Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- report:prm [2026/06/12 19:24] – [3.3 Cost] team1
+++ report:prm [2026/06/14 21:29] (current) – [3.3 Cost] team1
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 This chapter presents the project management approach adopted for the development of Screen2Green. Since the project combines hardware development, software integration, user interaction, and academic reporting within a limited timeframe, it required a management strategy capable of balancing structure with flexibility.
-To address this, the team adopted a hybrid project management approach combining elements of Scrum and Waterfall. Waterfall was useful for planning around fixed academic deadlines and mandatory deliverables established by the EPS programme, while Scrum supported iterative development, continuous feedback, and adaptation to technical and organizational challenges throughout the semester. This combination was considered appropriate because the project contains both predictable elements, such as milestone submissions, and uncertain elements, such as concept refinement, prototype development, and system integration.
+To address this, the team adopted a hybrid project management approach combining elements of Scrum and Waterfall. Waterfall was useful for planning around fixed academic deadlines and mandatory deliverables established by the European Project Semester (EPS) programme, while Scrum supported iterative development, continuous feedback, and adaptation to technical and organizational challenges throughout the semester. This combination was considered appropriate because the project contains both predictable elements, such as milestone submissions, and uncertain elements, such as concept refinement, prototype development, and system integration.
 The chapter is organized into the main areas relevant to project management: scope, time, cost, quality, people and stakeholder management, communication, risk, procurement, and project plan. Together, these sections explain how the team structured the work, allocated responsibilities, monitored progress, and responded to challenges during the project.
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 Table {{ref>roles_responsibilities}} presents the main project roles and responsibilities.
-<WRAP center round box 60%>
+<WRAP center round box 80%>
 <table roles_responsibilities>
 <caption>Roles and responsibilities</caption>
@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 ^ Component^ Estimated cost (€) ^
 | Power supply 12VDC 2A|9.50 €|
-| Valve (CWX-25S CR02, 12DVC)| 33.15 €|
+| Solenoid Valve | 9.50 €|
+| Water pump| 10.40 €|
 | Buck converter | 2.50 €|
 | ESP32 Dev board | 9.90 € |
-| Relay module (1-ch) | 3.20 €|
+| Relay module (1-ch) 2x| 6.40 €|
 | Capacitive soil moisture sensor | 4.90 €|
 | Temperature sensor (DS18B20)| 5.80 €|
@@ Line 153: / Line 154: @@
 | Red LED (5 mm)| 0.36 €|
 | Resistor 470 Ω| 0.15 €|
-|**Total estimated prototype cost**| **72.44 €**|
+|**Total estimated prototype cost**| **62.39 €**|
 </table>
 </WRAP>
-The effective prototype cost was calculated to approximately 72.44 €, meaning that the project remained within the available budget limit of 100 €. This was achieved through careful component selection, use of standardized off-the-shelf modules, and continuous evaluation of whether each component was necessary for the prototype functionality.
+The effective prototype cost was calculated to approximately 62.39 €, meaning that the project remained within the available budget limit of 100 €. This was achieved through careful component selection, use of standardized off-the-shelf modules, and continuous evaluation of whether each component was necessary for the prototype functionality.
-During development, the team evaluated multiple valve solutions for the irrigation system. The initial solenoid valve was selected due to its low cost and availability. However, prototype testing revealed that the valve required more water pressure than the gravity-fed irrigation system could provide, resulting in unreliable operation. A second valve was subsequently investigated as a potential replacement. Although this valve was designed for lower-pressure applications, further analysis showed that it still required a minimum operating pressure of approximately 0.2 bar and operated at 220 VAC. These characteristics made it unsuitable for the Screen2Green prototype, which relies on a low-pressure irrigation system and a low-voltage electronic architecture based on 12 VDC and ESP32 components. As a result, the team selected a valve operating at 12 VDC as the final solution. Unlike the previously evaluated valves, this valve does not depend on the same pressure conditions and is compatible with the low-voltage design of the system. The selected valve increased the component cost from approximately 16 € to 33.15 €, corresponding to an increase of approximately 106%. Despite the higher cost, the replacement was considered necessary to ensure reliable operation and technical compatibility with the intended irrigation system. The increase in component cost raised the estimated prototype cost from 55.35 € to 72.44 €. However, the project remained well below the available budget, leaving approximately 27.56 € available for unforeseen expenses, replacement components, and future improvements.
