Your team will hold a gate review with your guide at the end of each semester. This page should document any information needed for the review, as well as outcomes.
MSD I: Readiness to move to Build & TestSheet for MSD I Gate Review: Gate Review Worksheet
MSD II: Project close-out
Status ReviewCurrent state of the project
- Actual performance vs. requirements
The project was handed off to our customer who has been using the design for the last few days.
- Which requirements were unmet?
- The only requirement the team did not meet was achieving a 4-star FADGI rating. This is because FADGI includes consistency in its metrics. As much is still left to the operator in our final design, we cannot meet consistency requirements. The team met all other customer requirements.
- How robust is your final design?
- Our design appears to be robust; Elizabeth mentioned that she ran it for 6 hours non-stop one day.
- Did you meet your project budget?
- We did meet our final budget, after the budget extension.
- What was your customer's assessment of the work
you delivered to them? Were they satisfied?
- Elizabeth seemed very happy with the software given to her and the automatic height adjustment feature.
- Which requirements were unmet?
- Compare your current project plan/schedule to your
- Did the scope of your project change during MSD
- Last minute complications with the camera motor and the Teensy caused the team to rethink the scope of the project. Ordering a new Teensy had a lead time of 3 weeks which was not feasible so thanks to Dr. Loui who was able to secure an Arduino, we were able to use allow the customer to manually control the height of the camera and the conveyor belt.
- How and why did your schedule change during MSD
- The MSD II plan would have been effective if we did not have to redesign almost every subsystem of the project. There was not enough buffer time within the original plan to account for all of the motors needing to be replaced, or the Teensy burning out. The team did not think that minor aspects of the project, such as the motor covers or control box, would take as long as they did to complete.
- What have you learned from these changes that you
can apply to future projects?
- Allow plan time in the schedule for unplanned problems and it takes longer to get some things done than originally planned. Additionally, it would be a good idea to do as much work as possible before delivery of a prototype to the customer; we found that this hindered our ability to test and improve the system.
- Did the scope of your project change during MSD II?
- Review individual team member status.
- Chris: Chris was responsible for the entire camera height subsystem, including motor mount design and aligning the chain so there was no slippage. He was the one in charge of setup and testing for the camera height, as well as 3-D printing most of the covers (chain and motor) necessary for a good cosmetic finish.
- Rahul: Rahul worked on the redesign of the conveyor motor and the camera height motor, designed and 3D/laser cut various cosmetic stuff for the system like the control box, motor covers, webcam mount and mounts for the ultrasonic sensors. He also ordered various parts and kept the BOM up to date.
- Andrew: Andrew developed software meant to enable the Teensy’s automatic conveyor control program and Elizabeth’s Mac to communicate and also worked on developing the automatic conveyor control program. The automatic cropping script was also improved in regards to its robustness. An attempt was also made at creating a machine learning augmented approach for the autocrop program, but that ended in failure. It should have been planned to begin work on this version of the autocrop program sooner.
- Harley: Harley did a lot of work with building the 2 tables that supported the entire system and worked closely with Erin to sew the actual conveyor belts that ran on the tables. She also redesigned the rollers, roller supports and motor mount to be used with the new conveyor system. She was also in charge of solving the broken motor for the camera height adjustment problem and created the control box with Rahul. Throughout the semester she handled the advanced manufacturing with the waterjet and CNC to create the needed gears, motor mounts, and so on.
- Erin: Erin completed all of the edge pages for MSD II, wrote the first draft of the technical paper, and completed the poster. She also filmed and created the lightning talk video for the team.
- Review your current risk assessment and problem
- The biggest risk the team did not anticipate was the Teensy dying two weeks before Imagine RIT. Similarly, the motor shaft breaking was an unforeseen accident which required a new motor to be ordered last minute.
- The team did manage to stay within budget, finished the project on time, and no artifacts were ruined during this process. The end result was much less complex then the original problem scope, due mostly in part to the teensy board failing and the motor shaft breaking with 2 weeks left in the semester.
Lessons learned, etc.
- Does the team have any other lessons learned that
were not addressed above?
- The biggest lesson learned was to make sure the team involves Elizabeth, our customer, in the design process. It became clear towards the end of the semester Elizabeth had a different scope for the project than the team did. If we were to have involved Elizabeth in the design of the project, then the team would have had a better understanding of what she was looking for.
- What advice would you give to future teams?
- Some advice for future teams would be to begin prototyping as soon as possible -- this would let you see and correct what doesn’t work before it becomes a real problem. Also, involve the customer in the design process as much as possible; they know what they want much more than you do. Finally, you are going to need more time than you think, so make sure to budget extra hours/days for the building and testing process so everything doesn't pile up in the end.