I took apart in a mock design review meeting for my senior capstone course. In my class, we were assigned roles of the scribe, moderator, reader, and authors. A couple of weeks before the design review, each of us had to read the other team's requirements document for their project and comment on how to make it better. During the design review, we had to tell the moderator the amount of time we spent on reviewing. Then, the moderator would begin going through the document and asking if anyone had a comment. The scribe would have to write down all the comments said. I was the scribe for one of the design reviews and it was a tough job keeping track of the comment. Once the design review was over, we each had to give our comment to the team. Going in to the design review, I really did not have any expectation because it was my first time. One thing I would change the way the design review was conducted is the role of the scribe because I feel like it is an outdated role. We can just use a recorder to record the input on the design review and then give the recording to the team.

One of my graduate courses I took at NJIT, our final project was to make a product which isn't on the market and sell the product to your classmates (who were investors, private companies etc).

My partner and I came up with a bandage idea which had healing properties. We provided the materials needed, equipment needed, cutting, production time, and healing time. Our classmates marked our idea at 80% which meant that out of a 100 we had an 80% chance of selling this product on the market and it would be successful. Our design had some errors in the production phase. The material we proposed needed to be changed in order for the cost of production to justify the product final cost. This was one design change that occurred in our project.

We initially thought it was a good idea until we later discovered someone was actually working on this idea as a PhD student and did it successfully. Our design was good and with the change in material, the product would have been a success if we were actually in a real company.

While working at General Dynamics Electric Boat, I held several design review meetings and they were usually fairly quick. This was due to the fact that weeks before the design review meeting, I would sent out the materials and ask for comments back a week before the meeting. That week before the meeting, I would resolve all those comments. Usually, when everyone gets together for the design review meeting, everything has been resolved and we all pretty much get into one room and concur to it. There might be some light discussion reviewing what we discussed in the prior weeks but its usually nothing too involved because the work was already done. The design review meeting ends up being a formality to make sure everyone is on the same page and concurs to the work done in the weeks prior.

I had the chance of sitting in on a design review meeting - although I was not an active participant in the review. I thought it was an interesting experience and I learned quite a bit from it. One thing that I noticed right off the bat was how professional the review was. There was a moderator who was in charge of the review and he made sure every requirement and design was talked about. In terms of the actual personnel that were present, I believe that there were few people from every department: R&D, quality, mfg, marketing, etc. They all had input to make the product better. The whole process and the formalities was something that I expected as in any review, there are stringent specifications that have to be followed. The meeting went on for a few days and I did not get to see how it ended but I assume that once all the comments were made, the design group had to go back an apply all the edits that were critical.

i agree with hiren. I had the shot of sitting in on a plan survey meeting in spite of the fact that I was not a dynamic member in the audit. I thought it was a fascinating background and I took in a lot from it. One thing that I saw immediately was the way proficient the audit was. There was an arbitrator who was accountable for the survey and he ensured each necessity and configuration was discussed. As far as the genuine faculty that were available, I trust that there were few individuals from each office: R&D, quality, mfg, advertising, and so on. They all had contribution to improve the item. The entire procedure and the customs was something that I expected as in any audit, there are stringent details that must be taken after. The meeting continued for a couple days and I didn't get the chance to perceive how it finished yet I accept that once every one of the remarks were made, the outline assemble needed to backpedal an apply all the alters that were basic.

Similar to the experience of Hiren stated above, I had an opportunity in industry to listen in on one (of many) design review meetings my company held on their new product. Normally, such meetings are exclusive to the upper level management and department heads. However, I had previously expressed interest in the product lifecycle to my supervisor so she tried to keep me in the loop as much as possible about the events. She informed me that she had previously gotten an overview of the product roughly 2 weeks prior to the meeting and was asked for any comments/ improvements. She submitted her suggestions and was then pleased to see that they were taken into consideration when she attended the first day of the meetings. I was given the opportunity to sit in on one of the later meetings with her and I was surprised how regimented and organized the meetings were. As mentioned above with other companies, meeting minutes were recorded along with a moderator controlling the scope and direction of the meeting. I thought the overall atmosphere was a very efficient and productive way to inform key members of the company key updates regarding the product.

