MIE315: Design for Environment – Final Consultant’s Report Marking

Rubric Winter 2022

Date / Time Submitted: ______________ Group #: ________________ Penalty: _________________

Final Grade:_____________ / 20

Learning Objectives Unacceptable Below Expectations Meets Expectations Above Expectations

Meets expectations and

Ability to frame the project in
engineering terms
Ability to conduct a financial
analysis
Ability to conduct a
quantitative LCA
Ability to conduct a
societal analysis
Ability to conduct a
uncertainty analysis
Ability to make and
communicate an engineering
recommendation
• No definition of
alternatives
• No definition of goal
• No definition of scope
• Defines an inappropriate
(e.g. trivial or infeasible)
project scope
• Analysis is not present or
is fundamentally flawed
• Analysis is not present or
is fundamentally flawed
• Analysis is not present or
is fundamentally flawed
• Analysis is not present or
is fundamentally flawed
• No recommendation or is
not justified [3]
• Recommendation is
unsupported or supported
by irrelevant evidence and
reasoning
• The purpose and/or intended
audience are unclear
• Functional unit and/or system
boundary are inappropriate
• Justification of scope is
incomplete or vague
(unconvincing)
• No summary of PCR
• Analysis is NOT appropriate
[1] or verified [2]
• Analysis is NOT appropriate
[1] or verified [2]
• Analysis is NOT appropriate
[1] or verified [2]
• Analysis is NOT appropriate
[1] or verified [2]
• Recommendation is justified
[3], but not from the point of
view of the client or is biased
• Recommendation is
supported by weak evidence
and reasoning
• States a clear goal and defines
• Mature and realistic project
an appropriate scope for the
goal scope
project
• Goal establishes the
• The functional unit is clearly
relationship between the
defined and common between
types of analysis methods
both alternatives
used
• Justifies scoping decisions (e.g.
• Demonstrates insightful
exclusions from the system
understanding of the problem
boundary)
• Summary of PCR is concise and
• Includes useful summary of PCR
effective
• Analysis is appropriate [1] and • Meets expectations and goes
verified [2] above and beyond [4]
• Analysis is appropriate [1] and • Meets expectations and goes
verified [2] above and beyond [4]
• Analysis is appropriate [1] and • Meets expectations and goes
verified [2] above and beyond [4]
• Analysis is appropriate [1] and • Meets expectations and goes
verified [2] above and beyond [4]
• Recommendation is justified [3]
from the perspective of the
• Meets expectations and goes
client
above and beyond [4]
• Any bias in recommendation is
acknowledged

Executive • Lacks an executive
Summary summary
• Lacks any sense of
explicit structure of
Structure
content, impeding
understanding
Ability to write
• Unclear or missing
professionally
visuals
• Visuals have no evident
Visuals purpose or relationship
to the analysis
• Inconsistent styles
across all sections
• Executive summary is too long
• Executive summary • Goes beyond a mechanical
(over 1 page)
concisely conveys the summary of content to
• Does not contain adequate
report content create a cohesive, stand-
information, or is difficult to
alone document
read
• Uses explicit structure at
• Poorly considered organization all levels (document,
• Allows audience to
of information can make section, paragraph, and
understand and seamlessly
understanding of document sentence) to meet
navigate through content
difficult audience’s needs in
understanding content
• Visuals that expand • Clear visuals fully integrated
• Visuals that are difficult to
understanding of content into text
read and detract from clarity
and are discussed in text • Styles consistent across
• Inconsistent styles across some
• Styles consistent across sections and contribute to
sections
sections ease of reading

• Meaning is unclear • Meaning requires effort to • Meaning is clear at

Professional
either from high level of understand from errors, lack of paragraph, sentence and • Meaning presented in clear,
Language &
error or lack of understanding or confusing word choice level with elegant and concise prose
Proofreading
understanding rhetorical strategies minimal error

[1]Appropriate:
• Sound judgment in the selection
of points of analysis
• Sound judgment in the selection
and the correct application of
methods of analysis
• Level of detail sufficient for
client’s needs
• Makes logical assumptions
supported with evidence as
needed
[2]Verified: A logical method
or credible source was used
to corroborate the analysis
• i.e. Uncertainty discussed
on key assumptions
• i.e. Supporting credible
sources cited
[3]Justified:
• Persuasive engineering argument
• No “sales” language
• Uses a sound argument structure:
Statement – Explanation –
Evidence
[4] Above and Beyond: Project specific, but examples of
work that have gone above and beyond include:
• Conducting a detailed sensitivity analysis for uncertain
parameters in LCA, financial analysis and/or societal
analyses
• Use of excellent & clear visuals to explain material,
energy, and emissions flows in LCA
• Explanations of uncertainty to demonstrate deep
insight
• Acknowledges opposing evidence and presents a
reasonable counterpoint
• Use of a wide range (depth and breadth) of credible
sources, seamlessly integrated into text
• Going beyond what is readily apparent to address
complexities in the analysis