Concurrent Engineering/Critique


CRITERIA FOR JUDGING PERFORMANCE The wikibook must contain useful content (relevant to beginning engineers on the job) and it must be easy to use.


I think this wiki has potential and hope that many people contribute to it in the future.

It can be greatly strengthened by using more internal links.

I definitely like having personal reports and interviews as well as academic content, so we see both textbook language and personal language. They can cross-reference one another. For example, “risk assessment” in Scott Kramer’s personal experience section with could be linked to “risk management” in the Design Process section.

I like having several different takes on the same subject (as in the introduction and the team building sections.)

Many of the entries consists of lists – a mixed blessing.


How well does the wiki meet the product concept and product data sheet defined in the Introduction? In other words, did we meet our goals?

What about copyright issues?

Did you communicate this wiki to your classmates?

Will you use this wiki in the future?


  • Introduction

Needs an overview of the class project – why it was chosen, what its phases were .

I have in mind a few more diagrams of the concurrent engineering process I find it tough to read this much text on the computer screen. The content seems quite relevant for defining concurrent engineering in different contexts, but they need navigation guidance – maybe headers and a paragraph introducing the concepts.

Do users need a brief guide to navigation and editing on page 1?

  • Team Building

Some redundancy in individual sections

I like the sections based on personal experience

In the section on Aeronautical Engineering, give credit to Susan Carlson Skalak straight off and explain that the notes in the wiki are based on her course and are accessible in pdf format through the reference section. Would be improved with an introduction and summary section

  • Communication Systems

The Modes of Communication (verbal, written, body language) are entirely human, but much of it sits on an infrastructure of technology which can either hinder or help human-to-human communication. A new section on infrastructure should be added.

The subsection on Practical Application is important and might be promoted to serve as an introduction to the entire section (with a little modification)

The following subsections are too brief to be useful, or they don’t point anywhere.

Group Dynamics; Pooled Resources; Tools; Open Source; Small Business; Enterprise: Other

Would be improved with an introduction and summary section

  • Design Process

Figures from the Toyota example might be useful in the very first section of this wikibook “Introduction” to augment the figures already there (except there are no figures)

I like the warning that delays come from changes in product definition, so-called “feature creep.” A concept worth emphasizing.

What is the Bug ID project?

Is SysML really useful? Who uses it?

What is a trade study?

The Bayesian section does not seem to make its advantages clear or to distinguish it from normal project management.

What is Intelligent Negotiation Mechanism? ASTV?

The subsection on Collaborative Engineering (Fagan) should probably be renamed “Use ConSERV instead of Gantt”

I bog down in the section on Risk and Uncertainty

Include links to Toyota

Toyota text includes references to “the above figure” but no figures

Same in the section on ConSERV Also File:DFP flow.jpg in Design for Performance

  • Additional Resources

I would like to see about 20 book reviews in this section, also 20 websites, with critiques as to why they are useful

Needs formatting in a consistent way with sections & subsections

  • Contributors

Everyone in class – please sign in

  • Leftovers
  • Interviews

All of the class interviews can be added here, PROVIDED we get an OK from the people we interviewed

An introduction will be needed when this section has enough content to summarize

  • Personal Experiences

I think personal experience reports and interviews are well worth presenting. The language is immediate and personal, rather than abstract and general, as is so much textbook language

This section could be combined with Interviews