As some of my classmates stated above, the review design meetings I have been involved have been very fast. The lecture suggests that you send out the document some time prior to the beginning of the meeting. However, when you are so busy, this task is not as essential as other responsibilities which are under your job description. I would say that this did not have the impact I would have desired but it surely help when reviewing the document. This only occurred when we had a lot of work, however the times we had normal amount of work everyone would complete it and the meeting would be conducted in such a professional way by the project manager. Whenever we had a lot of work, we would go over the most important parts of the document together in the meeting, but when there was normal amount of work, everyone would just add comments or questions based on what was previously read in order to complete the draft and then move on to the next point of the agenda.

Let me know what you think.

Sincerely,
Roberto Pineda.

Similar to the experiences of the students who took Capstone here at NJIT, the design review seemed very professional and a completely different atmosphere than the typical “design reviews” that I have been a part. I think that the current design review is solid where every single aspect of the document is analyzed. I think that a reasonable amount of people should be required to be within the review because a lot different perspectives and it helps improve the design of the product. Overall, I like the process that we use here at the Capstone class.

I have sat in on and been an active participant in many design review meetings in my company, and I would like to comment to djr32 that although it may seem outdated to have a scribe for a design review meeting, we still have scribes for all of our design review meetings to document everything that was discussed. I personally think this is more efficient than somebody having to listen to an entire recording of an hour long plus meeting. I would also stress the importance of the entire team being prepared for design review meetings. I have been in many design review meetings where either the leader or team members were not prepared, and it results in a long list of open items that need to be resolved before the design review can be closed, often resulting in multiple follow up meetings. It is critical that all materials to be discussed in the meeting have been reviewed by everyone prior to the meeting.

I am part of out weekly design control meeting for our company’s new product, we have a meeting where we discuss how we can improve the batch records and we assign task based on a tracker that we constantly update. Most of our improvement come from the operators that work directly with the manufacturing of the product. Our main objective and risk management worked hand in hand as for GMP you need total risk management. For our design control our process had improvement to equipment and developments that would enhance the current process and new one.

This semester in Capstone we did a design review of each of our projects. We took a week to go over each group's design document then went group by group to point out any errors or unclear information. I believed it was a very helpful because we were able to see the flaws in our designs and every comment from each student was carefully recorded and given to the designated group when the review was over. Reading the comments allowed my group to make design changes to our product and also helped us make specific and significant changes to our design document. The only thing that we wanted to change about the design review was that we were unable to speak or defend ourselves when presented with criticism, but our professor assured us it was for the best.

In my perspective, a successful design review meeting means that you have treated the applicant reasonably by basing your choice and the plan rules accepted by the team. I would center around the choice that should be made in a convenient way and must be expressed clearly. Concentrating on the big issues or not on individual biases which implies that reviewers must recognize an outline idea that they may dislike personally, but meets the design criteria and rules, and a design that is equitably unseemly on the grounds that it clearly violates the design criteria and rules.

When I attended my first design review meeting, I did not participate much because my project lead and supervisor led most of the discussion. However, I had my validations and other documents prepared in case I was questioned on process or design related v&vs. One thing that did bother me was the lack of interaction from others who needed to contribute. I would gear the questions more towards them to get a response because the lack of response can set back a project further.

Going off what other students have said, when I had sat in on design review meetings we had all received emails before hand with a set schedule on what was going to be addressed and talked about and I noticed that the design review meeting was moving at a very quick pace because of how organized it was. There was generally one person in charge who would mediate the meeting and pick and choose who would get a turn to speak. This is what I had expected because a meeting needs to be very ordered and structured so that they can be quick and efficient. In the meeting everyone had been given the opportunity to talk and everyone was expected to provide input on the design review. I had expected everyone to get the opportunity to talk but I had initially thought it would only be a couple people talking and then everyone would be building off of a couple ideas. In the review meeting issues such as risk were being addressed and everyone had to have a list of potential risk factors that their subgroup would potentially face. The meeting also reviewed the financial situation and would state the expected cost and income each design would bring.