Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick Ferone
I think one big thing we have been trying to make our team understand is the fact of the matter is you need to plan out in detail and we pick apart their idea it isn't because we're necessarily against but you need to defend it and show what makes it the best. Show you know how it should be built and don't question your own design. Then if you can show it off with confidence then maybe it's something ready to be made and not just the first thing you had come to mind.
|
Our team does something kind of similar with a visual prioritization system called Quality Function Deployment (or "House of Quality"). Immediately after Kickoff, we list the game's most important necessities on one side of the "house," and potential design features on the other side. Depending on how closely a design feature correlates with/satisfies the game requirements, that feature is then either discarded or chosen to be implemented in full-robot design drafts. When a student is presenting his or her robot design, each component of the design is compared to the results of the QFD to determine if it would be an effective robot for that year's scoring opportunities and physical challenges. If the student cannot justify the design based on the data of the QFD, the design isn't strong enough and either needs to be revised or discarded.
I'm kinda rusty on doing the QFD myself, so if you'd like a better explanation/visual aid for it, we've got a resource page dedicated to it on our website:
http://www.theflyingtoasters.org/#!q...ployment/c1d6b 