Engineering Design Process Steps

Here is the most underrated soft skill for a product designer: The way you ask for feedback. In getting design feedback, many product designers — even senior or lead level — make the following mistakes again and again: - Only asking for feedback on refined designs - Asking for feedback without giving context - Not specifying what feedback they need - Using the wrong medium to get input - Not being open to candid feedback As a product designer, you can instantly level up your career by changing the questions you ask, as well as how and when you ask them. Firstly, asking for feedback should be structured around: - The problem you are trying to solve - The input you need to be successful - The format in which you need it Secondly, you should embrace any feedback session/exchange with: - Confidence - Openness - Honesty - Respect Lastly and very importantly, asking for feedback shouldn't only happen once you have a mockup. You should engage other team members at any part of your process: - On whether the problem at hand is the right one - On whether the ideas you have will solve it - On whether the solution is right The following cheatsheet will guide you in asking for effective feedback at any part of your product design process. If you found it helpful, consider reposting ♻️ #productdesign #uxdesign #uiux

Understanding the client's requirement is more important than showing technical skills 🔥 Many projects fail not because the tech. team is weak. They fail because everyone started building before properly understanding the problem. A client says: "We need a dashboard." But the real requirement could be: "We are losing customers and we don't know why." A client says: "We need AI integration." But the real requirement could be: "We want to reduce manual work and save costs." A client says: "Software is slow." But the actual issue might be poor process design not infrastructure. The best engineers, analysts and consultants are not the ones who start coding fastest. They are the ones who ask: Why is this needed? Who will use it? What problem are we solving? What does success actually look like? Good communication saves months of rework. One clear requirement meeting can save: • budget • timelines • production issues • client frustration • team burnout Technology builds the solution. Understanding builds the right solution. follow Asheesh for more contents ⛷️

🎡 How To Run UX Workshops With Users (Scripts + Templates) (https://lnkd.in/evqDZSFe), a helpful overview of practical techniques to turn a verbal-only interview into a collaborative UX workshop — with sticky note mapping, solution drag’n’drop and voting. Put together by Laura Eiche-Laane. 👏🏽 🤔 Users and designers often a speak a different language. ✅ Insights are clearer when you see users performing tasks. ✅ Switch question-answer sections with small visual tasks. ✅ Sticky note mapping: for user flows, journeys, org maps. ✅ Card sorting: organize data, filters, menu items into groups. ✅ Feature location: ask users where they’d expect a new feature. ✅ Drag’n’drop: ask users to design their own UI or page layout. ✅ Solution voting: get feedback on many design directions. ✅ When explaining a task, show what you’d like them to do. ✅ Track where users are undecided, and follow up in a debrief. When I jump in a new project, I like to run walkthroughs with actual users as a way to understand the domain and the product. I simply ask them what the product does and how it helps them in their daily work. And then I invite them to show and explain it to me. I ask them to show how it works, the features they use, the quirks they’ve discovered and the shortcuts and loopholes they rely on daily. Perhaps there is something where the product fails on them, or something they wish was better, or something that is too fragile, confusing, complex or irrelevant. That’s when insights emerge, and that’s when you might notice that the things said and the things done are not necessarily the same thing. Of course users sometimes exaggerate their struggles, but they rarely complain lividly about something that isn’t really an issue for them. 🗃️ Useful resources: How And Why To Include Users In UX Workshops, by Maddie Brown https://lnkd.in/eKdd5GXp UX Workshop Activities With Users, by Jonathon Juvenal https://lnkd.in/eJjpcibR Remote UX Workshop Activities, by Jordan Bowman https://lnkd.in/e8wSMVwC Usability Testing Templates (Scripts), by Slava Shestopalov https://lnkd.in/gZyBtK6u UX Workshop Scripts + Templates https://theuxcookbook.com UX Research Templates, by Odette Jansen https://lnkd.in/eqpXyGHH --- 🧲 Miro and Notion templates: UX Research Templates (Miro), by ServiceNow https://lnkd.in/e48nKzKA Miro Templates For Designers https://lnkd.in/e8Hkp-ws Notion Templates For Designers https://lnkd.in/en_VBc6r #ux #design

