Semester.ly

Johns Hopkins University | EN.540.314

Chembe Product Design

3.0

credits

Average Course Rating

(3.98)

This course guides the student through the steps of a project in product design. Product design concerns the recognition of customer needs, the creation of suitable specifications, and the selection of best products to fulfill the needs. It includes the design of a manufacturing process for the product and an estimation of the economic profitability of the concept. Students work in small teams to complete a major project demonstrating their understanding of and proficiency in the primary objectives of the course. Students report several times both orally and in writing on their accomplishments.

Spring 2013

(3.73)

Spring 2013

(3.63)

Spring 2013

(4.36)

Spring 2014

(3.89)

Spring 2014

(4.25)

Spring 2014

(3.9)

Spring 2015

(4.27)

Spring 2015

(3.77)

Spring 2023

(4.04)

Spring 2023

(3.93)

Spring 2023

(4.03)

Spring 2013

Professor: An Goffin

(3.73)

The best aspects of this course included the freedom to choose what to design, the instructor’s consistent feedback, the poster session/presentation experience, and the opportunity to be creative. One student felt it was difficult to adequately split his/her time between two major projects (the process and product projects). Another student felt one of the instructors were not always able to answer questions thoroughly, particularly when Aspen simulations were concerned. Suggestions included providing students with a minimal amount of funding and clarifying grade expectations at the beginning of the semester. Prospective students are encouraged not to procrastinate and to choose his/her group members wisely.

Spring 2013

Professor: Lise Dahuron

(3.63)

The best aspects of this course included the chance to mix creativity and engineering skil s, the opportunity to research and design products, and the chance to work in a group setting. One student felt that too many deadlines were crammed into the final week of the semester. Another student felt the course lacked a sense of structure. Suggestions included adopting a senior design structure similar to 58 those of the Mechanical or Biomedical Engineering departments; also, extending the class to a yearlong commitment. Prospective students should be prepared to spend a lot of time with their design team and should expect a heavy workload.

Spring 2013

Professor: Marc Donohue

(4.36)

The best aspects of this course included the opportunity to utilize one’s creative side, the instructor’s helpful feedback, and the level of independence given to students because it chal enged them with their product designs and gave them a sense of pride once the designs were completed. One student felt the expectations regarding assignments were sometimes unclear. Some students disliked the use of Aspen. Suggestions included incorporating more guidance with Aspen and requiring students to build prototypes. Prospective students are encouraged to decide on a project early.

Spring 2014

Professor: Lise Dahuron

(3.89)

This course was highlighted by independent design and research, freedom to come up with solutions to real world problems, and creative thinking. Students found they were final y able to apply what they had learned through ChemBE course work into practice. The worst aspects of the course were the limited time available, the ASPEN software, and the possibility of having a dysfunctional group dynamic. Some students were dismayed at the lack of funding to complete a real product, and thought much of the feedback from the instructor was negative without being constructive. Suggestions for improving the course included stretching the course over two semesters, a more structured schedule of meetings, and money to develop an actual product. Prospective students should be sure to stay on top of the work, pick your group carefully, and start thinking about design ideas at the start of the semester or earlier.

Spring 2014

Professor: Marc Donohue

(4.25)

The best aspects of this course were the hands on design and project base of the course, the freedom to design new things and figure out solutions, and the chance to be creative. Many students thought the relaxed atmosphere of the class made it feel more like a weekend project than a graded class. However, with the freedom of the course came some disorganization in the schedule and uneven distribution of work. Suggestions for improving the course include better structure in the schedule of work due, having two cars to work on, and opportunities to work with CAD. Prospective students should know the class is 66 very laid back and is more like a club, the work can be uneven with some having more responsibility than others, but overall the class is a great way to get hands on experience and is highly recommended.

Spring 2014

Professor: An Goffin

(3.9)

This course was highlighted by an independent design and research project, positive group dynamic, and the opportunity to put classroom knowledge into practice. Additionally, this was a good introduction to ASPEN. However, many students found the time al otted for the process and product projects was inadequate and felt rushed. Some suggestions for improving the course were to stretch out the course over two semesters, include a guest speaker with experience in this sort of project, and more guidance for students. Prospective students should know this class requires a lot of writing and independent work, and you need to stay organized and motivated. This course is rewarding and highly recommended.

Spring 2015

Professor: Lise Dahuron

(4.27)

The best aspects of the class included the freedom to be creative and the ability to apply existing knowledge to developing a product. Many students thought that the class should have been extended over two semesters to ensure time to develop a prototype, and that more structure and guidance would have been helpful, especially with regard to the economic aspects of the project. Suggestions for improvement included having students and the professor agree on periodic benchmarks for each team to clarify goals and expectations. Prospective students should be prepared to col aborate with a team in order to develop and troubleshoot a product. Also, students should be excited to learn about the design process, even if it is unlikely that they will be able to fully develop their product into a prototype.

Spring 2015

Professor: An Goffin

(3.77)

The best aspects of the course included the freedom to choose and develop a project with a team, to work independently, and to gain exposure to the real-world process of development in chemical engineering. Many students felt that one semester was not enough time to make any real progress on their product or to build a prototype, and were disappointed that their work was cut-off by the time constraint. Thus, many suggested extending the course and giving students a budget or opening other 61funding and sponsorship opportunities. Prospective students should be excited to learn about the design process, even if it is unlikely that they will be able to fully develop their product.

Spring 2023

Professor: David Gracias

(4.04)

Spring 2023

Professor: Lilian Josephson

(3.93)

Spring 2023

Professor: Stephen Farias

(4.03)