Anda di halaman 1dari 5

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

Faculty of Engineering
Industrial Engineering Department
IE 516 - Project Feasibility Study 1
EVALUATION SHEET WRITTEN REPORT
Dear Panelist:
Thank you for sharing your time with us. We would just like to remind you to make clear to the
students your suggested improvements of their study. This is so requested since the students will
return the revised version of this study to you for approval purposes.
The IE Department would similarly like to thank you in advance for the future accommodations
you will give our students on how to further refine their studies.
Please encircle the number that best describes your evaluation per criteria.
4: Highly Evident
3: Evident
2: Least Evident
PFS 1
1. The statements and contents of the following introductory
parts are clear and logical appropriate for the study:
a. Executive Summary
4
b. Industry Analysis
4
c. Problem Statement/s
4
d. Objectives and Significance of the Study
4
e. Research Methodology
4
f. Review of Related Literature
4
4
2. Showed comprehensive and analytical market survey results
3. Process of determining the target market and demand was
4
clear
4
4. Existing Supply was presented in the most logical way.
4
5. Showed that there was potential demand for the

1: Not Evident

3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

product/service.
6. Showed realistic method for making forecasts.
a. Demand
b. Supply
c. D-S Gap
d. Market Share
e. Price
f. Other Marketing Program Costs
7. Exhibited an over-all good marketing program
a. Product Mix Strategies
b. Brand Name & Logo
c. Packaging
d. Channels of Distribution
e. Advertising & Promotions
f. Market Research & Development
8. Marketing organizational set-up was optimally effective.
Fewest personnel possible with clear and precise identification
of duties and responsibilities and realistic salaries are
determined.
9. Product/ service is innovative and implementable.
10. Service Work Station/ Product Properties, Drawing Designs,
and Assembly Parts were presented
Total Rating (TR) =
Average Rating of PFS1 Written Report (APFS1WR) = TR/ 25 =

COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS

_____________________________________
Signature of Panelist over Printed Name

__________________
Date

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS


Faculty of Engineering
Industrial Engineering Department
IE 516 - Project Feasibility Study 1
EVALUATION SHEET PFS1 PRESENTATION & DEFENSE
Dear Panelist:
Thank you for sharing your time with us. We would just like to remind you to make clear to the
students your suggested improvements of their study. This is so requested since the students will
return the revised version of this study to you for approval purposes.
The IE Department would similarly like to thank you in advance for the future accommodations
you will give our students on how to further refine their studies.
Please encircle the number that best describes your evaluation per criteria.
4: Highly Evident

3: Evident

2: Least Evident

1: Not Evident

PRESENTATION
1st Member: ___________________________________________
1. The speaker showed mastery of the material assigned to him.
2. The power point presentation was a logical presentation of the
material where it showed graphs, tables, charts when applicable
as well as with uncluttered slides to emphasize points in the
study.
3. The speaker spoke clearly and audibly.
4. The speaker exhibited professionalism and was confident in
his/her demeanor.
5. The speaker established good rapport with audience practicing
good eye contact.
Total Rating (TR) =

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

Average Rating of Presentation of 1st Member (AP1M) = TR/ 5 =


2nd Member: _________________________________________
1. The speaker showed mastery of the material assigned to him.
2. The power point presentation was a logical presentation of the
material where it showed graphs, tables, charts when applicable
as well as with uncluttered slides to emphasize points in the
study.
3. The speaker spoke clearly and audibly.
4. The speaker exhibited professionalism and was confident in
his/her demeanor.
5. The speaker established good rapport with audience practicing
good eye contact.
Total Rating (TR) =
Average Rating of Presentation of 2nd Member (AP2M) = TR/ 5 =

3rd Member: __________________________________________


1. The speaker showed mastery of the material assigned to him.
2. The power point presentation was a logical presentation of the
material where it showed graphs, tables, charts when applicable
as well as with uncluttered slides to emphasize points in the
study.
3. The speaker spoke clearly and audibly.
4. The speaker exhibited professionalism and was confident in
his/her demeanor.
5. The speaker established good rapport with audience practicing
good eye contact.
Total Rating (TR) =

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

Average Rating of Presentation of 3rd Member (AP3M) = TR/ 5 =


4th Member: ___________________________________________
1. The speaker showed mastery of the material assigned to him.
2. The power point presentation was a logical presentation of the
material where it showed graphs, tables, charts when applicable
as well as with uncluttered slides to emphasize points in the
study.
3. The speaker spoke clearly and audibly.
4. The speaker exhibited professionalism and was confident in
his/her demeanor.
5. The speaker established good rapport with audience practicing
good eye contact.
Total Rating (TR) =
Average Rating of Presentation of 4th Member (AP4M) = TR/ 5 =
DEFENSE
1st Member: ___________________________________________
1. Showed mastery in answering the questions raised by the
panel.
2. Answered clearly and confidently.
3. Gave logical answers which were based in the results of the
study.
Total Rating (TR) =
Average Rating of Defense of 1st Member (AD1M) = TR/ 3 =
2nd Member: __________________________________________
1. Showed mastery in answering the questions raised by the
panel.
2. Answered clearly and confidently.
3. Gave logical answers which were based in the results of the
study.
Total Rating (TR) =
Average Rating of Defense of 2nd Member (AD2M) = TR/ 3 =

3rd Member: __________________________________________

1. Showed mastery in answering the questions raised by the


panel.
2. Answered clearly and confidently.
3. Gave logical answers which were based in the results of the
study.
Total Rating (TR) =

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

Average Rating of Defense of 3rd Member (AD3M) = TR/ 3 =


4th Member: __________________________________________
1. Showed mastery in answering the questions raised by the
panel.
2. Answered clearly and confidently.
3. Gave logical answers which were based in the results of the
study.
Total Rating (TR) =
Average Rating of Defense of 4th Member (AD4M) = TR/ 3 =
Computation of Final Grade per Group Member:
Final Rating of 1st Member = (APFS1WR + AP1M + AD1M)/ 3 =
Final Grade Equivalent =
Final Rating of 2nd Member = (APFS1WR + AP2M + AD2M)/ 3 =
Final Grade Equivalent =
Final Rating of 3rd Member = (APFS1WR + AP3M + AD3M)/ 3 =
Final Grade Equivalent =
Final Rating of 4th Member = (APFS1WR + AP4M + AD4M)/ 3 =
Final Grade Equivalent =
Final Rating Equivalent to Final Grade:
Final Rating

Final Grade Equivalent

Final Rating

Final Grade Equivalent

4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0

100
99
97
96
94
93
91
90
88
87
85

2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9 & Below

84
82
81
79
78
76
75
73
72
70
50

_____________________________________
Signature of Panelist over Printed Name

__________________
Date