ISSUES WITH THE TISSUES

A Feasibility Report

APRIL 30, 2014
CHASE WILLIAMS, TORI MINICK, REED HOFFMAN, SHELBY PRISBY, SHANE HOYA




































Feasibility Report
Chase Williams, Tori Minick, Reed Hoffman, Shelby Prisby, Shane
Hoya

University of North Texas
TECM 2700
Mr. Briseno
May 2, 2014















Table of Contents

Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... iii
Methods........................................................................................................................................... 1
Cost test ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Softness test ................................................................................................................................ 1
Strength Test ............................................................................................................................... 2
Absorbency Test ......................................................................................................................... 3
Scoring System ........................................................................................................................... 3
Results ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Cost Results ................................................................................................................................ 5
Softness Results .......................................................................................................................... 5
Strength Results .......................................................................................................................... 5
Absorbency Results .................................................................................................................... 6
Overall Results ............................................................................................................................ 6
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 7



















Introduction iii
Introduction
Allergies and colds affect us all. The decision between the right tissues to contain your runny
nose is no matter to blow aside. But dont worry we have conducted a study to help you decide
which tissue is the best for you. The purpose of this report is to help students at the University of
North Texas determine the best tissue brand from the Wal-Mart on University drive in Denton,
Texas. College students who are often on a budget are looking for the best quality at the lowest
price. The brands offered in cubed shaped box at Wal-Mart that we assessed are Puffs basic,
Angel Soft, Great Value, basic Kleenex, and Kleenex with aloe lotion. To complete the
assessment we tested the five types of facial tissues on:
Cost
Softness
Strength
Absorbency
Our credible and non-bias tests showed Kleenex to be the best quality tissue at the lowest price.




Methods 1
Methods
Cost test
With this test we wanted to find out which one of our types of facial tissue is the best buy in
relation to the cost per sheet in each box. To conduct this test we took the price of the box as
labeled by the store and divided it by the number of sheets in the box. We conducted this test for
each box and recorded the findings in our data sheet. We then assessed the results by
quantifying our data on a 30 point scale with 30 points being given to the cheapest box and then
going down in 5 point increments in the order that the boxes ranked.

Price Number of sheets per box = price per sheet
Ex: $1.27/100 sheets = $0.0127 per sheet

Softness test
With this test we wanted to find out which one of our types of facial tissues feels the softest. In
this test we conducted a survey of 22 University of North Texas students. In conducting this test
we kept an unbiased approach by removing individual tissues from their boxes and labeling them
A through E. This approach aimed at getting results off softness alone while leaving out any
connection to branding or favoritism. Each student received a set of all the types of facial tissues
tested and we asked them to rank them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the roughest and 5 being the
softest. The student would rub each type of tissue on their face and then make a decision
regarding the ranking on a survey sheet provided to them. After the survey we added up all the
numbers given for each type of tissue and recorded the results. We placed their individual
rankings in this category on a 30 point scale with 30 points being given to the tissue chosen to be
the softest and then going down in 5 point increments in the order that the types ranked.

Rank 1-5 on Softness, with 1 being the roughest and 5 being the softest
Tissue A
Tissue B
Tissue C
Tissue D
Tissue E





2 Feasibility Report
Strength Test
With this test we wanted to find out which one of our types of facial tissues is made out of the
strongest material. In this test we used several pennies to determine the strength of binding in
each tissue. We would hold the tissue tightly at each corner and begin to place pennies in the
center of the tissue counting each one we placed. We determined the strength of the material by
counting how many pennies the tissue needed piled in the center before the corners ripped and
the tissue collapsed under the weight. We performed the test on all the types of tissues and
recorded how many pennies it took to break the tissue in our data sheet. We conducted this test
twice for each tissue type and took the average number of pennies. We placed their individual
rankings in this category on a 20 point scale with 20 points being given to the tissue determined
to be the strongest and then going down in 5 point increments in the order that the types ranked.


Methods 3
Absorbency Test
With this test we wanted to find out which one of our types of facial tissues is made out of the
best material for absorbency. In this test we used a pipette filled with water and slowly began to
release droplets in the center of the tissue. We held the tissue tightly at the corners and counted
the number of drops it took before the tissue leaked water. We performed the test on all the
types of tissues and recorded the number of drops it took in our data sheet. We conducted this
test twice for each tissue type and took the average number of drops. We placed their individual
rankings in this category on a 20 point scale with 20 points being given to the tissue determined
to be the most absorbent and then going down in 5 point increments in the order that the types
ranked.

Scoring System
Scoring Scale for Tests
Ranking 1
st
2
nd
3
rd
4
th
5
th

Cost 30 points 25 points 20 points 15 points 10 points
Softness 30 points 25 points 20 points 15 points 10 points
Strength 20 points 15 points 10 points 5 points 0 points
Absorbency 20 points 15 points 10 points 5 points 0 points

Results 5
Results

Cost Results
Price per sheet Points received
Kleenex $0.0183 20
Angel Soft $0.0156 25
Great value $0.0127 30
Puffs $0.0229 10
Kleenex with lotion $0.0196 15

The results showed the tissue that gives you the most tissues for the price is Great Value.

Softness Results
Softness survey results Points received
Kleenex 80 30
Angel Soft 55 15
Great Value 50 10
Puffs 75 25
Kleenex with lotion 73 20

The results of the survey showed that the softest brand of tissue was the basic Kleenex.

Strength Results
Strength Test Points received
Kleenex 55 pennies 20
Angel Soft 40 pennies 5
Great Value 22 pennies 0
Puffs 42 pennies 15
Kleenex with lotion 41 pennies 10

The results showed the tissue that can hold up under the most pressure is the regular Kleenex.


6 Feasibility Report
Absorbency Results
Absorbency Test Points received
Kleenex 200+ drops of water 20
Angel Soft 14 drops of water 5
Great Value 23 drops of water 10
Puffs 33 drops of water 15
Kleenex with lotion 200+ drops of water 20

The results showed this test came to a tie with both the basic Kleenex and Kleenex with lotion
holding over 200 drops of water making them the most absorbent.

Overall Results
Overall scoring system
Basic Kleenex 90 points received
Angel Soft 50 points received
Great Value 50 points received
Puffs 65 points received
Kleenex with lotion 65 points received

The overall results of these tests showed that the basic Kleenex is the best tissue.



Conclusion & Recommendations 7
Conclusion
In conclusion to our test for the best tissue from Wal-Mart on University drive in Denton, Texas
basic Kleenex brand tissues was the winner. Based on our testing of: cost, strength, softness, and
absorbency Kleenex brand tissues won against: Great Value, Puffs, Kleenex brand with aloe, and
Angel Soft. Although, Kleenex brand tissues came in second place in cost they came first in the
tests of strength, absorbency, and softness.
According to our tests the most cost effective brand of tissues is Great Value. Great Value brand
tissues however came in last in the tests of strength and softness, and second to last in
absorbency putting it in last place along with Angel Soft brand tissues.
Kleenex brand with aloe and Puffs share second place in our tests, however Puffs lead slightly
above Kleenex with aloe in scores for all of the tests.

Recommendations
Basic Kleenex
The results of our tests proved the Basic Kleenex facial tissue to be the best tissue for UNT
students during cold and allergy season. These tissues were the strongest, softest, and most
absorbent. Commonly, the term facial tissue is replaced with just the brand name Kleenex, and
we believe our tests proved why Kleenex is so popular of a brand. Using Basic Kleenex to help
with your runny nose, is using the proven best facial tissue available for you at Walmart on
University