20181226
Semester B Wk 6 Wk 13 Wk 13 Wk 13
(Aug to Nov) Design Portfolio Final Video Final Prototypes
Template C Presentation Report Demonstration
Page 1 of 10
Version.20181226
This part of the assessment examines student's understanding of the project background and goals.
It focuses on 2 areas:
~Value Proposition
~Design Statement
Value Proposition
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Little or no analysis was carried out to understand the problem.
§ The value proposition is illogical or unclear.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Some analysis was carried out to understand the problem.
§ The value proposition is unclear.
§ The feasibility of the approach to create value lacks support from credible sources of information.
Acceptable to Very Good § Adequate analysis of the problem using appropriate tools/techniques.
§ The value proposition is logical and clear.
§ The feasibility of the approach to create value is generally supported by credible sources of information.
Very Good to Exceptional § A thorough and comprehensive analysis of the problem was carried out using a variety of appropriate
tools/techniques.
§ The value proposition is logical and clear.
§ The feasibility of the approach to create value is supported extensively by credible, accurate and up-to-
date sources of information.
Design Statement
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ The design statement is not present or inconsistent with the value proposition
Page 2 of 10
Version.20181226
This part of the assessment examines whether the conceptual solutions developed can address the value proposition identified.
It focuses on 4 areas:
~Design Specification
~Function Analysis
~Concept Generation
~Concept Selection
Design Specification
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ Scope/targets/parameters/constraints/requirements are missing.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Scope/targets/parameters/constraints/requirements are listed but may be incomplete and/or lack
specificity.
§ The design specifications may not be objective and quantifiable.
§ It is unclear whether the design specifications will lead to tangible and viable solution(s) to the problem
of interest.
Acceptable to Very Good § Critical scope/targets/parameters/constraints/requirements are clearly listed but some important details
may be missing.
§ The design specifications are generally objective and quantifiable.
§ The design specifications would be likely to lead to tangible and viable solution(s) to the problem of
interest.
Very Good to Exceptional § All scope/targets/parameters/constraints/requirements are clearly listed, formatted, prioritized and
detailed.
§ The design specifications are consistently objective and quantifiable.
§ The design specifications would with certainty lead to tangible and viable solution(s) to the problem of
interest.
Function analysis
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little effort is made to identify the required functions of the design solution.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Some functions of the design solution are identified, but some critical functions are clearly missing.
§ Relationships between most critical functions are defined but could be discussed in greater detail.
Very Good to Exceptional § An exhaustive list of critical functions is systematically and logically identified.
§ Relationships between all critical functions (e.g. product/process architecture) are clearly defined and
discussed in detail.
Concept generation
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little effort is made to generate alternative design solutions.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Some solutions are generated but it is unclear how they can address the required functions.
Acceptable to Very Good § Various solution principles are generated to address the critical functions.
§ Multiple design solutions are generated in a systematic manner, but they may not be clearly distinct
and/or supported by sound engineering, scientific and other principles.
Very Good to Exceptional § A comprehensive range of solution principles are generated to address all critical functions.
Page 3in of
§ Multiple design solutions are generated 10
a systematic and logical manner.
§ The design solutions are clearly distinct and well supported by sound engineering, scientific and other
principles.
Concept selection
and/or supported by sound engineering, scientific and other principles.
Very Good to Exceptional § A comprehensive range of solution principles are generated to address all critical functions.
§ Multiple design solutions are generated in a systematic and logical manner.
Version.20181226 § The design solutions are clearly distinct and well supported by sound engineering, scientific and other
principles.
Concept selection
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § No or little effort is made to evaluate alternative design solutions, and/or selection of design solution(s)
is performed without proper evaluation.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Possible design solutions are evaluated in a superficial manner.
Acceptable to Very Good § Possible design solutions are evaluated systematically using appropriate means.
§ Selection of design solution(s) may not be well-justified as it is unclear how the design specifications can
be met.
Very Good to Exceptional § Possible design solutions are evaluated systematically and comprehensively using appropriate means,
resulting in selection of well-justified design solution(s).
§ The design solution(s) selected clearly suggest that the design specifications can be met and effectively
address the problem.
Page 4 of 10
Version.20181226
This part of the assessment examines how the conceptual solution selected were further developed towards a finished design.
It focuses on 2 areas:
~Detail Design
~Prototyping
Detail Design
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little design details are determined.
§ Some details may be lacking sound references to engineering, scientific and other principles.
Very Good to Exceptional § An exhaustive list of critical details/parameters are clearly determined.
§ Details are well supported by sound argument and extensive references to engineering, scientific and
other principles.
§ Documentation of the design solution is clear, detailed, complete and extensive.
Prototyping
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little prototyping
Very Good to Exceptional § Intended purposes of prototypes are clearly communicated, and prototypes are made with enough
details realistically possible for their intended purposes.
§ Testing is conducted using methods/techniques/approaches that are appropriate for its intended
purposes.
Page 5 of 10
Version.20181226
Interim
This part of the assessment examines the progress you have made in your project over this semester.
It focuses on 3 technical areas:
~Project Clarification
~Concept Design
~Prototyping
Students will be assessed as a group based on their technical achievements presented in the interim report and presentation.
Conceptual Design
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § No or little effort is made to generate alternative design solutions, and/or selection of design solution(s)
is performed without evaluation.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Some design solutions are generated but evaluation of design solutions may be superficial.
Acceptable to Very Good § Multiple design solutions are generated and evaluated in a systematic manner.
§ Selection of design solution(s) could be better justified as it may not be clear whether the problem can be
addressed effectively.
Very Good to Exceptional § Multiple and distinct design solutions are generated and evaluated in a systematic, comprehensive and
logical manner.