+During development, the team evaluated multiple valve solutions for the irrigation system. The initial solenoid valve was selected due to its low cost and availability. However, prototype testing revealed that the valve required more water pressure than the gravity-fed irrigation system could provide, resulting in unreliable operation. A second valve was subsequently investigated as a potential replacement. Although this valve was designed for lower-pressure applications, further analysis showed that it still required a minimum operating pressure of approximately 0.2 bar and operated at 220 VAC. These characteristics made it unsuitable for the Screen2Green prototype, which relies on a low-pressure irrigation system and a low-voltage electronic architecture based on 12 VDC and ESP32 components. As a result, the team selected a valve operating at 12 VDC as the final mass production solution. Unlike the previously evaluated valves, this valve does not depend on the same pressure conditions and is compatible with the low-voltage design of the system. The selected valve changed the component cost for mass production from approximately 9.50 € to 33.15 €, corresponding to an increase of approximately 106%. However in final mass production model submerged water pump will not be needed to generate pressure as in prototype model therefore pump costing 10.40 € will not be needed therefore total change of price of the components will be increased by 13.25 €. Despite the higher cost, the replacement was considered necessary to ensure reliable operation and technical compatibility with the intended irrigation system. The increase in component cost raised the estimated prototype cost from 62.39 € to 75.64 €. However, the project remained well below the available budget, leaving approximately 24.46 € available for unforeseen expenses, replacement components, and future improvements.
-During prototype testing, several additional components were temporarily introduced into the system to evaluate and demonstrate the watering functionality while alternative valve solutions were investigated. These components were not intended to be part of the final product but were necessary to create sufficient water pressure and validate the irrigation mechanism during testing. As these components were provided by the university and reused from existing laboratory equipment, they did not contribute to the prototype cost. The additional prototype components are presented in Table {{ref>prototype_components}}
+During prototype testing, several additional components were temporarily introduced into the system to evaluate and demonstrate the watering functionality while alternative valve solutions were investigated. These components were not intended to be part of the final product but were necessary to create sufficient water pressure and validate the irrigation mechanism during testing. The components were provided by the University, however are still included in the total price of the prototype. The additional prototype components are presented in Table {{ref>prototype_components}}
 <WRAP center round box 60%>
@@ Line 167: / Line 168: @@
 <caption>Additional prototype components</caption>
 ^ Component^ Quantity^ Cost (€)^Notes
-|Water pump|1|0.00|Provided by university|
+|Water pump|1|10.40|Provided by university|
-|Water reservoir (bucket)|1|0.00|Provided by university|
+|Water reservoir (bucket)|1|3|Provided by university|
-|Tubing|2|0.00|Provided by university|
+|Tubing|2|1.00|Provided by university|
-|Nozzle|2|0.00|Provided by university|
+|Nozzle|2|1.00|Provided by university|
 </table>
 </WRAP>
@@ Line 185: / Line 186: @@
 <caption>Overall project cost</caption>
 ^ Cost category^ Description ^ Estimated cost (€) ^
-| Prototype materials| Electronic components, sensors, irrigation system, power supply, and prototype assembly|72.44 €|
+| Prototype materials| Electronic components, sensors, irrigation system, power supply, and prototype assembly|77.79 €|
 |Personnel costs|Six team members, 1050 estimated working hours at 30 € per hour|31500 € |
 |Marketing services|Estimated monthly marketing budget including social media advertising, content creation, influencer collaborations, university promotion, and analytics tools|1540 €|
-|**Total estimated project value**| | **33112.44 €**|
+|**Total estimated project value**| | **33117.79 €**|
 </table>
 </WRAP>
-As shown in Table {{ref>projectCost}}, personnel costs constitute the largest share of the overall project value. This reflects the significant amount of work required to research, design, develop, test, document, and evaluate an interdisciplinary product such as Screen2Green. The prototype material costs account for only a small fraction of the total project value, while future marketing expenditures will be essential for creating awareness and supporting product adoption in the market.
-The remaining margin within the prototype budget also provided flexibility for replacement components, unexpected purchases, and future improvements during development. Maintaining such contingency capacity is considered an important project management practice because it reduces financial risk and improves cost control throughout project execution [(ArraisCastro2026)].
 ==== 3.4 Quality ====
@@ Line 249: / Line 247: @@
 For the Screen2Green project, the following stakeholders have been identified:
-  * Unordered List ItemProject Team 1: These are internal stakeholders consisting of six students from diverse technical backgrounds. They are responsible for the entire project lifecycle, including the design, assembly, and documentation of the Smart Pot system.
