Final+Proposal

[|Raw Survey data.doc]
 * =**Final Survey Results and Research Findings**=

[|Analyzed Survey Results.doc]

//**The three things liked about ABMs. Most Common Answers.**//


 * 1.** **Convenience - 30%**
 * 2.** **Quick/time - 32.5%**
 * 3.** **Stay in car - 20%**
 * 4.** **Security – 10%**
 * 5. Other - 7.5%**

According to the survey results the most popular answers were related to the issues on time and convenience. They enjoyed being able to stay in the car to avoid long lineups inside and weather related issues. || || People enjoyed the fact that they were able to stay in the car some for the reason that they didn’t have to leave their seats (comfort) and others for a concern for safety. Many respondents indicated that security was a concern during the night hours and the fact that they did not feel safe being in the bank and having to walk out to their parked car.

//**The three things not liked about ABMs. Most Common Answers.**//

5. Other - 20%**
 * 1.** **Distance from machine - 37.5%**
 * 2.** **Safety - 20%**
 * 3.** **Awkward to reach keypad - 15%**
 * 4.** **Vehicle size – 7.5%

With respect to the things people didn’t like about their drive through experiences the results showed that their reasons were more deeply rooted then the positive ones. Most people indicated that the distance from the machine was the greatest issue. They had difficulty reaching the machine and it “doesn’t matter what I’m driving, its always too high, too low or too far for me.” Another person indicated that they were not happy with “the layout of options. The most popular options are at the top, eg. Withdrawal, $20, $40 sum, far away from the user.” Many people indicated that they had to use objects to extend their reach eg. A pen. The following issue addresses the awkwardness of the position of the keypad. Many people had to open their doors or climb out of the chair and reach through the window to reach the machine. Safety was another main concern, some being for damage to their car and many to just general safety of their person. They did not comment as to what exactly their safety issues were.

Our proposed design sets to eliminate the first and third things not liked about ABMs. The machine would sense the type of car and set itself according to the height and the distance. This would eliminate most of the accessibility issues people have with the use of drive thru machines. According to the research, the height of the user had a significant impact on their ability to reach the machine, although there were a large amount of respondents that were reasonably tall and yet still had issues reaching the machine. This means that user height is not necessarily an issue but rather one with the current design. A redesign that takes into account the issues addressed in our findings would significantly increase user satisfaction and decrease the problems associated with its usage.

__**Proposed Designs**__
After prolonged discussion in regards to how complex, expensive and generally feasible our design should be, we have decided to propose two solutions that aim to solve the same problem. The two designs vary in the complexity that is required to build them as well as the costs involved. Design proposal 1 requires more physical movement and although it significantly improves accessibility in comparison to the current design it is less convenient and user friendly than design proposal 2. Design 1 on the other hand is a lot easier and cheaper to implement as well as rather sturdy in terms of its simplicity and effectiveness. Design 2 is a lot more expensive to implement however it makes the drive through experience a truly VIP one.

1) Must improve accessibility significantly; must be user friendly towards all vehicles and users. 2) Must have moving parts that adjust effortlessly to requirements of user/vehicle. 3) Must be sturdy and long lasting; one time implementation. 4) Must allow for all the usual ABM operations: to dispense and deposit money. 5) The machine must be easily accessible by bank employees to collect/re-fill money in the ABM.
 * Summary of requirements:**

Keeping all these requirements we have developed two main design concepts. The general philosophy behind the design is to have a movable head that detracts itself from the 'wall' that it is attached to an comes to the user, places itself at his/her convenience and then conveniently retracts back to its original position and prepares itself for the next transaction.

__Design Proposals__
After gathering data via the survey as well as various body-storming techniques, we propose the following design for the drive through ABMs. The current design will be altered in several significant ways. First and foremost, the unit instead of being completely stationary will incorporate a moving component. This moving component will extend out from the main housing of the ABM and position itself within an inch or two of the vehicle that pulls up to it. There are two versions of the revised design. We will begin with the low-end solution and then the high-end solution.

Proposed Design #1 (Low-End)
The low-end solution will involve a simple re-design that will place the primary ABM components on a gyro mechanism which will work with weights and counter weights to allow the user to pull main part of the machine closer to the vehicle in order to provide easier access to the keypad. This solution is demonstrated in the illustrations below.

As seen in diagram 1, the head contains the basic Number pad, screen with surrounding buttons, deposit slot, card slot and cash dispenser. There is also a handle that will be used to manipulate the moving head.

Diagram illustrates the space where the proposed ATM will be placed. The steel cable attached to the back of the 'head' is attached to a mechanism that will 'reel' the ATM into the protected space as soon as the user removes his card (the last step). The pavement will ensure the cars do not park too close.



As seen above, the moving arm accommodates movement in three directions and fulfills our requirement of improving accessibility.The joints that connect the different sections of the arm will be pneumatic joints. This will ensure that the arm stays fixed until moved and it will allow the arm to move with minimal effort. An example of such joints is shown in diagram 4. Pneumatic joint. Product can be bought [|HERE.]


 * Method of Operation (user point of view):**

1) The user drives up approximately opposite the ABM. 2) Reaches for the handle and brings the user interface head closer towards him. 3) Inserts his card, enters pin number. 4) Chooses to either withdraw or deposit money. 5) Takes money from cash slot, or deposits money into deposit slot. 6) Takes his card which pops out only after the money is taken or deposited (depending on what the user chose) 7) The 'head' automatically retracts as soon as the user takes his card. (Metal Cable, see Diag.2) 8) User drives off.

For banking Staff: When ABM sends signals that money is low, a member of staff will have to retract the machine and replace the slot with more money.

- **Security** has been addressed by three factors; the user doesn't have to leave his car, the steel cable that prevents the unbreakable steel case itself getting stolen and the solid pneumatic arm that attaches the head. In addition, the fact that the head only allows for a limited amount of money to be kept in it, the appeal of stealing the head isn't great. Possible Improvements: a panic button could be kept on the ABM head that would call the police as well as immediately cancel the transaction and retract. - **Accessibility** is addressed sufficiently well although our design #2 improves it further through mechanical automation. Possible improvements: See design #2. - Convenience is definitely improved in comparison to the current design. By giving the head 3 way motion we have ensured that almost any person of any height in any car will only have to reach for the handle once and bring it closer to himself. We realise that this single reach may present a problem in itself and have once again addressed this more deeply in the more complex design 2. - **Size of vehicle** no longer seems to be an issue. The drive way will accommodate practically any car, the pavement will ensure that the car isn't too close to the wall; the head/moving arm will do the rest. Possible improvements: For perfect alignment and placement of the wheels, a similar system to the one used in car washes may be introduced. This suggested improvement ties in with design #2's automated solution.
 * Assessment of Design/Potential Improvements**