1 / 25

Dr . Parmigiani,

Dr . Parmigiani,

ismael
Télécharger la présentation

Dr . Parmigiani,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dr. Parmigiani, This is Will Rogers.  I had a couple of your classes most recently senior design (Autonomous Underwater Vehicle).  The company I'm working for is having some trouble with scope creep from our customers and I was a really big fan of the way your class was setup with the signing of the customer requirements, house of quality, etc.  I would like to offer it up as a starting point for a potential solution at my company and I was hoping you might be able to send me a few PDFs with good examples of how various teams wrote their customer requirements and house of quality so I can show a variety of options.  If you don't have some favorites and want to just send me a clump I can sort through them myself. Thanks, Will Rogers (student, ME497/498, 2009/10)

  2. Capstone DesignLecture 2 • Project & Team Assignment (Funk) • Team Charter (Parmigiani) • House of Quality (Parmigiani) • Overview • CRs & Weightings • Writing Requirements (Funk) • Functional Decomposition (Funk) • Design Research (Funk) • Status Meeting 1 (Parmigiani) • Progress Report 1 (Parmigiani) • Background Report (Funk)

  3. Team Charter • The purpose of a team charter is to: • Identify the Project Manager • Define the team’s goals& strategies to achieve them • Identify the team’s strengths and potential weaknesses • Specify strategies for overcoming challenges that may arise • Formalize and document team members’ agreements and commitments • Guidelines & Template on web site • Bring completed charter to Status Meeting 1

  4. House of QualityPurpose in Capstone Design • Provides a concise diagram of project requirements • Translates vague, imprecise requirements from sponsor into measurable specifications (CRs and ERs) • Prioritizes project requirements and provides grading criteria for winter term (Weightings) • Documents specifically how the implementation will be tested (Testing Plans) • Documents, concisely, how the specified design meets requirements (Design Links) • Documents agreement of faculty advisor, sponsor mentor, course instructor, and student team (Signatures) If HoQ is new to you, see The House of Quality by Hauser and Clausing (available on course web site)

  5. HoQ: Components Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Modification of HoQ from Hauser and Clausing (ME 382) • Use this format for your project’s HoQ • A HoQ template will be provided • Let’s have a look at each component of this HoQ …

  6. Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Approvals • Indicates agreement of what is to be accomplished and how it will be tested • No credit for unapproved HoQ • Complete, fully approved HoQ is required to take ME498-001 / IE 498 • It may take several days to obtain signatures from out-of-town sponsors • HoQ is the contract between you, the sponsor, and MIME of what must be accomplished. It is the most important document in Capstone Design!

  7. Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Customer Requirements (CRs) • A complete listing, in the “language of the sponsor”, of what must be done • Each CR deals with one concept (e.g. don’t group “Small” and “Lightweight”) • Example: “Device must be lightweight” • One sponsor requirement may generate several CR’s (e.g. “Portable”) • Must be approved by team, sponsor mentor, faculty advisor, course instructor • Project scope defined in CR's ... pay close attention!

  8. Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Weightings • Indicate relative importance of each CR (greater weighting  more important) • Total of 250 points to distribute among CRs (i.e. sum of all weightings = 250) • Example: “Device must be lightweight” given weighting of 50. • Low Technical Effort (LTE) CRs: Not given numerical weighting, but must be met. • Must be approved by team, sponsor mentor, faculty advisor, course instructor • Very important in grading Evaluation 1 and Evaluation 2 in winter term

  9. Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Engineering Requirements (ERs) • Define CRs in terms of technical, measurable specifications • Generated from Customer Requirements (One CR may generate several ERs) • Ex.: CR “Device must be lightweight” maps to ER “Weighs less than 20 lb” • Used in specifying and evaluating design concepts • Must be approved by team, sponsor mentor, faculty advisor, course instructor • Ability to properly test and satisfy ERs constitutes 50% of winter term grade

  10. Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Target (w/ tolerance) • The Target is the design-to value for an ER (value to use in calculations) • The Tolerance (+/- value, <>, etc.) defines the amount of permissible variation • Example: ER “Weighs less than 20 lb” has Target “15lb”, Tolerance “<20lb” • ER satisfied if test result = target value within tolerance • Must be approved by team, sponsor mentor, faculty advisor, course instructor • Don’t use the extreme-permitted ER value as the design-to value!

  11. Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Testing Plan • A technically convincing description of how an ER will be proven to be satisfied • A number in the HoQ corresponds to a textual description later in the report • Example: ER “Weighs less than 20 lb” might have TP “Place on certified scale” • Every ER must have a corresponding test plan • Must be approved by team, sponsor mentor, faculty advisor, course instructor • Think about feasibility, you must execute the plan exactly as you specify!

  12. Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Design Link • A one paragraph description of how the design meets an ER • A number in the HoQ corresponds to a textual description later in the report • Example: ER “Weighs less than 20 lb” has DL “ … fabricate with aluminum …” • Every ER must have a corresponding design link • Must be approved by team, sponsor mentor, faculty advisor, course instructor • DL’s should arise naturally from your design process

  13. Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Penalty • Deductions from Evaluation 1 and/or Evaluation 2 scores • Incurred due to winter term, partially unjustified, changes to HoQ • Examples given in lecture 1, during petition discussion • HoQ-change requests in winter term are via petition process (lecture 1) • Penalty is determined by course instructor associated with your project • Avoid penalties by giving careful thought to the HoQ in fall term!

