WBS_Feedback

Table of Contents

MSD I Self Evaluations

Team Assessment

Andrew Self Assessment

Jon Self Assessment

Pat Self Assessment

Matt Self Assessment

Ryan Assessment

Dan Assessment

The feedback below is from Gary.

Great job flowing requirements from the PRP to the ER's. Now, condense it to fit one page (at a readable pica) and you've got a great chart.
You refer to "minimal" costs. This is Engineering: what are the costs and how does align with your budget?
How do you set and insure tension is maintained - it looks very process intensive, especially for the user. This means trial and error which will cost the formula team time and money. Can this be improved? If so, how?
Add predicted values and actual values to your ER chart (obviously, you can only add "actual" when you test).
How will the operator control chatter?
Your WBS is still lacking and your teams' performance against plan is an unknown. I suggest you pay attention to these for the next review.

Formal feedback held in a meeting with Gary and Dr. DeBartolo. In general:

We failed to follow the design process as intended. We broke our design down into subsystems one design phase too early.
We failed to obtain SME feedback for work done during this phase.
We failed to complete peer reviews for this phase.

The feedback below is from Gary.

Your WBS is really a subsystem breakdown, not a Work Breakdown - you may find my tuesday workshop on WBS's useful
state your team role during introductions
add a key so your CR ratings can be understood
Your schedule needs to be actionable... that means all tasks are linked, each task has accountibility and duration (which should not exceed 1 week) and the sum of all individual plans should = Gantt chart. Btw, all academic actions identified in mycourses should be reflected as tasks (eg: functional decomp) as should be all risk mitigations.
I am uncomfortable with your conflict resolution process. I offer the following for your consideration:
- the two parties in conflict discuss privately and try to understand root cause & corrective action. Failing that
- the parties discuss at a team meeting and get the whole team to help id a solution. Failing that
- get the guide involved.
Your process (over simplified) says the PM dictates a solution which all must follow. Long term this can kill a team's performance.

Admin	Mechanical Design	Electrical Design	Assembly/Integration	Documentation
Requirements Planning Costing Risk Analysis Feedback	Feasibility Analysis Design & Validation 3D Model Hardware Prints	Feasibility Analysis Design & Validation Hardware Software	Machining Mechanical Integration Electrical Integration Test Plans	Final Live Documents Imagine Poster User Manual