Transcript CATERPILLER LOGISTICS

IENG 464 / 465
FALL / SPRING
2014 – 2015
TOPICS:
Draft Team Formation
Safety Minor & Six Sigma Requirements
Project Management Process
Project Proposal Preparation

Get into desired project teams:
 One team per table group
 Ideally four people per team

Select a spokesperson:
 Prepare to provide:
▪
▪
▪
▪

Project Title
Project Sponsor
Team Member Listing
Brief Problem Description and Skills Required
Undecided persons should stay in the middle

Significant Safety Content
 If anyone on your team is working on the Safety Minor, the project
must have significant safety content
 The team member(s) working on the Safety Minor must work on that
safety content

What to do:
 See Dr. Kerk or Dr. Piper ASAP
▪ Fill out the paperwork
▪ (there is always more paperwork)
▪ Do the design work
▪ Invite Dr. Kerk or Dr. Piper to the Conceptual Design Presentation
▪ Get feedback and adjust accordingly
▪ Do the implementation work
▪ Invite Dr. Kerk or Dr. Piper to the Final Results Presentation
▪ Graduate (hopefully) with a Safety Minor

Six Sigma Project (IENG 463) requirements:
 DMAIC process is used DURING the project
 Stand alone project report is submitted for a LETTER GRADE

Six Sigma Project Report:
 Report Structure:
▪ Cover Page
▪ Introduction & Problem Statement
▪ Headings for DMAIC Sections
▪ Recommendations, Conclusions and Acknowledgements
▪ References
▪ Appendices

Report is due at NOON on Last day of Finals Week

IEEM Senior Design Projects address REAL problems:
 IEEM developed expertise is demonstrated DURING the project
▪ IEEM Project Rubric considers: Context, Analysis, Recommendations, and Communication
▪ ALL projects require management of the “triple constraint”: Time, Budget, and Function
 Result of each term is an earned LETTER GRADE

Senior Design Project Process:
▪ Draft Team Formation
▪ Individual Resumes
▪ Client-Team Meetings
▪ Engineering Project Proposal & Documentation
▪ Conceptual Design Development
▪ Progress Reporting
▪ Conceptual Design Presentation
▪ Design Development & Testing
▪ Progress Reporting
▪ Results Presentation
▪ Final Project Documentation

Final Documentation is due at NOON on Last day of Finals Week
3
2
1
0
Can identify both engineering and
other environmental variables
apropos to issue
Root cause(s) of problem determined
Wide range of appropriate evidence
sources used
Can identify engineering related
environmental variables apropos to
the issue
Root cause(s) looked for, but process
ended too soon
Some appropriate evidence sources
used
Can identify environmental variables,
but unsure which are related to the
issue
Multiple symptoms aggregated as
problem
Evidence sources used, but not
entirely appropriate to issue
Fails to identify environmental
variables or see the need for these
variables
First symptom seen “defined” as the
problem
No or inappropriate evidence sources
used
Both quantitative and qualitative
tools used as appropriate
Uses quantitative tools as
appropriate
Uses tools, but tools are not
appropriate to issue
No tools or frameworks used
Clear links – uses data in its context
and connects data using appropriate
tools
Links – uses data and connects using
appropriate tools
Almost links – based on inadequate
data or tools
No links – no chain of evidence
Recommendation links to chain of
evidence but comes from the
“canned” set of alternatives
Recommendation does not link to
chain of evidence
No recommendation made
Make Choices
Recommendation links to chain of
evidence and shows consideration of
additional alternatives
Solution(s) considers implementation
concerns and economic impact
Solution(s) is technically feasible, but
no additional concerns are
considered
Solution(s) is not feasible
Reasonable Solutions
Solution(s) considers implementation
concerns, level of actual
improvement, economic impact,
social impact, and ethics
Presentation of argument
demonstrates problem definition,
chain of evidence, analysis, and
recommendation in easy to follow
manner
Well organized, uses professional
language and grammar, appropriate
use of tables, figures, etc, aimed at
audience
Presentation of argument
demonstrates problem definition,
chain of evidence, analysis, and
recommendation but not easy to
follow
Somewhat organized, mostly uses
professional language and grammar,
appropriate use of tables, figures,
etc, mostly aimed at audience
Presentation of argument
demonstrates only parts of: problem
definition, chain of evidence,
analysis, and recommendation
Presentation of argument cannot be
followed by reasonable audience
member
Somewhat organized, poor
grammar, uses texting language,
needed figures, tables, etc present
and appropriate, not aimed at
audience
No organization, poor grammar, uses
texting language, needed figures,
tables, etc not present, not aimed at
audience
Context
Account for Environmental
Variables
Define Problem
Gather Evidence
Analysis
Choose Appropriate Tools
Develop a Chain of Evidence
Recommendations
Communication
Clarity of Argument
Professional Presentation

Engineering Project Proposal Sections:
▪ Cover Page
▪ Executive Summary
▪ Introduction
▪ Problem Statement
▪ Constraints
▪ Scope of Work
▪
▪
▪
▪
Deliverables
Tasks
Timing
Budget
▪ Team Qualifications
▪ Team Members and Roles
▪ Summary of Team Qualifications
▪ Conclusions and Recommendations
▪ References
▪ Appendices

