Tablets For Timely Design Documentation

One of the biggest challenges we have experienced i n supervising digital systems senior design projects is the quality and completeness of the ind iv dual lab notebooks. Of the five outcomes we continuously track for this capstone course, the la b notebooks have consistently received the lowest quantitative scores. A significant improveme nt was achieved three years ago when we transitioned from “carbon paper and pen” notebooks t on-line (HTML) notebooks. Many teams took advantage of (and put to good use) the ability to post digital pictures of prototyping setups, provide hyperlinks to all their device datasheets, post their latest schematics and software listings for evaluation, and post video clips of their proje ct in action (as verification of their project success criteria). The primary drawback has been th eed for students to be in front of a networked computer to make lab notebook entries; co nsequently, the notebook updates still tended to be done in “spurts” (typically “after the fact”) rather than in “real time”. Project work (and inspiration), in fact, does not always occur i n a lab setting, where networked computers are readily available, nor does it occur when all team members are working in the same physical location. Our hypothesis is that equipping each pro ject team with wireless Tablet PCs should not only significantly improve the spontaneity (and reg ularity) with which the on-line lab notebooks are updated, but also facilitate collaboration amon g team members working on the design project at different locations. An HP Technology for Teach ing Grant has provided a critical mass of Tablet PCs to test this hypothesis. A description of how the equipment provided is being utilized, along with a discussion of the preliminar y results obtained, is presented in this paper. Introduction In most team-oriented capstone design courses, crea tion and maintenance of individual laboratory notebooks (or design journals) is an imp ortant key to successful project completion. Unfortunately, this very necessary ingredient of su ccessful engineering design is also the one for which it is most difficult to garner enthusiasm amo ng students. Typically, students would rather “just work on the project” than document the proces s; consequently, procrastination sets in and the engineering design process utilized is often do cumented well after the fact (days, even weeks), if at all. This dilemma is documented in t he following self-evaluation, written by the author six years ago. Individual lab notebooks varied greatly in quality – some of them were simply “narratives” of group meetings, while others appear ed to be transcribed “after the fact”. We attempted to address these issues by eva luating each student’s lab notebook tear-out sheets several times throughout t e semester (on a total of four Meyer, Johnson, & Brown ASEE 2008 Conference AC 2008-1250 / Session 3132 different occasions). While this rather significan t effort on the our part lead to notable improvements in the lab notebooks relative to previous offerings, there is still room for improvement ─ especially for team members charged with software development, who generally kept the “worst” noteboo ks. The fundamental problem appears to be getting students to: (a) appr eciate the value of a good lab notebook, and (b) take it seriously. 1 While laboratory notebooks have traditionally been p and pencil based, a recent trend has been the development of electronic lab notebooks (ELNs). Use of an ELN facilitates ready sharing of project development process and status among teamma tes, as well as with the instructional staff. Advantages of an ELN over a paper notebook include: (a) ability to share it among team members; (b) remote access capability; (c) ability to back it up so that it cannot be misplaced, lost, or accidently destroyed; (d) ease with which computer files, plots, etc. can be incorporated; (e) ability to electronically search; (f) ability t o include audio/video clips; and (g) ability to include hyperlinks to other information (e.g., devi ce data sheets). 2 Electronic notebooks are generating significant int erest, as evidenced by a wide variety of commercial and “freeware” products currently availa ble, formation of the Collaborative Electronic Notebook Systems Association, and the se ri of Electronic Lab Notebook Conferences. 