Process feedback case method

content/case_method.tex

@@ -5,8 +5,8 @@ The goal of this case study is to evaluate the design plan as presented in the p
 The evaluation is done by developing a system according to the design plan.
 In general, the method of the case study follows all the steps of the design plan.
 Additionally, an evaluation protocol ensures that the development is evaluated consistently.
-The last important thing is a subject of design that is developed in the case study.
-The next sections present the evaluation protocol and the subject of design.
+The last important thing is a subject of design that is developed as the case study.
+The next sections present the evaluation protocol and explains the choice for subject of design.
 
 \section{Evaluation Protocol}
 \label{sec:evaluation_protocol}
@@ -21,8 +21,8 @@ The next sections present the evaluation protocol and the subject of design.
         The questionnaire consists of two sets of questions.
         The first set of questions is shown in \autoref{tab:prepost}.
         This set consists of pairs of questions and focusses specifically on the execution of the design step.
-        Each pair embodies a theme, with one questions answered before, and the other question answered after the execution of the design step.
-        The goal of these pairs is to record the expected and planned execution with the results of the execution.
+        Each pair embodies a theme, with one question answered before, and the other question answered after the execution of the design step.
+        The goal of these pairs is to compare the expected and resulting outcome of the design step.
         The second set of questions focusses on the described method of the design step.
         These questions are shown in \autoref{tab:questionsmethod}.
 
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ The next sections present the evaluation protocol and the subject of design.
             \vspace{1mm} \large{Prestep}  & \vspace{1mm} \large{Poststep} \\
             Questions prior to the execution of the step to set a baseline. & Questions after the execution of the step to check if the implementation met the expectations. In hind-sight, what should have been executed differently?\\
             \hline 
-            \textbf{What was the previous step?} & \textbf{What will be the next step?} \\
+            \textbf{What was the previous step?} & \textbf{What is the next step?} \\
             Does this influence this step? Is this a review? & Moving forward or is a review required of previous step(s)? \\
             \hline
             \textbf{Describe the plan of action.} & \textbf{Explain any deviations from the plan of action.} \\
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ The next sections present the evaluation protocol and the subject of design.
             What is the protocol to review the result of this step? & How was the evaluation done? Did it reveal something new? \\
             \hline
             \textbf{What is the expected workload?} & \textbf{Was the workload different than expected?} \\
-            How many hours are required for the execution of the step? Also give a range in your uncertainty. & How much time was invested in the step? Why was it more or less than expected? \\
+            How many hours are required for the execution of the step? Also give a range in your uncertainty. & How much time was invested in the step? Why was it different than expected? \\
             \hline
             \textbf{What is the expected result of the step?} & \textbf{Is the result as expected?} \\
             At the end of the step, what is the expected result? & Does the result match the description made pre-step? Why does it not match? \\
@@ -79,43 +79,46 @@ The next sections present the evaluation protocol and the subject of design.
         The design plan focusses on the modelling of the system.
         It is, however, not given that passing all the tests does also results in a working design.
         If the tests are incomplete or complications in the design are overlooked, the design process is worthless.
-        Therefore, the model will be validated with a physical prototype of the design.
+        Because the design method would be unreliable.
+
+        Therefore, the model is validated with a physical prototype of the design.
         This shows whether the model is correct and whether all assumptions about the system are correct.
         The prototype does not only show where the design process went wrong, it can also be used to improve the design plan to prevent these modeling problems.
 
 \section{Subject of Design}
-\label{sec:sod}
-The choice in subject of design has a strong influence on the effectiveness of the evaluation of the design plan.
-To ensure the best subject of design a list of requirements is composed.
-Based on this list the best subject of design is a "Tweet on a whiteboard writer", which is referred to as system.
-Other subjects were considered, but did not meet the desired requirements.
+    \label{sec:sod}
+    The choice in subject of design has a strong influence on the effectiveness of the evaluation of the design plan.
+    To ensure the best subject of design a list of requirements is composed.
+    Based on this list the best subject of design I could come up with is a "Tweet on a whiteboard writer", which is referred to as system.
+    Other subjects were considered, but did not meet the desired requirements.
 
