Mechatronic System Design Project II (METR4810)

All students must actively participate in the mechatronics system design process and professional communication. This engagement is assessed as a sequence of incremental tasks pertaining to design deconstruction, analysis, synthesis, and communication comprising a mix of individual and team tasks.

Engagement is assessed as a sequenced (linked) mandatory assessment at approximately every week, and then every three weeks. These include:

1. Problem Analysis 1 due week 2, Friday* 13:37 pm, submitted via Blackboard
2. Problem Analysis 2 due week 3, Friday* 13:37 pm, submitted via Blackboard
3. Progress Review 1 due week 4, Monday to Friday*, scheduled in class,
4. Progress Seminar due week 7, Monday to Friday*, scheduled in class,
5. Progress Review 2 due week 10, Monday to Friday*, scheduled in class.

The problem analyses assess the level of engagement with the analytical design process; the progress reviews and seminar assess the level of active participation on team project tasks and ability to communicate engineering process and progress. In special cases, permission may be granted for students to undertake review sessions outside of nominated times. Such permission will not be granted unless exceptional personal circumstances prevent attendance (e.g. documented medical reason or family emergency).

At each progress review, the progress seminar and the end of semester, you will be asked to evaluate each member of your team; they will of course be evaluating you. The ongoing evaluations give you feedback on your performance as perceived by your team members. The combined evaluations over the course of the semester will be used collectively to modify your product mark.

Part A: Problem Analysis 1 (individual) - 25%

The objective of the design analysis is to prompt the student to systematically deconstruct the class project; the first problem analysis considers an example project brief for practice while the second considers the class project brief itself. Students will be assessed on the thoroughness and insight demonstrated in the analysis, as well as the viability of the proposed solution. A marking rubric sheet will be used to score the analysis; these will be available on the blackboard site.

The student must answer the following questions about the practice project brief task. Each answer should be two or three lines at most, except where specified:

•    What is the overall problem to be solved?
•    What makes solving this problem difficult?
•    What is/are the actual engineering challenge(s)? Note: there may be more than one. An engineering challenge is one that must be solved with an engineering solution.
•    Can you buy a system off the shelf that solves this problem? If not, what capability is missing?
•    Which elements of the problem are most important to solve, and why are they important?
•    What are the three most important restrictions or limitations imposed by the brief, and why?
•    What important restrictions or limitations exist that are not explicitly mentioned in the brief? Eg. For any system that must work outdoors, you must design around expected Brisbane ambient tropospheric conditions.

Describe, in one paragraph each, four very different solutions that you could use to solve this problem.

•    Which of them is the most practical, and why?
•    Which of them is the second most practical, and why?

Consider your most practical solution idea:

•    What parts of this solution are most important to get right, and why are they important?
•    Which of thee restrictions or limitations you mentioned above will have the most impact on this solution, and why?
•    How would you change your solution if the restrictions or limitations weren't there?
•    How much do you think it would cost to implement?
•    How long do you think it would take to implement?
•    What tools do you think would be needed to implement it?
•    What things do you think might go wrong?
•    How would you test it before you deployed it in the field?
•    Which answer to these questions would be most different for your second-most practical design, and why?

Please include in your response an indication of how long this assignment took to complete. This is an individual assessment, and all work submitted must be the student's own work. Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides emerging tools that may support students in completing this assessment task. Students may appropriately use AI in completing this assessment task. Students must clearly reference any use of AI in each instance (for example, with a footnote indicating that a paragraph was AI-supported and what AI system was used, or in an appendix text outlining which specific sections and subsections of the report were AI-supported). A failure to reference AI use may constitute student misconduct under the Student Code of Conduct.

Part B: Problem Analysis 2 (individual) - 25%

This task is per Part A, but applied to the class project brief.

