The Child-Safe Toy
A designer is developing a pull-along wooden toy for children aged 18 months to 3 years. The toy has a 900 mm cord with a small wooden bead on the end, wheels of 40 mm diameter attached with steel axles, and painted surfaces. A safety consultant flags three concerns: the cord could form a loop and present a strangulation hazard, the bead is 14 mm and could be a choking hazard if it detaches, and the paint may contain lead. The designer has a fixed retail price of $35, a manufacturer who can do the woodwork but not the painting, and a launch in 12 weeks. The designer wants to keep the pull-along concept because it is the product's identity.
1. Resolve the three safety concerns while keeping the pull-along concept, and explain the trade-offs each fix creates.
Read the worked answer
Cord loop: a loop can catch on a child's neck. Fix: keep the cord short, fit a swivel or breakaway connector, and avoid any fixed loop at the handle. Trade-off: a breakaway connector adds a part and cost, and a shorter cord reduces the child's walking range, which may reduce play value.
Bead (14 mm): small parts below the choking-gauge size are a hazard if they detach. Fix: either enlarge the end piece so it cannot enter a small-parts cylinder, or eliminate the separate bead and mould the end as one piece with the cord. Trade-off: enlarging changes the look; a one-piece end may need a new cord supplier and testing.
Paint: lead in paint is a serious hazard. Fix: specify a compliant, tested, child-safe finish and obtain a certificate of conformity from the painter. Trade-off: the manufacturer cannot paint, so a third-party painter must be qualified and audited, adding a supplier and lead time.
Overall: all three are solvable within the concept. The binding constraint is the 12-week launch and the $35 price; the paint supply chain is the highest schedule risk because it introduces a new supplier and testing.
2. The designer proposes to skip independent safety testing to meet the 12-week launch. Argue for or against this, with reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Against skipping testing (recommended position):
- The three flagged hazards are exactly the kind that cause serious injury in the 18-month-to-3-year group, who mouth and pull on objects.
- Untested claims ('child-safe paint', 'secure bead') are assertions, not evidence. If a bead detaches or paint fails, the liability and reputational damage far exceed the cost of a delayed launch.
- Testing also protects the designer commercially: a certificate of conformity is evidence of due care.
The schedule argument: 12 weeks is tight, but the critical path is the new paint supplier and the cord/bead redesign, not the test itself. Testing can run in parallel with production tooling if components are frozen early.
Balanced conclusion: do not skip testing. Instead, compress the schedule by freezing the design early, booking the test lab now, and launching with a limited first run if the full certificate is pending. The launch date is a constraint, not a licence to ship an unsafe product. The exam rewards recognising that safety is a non-negotiable constraint that outranks schedule and price.