Skills
Decision Matrix
Summary
A decision matrix is a table based that uses the weights from your AHP table and the corelating criteria to decide how each design from brainstorming suites the problem. Using a rating system whether it's 1-5 or 1-10 etc, you rate each design for each criteria on how it best fits said criteria. Doing this lets us see how each design does in comparison with others and in comparison to the customers needs. This allows us to know which design meets the criteria the best and closet to the customers needs than just guessing.
My Decision Matrix
Design Brainstorm
Design 1: "Tail" Lift/Hoist
This design would be like combing something like an engine hoist and like a "baby bouncer", the thing that helps babies stand. Essentially the base would be motorized and have a post coming off that attaches to the users waist to help with balance. This would also be able to "hoist" them up in case loss of leg movement etc so they can keep moving if in motion.
Design 2: Leg support "ExoSkeleton"
This design would be similar to an exoskeleton, but with the focus on leg support. The user would wear a frame that supports their legs, with bases under their feet, and has motorized joints to assist with movement. Allowing the user to essentially stand and walk with improved balance and would be able to "conceal" under bulky pants.
Design 3: Overhead Track System
This design would involve adding an overhead track system in areas the user frequents. The user would wear a harness that connects to a motorized trolley on the overhead track, allowing them to move around with ease and stability. This system would be ideal for environments like homes or workplaces where the track can be installed.
Overall, creating the decision matrix helped me objectively evaluate each design against the criteria that matter most to the user. It highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of each option, making it clear which design best meets the user's needs. This structured approach to decision-making is invaluable in engineering design, as it reduces bias and ensures that choices are based on data rather than intuition alone.
From my interviews and research, a big priority is comfort and low cost while still allowing the user to stand for long periods of time like they could before Parkinson's. Another issue is movement sometimes fails due to the nature of the disease, so having a design that could do both and be comfortable to the user is key. Looking at the decision matrix, the leg support exoskeleton scored the highest, mainly due to its balance of comfort and mobility support. This design seems to best align with the user's needs and constraints identified earlier in the project.
CAD Models
My Prototype
Design Summary
The solution is a lower "exoskeleton". It has supports under the feet to not only support itself, allowing the user to not have to bear the weight, but also helping the user with balance. As you go up there's a joint and supports at the ankle to still allow the ankle to bend within limit to keep user balance and help them stay vertical when muscle gives out. The knee area features what would be a spring joint allowing the user to bend their knee to walk or sit while still holding them up so they could stand for long periods. There is a similar joint at the hip where it connects to a belt for ease of adjustment and motion. I'd imagine the vertical rods being made out of something like carbon fiber or similar composites for rigidity while keeping it light. The foot base would need to be a steel or titanium to not flex or shear under load/use. The mount locations up the leg could be a reinforced plastic (PETG or similar) as they are not as high stress as the foot, but still need to be rigid. Then the supports and joints would need to be pneumatic so they can lock out movement to keep the user standing and then be able to flip a switch and have assisted walking.
Experience using CAD
Overall, the software was easy to use and pretty straight forward. I feel the technology benefits the design process by allowing faster and more accurate prototyping and allows for less physical iteratives allowing costs to stay down. It was fairly easy to learn, I use Fusion 360 for personal projects so going from sketch based to object based was interesting and took a second, but it's easy to pick up once I got used to starting with a shape instead of sketch. I used the most of the features in TinkerCAD starting with duplicate the most then grouping, snapping/aligning, and the scaling and typing my sizes and distances in right behind that. It didn't change much the biggest change was just being able to have more accurate measurements to scale better so the model is mor proportionate to what it would be in reality. I was able to depict majority of it in the model the only parts not depicted would be wiring harnesses and the electrical side along with more advanced detailing of specific supports and joints.
Using CAD in the Future
In the future I will use these skills to create more detailed prototypes and iterate on designs faster. I can also use it to create models for 3D printing to create physical prototypes. I will also use it for helping visualize more of my ideas to push them to reality and to be able to share them with others. I can also use it to create more detailed models for presentations and reports to better communicate my ideas and designs.
