Phase 5: Post Project Evaluation April 8 t h , 2018 Team number: 616A Samuel Barsky 20053348 Faculty Advisor: Professor Mechefske Project Manager: Quita Holm APSC 100 – Module 3 I do hereby verify that this written report is my own individual work and contains my own original ideas, concepts, and designs. No portion of this report has been copied in whole or in part from another source, with the possible exception of properly referenced material. Part I – Process Evaluation The problem definition described in the phase 3 and 4 reports explained how small-scale egg farmers had a difficult time washing and cleaning 50-200 eggs each day. Additionally, the problem definition properly defined the constraints and functional requirements of the project. This is obvious because the report describes how the eggs cannot be submerged in water, must be manually powered, have a budget of $90, and cannot crack the eggs during the cleaning process. The project scope remained consistent throughout phase 3 and 4 which is important because it is not supposed to change. The scope of the egg washing project was to conduct research to design a prototype. Additionally, a prototype needed to be produced within the duration of the project which lasted 11 weeks. The project scope overall had a good amount of detail however could have been more consistently written in the phase 3 and 4 reports. For example, the group wrote “9 by 9 inches” where it should have been “nine by nine inches” which would have added an extra level of professionalism to the report. All the information sources used in during the project between phase 1-4 followed the CRAAP test. Our group only used material from sources which were peer edited journals, reputable studies or were written by trustworthy authorities. In phase 3, our group mistakenly copied all the sources from phase 2 even though they were removed. The extra sources were in the references however they sources were sited properly within the text. Project planning was accomplished through the use of a Gantt chart. This chart was used to map out when our group expects to start tasks and when their deadlines would be. Our group was very effective in completing tasks and met almost every deadline earlier that we expected to. Additionally, our group organized our short-term and long-term goals verbally in our meeting with the help of our project manager. The group conducted a financial analysis of the egg washer. This was done to provide insight about the usefulness of the egg washer in a money-making aspect. For instance, the egg washer can wash more eggs in a significantly shorter amount of time than by a human labourer which reduces water consumption. The initial solutions for the problem that our group came up with were evaluated using the nominal group technique. This technique was used to ensure that every member, not matter how outspoken, was able to voice their opinion on which design was best. The nominal group method also allowed our group to think of criteria for how our model should preform and what aspects of it are the most important. The solution was implemented using the tools in the Integrated Learning Centre’s workshop and the materials purchased within the budget provided. The group worked very efficiently in the workshop as we managed to complete the physical model within 2 work periods in the shop which took approximately 7 hours. The group preformed 3 tests to determine if the egg washer was produced in a way that meets the standards of a small-scale egg farmer. Our group found that the prototype passed 2 out of the three criteria that we tested. Our initial functional specifications proposed that the prototype would be able to wash 6-10 eggs. This was proven not possible due to the size constraints of the machine meaning it would stop rotating if more that 6 eggs were being washed. The tests could have been improved by preforming more research earlier on in the project. This would have made us realise that 2 eggs per slot in the machine would have been too small and not provided an effective cleaning. The client, Professor Mechefske, was involved early in the project to help our team think of ideas and give guidelines as to what rules and regulations needed to be followed. The client was also present at the proposal presentation and gave us feedback about what our team had come up with and weather it was feasible or not. Professor Mechefske was pleased with our solution and thought that it was simple and should work effectively. Part II – Teaming and Personal Evaluation I am very pleased with the team dynamic in this project. My team was able to set clear goals for the short and long term which were challenging but achievable. This ensured that our team made fast progress. We were able to effectively manage our goals through the use of our Gantt chart and weekly meeting with our project manager. The team was also great at using our time effectively since we would work for the full time in each of our allocated time slots. Members of the group would sometimes work outside of the allocated time slots to complete work if we ever felt like we were running behind. Additionally, the tasks were split up among members in a way so that everyone had something to work on all the time. My group was extra productive because some members would work on other people’s sections once they were done everything assigned to them. In the time slots for our team to work, we all knew what we needed to do because our team was so well coordinated. Each team member contributed to their full potential in each time slot. Some members were better at writing reports which made them complete tasks quicker, however; each team member contributed as much as they could during each session. Nevertheless, we are still students and like to have fun in our time slots to keep the environment fun and the team dynamic positive which means occasional shenanigans. The team had high levels of expectations for the quality of work. This was apparent because we all completed our assigned tasks on time and sent our initial drafts to our project manager. This was done so that Quita could review our work so we could get feedback and improve it for a higher mark. Some team members were more vocal about decision making than others. This is likely because some members are more vocal or passive about speaking out about than others which is why the nominal group technique was so important. Even through some members were slightly more passive than others, our group tried listening to everyone to make sure we were all satisfied with the decisions the team was making. The team dynamic was such that none of the team members put down ideas, instead we would explain improvements or why their ideas may be difficult to achieve. This leads me to say that the health of our team is a 5/5. Sometimes members of our team would meet purely outside of the work environment just to have fun and hang out. The team contract outlined that we would meet for 5 hours which was accomplished by the team. Later in the project, the team became more relaxed in the meetings and got off track more often than we would have liked. We should have specified in the team contract that the 5 hours that we worked per week was to be 5 hours of hard work. I could have improved the team’s performance by telling the team when they were getting off track. Even though our group occasionally got sidetracked, we still managed to accomplish all our tasks on time. I feel like if I policed my team into being more on track, then they would have alienated me and the team dynamic that we had would have been tarnished. I could have personally improved my performance by working more outside of the meetings to ensure our team was making progress. Next year I am going to take another team design course and I intend to improve my performance. To do this, I intend to get less distracted in the team environment and proof read the work that we submit more. Additionally, I will make sure that everything I write is written using proper engineering language and formatting because our team had some difficulties with that this year. I would encourage upcoming first year students to prioritise work in the APSC 100 courses, but they need to make sure that they have a good time. Good connections in the engineering world can be made through these assignments where it is important to be a positive and likable person to your teammates. Part III – Engineering Your Career: Review of Professional Mission Statement and Plan In my original mission statement; Over the next 10-15 years, I plan to gather as much engineering experience in the work force as possible. I see these upcoming years as a time to build my resume so that I will look useful to employers. In addition, I plan on continuing my studies at Queen’s by getting my degree in mechanical engineering then potentially doing a masters program. I would probably do my masters degree in another country as I will gain experience with other cultures and broaden my contacts. I discussed how I saw these upcoming years as a great time to build my resume and gain as much engineering knowledge as possible. I also mentioned that I wanted to finish my degree in mechanical engineering and possibly do my masters in another country to explore the world while studying. My interest in mechanical engineering is still strong and I want to continue my studies. I don’t have a need to change my mission statement because my values and goals haven’t dramatically changed since the beginning of the semester. I wouldn’t say that mod 3 changed my mind about my mission statement, however it did reinforce my decisions. I still feel like continuing my studies in mechanical engineering is important because this will provide me with a powerful degree. With this degree I would be able to go down many different academic paths that I can take after my undergrad. Additionally, I still feel like travelling outside of Canada for a masters degree would provide me with new experience not possible while staying at home.