MATS23702

联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981

MATS23702

Design, Management and Team Project The Team Project Groups You can choose your own groups. Group sizes of 5-6.

Strictly no more than 6.

Self-selection process for groups will be finalized on 24th February. Anyone who does not self-enroll into a group will be assigned a

group (there may be additions to your group).

The Customer’s Brief In your groups, you will a select material for a simple beam or fibre for an application

of your choice (e.g., a beam for a bridge, or a fibre in a bullet-proof vest). We do not want you to spend too much time defining the geometry of the beam – it is

best to make it very simple.

This is not a full product design process. If your chosen application has multiple parts, you only need to consider the main

beam component.

We are interested in how you are going to choose materials and processing selections,

how you are going to model your beam, and how you plan to organise yourselves as a

group through the project (initial definition of tasks and team members’

responsibilities, deciding what beam or fibre to choose, etc). Please come and talk to us (the customer) if you want clarification with respect to any

aspect of the Team Project. The Assessment Brief The next slide describes what you will be assessed on. As described in later slides, you should include this information in your written report and

provide summaries of certain aspects in your presentation. Some of the definitions are deliberately vague – this is to encourage you to communicate with

us (your customers!). The project will be assessed with reference to all of the learning outcomes listed in the unit

introductory presentation and handbook. The Assessment Brief Problem definition and project overview: Details of product you’re assessing, including qualitative outline of requirements of the application (e.g.,

corrosion resistance ) Details of allocations of duties within team i.e., the URB Project management strategy and documentation: Work breakdown structure (WBS) Gantt chart Critical-path analysis chart (CPM) Risk register (RR) Details and strategy of training

Refer to WBS/CPM as appropriate Resource allocation Product requirements and materials selection: Details of product requirements, including criteria (e.g., strength > XXX MPa ) Relevant aspects of product design (e.g., any simplifications you’ve made to help with selection/modelling) Details of initial materials down selection strategy Potential product manufacturing routes (i.e., materials processing routes) Product/materials testing: Details of Abaqus FE modelling, including purpose and results Design revision, if needed, and final material selection Project Review Comparison of initial and final versions of CPM and RR What went right/wrong with the project Components of Assessment Team project (75% of unit total) 15% presentation

40% written report

10% team process evidence

10% individual reflective summary The Group Presentation Group presentations will be made in-person on 27th or 29th April 2026. Presentations will be 10 minutes long (strict time limitation) Each team should select the presenter(s), but all group members should attend to answer

questions from the assessment panel. The presentation should include brief summaries of: Problem definition and project overview (20%) Project management strategy and documentation (20%) Product requirements and materials selection (20%) Product/materials testing – FE analysis (20%) Overall presentation style and clarity (20%) Deadline for submission is 12.00 on 27th April The Presentation Rubric You will be assessed on the quality of your:

Problem definition and project overview (10%) URB Project management documentation (15%) Work breakdown structure (WBS) Gantt chart Critical-path analysis chart (CPM) Risk register (RR) Project management strategy (15%)

Evidence of effective project management e.g, updated documentation, change of strategy, target setting, etc Product requirements and materials selection (15%) Evidence of logical and well-justified materials selection process Materials/product testing (FE analysis) (15%) Evidence of appropriate FE modelling to aid materials selection Project Review (10%)

Comparison of initial and final versions of CPM and RR What went right/wrong with the project 20% for overall quality and clarity of writing, as well as report structure.

The Written Report The Written Report Your written report essentially needs to be a process report – this gives details of what your

product is, how you selected and tested your materials, and how it was delivered The written report should be no more than 30 pages long, excluding appendices. Initial versions of your project management charts (URB, WBS, GANNT, CPM, RR) should be

included in these pages.

Updated versions of your project management charts (you are expected to update them weekly)

should be included in the appendices (which are not included in the page limit). Deadline for submission is 12.00 on 8th May. The Written Report Rubric 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100% Problem definition

and project

overview (10%) No details of product to

be designed or initial

management strategy

(e.g., team allocation). Very limited details of

product to be designed or

initial management

strategy (e.g., team

allocation). Limited details of product

to be designed or initial

management strategy

(e.g., team allocation). Some details of product

to be designed or initial

management strategy,

but some omissions. A satisfactory account of

product to be designed or

initial management

strategy A reasonable overview of

the product to be

designed and the

initial

management strategy,

perhaps lacking some

detail.

