IDP I TITLE, RUBRICS AND
COURSE CALENDAR
SEM II
INTEGRATED DESIGN PROJECT I
TITLE: Design and development of Compact and
Portable Micro-Hydro Power Generation System
Prepared by:
Prepared by:
Dr Fevilia Nurnadia Binti Adria Syaifoel
Fevilia@uniten.edu.my
1
Assessment
Mark allocation:
a. Progress Report
20%
30%
15%
10%
15%
10%
b. Bridging Report
c. Quality of Conceptual Design
d. Peer Review
e. Design Notebook
f. Oral Presentation
*
The Peer Evaluation must be submitted together with all group-based assessment.
It will be used as multiplier to determine the individual marks for each group-based assessment.
WEEK / ITEM
DATE
LECTURER
Activity
WEEK 1
10 – 14 FEB 2025
*THAIPUSAM
Fevilia
Course Outline/Structure
WEEK 2
17 – 21 FEB 2025
Fevilia
WEEK 3
24 – 28 FEB 2025
Fevilia
WEEK 4
03 – 07 MARCH 2025
Fevilia
IDP I VISIT
WEEK 5
10 – 14 MARCH 2025
Fevilia
Stage 1: Clarity and define the task/ Stage 2:
Determine functions and their structure/
WEEK 6
17 – 21 MARCH 2025
*NUZUL ALQURAN
Fevilia
Stage 2: Determine functions and their structure
WEEK 7
24 – 28 MARCH 2025
*Online Class
Fevilia
Stage 3: Search for solution principles and their
combination
Group discussion & Activity,
**Progress Report Submission
31 – 04 APRIL 2025
MIDSEM Break
WEEK 8
07 – 11 APRIL 2025
Fevilia
Stage 4.5.6: Design Modules/ 3D Model
WEEK 9
14 – 18 APRIL 2025
Fevilia
Feedback Discussion
WEEK 10
21 – 25 APRIL 2025
Fevilia
Group discussion & Activity
WEEK 11
28 – 02 MAY 2025
*LABOUR DAY
Fevilia
Group discussion & Activity
WEEK 12
05 – 09 MAY 2025
Fevilia
WEEK 13
12 – 16 MAY 2025
*WESAK DAY
Fevilia
WEEK 14
19 – 23 MAY 2025
*Tentative: 21 MAY 2025
Fevilia
Introduction to Product Development and Design
Process/VDI2221/Grouping
Stage 1: Clarity and define the task/Project
Introduction/ Course calendar and title
Progress Design Solution
**Design notebook submission
Preparation/ IDP Design Exhibition / Oral
Presentation / Teamwork Evaluation /
IDP Design Exhibition / Oral Presentation /
Teamwork Evaluation /
** Submission of Bridging Report
26 JUNE 2025- FINAL EXAMINATION
Note: There will be minor changes in Lesson Plan during the semester
1
Assessment Rubric: Progress Report
Instruction to students:
The dateline for Proposal/Statement of Work submission is (refer Coordinator announcement).
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
The overall scenario related to the project
1.2. Project Description
Verbatim from project supervisor and detailed project description.
1.3. Project objectives
1.4. Project scope
1.5. Project deliverables and Expected Outcome
Project Planning
1.6. Organizational chart
Organizational chart of the group, logo, motto and job description
1.7. Gantt Chart
Detailed project activities including Milestone describing the whole project
2.
BACKGROUND STUDY
Description of system as it existed before the project began or the existing system proposed in previous project.
This chapter is to discuss the initial layout/ existing solution so that you can get clear understanding about the methods of operation and required function.
EXISTING DESIGNS/DESIGN RESEARCH
2.1 Literature/ Article Review
2.2 Closely Related Product and Function
2.3 Background research/Product benchmarking/IP/
The wide range of existing designs were identified, technical survey / interview, research article, literature review, patent review and benchmarking.