Project Management
Gantt Charts
A Gantt chart is a type of bar chart used in project management to visually represent a project's schedule over time. Each horizontal bar corresponds to a specific task or activity, with the bar's left edge marking the task's start date and its right edge marking the planned completion date. The chart is laid out on a shared timeline so that anyone on the team can immediately see which tasks are running in parallel, which ones must finish before others can begin, and where the major milestones fall across the project. Originally developed by Henry Gantt in the early 1900s, the format remains one of the most effective planning tools in engineering and industry because it converts an abstract schedule into a single readable visual, forcing the team to think through the full scope of work, estimate realistic durations, and identify dependencies before execution begins.
During active project work, a Gantt chart functions as a live tracking tool, not just a planning artifact. As work progresses, the chart should be reviewed at each milestone to compare actual progress against the baseline schedule. If a task slips, the chart makes the downstream impact immediately visible, showing which later tasks are at risk and by how much. This early-warning capability allows the team to make proactive adjustments such as reallocating effort, narrowing scope, or accelerating parallel tasks before a small delay cascades into a missed final deadline. Revisiting the chart regularly also creates accountability: it is harder to rationalize falling behind when the schedule and its consequences are displayed in front of you.
My Gantt Chart
The Gantt chart for this project spans February 17 through April 28, 2026, a 71-day window divided into ten phases. Each phase is anchored to one required deliverable: the seven memos (Problem Definition, Aircraft Purpose and Interior Design, Wing Shape, Wing Structure, UML Automation, Automation Code, and Final Design Description and Drawing), followed by FAT Testing, Financial Analysis for the Aircraft, and the Final Report. Within each phase, four to five specific work tasks break the deliverable down into research, analysis, drafting, and review activities. Each time block represents a single calendar day. A daily resolution was chosen because the deliverable cadence is weekly, making days the natural unit of precision, a weekly resolution would collapse too much detail and make it impossible to see whether preparation starts early in the week or the night before the deadline.
The longest phase by calendar span is Phase 10 (Final Report), which covers the last seven days of the project and requires compiling all prior deliverable content into one cohesive document. In terms of sustained technical effort, Phase 7 (Final Design Description and Drawing) is the most demanding memo phase because it requires integrating all prior subsystem decisions, fuselage layout, wing geometry, structural analysis, and automation architecture, into complete drawings and a unified design narrative. Milestones are marked with a diamond (◆) at the end of each phase and represent the Monday midnight Arizona time deadline for each deliverable. If I fall behind schedule, my plan is to identify which specific task slipped, then either narrow the scope of that memo's analysis sections to focus on the most critical design decisions, or start the following phase's research tasks earlier in the prior week to buy back time without compressing the drafting window.
Potential Risks
Risk 1: Technical Complexity Underestimation
Several later phases, particularly Wing Structure, UML Automation, and Automation Code, require technical depth in structural mechanics, software architecture, and systems modeling that may take significantly longer to research and execute than initially estimated. If the complexity of any of these phases is underestimated, work could spill into the following week's preparation window and create a cascading delay. To mitigate this, I will begin preliminary research for each phase at least two days before the prior deliverable is due. For highly technical phases, I will set a personal rule that a first draft must exist by Friday so Saturday and Sunday are available for revision rather than initial writing. If a topic proves intractable, I will consult course resources early in the week rather than persisting independently past a reasonable threshold.
Risk 2: Competing Academic and Professional Obligations
As a part-time student who also works professionally as a videographer and drone operator, high-demand weeks in courses, major assignments, or large field shoots could compress the available time for project deliverables. Weeks with exam stacks or scheduled large-format drone operations represent a particular concentration of risk. To mitigate this, the Gantt chart has been deliberately front-loaded so that research tasks begin early in each weekly window rather than the day before the deadline. Work on project tasks will be scheduled in my calendar alongside other commitments so that conflicts are visible at least a week in advance, and professional assignments that overlap with milestone weeks will be flagged and adjusted where possible.
Risk 3: Design Iteration Forcing Rework of Prior Deliverables
Aircraft design is iterative. A decision made in the Wing Shape memo could expose a structural incompatibility that requires revisiting the interior layout from the prior phase. Similarly, the automation code phase may reveal that the UML architecture doesn't map cleanly to an implementable system, requiring redesign. Because each memo builds on prior work, a significant design revision discovered late could force rework across multiple already-submitted deliverables and destabilize the schedule. To mitigate this, each memo will include a brief forward-compatibility check at the end of the drafting task, a quick review asking "what does this decision constrain in the next phase?", to catch interdependency conflicts before they are locked into a submission. Design choices will be documented with explicit assumptions so that if a downstream phase forces a change, the scope of rework is clearly bounded.