Design reviews aren’t about proving your design is “right.” They’re about sparking the right conversations, surfacing blind spots, and aligning your work with both the business and the user. But here’s the thing: The quality of the questions you ask directly shapes the quality of the feedback you’ll receive. When you ask questions that seek approval, you invite surface-level reactions: “I don’t like that color.” “Can you move this button?” “It doesn’t feel right.” When you ask questions that seek perspective, you unlock insights that go much deeper: “Does this flow align with the goals we set?” “Which part of this journey feels riskiest for launch?” “What business constraints should we keep in mind?” That’s the shift: ❌ Approval → opinions ✅ Perspective → alignment, priorities, and actionable feedback Strong designers don’t just show screens. They guide the conversation by asking thoughtful, open questions that: Clarify the “why” behind feedback Dig into what truly matters for success Encourage stakeholders to connect feedback back to goals That’s how design reviews stop feeling like a defensive battle and start becoming a collaboration that moves everyone forward. Because when you stop asking “Do you like it?” and start asking “How does this support our goals?”you elevate both the conversation and the design.

How to Use Gemini 3 Pro to Analyze Your UI Design Here’s a simple, practical workflow I use: Every designer has faced this: The UI looks clean. The screens feel polished. But something still doesn’t convert. Users hesitate. Flows feel confusing. Feedback sounds vague. That’s where AI-assisted UI analysis helps. Here’s how to do it properly: Step 1: Start With Real Screens Not Dribbble shots. Not random concepts. Use real product screens. Focus on actual user flows. - Login - Onboarding - Checkout - Core actions. Garbage input always gives garbage feedback. Step 2: Export With Intention Export screens as images. PNG or JPG works best. Keep labels visible. Avoid half-finished versions. Clarity matters more than quantity. Step 3: Clean the Noise Before uploading, review everything. Remove unused variations. Drop old experiments. Keep only final, connected flows. Think like a reviewer, not a designer. Step 4: Ask the Right Questions Don’t just upload and hope. Be specific: “What usability issues do you see?” “Where might users get confused?” “What feels heavy or unclear?” Good prompts unlock good insights. Step 5: Spot Patterns, Not Opinions One comment can be ignored. Repeated feedback is a signal. Look for: - Friction points. - Confusion. - Hierarchy problems. Patterns matter more than details. Step 6: Structure the Feedback Ask for summaries. Ask for priority-based issues. Ask for simple tables or lists. This turns raw feedback into action. Step 7: Design With Confidence Now you’re not guessing. You’re fixing real problems. Improve clarity. Refine flows. Strengthen hierarchy. That’s how AI becomes a design partner, not a shortcut. If you’re still reviewing your UI only by gut feeling, you’re leaving clarity on the table. Save this. Try it on your next screen. And tell me what surprised you most. ♻️ Repost to help your network. Follow Rasel Ahmed, Co-Founder of Musemind and Mentor Lane.

Why UX Design Critiques Fail 🫥 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗩𝗮𝗰𝘂𝘂𝗺: Presenting designs without explaining the user, problem, or constraints leads to irrelevant feedback. Always frame the work before asking for input. 🔧 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴: Reviewers prescribe UI fixes instead of identifying problems. Train teams to articulate what's wrong, then let designers explore how to fix it. 🚲 𝗕𝗶𝗸𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴: Teams debate button colors on wireframes while ignoring structural flaws. Presenters must explicitly state the feedback level needed for each session. 🎨 𝗦𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸: "𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵" isn't actionable. Anchor every critique to users, goals, or evidence. Replace personal taste with reasoning about real risks. 🛡️ 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗟𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴: Designers who argue every point shut down honest feedback. Present your rationale briefly, then listen, clarify, and take notes. ✨ "𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗜𝘁 𝗣𝗼𝗽" 𝗦𝘆𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗲: Vague feedback wastes everyone's time. Facilitators must probe until fuzzy feelings become specific, actionable UX attributes the designer can address. 😤 Ego Trap: Taking feedback personally destroys psychological safety. You are not your design. Critique stress-tests the work, not your worth as a designer. 📣 𝗛𝗶𝗣𝗣𝗢 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁: When the highest-paid person speaks first, everyone else falls in line. Have leaders speak last or use silent written critique first. 🐇 𝗥𝗮𝗯𝗯𝗶𝘁 𝗛𝗼𝗹𝗲𝘀: Without a facilitator and time limits, critiques derail into off-topic debates. Use a parking lot document and stay focused on the UI. 🧟 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲: Incorporating every opinion creates Frankenstein designs. Critique gathers perspectives; the designer owns the final call on what actually gets implemented. 🕳️ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗛𝗼𝗹𝗲: Brilliant feedback means nothing if nobody captures it. Assign a note-taker, summarize action items, and share a written follow-up within 24 hours. ⏰ 𝗧𝗼𝗼 𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲: Critiquing polished, partially-built work guarantees ignored feedback or expensive rework. Crit early on sketches and wireframes when change is still cheap. My full article about design critiques, including the process to do them right 👉 https://lnkd.in/gXhH--ar