Review on the other similar technology or principle applied to other field for solving similar mechanism or function.
Description of alternative design approaches and methods, based on a system analysis and functional decomposition
2.4 Survey/Interview/Site Investigation
2.5 Related design standard and codes
A clear description of the related design standard and codes in completing the project.
3.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
3.1. Customer Requirements (CRs)
3.2. Engineering Requirements (ERs)
3.3. Product Design Specification (PDS)
4.
CONCEPT GENERATION AND SELECTION
4.1 Morphological Diagram
4.2 Method Selection
4.3 Finalised Design-Design Sketching
CONCEPT GENERATION
Extensive descriptions on ideas generated on possible design/solution to problems. This must be accompanied by rough sketches on all ideas with descriptions on the
parts functionality. Approximate dimensions of the components or parts must be made available in your sketches. Attached the scanned (proper!) sketches in this report.
The original sketches must be included in the logbook. Please use proper design methodology tool; preferable morphological diagram.
Required function/mechanism and possible solution
Detailed description of the required function and the possible solution for each function
Summary of the required function and the possible solution for each function in tabulated
form – Morphological diagram
Conceptual Design
• Concept Design 1
• Concept Design 2
• Concept Design 3
• Concept Design 4
• Concept Design 5
Please include overall concept description, design specification, solution for each function, method of operation, description on the component level, SWOT analysis,
etc.
All discussion based on sketch / diagram / chart / illustration.
5.
6.
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Catalogue, product specification, front page research, design codes articles.
Minute of Meeting
Please also note that the maximum number of pages allowed is 25 pages, not inclusive of title page, references and appendices.
The report must use embedded functions provided in Microsoft Words.
Criteria for Evaluating the Progress Report
Area
Poor
0-20%
Introduction
Completely omitted or no
useful content
Objectives not relevant to the
topics given
The Gantt chart is very poor.
Most details are omitted.
Below Average
21-40%
Average
41-60
Description appears to simply be a
rephrasing of original project statement.
Added insight appears to be largely
unsupported student opinion
Objective specified
The Gantt chart is average. Necessary
detail is included
A sufficient discussion of the original
systems structure, operation,
performance, and deficiencies. Claims
made appear to simply be unsupported
student opinion
Only easily accessible sources (e.g., on
the web) were used, but this appears to
be minimally sufficient.
Background Study
Completely omitted or no
useful content
Design Requirement
Little or no engineering
requirements given
Customer and engineering requirement
adequately given
Completely omitted or no
useful content
Fairly obvious examples of existing
designs, search was terminated when
the minimum required number of
existing designs was found
Minimum number of designs is present,
only key CRs are satisfied, creativity
lacking. Rubric-required elements are
satisfied, but in some cases minimally
so.
Sufficient sketches of ideas
Clarity and conciseness
Large sections of text are
missing
Reads like a rough draft. Sentences are
relevant, but may require effort to
understand. Arguments are more-orless effective, but may be weak, with
some misplaced details. Some awkward
sentence construction
Citing source
Rarely / never yes
Usually yes
Concept Generation and
Selection
Good
61-80%
Excellent
81-100%
Description is complete and comprehensive.
Added insight shows clear evidence of
communication with sponsor and other relevant
individuals. Claims are supported by references.
Objective clearly stated based on the background
statement.
The Gantt chart is very thorough and
comprehensive. All details are included. The WBS
looks professional and detailed.
A complete and comprehensive discussion of the
original systems structure, operation,
performance, and deficiencies. Claims made
show clear evidence, as most effective, of
communication with sponsor, other relevant
individuals, actual testing of system, and/or
citing of reliable sources.
The web, textbooks, journals, interviews, and
other sources were used. All relevant sources
were thoroughly used.
Excellent customer and engineering requirement
A very broad, insightful, and innovative look into
systems & technologies both obvious and not
necessarily intended for the application area of
the project but actually very relevant to a
creative and effective design.
