Add personal reflection to evaluation

content/case_evaluation.tex

@@ -54,6 +54,45 @@
         The social interaction within a design team stimulates this documenting process as it improves the recall and interpretation of information.
         It also improves the judgement and selection between design alternatives \autocite{lamb_221_2008}.
 
+    \section{Reflection}
+        In the following section, I will reflect on my own impact on the development.
+        The preparation and development phase are discussed separately.
+
+        \subsection{Preparation phase}
+            During the preparation phase often I had difficulty with getting the required information.
+            The information was often not specific enough or it it was overlooked.
+            For the case of information not being specific, can be explained by the lack of stake-holders as explained in the previous section.
+            Even though attempting to be thorough, requirements were never really specific.
+            Furthermore, during the preparation information was often overlooked.
+            Resulting in a situation where I needed information that should have been the result of a previous step.
+            In most situations it was possible to continue with the execution of the step.
+            However, during the test protocol step (\autoref{sec:test_protocol}) it was not possible to continue.
+
+            One of the main causes that attribute to the information shortage is that I am relatively inexperienced in design.
+            The experience that I have is a graduate course and two extracurricular projects. 
+            Being inexperienced does definitely not make the design process easier.
+            However, I think that more experience would improve the information situation, it would not solve the problem.
+            The biggest issue is the linear approach of the waterfall model.
+            A spiral model would be more appropriate, especially as each step results in more information that can improve the design.
+
+        \subsection{Development phase}
+            For the development phase I posses significantly more relevant experience compared to the preparation phase.
+            Creating models is something that I really enjoy and this smooths the process significantly.
+            Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in this system.
+            Originally I attempted to create separate sub-models for each component.
+            These sub-models could then be combined into larger models.
+            For example, the SCARA and the cable bot both use two stepper motors.
+            When I add detail to the stepper motor model, the SCARA and the cable bot would then be updated as well.
+            However, the workflow to get this working is labor intensive, as each sub-model has to be updated manually.
+
+            A workflow that enables easy combination and interchange of sub-models is beneficial with this design method.
+            It makes it easy to evaluate the latest changes, by comparing them with previous versions.
+            In addition, it makes it possible to lower the detail on some models during the development.
+            The lower detail of the sub-models can improve the simulation speed significantly.
+            And during the final test use the full detail to ensure that every thing is still functioning as expected.
+
+        
+
     \section{Switching Modelling Language}
         The initial idea of the development was to start with a basic model and extend that model by adding more detail.
         Meaning that one design and one model would develop in parallel with each other.

content/case_evaluation_result.tex

@@ -1,30 +1,15 @@
 %&tex
-This previous chapter described the development and implementation process of the Whiteboard Writer.
+\begin{marginfigure}
+    \centering
+    \includegraphics[width=51mm]{graphics/model_versions.pdf}
+    \caption{Levels of detail of the design is shown on the right, starting with the least detail at the top and most detail at the bottom. Through out the development different types of models are used, these are shown on the right.}
+    \label{fig:levels}
+\end{marginfigure}
+The previous chapter described the development and implementation process of the Whiteboard Writer.
 The following is a brief overview of the produced design, models and prototype.
-The design is covered with dynamic models and CAD drawing.
-These dynamic models can be categorized into three different modelling approaches, with different levels of detail:
-\begin{description}
-    \item{Kinematics:} 
-        \begin{itemize}
-            \item Basics model
-        \end{itemize}
-    \item{2D:} 
-        \begin{itemize}
-            \item Ideal physics implementation
-            \item DC-motor behavior
-            \item Control loop
-            \item Stepper motor behavior
-        \end{itemize}
-    \item{3D:}
-        \begin{itemize}
-            \item 3D physics implementation
-            \item Marker lifting behavior
-        \end{itemize}
-\end{description}
-The CAD drawing was added at the end of the development process.
-Therefore, the CAD drawing has not been made for the levels of detail prior to the marker lifting behavior.
+The different levels of detail and how they are modelled is shown in \autoref{fig:levels}.
 
 The assembled SCARA prototype is shown in \autoref{fig:scara_pic}.
 This prototype is able to make complete \autoref{test1}, which is the small rectangle.
-Furthermore, it was possible to write three characters, which completes \autoref{test_triple_char}.
+In addition, it was possible to write three characters, which completes \autoref{test_triple_char}.
 

content/case_experiment_test_protocol.tex

@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 %&tex
 \subsection{Test Protocol}
+\label{sec:test_protocol}
     The last step of the preparation phase is to design tests.
     The tests are designed to validate if the system meets the specifications.
     While defining the tests, it became clear that part of the specifications was not explicitly defined.

graphics/model_versions.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+%&tex
+\documentclass{standalone}
+\usepackage{tikz}
+\usepackage{siltex}
+\usetikzlibrary {arrows.meta,positioning,calc,math}
+\tikzset{nodes={text height=.6em, text width=2.5cm, align=center,
+draw=black!50, thick, font=\footnotesize, fill=white},
+>={Stealth[round,sep]}, rounded corners, semithick}
+\pgfdeclarelayer{bg}
+\pgfsetlayers{bg,main}
+
+\begin{document}
+\begin{tikzpicture}[y=3.5mm,x=3.2cm]
+\def\rectoffset{-1.2mm,1.2mm};
+\def\rectoffsetleft{-1.9cm,0cm};
+\def\textoffset{-2.5cm,0cm};
+\def\modelgroup(#1,#2,#3){%
+    \begin{scope}[nodes={draw=none, fill=none,text width={},text height={}}]
+        \node (a) at ($(#1.north west)+(\rectoffset)+(\rectoffsetleft)$){};
+        \node (b) at ($(#2.south east)-(\rectoffset)$){};
+        \draw[fill=lightgray] (a) rectangle (b);
+        \node[anchor=center] at ($(#1)!0.5!(#2)+(\textoffset)$) {#3};
+    \end{scope}
+    };
+    \node (bm) {Basic Model};
+    \node (ip)[below=1 of bm] {Ideal Physics};
+    \node (dc)[below=1 of ip] {DC-motor behavior};
+    \node (cl)[below=1 of dc] {Control loop};
+    \node (sm)[below=1 of cl] {Stepper Motor\\ behavior};
+    \node (dd)[below=1 of sm] {3D Physics};
+    \node (ml)[below=1 of dd] {Marker Lifting};
+    \node (cd)[below=1 of ml] {Component design};
+    \path[->] (bm) edge (ip)
+              (ip) edge (dc)
+              (dc) edge (cl)
+              (cl) edge (sm)
+              (sm) edge (dd)
+              (dd) edge (ml)
+              (ml) edge (cd);
+    \begin{pgfonlayer}{bg}
+        \modelgroup(bm,bm,Kinematics);
+        \modelgroup(ip,sm,2D Dynamics);
+        \modelgroup(dd,ml,3D Dynamics);
+        \modelgroup(cd,cd,CAD Drawing);
+    \end{pgfonlayer}
+\end{tikzpicture}
+\end{document}