-The most important requirement is that, while developing the system, the different aspects of the design plan are used.
-Taking into account that there is a limited time budget and that the system must be within the scope of the design plan, the set of possible subjects of design is slim.
-The time budget is set to 10 weeks of development and the system must have a dynamic system that is actuated via a software controller.
-The tweet on a whiteboard fits within these requirement as it can have interesting dynamics and has multiple features.
-Although it is possible that the system is seen as a simple wall plotter with simple XY-movement, there are alternative implementations that achieve more complex XY-movement.
-This provides the required complexity and allows for different levels of detail needed for the variable detail approach.
-The system can be split into more than one feature, which is required to evaluate the rapid development cycle.
-One of the features is the XY-movement and other features are:
+    The most important requirement is that, while developing the system, the different aspects of the design plan are used.
+    Taking into account that there is a limited time budget and that the system must fit within the scope of the thesis, the set of possible subjects of design is slim.
+    The time budget is set to 10 weeks of development and the system must have a dynamic system that is actuated via a software controller.
+    The tweet on a whiteboard fits within these requirement as it can have interesting dynamics and has multiple features.
+    Although it is possible that the system is seen as a wall plotter with basic XY-movement, there are alternative implementations that achieve more complex movement.
+    This provides the required complexity and allows for different levels of detail.
+    The XY-movement is the basic feature and detail is added in the form of other features.
+    More detailed features are, for example:
     \begin{enumerate}
-        \item Lifting the marker from the board
+        \item Lifting/lowering the marker from/on the board
         \item Erasing: End effector manipulation
         \item Changing color: Switching Marker
-        \item Speed increase
+        \item Speed improvement
     \end{enumerate}
-Similar to the XY-movement, these features have multiple implementations that add complexity to the system.
-This gives the possibility during the case study to go with a more or less complex design, allowing to fit the case study in the time budget without compromising the quality of evaluation.
+    Similar to the XY-movement, these features have multiple implementations that add complexity to the system.
+    This gives the possibility during the case study to go with a more or less complex design, allowing to fit the case study in the time budget without compromising the quality of evaluation.
 
-Although a finished product is not required, a partial prototype is part of the testing and validation procedure.
-As the design method focuses on the physical component, a mechanical prototype is important.
-The prototype would originally been constructed with the rapid prototyping facilities at the university.
-However, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the university to close and to work from home.
-This limited the rapid prototyping to DIY-tools and a 3D-printer.
-It is expected that this set of tools is sufficient to construct a prototype of the tweet on a whiteboard system 
+    Although a finished product is not required, a partial prototype is part of the testing and validation procedure.
+    As the design method focuses on the physical component, a mechanical prototype is important.
+    The prototype would originally been constructed with the rapid prototyping facilities at the university.
+    However, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the university to close, and me to work from home.
+    This limited the rapid prototyping to DIY-tools and a 3D-printer.
+    It is expected that this set of tools is sufficient to construct a prototype of the tweet on a whiteboard system.
 
-Other options that were looked at was a 3D calibration system for a positioning system.
-This idea was rejected because the complexity originated from the required accuracy instead of the dynamics.
-In other words, choosing interesting dynamics would degrade the usability of the system.
-A peg-in-hole problem, was also considered briefly as well.
-But that is mainly a complex sensing and control problem, and not dynamically interesting.
+    Other options that were also considered but did not meet the requirements.
+    One of these options was a 3D calibration system for a position measurement system.
+    This idea was rejected because the complexity originated from the required accuracy instead of the dynamics.
+    In other words, choosing interesting dynamics would degrade the accuracy of the system.
+    A peg-in-hole problem, was also considered as a system.
+    But that is mainly a complex sensing and control problem, and not dynamically interesting.