Part C: Progress Review 1 (individual) - pass/fail

The objective of the progress reviews is to track student progress and motivate teams to make regular progress.  During each progress review, teams will meet with teaching staff and demonstrate advancement towards the project goal. Each team member must show tangible individual evidence (eg. prototypes, compiled running code, analytical derivations) of his or her work and contributions since the previous review. Students will be given a pass or fail mark based on peer feedback, the quality of evidence presented and the progress made relative to the project deadline. A failing mark will be strongly indicative to the teaching staff that the student is not meeting course objectives; a single failed progress meeting will cap the Part D mark at 5 marks, and two will cap the Seminar mark at zero.  Progress reviews will be scheduled in Week 4 and 10, during lecture, practical and contact times, or at a time nominated by the course coordinator. In the first progress review, the team must collectively submit a written duty statement for each student which outlines his or her specific role, objectives and responsibilities in the team, countersigned by each member of the team. If the duty statement is found to be inadequately precise or detailed, the team may be required to resubmit it before a pass mark is awarded.

This is an individual assessment, and all work presented must be the student's own work.

Part D: Progress Seminar (team) - 50%

The objective of the seminar is to give students experience in presenting their work and ideas in a semi-formal setting. The team will provide a 10 minute seminar outlining their approach and progress towards developing their solution. Each student should present for roughly equal time. A hard copy of any slides used must be submitted during the seminar. Seminars will be scheduled in Week 7, during lecture, practical and contact times, or at a time nominated by the course coordinator.

This is a team assessment, and all team members are expected to contribute.

Part E: Progress Review 2 (individual) - pass/fail

Per Part C; no additional duty statement is required, though a revised one may be submitted at this time.

Covid Backup Plan

For this assessment item, should access to campus be affected by Covid-19 restrictions, presentations will take place via Zoom or MS Teams during the scheduled class times.

Criteria & Marking:

Parts A, B: Students will be assessed on the thoroughness and insight demonstrated in the analysis, as well as the viability of the proposed solution. If the score received for Part B is greater than that of Part A then, provided the score received for Part A is greater than zero, the score for Part B will be used for both parts (in effect, making Part B worth 50%).

Parts C, E: Students will demonstrate to teaching staff and peers that they have made progress in the preceding period. This must be accompanied by demonstrated, tangible evidence of their contribution.

Part D: The mark will consist of a team component (5 out of possible 15 marks) which will be the same for all students in the team, and an individual component (10 of 15 marks). Teams will be assessed on content (e.g., was everything covered), organisation, timing, flow (did the presentation "hang together" or was it just 4 individuals?) and the student's score will be scaled by the second PAF. Individuals will be assessed on content, visual aids (e.g. slides/demos/prototypes), presentation skills. Failure to successfully pass one or more progress reviews will entail a 5 or 10 mark cap on this assessment item.

Detailed marksheets for each part will be provided on the course Blackboard site. The course coordinator reserves the right to adjust grades in accordance with students evidenced level of active participation and achievement.

UQ Students: Please access the profile from Learn.UQ or mySI-net to access marking criteria held in this profile.

The objective of the product is for students to develop their practical engineering and problem solving skills. The team will be assessed on the performance of their solution and the quality of the engineering demonstrated. Specific details of the task requirements, limitations, minimum functionality and building guidelines are provided in the Description, Rules and Regulations document; note that this specification will change over the course of the class. Testing of projects will be scheduled in Week 13, during lecture, practical and contact times. The product mark awarded to individual students will be weighted by peer assessment factors.

At the demonstration, you must submit an appropriate sized box which contains the following:

• Your product, including any infrastructure, software installation CD or USB drive, cables, batteries (which should be uninstalled) etc as required for the product to be tested (with exception of lab PCs).
• A printed copy of all schematic files documenting all electrical components (resistors, capacitors, integrated circuits, connectors etc), and schematics and technical drawings of mechanical components. All parts must be named appropriately (e.g. R1, C1, U1, J1 etc) and be labelled with part numbers and/or values as required.
• Printed copy of all source code files (software and firmware) used in the product.
• Printed copy of the product budget, which lists component names (if applicable, from schematic), description - including manufacturer name and part number if appropriate (or PCB dimensions in the case of PCBs), quantity used, supplier (e.g. RS, Element14 etc if applicable), supplier part number, cost (ex GST, for the minimum number that must be ordered from that supplier to meet the quantity used).
• Any supporting documentation deemed necessary to operate the product (e.g. user manual).
• Any other relevant information you wish to submit (e.g. documentation of the work required to finish an incomplete product).
• A USB drive/CD/DVD containing electronic copies of ALL schematics (Altium Designer, Eagle or PDF format), PCBs (Altium Designer, Eagle or PDF format), code (final source code and project files/Makefiles required to build your code), budget (in a format readable by LibreOffice or Microsoft Excel), and any other documentation submitted with the product. This USB drive/CD/DVD must be separate to any required software installation CD or USB drive.

