Project Management And Decision Methods
A. Work Breakdown Structure Outline:
1.0 Design Concept Selection for Fabrication
1.1 Come to mutual agreement (Team)
1.1.1 Ensure Design Flexibility (ISE/ ME)
1.1.2 Concept Development (All, focus of ISE)
1.1.2.1 Concept Layout
1.1.2.1.1 Discuss Feasibility
1.1.2.1.2 Discuss Functionality (ME,EE)
1.1.2.1.3 Discuss Design Goals with Sponsor (Team)
1.1.2.1.4 Brainstorm (Team)
2.0 Detailed Design
2.1 3-D Solid Modeling Assembly/ Component (ME, IE)
2.2 FEA analysis For stress (ME)
2.3 Manufacturing Process Plans (Team)
2.3.1 Placement of Power Sources (EE, Team)
2.3.2 Surface/ Side component functionality (ME, IE)
3.0 Closure on SD 1/ SD2 Preparation
3.1 Create Presentation (Team)
3.1.1 Unit Cost analysis (Team)
3.1.2 Fabrication of Component Cost (Team)
3.1.3 Laptop/ Unit Lighting/ Teleconferencing Hookup Costs (Team)
1.0 Design Concept Selection for Fabrication
· This process indicates that the brainstorming stage, as well as concept layout have been completed. At this point, the design team should be able to select one design concept to go forth with in the project.
1.1 Come to Mutual Agreement
· During this process, the design team will choose one of the design concepts based on the indicated criteria from the project sponsor.
1.1.1 Ensure Design Flexibility
· This task involves checking over the design concepts to determine whether or not each design offers the flexibility the team will need to meet the sponsor’s needs.
1.1.2 Concept Development
· During this stage, the design team will focus their attention on creating new designs, brainstorming, and developing new ideas for the project. Ideally, for this task, the design team will generate many ideas, and look at the pros and cons to each design in the following tasks.
1.1.2.1 Concept Layout
· The concept layout should include basic design concept structures. In addition, this task shall include preliminary dimensions for each design and ways to incorporate the functionality for each workstation (lockable storage/ mobile power etc).
1.1.2.1.1 Discuss Feasibility
· During this stage of the project, the design team will meet to discuss the feasibility of each proposed design.
1.1.2.1.2 Discuss Functionality
· During the functionality discussion, the design team will look at the array of functionality options available. We will review the design goals from the sponsor, and also determine the main functions of the team workstation.
1.1.2.1.3 Discuss Design Goals with Sponsor
· This task will involve meeting with the design project sponsor to determine the goals for the project. From this interaction with the sponsor, we should have a clear vision of what is to be done, and what are the expected deliverables.
1.1.2.1.4 Brainstorm
*Brainstorming will involve the design team coming up with ideas for our project. The team leader will initiate the brainstorming by introducing the project, as well as preliminary ideas from DPM.
2.0 Detailed Design
· The design team will have a complete design for the project. Each component will have 3-D models and Stress analysis completed. Every aspect will be taken into account with a focus on safety.
2.1 3-D Solid Modeling for Assembly/ Component
· The design team will generate concise 3-D solid models for each component of the workstation. In addition, an assembly drawing will be completed.
2.2 FEA Analysis for stress
· The design team will use ANSYS or a similar software package to calculate the stress on each component of the workstation. This will assist in ensuring a safe product.
2.3 Manufacturing Process Plans
· The design team will come up with a plan of action for manufacturing the workstation prototype. This will involve the discussing the processes necessary, the materials needed, and the availability of machine shop tooling/ expertise to get the job done.
2.3.1 Placement of power sources
· The design team will discuss where on the workstation the power sources should be located. In addition, the team will select and discuss how to incorporate mobile power to the system.
2.3.2 Surface/ Side component functionality
· The team will discuss the possible options for functionality of the side and surface components. The team will select a material for the work surface, discuss dimensions, and decide whether or not the workstation will involve folding/ hinged components or some other means of making the system compact.
3.0 Closure on SD1 / Preparation for SD 2
· The team will discuss the project progress, while also addressing what is to be done in the following ten weeks. We will create a presentation to document our progress to this point.
3.1 Create presentation
· The design team will create a presentation that presents our progress from SD 1. The presentation will introduce our product, team, and sponsor. In addition, the presentation will describe what is to be done in SD 2.
3.1.1 Unit Cost Analysis
· The design team will come up with an in-depth cost analysis that covers the cost of each component. The cost analysis will take into account the outlined budget from our team’s sponsor. In addition, projected fabrication costs will be discussed.
3.1.2 Fabrication of component cost
· The design team will analyze the cost of producing each component in our workstation. We will keep in mind that a main theme behind our project is to use as much recycled materials as possible.
3.1.3 Laptop/ Unit lighting/ Teleconferencing costs
* The design team will review the workstation functionality. We will discuss the costs for laptop hookups, unit lighting and the components involved, and the possibility of incorporating teleconferencing into some of the workstation units.
b. Work Breakdown Structure Graphically:
Figure 3: Graphical Representation of the Work Breakdown Structure layout.
