P11207: WOOCS: Mid-Range RF Non-protocol Module

Deliverables Checklist

Due Date Deliverable Objective Status
W2 Detail Design Review -- Action Items All action items are closed (2 points)
W4 Final Test Plan Final test plan addresses all specs. Equipment & procedures are defined and will be ready for design verification(2 points)
W4 Assembly/Manufacturing Plan Procedures are in place and documented for assembly/ manufacturing to enable design verification testing and prototype demo (1 point)
W9 Functionality Implementation meets or exceeds all functional design specs, and team is able to demonstrate and verify satisfaction. (7-9 points)
W9 Performance Performance meets or exceeds all design specs, and team is able to demonstrate and verify. (7-9 points)
W9 Robustness The final implementation can operate repeatedly without intervention or repair, and will tolerate ordinary misuse.(7-9 points)
W9 Workmanship The final implementation shows professional-quality workmanship (e.g., cleanly cut and deburred edges, properly dressed wire harnesses, fit between covers & panels, high quality documentation)(5 points)
W10 Verification Testing Documented Results of Design Verification Testing are sufficiently documented. (3 points)
W10 Project overview & selected concept(s) (TEAM GRADE) Team provided a clear project summary, including high level customer needs and selected concept(s) (2 points)
W10 HOMEWORK: Ability to design a system to meet desired needs -- discussioin (TEAM GRADE) Students have clearly demonstrated that all requirements are met and the customer is satisfied (2 points)
W10 Objective evaluation of successes and failures (TEAM GRADE) Team objectively identifies strong and weak points of the final design, including potential for future improvements (incl. customer sat.) (3-4 points)
W10 Ability to communicate detailed design information effectively (written, graphical, and oral) Very effective written and verbal communication (2 points)
W11 MSD II Execution vs. Plan (""Do, check, and act"" phases) (TEAM GRADE) During weekly review meetings with Guide, the team demonstrated consistently that the plan was the basis for organizing the work of the team and its members, and that the plan was kept up to date. The team also captured lessons learned from performance vs. plan (3 points)
W11 MSD II Execution vs. Plan (INDIVIDUAL GRADE) Team member created, updated, and actively used a log book that showed work planned and completed - a brief description of the work, time required, and date (2 points)
W11 Team self-assessment against norms & values from MSD I (TEAM GRADE) All values assessed against plan, with examples. (2 points)
W11 Completeness of Poster (TEAM GRADE) Poster addresses problem, process, solution, and evaluation. It recognizes team, customer, and sponsor with appopriate graphics and logo(s) (3 points)
W11 Style/Effectiveness of Communication (TEAM GRADE) Poster is well-organized, graphics are clear, and poster effectively communicates key objectives and results (2 points)
W11 Accuracy of Paper (TEAM GRADE) All information presented is supported by analysis or reference (5 points)
W11 Thoroughness/Completeness of Paper (TEAM GRADE) Problem statement, process overview, solution method, ethical outcomes, and evaluation (incl. customer satisfaction) are explained. Graphics are included as appropriate (5 points)
W11 Editing, Style, and Clarity (TEAM GRADE) No misspelled words, sentence structure & grammar is correct, engineering jargon is explained, numbering system is consistent, paper is well organized and clear (5 points)
W11 Effectiveness and Organization of project website (TEAM GRADE) Website provides clear language for casual visitors and is intuitively organized, with functional links and appropriatedly named files (3 points)
W11 Design History File on website (TEAM GRADE) All documents and files are up-to-date, complete, and available on project website (EDGE) (5 points)
W11 Class and within-team participation (INDIVIDUAL GRADE) Grade based on Guide assessment of overall contributions to team activities (quantity and quality of results), and peer reviews.