Group 16 - DeWalt 4 1/2 in Angle Grinder Gate 4
(→Project Management) |
(→Product Reassembly) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
===Product Reassembly=== | ===Product Reassembly=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ====Challenges==== | ||
===Mechanisms=== | ===Mechanisms=== | ||
Revision as of 13:11, 28 November 2012
Contents |
Introduction
In this phase of the project our group completed our reverse engineering process by reassembling our product and gathering information from the reassembly process. In Project Management our group describes how we have worked through the challenge presented in Gate 3, as well as discussing why our current group structure has prevented further challenges from arising. Once this had been completed our group did the reassembly and created a step-by-step process so that our product could be reassembled without significant prior knowledge of the product. After this our group analyzed the helical bevel gear, one of the primary mechanisms in our product, and considered both its purpose and the equations governing its motion. Our group then recommended three system level design revisions that would improve the overall functionality of the product. All of these can be found under Product Archaeology. Lastly, in Conclusions our group considered all of the information we have gathered over the course of this project in order to make detailed conclusions about the original design of our product.
Project Management
As described in Gate 3, our group's last remaining issue is the attendance of one group member. This member did not attend for the meeting where we divided the assignments for this gate, thereby preventing him from taking on or contributing to any of the gate components. Several times now he has been told when and where the group will be meeting, but he has failed to attend or give a valid reason for missing. Our group divided the work in such a way that we will still complete this gate efficiently, even without this member's help. For Gate 3 this method proved workable, as the workload was not too severe for four people to complete. We therefore have avoided assigning this member important tasks (or any tasks in this case) and will be mitigating the problem through the same means used before. This solution has been an effective method of preserving the overall project quality without severely impacting any of the other members.
Besides this attendance problem, our group has no remaining internal problems. All of the solutions provided since Gate 2 (and listed below) have been effective:
- Not knowing how to use the wiki: Our group's functional knowledge of the wiki has been enough to allow effective technical communication because of the previous steps taken to learn how the wiki works.
- No out of class meetings: While our group does not have regularly scheduled meeting time, we have done well at getting most of the group together when the Project Manager gives a couple days' notice. This has allowed our group to adapt and function in a way that would not be possible if all communication was via email.
- An unevenly distributed workload: With the exception of the aforementioned member, the work has been divided as fairly as possible, with considerations for the amount of work involved in any part taken into consideration. For this gate, the instructor provided a breakdown of the point allotments for each section, which aided our group in assessing how much time each part would entail. We thus were able to come up with a fair distribution of work.
