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

学霸联盟