RV Reliability Research, Quality Engineering & Industry Capstone
Investigate complex failures. Validate solutions. Defend technical and business decisions.
OPEN FULL SEMESTERSTUDENT READER PDFOPTIONAL FAITH & WORK COMPANION
Academic status: Original independent curriculum proposal for institutional review only. MRR is not claiming state approval, institutional accreditation, GRCC articulation or award of college credit, an RVTI affiliation, or RVTI exam authorization. Credit, accreditation, industry certification and instructor eligibility require separate written decisions by the appropriate organizations.
MRR-RV235 · Semester 4
MRR-RV225 or documented comparable engineering and research preparation. Faculty approval of capstone scope and facilities is required.
15 × (3 lecture + 2 lab + 10 independent) = 225 planned learning hours. Proposed 5-credit structure subject to external college review.
Demonstrable course outcomes
- Formulate a constrained applied research question and produce a reproducible protocol with safety and ethical approval.
- Analyze reliability and service data using descriptive and inferential methods with transparent uncertainty.
- Integrate electrical, mechanical, environmental and service-process evidence into a substantiated root-cause report.
- Evaluate proposed interventions through life-cycle cost, failure consequence, maintainability and human factors.
- Produce a scholarly technical dossier, supervised demonstrator, and oral defense suitable for external academic review.
Instructional model and accreditation boundary
This draft models GRCC's current credit-hour policy using an equivalent of 840 minutes per contact unit, a proposed lecture/lab allocation, and at least two hours of outside study per credit per week. The institution—not MRR—determines actual credit, contact-hour classification, assessment standards and transferability.
Exercises rely on inert demonstration devices, de-energized schematics, current-limited low-voltage trainers, simulated records, or manufacturer literature. A course webpage is not a license to manipulate LP-gas piping, energized 120/240-volt systems, generators, refrigerants, roof-access systems, brakes, hitches, jacks, or safety-critical structural parts. Practical work requires qualified supervision, an appropriate facility and documented stop-work authority.
Grading framework — proposed
| Evaluation category | Weight |
|---|---|
| Research design and ethics review | 15% |
| Quantitative methods and case studies | 20% |
| Supervised research/lab notebook | 20% |
| Industry dossier and reproducibility audit | 15% |
| Capstone paper, artifact and oral defense | 30% |
Suggested passing rules: ≥70% overall, all safety-critical lab criteria passed, faculty evaluation of final oral defense. No credential is awarded by this web page. Required resits and accommodations must be established by the adopting institution.
College-level lessons, applied cases, laboratories & research assignments
Each week contains an original technical lecture, synthetic case, quantitative problem, supervised lab activity, research task and source critique. This is real student-facing content, but practical facilities, teacher feedback and source validation remain necessary.
Week 01 · Capstone question, scope, stakeholder and ethics charter — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
A capstone requires an answerable question rather than a vaguely defined repair. Translate a stakeholder need into an outcome variable, explanatory factors, sampling frame and constraints. Pre-register the analysis plan where practical and ensure customer confidentiality. Approval of an academic proposal is not authorization to work on live hazardous equipment.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A service shop wishes to reduce repeat callbacks for intermittent low-voltage faults without increasing hazardous testing.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: From 240 jobs and 30 callbacks, compute the observed callback fraction.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Review an anonymized synthetic work-order dataset and select a feasible nonhazardous study design.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Write a research charter with hypothesis, population, operational definitions, ethics, hazards and exclusion criteria.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Research methods; data protection; technical ethics. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 02 · Literature review, standards hierarchy and evidence quality — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Manufacturer instructions, applicable standards, empirical tests and forum reports have different evidentiary weight. Evaluate edition, jurisdiction, measurement context and conflicts of interest. A literature review should synthesize claims and identify gaps; a source list without critique does not establish a scientific basis.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
Two sources disagree about acceptable wiring practices; one is a dated online forum and another is an OEM installation guide.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: Five of eight candidate sources are primary technical documents. What fraction are primary?