Hard copy of the Project Proposal is due at 5:00 PM, 17 SEP, at RM308

Team Size Limitations
 Teams can fire non-performers
▪ Must consult with Dr. Jensen to fire
▪ Means your team is a person smaller
▪ Means a fired person is going to have to work REAL hard to pass
 Ideal Team Size:
▪
▪
▪
▪
Single discipline team:
Multi-discipline team:
Minimum team size:
There is no team of size 1
4 persons
4 – 6 persons
3 persons
(or 2, at least at the start of Sr. Design, anymore)
 Be wary of “waterfall” design models for “everything”
▪ Waterfall models have their place – some things cost $$$
▪ Very few designs really can’t be prototyped inexpensively
▪ Avoid large projects that have leaders without strong project management skills
especially if the waterfalls can’t be done concurrently!
▪ Avoid any project that doesn’t require every one to be responsible for progress reporting
7/20/2015
8
Starting Point for Forming Teams

Multi-Disciplinary
 Must meet all requirements of IE and other depts

Multi-Year, Project Continuations
 Initial team leader will be the continuing student

Multi-Role, Single Discipline
 Client Proposed Projects
 Projects of your own proposal

Linked on Materials Page






Rapid Response Casting System
ME project listing
CAMP projects
EE/CPE projects are not on list
CS projects are closed this year
Big Question: Does SDSMT want to do
multidisciplinary design?
 Requires students and departments to collaborate
 Meet everybody’s requirements
 Demonstrate measureable project success

Rapid Response Casting System
 MET has a team of four students to work with on the
casting process
 Need up to two IE students to hold up the CAD and 3D printing ends
 Goal is multiple iterations to develop a process to
rapidly & cheaply turn out casting prototypes

Big Question: Can we adapt the 3-D printers to
make molds more quickly
 Can we formulate a wax material for the pattern?
 Can we directly print the slurry for the mold?

Powered Wheelchair
Shopping Cart
 The shopping carts
provided by many stores
are not an option
(transferring, fit, and
storage).
 Take team design from last
year and refine the design
for distributed production

Powered Adjustable Height
Table
 Much need for tables that
can be adjusted to fit
wheelchairs and sit/stand
workstations
 Adapt lightweight frame
design from last year, add
battery-powered actuation
 Refine the design for
distributed production

Vegetable Transfer Station Design (2 person)
 Veggies come in on pallets (40 lbs per)
 Veggies are transferred to a conveyor for next





stage
Veggies are inspected/sorted as well
Shifts are 8 hours (9000 lbs of lifting per day)
Must justify necessity by studying back injury data
Develop a proposal for management
Evaluate results for management
People who use manual
wheelchairs have limited
options when they go
shopping – try to navigate a
cart, purchase limited
groceries that can be held on
the lap, or rely on a caregiver
to help.
 The shopping carts provided
by many stores are not an
option (transferring product,
fit, and storage of products).

Many people who have
seizures need to wear helmets
to protect themselves in the
event of a fall.
 Such seizure helmets are
bulky, unattractive, and draw
unwanted attention to the
person’s disability.
 There are a few bike helmets
on the market that are more in
line with what we imagine for
people with epilepsy.

We support a man who would
like to be able to transfer
from his wheelchair to the
toilet independently.
 We have identified that they
only thing holding him back
from this goal is his inability
to unfasten fasten his leg
braces.
 We would like to see the
braces modified so that he
can work them
independently.




Many people who use a wheelchair
do not have the ability to use a
traditional vehicle.
The small bussettes allow
wheelchairs to be “strapped” to the
floor using tie downs.
We envision retrofitting our busses
with an alternative securement
method as the tie downs are difficult
for staff to tighten, are easily broken,
and are less secure feeling to those
who use wheelchairs.


People who use a standing
frame often have one leg that
is longer than the other.
Since multiple people use the
same frame, we would like to
see adjustable foot rests on
the frame.



There are a lot of products on the
market geared toward preventing
children from accessing stovetops,
but these products become
impractical for adults over 3 feet
tall!
Many of the people we support
require close supervision when the
stove is in operation.
Problems results when the person
independently accesses the stove
or when the support staff has to
step away to respond to an
emergency.
Many of the people we
support are uncomfortable
using a passive lift as they
swing when the lift moves.
This, in turn, creates the
impression that the lift is
unstable – making the
person feel unsafe.
 We are interested in a way
to prevent most of the
movement a person
experiences in a passive lift.



One of the contracts that
people work on requires a
product to be cut every
25 feet. Currently, people
are walking out 25 feet
and manually cutting the
product.
We are interested in ways
to automate this process
and save valuable work
space.


We currently have
contract in which a
panel, double, miter,
and chop saw are
used.
We are interested in
ways that we can
make this equipment
safe for people with
disabilities to use.
It can be very difficult for a
single staff person to
change a persons’ brief –
especially when the person
has limited body control
and cannot “balance” on
their side.
 We are interested in a
method of holding a
person “on place” during
brief changes.
 This would create a safer
experience for the person
served and support staff.

We know that certain
characteristics are needed to
work with different groups of
people served.
 The nature of our business
does not allow us to match
person to person but would
allow for person to group
matching.
 We envision a computerized
assessment that will help us
to match potential
candidates with potential
work locations.



One person we support is
very hard on freezers
refrigerators. When he
becomes angry he will tear
the doors off of their hinges.
We are looking for a way to
secure the doors to prevent
this damage.
For some reason, autistic
children and adults are often
fascinated by a flushing toilet.
 The real problem comes when
the fascination includes flushing
“things” down the toilet
(resulting a flooded rooms and
expensive plumbing
intervention).
 How can we prevent “stuff”
from being flushed while still
allowing people to have acces
to and use their toilets?




Some people are able to
bear weight and thus
engage in pivot transfers
with their support staff.
Some people, though
they can bear the weight,
struggle with their knees
buckling.
We are interested in a
device that would
prevent buckling during
pivot transfers.