MPHY3001 - DESIGN GROUP MARKING CRITERIA – DELIVERABLE 1 AND 2

Tutor name: Nick Everdell Group name: Team 2

Deliverable: 1 (delete as appropriate)

Item Mark
Progress
 2-3 = The group is significantly delayed with respect to the project plan, no meeting the
tasks expected on the current deliverable (detailed in the handout).
 9-10 = Students have successfully completed all the tasks associated to the deliverable.
Structure and coherence
 2-3 = Poor structured document. Little to no coherence within the deliverable. Each WP
has been written independently and without regard to the other WPs.
 9-10 = Work from the various WPs is nicely integrated and related, and the structure of
the document enhances the project and its presentation.
Quality of work
 2 = Little content and/or poor quality across most of the deliverable.
 4-6 = Mixed content quality and/or depth, presented with average quality.
 9-10 = Excellent content depth and breadth, presented to very good standards.
Vision
 2-3 = The group does not demonstrate a clear development or plan towards the
achievement of the final product (prototype and final deliverable).
 9-10 = The group demonstrate clear view and development towards the final product,
foreseeing where potential problems might arise and putting in place contingency
plans.
Average

Supervisor comments and justifications of marks. This is used as feedback for the students
(Please write at least a small paragraph per deliverable – expand as needed overleaf):

Progress
Progress has been good and all deliverables for work package 1 have been achieved

Structure and Coherence

Overall this is good, but with a few reservations.
The report would have been helped greatly by the addition of some section numbering.
The pie chart colouring and the associated key is really hard to follow - the two blue
sectors are almost the same colour!

Gantt chart looks good - seems like a fair bit of effort has gone into that.

Quality of Work
The text is well written, but could flow a bit better, and could do with some tidying up here
and there.

Stakeholder section seems pretty comprehensive to me, and well thought out.
Current technologies section is well researched and well written
Work packages section looks very thorough, as does the bibliograpy.

Vision
In general this is ok, but it does feel a bit limited to me. Having said that, I do think that this
is a difficult project.

The design brief is ok, but not as good as some of the other sections. There is not enough
discussion here of the design ideas, and figure 17 is poor. This needs to be much clearer.