Gate 4 Group 27 2012
(→Cause for Corrective Action) |
(→Cause for Corrective Action) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Cause for Corrective Action== | ==Cause for Corrective Action== | ||
During Gate 3, the plan of action had worked out well, and the changes made after Gate 2 proved to be useful. Consistently throughout the project, we have been using email as the main source of communication for allocating tasks, and for describing the overall plan for the project. Email was also used to give a record of meeting times. Texts and phone calls were used for more immediate communication, in particular with regards to meeting attendance. As for planning the project, deadlines were set for each section ahead of the actual due date of the project, so that there would be time for revisions. Another thing that was consistent throughout the project was that one person set up the Wiki page, complete with headlines and titles, so that the whole page would be more logically ordered and more cohesive throughout. This also prevented redundancies, as well as out of place information. These practices, which were done throughout the project, have proven to be very effective in creating a thorough report for the drill. | During Gate 3, the plan of action had worked out well, and the changes made after Gate 2 proved to be useful. Consistently throughout the project, we have been using email as the main source of communication for allocating tasks, and for describing the overall plan for the project. Email was also used to give a record of meeting times. Texts and phone calls were used for more immediate communication, in particular with regards to meeting attendance. As for planning the project, deadlines were set for each section ahead of the actual due date of the project, so that there would be time for revisions. Another thing that was consistent throughout the project was that one person set up the Wiki page, complete with headlines and titles, so that the whole page would be more logically ordered and more cohesive throughout. This also prevented redundancies, as well as out of place information. These practices, which were done throughout the project, have proven to be very effective in creating a thorough report for the drill. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The most significant revision in Gate 3's project plan was in the way that tasks were allocated to the different members. Gate 3 was structured in a way such that certain parts needed to be done before others could be done. Because of this, those parts which were prerequisites for other parts of the project were to be completed by either the group at a meeting, or an individual who had reliably produced work on time in the previous Gates. This proved to be useful, as when it came time to do the project, some of the group members had missed the deadline by which the other members had agreed to have their sections submitted. As a result of this allocation of tasks, the project was able to continue, with only slight inhibitions. This practice will be continued in Gate 4, but with some refinement in the allocation of tasks. Gate 4 does not have parts that have to be done in a sequential order, and as such the allocation will be based on the point value of each section. Those who scored the highest on their sections in the past were given the sections with the highest portion of the grade. This way, if parts of the project are late, incomplete, or do not meet the satisfactory level, the overall impact on the grading will be less. | ||
==Product Reassembly== | ==Product Reassembly== | ||
Revision as of 22:25, 26 November 2012
Contents |
Introduction
In Gate 4, we will reassemble the drill, and discuss in detail the complexity of reassembly. We will also discuss a mechanism of the drill that is used to generate a specific motion. In addition, we will suggest 3 system changes, keeping the GSEE factors in mind when considering changes.
Cause for Corrective Action
During Gate 3, the plan of action had worked out well, and the changes made after Gate 2 proved to be useful. Consistently throughout the project, we have been using email as the main source of communication for allocating tasks, and for describing the overall plan for the project. Email was also used to give a record of meeting times. Texts and phone calls were used for more immediate communication, in particular with regards to meeting attendance. As for planning the project, deadlines were set for each section ahead of the actual due date of the project, so that there would be time for revisions. Another thing that was consistent throughout the project was that one person set up the Wiki page, complete with headlines and titles, so that the whole page would be more logically ordered and more cohesive throughout. This also prevented redundancies, as well as out of place information. These practices, which were done throughout the project, have proven to be very effective in creating a thorough report for the drill.
The most significant revision in Gate 3's project plan was in the way that tasks were allocated to the different members. Gate 3 was structured in a way such that certain parts needed to be done before others could be done. Because of this, those parts which were prerequisites for other parts of the project were to be completed by either the group at a meeting, or an individual who had reliably produced work on time in the previous Gates. This proved to be useful, as when it came time to do the project, some of the group members had missed the deadline by which the other members had agreed to have their sections submitted. As a result of this allocation of tasks, the project was able to continue, with only slight inhibitions. This practice will be continued in Gate 4, but with some refinement in the allocation of tasks. Gate 4 does not have parts that have to be done in a sequential order, and as such the allocation will be based on the point value of each section. Those who scored the highest on their sections in the past were given the sections with the highest portion of the grade. This way, if parts of the project are late, incomplete, or do not meet the satisfactory level, the overall impact on the grading will be less.