Designs considered are creative, span a wide
range of options, and all are shown to be, at
least minimally, capable of satisfying all CRs. All
rubric-required elements are thoroughly
satisfied.
Comprehensive sketches of all ideas.
Polished, controlled writing. Sentence meaning
clear on first reading. Details and references
enhance arguments, and modifiers increase
sentence precision. Wordy constructions (e.g., “It
is/ there are...” sentence starts) are infrequent.
Sentence length correlates with message
complexity (long sentences reserved for complex
ideas).
Always yes to all
Progress Report Mark
Area
%
Introduction
15
Background Study
20
Design Requirement
20
Concept Generation and
Selection
35
Clarity and conciseness
5
Citing source
5
Poor
0-20%
Below Average
21-40%
Total Marks
Average
41-60
Good
61-80%
Excellent
81-100%
Mark
2
Assessment Rubric: Bridging Report
Criteria for Evaluating the Bridging Report
Area
Abstract/ Executive Summary
Introduction
Poor
0-20%
Poor
Completely omitted or no
useful content
Objectives not relevant to the
topics given
The Gantt chart is very poor.
Most details are omitted.
Below Average
21-40%
Average
41-60
Average
Description appears to simply be a
rephrasing of original project statement.
Added insight appears to be largely
unsupported student opinion
Objective specified
The Gantt chart is average. Necessary
detail is included
A sufficient discussion of the original
systems structure, operation,
performance, and deficiencies. Claims
made appear to simply be unsupported
student opinion
Only easily accessible sources (e.g., on
the web) were used, but this appears to
be minimally sufficient.
Good
61-80%
Excellent
81-100%
Excellent
Description is complete and comprehensive.
Added insight shows clear evidence of
communication with sponsor and other relevant
individuals. Claims are supported by references.
Objective clearly stated based on the background
statement.
The Gantt chart is very thorough and
comprehensive. All details are included looks
professional and detailed.
A complete and comprehensive discussion of the
original systems structure, operation,
performance, and deficiencies. Claims made
show clear evidence, as most effective, of
communication with sponsor, other relevant
individuals, actual testing of system, and/or
citing of reliable sources.
The web, textbooks, journals, interviews, and
other sources were used. All relevant sources
were thoroughly used.
Background Study
Completely omitted or no
useful content
Design Requirement
Little or no engineering
requirements given
Customer and engineering requirement
adequately given
Excellent customer and engineering requirement
Concept Generation and
Selection
Completely omitted or no
useful content
Fairly obvious examples of existing
designs, search was terminated when
the minimum required number of
existing designs was found
Minimum number of designs is present,
only key CRs are satisfied, creativity
lacking. Rubric-required elements are
satisfied, but in some cases minimally
so.
Sufficient sketches of ideas
A very broad, insightful, and innovative look into
systems & technologies both obvious and not
necessarily intended for the application area of
the project but actually very relevant to a
creative and effective design.
Designs considered are creative, span a wide
range of options, and all are shown to be, at
least minimally, capable of satisfying all CRs. All
rubric-required elements are thoroughly
satisfied.
Comprehensive sketches of all ideas.
Embodiment Design
Completely omitted or no
useful content
Very incomplete or
incorrect justification; lack
Major components critical features
specified and technically justified,
some less-than critical features left
Complete description with appropriate
technical justification, of each component
of the design.
Drawing
Clarity and conciseness Citing
source
of effort for improving and
justified the decision on
the design.
No Virtual performance
simulation / testing
through CAD / CAM / FEA
or experiments on a
workable design are
discussed.
The design is unrealistic
for manufacturing process.
unspecified. Minor components
description is partially missing.
Some of the discussion have been
correctly justified and discussed
and partially incomplete.
Virtual performance simulation /
testing through CAD / CAM / FEA or
experiments on a workable design
are briefly discussed.
The design is within capabilities of
manufacturing process.