Assessment of the product will be carried out by teaching staff in a demonstration session during the final week of semester. The system must be delivered in testable form at the scheduled demonstration time. The product mark will be based substantially on the performance of the product during evaluation. It is very important that the product is functioning correctly during the demonstration session, and that clear instructions are provided as to how the product is operated. Outside of the incremental demos, past performance will not be considered. Re-evaluation of the product at a later date will not be entered into. The course coordinator may vary group marks for each group member in the event of varied contributions to the team effort.

Whilst marks may be given for working subsystems, the assessment scheme is biased towards completeness. Marking criteria will reflect minimum expected functionality, budget and engineering standards outlined in the Description, Rules and Regulations document. If the final product does not completely function, working prototypes and incremental progress may be assessed on their merits according to the marking criteria. Anything not submitted in the box at the demonstration session cannot be assessed. Late projects will not be assessed.

Bonus marks may be awarded for additional functionality or improved performance, efficiency or cost, as outlined in the Description, Rules and Regulations document. Penalties will be applied for failing to meet specific requirements or exceeding design restrictions or limitations. Penalties will also apply for missing or inaccurate files/documentation submitted with the product (and for inconsistencies between printed and electronic documentation). If the provided budget is inaccurate (too low), a penalty will apply to each line that is incorrect or each line item that is missing; the budget will be corrected and any budget bonuses/penalties will be calculated based on the corrected budget. Penalties will apply for accurate budgets which are too high overall. If any other files (schematics, source code etc) are missing (eg. either printed copy or USB drive/CD/DVD), inaccurate or inconsistent, a per file penalty will apply.

Prior to the final demonstration of the product, teams will have opportunities to show incremental progress. At each incremental demo, students may elect to show their current system functionality and receive a mark scored against the performance criteria – capped at 25%, 50% and 75% of full marks for the first, second and third incremental demos, respectively. Should the final demo score be less than that of the highest incremental demo score, the highest demo score will be awarded preferentially. This mechanism is to motivate students to start on the project early, provide early feedback about their progress, and act as a safety-net against unexpected disasters in the last two weeks of semester. It is not mandatory to attempt an incremental demo. Incremental demo slots will be scheduled during lecture, practical or contact session times in weeks 7, 9 and 11, by appointment only.

A product mark sheet will be used for assessment. The mark sheet will be made available on the course Blackboard site. The Description, Rules and Regulations document will be available on the course Blackboard site. The final product mark will be scaled to be out of 60. Applicable penalties and bonuses will then be applied and the resulting mark will be adjusted by peer assessment and teaching staff moderation to yield individual product marks.  Students must present their student ID during final product demonstration on request; failure to present ID will result in an the student being awarded a zero for the assessment.

Submission of engineering projects on-time and to spec is a key technical and professional skill for engineers the world over; this class seeks to emulate this reality to train our students to face immovable deadlines with harsh penalties. Teams working in industry are expected to plan to meet their deadlines and allow for contingencies and other issues as they arise through good team management and appropriate redundancy in workload allocation. The same is expected of teams in METR4810. In many instances, late submissions of reports, tender documents etc will not be accepted. For this reason, and as part of preparing you to enter the professional workforce, the late penalty in METR4810 is as follows: this assessment a 100% late penalty.

This is a team assessment, and all team members are expected to contribute. At each progress review, the progress seminar and the end of semester, you will be asked to evaluate each member of your team; they will of course be evaluating you. The ongoing evaluations give you feedback on your performance as perceived by your team members. The combined evaluations over the course of the semester will be used collectively to modify your product mark.

The evaluations will be performed by having each team member assessed by the other team members using a peer assessment form. Team members are to use the following criteria:

Team Player - Did this person work as a member of a team? Did they wait to be told what to do? Alternatively, did they attempt to control the whole project?

Creative Input - The extent to which this team member contributed to generating new ideas in the project, and general problem solving ability.

Technical Contribution - The technical skills that this team member brought to the project in areas such as circuit design, software design, PCB layout and assembly skills. This criteria does not apply to Managers.

