Difference between revisions of "Group 24 - Product Name Here"

From GICL Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Gate 1: Project Planning)
Line 1: Line 1:
=Product=
 
[[Image:Tippmann98.png|thumb|center|1000px|Figure 1: Tippmann 98 Custom Paintball Marker]]
 
= Introduction =
 
  
=== Group Members ===
+
<h1>Product</h1>
 +
<p>[[File:2012 Group 28 Stock Image.jpeg]]</p>
 +
<h1>Introduction</h1>
 +
<h3>Group Members</h3>
 +
<p>Kyle Erway<br>Alexander Harris<br>Gino Nadela<br>Matthew Tolentino</p>
 +
<h1>Executive Summary</h1>
 +
<p>This project focused on an in-depth analysis of the Tippmann 98 Custom Paintball Marker, a relatively cheap paintball marker (for the time it was still in production). Our group dissected and analyzed the several aspects of the product in order to understand how the product's final design came to be.
 +
<br> The several aspects include: <ul><li>Functionality</li><li>Aesthetics</li><li>Manufacturing Processes</li><li>Assembly/Construction</li><li>Global, Societal, Environmental, and Economic factors (GSEE factors)</li></ul></p>
 +
<p><u><b>Gate 1</b></u> - Our primary inspection of our project revealed that the product is composed of around 20-30 components that rely on mechanical or energy transferring interactions, no electricity is required. Most of these interactions within marker casing, which holds most of the components, and the rest, occur while being mounted to the marker casing. The design of the gun was likely to continue reputation of Tippmann 98, being a paintball marker made of very common material while being constructed in a very straightforward, efficient manner; the marker’s components look as though they are easy to maintain and disassemble if necessary.  </p>
 +
<p><u><b>Gate 2</b ></u> - The dissection process was completed in ten relatively simple steps, and yielded approximately thirty different parts/components. While completing this dissection, the innards of the marker casing were visible and the component subsystems were clearly visible. These sub-systems helped the group understand how the product performed its function in much more detail, as the sub-system interactions were simple relative to other similar product; while the interactions are not a simple as normal mechanism, they represent a fairly basic/standard form of interaction in this line of products. Just from inspection, the group could identify how each interaction lead to reactions among the components.</p>
 +
<p><u><b>Gate 3</b ></u> - A further analysis into the parts/components provided a better insight of how every interaction had significance in performing the overall function of the product. Each component was thoroughly analyzed to determine how complex it was, what its contribution to the product was, and how it was manufactured. Of these products we analyzed several main components even further, since to truly grasp how they contributed to firing paintballs. This analysis led to the conclusion that many of the components were probably designed to make the product a cheap, simple product that relied on durability and ease of disassembly to ensure it continued the reputation the Tippmann Model 98 had.</p>
 +
<p><u><b>Gate 4</b ></u> - The reassembly of the product was not too difficult either, and gave a good idea of where things in the product could be changed to yield an improvement in performance or user interaction. With a better understanding of how each component interacted with each other, the group proposed a few design revisions to the product at the system level. These improvements presented an increase in functionality of the product and could actually be viewed as a customization of the product. This product was designed to be customized easily, thus system-level changes may actually be interpreted as customizations. While the company could make these changes while manufacturing the product, allowing the user to customize it themselves will be more cost efficient and appeal to a much wider range of customers.  </p>
 +
<p>  </p>
  
Evan Lepkowski<br>
 
Curt Nowack<br>
 
Kyle Mau<br>
 
Daniel Dobrovosky<br>
 
Ryan Fonzi<br>
 
  
=Executive Summary =
+
<h1>Project Gates</h1>
 +
<p>These project gates provide a basic layout for how the group should manage the product management and product archaeology tasks. The first four gates will test our group's organization, communication, and analytic skills, while the last gate will culminate the entire project into a technical report and short oral presentation.</p>
  
The focus of the project that our research group completed this past semester was based on the Tippmann 98 Custom model paintball marker. This marker is a non-lethal projectile device designed to look and feel like a firearm for the purposes of a competitive entertainment. The grouped looked into the design of the product, and the functions of the internal components. Each part was then analyzed and manufacturing methods were discussed and given reason. In the end, our group decided on some revisions that would be the marker more reasonable and marketable. In all, most of the revisions were aimed for better performance during use.<br>
+
<h3>Gate 1: Preparation and Initial Assessment </h3>
 