+  * Project Team 1: These are internal stakeholders consisting of six students from diverse technical backgrounds. They are responsible for the entire project lifecycle, including the design, assembly, and documentation of the Smart Pot system.
   * ISEP Supervisors: This group of academic stakeholders provides the necessary technical framework and guidance. They are responsible for evaluating project deliverables and ensuring the project meets university standards.
   * Young Adults: This target market group consists of the primary end users. Their needs regarding screen time reduction and user experience are the main drivers for the product's functional requirements.
   * ISEP 3D Printing: As a technical stakeholder within the university, this department is essential for the fabrication of the physical pot components. Access to these resources directly impacts the prototyping schedule.
   * YouTube Creators: These external partners are vital for the marketing strategy. They serve as influencers who build product credibility and awareness through video content and demonstrations.
   * Mauser.pt: This is the primary supplier for the project's electrical components. They provide the sensors and hardware necessary for the automatic watering system and app connectivity.
   * Online Retailers: Platforms such as Amazon and Ebay are identified as distribution stakeholders. They represent the primary channels through which the product will reach a global market.
@@ Line 296: / Line 288: @@
 Manage Closely (High Power, High Interest): This category includes Team 1 and ISEP Supervisors. Communication here must be frequent and highly detailed. The team will use regular face-to-face meetings, constant messaging, and technical reports to ensure everyone is aligned.
-Keep Satisfied (High Power, Low Interest): This category includes the ISEP 3D Printing lab and the supplier Mauser.pt. Communication should be strictly professional, brief, and transactional. The team will only reach out when submitting precise 3D files or purchasing parts to avoid wasting their time.
+  * Keep Satisfied (High Power, Low Interest): This category includes the ISEP 3D Printing lab and the supplier Mauser.pt. Communication should be strictly professional, brief, and transactional. The team will only reach out when submitting precise 3D files or purchasing parts to avoid wasting their time.
+  * Keep Informed (Low Power, High Interest): This category includes the target market of Young Adults and YouTube Creators. Communication needs to be engaging and visual. The team will share project updates, app teasers, and promotional videos on social media to build excitement without requiring technical involvement.
-Keep Informed (Low Power, High Interest): This category includes the target market of Young Adults and YouTube Creators. Communication needs to be engaging and visual. The team will share project updates, app teasers, and promotional videos on social media to build excitement without requiring technical involvement.
+  * Monitor (Low Power, Low Interest): This category covers Online Retailers. No direct communication is required during the prototype phase. The team will simply observe these platforms for competitor trends and pricing until the product is ready for mass distribution.
-Monitor (Low Power, Low Interest): This category covers Online Retailers. No direct communication is required during the prototype phase. The team will simply observe these platforms for competitor trends and pricing until the product is ready for mass distribution.
@@ Line 361: / Line 351: @@
 To ensure a consistent evaluation of risks, each identified risk is assessed according to its probability of occurrence and its potential impact on the project. Both probability, see Table {{ref>probability_scale}}, and impact, see Table {{ref>impact_scale}}, are rated using a three-level qualitative scale ranging from Low (1) to High (3). The overall risk score is calculated by multiplying probability and impact. Risk Score = Probability × Impact.
+<WRAP center round box 70%>
+<table impact_scale>
+<caption>Impact scale</caption>
+^ Score ^ Level ^ Definition ^
+| 1|Low|Minor impact with limited effect on project scope, schedule, cost, or functionality. Can be resolved with minimal effort|
+| 2 |Medium|Noticeable impact requiring corrective actions, additional effort, or moderate delays. May affect specific deliverables or project activities|
+| 3|High|Major impact that threatens critical deliverables, core system functionality, project deadlines, budget, safety, or overall project success. Significant corrective actions are required|
+</table>
+</WRAP>
 <WRAP center round box 60%>
@@ Line 372: / Line 372: @@
 </WRAP>
-<WRAP center round box 70%>
-<table impact_scale>
-<caption>Impact scale</caption>
-^ Score ^ Level ^ Definition ^
-| 1|Low|Minor impact with little effect on project scope, schedule, cost, or functionality|
-| 2 |Medium| Noticeable impact requiring corrective actions, additional effort, or moderate delays|
-| 3|High|Significant impact that threatens key deliverables, core functionality, project deadlines, or overall project success|
-</table>
-</WRAP>
-For example, an impact score of 3 represents a situation that could prevent successful demonstration of the Screen2Green concept, significantly delay project completion, or compromise essential system functionality such as the integration between the mobile application and the hardware prototype.