The important design optimizations have
been justified correctly and discussed.
Virtual performance simulation / testing
through CAD / CAM / FEA / experiments on
a workable design are presented.
The design leads to realistic plan to
manufacture it.
Multi-view of each parts
with dimensions, assembly
and exploded view of the
final product and Bill of
material are missing.
Multi-view of each parts with
dimensions, assembly and exploded
view of the final product and Bill of
material are partially missing.
Multi-view of each parts with dimensions,
assembly and exploded view of the final
product and Bill of material are presented
using UNITEN drawing template.
Software/computer coding and calculations
related to the project are included.
Large sections of text are
missing
Rarely / never yes
Reads like a rough draft. Sentences are
relevant, but may require effort to
understand. Arguments are more-orless effective, but may be weak, with
some misplaced details. Some awkward
sentence construction
Usually yes
Polished, controlled writing. Sentence meaning
clear on first reading. Details and references
enhance arguments, and modifiers increase
sentence precision. Wordy constructions (e.g., “It
is/ there are...” sentence starts) are infrequent.
Sentence length correlates with message
complexity (long sentences reserved for complex
ideas).
Always yes to all
Bridging Report Mark
Area
%
Abstract
5
Introduction
5
Background Study
10
Design Requirement
10
Concept Generation and
Selection
10
Embodiment Design
30
Drawing
25
Clarity and conciseness Citing
source
5
Poor
0-20%
Below Average
21-40%
Total Marks
Average
41-60
Good
61-80%
Excellent
81-100%
Mark
3
Assessment Rubric: Presentation
Criteria
Very poor
Poor
Satisfactory
Good
Excellent
1
2
3
Acceptable usage of presentation
tools
4
5
Poor usage of presentation tools
1
Presentation
Tools
Blurry pictures, too many texts,
small font size. No effort is seen in
the usage of effective presentation
tools.
Incoherent
2
Fluency
Poor command of language,
improper usage of grammar. Not
organized. Self-interrupted
presentation.
Poor Execution
3
Style of Delivery
4
Adequacy of
technical
content
5
Question and
Answer
Slides are in order (coherent) but
barely readable.
Fair
Acceptable command of language
with occasional grammar errors.
Able to organize the thought process
according to content. Occasionally
using flashcards/notes.
Fair Execution
Very rigid, monotone voice, poor
voice projection. No eye-contact.
Poor time keeping (presentation was
either too short or too long).
Proper gestures. Acceptable use of
space and movement. Good eye
contact. There is voice projection.
Good time keeping (finish just in
time).
Insufficient / irrelevant contents
Adequate and relevant contents
Insufficient technical contents in
presentation and most contents are
not within the required scope.
Technical contents in the
presentation are just enough. Most
of the contents are relevant to the
work.
No attempt
Unable / no effort to answer the
questions.
No justification given.
Attempt
Most of the questions can be
answered and supported with
evidence.
Mark
percentage
Mastery of presentation tools
Extra effort in the manipulation of
aids and effectively attract and
capture attention of audience, e.g.
use of flash/ macromedia
applications, include the use of
multi-application tools.
Articulate
Highly competent in the usage of
language. Spontaneous without
referring to flashcards/notes.
Excellent Execution
Excellent usage of body gestures to
capture the attention of the
audience. Highly confident. Excellent
intonation and voice control.
Presentation is appropriately
distributed in time according to the
content.
Extra elements with all relevant
contents
In addition to the quality relevant
technical contents, extra elements
were included – outline, problem
statements, motivation,
acknowledgement, proper &
sufficient references, etc.
Confident
All questions can be answered
confidently and calmly, with
convincing justification.
15
10
10
50
15
4
Assessment Rubric: Peer Evaluation
Team Member
Attends group
meetings
regularly and
arrives on time
Name:
ID:
Contributes
meaningfully
to group
discussions.
