{"id":374,"date":"2017-01-12T06:01:38","date_gmt":"2017-01-12T11:01:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/me.sites.mtu.edu\/meemscd\/?p=374"},"modified":"2023-02-18T16:14:38","modified_gmt":"2023-02-18T21:14:38","slug":"dg-pcr-tech-memo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/me.sites.mtu.edu\/meemscd\/dg-pcr-tech-memo\/","title":{"rendered":"Project Continuation Review (PCR) \u2014 Tech-Memo*"},"content":{"rendered":"

* This is ONLY<\/em> for Standard Projects. | For \u201cFailure-Resolution\u201d Projects go here<\/a>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

All content above the first section (Memorandum Overview<\/em>) is pre-filled and should need no edits by you.\u00a0 This technical memorandum is accompanied by the TAD and your PPD, updated<\/strong> with refinements and with ALL<\/em> progress<\/strong> up to this point.\u00a0 The purpose of this technical memo is to allow those participating in the review meeting to (re)acquaint themselves to the problem at hand and to see a summarized preview of the content that is the subject of the review.\u00a0 As such, like your CSR tech-memo, it includes a section summarizing your understanding of the problem followed by a section summarizing your technical progress that is the subject of this review (work refined and\/or completed since the previous review).\u00a0 Between those two sections is a section covering your engineering requirements, as those are critical to assessing your engineering work, all of which has been driven by meeting those requirements.\u00a0 As with your CSR tech-memo, this one begins with a brief Memorandum Overview<\/em> indicating these as the elements of content here with direction to the accompanying documents.<\/p>\n

1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Memorandum Overview Section<\/h2>\n

Like the CSR, this is again written on your behalf.\u00a0 BUT<\/em><\/strong>, read it carefully so you understand what your audience is expecting to see.\u00a0 It also serves as an example for future technical memos where you will have to write the overview on your own.<\/p>\n

2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Problem Understanding Section<\/h2>\n

This section is comprised of the \u201cProblem Understanding\u201d section from your CSR tech-memo.\u00a0 To bring this content in, select the content in your CSR tech-memo (all four paragraphs together as a single selection, but NOT<\/em><\/strong> including the section heading) and copy.\u00a0 Then, in the PCR template, select \u201cPASTE PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING HERE\u201d (select the entire paragraph by triple-clicking anywhere in the paragraph) and paste.\u00a0 The formatting, if you had it right in the CSR tech-memo, will be correct here; you can select all of the paragraphs and apply \u201cNormal text\u201d paragraph style to be sure.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s it?\u00a0 Like for the CSR, your best two writers should take one more (and final) time through to make this the best you possibly can.\u00a0 This is the first piece of \u201cDecision-Critical Documents\u00a0\u2014 Make the Opening Count\u201d (Section 2 of Chapter 5 in Math to Mettle<\/em>) as described in the book.\u00a0 Please revisit that section if you need to refresh your memory on just how important this memo is, in particular this first section your review panelists will read.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t think that after another four weeks since the CSR you cannot tune it up just a little bit more.<\/strong>\u00a0 Maybe not a full hour of rework this time, but a half hour by each of the two best writers.\u00a0 However, it is NOT UNCOMMON<\/em> for a team to have a SUBSTANTIVELY<\/em> refined understanding, or an understanding that has outright changed as the project evolved in and through the concept selection stage.<\/strong>\u00a0 In this case, give this section an equally substantive updating<\/strong> in the appropriate paragraphs.\u00a0 I have seen times where a team has rewritten a good 80% of this section at this stage to better reflect where the project has evolved\u00a0\u2014 and with great effect.\u00a0 Remember\u2026 Make the Opening Count!<\/strong><\/p>\n

And if introducing a graphic helps, DO SO<\/em>\u2026 a good one<\/strong> (often occupying less space than trying to explain with text!).\u00a0 Still, your page limit remains one page, including the section title.\u00a0 That is, it cannot spill onto page 3 of the tech-memo.\u00a0 Do NOT<\/em> change the formatting<\/strong> (Times New Roman 12-point, 1.3 line spacing<\/strong>, 1-inch margins, etc.\u00a0\u2014 paragraph style \u201cNormal text\u201d in Google Docs<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Guidance can be found here<\/a>, from the original writing of this content, if helpful in support of your efforts here.<\/span><\/p>\n

