P19008: Motorized Pediatric Stander
/public/

Gate Reviews

Table of Contents

MSD I: Readiness to move to Build & Test

Link to Self-critique:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P5iWAvs0PDlzdvS1AgxWs1IkaV4eW2n1qgDrvi7kw5I/edit#gid=341086979

Expectations

Status Review

Customer Requirements

Customer Requirements

Current Status of Engineering Requirements

Current Status of Engineering Requirements

Live link to ER/CR Requirements: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iddFSVdWgFbZx__DUJtpgvfQ4-zk8K7KXQtapRDG5vA/edit#gid=0

The scope of the project has been altered because of the decision to work with a new motor controller.
We originally planned to have the motor controller used last year up and running by the end of MSD I. However, when the team couldn’t find a solution to solve the problems with this motor controller, with three weeks left in the semester we decided to order one that would be easier to troubleshoot. This will hopefully save us time overall, as we considered the amount of time the last team spent on the previous controller.
Although we had discussed early on the possibility of replacing the controller, we had hoped we wouldn’t have to. We could’ve come up with a more complete plan for this situation earlier in the semester to help with the decision. Also, we were really concerned with cost which held us back from ordering some of the components earlier. I think a more involved discussion with the customer about the budget would’ve been helpful early in the semester so we could’ve been testing the components we selected.
Review individual team member status.
Megan
I did deliver on my personal responsibilities, I would’ve liked to have finished the mechanical drawings sooner, but there was a lot of work to be done, and much of it was dependent on the other component selection to get final dimensions.
The MSD I plan wasn’t effective, but it was realistic. We were using a gantt chart that wasn’t available for the team to view on a regular basis, and we only reviewed it infrequently. During the last phase, we used a different method to plan our task completion and it was much more effective than the gantt chart used previously. I will continue to implement this method, and we will make this our new plan going forward into MSD II.
The mechanical subsystems have completed CAD models and drawings, I have consulted a fabricator, but not made any decisions on the fabrication as of yet. I will be making the final fabrication decisions over the break.
Jacqui
I was able to deliver my personal responsibilities. My main contributions to the team this semester were developing the control algorithm and writing the test plans. The algorithm may have changes once we get feedback from Dr. Day but I’m prepared to edit it during break. The tests plan may also change as we begin testing next semester and I’m prepared to do that. I was also able to update the EDGE page on time for each design review.
Certain parts of the MSD plan were more effective than others. The modules in MSD I were helpful but it was repetitive to do the assignments at home and then come to class and repeat the assignment as a team. The time spent repeating the modules in class could have been spent troubleshooting. The last half MSD was useful and helped us develop our design. The team learned how to organize and assign tasks in a productive way this semester.
My subsystem was the algorithm. The algorithm is developed but I’m waiting for feedback from Dr. Day to tweak it to meet his expectations. I also developed a test plan that is ready to be implemented in MSD II.
Ryan
I did deliver on my personal responsibilities. I made sure that I performed to the standards of the team and to improve in ways that benefited the overall goal of MSD I. My main contributions this semester were creating a working crash test simulation which can be edited to fit stander parameters, develop cabling plans and and ergonomic design plans for cable routing, tray functionality, and overall ergonomic feasibility.
I feel that I could have used MSD I to plan more effectively to ensure that my goals were more realistic. For example the crash test simulation took much longer to complete than expected because I underestimated the complexity and the number of variables in the system. I feel going into MSD II with a more conscientious approach to time and resource management would prove to be useful.
Crash test simulation is complete (functional) and will be used to predict appropriate acceleration and deceleration rates for the stander for maximum ergonomic efficiency.

The cabling layout is complete and will be used to adequately route cables for the stander in a manner that is visually appealing and functional with the modular design for the tray stand.

Snehal
I was able to deliver all tasks that I took on or those that were assigned to me. I was able to finish the revision for the I/O board which I was quite concerned about as I was not familiar with the software. I was able to be available to other team members for assistance when it came to finalizing parts for certain subsystems.
MSD 1 planning process is effective in a lot of ways for projects that are new. Projects that still need to be analysed for a design idea/concept. Ours on the other hand was a re-iteration, a pre-existing concept that has been tried and used. So MSD 1 project plan helped in some ways, but slowed down the process in a lot of ways. There were times that could have been spent researching, designing or learning new softwares. Etc,. However, towards the end of the semester, our team finally got a rhythm and an effective way that works for us, especially with the action items list. Going into MSD 2 should be smoother now that we have learned from our mistakes.
Firstly, before we leave for the winter break, the PCB files will be sent to Dr. Fuller for review. Ones they have been checked and okayed, they will be sent for fabrication.

Next, the winter break will be speat familiarizing myself with app design and working with the newly purchased BLE so that an app can be developed that will be used as an additional user input. I wish to work with Nick and Jacqui on the Algorithm as that’s something that I would like to learn.