Completes
group
assignments on
time
Contributes
significantly to
the success of
the project
Prepares work
in a quality
manner
Shows a
cooperative
and supportive
attitude.
Total
Mark
Please rate your team members professionally.
We will demand you to provide justification upon receiving complain from your team member.
Name:
ID:
Name:
ID:
Name:
ID:
Name:
ID:
Name:
ID:
100
100
100
100
The individual mark of each group submission = ∑ (peer evaluation from all team member)/600 * (group mark)
Additional comment:
100
100
600
Comment
5
Assessment Rubric: Quality of Final Design
Criteria
1
2
Innovation
Marketability
Very poor
Poor
Satisfactory
Good
Excellent
1
2
3
4
5
Limited
Sufficient
Very limited attempt to innovate and
identify area for improvement.
Sufficiently considered the
alternatives. Partially inventing or
partially improved existing product.
Limited
Average
The overall product characteristic
does not offer any advantages
compared to the existing products in
the market.
The overall product characteristic is
similar to the existing products in the
market.
Poor
3
Conceptual
Design
Conceptual Design is poorly
developed. The Conceptual Design is
somehow representing the proposed
design/solution with major flaws.
The working principle of the device is
not/partially demonstrated.
Poor
4
Overall
Technical
Achievement
The design is developed based on
intuition. Some of the compulsory
requirements are missing, lack of
innovation and unique features. The
prototype is poorly developed and
does not represent the proposed
design/solution. The overall project
execution and design is poor.
Average
Conceptual Design is just an average.
The Conceptual Design is correctly
representing the proposed
design/solution with minor flaws.
The working principle of the device is
demonstrated and deemed to work
with minor flaws.
Fair
The design is systematically
developed by considering all
compulsory requirements but lack of
innovation and unique features. The
prototype is partially representing
the proposed design/solution with
minor flaws. The overall project
execution and design is just an
average.
Excellent
The final design is selected from a
wide range of imagination or
innovative alternatives with rigorous
consideration and justification.
Totally inventing / significantly
improved existing product / taking
existing products in new directions.
High Potential
The product offers various
advantages compared to the existing
products in the market. It has
market appeal and able to attract
potential buyer.
Excellent
Conceptual Design is excellently
developed. The Conceptual Design is
correctly representing the proposed
design/solution. The working
principle of the device is
demonstrated and deemed to work
excellently.
Excellent
The design is systematically
developed by considering all design
specifications, customer
preferences, optimal functions and
economic constraints. The overall
project execution and design is
excellent.
Mark
percentage
25
25
25
25
6
Assessment Rubric: Design Notebook
Criteria
1
Logbook usage
2
Data collection
3
Commitment to
the task
4
Logbook
content
5
Citing sources
Very poor
Poor
1
2
Satisfactory
Good
3
4
Excellent
5
Mark
percentage
Limited
Sufficient
Excellent
Very low usage of logbook.
Moderate usage of logbook.
Optimum usage of logbook.
Limited
Average
No data collection is recorded.
Records limited number of
sources/references and all the
sources /references are
unreliable/irrelevant.
Sufficient data collections are
recorded. Acceptable analysis of
data. Records many
sources/references with some source
being unreliable/irrelevant.
High Potential
Sufficient data collections are
recorded. Critical analysis of the
data. Records various
sources/references and all are
reliable/relevant.
Poor
Moderate
Excellent
No initiative/interest shown.
Moderate initiative/ interest shown.
Committed to the task.
Poor
Fair
Able to propose innovative/new
ideas but little knowledge on the
implementation.
Records many sources/ references
with some source being unreliable/
irrelevant.
Excellent
Able to propose innovative/new
ideas with detailed approach for
implementation.
30
Records various sources/ references
and all are reliable/relevant.
10
Lack of ideas to solve problems.
Records limited number of sources/
references and all the sources/
references are unreliable/ irrelevant.
30
20
10