A good overview of the

product to be designed

and the initial

management strategy,

with all the necessary

details. A very good overview of

the product to be

designed and the initial

management strategy.

Detailed and precise.

An excellent overview of

product to be designed

and the initial

management strategy.

Very detailed and precise. An outstanding/ flawless

overview of product to be

designed and the

initial

management strategy.

Project

management

documentation

(15%) No documentation

provided.

Very limited

documentation provided.

Many documents may be

missing entirely.

No

evidence of continuous

updating. Some documents

provided.

Only one or

two may be missing. No

evidence of continuous

updating.

Most documents

provided.

Quality may be

poor, with limited

evidence of updating. All documents present,

but standard is poor.

Some continuous

updating.

All documents present,

and the standard is

reasonable. Some

continuous updating.

All documents present,

and the standard is good.

All are continuously

updated. All documents present,

and the standard is very

good.

All are

continuously updated. All documents present,

and the standard is

excellent.

All are

continuously updated. All documents present,

and the standard is

outstanding/flawless. All

are continuously

updated. Project

management

strategy (15%)

No details or justification

for the project

management strategy.

Very limited details or

justification of the project

management strategy.

No evidence of this being

reviewed. Limited details or

justification of the project

management strategy.

No evidence of this being

reviewed. Some details and some

justification of project

management strategy. No

evidence of this being

reviewed. Satisfactory details and

justification of project

management strategy.

Some evidence of this

being reviewed. Reasonable details and

justification of project

management strategy.

Evidence of this being

reviewed. Good details and

justification of project

management strategy.

Evidence of this being

reviewed. Very good details and

justification of project

management strategy.

Extensive evidence of this

being reviewed. Excellent details and

justification of project

management strategy.

Extensive evidence of this

being reviewed. Outstanding/ flawless

details and justification of

project management

strategy. Extensive

evidence of this being

reviewed. Product

requirements,

materials selection

(15%) No details of product

requirements or

materials selection

strategy.

Very limited details of

product requirements.

No materials selection

strategy.

Some requirements

stated. The materials

selection strategy may be

present, but is very poor.

E.g., starts from a very

restricted range of

materials. Some requirements

stated.

The materials

selection strategy is

present, but is poor.

E.g.,

starts from a rather

restricted range of

materials. A good list of

requirements given. The

materials selection

strategy is present, but is

poor.

E.g., it may start

from a rather restricted

range of materials. A good list of

requirements given. The

materials selection

strategy is present and is

reasonable and will

usually start with a broad

range of materials

considered.

A good list of

requirements given. The

materials selection

strategy is present and is

good and starts with a

broad range of materials

considered.

A very good list of

requirements given. The

materials selection

strategy is very good and

starts with a broad range

of materials considered.

Logical and clear.

An excellent list of

requirements given. The

materials selection

strategy is excellent and

starts with a broad range

of materials considered.

Logical and clear.

The list of requirements

and materials select

strategy are

outstanding/flawless.

Product/materials

testing (FE analysis)

(15%) No details of product

testing using FE analysis

or other.

Very limited evidence of

any FE analysis or other.

Some evidence of FE

testing, but it is unclear

what the aim is.

Results

not used to further the

project.

Evidence of product

testing (FE) , but may be

unclear what the aim is.

Results not used to

further the project.

Good evidence of product

testing (FE), but may be

unclear what the aim is.

Results not used to

further the project.

Good evidence of product

testing (FE).

Some

conclusions are drawn

from the results.

Good evidence of product

testing (FE) that is

beneficial to the project –

e.g., is used to down- select materials.

Clear

that results have been

used sensibly. Product testing (FE)

strategy is very good, and

it is very clear how results

have been used to inform

rest of project. Product testing (FE)

strategy is excellent, and

it is very clear how results

have been used to inform

rest of project. Product testing (FE)

strategy is

outstanding/flawless, and

it is very clear how results

have been used to inform

rest of project. Project Review

(10%)

No evidence of project

being reviewed.

Very limited of

retrospective review.

No

examination of initial and

final PM documentation.

Some evidence of a

retrospect review and

examination of initial and

final PM documents, but

overall very poor.

Evidence of a retrospect

review and examination

of initial and final PM

documents, but overall

poor.

Satisfactory retrospective

discussions of the project.

Initial and final PM

documents compared

superficially.

Reasonable retrospective

discussions of the project.

Initial and final PM

documents compared. Good retrospective

discussions of the project.