🔍 Process Safety Isn’t a Step — It’s a System If you’re working in oil & gas, chemicals, manufacturing, or heavy industry, you already know: 👉 Accidents don’t just “happen” — they are often the result of missed layers of protection. Here’s how the core risk assessment tools* fit across the lifecycle 👇 🔺 HAZID (Hazard Identification) – Early Design Phase Used at the very beginning of a project. 👉 Helps identify major hazards, site risks, environmental concerns, and layout issues before design is finalized. 💡 Best for: New projects, feasibility studies, plant siting decisions. 🔍 HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Study) – Detailed Engineering A structured, team-based review of process parameters (flow, pressure, temperature, etc.). 👉 Identifies deviations from design intent and their consequences. 💡 Best for: P&IDs review, complex process systems, before commissioning. ⚠️ HIRA (Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment) – Operations & Routine Activities 👉 Evaluates risk based on likelihood × severity and defines control measures. 💡 Best for: Routine jobs, maintenance work, permit-to-work systems. 🛠️ FMEA (Failure Modes & Effects Analysis) – Reliability & Maintenance Analyze how systems/components fail and their impact. 👉 Prioritizes risks using severity, occurrence, and detection (RPN). 💡 Used in: Critical equipment analysis, maintenance planning, asset integrity. 🛡️ LOPA (Layer of Protection Analysis) – Risk Verification A semi-quantitative method to check if existing safeguards are enough. 👉 Determines if additional protection layers (like SIS) are required. 💡 Best for: Verifying high-risk scenarios, SIL determination, safety-critical decisions. 💡 Why this matters: Most incidents occur when we rely on ONE layer instead of building a SYSTEM. 👉 Start broad → (HAZID) 👉 Go deep into process → (HAZOP) 👉 Manage daily risks → (HIRA) 👉 Improve reliability → (FMEA) 👉 Validate protection layers → (LOPA) 🚀 Real safety leadership = applying the right tool at the right time. 💬 What’s your go-to risk assessment method in your organization? Do you integrate these—or use them in isolation? 👇 Let’s discuss in the comments! #ProcessSafety #RiskManagement #IndustrialSafety #SafetyCulture #Engineering

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a systematic, proactive method for evaluating a process or design to identify where and how it might fail, and to assess the relative impact of those failures. It is one of the most critical "Core Tools" used to prevent problems before they occur, rather than reacting to them after the fact. Types of FMEA There are two primary types used in manufacturing: DFMEA (Design FMEA): Focuses on potential failure modes caused by design deficiencies (e.g., material properties, geometry, tolerances). PFMEA (Process FMEA): Focuses on failures in the manufacturing and assembly process (e.g., human error, machine calibration, environmental factors). The FMEA Calculation: RPN vs. AP In older versions (AIAG 4th Ed.), risks were calculated using the Risk Priority Number (RPN). In the newer AIAG & VDA handbook, there is a shift toward Action Priority (AP). The Three Scoring Factors (1–10 Scale) Severity (S): How serious is the impact on the customer or the next process? Occurrence (O): How frequently is the cause of the failure likely to happen? Detection (D): How likely are your current controls to catch the failure before it reaches the customer? Formula: RPN = S \times O \times D The 7 Steps of FMEA (AIAG & VDA Standard) The modern approach follows a 7-step structure to ensure a thorough analysis: Planning & Preparation: Define the scope (what is being analyzed?). Structure Analysis: Break down the design or process into components or steps. Function Analysis: Describe what each step or component is supposed to do. Failure Analysis: Identify the Failure Mode (what goes wrong), the Effect (consequence), and the Cause (why it happened). Risk Analysis: Assign scores for Severity, Occurrence, and Detection to determine the Action Priority (High, Medium, or Low). Optimization: Develop recommended actions to reduce high risks (prioritizing Severity and Occurrence). Results Documentation: Summarize and communicate the results and actions taken. Example: PFMEA for a Welding Process Process Step: Robotic Spot Welding. Potential Failure Mode: Weak weld/Incomplete fusion. Potential Effect: Structural failure of the vehicle (Severity: 9 or 10). Potential Cause: Electrode tip wear or low current. Current Controls: Visual inspection every 50th part. Recommended Action: Install automated current monitoring sensors to detect drops in real-time. Why FMEA is Vital Safety: Identifies failures that could harm the end-user. Cost Savings: It is much cheaper to change a drawing or a process step now than to handle a product recall later. Knowledge Base: It acts as a "lessons learned" document for future engineering teams.

