I have developed my own understanding of the sequence of developing a design based on my experience. By following this series of steps I find that I meet the intent of industries where the process is regulated, even if those industries seem very diverse. Here’s my breakdown of the steps:
- Write down the mission need of the whole project (what problem is the product solving)
- Write down the technical attributes you want the design to accomplish (how does it meet the mission need)
- Write some sort of program requirements (how are you going to make the technical stuff happen)
- Write down the inputs to your design process (the guiding requirements that have to be verified as you develop the design)
- Write down a description of how all of those inputs are being used and/or satisfied (requirements traceability)
- Consider alternative solutions
- Conceptual/Preliminary Design
- Preliminary Testing
- Final Design
- Acceptance Testing
- Implement the product
What is rarely appreciated is that the design process starts way before someone starts developing a solid model or writes down specifications. These initial steps are often short changed and overlooked, but establish the basis for the design and whether the right thing is being designed. It can also help build confidence that it’s being designed “correctly”.
Engineers often fall into the trap of pre-supposing the solution to the problem without going through this process. This can lead to tunnel vision designing. In some cases this sort of focus leads to quick and effective results, but where the problem is more unique or can be solved different ways it shuts down the opportunity for truly innovative solutions.
I’m certainly prone to this attitude, which is partially why I’m writing this. I’m attempting to remind myself that sometimes going slower doesn’t mean finishing later, but it can mean finishing better. I have no expectation that I’ll be able to quell the voice that insists it already has the perfect solution that keeps me up at night and goads me to get into a conceptual design. I can rein it in by forcing myself through the process to temper the enthusiasm to the point that alternative approaches are considered.
Passionate engineers that care about a problem can’t help but be excited about a potential solution, and that passion is important. So is the ability to rationally and objectively critique a design, even if it’s your own. Following this process allows us to divorce that excited voice in our head from the stodgy engineer so we can have the best of both personalities.
There’s a lot of steps to cover and it would be too much to describe them in detail here. The sections below briefly touch on each step, reserving detailed discussions for future newsletters.