Budget/Acknowledgements How was budget developed and Description of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2016 MATE ROV Competition Product Presentation Rubric Class (circle one): NAVIGATOR SCOUT Judge:__________________________ Team#:________ School Name and #:_________________________________ Category Scoring Criteria Points 0 – Poor or missing Safety Inspection 3 - Excellent 2 - Very Good 1 - Good Warning labels and safeguards on Clearly marked warning labels, Warning labels, safeguards in Some warning labels, safeguards No warning labels, did not pass potentially hazardous parts, other safeguards clearly in place, fuses place, not as well marked as in place, fuses in place, no safety inspection vehicle specific safety precautions, in place, thoroughly described could be, fuses in place, mention of safety precautions, did passed safety inspection other safety precautions, passed mentioned safety precautions, not pass safety inspection safety inspection passed safety inspection Comments: Team Presentation Category Scoring Criteria Points 0 – Poor or missing Teamwork 3 - Excellent 2 - Very Good 1 - Good Preparation of presentation and Strong whole team effort, Clearly prepared, organized, Prepared, fairly organized, partial Underprepared, unorganized, required documentation exceptionally prepared, articulate, contribution from all team effort, good documentation lack of whole team effort, poor documentation very strong members, documents in order or missing documentation Originality/Salesmanship Style of presentation, effective Dynamic presentation, team went Good presentation, satisfied Lackluster presentation, below Poor presentation, lacked any salesmanship and tied to beyond expectations, tied expectations, make links to expectations, vague mention of salesmanship or connection to theme/mission presentation well into theme theme theme theme Insight/Creativity Innovations, challenges faced, Innovative/creative solutions Interesting solutions, not Solutions demonstrated for Did not face challenges well, lessons learned, determination to presented to well described necessarily novel, described challenges faced, but not did not understand challenges resolve challenges challenges and lessons learned, challenges faced, demonstrated particularly creative, did not or solutions well enough to tenacity quite evident tenacity demonstrate tenacity describe Understanding Demonstration of ROV systems, Strong understanding of ROV Good understanding of ROV Some understanding of ROV Little understanding of ROV science, operation and mission theme systems, provided much detail of systems, provided some detail of systems, underlying science, and systems, underlying science, underlying science, and application underlying science, and application to theme and application to theme to theme application to theme Corporate Team Memory Team Described how team evolved in Describes influences from past Little corporate memory, people, This is not a cohesive team people and roles to meet or new team members roles challenges 1

Budget/Acknowledgements How was budget developed and Description of budget, Some issues with budget Loose description of budget, Poor description, poor use of acknowledges all levels of support acknowledgement of donations, description, acknowledgement of mediocre use of funds funds, no acknowledgement of excellent use of funds donations, good use of funds donations Comments: Category Scoring Criteria Points 0 – Poor or missing Design/Workmanship 3 - Excellent 2 - Very Good 1 - Good Strengths of the overall design, Excellent overall design, well- Very good overall design, nice Good overall design, functional, Poor overall design, many aesthetically pleasing, and application conceived, elegant design, robust features to make the vehicle but some better design choices better decisions could have to mission design, aesthetically pleasing in aesthetically pleasing as well as could have been made, as well as been made, very clunky, addition to excellent functionality; functional and durable; a bit more effort to make the aesthetically unpleasing design; clearly understands the mission somewhat understands the vehicle aesthetically pleasing as no attention to mission and reflected it in vehicle design mission and reflected it in well as functional and durable; requirements with respect to vehicle design vehicle design does not strongly design correlate to the mission Conception, design, build and Team clearly described how the Team provided some description Team provided vague description No detail provided, skeptical of troubleshooting company brainstormed ideas, their of the thought process, design of thought process, design, and whole team effort or potential design and troubleshooting and troubleshooting, but not fully troubleshooting process over involvement of an adult process, and why their solution is clear, no strong attention to mission specific mission specific choices Comments: System Design and Vehicle Inspection Category Scoring Criteria Points 0 – Poor or missing Engineering design rationale 3 - Excellent 2 - Very Good 1 - Good Description of how design or Excellent description in a clear, Good description of how vehicle Fair description of how vehicle was Poor description or component selection allowed the logical manner of how vehicle was was built to perform specific built to task, descriptions needed understanding of vehicle design vehicle to complete the missions built to perform specific tasks tasks, could have been more more detail or made weak design organized and detailed in choices or materials choices, descriptions of decision-making better organization needed 2

0 – Poor or missing New vs. used, original vs. 3 - Excellent 2 - Very Good 1 - Good commercial Original vs. commercial components The majority of the components Many of the components were A few of the components were None of the components were explanation, especially those which were designed and built by the designed and built by the team designed and built by the team and designed by the team and no are mission specific team and for the commercial and for the commercial for the commercial components make v buy rationale was components used, team provided components used the team used the team provided a weak provided a reasonable/believable/logical provided an acceptable make v make v buy rationale provided make v buy explanation buy rationale New vs. re-used and decisions for use The majority of components are Some components are new this A few components are new this Same vehicle as last year, it of components new this year and for those that year and for those that were year and the team was unable to was clear that no one on the were reused, the team provided an reused, the team provided a provide a new v. reused rationale team or only one team member excellent and reasonable/logical good new v. reused rationale understood any decisions new v. reused rationale 0 – Poor or missing Control System 3 - Excellent 2 - Very Good 1 - Good Control scheme Well-conceived, well organized, Organized, designed logically, Organized, but inefficient and/or Poorly conceived, inefficient designed logically, efficient, able to efficient, able to describe, other design flaws describe system, has unique nothing novel or unique features 0 – Poor or missing Buoyancy and Ballast 3 - Excellent 2 - Very Good 1 - Good Description of system and rationale Accurately describes how the Provides a description of the Provides a description of the Cannot provide a substantive system works and application and system and importance to system, demonstration of description of the system, importance to mission, full vehicle, demonstration of knowledge of system cannot provide a substantive demonstration of knowledge of knowledge of selection and use demonstration of knowledge of selection and use of system of system the system Propulsion Total = 2 points Thruster location and rationale Thrusters securely attached Yes (1 point) No (0 points) Do not obstruct water flow Yes (1 point) No (0 points) Tether Total = 3 points Tether management system Tether is securely attached Yes (1 point) No (0 points) Tether is neatly bundled Yes (1 point) No (0 points) Tether management Yes (1 point) No (0 points) protocol developed 0 – Poor or missing Payload Tools 3 - Excellent 2 - Very Good 1 - Good Payload tools used and apply to Payload tools are Some payload tools are original COTS tools used and do not No payload tools mission original, designed, built by team or And useful to mission strongly correlate to mission, no unique modifications and very modifications to mission useful to mission Score Sub-Total (50 points max) 3