III. Management/ Process Flow
- Design Structure Matrix (DSM)
The Design Structure Matrix (DSM) tool was used as a management tool to clearly define which events were supposed to occur, and in what order they would occur. Below in “Table 1”. the partitioned matrix is shown. This Partitioned matrix shows that there are a few event occurrences that may occur out of order. The events will likely occur concurrently and allow for multiple tasks to be completed in the less time. In general the plan seems like an accurate path for the team.
Table 1: Partitioned Design Structure Matrix.
B. Pert chart
Task / # days / Date Begin / Date EndConcept Development / 5 days / 12/10/2004 8:00 / 12/17/2004 17:00
Winter Break / 11 days / 12/18/2004 8:00 / 1/2/2005 17:00
Brainstorming / 1 day / 12/10/2004 8:00 / 12/10/2004 17:00
Functionality Discussion / 1 day / 12/14/2004 8:00 / 12/14/2004 17:00
Design Goals w/ sponsor / 1 day / 12/17/2004 8:00 / 12/17/2004 17:00
Design Discussion / 5 days / 1/3/2005 8:00 / 1/7/2005 17:00
Feasibility Discussion / 1 day / 1/4/2005 8:00 / 1/4/2005 17:00
Select 'Base' Design / 1 day / 1/7/2005 8:00 / 1/7/2005 17:00
*Discuss "extras" * / 5 days / 1/10/2005 8:00 / 1/14/2005 17:00
Concept Layout / 1 day / 1/17/2005 8:00 / 1/17/2005 17:00
Ensure Design Flexibility / 4 days / 1/11/2005 8:00 / 1/14/2005 17:00
Detailed Design / 11 days / 1/17/2005 8:00 / 1/31/2005 17:00
3-D Solid Modeling/ components / 5 days / 1/17/2005 8:00 / 1/21/2005 17:00
3-D Solid Modeling / assembly / 5 days / 1/24/2005 8:00 / 1/28/2005 17:00
FEA for stress analysis / 5 days / 1/31/2005 8:00 / 2/4/2005 17:00
Manufacturing Process Plans / 9 days / 2/1/2005 8:00 / 2/11/2005 17:00
Unit Cost Analysis / 10 days / 1/31/2005 8:00 / 2/11/2005 17:00
"extras" cost analysis / 1 day / 2/4/2005 8:00 / 2/4/2005 17:00
Fabrication cost analysis / 3 days / 2/4/2005 8:00 / 2/8/2005 17:00
Closure on SD1 / 1 day / 2/11/2005 8:00 / 2/11/2005 17:00
General SD2 preparation / 1 day / 2/15/2005 8:00 / 2/15/2005 17:00
Create Presentation for PDR-1 / 4 days / 2/15/2005 8:00 / 2/18/2005 17:00
SD2 preparation/ presentation work / 5 days / 2/15/2005 8:00 / 2/21/2005 17:00
Table 2: Project tasks, duration, start and finish for Pert/ Gannt Charts.
V. Feasibility Assessment
a. Pugh’s method
Feasibility Assessment / + / better than baseline0 / equal to baseline
Pugh's Method / - / worse than baseline
Baseline : Square model
Model / Seating / Cost / Footprint / Weight / Aesthetic Value / Relative Difficulty / Total
Circular / + / - / + / 0 / + / - / 1
Hex / + / - / + / - / + / - / 0
Rectangular / + / - / - / 0 / 0 / 0 / -1
Table 3: Pugh’s method for feasibility assessment
This feasibility assessment lead our team to believe that the Circular model would be the best model for our project. Pugh’s method does not provide an in-depth weighted feasibility. It is not the best method for feasibility because each criteria is equally weighted. To more clearly illustrate our feasibility, we continued on using the weighted method.
b. Weighted feasibility assessment
i. Concepts:
Baseline / 1) / Rectangular Concept2) / Circular Concept
3) / Hexagonal Concept
4) / Modular Concept
Table 4: Concepts considered in the weighted method for feasibility.
ii. Attributes:
Resource Feasibility1) / Footprint of concept
2) / Weight of concept
Economic Feasibility
1) / Cost of Materials
2) / Cost of Purchased Components
Schedule Feasibility
1) / Provide sufficient seating
2) / Allows for secondary fab/ project test
Technology Feasibility
1) / Aesthetic Value
2) / Can easily incorporate additional functionality
Additional
1) / Easily updatable for future teams
2) / Will meet the needs of future teams
Table 5: Attributes used in the weighted method for feasibility assessment.
*This set of criteria was developed from both our sponsor feedback, as well as group meetings. We thoroughly discussed what were the most important features of our design, as well as what were the extras in our design. As our project progressed, the necessity of aesthetic value became more prevalent. This is seen in the results of our weighted feasibility assessment.
iii. Pair wise Comparison/ Weight of each attribute:
Table 6: Relative weights for each of the attributes used in the weighted method for feasibility assessment.
iv. Assessment:
Table 7: Normalized Scores of each Design Concept. Results of the weighted method for feasibility assessment.
The weighted Feasibility assessment is a much better method for choosing which design concept to continue working with. Clearly, this method proves that the Modular Concept and Hexagonal concept are the two best concepts to consider at this point in the project when compared to the baseline Rectangular concept.