Assignment 3c – Final Report

NOTE: You are encouraged to re-use parts of your previous assignments for this report, but it is expected that improvements and changes will have been made where needed.

·        A title page, with your project title, and team details.

·        An introduction with purpose, project justification, and scope.

·        Further research on design criteria, design alternatives and a decision matrix that outlines the process of determining your design concept.

·        A detailed description of your design, including accompanying drawings/sketches/photos of your prototype or of the design itself.

·        Description of how the design could be implemented in the community.

·        Explanation of the limitations of your design.

·        Discussion of the economic, environmental, cultural and technical feasibility and sustainability of the design in terms of its suitability for the community.

·        Conclusion

·        Appendix A – reflection on project management (individual).

·        Appendix B – sample of meeting minutes/ records

Each team member will also be required to evaluate their own and their teammates’ contribution to the project and teamwork skills.

·        Title page

Include project title, team member names, student numbers, and each team member’s role (i.e. Coordinator, Researcher, or Designer).

·        Table of contents

Include all of your sections from the introduction onwards and their page numbers. For a detailed work-through on how to do this see the following link http://youtu.be/4N8mjfpAd8w

·        Report Body

·        References

·        Appendices

·        Marking rubric

Report Body

The body of your report should include the following sections numbered as indicated below. (Nb. do not include ‘Coordinator’, ‘Researcher’, ‘Designer’, and so on, in the naming of your sections. These have only been included below to show you who is responsible for each section.)

1.0 Introduction (Coordinator)

1.1 Purpose of this final report

In one or two sentences describe how this report relates to your design project and provide a basic outline of what it covers.

1.2 Project background and justification

One or two paragraphs that set the scene for your project and why it is necessary. This must include a detailed description of the issue or problem that your design is looking to address.

1.3 Project scope

This should explain what your design project is setting out to achieve. State the specific aim of your design in one or two sentences, followed by an outline of the scope of the project. The scope states what your project will and will not do via inclusions, exclusions, constraints and assumptions. Conclude the section with a statement of the key deliverables your project will provide to the community. Your key deliverables should address the problems raised in the project justification above.

2.0 Design research (Researcher)

2.1 Design criteria

Describe the specific requirements that your team decided your design must meet, and how these suit the specific needs of the community. Include justification for these requirements using in-text referencing where required. These criteria will feed straight into your decision matrix section below.

2.2 Design options

Describe the technology and designs that your team investigated while deciding on a final approach, and outline the strengths and weaknesses of each. This may include information from your previous assignments as well as research on other design aspects that you found in the later part of the semester. Note that your preferred design should be included as one of the options. These options will feed straight into your decision matrix section below. Be sure to use in-text referencing where required.

3.0 Evaluation of options (Coordinator)

3.1 Design options

Briefly state the design options from above that you will be evaluating using the decision matrix. Note that your preferred design should be included as one of the options.

3.2 Decision matrix

a) Before presenting the decision matrix, briefly state the criteria (from above), and briefly explain and justify the rankings, weightings, and rating schemes that you used in developing the decision matrix. This should have been worked out by the team.

b) Present the decision matrix table.

c) Then provide a summary and analysis of the outcome, and a discussion of why your design is the most suitable.

4.0 Design concept (Designer)

4.1 Design description

Start with an overview followed by a discussion of the various aspects and components in more detail. Mention general construction, materials, functionality, required equipment, etc. referring to your diagram/s and or photos of your prototype or design provided below.

You should include clearly labelled pictures of your design, or drawings, that you think convey your design best.

Include a clear explanation of how your design is innovative and/or original. How does it differ from existing technologies in use? Or how does your design concept adapt, or modify/improve, an existing technology?

4.2 Implementation

Explain how your design will be implemented in the community. This should include how your design will be introduced, any education or training that may be required, and consideration of any ongoing maintenance.

4.3 Costs

Provide an estimate of design, construction and maintenance costs associated with completion and construction of the design, in local currency. Consider if there are any potential economic benefits to the community which could result from the project.

4.4 Describe the remaining limitations and possible improvements for your finished design.

5.0 Feasibility and Sustainability (Researcher)

Provide a researched discussion and justification of the feasibility and sustainability of your design from cultural, environmental, economic and technical points of view, with key areas of strength and weakness (or uncertainty) identified. Use suitable sub-headings. You must include in-text referencing.

6.0 Conclusion (Coordinator)

The conclusion should encompass the information you have provided in this document. Include your thoughts on what the design has achieved.

References (Coordinator)

In APA format, list references provided by all team members for their sections. There should be a minimum of 6 credible resources included in your list.

Appendix A: Reflection on project management (Each team member)

(300 – 400 words for each person)

Each person to separately describe:

a)      How closely did your project management match your Project Management Plan? Were meetings and related record keeping (e.g. minutes) performed? If so, was it effective, and how?

b)      What was the most successful aspect of the management of your project/team? Why?

c)      What was the major difficulty you faced with the management of the project/team? Why?

d)      Each person to give a clear set of practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in the future.

Appendix B: Meeting records (Coordinator)

Include a sample of records which were kept at meetings.

