# Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3

(Difference between revisions)
 Revision as of 11:06, 11 February 2019 (view source) (→Notes)← Older edit Current revision as of 13:35, 1 April 2019 (view source) (27 intermediate revisions not shown) Line 1: Line 1: - +
- + -
+
-
+ ; Page navigation + # [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]] + # [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes from meeting]] + # [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]] + # [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]] + # [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem description]] + # [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]] + # [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem description]] + # [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]] + # [[Drones - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Drone analysis]] + # [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solution analysis]] + # [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airport analysis]] + # [[Types of Decision Models - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model investigation]] + # [[Decision Model - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model implementation]] + # [[Decision Model validation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision Model validation]] + # [[Categorizing solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Categorising solutions]] + # [[Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Web Application]] + # [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]] + # [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]] + # [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]] +
= Notes = = Notes = - We present notes that were taking during the meeting with the professors. + We present notes that were taken during the meeting with the professors. - '''Week 1''' + == Week 2== * We should focus on a certain context rather than considering the problem in general. * We should focus on a certain context rather than considering the problem in general. * Consider when something is allowed and when it is not allowed with respect to drones around airports. * Consider when something is allowed and when it is not allowed with respect to drones around airports. Line 14: Line 34: * Look at the guidelines that should be set in stone on the first of March in the Netherlands. * Look at the guidelines that should be set in stone on the first of March in the Netherlands. + == Week 3 == + * For the assignment, we have to have a clear idea of the product we want to deliver, in our case for airports. We have decided to create a decision model for airports to be able to choose a possible solution based on certain characteristics of the airports and dependent on the budget for investment in the technologies. + *  Look at/investigate the information/decisions that need to be used in the decision model. A possible way of doing this is to look at the difference between the airports of the Netherlands and look at how this difference could affect the chosen solution. + * Get requirements of airports to help get a clear vision of the needs of airports for the solution, so contact Dutch airports. + * Do a cost analysis, on basis of Gatwick airport attack, to check how much airports want to invest on the solutions. + * For the report, do the following: + ** Research literature on how to create a decision model. + ** A more concise and clear list of existing solutions. + ** Expand the list of advantages and disadvantages of the solutions on the basis of demands of airports, such that the solution of use of eagles and geofencing does not seem like the best solution anymore. - '''Week 2''' + == Week 4 == - * + * We should be very explicit about everything we write down such that no confusion can be created - * + * Further dive into the literature of decision models - * + * Further extend the list of advantages and disadvantages - * + * Give more body to the problem description - + - + - '''Week 3''' + - * + - * + - * + - * + - + - + - '''Week 4''' + - * + - * + - * + - * + - + - + - '''Week 5''' + - * + - * + - * + - * + - + - + - '''Week 6''' + - * + - * + - * + - * + - + - + - '''Week 7''' + - * + - * + - * + - * + - + - + - '''Week 8''' + - * + - * + - * + - * + + == Week 5 == + * For the assignment, we talked about our recommendation report. We were told that we needed to have a much clearer and concrete idea of what kind of deliverable we have at the end of the project. + * As of now, we have that we want to make a decision model that recommends an ideal type of anti-UAV communication system for a given user of the decision model. He / She fills in her preferences in the decision model and based on that and the underlying decision rule in the decision model, we can give a (list of) recommendation(s) to the user. + * We need to look in getting a more concrete picture of this decision model, and also need to investigate into different types of decision models. - '''Week 9''' + == Week 6 == - * + * The professors were happy with the surprising news regarding the contact with a higher-up at Eindhoven Airport that was interested in the project. - * + * We should use this contact in order for model validation. - * + * A design of a solution for Eindhoven Airport was out of the question as it would be too much extra effort. - * + * The idea of the decision model and its workings seemed good, but we had to be careful and validate it as it is possible to turn some knobs and let certain things weigh more and others weigh less. It is now important to get the right configuration and prove that this configuration is right. + == Week 7 == + * We discussed how the decision model had been completed; integration with a web app is all that remains to be functional. + * Gave a quick demo of how the web app now looks: only adding of questions needed to be added. + * Professors suggested adding a 'critical' checkbox since some criteria must be met by some users. This would then integrate parts of the MoSCoW model in order to improve the current model. + * Presentation should be around 10 minutes + 5 minutes demo + 5 minutes questions from other groups. + * Emotional farewell considering it was the last meeting. ---- ---- Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]]. Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].

# Notes

We present notes that were taken during the meeting with the professors.

## Week 2

• We should focus on a certain context rather than considering the problem in general.
• Consider when something is allowed and when it is not allowed with respect to drones around airports.
• Look at a debate Royakkers attended regarding rules and the regulation of drones.
• Look at the guidelines that should be set in stone on the first of March in the Netherlands.

## Week 3

• For the assignment, we have to have a clear idea of the product we want to deliver, in our case for airports. We have decided to create a decision model for airports to be able to choose a possible solution based on certain characteristics of the airports and dependent on the budget for investment in the technologies.
• Look at/investigate the information/decisions that need to be used in the decision model. A possible way of doing this is to look at the difference between the airports of the Netherlands and look at how this difference could affect the chosen solution.
• Get requirements of airports to help get a clear vision of the needs of airports for the solution, so contact Dutch airports.
• Do a cost analysis, on basis of Gatwick airport attack, to check how much airports want to invest on the solutions.
• For the report, do the following:
• Research literature on how to create a decision model.
• A more concise and clear list of existing solutions.
• Expand the list of advantages and disadvantages of the solutions on the basis of demands of airports, such that the solution of use of eagles and geofencing does not seem like the best solution anymore.

## Week 4

• We should be very explicit about everything we write down such that no confusion can be created
• Further dive into the literature of decision models
• Give more body to the problem description

## Week 5

• For the assignment, we talked about our recommendation report. We were told that we needed to have a much clearer and concrete idea of what kind of deliverable we have at the end of the project.
• As of now, we have that we want to make a decision model that recommends an ideal type of anti-UAV communication system for a given user of the decision model. He / She fills in her preferences in the decision model and based on that and the underlying decision rule in the decision model, we can give a (list of) recommendation(s) to the user.
• We need to look in getting a more concrete picture of this decision model, and also need to investigate into different types of decision models.

## Week 6

• The professors were happy with the surprising news regarding the contact with a higher-up at Eindhoven Airport that was interested in the project.
• We should use this contact in order for model validation.
• A design of a solution for Eindhoven Airport was out of the question as it would be too much extra effort.
• The idea of the decision model and its workings seemed good, but we had to be careful and validate it as it is possible to turn some knobs and let certain things weigh more and others weigh less. It is now important to get the right configuration and prove that this configuration is right.

## Week 7

• We discussed how the decision model had been completed; integration with a web app is all that remains to be functional.
• Gave a quick demo of how the web app now looks: only adding of questions needed to be added.
• Professors suggested adding a 'critical' checkbox since some criteria must be met by some users. This would then integrate parts of the MoSCoW model in order to improve the current model.
• Presentation should be around 10 minutes + 5 minutes demo + 5 minutes questions from other groups.
• Emotional farewell considering it was the last meeting.

Back to the root page.