Reliability - Did this person perform his or her assignments effectively and on-time? Did this person respond to emails and return phone calls?

Hard Work - The extent to which this person slogged away at their appointed tasks, regardless of their success in achieving good outcomes.

Communication - Was this person easy to communicate with? Did you have difficulties understanding their issues? Did they have difficulties understanding yours?

Meeting Attendance - Did this person attend meetings on-time and every week?

Where teaching staff suspect that a PAF has been used improperly, the course coordinator may vary the PAF scores awarded. The course coordinator reserves the right to adjust grades in accordance with students evidenced level of active participation and achievement.

For each review, a peer assessment factor will be calculated: (4 * Your Peer Mark / Total of Peer Marks Assigned in Your Team)^0.6.

This formula also normalises for team sizes other than 4. A three member team will typically have peer assessment factors greater than 1 (meaning they don't have to implement as much functionality to get the same overall product mark as a four member team). A five member team will typically have peer assessment factors less than 1 (meaning they will have to implement more functionality to get the same mark as a four member team).

As an example, if all members of a team receive equal peer marks, your peer assessment factor will be 1. If you are in a three person team and all members of the team receive equal peer marks, your peer assessment factor will be 1.188. If you are in a five person team and all members of the team receive equal peer marks, your peer assessment factor will be 0.875.

Your overall Cumulative Peer Assessment Factor applied to the product mark is the weighted sum of the four PAFs according to the following scale:

Progress review 1 (PAF1): 10%

Progress seminar (PAF2): 20%

Progress review 2 (PAF3): 30%

Final demo (PAF4):      40%

CPAF = PAF1 * 0.1 + PAF2 * 0.2 + PAF3 * 0.3 + PAF4 * 0.4

In this way, consistent performance across the whole semester is rewarded, while last minute failure is not as severely punished as a single PAF measurement. Students who enroll late, after the assignation of teams, will not be assessed on PAF1, and will use:

CPAF = PAF2 * 0.23 + PAF3 * 0.33 + PAF4 * 0.44

Where a student may be moved to a different team (eg. where other students withdraw and reducing the team size to two or fewer students), any pre-existing PAF scores from the old team will be retained, and subsequent PAF scores will be provided by the new team.

Your final product mark is the raw product mark, scaled by the cumulative peer assessment factor: final product mark = raw product mark * CPAF

The objective of the report is to provide students with experience in preparing formal documentation for clients and employers that explain and justify the technical approach undertaken and its merits. The student must submit a concise report that describes his or her approach to solving their subtask, how it relates to the other subsystems within the project and the analytical process that was used in developing the solution. The report will describe in detail the formal, disciplined, quantitative engineering process followed by the student that demonstrates the feasibility of the approach taken. The core of the report is to be no more than six A4 pages, excluding title page and any bibliography. Calculations, simulation results, technical drawings and such supporting data may be included in additional appendices. The report may also include a reflection in the appendices that discusses the student's experiences, what unexpected difficulties were faced, and what social or personal issues may have arisen.

The report may be submitted via Blackboard any time up to the deadline. The most recent version submitted as of 13:37 on the last day of Week 11 will be reviewed by teaching staff and returned with comments on how the student can improve the report for final submission. Any comments on the preliminary version have no bearing on the mark awarded for the final report and no element of the preliminary report will be considered in assigning the final report mark. The most recent version of the report received as of the final deadline is construed to be the final report submission.

Students will be marked against the analytical, disciplined engineering process followed during the project, coherent description of their approach and insightful discussion of issues, problems and technical challenges, and their solutions. A detailed marking sheet will be available on Blackboard. The course coordinator reserves the right to adjust grades in accordance with students evidenced level of achievement.

Please include in your response an indication of how long this assignment took to complete. This is an individual assessment, and all work submitted must be the student's own work; where reference is made to other team members' work, it must be clearly delineated as the work of others. Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides emerging tools that may support students in completing this assessment task. Students may appropriately use AI in completing this assessment task. Students must clearly reference any use of AI in each instance (for example, with a footnote indicating that a paragraph was AI-supported and what AI system was used, or in an appendix text outlining which specific sections and subsections of the report were AI-supported). A failure to reference AI use may constitute student misconduct under the Student Code of Conduct.