3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Engineering Requirements Section<\/h2>\n

This is a direct carryforward from the CSR.\u00a0 To bring this content in, like above, select the content in your CSR tech-memo (the \u201cEngineering Requirements\u201d section less the section heading) and copy. \u00a0Then, in the PCR template, select \u201cPASTE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS HERE\u201d (select the entire paragraph by triple-clicking anywhere in the paragraph) and paste.\u00a0 The formatting, if you had it right in the CSR tech-memo, will be correct here.<\/p>\n

4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Content for Review Section<\/h2>\n

While you are not explicitly instructed below to include any specific<\/em><\/strong> graphics, remember that as engineers we largely communicate graphically with the text then written \u201caround\u201d the graphics to \u201cfill in the blanks.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, good<\/em><\/strong> graphics in the place of the alternative\u00a0\u2014 piles of text\u00a0\u2014 is anticipated; in fact, this is expected in a quality piece of work here (and \u201cgood<\/em>\u201d means also annotated!)<\/strong>.\u00a0 To help you place graphics in Google Docs<\/em> with captions that remain attached, a link to a source having a figure+caption placeholder, a table+caption placeholder, and instructions for their use is available in the Figures and Tables Placement Template (FTT) provided shortly after the PUD-Doc template.<\/p>\n

That said, this section of the tech-memo, in the format provided in the template (paragraph style \u201cNormal text\u201d in Google Docs<\/em>), should be approximately 4\u00a0\u2013 4\u00bd pages (4\u00bd pages max<\/strong>; be complete but you must also be selective to make it fit<\/strong> and not spill over to a fifth page!) .\u00a0 Add to that graphics (table and figures).\u00a0 That means that with graphics of legible size it may be 7\u00a0\u2013 8 pages.\u00a0 That means 3\u00a0\u2013 4 pages worth of graphics; if you have fewer than six (6) graphical elements, you are falling short.\u00a0 Repeating from the CSR stage\u2026 while a good graphic does take time to produce, making it seem that writing text is faster, writing good text takes much longer and more iterations than most students realize.\u00a0 And again, like at the CSR stage, the graphics are not much work at this point since the images generally come straight from the TAD with the simple addition of a caption.<\/p>\n

As a reminder again from the CSR tech-memo guidance, this is to be treated like an executive summary.\u00a0 That is, this is NOT<\/em> a diary of what you did<\/strong>, rather it is a summary of the contents of the accompanying TAD and PPD (refresh your memory as needed on the content nature of executive summaries by referring to Section 3 of Doc-Prep Guidance\u00a0\u2014 Getting Started<\/a>).\u00a0 This is repeated again because it is so important to get these summaries right<\/strong>, and in particular not write them as a diary of what you did in generating the work-product (findings and results) that makes up the content.<\/p>\n

This section should consist of three (3) subsections as described below.<\/p>\n

4.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Subsection 1\u00a0\u2014 Final System-Level Concept<\/h3>\n

This subsection will comprise one figure (consuming about \u00bd a page) and 3\u00a0\u2013 4 paragraphs, about 40\u00a0\u2013 50% of the total of the Content for Review<\/em> section (2 pages max<\/strong>).\u00a0 Remember again, this is not a diary; don\u2019t tell a story of what you did in the concept generation and assessment process, just jump to the final result and focus on the result and your thinking behind getting there, your \u201cwhy\u201d behind the decisions that culminate in the final result<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The first paragraph will begin as provided in the template with \u201cA graphical rendering of our selected system-level concept is provided in Figure 1.\u201d\u00a0 This first paragraph should continue (select \u201cCONTINUE HERE-FSLC1\u201d and start typing) by thoroughly, but concisely, describing how your selected system-level concept works and how it is made.\u00a0 This is a fine-tuned version of what is on its system-level concept datasheet of TAD Subsection 4.1.\u00a0 The referenced graphic, just below this first paragraph, should be the most awesome, enticing, intriguing graphic of your system-level concept that you can produce, likely pulled from TAD Subsection 4.3.\u00a0 And I mean A REALLY GOOD ONE<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 One you may adjust and tweak FOUR OR FIVE TIMES<\/em> over a couple days and then place back into Subsection 4.3 of the TAD.<\/strong>\u00a0 It should provide annotations\/callouts that are meaningful in relation to, but not limited to, the key components, subsystems, features, and\/or main system functions.\u00a0 The first paragraph and Figure 1 should just about consume one page.<\/p>\n

