δ1.2 Preliminary Design Review - Elements DEF

Philosophy
line.png 		Gray_Resources.png

 

Introduction

The purpose of the Preliminary Design Review is to ensure your team has explored all possible options and (when possible) used data to drive decisions. At the conclusion of the Preliminary Design Review your team should have a clear solution path to pursue and can justify all decisions that lead to the selection of a final design. In your Project Proposal you created an electronic project proposal document using the innovation.org portal’s template. It includes all sections detailed below and should meet any expectations set forth by your instructor. Beyond that, it is up to your team to ensure that the document is professional and impressive. Keep in mind that the purpose of the proposal is to sell your project idea by demonstrating that you have a valid and justified problem.

 

Procedure

Continue to update all sections of the electronic portfolio throughout the year. (ABC)

This design review is designed to help you organize your work to date, synthesize the knowledge you have gained and plan for input and information you still need to gather. A description of the best score (“5”) from the innovation portal’s rubric is included so that you can judge your project’s strengths and where you need to do more work. Now that you have set the framework for the problem you’re trying to solve, Element “D” will be worked on in your next steps – brainstorming and researching possible solutions.

NOTE: For all elements, use standard (APA or MLA) formatting for sources. Anything that is not your original work (ex: images, statistics, expert interviews, data from books or online) should have a source. More information on citations can be found at:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl Links to an external site.
http://www.calvin.edu/library/knightcite 
http://easybib.com
http://citationmachine.net/index2.php Links to an external site.

 

Preliminary Design Review - Elements DEF

 

Element D: Design Concept Generation, Analysis, and Selection

Objectives:

  • The process for generating and comparing possible design solutions was comprehensive, iterative, and consistently defensible.
  • A viable and well-justified design is highly likely based on the process.
  • The design solution ultimately chosen was well-justified and demonstrated attention to all design requirements.
  • The plan of action has considerable merit and would easily support repetition and testing for effectiveness by others.
    • Justification for each decision step taken in the selection of you final design should be clear and evident.
    • Can you defend the choices made based on matrices, research, calculations, or stakeholder feedback?

Reflective Questions:

  • What brainstorming or idea generations techniques did I/we use to help define possible solutions and how can we show that I/we kept all of the design requirements in mind throughout the entire process?
  • What was the best solution to try and why was it the best solution to try?

Include:

  • Multiple design solutions.
  • Detailed concept sketches, schematics, annotated drawings
  • Detailed and prioritized list of all design goals and requirements.
    • Features desired in final design
    • Specifications
    • Constraints
    • Parameters
  • Reflection and analysis of design goals and requirements identified and prioritization.
  • A decision matrix.
  • A final design with justification for selection.

 

Element E: Application of STEM Principles and Practices

Objectives:

  • The proposed solution is well-substantiated with STEM principles and practices applicable to all or nearly all design requirements and functional claims.
  • There is substantial evidence that the application of those principles and practices by the student or a suitable alternate has been reviewed by two or more experts (qualified consultants and/or project mentors) and that those reviews provide confirmation (verification) or detail necessary to inform a corrective response.

Reflective Questions:

  • How do we show that our design ideas were not just guesses and that my/our ideas and each of the proposed design attributes really is based on sound logic and subject related knowledge?
  • Why does this proposed solution have merit to try?

The problem that you choose to solve will certainly require known math, science and/or engineering concepts. This can include formulas, laws, etc. Brainstorm a list of math, science and/or engineering concepts that you anticipate will be needed in order to solve your team’s problem. Consider applications of mathematics, chemistry, biology, physical science, nanotechnology, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, etc. that may be incorporated into your solution. Input from experts may be helpful in the identification of the concepts needed. You will continue to update this section as you research these principles and complete calculations.

Include:

  • Identify and describe science and engineering concepts you need to investigate.
  • Consider design stage, testing stage and data gathering stage.
  • Your team’s Gantt chart to detail all tasks, responsible parties, and due dates. Clearly define the entire scope of work in the task list. Be sure to consider the Rule of Thirds when making scheduling projections.
  • Explicitly list and describe each concept you might use – relate back to design specs where possible.
  • Describe who can help you validate your STEM work – what are training or credentials will you need your experts to have?
  • Some engineering principles to consider: project management (Gantt chart), documentation (engr. Notebook), stress, strain, material properties.
  • Any special computer programs, technology or equipment you might use? 

 

Element F: Consideration of Design Viability

Objective:

  • The proposed design was carefully reviewed based on several relevant extra-functional considerations.
  • A judgment about design viability based on those considerations—the capacity of the proposed solution to address the problem—is clearly realistic and well supported with credible evidence.

Reflective Questions:

  • How do I/we show evidence that the proposed design has merit beyond the classroom or lab as a real solution?
  • How can I/we show evidence that the design could realistically get into the hands of the people the design is trying to help in a sustainable way?
  • What evidence would I/we have to offer to honestly ask a family to invest their life savings in this idea?

(NOTE: Please remember this is not information related to making a profit off of your idea in the stereotypical sense, but rather about if the idea has any chance of succeeding as a real solution. An idea to help very poor areas gain access to clean water is indeed a real problem to solve but not likely one that is about making a financial profit. It should be noted that even the most openly giving and caring of non-profit organizations will not invest their resources in any idea that has no plan for getting the solution working at the source of the problem in a sustainable way.

Include:

  • Market analysis – who are your competitors? How much do current solutions cost? How much will consumers pay? How does your product fit in?
  • Detail the important aspects of your team’s marketplace study. How can you be reasonably certain that if you solve the problem, a need and/or demand for the solution will exists? Who will buy your product? Why will they bother to try it?
  • How will your product be manufactured and distributed? Is this reasonable?