3 Commercial products currently available include: LabTrack, NoteBookMaker , Infotrieve, Nexxis qELN, Contur ELN, and idbs E-Workbook . A noteworthy “freeware” tool is ORNL ELN. A chart comparing features of these products is provided in Figure 1. There are several challenges associated with ELN us e, however. A key issue is notebook security: access to a particular lab notebook, its contents, and authentication of entries are fundamental issues that must be addressed. To faci litate non-tamperability of entries, the ELN should automatically date and digitally sign each e ntry, then append that entry to the last page of the notebook. Notarization and witnessing function s also need to be provided. Yet another challenge that applies to ELNs shared by project te am members is the need to be in front of a networked computer in order to update entries. Before discussing ELN considerations further and th e motivation for use of Tablet PCs, specific details about the target capstone design course alo ng with its intended outcomes and how they are assessed is in order. Capstone Design Course Specifics The capstone senior design course that is the subje ct of this study has five outcomes that are quantitatively assessed: 1. An ability to apply knowledge obtained in earlier c oursework and to obtain new knowledge necessary to design and test a system, component, o r process to meet desired needs. 2. An understanding of the engineering design process. 3. An ability to function on a multidisciplinary team. 4. An awareness of professional and ethical responsibi lity. 5. An ability to communicate effectively, in both oral and written form. Meyer, Johnson, & Brown ASEE 2008 Conference AC 2008-1250 / Session 3132 This course is advertised as “a structured approach to the development and integration of embedded microcontroller hardware and software that provides senior-level students with significant design experience applying microcontrol lers to a wide range of embedded systems (e.g., instrumentation, process control, telecommun ication, intelligent devices, etc.).” The fundamental course objective is to provide practica l experience developing integrated hardware and software for an embedded microcontroller system in an environment that models one which students will most likely encounter in industry. 10 The basic project-related constraints are that the design must utilize a microcontroller, digital signal processor, or a programmable system-on-chip, meaningfully incorporate several “standard” interfaces (e.g., I C, SPI, TCP/IP, RF, IR, Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc.), b e implemented on a custom-designed printed circuit board, be neat ly ( nd appropriately) packaged, be of personal interest to at least two team members, and (l st but not least) be tractable. To this end, each team of four students prepares and submits a p roject proposal (in “draft” and then “final” form, following an initial review). Included in th is proposal are five, student-specified project success criteria by which the system functionality will be judged (there are five additional success criteria that are common to all projects, c overing deliverables such as the schematic, the bill of materials, the printed circuit board layout , the product packaging, and system integration). Outcomes 1 and 4 are quantitatively assessed using a series of four design component and four professional component written reports (that serve as the precursor of co rresponding sections in the final written report). Implementation of this strategy requires a “fixed” team size of four members and a corresponding class enrollment that i s an nteger multiple of four. Here, each team member is required to pick one topic from each set to individually research and produce a formal written report, complete with references. T ogether, the two reports constitute a significant portion of each student’s grade. The design component reports are as follows: 1. Packaging Specifications and Design 2. Schematic and Hardware Design Narrative/Theory of O peration 3. Printed Circuit Board Layout 4. Firmware Listing and Software Narrative The professional component reports are as follows: 1. Design Constraint Analysis and Component Selection Rationale 2. Patent Liability Analysis 3. Reliability and Safety Analysis 4. Social/Political/Environmental Product Lifecycle Im pact Analysis For Outcome 2 (“understanding of the engineering de sign process”), multiple evaluations of the individual lab notebooks provide a meaningful quant it tive measure of successful demonstration. The breakthrough here was to create group accounts and team websites that hosted each member’s on-line laboratory notebook. Adoption of this approach allowed the course staff to conveniently check on team progress as well as indi vidual contributions. Further, the HTML web-based approach allowed students to include hype rlinks in their notebook entries to photos of Meyer, Johnson, & Brown ASEE 2008 Conference AC 2008-1250 / Session 3132 prototyping setups, source code for testing various nterfaces, video demos of project specific success criteria fulfillment, PDFs of data sheets u sed in the design, etc. The instrument used to evaluate lab notebooks is shown in Table 1. For Outcome 3 (“ability to function on a multidisci plinary team”), the project success criteria provide a meaningful quantitative measure of comple tion. As part of the final presentation, each team prepares video clips that demonstrate success riteria satisfaction (these videos are also posted on the team web sites).