Design Project

Poster Presentation
Course Number circle one:
COEN 4720 (Embedded Systems)

EECE 3015 (Digital Lab)

ELEN 3110 (Fields 1)

CRITERIA (weight)
Project clearly defined
(5%)
Project rationale clearly
defined
(5%)

GRADING SCALE
Below expectations
(10-70)
Vague definition of project reader
not really sure what the project does.
Project rationale is vaguely defined
Reader not sure why the project was
done

ELEN 3035 (Analog Lab)

Satisfies or Exceeds expectations
(70-100)
Clear definition of project given. User
knows what problem has been solved.
Project rationale is clearly defined
Reader knows why the project was done
(what need is met)

Approach to design
solution guided by
understanding of
engineering sciences
(15%)
Form and structure of
design clearly
communicated (20%)

Weak indication that team understood

science behind design solution

Team demonstrates adequate

understanding and use of scientific
principles to guide the design process

Form and structure of final design is

vague

Form and structure of final design is

clearly communicated

Effectiveness of poster
(10%)

Poster does not contribute to

presentation ignored or only
vaguely referred to during
presentation
Presenter falters when presenting
technical information (misuses terms)

Poster contributes to presentation was

referred to properly during presentation
and can be used as a stand-alone aid for
a general audience
Presenter uses all technical terms
appropriately and defines them if the
term is new to the audience.
Reviewer has the impression that all
members of the team contributed
appropriately to the project
design/build/test work.
Reader is impressed with poster and
project. Sufficient detail is given in
poster to convince viewer of projects
value. External user can operate the
project successfully.
Meets expectations for entry level
engineers
Reasonable amount of work completed
for size of team

Presentation skills
(10%)
Teamwork (5%)

Reviewer gets the impression that

most of the work was done by only
one team member.

Overall impression
(20%)

Reader is not impressed with the

poster or project. Insufficient detail in
poster for (external) user to operate
the project successfully.

Quality of engineering
work performed (5%)
Quantity of project work
completed (5%)
PROJECT SUCCESS
System Performance
Does it work? (100%)

Below expectations for entry level

engineers
Inadequate amount of work
completed for size of team
System does not work at all or
Subset of system performs, but
project does not meet specifications
and/or objectives.

SCORE
Score
(0 100)

System works and all specifications and

objectives are met.

Project name: _________________________________________________________________

Team Members Names: ________________________________________________________
Note: If any of the criteria items listed are missing, then a score of 0 for the particular criteria
item is justified.
Enter a score from 0 to 100 for each criteria.