·        Single document, MS Word.

·        Margins: Top & Bottom (3.00cm), Left & Right (2.50cm)

·        Body text: Times New Roman (or alternative legible and professional font), 12pt size, left alignment with 1.5 line spacing.

·        Paragraph spacing: 0pt ‘before’ and 12pt ‘after’.

·        Headers/footers with appropriate details.

·        Marking rubric copied in at the end.

Each individual is responsible for fulfilling their assigned role as follows:

·        Team coordinator:

The Introduction, Evaluation of Alternatives and Conclusion sections, and compile the Reference List and Meeting Records. The coordinator is also responsible for combining all team members’ parts into a well-presented report (ensuring it has a title page, table of contents, etc.), and that it is formatted to the requirements above.

·        Researcher:

Design Research, and Feasibility and Sustainability sections

Designer:

·        Design Concept section

Each member of the team is responsible for:

·        Writing an individual reflection on the project management (Appendix A)

·        Ensuring that the report is cohesive overall, (ie the different sections complement each other well)

·        Completing a Peer Assessment of themselves and their teammates

/5

 TOTAL:

/95

·   Excellent, clear discussion on what worked well in the project

·   Excellent, clear discussion on what did not work well in the project

·   Clear, thoughtful, practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

8.5—9.0—9.5—10

·   Evaluation using Decision Matrix is thorough, logical, and highly appropriate to the design.

·   Conclusion accurately yet concisely captures the outcomes.

·   Reference list is complete and correct using APA style, with more than 6 credible sources.

·   Professional overall physical layout & appearance; includes all report elements.

·   Always acknowledges work of others with in-text citations in correct APA style

·   Excellent structure & flow

·   Writing is always formal with no spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

73—74—75—76—77—78—79—80—81—82—82—84—85

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

(85-100%)

·   Very good discussion on what worked well in the project

·   Very good discussion on what did not work well in the project

·   Clear, practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

7.5—8

·   Evaluation using Decision Matrix is thorough & logical.

·   Conclusion accurately captures the outcomes.

·   Reference list is complete with very few minor errors in APA style, and includes at least 6 credible sources.

·   Near-professional overall physical layout & appearance; includes all report elements.

·   Always acknowledges work of others with in-text citations, minor format errors.

·   Very good structure & flow

·   Writing is mostly formal with very few spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

64—65—66—67—68—69—70—71—72

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

(75-84%)

·   Good discussion on what worked well in the project

·   Good discussion on what did not work well in the project

·   Some practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

6.5—7

·   Evaluation using Decision Matrix is fairly thorough & logical.

·   Conclusion captures the main project outcomes.

·   Reference list is almost complete with several minor errors in APA style, and includes at least 5 credible sources.

·   Good overall physical layout & appearance; includes almost all report elements.

·   Almost always acknowledges work of others with minor format errors.

·   Good structure & flow

·   Writing is generally formal with few spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

56—57—58—59—60—61—62—63

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

(65-74%)

·   Basic discussion of what worked well

·   Basic discussion of what didn’t work

·   Few practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

5—5.5—6

·   Evaluation using Decision Matrix is provided, with all steps followed but detail/ accuracy/ clarity is lacking.

·   Conclusion captures some of the main project outcomes.

·   Reference list is almost complete, and includes at least 5 credible sources, but with some major errors in APA style.

·   Acceptable overall physical layout & appearance; some report elements missing

·   Sometimes acknowledges the work of others with some format errors.

·   Acceptable structure & flow

·   Writing is sometimes formal with several spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

43—44—45—46—47—48—49—50—51—52—53—54—55

5-6

5-6

5-6

5-6

5-6

5-6

5-6

(50-64%)

·   Discussion of what worked well very limited, or non-existent.

·   Discussion of what didn’t work very limited, or non-existent

·   No practical or useful suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

0—4.5

·   Evaluation using Decision Matrix not provided, or is very unclear or incomplete.

·   Conclusion not provided, or fails to capture the project outcomes.

·   Numerous major errors in reference list according to APA style OR very incomplete OR includes less than 5 credible sources.

·   Overall physical layout and & appearance poor; most report elements missing

·   Consistent failures to acknowledge work of others in correct format.

·   Poor structure & flow makes comprehension difficult

·   Informal writing, many spelling/grammar/punctuation error

0—42

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

(0-49%)

 /5

 TOTAL:

 /95

 /10

 /85

·   Excellent, clear discussion on what worked well in the project

·   Excellent, clear discussion on what did not work well in the project

·   Clear, thoughtful, practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

8.5—9.0—9.5—10

·   Design alternatives are very well researched and highly relevant to the project’s design aims

·   Feasibility and sustainability of the design are assessed carefully and astutely with thorough, credible supporting research.

·   Always acknowledges work of others with in-text citations in correct APA style

·   Excellent structure & flow

·   Writing is always formal with no spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

73—74—75—76—77—78—79—80—81—82—82—84—85

13-15

21.5-25

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

(85-100%)

·   Very good discussion on what worked well in the project

·   Very good discussion on what did not work well in the project

·   Clear, practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

7.5—8

·   Design alternatives are well researched and relevant to the project’s design aims

·   Feasibility and sustainability of the design are assessed carefully with credible supporting research.

