Concisely describing the problem is critical to an efficient design process. If the problem is misrepresented or derived from false assumptions, the designer may solve a problem that doesn't exist.

My priority when starting a project is frequent, transparent communication with stakeholders. Everybody needs to be on the same page about the problem being solved.

Requirement specification is extremely important for satisfying customer expectations. Scope creep will quickly blow a project off schedule or over budget. On the other hand, delivering more than expected is not always efficient. 

My designs aim to satisfy all requirements, and nothing more. Adding extra bells and whistles may seem like a nice idea, but the customer will be more appreciative of an early delivery.

That being said, requirement specification is an iterative task. I strive to push back on requirements whenever possible; many are arbitrary. (E.G. Does thermal really need twenty degrees of margin, or can we accept fifteen degrees to reduce mass?) I take pride in being an effective negotiator, empathizing with the needs of various stakeholders, and implementing efficient compromises. 

Customers often change requirements as the design progresses. Those modifications are welcome, but should be accommodated by cost or schedule adjustments.

This is where the magic happens. Novel ideas are entertained. Heritage solutions are retrofit. Trades are evaluated to determine the best path forward.

The biggest pitfall at this stage is bias. Often, contributors subjectively favor their own ideas. This is a natural human tendency, but it can lead to poor decision-making. I stand out by actively working to remain objective. If another team member has a concept that solves the problem better, I will happily adopt their concept. More often than not, the best solution is some combination of concepts that would never be discovered if one side insisted their way was perfect.

CAD has revolutionized the way humans approach design. In the past, we might have come up with ideas on paper or a whiteboard, and those 2D sketches can still be helpful. But times are changing. I can often communicate my ideas more quickly and concisely with CAD than I can with sketches. Hence, the two-way arrow between CAD and Brainstorming/Evaluation.

With proper parametric modeling techniques such as top-down assembly definition, base sketching, and equation-driven variables, thickening stiffeners or changing overall dimensions takes seconds. This is especially useful for design/analysis cycle efficiency. CAD best practices set my models apart.

Once a solution is agreed upon, parametric models seamlessly transition prototypes into flight-worthy components.

This stage is where the best laid plans often go awry. We've stepped out of the conceptual prototyping phase and into the real world. Dimensions are imperfect, holes have positional tolerances, and it's up to the design engineer to make sure everything still functions as intended.

GD&T is paramount to effectively communicating design intent to quality inspection. The drawing and CAD model should completely define the part, leaving no room for ambiguity.

This stage is often considered a manufacturing engineer's responsibility, but a good design engineer has already solved that manufacturing engineer's problems. 

Spending time considering fillet radii, depth of cut, tooling access, etc., early in the design drives manufacturing and integration costs down.