How We Made a Better Whiteboard Marker

by Bob Pederson

Previously, we told you that we were going to create a better whiteboard marker. Here is how we did it!

**Intellectual Property and Trade Secrets will be withheld**

“Documentation:

  • Complete BOM
  • Estimate of future manufacturing and production costs
  • Technical drawings
  • Instructions for assembling, disassembling, and refilling the prototype

Research and Experimentation:

Data will be collected for the prototype as well as the competition in the following areas:

  • writing distance per refill
  • cost per distance
  • low pressure leak mass
  • color quality
  • uncapped color quality
  • waste per distance
  • refill time (only for refillable markers)
  • nib replacement time
  • FIR replacement time

Business Plan:

The business plan will contain:

  • Vision

o   Mission

o   Objectives

  • Strategies and Action Plans

o   Marketing

o   Supply Line and Material Acquisition

o   Manufacturing

o   Financial Analysis (Variable Income Projection, Breakeven Analysis)

  • Product Development and Pivot Decision Tree

o   Exit Strategy

Marker Score:

Our marker must be the best marker according to the following ranking system in order for our prototype and project to be considered successful. Each marker (Enduramark, Expo, EcoSmart, Pilot) will be ranked from 1 to 4 where 1 is the best and 4 is the worst in the following areas:

Color quality (weight = 15%): A new marker will be used to draw a line. A picture will be taken of this line. The average RGB value of the line will be found. This RGB value will be converted into a black and white intensity. The blacker the line, the better the quality. Many of these test lines will be drawn through the lifecycle of the marker. These test points will be interpolated into a quality vs. distance curve. The distance normalized average color quality (DNACQ) will be found by taking the integral of this curve and dividing by the distance per refill. Highest DNACQ wins.

Uncapped color quality (weight = 5%): The uncapped color quality will be measured in the same way as the regular color quality. The uncapped time is 10 minutes before each test line.

Distance per refill (weight = 15%): Whichever marker can write for the longest distance before marker depletion wins.

Cost per distance (weight = 15%): The overall cost to write a meter of writing with a given marker will be found by using the data from the meters per refill test to find the distance the marker can write in one refill. For a refillable marker, the nib and FIR will be assumed to be usable for 10 refills and the body for 1,000 refills in the cost analysis.

Leak mass (weight = 5%): Whichever marker leaks the least mass of ink in a vacuum chamber with an absolute pressure of 53 kPa for a duration of an hour wins.

Waste per distance (weight = 10%): The nonrecyclable mass of the marker will be measured. For this metric, the FIR and nib count as nonrecyclable due to their saturation with the nonrecyclable ink. In order for a marker component to be considered recyclable, it must be able to be separated from the nonrecyclable components without using tools. The waste per distance of the marker will then be computed based on the distance per refill data and the cost per distance assumptions of the lifecycle of individual components. The lowest waste per distance wins.

Refill time (weight = 15%): If the marker can’t be refilled without using outside tools, it gets a 4 in this category. Of the refillable markers, quicker refill times give a better rank.

Nib replacement time (weight = 5%): If the marker doesn’t have a nib, it automatically receives a 1 in this category. If the nib can’t be replaced without using outside tools, it gets a 4. Besides those exceptions, better ranks will be given to quicker replacement times.

FIR replacement time (weight = 5%): If the marker doesn’t have a FIR, it automatically receives a 1 in this category. If the FIR can’t be replaced without using outside tools, it gets a 4. Besides those exceptions, better ranks will be given to quicker replacement times.

Ink level indication (weight = 10%): The markers will be ranked based on what percent of ink inside the marker is visible from the outside. More visibility is better. If none of it is visible, the marker gets a 4. Otherwise, a higher percent of visible ink volume results in better ranks.

Each of these ranks in each category will be multiplied by the category weight to get a score for that category. Then each category score will be added up for each marker. Lowest score wins.”

Stand by to see what product comparison scores come out of this competition!

If you would like to see the Final Design Report (FDR) in it’s entirety, please send a self-addressed, stamped-envelope with a cashier’s check for $3,000,000.00 to the EnduraMark world Headquarters, in Brooklyn Center, MN.

Ganzer, M., Lindquist, B., and Pederson R. (2017). Documentation, Research and Experimentation, Business Plan and Marker Score, Remarkable Final Design Report. Unpublished bachelors’ dissertation. Minnesota State University Mankato, Mankato, MN.

Back to News