many developing regions still lack a basic understanding of their residents’ health. All is not lost though. While our un-derstanding is not complete, it is not completely lacking. Let’s start by looking at the US.

Limb Loss in the USCurrent estimates place the United States population at 310,348,000 people3. The most recent Center for Disease Con-trol health survey found 0.7% of people have one or more ampu-tations4. This means that there are 2,172,000 people in the US with an amputation. Experts es-timate that by 2050, this num-ber will jump to 3,600,0005.

The World Heald Organization and US Department of Defense

doubt that the world is expe-riencing an information rev-olution. In 2010, humanity produced as much data every two days as it had in all of his-tory up until 20031. Its hard to imagine in such a lush infor-mation landscape that the fol-lowing could be said by the World Health Organization:

“Global data on the need for [amputee] rehabilitation servic-es, the type and quality of mea-sures provided, and estimates of unmet needs do not exist.2”

While industrialized nations like the US continue to pro-liferate statistics and reports,

...in 2010, humanity produced as much data every two days as it had in all of history up until 2003

The IPT Journal

The World Situation

has a disability needing prosthetic or orthotic services. Using the most recent population esti-mates for Asia, Africa, and Latin America, there are 27.41 million people

in these regions in need of prosthetic or orthot-ic care, and of these, 2,192,000 have trans-ra-dial amputations. Con-sequently, there are as many trans-radial am-putees in the developing world as there are to-tal amputees in the US.

When all nations are accounted for, some 35

estimate that 8% of all ampu-tations are trans-radial (below elbow), the type of amputa-tion IPT is seeking first to ad-dress6. By this figure, 173,800 people in the US could benefit from IPT’s current prototype.

Limb Loss WorldwideThough there is great need in the US, our focus, for now, lies outside the States in the devel-oping regions of the world. The 2011 WHO Report on Disabili-ty states that roughly 0.5% of the developing world population

average income of $300 per year

Page 97

decade or more to earn enough money for a prosthesis. Add-ing 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 pros-thetic limbs in their life time, putting a total rehabilitation cost in the thousands of dollars.

Many regions simply cannot sustain this cost. The average health expenditure per capita in Latin America and the Ca-ribbean is less than $550 a year, and in Sub-Saharan Africa,

million people, 2.8 million of whom have trans-radial ampu-tations, are in need of prosthetic and orthotic care worldwide.

CostCost 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 sim-ply beyond the means of peo-ple in the developing world where rural families average an income of $300 per year.

Due to lower labor and mate-rials costs, a typical prosthetic limb in developing countries costs between $125 and $1,875, but even at this price it can take a

...children need to be refit every 6-12 months and adults need replacement limbs every 3-5 years

The IPT Journal

The World Situation

all other commodities for nearly three years.

Health CareA survey of the world prosthetic landscape would not be complete without a look at how many orthotic and pros-thetic (O&P) profes-sionals can provide care. Even if a patient has the money to afford a pros-thesis, there may not be accessible facilities to

health spending is below $80.

Even if amputees from these regions devote all of their re-sources 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 un-der $4,600 a year, and in Sub-Saharan African, its less than $650. Put simply, with pros-thetics costing up to $1,875, in order for an amputee in Sub-Saharan Africa to purchase a limb they may have to go with-out food, housing, clothing, and

3/4 of Developing nations do not have an O&P School

Page 99

We hope to address both issues of cost and care with a simple, innovative, and affordable de-vice. 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 Re-port on Disability

3. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Sorting-Tables/tab-sorting_population.htm

4. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm

5. Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmey-er 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

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 develop-ing nations do not even have a single O&P school in-country. The need for trained profes-sionals far outweighs the supply

A Way ForwardIPT is rising to this challenge by developing a low cost prosthetic that an be fit by persons other than trained O&P professionals.

The IPT Journal

The IPT Approach To Prototyping Our Secret Ingredient

The IPT Approach

By Adam Booher

We use a variety of prototyping methods to streamline the design process without leaving the comfort of our office

Page 101

The IPT Approach To Prototyping Our Secret Ingredient

Jon Naber tries on a prototype constructed out of polyethylene sheets

Page 101

The IPT Journal

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.

Page 103

Jon Naber quickly points out a feature on a sketch of his concept.

The IPT Journal

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 be-gin 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 re-quires us to prototype in 3D. We choose to work in cardboard because it is just as easy to con-struct 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 every-thing 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.

Page 105

Richard Kesler constructs a prototype out of cardboard.

The IPT Journal

The IPT Approach

The Angle GrinderAfter building a solid design on paper and pro-totyping 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 devel-oping 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 us-ing other mediums. Full scale engineering pro-totypes allow us to test with amputees as well, and this is the key feed-back we look for.

Page 107

Adam Booher works on shaping a metal component using an angle grinder.

The IPT Journal

The IPT Approach

The ResultsOur 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

us unique insight that we would not have if we outsourced the con-struction to someone else. We feel that active prototyping is an impor-tant part of any design process, and can make the difference between a good product and a great one.

Page 109

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.

Our Prototyping Process Allows us to quickly iterate

The IPT Journal

Looking Into the Future

The Path Ahead

By Jon Naber

Our plan for product testing, fundraising, and growth

Page 111

Looking Into the Future

Jon Naber thinks about ideas on the couch in our office at Enterprise Works.

Page 111

The IPT Journal

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 experi-ence 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.

Page 113

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 ad-hoc user testing with amputee patients.

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 TESTINGIn October, IPT will return to the ROMP clinic in Zacapa, Guatemala to begin longer-term 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

The IPT Journal

The Path Ahead

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.

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.

As our arm gains validity with the amputees served by ROMP, IPT will begin to distribute our arm

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.

THE PATH AHEADLooking beyond our upcoming testing, IPT is expecting a highly productive year at a

Page 115

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!

through additional Guatemala-based 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.

One region at a time, we will work to proliferate our product through organizations working with amputees in the developing world. Along the

IPT will begin to distribute through additional Guatemala based NGOs and clinics

The Team

The Founders

Jon Naber

Richard Kesler

Adam Booher

Page 117

Hari is now a medical student at Brown University.

Luke is now a student at Johns Hopkins University.

Photo Credit: L. Brian Stauffer.

Hari Vigneswaran

Ehsan Noursalehi

Luke Jungles

Adam Booher

The Team The Leadership

Jon Naber Adam Booher

Founder, President

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.

Director of Product Development

Adam Booher is the man behind the product. He figures out how to take our designs off of a sheet of paper and bring them into the real world.Adam works full time on product development and uses his free time to make sure IPT is running smoothly on a daily basis.

Page 119

The Leadership

Director of Product Development

Adam Booher is the man behind the product. He figures out how to take our designs off of a sheet of paper and bring them into the real world.Adam works full time on product development and uses his free time to make sure IPT is running smoothly on a daily basis.

Ehsan Noursalehi

Creative Director

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.

The Team Emeritus

Richard Kesler

Hari Vigneswaran

BioEngineer

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.

Luke Jungles

Mechanical Engineer

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.

Emeritus

Adam Rule

Michelle Lenzen

Technical Consultant

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 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.

Thomas Frankie

Grant Writer

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.

New Staff

THE IPT JOURNALISSUE 02 - Fall 2011