Portfolio 1learning Portfolio 1Length: 500 to a maximum of 800 words.ResultsThe aim of this project is centred upon designing and constructing an innovative, aesthetic and stable device that is easy to operate. With the ultimate goal of extracting as much aerated concrete as possible in five minutes, the teams objective focuses on delivering a prototype that can effectively manoeuvre rough terrain without any hindrance from staged obstacles. In addition to the primary goal, the device will aim to maximise fuel efficiency and performance while keeping environmental damage and production cost to a minimum.ReflectionMy original problem statementMy first problem statement is as follows:To build a strong and effective robot capable of mining which has to be unique in the market. This concept has become a new area of scientific and engineering interest particularly after the Rosetta mission. The Robot must be able to approach the 600x300x200mm block of aerated concrete and attach itself using screws, detach and drill into the block of concrete. Samples must be stored using high capacity bucket loaders. This has to follow the constraints such as no more than 6v battery in series, $150 budget and a working space of 2x2 m square. The testing time is 5 minutes.This was written based on the initial design problem. However after consulting the engineering textbook Engineering Design, I began to notice ambiguity, biases and implied solutions in my original problem statement. The word strong is highly ambiguous as it provides no measurement in engineering terms. Therefore, I removed it based on my study of engineering design. Similarly, unique in the market is highly biased as it is a presumption about the design which might prove inaccurate based on its comparison with other products on the market and was removed. Similarly, the use of implied solutions such as attach itself using screws and use of bucket loaders restricts the design space and creativity as it limits other possible solutions and was replaced with storing samples. Furthermore, the use of specifics such as 600X300X200mm was also replaced with block of aerated concrete. Therefore, I came to an understanding that we must carefully examine problem statements and ensure errors, biases, implied solutions and the use of highly specifics are ignored as it only limits creativity and design space. Rather we must expand our views of communication to simple terms which is easily understood. Team problem statement refinement processTeams should begin by defining or framing the problem.. Available similar situations and solutions must also be consulted. Before writing the teams problem statement, an initial group meeting was used to consult materials such as books and research to learn more about the problem scenario.Team members were asked to write their individual problem statements. On the next group meeting, each individual member was asked to read their problem statements whilst the rest of the team listened and noted down the different ideas. Initially the team was overwhelmed by the large range of ideas raised. This could have raised disagreements between the team members as to whose ideas was more suitable. To avoid disagreement and the dismissal of ideas, all the ideas were gathered. This meant that the team was not limiting creativity of the design ideas. Next all the different ideas were effectively tabulated into a list of objectives, constraints and functions which allowed the team to generate a first draft of the problem statement. The first draft was as the following build an aesthetic looking, unique and cost effective and stable device with dimensions smaller than 2 by 2m that can drive 1.2m over rough terrain and collect as much dirt as possible using only 6 volts in 5 minutes. This should not violate the $150 budget.Next, through a systematic discussion, the first draft was analysed in terms of its appropriateness through a restatement technique. The advantages, disadvantages and the suitability of the points in the first draft was analysed based on a thorough discussion. The team re-analyzed its main objectives to make sure they were realistic. Next, the team was split into two groups of three and asked to construct a 2nd draft by adhering to the agreements made based on discussion of the first draft. After the 2nd draft by both groups least commitment technique can be used which revolves around the concept of not ,making decisions unless you have to as this could lead to a premature concept and limit themselves into a suboptimal range of design choices. This means that available time and range of choices is exhausted.In these groups, . Such as internal team discussion which where ideas are recognized into some problem-relevant structure.Good design thinking habits include:Another strategy used is the decomposition technique commonly known as divide and conquer which breaks down larger problems into smaller sub-problems which are easier to solve and handle. Subproblems must then adhere to constraints and assumptions of other sub-problems.Throughout this phase our views of the problem shifted through new and evolving information gained. This had a huge impact on the teams view and understanding of the clients wants. As a result the team developed an expanded mindset of the ways the design problem could expressed clearly and realistically. This was particularly reflected by the comparison of the initial and revised problem statements which showed a great level of improvement in expressing the problem. Initially, certain team members had a definition which was too specific and often times ambiguous which would not make sense in the eyes of a client who doesnt have the level of knowledge in science and engineering to understand the concept. Therefore, the employment of a systematic revision, restatement and decomposition technique cleared confusion between the team members and to easily come to terms with each other. Hence, team members were encouraged to think like an engineer who has the capability to effectively communicate their ideas to individual of all calibre essentially raising many interesting ideas. What I learned about design and teamworkThroughout phase 1, the team was faced with a challenge of identifying the real aspects of the initial problem. The team utilised tools such as revision of the problem statement to remove biases, ambiguity, errors and implied solutions. Similarly the team also used techniques such as restatement of the first problem statement, least commitment and decomposition techniques to successfully create a revised problem statement which is succinct, provides flexibility in the design process and is clear and realistic in its interpretation. Hence, the successful completion of phase 1has enabled the team to adopt good design and thinking habits that view the problem from an engineering point of view and at the same time, encourage realistic creativity. Similarly, the team also demonstrated good ability to handle team discussion tasks with professionalism. Ideas suggested in the discussion was not rejected but instead assessed in terms of its engineering and scientific principles which enabled the identification of its appropriateness. This also encouraged team participation. Similarly, the team remain focused as the team shifts from a general notion of the overall design requirements into more specifics. Hence, the team will approach the design problem by utilising professional engineering manners and appropriate project management. As a result of the challenges in Phase 1, I have developed efficient group communication skills. Therefore, this will allow me to generate and suggest my ideas to the team in clar engineering terms. Similarly, due to the enthusiastic and aprreciative manners demonstrated by my team, I have similarly adopted good design and thinking habits. I have also developed an expanded perspective to view design problems. Therefore, I should be able to effectively contribute to the design process and impact positively in the team.