英国assignment代写|STANDARD CLASS CARRIAGE FOR HS2

QQ图片20170926145329

      本文的主要目的是短暂的过程中如何进行技术方案对用户的要求组运动期间,为伦敦和曼彻斯特之间的HS2标准类的车厢设计。在这种情况下,将详细分析来自不同利益相关者的两个主要需求——乘客和列车管理人员,然后分别针对各自的技术解决方案。

      1. Introduction

      1.1 Scope
      The main purpose of this paper is to brief the process of how we have carried out the technical solution to the user’s requirements during the group exercise, which is to design of standard class carriage for HS2 between London and Manchester. In this case, two main requirements from different stakeholders— passengers and train managers will be analysed in detail, followed by the technical solutions for each of them, respectively.
      1.2 Methodology
      V- model isa term that can contribute to the simpler understanding of a complex model, being applied to illustrate the detail process that we carried out, which is showed in Figure 1. In the following parts, requirements of two main stakeholders (passengers and train managers), functional and physical decomposition of the requirements would be mainly discussed while validation and verification would be also covered subsequently in the present paper.

10

      2. Requirements and decomposition

      In the first step, my group summarised the relevant stakeholders that are associated with the standard class carriage of HS2 in this team task, which has been listed in Table 1. Among the whole circle board, passengers and train managers are chosen as the subjects that this group focused on since they are two main entities during the travel in railway. Their requirements will be showed explicitly in the tables. Subsequently, the functional decomposition for both passengers and managers will be analysed, respectively.

11

      Table 1. Relevant Stakeholders of Standard Class Carriage of HS2

      Train manager
      As one of the most relevant stakeholder, train manager is the man who is in charge of each aspect within the whole train,makes decisions when facing some emergencies and also should have specific requirements for the train. The requirementsfrom train manager should include the easily understanding of information about the train as well as the passengers, which can be decomposed into four main requirements at level 2: a clear indication of door status, a immediate communication to train driver, ability to count the number of passengers in each carriage and accesses to each carriage. Furthermore, these functions can also be decomposed into sub functions at level 3, which is showed in Table 2.

12
      2.2 Passengers
      Passengers are definitely another most important stakeholders within this case. As the customers of the train service, passengers have full voice about the requirements for the whole train. Except the person-related factors, their main requirements are all facility related, which are most associated with the train manufacturer. Also, several sub-functions are mentioned as level 2, which has been listed in Table 3.

13
      3. Physical decomposition

      A number of physical specifications have been considered as the technical solutions to the sub functions for train managers as well as the passengers during the brainstorm within our team. The requirements of passengers are mostly related to the facility on the train, which can only be solved by train manufacturers to provide standard class carriages with good conditions. As to the train mangers, they need to consider the safety and comfortabilityof passengers at the same time. Therefore, the combination of requirements from train managers and passengers should be taken into account. Several physical manifestations have been compared in the table below as potential solutions. From Table 4, we can notice that only one or two functions can be satisfied by using the traditional tools, which can not only increase the working accessories of train managers, but also elicit repeated work so that more working stress is generated. Multifunction Tab, a modern electronic product can meet all the requirements of train managers at the same time, can increase the working efficiency and accuracy together.

14
      4. Verification and Validation

      Validation activities have also been carried out by the group to evaluate whether the resulting solution can meet the requirements of users together with the overall mission aim.[2]The verification process would be a complete examine of the resulting items about their quality according to the international standards.[3]In addition, the functionalities and applicability would also be tested based on the requirements of the users. As to the validation process, proper and effective surveys could be conducted to evaluate the resulting items according to the users’ requirements. Several choices could be provided within the surveys so that a final resulting solution can be elicited. What’s more, the number of people who would take part in the survey should be large enough to make the resulting solution more convincing with confirm validation.

      5. Conclusions

      In the present task, our group applied V- model to analyse the user requirements together with the functional and physical decomposition, followed by the verification and validation processes, which has been proven an effective and beneficial method to raise a technical solution. The V- model is like a guidance to help the team seeking the key elements for each step, which makes the whole work more efficient and explicit.
      More importantly, teamwork exhibited great power and potential within each step of this case although there were various, different or even opposite opinions in the group. To be more specific, each of us was aware of that the task was not that easy to be solved at the very beginning. However, each one of us spared no effort to contribute to the whole team at every step although lots of obstacles and difficulties were right in front of them. It is the teamwork that makes the whole task smoothly and beautifully completed.

      References
1. Kevin Forsberg and Harold Mooz, (1991) “The Relationship of System Engineering to the Project Cycle,” in Proceedings of the First Annual Symposium of National Council on System Engineering, 57–65.
2. Sciolla, Rossella; Melis, F; Sinpac, Group et al. (2008). ‘Rapid Identification of High-Risk Transient Ischemic Attacks: Prospective Validation of the ABCD Score’. Stroke (American Heart Association) 39 (2): 297–302.
3. Germing, U.; Strupp, C; Kuendgen, A; Isa, S; Knipp, S; Hildebrandt, B; Giagounidis, A; Aul, C et al. (2006).’Prospective validation of the WHO proposals for the classification of myelodysplastic syndromes’. Haematologica91 (12): 1596–1604.

猜您喜欢

要发表评论,您必须先登录