  14. Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Evaluation 1 • E1 measures extent to which the "build" is done and testing can begin • Must be able to fully execute testing plan (passing test not required for E1) • Must be good-faith effort to pass test • E1 grade is based on CR weightings • Can execute testing plan for all ERs mapped to a CR, E1 score for CR = weighting • Can't execute testing plan for all ERs mapped to CR, E1 score for CR = zero • Must be able to test all ERs mapped to LTE CRs to conduct E1 (else E1 grade = zero) • E1 grade = sum of scores (zero to 250 points), 25% of winter term course grade

  15. Approval (print name, sign, and date): Team member 1: Faculty Advisor: Team member 2: Sponsor Mentor: Team member 3: Course Instructor: • Evaluation 2 • E2 measures extent to which CR’s are met • Must be able pass tests • E2 grade is based on CR weightings • Pass tests (w/ tolerance) for all ERs mapped to a CR, E2 score = weighting • Don't pass tests for all ERs mapped to CR, E2 score = zero • Must pass tests for all ERs mapped to LTE CR’s to conduct E2 (else E2 grade = zero) • E2 grade = sum of scores (zero to 250 points), 25% of winter term course grade

  16. HoQ: Timeline • Part 1*: • CR's and Weightings due week 3 fall term • Include in Background Report • Part 2*: • ER’s, Targets, and Tolerances due week 5 fall term • Include in Preliminary Proposal • Part 3*: • Testing Plan and Design Links due week 10 fall term • Include in Final Proposal • Any element of the HoQ can be changed, with approvals (all signatures), in fall term without penalty • Any changes made during winter term will still require approvals but may incur a penalty (as discussed last lecture) * Each part requires signatures of students, mentor, advisor, and instructor

  17. House of QualityExample • Original requirement from Sponsor  Portable • Customer Requirement  One person can easily carry across a room • Weighting  20 • Engineering Requirements  Weighs < 20 lbs, no sharp edges, no dimension > 12” (3 ER’s) • Target  15 lb, largest dimension of 10” • Tolerance  +5/-15 lb, +2/-10" OR < 20lb, < 12" (include units!) • Test Plan (Summary, you’ll need more detail)  1. Weigh, 2. Inspect for sharp edges, 3.Measure • Design Link (Summary, you’ll need more detail)  1. Material selection, 2. Fabrication method, 3. Component sizing

  18. House of QualityExample • Requirement from Sponsor  All control knobs labeled in English, German, and French • Customer Requirements  All control knobs labeled in English, German, and French • Weighting  LTE (Low Technical Effort) • Engineering Requirements  All control knobs labeled in English, German, and French • Target & Tolerance  N/A • Test Plan (Summary)  4. Professor from German / French depts. verifies labels meet needs • Design Link (Summary)  4. Describe how label material selection and size are appropriate

  19. House of QualityExample • Requirement from Sponsor  Water flow rate of 10 cu-in / min • Customer Requirements  Water flow rate of at least 10 in3/min within 1 sec. of activation, never a flowrate greater than 20 in3/min (2 CRs) • Weighting  30, 35 • Engineering Requirements  Flow > 10 in3/min within 1 sec, Flow < 20 in3/min (2 ERs) • Target  12 in3/min in 0.8 sec, maximum flow of 17 in3/min. • Tolerance  >10 in3/min , <1 sec, <20 in3/min • Test Plan (summary)  5. Using flow meter and timing device, measure flow rates. • Design Link (summary)  5 & 6 Describe how piping, pump, and valve selection satisfies these ERs

  20. Status Meeting 1 • One-on-One meeting between team and instructor • ~ 10 minutes • Schedule will be available on web site • Next week (week 2) • Purpose is to discuss early progress (or lack of …)on project • Address problems early!

  21. Status Meeting 1 • What you need to bring: • Completed Team Charter (template on web) • Draft of HoQ Part 1 • CRs • Weightings • Outline of Background Research • Preliminary findings • Plan for remainder • Results of meeting / discussion with Sponsor Mentor Failure to conduct a satisfactory status meeting will result in a 35 point penalty

  22. Progress Report 1 • Oral presentation by one team member to a subset of the class • ~ 5 minutes • Each student will present at least once this term … you decide order • Progress report 1 occurs in week 3 • A schedule will be posted on the course web site • A template will be provided on the course web site • 100 course points, individual grade

  23. Progress Report 1 • Purpose • Feedback from your instructor and peers. • Instructor evaluation of progress • A project update for your faculty advisor and sponsor mentor (Slides must have stand-alone value) • Slide requirements • Slide titles = bold headings in the CONTENT section of rubric • Slide content = CONTENT section of rubric • Slide footer w/ name, date, project name, project number • Follow prescribed format closely (e.g. only 4 slides) • Presentation • Bring to class on USB (need to load fast) • Timed • Must attend entire 30-minute block

  24. Progress Report 1 • Delivery is worth 20% of grade (20 pts) • Same criteria for all Progress Reports

  25. Progress Report 1 • Progress Report 1 content 80% of grade (80pts) • Content different for each Progress Report

More Related