RipTune: Variable Resistance for Swimmers

Working Environment Analysis defines the physical, chemical, and operational extremes a design must withstand in its intended context. The original RFP highlighted chlorine degradation, which we carried into our reframing phase as a key constraint. However, we recognized that fully chlorine-resistant materials are rare for training equipment outside of swimwear, so we had to find a balance between ideal performance and availability. This balance was challenged as materials with less than 100% chlorine resistance may not be the most sustainable. To compensate, we drastically increased the durability requirement from the original RFP to over 100,000 cycles. This reframing ensured the device could withstand daily use over multiple years while still balancing material sustainability.

Performing this analysis ultimately developed my commitment to sustainability. We realized that many solutions could quickly corrode in the pool chemicals, becoming expensive waste. This project proved a core concept to me: the more physically durable a product is against its environment, the more environmentally sustainable it becomes. Moving forward, I will use environmental analysis not just to set technical thresholds, but as a strict guardrail to ensure my designs are economically and environmentally sustainable from day one.

Verification evaluates whether a design meets its specified technical requirements (did we build the product right?), while validation ensures the design actually fulfills the stakeholder's needs in context (did we build the right product?). Through proxy testing, we successfully verified our device could output the required resistance at a variable level and have a fast set-up time. However, due to severe communication blockers with the MSSAC head coach, we were unable to formally validate the final prototype with our primary users, a limitation we had to address during Showcase.

This limitation severely tested my commitment to stakeholder centricity. The lack of contact led me to question if direct stakeholder input beyond the initial RFP was even necessary, given how strong our technical verification was. However, realizing that our technically sound device still risked not being entirely adoptable as the coach may want some additional features or explicitly address certain issues (like flip turns) proved that verification without validation is an engineering failure. This experience cemented my belief that engineering models only gain true meaning when validated by the community using them, a standard I will rigorously enforce in future client work.

Signal-to-noise ratio is a communication principle where the signal is the essential message and the noise is any distracting, irrelevant, or overly dense information. During our Beta release, our presentation was extremely high-noise. We cluttered our concept representation with a slideshow, a poster board, a whiteboard, and printouts, and our assessors were unsure where to put their focus. To fix this for the final Showcase poster and presentation, we acknowledged the Gutenberg diagram, used colour to create focus, and optimized our presentation in ways to not overwhelm the assessors.

This shift in representation perfectly aligned with my value of bounded rationality. Showcase assessors operate under strict cognitive and time constraints. Assuming an assessor will perfectly digest large walls of texts during a live presentation is flawed. Moving forward, I am committed to use the signal-to-noise principle in all future engineering communications, ensuring I design my arguments and visuals to accommodate the realistic cognitive bandwidth of my audience rather than just dumping all my data onto the page.