Project 1: Team Organization Evaluation and Plans (Independent Evaluations) Group 7: Robert Moe, Celi Sun, Mark Woehrer, John Zumwalt Due: Monday, February 17 Hardware: Robert Moe, Charlie Sun Software: Mark Woehrer, John Zumwalt Mark Woehrer: The team organization proposed for this project worked well. All milestones were met on time or ahead of schedule. The robot successfully completed the in-class demonstration. Splitting the group into two teams worked well. This allowed to hardware teamwork on the mechanics of the robot while the software team focused on the control. There was good overlap between the groups when necessary, and the two groups were able to move forward on parallel paths. The given subdivision reduced the bandwidth needed between group members, along with the scheduling complexity needed for team meetings. Our organization method was flexible, there was good communication between teams and the individual teams were able to organize their tasks. Our organization method was flexible. The team was able to explore a variety of design possibilities and then decided on the best design to pursue. Early in the design process John had a good idea for building a scissors-like arm and was able to work directly on hardware with Robert. During this time Mark continued to work on a more general-purpose approach. John eventually returned to his assigned task and the project continued on schedule. There was good communication between the software and hardware teams. It was decided by the software team that encoder resolution was not sufficient to achieve the design goals. Both teams were able to come together to decide what encoder resolution was needed and the hardware team responded by making the needed modifications to the hardware. The team was able communicate efficiently. Email was used extensively to communicate information that was global to all group members. Telephone communication was used when a fast response was needed since group members only check their email occasionally. The individual teams can sub-divide the tasks as needed. The software team was able to divide the control software into two tasks. Mark was responsible for driving straight and turning 90 degrees, while John was responsible re-aligning the robot with the black line. I would like to keep the current team organization method and not make any changes. Robert Moe: The team organization plan that was devised at the beginning of the project worked out very well over the course of this project. The division of the 2 teams made it much easier for use to coordinate schedules as we only had to coordinate our schedule between 1 other team member who was in your team and then to schedule time between the two senior team members to synchronize between the two teams and put the software and the hardware together. Although there were two different teams, being this was the first project all the team members were present and participated in design as well as coding ideas. It was however left up to the hardware and the software teams to implement those ideas if the team felt that the idea was feasible for this project. Many problems were solved between the hardware team and tech software team working together where as the problem might not have been solved as easily if the two did not keep constant communication and work in parallel with each other as dictated in the milestone timeline. I believe that we can continue to use this plan as it has worked out great in the first project. However the following projects will constitute more time than the first project, I’m sure with the experience that the hardware senior and the software senior has developed and the taste by all team members from working together on all aspects of the project, that our team will have no problems sticking to the organization plan to meet the next set of timelines and milestones to accomplish the objective of the next project any other project after that. John Zumwalt: The distinction between the hardware and software teams provided a good group dynamic that was productive and educational. It allowed individuals to concentrate on separated tasks as a whole, and ignore certain implementation specific details. More often than not, it was the software team that made requests to the hardware team. The hardware team would then assess the request and respond based upon its feasibility. For example, the software team suggested that the IR sensors be mounted as close to the contact points of the powered wheels as possible. This was thought to allow the robot to pivot on one wheel while it remained in contact with the black tape. For a while, this was the chosen implementation. However, Robert eventually pointed out that this approach allowed for to much error in the alignment process and often got “snagged” on the wrong sides of the box. I think this approach had advantages over just assigning tasks to individuals. Members within a group were able to bounce ideas off one another. This exchange allowed for necessary changes and new ideas. It limited the chance of a member leading the group down the wrong road on a major task. Moreover, communication between groups was easier since it only involved coordinating between two entities. The synchronizations were the key to the success of the group. The groups could break off to accomplish a goal and then come back together and coordinate their efforts. This allowed more work to be accomplished in a short amount of time. I defiantly think that this approach is appropriate and should be used on the other projects. Celi Sun: The team organization works pretty well in the first project. After this project, I learn good coordination between two subgroups is the key to the success of our project. During the work of this project, I also find that our group members are afraid behind and do the best they can. Although I am not good at English speaking as an international student, I feel very comfortable and grateful with our group members. Finally I do agree with what my other group members are writing in this evaluation above.