 <WRAP center round box 60%>
@@ Line 389: / Line 379: @@
 ^ Risk score^ Risk level ^ Response strategy ^
 |1-2|Low|Accept and monitor|
-|3-4|Medium| Reduce and review regularly|
+|3-4|Medium|Reduce and review regularly|
-|6-9|High| Active mitigation and continous monitoring|
+|6-9|High|Active mitigation and continous monitoring|
 </table>
 </WRAP>
-The identified risks are evaluated based on their probability and impact, as summarized in Table {{ref>project_risks}}.
+Because a three-level scale is used for both probability and impact, the possible risk scores are limited to 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9. Table {{ref>risk_classification}} shows risks classified as high require active mitigation and continuous monitoring throughout the project, while medium risks are reduced through preventive measures and regular review. Low-level risks are considered acceptable but remain subject to ongoing monitoring. The identified risks are evaluated based on their probability and impact, as summarized in Table {{ref>project_risks}}.
 <WRAP center round box 100%>
@@ Line 401: / Line 391: @@
 ^ Risk ^ ^ Description ^ Probability ^ Impact ^ Score ^ Risk level ^ Risk response ^ Mitigation strategy ^
 |R1|Technical integration failure|Issues in communication between app and hardware|Medium (2)|High (3)|6|High|Mitigate|Modular design, early testing|
-|R2|Project delays|Delays due to deadlines and dependencies|High (3)|High (3)|9|High|Mitigate|Sprint planning, prioritization|
+|R2|Project delays|Delays due to deadlines and dependencies|High (3)|Medium (2)|6|High|Mitigate|Sprint planning, prioritization|
-|R3|Sensor inaccuracies|Incorrect readings affecting watering|Medium (2)|High (3)|6|High|Reduce|Calibration and testing|
+|R3|Sensor inaccuracies|Incorrect readings affecting watering|Medium (2)|Medium (2)|4|Medium|Reduce|Calibration and testing|
 |R4|System complexity|System becomes too complex to complete|Medium (2)|High (3)|6|High|Mitigate|Focus on core features|
 |R5|Plant response unclear|Basil does not show visible feedback|Medium (2)|Medium (2)|4|Medium|Reduce|Adjust thresholds, document limits|
-|R6|Water leakage|Water damaging electronics or structure|Medium (2)|High (3)|6|Medium|Mitigate|Physical separation, testing|
+|R6|Water leakage|Water damaging electronics or structure|Medium (2)|High (3)|6|High|Mitigate|Physical separation, testing|
 |R7|Miscommunication|Lack of coordination in the team|Low (1)|Medium (2)|2|Low|Accept/monitor|Regular Scrum meetings|
 |R8|Uneven workload|Imbalance in task distribution|Low (1)|Medium (2)|2|Low|Accept/monitor|Clear task allocation|
@@ Line 412: / Line 402: @@
 </WRAP>
-Based on the calculated scores, risks classified as high require active mitigation and continuous monitoring throughout the project. These include technical integration failure, project delays, system complexity, sensor inaccuracies, and water leakage. Medium-level risks are reduced through testing and design adjustments, while low-level risks are accepted but continuously monitored through team coordination and regular meetings.
+Based on the calculated scores, risks classified as high require active mitigation and continuous monitoring throughout the project. These include technical integration failure, project delays, system complexity, and water leakage. Medium-level risks are reduced through testing and design adjustments, while low-level risks are accepted but continuously monitored through team coordination and regular meetings.
-The risks were further categorized using a qualitative risk matrix based on probability and impact. Risks located in the red area are considered high-priority risks and require active mitigation and continuous monitoring. Risks in the yellow area require reduction measures and regular review, while risks in the green area are considered acceptable but are still monitored throughout the project.
+The risks were further categorized using a qualitative risk matrix based on probability and impact. Risks located in the red area are considered high-priority risks and require active mitigation and continuous monitoring. Risks in the yellow area require reduction measures and regular review, while risks in the green area are considered acceptable but are still monitored throughout the project. A risk matrix is used to classify risks into low, medium, and high categories (see Figure {{ref>risk_matrix}}).
-A risk matrix is used to classify risks into low, medium, and high categories (see Figure {{ref>risk_matrix}}).
