1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229 | # Research: [topic / project]
- **Author:** [name]
- **Date:** [date]
- **Version:** [e.g. v0.1]
- **Classification:** Research analysis report
- **Client / audience:** [e.g. project team, coach, embedded group]
- **Company / context:** [e.g. Hogeschool van Amsterdam — Smart Cities studio]
---
## Summary
[3–6 sentences: what you investigated, which options you compared, and what you recommend. State the answer to the main research question. Keep component-level detail for the introduction.]
---
## Table of contents
1. [Introduction](#1-introduction)
2. [Problem statement](#2-problem-statement)
3. [Research questions](#3-research-questions)
4. [Methodology](#4-methodology)
5. [Existing approaches](#5-existing-approaches)
6. [Technical situation and constraints](#6-technical-situation-and-constraints)
7. [Option comparison](#7-option-comparison)
8. [Synthesis and conclusion](#8-synthesis-and-conclusion)
9. [Recommendation](#9-recommendation)
10. [Next steps](#10-next-steps)
11. [References](#11-references)
12. [Appendix](#12-appendix)
---
## 1. Introduction
[Start general: what domain or system is this about? Narrow down to your prototype or sprint problem.]
[Why does this problem matter for your project right now? Who will use this report — your team, coach, client?]
[Early references to standards, datasheets, or prior project work that frame the investigation.]
### 1.1 Scope and limitations
- **In scope:** [what this analysis covers]
- **Out of scope:** [what belongs in design, advice, or realisation instead]
- **Key assumption:** [e.g. prototype budget, available parts, deployment context]
---
## 2. Problem statement
[Describe the concrete technical or design problem. Separate symptoms from root cause where possible.]
[Explain why you cannot skip research and go straight to building — what is unknown, conflicting, or risky?]
---
## 3. Research questions
**Main research question**
[One open question — not answerable with yes/no. Example: *How can [goal] be achieved reliably for [prototype] given [constraints]?*]
**Sub-questions**
[List in the order your report will answer them. Example flow:]
1. What existing approaches are used for [problem type]?
2. What technical constraints apply to [your prototype]?
3. How do the realistic options compare against the project criteria?
4. [Optional: calculations, measurements, or suitability check]
5. Which approach is most suitable as input for the next design or advice step?
---
## 4. Methodology
[Describe your method in numbered steps. Example:]
1. **Source review** — datasheets, standards, literature, prior deliverables.
2. **Context mapping** — translate general approaches to your prototype (fixed vs rotating parts, power budget, etc.).
3. **Criteria definition** — mandatory vs supporting criteria (see Table 1).
4. **Comparison** — score or describe options using the same criteria.
5. **Verification** — calculations, measurements, or sanity checks where needed.
**Table 1.** Criteria used to compare options
| Criterion | Mandatory? | Reason |
| --------- | ---------- | ------ |
| [e.g. Reliability] | Yes | [why it must be met] |
| [e.g. Safety] | Yes | [why it must be met] |
| [e.g. Cost] | No | [trade-off is acceptable if mandatory criteria pass] |
| [e.g. Difficulty] | No | [supporting criterion] |
[Explain in prose why mandatory criteria cannot be traded away, while supporting criteria can. Refer to Table 1.]
---
## 5. Existing approaches
*Answers sub-question 1: [restate question].*
[This chapter comes **before** deep comparison of your favourite option. Survey what already exists in industry, literature, or comparable projects.]
### 5.1 [Approach A]
[What it is, where it is used, strengths and limitations. Cite sources.]
### 5.2 [Approach B]
[Same structure.]
### 5.3 Sub-conclusion
*Sub-question 1 was: [restate].* [Short answer: which approaches are relevant to carry forward to the comparison, and why.]
---
## 6. Technical situation and constraints
*Answers sub-question 2: [restate question].*
[Map your prototype: architecture, environment, interfaces, power, space, safety, client needs.]
| Constraint | Effect on option choice |
| ---------- | ----------------------- |
| [e.g. Continuous rotation] | [rules out options that need limited motion] |
| [e.g. Peak current] | [rules out undersized power paths] |
### 6.1 Sub-conclusion
*Sub-question 2 was: [restate].* [Summarise the binding constraints.]
---
## 7. Option comparison
*Answers sub-question 3: [restate question].*
[Evaluate only the options still realistic after chapters 5 and 6. Refer to Table 1 criteria.]
### 7.1 [Option 1]
[Strengths, limitations, evidence from datasheets or standards.]
### 7.2 [Option 2]
[Same structure.]
### 7.3 Comparison table
**Table 2.** Comparison of [options] (scores 1–5, where 5 is strongest; see Appendix A for score meaning)
| Option | [Criterion 1] | [Criterion 2] | … | Total / summary |
| ------ | ------------- | ------------- | - | --------------- |
| … | … | … | … | … |
[Discuss Table 2 in prose: which mandatory criteria eliminate options, where supporting criteria still allow trade-offs. Reference Appendix A if you use a scoring legend.]
### 7.4 Sub-conclusion
*Sub-question 3 was: [restate].* [Which option(s) remain viable and why.]
---
## 8. Synthesis and conclusion
*Answers the main research question.*
[Integrate findings from all chapters. Restate sub-question answers in brief bullets if helpful.]
**Answer to the main research question:** [Direct, evidence-based answer in one or two paragraphs.]
---
## 9. Recommendation
[Translate the conclusion into a concrete direction for design or advice — be specific.]
- **Recommended principle / approach:** [e.g. slip ring with 6-wire capsule, MPU-6050 with threshold detection, single reflow pass with SAC305 paste]
- **Why:** [Link back to Table 2 and mandatory criteria]
- **What the next document should specify:** [parameters, part types, test focus — without doing the full design here]
---
## 10. Next steps
| Step | Deliverable | Owner |
| ---- | ----------- | ----- |
| 1 | [e.g. Design document with wiring and test plan] | [name] |
| 2 | [e.g. Prototype build and verification] | [name] |
| 3 | [e.g. Advice to client / stakeholder] | [name] |
### Risks to monitor during realisation
| Risk | Mitigation |
| ---- | ---------- |
| [e.g. Wrong assumption in calculations] | [verify with datasheet before build] |
### Acceptance criteria for the follow-up phase (optional)
[Reusable checkpoints for design or realisation — derived from this analysis, not proof of work already done.]
- [ ] [Criterion linked to a finding in this report]
---
## 11. References
[Use one consistent style, e.g. APA 7. Prefer manufacturer datasheets and standards over generic blog posts.]
---
## 12. Appendix
### Appendix A — [e.g. Scoring legend for Table 2]
| Score | Meaning |
| ----- | ------- |
| 1 | Weak fit |
| … | … |
| 5 | Very strong fit |
### Appendix B — [e.g. Assumptions for calculations]
| Assumption | Value | Source |
| ---------- | ----- | ------ |
| … | … | … |
|