Nick
I was able to deliver on them. As lead engineer I needed to be support for the other engineers on the team while also completing my own tasks. For development involving concepts, board designs, design decisions and firmware development, I was able to be available and also collaborative in the design process.
MSD I was used effectively to an extent; some pieces of it were beneficial and needed for reinforcing design decisions such as Pugh charts, but other areas took away from time that could have been better spent researching and testing various concepts that we thought of during the various phases. MSD I allowed the team to develop a better structure, involving more ownership and organization. This will carry over to MSD II and will help the team to remain productive throughout the semester.
Motor Controller: Selected and on order. Code to be developed, and the controller is to be tested. A second board will need to be ordered before the end of MSD I. Time will be spent over break troubleshooting and familiarizing myself with the new controller.
Firmware: WIP. Will transition over to MSD II with algorithm development and motor controller integration. I have spoken with SME Carlos Barrios and will be working with him on integrating the algorithm moving forward.
Ahmad
Yes I did. Although I struggled throughout the semester with trying to figure out what was expected from me as an Industrial Engineer.
Yes I used the MSD I plan and it was realistic. It did not seem effective for our project.
My subsystem was the user input: joystick and buttons. We have decided to use the Datum.
Dabere
I was able to deliver on my personal responsibilities. I had the tasks of testing sensors using arduino, finalizing the battery system, putting together the electrical schematic of the whole system and purchasing all the components the team needs to build the stander kit.
In our case, there were a couple things that went wrong in the first 1 or 2 phases and so the MSD 1 plan was not as effective as promised even though it was realistic. A lot of time was spent finding the pieces of the project the previous team left behind which made it difficult to progress. After finding these pieces, it was easier to make important decisions which came at later stages than we would have hoped. I have learned to rather than trying to figure things out alone, rely on the resources from my teammates and from the campus. These resources would indeed be valuable when starting MSD II.
At the moment, orders have been placed for the components of the power system. Once these parts get delivered, the first phase of msd will be spent putting the battery system together. This is a very important subsystem as it involves providing power to the system “safely”. The only issue would be to build the system from scratch and there are numerous tutorials that will guide me through the process.
Compare your current risk assessment to your original.
We have reduced our risk by a little over 50% this semester. Our outstanding risks are some : : the original higher risks, including the new motor controller.
We do have plans for the remaining tasks, please see the risk register for a complete list.
The motor controller started to become a time consuming problem, but we had accounted : for this in ordering a new one. The plan for a motor simulation also became a problem because of the lack of documentation concerning the motors, we are hoping the new motor controllers will be able to read the necessary information in order to complete this task in MSD II.
The risk assessment reduced significantly as we completed work on the project. The risks tended to increase and decrease as more information was available, but now that our design has been finalized, we are hoping for a downward trend until the end of MSD II. We learned to cut our losses, and plan for the best possible outcome.
Risk Burn Down

Risk Burn Down

Live link to Risk Assessment/Burn Down: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11VS-CFMqaMbORtQFW4wUR6O7P35tK-axHfCaM1LjGZc/edit#gid=0

MSD II: Project close-out

Expectations

Status Review

Current state of the project
Customer Requirements

Customer Requirements

Performance vs. Requirements

Performance vs. Requirements

Link to live Customer/Engineering Requirements document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iddFSVdWgFbZx__DUJtpgvfQ4-zk8K7KXQtapRDG5vA/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=105759191677059871389