The next paragraph, after the figure, should begin with the text included in the template, that is, \u201cFrom a functional standpoint, the system\u201d then select \u201cCONTINUE HERE-FSLC2\u201d and begin typing.\u00a0 Here, functionally describe your system-level concept, referencing Figure 1 as appropriate.\u00a0 You are expanding on the \u201chow it works\u201d of the first paragraph, but without being repetitive (make the earlier coverage more concise as needed to avoid that).\u00a0 Describe the ways in which the main system functions are achieved; in other words, state the function-level concepts that comprise the system, but do so in a narrative form, perhaps a bullet-point list, but use descriptive phrases, not just a laundry list of 1\u20133-word concept names\/identifiers.\u00a0 That is, however you lay it out, do not just use the names of the function-level concepts; rather, describe them in brevity.\u00a0 Also, do not use the names of the main system functions; rather, use, and adjust as needed, their descriptions from the main systems function list of TAD Subsection 2.1 (maybe use the main system functions table here).\u00a0 The point is, work the function-level concepts, and the main system function descriptions associated with each, into this narrative in way that is smooth, flowing, and concise yet complete and not confusing.\u00a0 If this is getting too long to meet the page limit for this section, along with the paragraph(s) noted next, trim off some of the less prominent and\/or less interesting functions.<\/p>\n

From there, continue with 1\u00a0\u2013 2 paragraphs describing your reasoning for why this is the best system-level concept.\u00a0 Include highlights of the engineering that supports your decisions, as related to at least three (3) engineering requirements.<\/p>\n

Conclude with a brief paragraph describing system-level concept design decisions related to safety and manufacturability<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

4.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Subsection 2\u00a0\u2014 System-Level Design<\/h3>\n

This subsection will likely be 3\u00a0\u2013 4 paragraphs, about 30\u00a0\u2013 40% of the total of the Content for Review<\/em> section (1<\/strong>\u00bd pages max<\/strong>).\u00a0 This subsection should begin with the text included in the template, that is, \u201cOur preliminary\/feasibility engineering supports our selected concept\u2019s potential to meet our engineering requirements.\u00a0 Results are found in Subsection 5.3 of our accompanying TAD, with details in TAD Appendix C.\u00a0 Highlights of that work include\u201d then select \u201cCONTINUE HERE-SLD\u201d and begin typing.<\/p>\n

This is where you persuade your audience that your selected system-level concept could work, i.e., that it could function in a way that meets the engineering requirements.\u00a0 To use the specific wording from the CSR stage\u2026 you need to persuade your review panel that the chosen system-level concept has a good likelihood of meeting the engineering requirements as substantiated by preliminary\/feasibility engineering; i.e., that the requirements could<\/strong> realistically be met by the concept.<\/em><\/p>\n

This subsection must summarize your preliminary\/feasibility engineering work that provides support of your claim that your final system-level concept can work.\u00a0 GET QUANTITATIVE!<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 We are engineers, and this is the engineering behind (in support of) YOUR SALE<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0You are selling your audience to further invest in you (your team) and the continuation of your project based on this concept\u00a0\u2014 by the way, side-note, the correct phrase used here is \u201cbased on,\u201d not what many use these days\u00a0\u2014 \u201cbased off of.\u201d<\/span>[1]<\/a>[2]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0 You should cover three (3) unique elements of engineering work (\u201cunique\u201d meaning that some engineering requirements will employ the same engineering methods; we are interested in three methods, not three requirements covered by the same\/single method).<\/span><\/p>\n

4.3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Subsection 3\u00a0\u2014 Continuation Planning<\/h3>\n

The third and final subsection will be shorter, 4 short paragraphs, maybe 20% (\u00be\u00a0\u2013 1 page, 1 page max<\/strong>) of the total of the Content for Review<\/em> section.\u00a0 The first paragraph of this subsection is written for you. \u00a0This subsection is where you convince your audience that you have a solid, three-fold plan to complete the project.\u00a0 To use the specific wording from the CSR stage\u2026 you need to persuade your review panel that you have:<\/p>\n