If this has happened once, then it can happen again. Therefore, it is worth understanding exactly why you are getting this feedback. 1) Did you have the wrong design needs in the first place; 2) Did the design focus shift off target during the process; 3) Is the feedback you are receiving now ill-informed; 4) Are you only now getting properly informed guidance on design needs? Maybe it's another reason or a mix of the above. But, either way, you need to understand this before responding - otherwise, you will likely make the same mistake again. If it turns out you do need a redesign, then you need to be open with all stake holders, but you also need to understand their perspective so you can present this fact to them in the best light.

Navigating feedback for a design overhaul can be complex, but a structured approach helps. Begin by being open and receptive, actively listening and acknowledging feedback to build trust. Analyze input by categorizing concerns and identifying common themes to prioritize improvements. Engage stakeholders by discussing feedback with your design team and gathering user insights. Assess the feasibility of changes relative to project goals and conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Develop solutions through brainstorming and consider creating prototypes. Communicate clearly with a prepared response, maintain transparency, and implement changes gradually. Finally, conduct a post-implementation review to document lessons learned and celebrate successes.

En mi caso lo que he realizado es la identificación de los comentarios, caracterizándolos por desviación en cuanto a normatividad, técnico o forma. Una vez categorizados se atiende acorde a priorización de los mismos, y en caso de que modifique los diseños se debe evaluar afectación sobre todo el proyecto.

Schedule a meeting with the client to discuss these changes. Try to estimate the additional hours required to meet the schedule. Prepare a new deliverables submission schedule

Review the initial objectives of the project and make sure that the project is still on track to meet the stated goals. Careful review the time frame state at the start of the project. Discuss the new changes and assess the changes based on design merit, user friendly, cost-effective, manufacturing processes and meeting standards. Meet with you team to discuss the impact of the changes and create a framework to incorporate the update while focusing on the overall project objectives. Schedule a round table discuss where every single point is highlighted, discuss, adopted or discarded. Ensure every crucial detail in the project are presented and assessed in accordance with every factors to ensure a clear roadmap is re-establish.

1. Listen actively and empathetically: Avoid defensiveness, seek clarification, and acknowledge emotions. 2. Analyze feedback objectively: Identify patterns, consider the context, and prioritize areas for improvement. 3. Collaborate with the team: Involve stakeholders, brainstorm solutions, and consider trade-offs. 4. Be open to compromise: Find common ground, negotiate solutions, and be flexible. 5. Document the process: Keep a record, share updates, and learn from the experience. 6. Iterate and refine: Implement changes, test and evaluate, and continue iterating.

To reduce design revamps, implementing FMEA and System Safety Assessment (SSA) is key. FMEA systematically identifies potential failure modes and prioritizes them based on severity, occurrence, and detection. By targeting high-risk areas early, FMEA allows teams to address issues proactively, minimizing costly design changes later on. It also encourages collaboration, with cross-functional teams sharing insights to catch risks that may not be immediately obvious. SSA complements this by assessing the overall system's safety performance. It identifies hazards at a high level, analyzing how failures in one part could affect others. By integrating safety measures from the start,

For many reasons engineering often operates in isolation. Sometimes it is systemic. Other times it is self-imposed (The engineering ego can build a solid wall). All stakeholders should have an input into the design. Often times I have found it is the craftsmen who bring the cheaper and easier solution to the design problem. All suggested changes to a design should be considered on the merit of the information. If the feedback has merit, then pull in the engineers, the fabrication and assembly team, installation team, the commissioning team, and sometimes the customer. Perform a design analysis, plan modifications, review the final design, adjust and release. Leaving out the craftsmen in a design overhaul is a mistake.

Feedback recommending a design update is an opportunity, not a setback. It's an opportunity to innovate and develop. The trick is to attack the problem systematically: collect data, investigate core reasons, and include the team in brainstorming solutions. Open communication is essential: listen to concerns, explain restrictions, and reach agreements. Remember that engineering is iterative. Each rewrite pushes us closer to achieving perfection. By accepting input and leading collaboratively, we may transform design obstacles into successes that benefit both the project and our professional development.

Feedback recommending a design update is an opportunity to innovate and develop. The trick is to attack the problem systematically: collect data, investigate core reasons, and include the team in brainstorming solutions. Open communication is essential: listen to concerns, explain restrictions, and reach agreements.Each rewrite pushes us closer to achieving perfection. Remember that engineering is iterative!