ER 1: The maximum speed limit will be set to 6 mph and will be controlled by the software.
ER 5: Each controller must have the same connection type.
ER 6: The kit should come with a remote/app for the caregiver that has administrative control of the device and set a lower alternative maximum speed limit.
ER 8: The device will prioritize the inputs in the following order: safety sensors > bluetooth app > pediatric user.
ER 9: Create a motor simulation in Matlab & Simulink to identify the optimal parameters for the motor.
ER 11: The kit will weigh no more than 20lbs.
ER 13: The battery life of the device shall be 8-10 hours.
ER 19: The team shall design the kit for manufacturing larger quantities (>100) at $500/kit.
ER 21: The project team shall start the process for FDA approval if the kit is considered a medical device.
The team believes our final design is very robust. The team was able to deliver a final design that consistently works, incorporates safety sensors, and incorporates a control priority algorithm something that was not accomplished in the previous prototype. The design is strong enough that future teams could keep the original design and add to it more safety features or modularity.
The team asked for several budget increases over the course of the project however the customer was willing to raise the budget each time. The team ended up spending $3319.67 of the final $3500 budget. The team was also able to meet our goal of creating a prototype that costs less than $1500. The final prototype costs $1477.
Our customer seemed very satisfied with the prototype we delivered to him. The customer would like to keep the project going for future iterations however future projects will focus more on additional sensor integration and modularity than functionality. The team plans the deliver the prototypes to CP Rochester in the upcoming week to hear their feedback about the prototype.
The scope of our project did not change very much during MSD II. The team had originally planned on having an administrative control app on the prototype but after months of work could not get the app to work. The team then looked into RF which we determined would work with out design but ran out of time to implement it. The team also decided to building two standers instead of one.
Our schedule did not change very much during MSD II. Building an additional stander was added to the schedule. Some verification and validation testing was moved from phase to phase but all verification and validation testing was able to be finished by the end of the semester.
From these changes the team learned that it's important to begin testing as soon as possible. The team also learned that with good time management you can accomplish more than you set out to (like building two standers instead of just one).
Review your individual team member status.
Jacqui
I was able to deliver my personal responsibilities. My main contributions to the team this semester was the test plans and user manual. All of the test plans were completed by the end of the semester and the user manual is up to date with pictures explaining the assembly. I was also able to update the EDGE page on time for each design review.
I felt the MSD II plan was much more effective than the MSD I plan. I liked that we were able to fabricate the systems, have a design review, and then have time to integrate all the systems before another design review. I think the main thing I've taken away from MSD II is that documentation is key and that documentation is much easier if you complete as you go along. I also learned it will make things easier to upload important documents to edge as you go through the year rather than waiting to the end to add them all.
Megan
Snehal
I was unable to deliver on my main task which was the implementation of the Administrative Bluetooth App in time. I did, however, explored/learned a lot about app development on several different platforms and maintained detailed documentation about all the hurdles and solutions (along with relevant links) to help avoid future teams from running into the same issues as I did. Towards the end of the semester, I was able to implement a WebApp using wireless communication and come up with a simple RF solution as a backup with the help of an SME, Carlos Barrios. However, both needed replacement/addition to the control board to work which due to the time constraint was not implemented. Besides that, I was able/available to complete all my other tasks and assist the team in building and testing two functioning prototypes.
MSD II set up was a lot more flexible and useful to our team than MSD I. Each phase was more structured while being flexible enough to assign our own realistic timeline. Maintaining the Action Plan was very helpful. There were a few conflicts but they were handled and resolved immediately and maturely by the Project Manager which allowed the team to function smoothly. Personally, managing time this semester was a real challenge. But towards the end I able to balance MSD with everything else. I especially like the Design Review process this semester. I think the reviews helped facilitate moving things along and as a team, we learned how to efficiently deliver our progress better to the customer with each passing phase. This will be a helpful skill in the future.
Nick
I was able to deliver on my personal responsibilities effectively. As lead engineer I helped to manage and troubleshoot the electrical system in addition to other engineering needs. I also spent extra time to review and verify the current system, which led to the completion of 2 functional prototypes for ImagineRIT and for handoff with the customer.
MSDII was more practical than MSDI, mainly due to the looseness the class structure provided and because the work was more focused specifically on development and testing. I learned the value of putting together action plans and maintaining accountability for the duration of the project. MSDII provided a more realistic work environment than MSDI.
Ryan
Dabere
Yes I believe I did. This semester, my responsibilities consisted of putting together the power management system, assisting with algorithms and other electrical engineering tasks.
In contrast to msd1, msd2 was definitely realistic because every team member was able to own specific subsystems and also we did not have any class homework or videos to watch. This way, we had more time to focus on building our project. I learned how to use arduino, build battery management systems and it will definitely be useful in the future as an electrical engineer.
Ahmad
Yes I did. My responsibilities this semester involved updating the BOM, user manual assist with BMS, and I also took charge of purchasing which helped with tracking items.
MSD ll plan was more realistic to our project than MSD l plan. Taking charge of purchasing helped me greatly with the subsystems integration phases.
Risk Assessment Analysis
We reduced our risks by almost an additional 50% this semester. We have also closed out our most important risk, the new motor controller. Please see risk register for additional risks closed out.
The team did not run into any unanticipated risks.
Fortunately none of the anticipated risks manifested themselves as problems except for the bluetooth administrative control app.
The team mainly used the problem solving process to troubleshoot this semester. Trouble shooting was completed on when the battery charging connection wouldn't work, when the battery wouldn't work after it was dropped, and when the bluetooth administrative control app was having connection issues.
Risk Burn Down

Risk Burn Down

Live link to the risk register/burn down: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b7BtUVH3h4qmLfcRch2NPHWv1EC28oP8xsaYov98r40/edit?usp=drive_open&ouid=105759191677059871389

Lessons learned, etc.


Home | Planning & Execution | Imagine RIT

Problem Definition | Systems Design | Preliminary Detailed Design | Detailed Design

Build & Test Prep | Subsystem Build & Test | Integrated System Build & Test | Customer Handoff & Final Project Documentation