Project title
(Insert your team logo here)
Critical Design Review
Team name
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
Member 4
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Texas A&M University
Date
TAMU CSCE 482/483 Critical Design Review
1/5
Table of Contents
1
2
Revised Proposal (20 points) ................................................................................................................ 3
1.1
Updates from the original proposal submission ............................................................................ 3
1.2
Needs statement ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.3
Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4
Marketing requirements ................................................................................................................ 3
1.5
Objective tree ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.6
Requirements specification ........................................................................................................... 3
1.7
Background and technology survey .............................................................................................. 3
1.8
Concept generation ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.9
Concept evaluation........................................................................................................................ 3
Proposed design (50 points) .................................................................................................................. 4
2.1
Functional decomposition (15 points)........................................................................................... 4
2.2
Complete module-wise specifications (25 points) ........................................................................ 4
2.2.1
3
Module name (as shown in the Level-1 diagram) ................................................................. 4
2.3
Acceptance testing (5 points) ........................................................................................................ 4
2.4
Integration testing (5 points) ......................................................................................................... 4
Project management (15 points) ........................................................................................................... 4
3.1
Work breakdown structure ............................................................................................................ 4
3.2
Timeline ........................................................................................................................................ 4
3.3
Costs.............................................................................................................................................. 5
3.4
Team roles..................................................................................................................................... 5
4
Preliminary results (15 points) .............................................................................................................. 5
5
References cited .................................................................................................................................... 5
TAMU CSCE 482/483 Critical Design Review
2/5
1
1.1
REVISED PROPOSAL (20 POINTS)
Updates from the original proposal submission
Describe any revisions you have made to the proposal, either based on feedback you received from the
course instructor, or from additional information you have found since the proposal was written. Please
organize this information as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Example summary of revisions to the proposal
Section
Instructor feedback
Revisions made
Needs
Need statement does not include
supportive statistics
The revised needs statement includes statistics on the
prevalence of anxiety among adolescents, obtained
from WHO
Needs
Need statement is poorly organized
The needs statement has been reorganized to
Objective
tree
Items in the tree are different from the
marketing requirements
We re-generated the objective tree using the
marketing requirements
Background
No feedback provided
We recently found two more additional studies that
are closely related to our proposed work and feel
should be included
Functional
design
Level-1design lacks details
We have redone the level-1 design by breaking the
system down into sensing module, signal processing
module and visualization module
1.2
Needs statement
Include the revised section from the proposal (or the original one if no feedback was provided)
1.3
Objective
Include the revised section from the proposal (or the original one if no feedback was provided)
1.4
Marketing requirements
Include the revised section from the proposal (or the original one if no feedback was provided)
1.5
Objective tree
Include the revised section from the proposal (or the original one if no feedback was provided)
1.6
Requirements specification
Include the revised section from the proposal (or the original one if no feedback was provided)
1.7
Background and technology survey
Include the revised section from the proposal (or the original one if no feedback was provided)
1.8
Concept generation
Include the revised section from the proposal (or the original one if no feedback was provided)
1.9
Concept evaluation
Include the revised section from the proposal (or the original one if no feedback was provided)
TAMU CSCE 482/483 Critical Design Review
3/5
2
PROPOSED DESIGN (50 POINTS)
The Critical Design Review (CDR) defines a transition between the design stage of your project and the
implementation/integration stages. In a typical project, all decisions have been made at this point
concerning what will be built and how it will be tested. The objective of the CDR is to present a complete
design of the system, an implementation plan and validation/testing procedures.
2.1
Functional decomposition (15 points)
Provide a complete functional decomposition of your design in terms of a Level-0 diagram and a Level-1
diagram. This functional decomposition should reflect any feedback provided by the instructor at the
time of the proposal. Please make sure to include a narrative that describes the system; do not just paste
the Level-0 and Level-1 diagrams.
2.2
Complete module-wise specifications (25 points)
For each module in the Level-1 diagram, provide a detailed design of how it will be implemented (both
hardware and software), including (if applicable):
 Circuit and logic diagrams
 Hardware interfaces and pin-outs
 Software libraries and processes with their inputs and outputs
 Complete parts list
A common mistake when writing this section is to jump from a very high level description of the system
(i.e., the Level-1 diagram) to a very specific detail (i.e., a microcontroller pin-out, or a piece of pseudocode) without any details of what happens in between. As a guideline, every module for which you are
providing specs should exist as a module in the Level-1 diagram, and every module in the Level-1
diagram should have its specs listed here. In other words, the two sections (functional decomposition and
module-wise specs) must be complementary.
2.2.1
Module name (as shown in the Level-1 diagram)
Provide a detailed design and specs for this module. (Repeat this subsection for each module in the Level1 diagram.)
2.3
Acceptance testing (5 points)
Include the revised acceptance test cases (or the original ones if no feedback was provided).
2.4
Integration testing (5 points)
There are many interactions between the various modules in your system. Identify a subset of those
interactions (e.g., 3 to 5 interactions) that are more likely to cause problems and generate integration tests
for each –refer to section 7.2.3 in the textbook and the case studies in chapter 7 for examples. Each
integration test should be described as a separate table.
3
3.1
PROJECT MANAGEMENT (15 POINTS)
Work breakdown structure
Include an updated WBS that reflects the complete system design (and any feedback from the instructor at
the time of the proposal)
3.2
Timeline
Include an updated Gantt chart that reflects the complete system design (and any feedback from the
instructor at the time of the proposal).
TAMU CSCE 482/483 Critical Design Review
4/5
3.3
Costs
Include updated costs that reflect the complete system design (and any feedback from the instructor at the
time of the proposal).
3.4
Team roles
Include an updated task matrix that reflects the complete system design (and any feedback from the
instructor at the time of the proposal).
4
PRELIMINARY RESULTS (15 POINTS)
Provide any test results and demo of completed parts of the system at the time of the CDR.
5
REFERENCES CITED
Acknowledge all the documents that you used as references throughout the text. Please follow the APA
citation standard for references, as described in the Problem Statement template.
TAMU CSCE 482/483 Critical Design Review
5/5