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Annotate ten permitted documents for provenance, claim type, revision and applicability.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Submit a source matrix with at least eight credible references and an argument map for conflicting claims.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
GRCC library research guidance; applicable current technical standards; OEM documents. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 03 · Research design, sampling and measurement assurance — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Reliability data are subject to survivorship bias, incomplete reporting and variable exposure. Design a repeatable measurement protocol, choose meaningful denominators and control for confounders. Document instrument calibration and uncertainty even when only simulated data are available.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
One fleet reports a higher failure count but is also used three times as intensively as a comparison fleet.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: Fleet A has 18 failures in 9,000 RV-hours; Fleet B has 10 in 2,500 RV-hours. Compare crude rates.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Conduct a small simulated sampling experiment and explore bias from missing high-failure units.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Present a sampling plan, data dictionary, quality controls and limitations analysis.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Experimental design; instrument uncertainty; statistical reasoning. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 04 · Reliability modeling and survival-analysis assumptions — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Mean time between failures, survival probability and hazard functions are not synonyms. An exponential model can support introductory calculations but often misses wear-out, infant mortality and changing use conditions. Treat censored observations as information rather than failures.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A service report assumes constant failure rate for a component that is known to degrade with age.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: Assuming exponential lifetime with hazard 0.002/hour, estimate survival through 100 hours.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Plot supplied right-censored synthetic lifetimes and compare a simple empirical curve with exponential assumption.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Write a statistical critique of when constant-rate modeling is misleading.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Reliability engineering; survival analysis; censoring terminology. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 05 · Root cause analysis: electrical and control evidence — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Root-cause claims must connect physical mechanism, symptom timing and independent evidence. Five-whys worksheets can organize discussion but cannot replace causal testing. Distinguish initiating event, contributing conditions and root organizational cause; a new part working temporarily is not conclusive.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A stored RV repeatedly drains its battery after service despite a replacement battery and converter.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A 0.25 A parasitic load operates continuously for 12 days. Estimate charge removed.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Use an inert simulated fault network to compare before-and-after load traces and challenge an initial mistaken diagnosis.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Produce a defensible root-cause dossier with evidence chain and proposed confirmation test.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Failure analysis; electrical energy balance; supplier data. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 06 · Root cause analysis: moisture, climate and materials — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Corrosion, adhesive failure and water ingress reflect environmental exposure and material compatibility. A failed seam can be a primary path or a downstream victim. Compare competing moisture transport mechanisms and reject theories unsupported by recorded exposure and construction details.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
Two RVs show similar ceiling stains but one was parked under tree cover and one in open sun.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A simplified moisture index rises from 14 to 23 arbitrary units; compute percent change relative to initial.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Evaluate synthetic time-lapse moisture maps and inert material coupons.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Write a differential-causation report including sampling locations, climate data and exclusions.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Materials degradation; building envelope principles; OEM sealant specifications. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 07 · Lifecycle costing and economically defensible maintenance — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
A technically feasible repair may be economically unjustified; replacement may waste resources if a component is repairable. Compare total cost of ownership, failure probability, downtime, waste and uncertainty. Do not confuse customer preference with an engineering constraint; communicate the trade-off transparently.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A part replacement costs $580 now, while a $210 repair has a modeled 35% chance of requiring $650 further work within a year.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: Calculate simplified expected first-year repair expenditure, excluding downtime and discounting.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Create a discounted-cost spreadsheet using three failure scenarios and a sensitivity analysis.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Submit a customer-facing recommendation and a confidential technical appendix revealing uncertainty.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Engineering economics; repair/replacement decision science; service ethics. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 08 · Quality systems, control charts and corrective action — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Quality control should measure variation in a repeatable process and distinguish common-cause from special-cause evidence. A single outlier does not automatically identify a negligent worker. Root-cause corrective action includes preventive controls, verification measures and an owner.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A shop observes repeated rework on winterizations despite updated checklists.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: For defect counts 2,4,3,6,5, compute mean defects per sampled period.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Analyze a synthetic quality dataset and develop a process map with failure opportunities.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Propose a corrective-action report with measurable indicators and monitoring windows.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Statistical process control; ISO-style quality principles; customer complaint analysis. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 09 · Supply chain, discontinued parts and compatibility governance — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Obsolete or unavailable components create configuration and warranty risks. Identify when an apparently similar part is non-interchangeable. A rigorous compatibility file includes revision, dimensions, operating limits, material and use consequences. Novel fabrication is constrained by safety-critical exclusions.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A replacement appliance control board shares a connector but has an unknown firmware revision.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: If three independent attributes each have 90% documented compatibility confidence, estimate joint confidence under a simplified independence assumption.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Build a traceable part-substitution dossier for inert nonstructural sample components.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Develop an acceptance checklist and no-substitution criteria for safety-critical components.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
OEM parts catalogs; configuration control; engineering verification. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 10 · Risk regulation, compliance and professional liability — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
The validity of a design depends on applicable jurisdiction, code edition, installation category and organizational authority. Regulatory references should be precise rather than decorative; students must document what a source actually says. Do not advertise school, occupational or RVTI credential status without written authorization.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A proposal labels a third-party course "RVTI certified" although no partnership or approved exam is involved.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: If a training catalog proposes four courses with 5 credits each, compute the proposed total, then state the legal/academic limitation.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Audit a mock brochure for misleading credentials, unsupported safety claims and missing limitations.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Produce a compliance gap analysis and truthful public-language revision.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Michigan LEO proprietary school guidance; GRCC credit policies; RVTI credential rules. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 11 · Service operations, human factors and diagnostic throughput — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
A service system can fail because of communication, scheduling, ambiguous handoffs or incentives even when individual technicians are competent. Examine human factors, workload variability and feedback loops. A robust job process distinguishes suspected problem, authorized inspection, estimate approval, quality assurance and final delivery.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A shop has 40 open requests, 15 awaiting photos and 10 awaiting parts.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: What percentage of open requests are awaiting parts?