Initial and final PM

documents compared. Very good retrospective

discussions of the project.

Initial and final PM

documents compared. Excellent retrospective

discussions of the project.

Initial and final PM

documents compared. Outstanding/flawless

retrospective discussions

of the project. Initial and

final PM documents

compared . Quality and clarity

of writing, as well

as report structure

(20%)

The report is unreadable. The report is very poorly

presented.

Almost all the

writing and figures are

unclear and/or

inappropriate.

Very poor,

illogical structure.

The report is very poorly

presented.

Most of the

writing and many of the

figures are unclear and/or

inappropriate.

Poor,

illogical structure.

The report is poorly

presented.

Much of the

writing and many of the

figures are unclear and/or

inappropriate.

Poor

structure.

The report is presented

satisfactorily.

A few

sections of the writing and

a few of the figures are

unclear and/or

inappropriate.

Reasonable, logical

structure.

The report is presented

reasonably well.

A few

sections of the writing or a

few of the figures are

unclear and/or

inappropriate.

Good,

logical structure.

The report is well

presented.

Most of the

writing and figures are

clear and appropriate.

Good, logical structure

The report is very well

presented.

All of the

writing and figures are

clear and appropriate.

Very good, logical

structure.

The report is presented

excellently.

All of the

writing and figures are

clear and appropriate.

Very good, logical

structure.

The report presentation is

outstanding/flawless.

All

of the writing and figures

are clear and appropriate.

Flawless structure.

Process Evidence You will need to upload your Team Process evidence (minutes of meetings, evidence of communication,

evidence of file sharing, etc) in a report no more than 5 pages in length.

The first three pages (at least) should contain minutes of Team Project meetings you have held.

Good

minutes include:

Names of persons present Date, time of meeting start/end List of actions for attendees.

Marks will be awarded according to the following criteria:

The range of examples of evidence (e.g., minutes of meetings, evidence of instant messaging, etc).

(25%) Evidence that duties have been assigned (usually specified in minutes).

(25%) Communication – whether there is evidence of communication between team members.

Are actions

being followed up on

(25%) Support – whether the team appears to have worked as a coherent group, and whether students have

supported each other.

(25%) Deadline for submission is 12.00 on 8th May

Process Evidence Rubric 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Range Are examples from a single

category or do these embrace

a number of categories, e.g.

minutes of meetings. clear

statements of objectives,

notes from brainstorming

sessions, post its, photographs

of whiteboards, etc. No evidence presented. A few examples from a limited

number of categories Some examples of evidence.

The range of categories may

be somewhat limited.

Many examples of evidence.

The range of categories may

be somewhat limited.

Comprehensive range of

evidence from many

categories.

Duties Is there evidence of clear

allocation of task and duties,

are actions allocated to

individuals, are these reported

on and followed up No evidence presented. Very limited evidence that

duties have been allocated or

followed up on.

Some evidence that duties

have been assigned, but may

not be any evidence of follow

up.

Substantial evidence that

duties have been assigned and

followed up.

Evidence that every duty has

been appropriately assigned

and followed up.

Communication Is there good communication

from all members, e.g.

frequent posts, comments,

replies on facebook pages,

etc., or does it appear that

there are only a few

contributing No evidence presented. Very limited evidence of

effective communication

between team members.

Evidence of some

communication, but perhaps

only between a subset of

members.

Communication

might only be relatively

infrequent.

Evidence that most group

remembers have been

involved in communication,

and that communication has

been relatively frequent.

Evidence that there has been

outstanding continuous

communication between all of

the group members.

Support Does it appear that the team

has worked as a team

Have

they been supportive of each

other and suggestions, etc.

Was there evidence of

conflicts and was this handled

successfully No evidence presented. Very limited evidence that

team members have

supported each other.

Evidence that there has been

some intra-team support, but

only on very few occasions. Evidence that there has been

substantial intra-team support

on a few occasions. Evidence that there has been

substantial and continuous

intra-team support. Individual Reflective Summary A template document will be provided for you to present an individual reflective

summary of your personal perspective of the Team Project. Further information will be presented in the last lecture given by Dr Thomas Deadline for submission (Blackboard) is 12.00 on 8th May

Recommendations (to get started) Form your teams Read the briefs above Allocate initial tasks and team assignments URB generation Chat with us (your customers) It is expected you will meet in your teams at least once per

week as per the organisation of the PM

MATS23702最先出现在KJESSAY历史案例。