·   Always acknowledges work of others with in-text citations, minor format errors.

·   Very good structure & flow

·   Writing is mostly formal with very few spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

64—65—66—67—68—69—70—71—72

11.5-12.5

19-21

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

(75-84%)

·   Good discussion on what worked well in the project

·   Good discussion on what did not work well in the project

·   Some practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

6.5—7

·   Design alternatives are researched and relevant to the project’s design aims

·   Feasibility and sustainability of the design are assessed moderately well with some credible supporting research.

·   Almost always acknowledges work of others with minor format errors.

·   Good structure & flow

·   Writing is generally formal with few spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

56—57—58—59—60—61—62—63

10-11

16.5-18.5

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

(65-74%)

·   Basic discussion of what worked well

·   Basic discussion of what didn’t work

·   Few practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

5—5.5—6

·   Design alternatives are included and mostly relevant to the project’s design aims

·   Basic discussion of feasibility and sustainability of the design is provided, with basic supporting research.

·   Sometimes acknowledges the work of others with in-text citations, some format errors.

·   Acceptable structure & flow

·   Writing is sometimes formal with several spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

43—44—45—46—47—48—49—50—51—52—53—54—55

7.5-9

12.5-16

5-6

5-6

5-6

(50-64%)

·   Discussion of what worked well very limited, or non-existent.

·   Discussion of what didn’t work very limited, or non-existent

·   No practical or useful suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

0—4.5

·   Design alternatives are omitted or irrelevant to the project’s design aims

·   Poor assessment of feasibility and sustainability of the design is provided. Insufficient credible supporting research.

·   Consistent failures to acknowledge work of others in correct format.

·   Poor structure & flow makes comprehension difficult

·   Informal writing, many spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

0—42

0-7

0-12

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

(0-49%)

/5

 TOTAL:

/95

·   Excellent, clear discussion on what worked well in the project

·   Excellent, clear discussion on what did not work well in the project

·   Clear, thoughtful, practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

8.5—9.0—9.5—10

·   Clear explanation of how the design concept is creative and innovative with comparison to existing approaches

·   Excellent explanation of how the design will be implemented in the community

·   Costs are clear, comprehensive, and well justified.

·   Excellent discussion of limitations and possible improvements.

·   Always acknowledges work of others with in-text citations in correct APA style

·   Excellent structure & flow

·   Writing is always formal with no spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

73—74—75—76—77—78—79—80—81—82—82—84—85

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

8.5-10

(85-100%)

·   Very good discussion on what worked well in the project

·   Very good discussion on what did not work well in the project

·   Clear, practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

7.5—8

·   Explanation of how the design concept is creative and innovative with comparison to existing approaches

·   Detailed and clear explanation of how the design will be implemented in the community

·   Costs are clear, and well justified.

·   Very good discussion of limitations and possible improvements.

·   Always acknowledges work of others with in-text citations, minor format errors.

·   Very good structure & flow

·   Writing is mostly formal with very few spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

64—65—66—67—68—69—70—71—72

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

7.5-8

(75-84%)

·   Good discussion on what worked well in the project

·   Good discussion on what did not work well in the project

·   Some practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

6.5—7

·   Some explanation of how the design concept is creative and innovative with comparison to existing approaches

·   Good explanation of how the design will be implemented in the community

·   Costs are clear, and mostly justified.

·   Good discussion of limitations and possible improvements.

·   Almost always acknowledges work of others with minor format errors.

·   Good structure & flow

·   Writing is generally formal with few spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

56—57—58—59—60—61—62—63

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

6.5-7

(65-74%)

·   Basic discussion of what worked well

·   Basic discussion of what didn’t work

·   Few practical suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

5—5.5—6

·   Poor or doubtful explanation of how the design concept is creative and innovative with comparison to existing approaches

·   Basic explanation of how the design will be implemented in the community

·   Costs are provided and mostly justified.

·   Limited discussion of limitations and possible improvements.

·   Sometimes acknowledges the work of others with in-text citations, some format errors.

·   Acceptable structure & flow

·   Writing is sometimes formal with several spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

43—44—45—46—47—48—49—50—51—52—53—54—55

5-6

5-6

5-6

5-6

5-6

5-6

5-6

(50-64%)

·   Discussion of what worked well very limited, or non-existent.

·   Discussion of what didn’t work very limited, or non-existent

·   No practical or useful suggestions to avoid the issues encountered in future

0—4.5

·   No explanation of how the design concept is creative and innovative with comparison to existing approaches

·   Little to no explanation of how the design will be implemented in the community

·   Costs are not provided, or completely unjustified.

·   No discussion of limitations or possible improvements.

·   Consistent failures to acknowledge work of others in correct format.

·   Poor structure & flow makes comprehension difficult

·   Informal writing, many spelling/grammar/punctuation errors

0—42

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

0-4.5

(0-49%)