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Simulate job-flow scenarios and quantify cycle time with a small synthetic queue.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Design a service workflow that reduces unsafe pressure to skip verification steps.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Human factors; service operations; Lean process analysis. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 12 · Capstone protocol execution and intervention test — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Testing must follow the accepted protocol and stop conditions; changing methods after viewing outcomes can inflate apparent success. Capture failed tests and deviations as carefully as successful results. Undergo a structured midpoint review before proceeding to final documentation.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A prototype fault-logging approach missed short transients during first-round testing.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A device detects 27 of 30 scripted events. Compute recall with its denominator.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Conduct a supervised, low-energy verification or a reproducible simulated experiment, logging all deviations.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Submit revision-controlled protocol, raw synthetic or safely collected data and a deviation log.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Test and evaluation; statistical performance metrics; safety protocol. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 13 · Technical report, data provenance and reproducibility — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
A professional research product must allow another investigator to reproduce the analysis from disclosed inputs and methods. Separate code, raw data, processed data, figures and interpretation. Report negative findings and limitations. A polished conclusion unsupported by the dataset is an academic integrity failure.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A report claims 30% savings but hides which parts and labor costs were omitted.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: Baseline $1,000 and revised $760. Calculate apparent savings and identify the missing-data risk.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Perform a peer reproducibility audit using a deliberately incomplete synthetic report.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Draft a structured technical paper with abstract, methods, results, discussion, references and appendices.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Technical writing; research integrity; reproducible analytics. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 14 · Stakeholder review, critique and decision defense — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Independent review should probe assumptions and high-consequence failure modes rather than merely compliment a polished presentation. Prepare the evidence for reviewers with different expertise: technical, operations, safety and student assessment. Response to critique must be traceable to a revised deliverable.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
An external reviewer rejects an energy-system proposal because failure response was not evaluated.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: Eight reviewer comments are received; six are resolved with evidence and two require redesign. What share is closed?
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Hold a supervised formal design-review simulation with written findings and action tracking.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Deliver a rebuttal memo and revised technical dossier with tracked changes.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Peer review; design assurance; professional communication. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 15 · Final capstone exhibition, written exam and oral defense — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
The final performance is an integrated demonstration of research competence, systems reasoning, ethical communication and professional limits. A strong capstone is narrow enough to test, transparent enough to audit and humble enough to identify unresolved hazards. Students must demonstrate that they can defend a conclusion without equating confidence with proof.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A simulated industry review board asks whether a proposed tool should be piloted in production despite limited data.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A trial includes 18 acceptable outcomes from 24 trials. Report observed success proportion and a clear limitation.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Present a supervised capstone artifact or reproducible simulation, portfolio, and oral questioning with evidence checks.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Submit 20-25 page research-quality capstone, appendices, final exam and 15-minute oral defense.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Research method; statistical inference; RV safety standards; industry practice. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Research methods, safe practice & supporting sources
College-level practice requires evidence provenance. For each major technical claim, identify the primary source and edition, distinguish assumptions from observations, show units in intermediate computations, and discuss uncertainty. A single "correct" answer to an idealized exercise is a starting point, not a field diagnosis. Cite an RV or component manufacturer's actual service publication when proposing a real intervention; do not invent torque values, test thresholds, or code requirements. In laboratory records, identify the simulated condition and explain how an RV installation might differ. Any field-facing remedy requires independent qualified review.
Exercises rely on inert demonstration devices, de-energized schematics, current-limited low-voltage trainers, simulated records, or manufacturer literature. A course webpage is not a license to manipulate LP-gas piping, energized 120/240-volt systems, generators, refrigerants, roof-access systems, brakes, hitches, jacks, or safety-critical structural parts. Practical work requires qualified supervision, an appropriate facility and documented stop-work authority.
- GRCC Course Format & Credit Hour Policy (effective August 2025)
- GRCC Curriculum Development
- RVTI Certification Levels
- RVTI Training Partners
- Michigan Postsecondary Schools