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

The year-long Capstone Design course sequence at State University is a key element of both the Mechanical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Technology programs. These two programs share a common Capstone course. Given proper pre-requisite coursework, students can enter the Capstone sequence either in the fall or spring, and project involvement then continues for 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 a petition for inclusion on a project which peaks his/her interest. Teams are assigned typically consisting of 3-6 members chosen from the combined student roster of ME and MET students and the student group engages in their project. The first semester course in each program focuses on engineering design and project planning, 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 startup semester: However, some projects such as ‘Competition’ projects, e.g. Formula SAE or the ASME HPV project, involve unique requirements and schedules. These are projects that continue year after year. They offer opportunities to build upon the work of prior teams, and hold expectations of continuous improvement where past problems should not be repeated. The addition of a culminating competition event – usually scheduled near the end of spring term – serves as a desirable performance incentive for participants. Additionally, a springtime competition event date 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 complete fabrication of the competition article. Despite this scheduling issue, our programs desired that a means to engage spring-start Capstone students in these unique projects P ge 2.20.2 2 should be pursued due to very strong student interest. Such a plan was developed and implemented, and is the subject of this case study. Students joining projects in-progress have a substantially different experience than those involved from the start. For continuously operating projects, this knowledge bridge provides continuity and superior competition results. But are these advantages reaped at the expense of the individual student experience, or can certain advantages to the student be identified? Can this experience help a student navigate similar occurrences in their subsequent career? Should capstone students always design first and prototype later, or can anything be gained if these steps are reversed? This paper describes the methodology developed to permit students to join inprogress Capstone groups, and the practical considerations involved. Positive and negative aspects of this scenario including survey results from student participants and alumni are examined. Finally, methodologies and recommendations for information exchange and focus area knowledge handoff are discussed.