learning Portfolio 1

Length: 500 to a maximum of 800 words.

Results
The aim of this project is centred upon designing and constructing an innovative, aesthetic and
stable device that is easy to operate. With the ultimate goal of extracting as much aerated
concrete as possible in five minutes, the teams objective focuses on delivering a prototype that
can effectively manoeuvre rough terrain without any hindrance from staged obstacles. In addition
to the primary goal, the device will aim to maximise fuel efficiency and performance while
keeping environmental damage and production cost to a minimum.
Reflection
My original problem statement
My first problem statement is as follows:
To build a strong and effective robot capable of mining which has to be
unique in the market. This concept has become a new area of scientific and
engineering interest particularly after the Rosetta mission. The Robot must
be able to approach the 600x300x200mm block of aerated concrete and
attach itself using screws, detach and drill into the block of concrete.
Samples must be stored using high capacity bucket loaders. This has to
follow the constraints such as no more than 6v battery in series, $150
budget and a working space of 2x2 m square. The testing time is 5 minutes.
This was written based on the initial design problem. However after
consulting the engineering textbook Engineering Design, I began to notice
ambiguity, biases and implied solutions in my original problem statement.
The word strong is highly ambiguous as it provides no measurement in
engineering terms. Therefore, I removed it based on my study of
engineering design. Similarly, unique in the market is highly biased as it
is a presumption about the design which might prove inaccurate based on its
comparison with other products on the market and was removed. Similarly,
the use of implied solutions such as attach itself using screws and use of
bucket loaders restricts the design space and creativity as it limits other
possible solutions and was replaced with storing samples. Furthermore, the
use of specifics such as
600X300X200mm was also replaced with block of aerated concrete.
Therefore, I came to an understanding that we must carefully examine
problem statements and ensure errors, biases, implied solutions and the use
of highly specifics are ignored as it only limits creativity and design space.
Rather we must expand our views of communication to simple terms which is
easily understood.

Team problem statement refinement process

Teams should begin by defining or framing the problem.. Available similar
situations and solutions must also be consulted.
Before writing the teams problem statement, an initial group meeting was
used to consult materials such as books and research to learn more about
the problem scenario.Team members were asked to write their individual
problem statements. On the next group meeting, each individual member
was asked to read their problem statements whilst the rest of the team
listened and noted down the different ideas. Initially the team was
overwhelmed by the large range of ideas raised. This could have raised
disagreements between the team members as to whose ideas was more
suitable. To avoid disagreement and the dismissal of ideas, all the ideas were
gathered. This meant that the team was not limiting creativity of the design
ideas. Next all the different ideas were effectively tabulated into a list of
objectives, constraints and functions which allowed the team to generate a
first draft of the problem statement. The first draft was as the following
build an aesthetic looking, unique and cost effective and stable device with
dimensions smaller than 2 by 2m that can drive 1.2m over rough terrain and
collect as much dirt as possible using only 6 volts in 5 minutes. This should
not violate the $150 budget.
-

Next, through a systematic discussion, the first draft was analysed in

terms of its appropriateness through a restatement technique. The
advantages, disadvantages and the suitability of the points in the first
draft was analysed based on a thorough discussion. The team reanalyzed its main objectives to make sure they were realistic. Next,
the team was split into two groups of three and asked to construct a
2nd draft by adhering to the agreements made based on discussion of
the first draft. After the 2nd draft by both groups least commitment
technique can be used which revolves around the concept of not
,making decisions unless you have to as this could lead to a premature
concept and limit themselves into a suboptimal range of design
choices. This means that available time and range of choices is
exhausted.
In these groups,
- . Such as internal team discussion which where ideas are recognized
into some problem-relevant structure.
Good design thinking habits include:
- Another strategy used is the decomposition technique commonly
known as divide and conquer which breaks down larger problems into
smaller sub-problems which are easier to solve and handle.
Subproblems must then adhere to constraints and assumptions of
other sub-problems.
- Throughout this phase our views of the problem shifted through new

and evolving information gained. This had a huge impact on the teams
view and understanding of the clients wants. As a result the team
developed an expanded mindset of the ways the design problem could
expressed clearly and realistically. This was particularly reflected by
the comparison of the initial and revised problem statements which
showed a great level of improvement in expressing the problem.
Initially, certain team members had a definition which was too specific
and often times ambiguous which would not make sense in the eyes of
a client who doesnt have the level of knowledge in science and
engineering to understand the concept. Therefore, the employment of
a systematic revision, restatement and decomposition technique
cleared confusion between the team members and to easily come to
terms with each other. Hence, team members were encouraged to
think like an engineer who has the capability to effectively
communicate their ideas to individual of all calibre essentially raising
many interesting ideas.
What I learned about design and teamwork
Throughout phase 1, the team was faced with a challenge of identifying the
real aspects of the initial problem. The team utilised tools such as revision of
the problem statement to remove biases, ambiguity, errors and implied
solutions. Similarly the team also used techniques such as restatement of
the first problem statement, least commitment and decomposition
techniques to successfully create a revised problem statement which is
succinct, provides flexibility in the design process and is clear and realistic in
its interpretation. Hence, the successful completion of phase 1has enabled
the team to adopt good design and thinking habits that view the problem
from an engineering point of view and at the same time, encourage realistic
creativity. Similarly, the team also demonstrated good ability to handle team
discussion tasks with professionalism. Ideas suggested in the discussion was
not rejected but instead assessed in terms of its engineering and scientific
principles which enabled the identification of its appropriateness. This also
encouraged team participation. Similarly, the team remain focused as the
team shifts from a general notion of the overall design requirements into
more specifics. Hence, the team will approach the design problem by
utilising professional engineering manners and appropriate project
management.
As a result of the challenges in Phase 1, I have developed efficient group
communication skills. Therefore, this will allow me to generate and suggest
my ideas to the team in clar engineering terms. Similarly, due to the
enthusiastic and aprreciative manners demonstrated by my team, I have
similarly adopted good design and thinking habits. I have also developed an
expanded perspective to view design problems. Therefore, I should be able

to effectively contribute to the design process and impact positively in the

team.