📌 Risk Assessment: The Foundation of Effective Validation In today's Computer System Validation (CSV) and Computer Software Assurance (CSA) landscape, we are no longer expected to test everything with the same intensity. Instead, we are expected to understand the risk and focus our efforts where they matter most. 1. What is Risk Assessment? Risk Assessment is a systematic process of identifying potential failures, evaluating their impact, and implementing controls to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Risk Assessment helps us focus on what could go wrong before it actually happens. 2. What is Functional Risk Assessment (FRA)? Functional Risk Assessment (FRA) evaluates individual system functions to determine their potential impact on GxP compliance. Rather than asking: "Is the system risky?" We ask: "Which functions within the system are critical?" Examples: 🔴 Audit Trail → High Risk 🔴 Electronic Signature → High Risk 🟡 User Login → Medium Risk 🟢 Dashboard Color Change → Low Risk FRA helps determine where validation and testing efforts should be focused. 3. What is Risk-Based Testing? Risk-Based Testing is an approach where the extent of testing is determined by the level of risk. 🔴 High Risk → Extensive Testing 🟡 Medium Risk → Moderate Testing 🟢 Low Risk → Basic Verification 4. Why is FMEA Used? Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is the most commonly used risk assessment methodology in pharmaceutical computerized systems. Why? ✔ Structured and systematic ✔ Easy to understand and document ✔ Identifies failures before they occur ✔ Accepted by FDA, EMA, ISPE, and GAMP® 5 FMEA evaluates risk using three factors: Severity (S): How serious is the impact? Occurrence (O): How likely is the failure to occur? Detectability (D): How easily can the failure be detected? 5. FMEA Example Function: Audit Trail Failure Mode: Audit trail not captured Potential Effect: Loss of Data Integrity Severity = 10 Occurrence = 3 Detectability = 3 RPN = 10 × 3 × 3 = 90 A higher RPN indicates higher priority for mitigation and testing. Higher RPN indicates greater risk and typically requires stronger controls, mitigation actions, and testing. 💡 Key Takeaway Don't test everything equally. Understand the risk. Prioritize what matters. Validate with confidence. #CSV #CSA #RiskAssessment #FMEA #RiskBasedTesting #ComputerSystemValidation #GAMP5 #Datalntegrity #Validation #PharmaceuticalQuality #GxP #LifeSciences #21CFRPart11 #Annex11

🌞 How I Designed a 15kW Hybrid Solar PV System (Step by Step) Designing a solar PV system isn’t just about choosing panels and batteries. It requires a structured approach that ensures the system meets real energy needs while staying efficient and reliable. Here’s the process I followed for my recent 15kW Hybrid Solar PV system design: 1️⃣ Energy Audit – I collected data on appliances, their wattages, and usage hours. This helped determine the daily energy requirement and peak load demand. 2️⃣ Site Survey – I assessed the location for roof/ground space, orientation, tilt angle, shading, and cable run distances. This ensures the design is practical and site-specific. 3️⃣ Data Processing in Excel – Using my customized Excel program, I analyzed the data to calculate energy consumption and accurately size the system. 4️⃣ Component Sizing – Based on the results, I sized the PV modules, inverter, battery bank, and charge controller to match the client’s demand. 5️⃣ System Design in AutoCAD – I created the schematic diagram, mapping out PV modules, inverter, batteries, and protection devices for clarity and implementation. 6️⃣ Simulation in PVsyst – Finally, I tested the design with PVsyst to validate system performance, efficiency, and real-world output. 💡 This process ensures the system is not just technically sound but also optimized for long-term performance and cost-effectiveness. ✅ By combining technical analysis, site assessment, and simulation software, I can deliver solar solutions that are reliable, sustainable, and tailored to client needs. 👉 Would you like me to break down one of these steps in detail in my next post? 📩 If you’re interested in a customized solar solution for your home, business, or project, feel free to reach out.