§ Selection of design solution(s) are well supported by sound engineering, scientific and other principles,
and clearly suggest that the problem can be addressed effectively.
Prototyping
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little prototyping
Very Good to Exceptional § Intended purposes of prototypes are clearly communicated, and prototypes are made with enough
Page 6 of 10
details realistically possible for their intended purposes.
Version.20181226
Final
This part of the assessment examines the progress you have made in your project over this semester.
It focuses on 2 areas:
~Project Impact
~Individual technical work
Students will be assessed as a group based on their technical achievements presented in presentation.
Each student will be further assessed as an individual based on their individual report, documenting his/her contribution for the semester.
Each report should start will a common 2-page group project summary.
§ The solution is demonstrated by appropriate and well-finished prototypes, and were tested using suitable
methods.
Very Poor to Acceptable § The work done has addressed some of the intended objectives.
Acceptable to Very Good § The work done has addressed most of the intended objectives.
§ Major shortcomings of work done are identified but proposals to resolve these shortcomings may not be
clear or viable.
Very Good to Exceptional § The work done has effectively met all the intended objectives and addresses the project value
proposition.
§ Major shortcomings are clearly identified, with sound proposals to resolve them.
§ Considerable contribution in the field of work.
Page 7 of 10
Version.20181226
The assessment rubrics for Interim and Final report writing is as follows:
Report Writing
Mechanics
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Poor command of language that impedes understanding and results in ambiguity in many parts of the
report.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Grammar, vocabulary and sentence structures are inappropriate in many places.
§ Contains many inconsistencies and errors that are distracting but generally they do not impede
understanding.
Acceptable to Very Good § Appropriate use of grammar, vocabulary and sentence structures.
§ Formatting is visually appealing.
§ Contains minor inconsistencies and errors but they not distracting.
Very Good to Exceptional § Excellent and precise use of grammar, vocabulary and sentence structures.
§ Exemplary formatting that is visually appealing and consistent.
§ Virtually error-free and of publication standard.
Structure/Organization
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ Incomplete report submitted; little or no evidence of organization.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Unclear report with evidently missing key elements.
§ Transition/sequence of ideas is abrupt and/or work done tends to be presented in chronological rather
than logical sequence.
Acceptable to Very Good § Clear and comprehensive report but can be more concise; all main points are covered and supported
with appropriate details.
§ Sections/chapters are generally well-linked; effective transition/sequence of ideas but logical flow can be
improved.
Very Good to Exceptional § Exemplary writing that is clear, concise, comprehensive and complete: all main points are covered and
strongly supported with accurate and appropriate details.
§ Sections/chapters are appropriate and well-linked; logical and effective transition/sequence of ideas.
Acceptable to Very Good § Good use of illustrations to communicate key ideas/information but could be more visually appealing
and/or clearly annotated.
§ Sources of information are referenced but may contain minor inconsistencies and errors.
Very Good to Exceptional § Excellent use of illustrations to communicate key ideas/information; illustrations are consistent, visually
appealing and properly annotated.
§ Sources of information are comprehensive and referenced using appropriate and consistent styles.
Page 8 of 10
Version.20181226
The assessment rubrics for Interim and Final video presentation is as follows:
Video Presentation
Quality of Presentation Material
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Presentation material is missing many key parts.
§ Presentation material is inconsistent, disorganized and contains many major errors.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Presentation material lacks visual appeal and contains many minor errors and inconsistencies.
Acceptable to Very Good § Presentation material is visually pleasing and well-organized but may contain minor errors and
inconsistencies.
§ Good use of illustrations to communicate key ideas/information but could be more clearly annotated.
Very Good to Exceptional § Presentation material is comprehensive, consistent, well-organized and virtually error-free.
§ Presentation material has excellent visual appeal and attracts interest from others to know more.
§ Excellent use of illustrations to communicate key ideas/information; illustrations are properly annotated
and easily understood.
Page 9 of 10
Version.20181226
This part of the assessment examines student's effort and intiative for the module.
Each student will be assessed as an individual based their contribution to the project.
Effort
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Unmotivated, demonstrates minimal attempt to achieve required tasks, and frequently makes excuses
for not carrying out work.
§ Frequently skips or late for meetings.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Attempts to achieve required tasks but needs to be motivated/prompted frequently.
§ Tends to stop working when difficulties arise.
§ Punctual for meetings but not well-prepared for discussions.
Acceptable to Very Good § Generally well-motivated and demonstrates consistent attempts to achieve required tasks.
§ Attempts to continue working when difficulties arise.
§ Generally punctual and well-prepared for meetings.
Very Good to Exceptional § Highly motivated and always exerts maximal attempts to achieve required tasks.
§ Always perseveres/persistent in tackling problems encountered even when solutions may not be
immediately obvious.
§ Always punctual and well-prepared for meetings.
Initiative
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Demonstrates no interest in exploring relevant questions for further inquiry unless instructed.
§ Persistent guidance or help from supervisors is given but not followed.
Very Poor to Acceptable
§ Demonstrates some interest in exploring relevant questions but may not act on tasks for further enquiry.
§ Persistent guidance or help from supervisors is required but sometimes not followed.
Acceptable to Very Good § Generally able to generate relevant questions and execute tasks for further inquiry.
§ Attempts to learn and overcome problems independently but often requires guidance or help from
supervisor.
Very Good to Exceptional § Constantly generates relevant questions and executes tasks for further inquiry.
§ Able to learn and overcome problems without persistent guidance or help from supervisors.
§ Takes the lead in managing the direction and execution of the project as well as organizing the efforts of
the project team.
Page 10 of 10