 <WRAP center round box 60%>
@@ Line 423: / Line 411: @@
 ^ Impact / Probability ^ Low ^ Medium ^ High ^
 |Low|<color #22b14c>X</color> |<color #22b14c>X</color> |<color #ff7f27>X</color> |
-|Medium|<color #22b14c>**R7, R8**</color> |<color #ff7f27>**R5, R9**</color>|<color #ed1c24>X</color> |
+|Medium|<color #22b14c>**R7, R8**</color> |<color #ff7f27>**R3, R5, R9**</color>|<color #ed1c24>**R2**</color> |
-|High|<color #ff7f27>X</color> |<color #ed1c24>**R1, R3, R4, R6**</color> |<color #ed1c24>**R2**</color> |
+|High|<color #ff7f27>X</color> |<color #ed1c24>**R1, R4, R6**</color> |<color #ed1c24>X</color> |
 </table>
 </WRAP>
-Based on the assessment, R2 is considered the most critical risk due to both high probability and high impact. Risks related to technical integration, system complexity, sensor inaccuracies, and water leakage are also prioritized due to their potentially significant impact on project success. Lower-level organizational risks, such as miscommunication and uneven workload distribution, are managed through regular meetings and task coordination.
+Based on the assessment, technical integration failure, project delays, system complexity, and water leakage are considered the most significant project risks. Technical integration and system complexity may prevent successful implementation of core functionality, while water leakage poses a direct threat to electronic components and overall prototype reliability. Although project delays are highly likely to occur, their impact can often be reduced through reprioritization and schedule adjustments.
+Medium-level risks, such as sensor inaccuracies, unclear plant feedback, and budget limitations, are managed through testing, calibration, and design refinement. Lower-level organizational risks, including miscommunication and uneven workload distribution, are addressed through regular Scrum meetings, task allocation, and continuous team coordination.
@@ Line 447: / Line 438: @@
 === 3.8.1 Definition ===
-Procurement Definition
-The project requires specific hardware and materials to build a functional prototype. The following items must be purchased:
-Electronic components: ESP32 board, 12 VDC pilot-operated solenoid valve, capacitive soil moisture sensor, DS18B20 temperature sensor, relay module, buck converter, 8W submersible pump, and power supply. These are required for the automated irrigation system prototype.
+The project requires specific hardware and materials to build a functional prototype.
+The following items must be purchased:
+  * Electronic components: ESP32 board, 12 VDC valve, capacitive soil moisture sensor, DS18B20 temperature sensor, relay module, buck converter, 8W submersible pump, and power supply. These are required for the automated irrigation system prototype.
+  * Hardware fittings: A brass 1/2 inch female hose adapter to connect the pump and valve.
+  * Structural materials: Biodegradable PLA filament and natural cork to construct the pot and water tank.
-Hardware fittings: A brass 1/2 inch female hose adapter to connect the pump and valve.
-Structural materials: Biodegradable PLA filament and natural cork to construct the pot and water tank.
 === 3.8.2 Suppliers ===
@@ Line 507: / Line 500: @@
 <WRAP>
 ^ Sprint ^ Dates ^ Theme ^ # Deliverables ^ Status ^
-| 1  | Mar 5 – Mar 11  | Research |  2  | Finished |
+| 1  | Mar 5 – Mar 11  | Research |  2  | Done |
-| 2  | Mar 12 – Mar 18 | Setting a system |  2  | Finished |
+| 2  | Mar 12 – Mar 18 | Setting a system |  2  | Done |
-| 3  | Mar 19 – Mar 25 | Schema, flyer & prototyping |  3  | Finished |
+| 3  | Mar 19 – Mar 25 | Schema, flyer & prototyping |  3  | Done |
-| 4  | Mar 26 – Apr 1  | Refining, refactoring, developing & testing |  0  | Finished |
+| 4  | Mar 26 – Apr 1  | Refining, refactoring, developing & testing |  0  | Done |
-| 5  | Apr 2 – Apr 8   | Refining, refactoring, developing & testing |  0  | Finished |
+| 5  | Apr 2 – Apr 8   | Refining, refactoring, developing & testing |  0  | Done |
-| 6  | Apr 9 – Apr 15  | Finishing the interim |  1  | Finished |
+| 6  | Apr 9 – Apr 15  | Finishing the interim |  1  | Done |
-| 7  | Apr 16 – Apr 22 | 3D modeling and developing |  1  | Finished |
+| 7  | Apr 16 – Apr 22 | 3D modeling and developing |  1  | Done |
 | 8  | Apr 23 – Apr 29 | Finalizing the components & materials list |  1  | Done |
 | 9  | Apr 30 – May 6  | Refining the report |  1  | Done |