A Case Study in Capstone Organization for Continuous Design/Build Projects

Robb E. Larson; David A. Miller

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Publication Date: June 10, 2012
Start Date: June 10, 2012
End Date: June 13, 2012
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: Capstone Design I
Tagged Division: Design in Engineering Education
Page Count: 22
Page Numbers: 25.20.1 - 25.20.22
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--20780
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/20780
Download Count: 495

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Robb E. Larson Montana State University

visit author page

Robb Larson is an Associate Professor in the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department, in the College of Engineering at Montana State University. He has been with the department since 1993 and teaches the interdisciplinary ME/MET capstone course, as well as courses in alternative/renewable energy, instrumentation, and computer applications.

visit author page

biography

David A. Miller Montana State University

visit author page

David A Miller is Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, Mont.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

A Case Study in Capstone Organization for Continuous Design/Build Projects: Building a Project Brain Trust, and the Experiences of Senior Engineering Students who Joined “Competition” Projects Already In-ProgressThe year-long Capstone Design course sequence at State University is a key element of both theMechanical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Technology programs. These twoprograms share a common Capstone course. Given proper pre-requisite coursework, students canenter the Capstone sequence either in the fall or spring, and project involvement then continuesfor two consecutive terms. Project assignments are made early in the first course of the sequence,when each Capstone student reviews the project list provided by the instructor and submits apetition for inclusion on a project which peaks his/her interest. Teams are assigned - typicallyinterdisciplinary ME/MET, consisting of 3-6 members - and the student group engages in theirproject. The first semester course in each program focuses on engineering design and projectplanning, while during the second semester a high-resolution prototype is fabricated and tested.In general this sequence of capstone events functions independently of the project startupsemester: However, some projects such as ‘Competition’ projects such as Formula SAE or theASME HPV project, involve unique requirements and schedules. These are projects thatcontinue year after year. They offer opportunities to build upon the work of prior teams, and holdexpectations of continuous improvement where past problems should not be repeated. Theaddition of a culminating competition event – usually scheduled near the end of spring term –serves as a desirable performance incentive for participants. And a springtime competition eventdate aligns fairly well with the course schedule of a fall-start two-semester Capstone project.However, for spring-start design project teams the competition project schedule is problematic:In general, there is not sufficient time for a spring-start group to design and then fabrication ofthe competition article. Despite this scheduling issue, our programs desired that a means toengage spring-start Capstone students in these unique projects should be pursued due to verystrong student interest. Such a plan was developed and implemented, and is the subject of thiscase study.Students joining projects in-progress have a substantially different experience than thoseinvolved from the start. For continuously operating projects, this knowledge bridge providescontinuity and superior competition results. But are these advantages reaped at the expense of theindividual student experience, or can certain advantages to the student be identified? Can thisexperience help a student navigate similar occurrences in their subsequent career? Shouldcapstone students always design first and prototype later, or can anything be gained if these stepsare reversed? This paper describes the methodology developed to permit students to join in-progress Capstone groups, and the practical considerations involved. Positive and negativeaspects of this scenario - including survey results from student participants and alumni - areexamined. Finally, methodologies and recommendations for information exchange and focusarea knowledge handoff are discussed.

Citation
Format

Larson, R. E., & Miller, D. A. (2012, June), A Case Study in Capstone Organization for Continuous Design/Build Projects Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--20780

TY - CPAPER
AB - A Case Study in Capstone Organization for Continuous Design/Build Projects: Building a Project Brain Trust, and the Experiences of Senior Engineering Students who Joined “Competition” Projects Already In-ProgressThe year-long Capstone Design course sequence at State University is a key element of both theMechanical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Technology programs. These twoprograms share a common Capstone course. Given proper pre-requisite coursework, students canenter the Capstone sequence either in the fall or spring, and project involvement then continuesfor two consecutive terms. Project assignments are made early in the first course of the sequence,when each Capstone student reviews the project list provided by the instructor and submits apetition for inclusion on a project which peaks his/her interest. Teams are assigned - typicallyinterdisciplinary ME/MET, consisting of 3-6 members - and the student group engages in theirproject. The first semester course in each program focuses on engineering design and projectplanning, while during the second semester a high-resolution prototype is fabricated and tested.In general this sequence of capstone events functions independently of the project startupsemester: However, some projects such as ‘Competition’ projects such as Formula SAE or theASME HPV project, involve unique requirements and schedules. These are projects thatcontinue year after year. They offer opportunities to build upon the work of prior teams, and holdexpectations of continuous improvement where past problems should not be repeated. Theaddition of a culminating competition event – usually scheduled near the end of spring term –serves as a desirable performance incentive for participants. And a springtime competition eventdate aligns fairly well with the course schedule of a fall-start two-semester Capstone project.However, for spring-start design project teams the competition project schedule is problematic:In general, there is not sufficient time for a spring-start group to design and then fabrication ofthe competition article. Despite this scheduling issue, our programs desired that a means toengage spring-start Capstone students in these unique projects should be pursued due to verystrong student interest. Such a plan was developed and implemented, and is the subject of thiscase study.Students joining projects in-progress have a substantially different experience than thoseinvolved from the start. For continuously operating projects, this knowledge bridge providescontinuity and superior competition results. But are these advantages reaped at the expense of theindividual student experience, or can certain advantages to the student be identified? Can thisexperience help a student navigate similar occurrences in their subsequent career? Shouldcapstone students always design first and prototype later, or can anything be gained if these stepsare reversed? This paper describes the methodology developed to permit students to join in-progress Capstone groups, and the practical considerations involved. Positive and negativeaspects of this scenario - including survey results from student participants and alumni - areexamined. Finally, methodologies and recommendations for information exchange and focusarea knowledge handoff are discussed.
AU - Robb E. Larson
AU - David A. Miller
CY - San Antonio, Texas
DA - 2012/06/10
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - A Case Study in Capstone Organization for Continuous Design/Build Projects
UR - https://peer.asee.org/20780
DO - 10.18260/1-2--20780
ER -