MST Design Laboratory
 
Search this site

73days until
Semester End

8days until
Design quick review 2

Project evaluation

This document is only meant as a guide. We may modify the criteria somewhat, and of course the weighting between the components varies considerably.

DL I Report (20)

  • Report components: (10 x 1)
    • Title plage
    • Contents
    • Introduction
    • Technical section
    • References
    • Illustrations
    • Assembly method
    • Time plan
    • FRDPARRC table
    • Part dimensions
  • Report format: (2+2)
    • Smartness
    • Innovation
  • Text: (1+2+1)
    • Spelling
    • Style & Clarity
    • Grammar
  • Innovation: (1+1)
    • Surprize element
    • Communicativity

DL II Report (15)

  • Structure (2)
  • Illustrations (3)
  • Technical (5)
    • Process. Is the process explained?
    • Simulations. Are the simulations conclusive?
    • Processing results. What went wrong/right with the processing?
    • Test results. Did the test work?
    • Documentation. Was the technical documentation sufficient.
  • Completeness (5)
    • Assignment statement. Is the assignment properly explained? What is the context?
    • Principle. Is the principle of the solution explained? What will be done better than the example given? 
    • Design method. How was the planning organised? 
    • Solutions. What designs were achieved?
    • Recommendations. What would one do different now that the new solution is known?

Project plan (20)

  • Tasks: (3+1+1)
    • Sensible division
    • Reasonable length
    • Clearly defined
  • Milestones: (3+1+1)
    • Sensible choices
    • Well spaced
    • Clearly defined
  • Deliverables: (3+1+1)
    • Sensible choices
    • Clearly defined
    • Success noted
  • Other features: (2+1+1+1)
    • Person jobs
    • Actualization
    • Pragmatism
    • Effectiveness

Mask layout (17)

  • Available features: (8 x 1)
    • Breakpoints
    • Etch gap uniformity
    • Hierarchical
    • Alignment of parts
    • Redundancy
    • Plan B?
    • Compliancy
  • General impression: (3+3+3)
    • General quality
    • Design rules
    • Innovative feature

DL I Design and assembly (20)

  • Design quality and preparation: (1+1+2+1+1+1+1+1+1)
    • Lab visit before
    • Sufficient parts
    • Connect concept
    • Generality?
    • Application suitability
    • Assembly support
    • Manufacturing suitability
    • Assembly speed
    • Team effort?
  • General impression: (3+2+2+3)
    • System achieved?
    • Microscopy
    • Demo achieved?
    • Innovative feature

Oral presentation (12 or 20)

  • Overheads & talk: (2+2+2+2+2+2)
    • Well structured
    • Uncluttered
    • Presentation quality
    • Length good?
    • Clarity
    • Question handling?
  • Poster defence (only DL I): (2+2+2+2)
    • Presentation quality
    • Clarity
    • Suitability of poster
    • Quesion handling?

DL I Poster design (20)

  • Photos: (1+2+1)
    • Clarity
    • Scale / dimensions
    • Captions
  • Text: (2+1+2)
    • Clarity
    • Economy
    • Content
  • General impression: (2+2+2+5)
    • Poster layout
    • Balance text/pictures
    • Spelling and grammar
    • Communication

DL I Website (20)

  • Quality of structure. Are the following ideas present?
    • Group members
    • Member roles
    • The assignment
    • Trial designs
    • The decision process
    • The FRDPARRC table
    • A project time plan
    • Assembly trials
    • References
  • Is there a unique feature?

Notebook (40)

  • Completeness. Does the notebook cover all aspects of the design project? (8)
  • Creative ideas. Does the notebook record the unique design ideas and solutions? (8)
  • General contribution. Does the notebook record ideas from the other team members? (8)
  • Role contribution. Are there specific entries corresponding to the person's team role (8)
  • References. Is there evidence of recording of references? (8)

DL II Patent (15)

  • References. Was previous work detected and references? (2)
  • Structure. Does the patent explain the idea sufficiently well? (3)
  • Drawings. Are the drawings clear and informative? (5)
  • General impression. Does the patent represent a clever strategy? (5)