Engineering Design Methods — Practice Check Traditional sequential (over-the-wall) engineering may appear logical and ordered, yet in real projects it often causes late discovery of issues and rework, leading to waste compared with concurrent approaches.

Introduction / Context:
This item contrasts sequential engineering (performing phases strictly one after another) with more integrated, concurrent practices. It asks whether the sequential approach, while orderly, can be wasteful in practice due to delayed feedback and rework.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Sequential process hands work from one function to the next.
• Real projects face changing requirements and constraints.
• Feedback late in the cycle is costly.

Concept / Approach:
Waste arises when defects or constraints are discovered late, forcing redesign and scrap. Concurrent practices bring stakeholders together earlier to surface constraints sooner.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Sequential flow: requirements -> design -> prototype -> test -> manufacture.2) Issues found in test cause rework of earlier stages.3) Rework consumes time and cost, creating waste.4) Therefore, despite its logic, sequential flow often proves wasteful.

Verification / Alternative check:
Compare defect cost when found early vs late; late discovery costs multiply through scrap, schedule slips, and tooling changes.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Incorrect” denies observed rework patterns. “Partially correct” and “Only true for software” ignore manufacturing, hardware, and systems contexts.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming orderliness guarantees efficiency; underestimating the value of early cross-functional involvement.

Final Answer:
Correct