+
<p>For the first gate, the group must evaluate the skills and traits of each member and assign a proper role for certain responsibilities. Alongside assigning roles, the group needs to outline the workload required for the entire project in some format. Lastly, the group must do thorough analysis of the product with restriction from actual dissection.</p>
'''Gate 1;''' Our initial assessment of the product was that most all of the functions of the marker were in-line with one another via mechanical connections and energy transfers. It was clear that most all functions occurred within the housing of the marker, and that before opening the product, most components and actual functions were essentially conceptual. The clear design concerns were mainly in general performance, ease of use, societal appeal, and compatibility with parallel products. Much like automotive vehicles, it seemed as though the look of the marker held nearly as much if not more weight than the inner-components of the marker.<br>
+
<p>[http://gicl.cs.drexel.edu/wiki/Group_28_-_Gate1_-_Project_Planning_-_2012 <b>Gate 1</b>]</p>
 
+
<h3>Gate 2: Dissection</h3>
'''Gate 2;''' Upon dissecting the marker, our research team discovered the connections between subsystems and how the mechanics of the product function. Certain central part connections, as well as critical subsystems were identified with more precision than in our original assessment. The complexity of the parts and the interactions was assessed according to both qualitative and quantitative standards. The group gained an understanding of the inner-workings of the product, which gave crucial insight to the functional design of the marker.<br>
+
<p>The second gate provides a performance review of the group and an overview of the disassembly of the product. The review discusses how well the group managed to accomplish what was required for the previous gate and the continuation of work towards Gate 2. The overview of the disassembly process will be a detailed outlining of the complete dissection of the product.</p>
 
+
<p>[http://gicl.cs.drexel.edu/wiki/Group_28_-_Gate_2_-_2012 <b>Gate 2</b>]</p>
'''Gate 3;''' To further our research of the marker, the group made a general profile of each part of the disassembled marker. The complexity of the parts and the interactions was assessed according to both qualitative and quantitative standards. The basic manufacturing process of each, though mainly theoretical, was documented, along with the function. Some vital components were set aside and evaluated further in order to gain a better understanding of the design of the marker and what design factors were involved. By analyzing the marker, we gained a better understanding of what kinds of analysis went into the original design of the product.<br>
+
<h3>Gate 3: Evaluation</h3>
 
+
<p>The third gate is mainly an analysis of the product’s components and the interactions between these components. The group also reviews how well they have continued to work together and how to continue working together properly for the following gate. Along with a product analysis, several components will be modeled in 3D using Autodesk Inventor, and a component interaction will be analyzed in depth.</p>
'''Gate 4;''' We reassembled the marker, paying great attention to detail within the product and lead us to discuss ideas about revising the marker. By understanding how the marker is put together, a final understanding of connections and flows was attained. Our group came to the conclusion that while material waste was a concern for the design for the marker, it seemed that most of the appeal of the product was in both its functionality and compatibility. For this reason, it seemed that the best direction for revision was in consumer appeal through the addition of functionality.<br>
+
<p>[http://gicl.cs.drexel.edu/wiki/Group_28_-_Gate_3_-_Product_Analysis_-_2012 <b>Gate 3</b>]</p>
 
+
<h3>Gate 4: Explanation</h3>
From our analysis of the Tippmann 98 Custom paintball marker, we assessed an in-place system and discussed what directions would be beneficial to take in terms of product revision. From this, the group gained knowledge of the importance behind system functionality and design processes. We were able to obtain practice in problem identification and in finding motives for improvement through the four common design factors. From this, the group gained an understanding of some common engineering techniques and practices.<br>
+
<p> </p>
 
+
<p>[http://gicl.cs.drexel.edu/wiki/Group_28_-_Gate_4_-_Product_Explanation_-_2012<b>Gate 4</b>]</p>
 
+
=Gates:=
+
 
+
== '''Gate 1: Project Planning''' ==
+
 
+
===<u>Contents:</u>===
+
-Work Proposal<br>
+
-Management Proposal<br>
+
-Preparation and Initial Assessment<br>
+
*[[Group 24 - Tippmann 98 Custom - Gate 1|Gate 1 - Project Planning]]
+
 
+
== '''Gate 2: Product Dissection''' ==
+
 
+
===<u>Contents:</u>===
+
-Purpose<br>
+
-Preliminary Project Review<br>
+
-Product Dissection<br>
+
*[[Group 24 - Tippmann 98 Custom - Gate 2|Gate 2 - Project Dissection]]
+
 
