Group 22 Gate 4
Project Management: Preliminary Review
Causes For Corrective Action:
Through the majority of this project, our group hasn't seen much need for corrective action; in fact, we haven't had much conflict at all. Sticking with out original plan, we have been able to complete the tasks. It has been working when it comes to getting things done in time, as for improving on grades we have yet to do so. That may be from never editing and checking everything to the fullest. We plan to fix this by each going in and checking the final result to provide the most feedback and best wiki. Another challenge faced came around gate 2, when we lost a member. While other groups had six to five members, our group only had four so we had to take on more than usually to accomplish our assignments. There are no major unresolved conflicts among group 22 members. Through email, text messaging, and short weekly meetings we are able to ensure things get done and everyone's on the same page.
For completing gate 5 and revising our wiki, our only two remaining sections due since we have already presented, we plan to keep in communication over exam week to improve upon previous gates to essentially get better scores. Our grades in the past have been above average but still not the best, so we intend to make changes where needed to get up there. After getting the gate breakdowns, we realized certain sections that we missed and can improve upon. By going back and fixing all the gates, we plan on making our grade better. As for responsibility, John and Elizabeth are the wiki managers and will go back and fix the parts. To be more systematic and organized we plan on going by the gate breakdowns and follow what we got points off for.
Reassembly of Product
Below is the step by step process of our products’ reassemble, along with pictures, and information about what tools we used, the amount of time it took and the difficulty level of each step. The difficulty scale is as follows:
- 1 = Easy: step required little effort, required no tools, quick analytical thinking.
- 2 = Medium: step required a longer thinking process and assessment, with simple use of tools.
- 3 = Hard: step required longer process of thinking, rather assessment and attempts, and possibly two people.
Figures 4.1: Steps to reassemble the Barbie Jammin' Jeep
The overall process took 12 minutes and 45 seconds. The tools used were a Phillips Head Screwdriver, and mainly human force. There were challenges faced, originally we had trouble taking about the the back tire set out because the screws needed to be taken out were out of reach with a screwdriver, this lead to us tearing into it to take the back tire about. Therefore the back tires are nonfunctional. Some pieces required a lot of force in order to be removed such as the tire caps but especially the bushings on the axial. These challenges were overcome by using the appropriate tool. Also removing certain pieces ultimately led to them being ruined so now the jeep cannot be reassembled unless they are replaced.
The product was originally assembled with the subsystems already put together for the consumer. The manufacturers assembled as much as possible to make the assembly process simple for the consumer, with the dash board system assembled, as well as the back tire axle in place and front tire axle ready to be put in place. Since we disassembled everything as much as possible to the point of even going into electric components to expose wires, our task to assemble was more difficult than a consumer.
Comparing dissemble with assemble, one took a bit longer than the other due to knowledge. For the assemble, we were more aware of how things go together since we once took it apart. The tools used include Philips head screw driver, which is different from dis-assembly because for dis-assembly we needed that and a flat head screw driver to force certain parts off, when in assembly those parts are put back with force. The challenges faced in disassemble such as thinking what is next was eliminated because we knew what were the best steps to take. Also the challenge of certain components not being able to come apart were face again and permitted us from having a function-able vehicle. This led to certain systems losing function such as the tires, which makes it mot able to move and essentially losing its kinetic ability.
System Design Revisions
Design Revision 1: Modular Parts
Currently, most of the Barbie Jammin’ Jeep Wrangler’s parts are not modular, which consequently makes them unserviceable to many consumers. For example, the tire/axle assembly has a permanent bushing, which, once removed, is not replaceable. This makes it unlikely that a consumer could disassemble the Jeep completely for maintenance or transport.
- Global Concerns: None
- Societal Concerns: Some consumers may not have the know-how to disassemble the Jeep. Also, modular parts may make the Jeep less reliable, or prone to disassembly by the children.
- Economic Concerns: Modular parts are more expensive to produce initially, but repairs of the Jeep will be cheaper, since a consumer can order a new part and replace it themselves, instead of sending in the entire product for professional service. This can be a useful selling point.
- Environmental Concerns: Should a modular part fall off, the decay of the part can affect the immediate environment.
Design Revision 2: Product Weatherproofing
Since this product spends most of its lifespan outdoors, and is most likely to be used outdoors, its ability to resist the environment is key to a long lifespan. One of the major environmental factors the product needs to resist is water damage to the electrical components. The suggested revision is a conformal coating of dielectric grease on the electrical components, as well as drainage holes in the chassis.
- Global Concerns: The dielectric grease is available in many auto parts stores. However, the grease may be derived from petroleum, which may or may not be purchased from potentially hostile nations.
- Societal Concerns: If the dielectric grease is not derived from petroleum, it cannot be made of fat derived from animals, since this could potentially decrease the customer base, effectively removing vegans, as well as decreasing those demographics which believes certain animals are sacred.
- Economic Concerns: Drilling the holes in the chassis is not expected to be expensive, however the additional machinery involved may add to the cost. The dielectric grease used is not particularly expensive, and can be sprayed on by workers or an automated system.
-Environmental Concerns: At high temperatures, the dielectric grease may liquefy and leak to the ground. This should be of minimal concern, since the nature of the grease is organic, and a minimal amount is used.
Design Revision 3: Product Power Source/Charging
Presently, a Lead-Acid rechargeable battery is used to power the product, which is not as effective or efficient as a Lithium Ion battery. In addition to using a LiON battery, the removal of the battery could be eliminated altogether, if a charging pad were developed which used induction to charge the battery.
- Global Concerns: The LiON battery is most likely to be produced in China, which has been under scrutiny for producing low quality batteries, notably prone to explosion.
- Societal Concerns: The product will resemble futuristic electric cars, which are plugged in or parked on an induction pad to charge.
- Economic Concerns: LiON battery technology is slightly more expensive than lead-acid, but has a longer lifespan, which compensates for the cost. The induction pad adds to the cost as well, since it is a major feature of the product.
- Environmental Concerns: LiON disposal is messy at best, and having the product outdoors for long periods of time offers the battery the opportunity to decompose.