+
== '''Gate 3: Product Analysis''' ==
+
 
+
===<u>Contents:</u>===
+
-Purpose<br>
+
-Cause for Corrective Action<br>
+
-Project Analysis<br>
+
-Solid Model Assembly<br>
+
-Engineering Analysis<br>
+
*[[Group 24 - Tippmann 98 Custom - Gate 3|Gate 3 - Project Analysis]]
+
 
+
== '''Gate 4: Product Explanation''' ==
+
 
+
===<u>Contents:</u>===
+
-Purpose<br>
+
-Cause for Corrective Action<br>
+
-Project Reassembly<br>
+
-Design Revisions<br>
+
*[[Group 24 - Tippmann 98 Custom - Gate 4|Gate 4 - Project Explanation]]
+

Revision as of 13:51, 14 December 2012

Contents

Product

2012 Group 28 Stock Image.jpeg

Introduction

Group Members

Kyle Erway
Alexander Harris
Gino Nadela
Matthew Tolentino

Executive Summary

This project focused on an in-depth analysis of the Tippmann 98 Custom Paintball Marker, a relatively cheap paintball marker (for the time it was still in production). Our group dissected and analyzed the several aspects of the product in order to understand how the product's final design came to be.
The several aspects include:

  • Functionality
  • Aesthetics
  • Manufacturing Processes
  • Assembly/Construction
  • Global, Societal, Environmental, and Economic factors (GSEE factors)

Gate 1 - Our primary inspection of our project revealed that the product is composed of around 20-30 components that rely on mechanical or energy transferring interactions, no electricity is required. Most of these interactions within marker casing, which holds most of the components, and the rest, occur while being mounted to the marker casing. The design of the gun was likely to continue reputation of Tippmann 98, being a paintball marker made of very common material while being constructed in a very straightforward, efficient manner; the marker’s components look as though they are easy to maintain and disassemble if necessary.

Gate 2 - The dissection process was completed in ten relatively simple steps, and yielded approximately thirty different parts/components. While completing this dissection, the innards of the marker casing were visible and the component subsystems were clearly visible. These sub-systems helped the group understand how the product performed its function in much more detail, as the sub-system interactions were simple relative to other similar product; while the interactions are not a simple as normal mechanism, they represent a fairly basic/standard form of interaction in this line of products. Just from inspection, the group could identify how each interaction lead to reactions among the components.

Gate 3 - A further analysis into the parts/components provided a better insight of how every interaction had significance in performing the overall function of the product. Each component was thoroughly analyzed to determine how complex it was, what its contribution to the product was, and how it was manufactured. Of these products we analyzed several main components even further, since to truly grasp how they contributed to firing paintballs. This analysis led to the conclusion that many of the components were probably designed to make the product a cheap, simple product that relied on durability and ease of disassembly to ensure it continued the reputation the Tippmann Model 98 had.

Gate 4 - The reassembly of the product was not too difficult either, and gave a good idea of where things in the product could be changed to yield an improvement in performance or user interaction. With a better understanding of how each component interacted with each other, the group proposed a few design revisions to the product at the system level. These improvements presented an increase in functionality of the product and could actually be viewed as a customization of the product. This product was designed to be customized easily, thus system-level changes may actually be interpreted as customizations. While the company could make these changes while manufacturing the product, allowing the user to customize it themselves will be more cost efficient and appeal to a much wider range of customers.


Project Gates

These project gates provide a basic layout for how the group should manage the product management and product archaeology tasks. The first four gates will test our group's organization, communication, and analytic skills, while the last gate will culminate the entire project into a technical report and short oral presentation.

Gate 1: Preparation and Initial Assessment

For the first gate, the group must evaluate the skills and traits of each member and assign a proper role for certain responsibilities. Alongside assigning roles, the group needs to outline the workload required for the entire project in some format. Lastly, the group must do thorough analysis of the product with restriction from actual dissection.

Gate 1

Gate 2: Dissection

The second gate provides a performance review of the group and an overview of the disassembly of the product. The review discusses how well the group managed to accomplish what was required for the previous gate and the continuation of work towards Gate 2. The overview of the disassembly process will be a detailed outlining of the complete dissection of the product.

Gate 2

Gate 3: Evaluation

The third gate is mainly an analysis of the product’s components and the interactions between these components. The group also reviews how well they have continued to work together and how to continue working together properly for the following gate. Along with a product analysis, several components will be modeled in 3D using Autodesk Inventor, and a component interaction will be analyzed in depth.

Gate 3

Gate 4: Explanation

Gate 4