Capstone Design Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering IE/ME 498

1. Capstone Design Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering IE/ME 498

2. End-of-term Events & Deliverables • Week 8 • This week • Test & Revise • Week 9 • Status Meeting 6 • Test & Revise • Week 10 • Final Presentations • Engineering Expo Display • Test & Revise • Finals Week (done by 5:00 PM Wed) • Capstone Experience Memo • Final Report • Engineering Notebooks / Memos • Peer Performance Evaluation • Evaluation 2

3. Status Meeting 6Week 9 • Same schedule as Status Meeting 5. See website. • Come to the meeting prepared to discuss your team’s readiness for Evaluation 2 • This is a good time to clarify your understanding of expectations for Evaluation 2.

4. Final PresentationsWeek 10 • Presentations will occur during normal class time(MW 4:00-5:50) • Locations, schedule will be posted on website (no sign up) • Time allotment will be listed on schedule, expect ~ 10 min + Q&A • Evaluation form will be available on website soon • Open format. Present your entire project experience to a general audience. Have fun with it  • More later.

5. Engineering Expo DisplayWeek 10 • Poster template available on web site • Due at Final Presentation, but GTAcan approve earlier • Project manager responsible for staffing & having poster at Expo • No wrinkles, no bubbles(we will reject if present) • Easier to mount when cut into three parts, mounting each separately. • Use spray adhesive. • Laminated seems like a good idea, but laminated posters don't mount on the tri-folds well. • Poster printing available at http://oregonstate.edu/is/mediaservices/sms/undergraduate-posters-and-lamination. • DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE!

6. Capstone Experience MemoFinals Week • Due by 5:00PM Wed. of finals week (The office may close a bit early, so to be safe plan on a 4:30 deadline) • A special drop box will be located in 102DB(Instructors will not see CEMs until after grades are posted) • Assignment form is available on course website under Inventories, Charters, Forms, etc. • More later.

7. Final ReportFinals Week • Due by 5:00PM, Wed. of finals week (4:30 to be safe) • Copies to • Project Sponsor • Faculty advisor / Report grader • Course Instructor (clean, unbound copy for archives) • Chapters 1-5 & associated appendices • Revised as appropriate based on developments since fall term. • Text converted to past tense where appropriate. • See website: • Report Submission and Grading Instructions • Grading Criteria for Final Reports

8. Executive Summary “Self-contained. Well organized and balanced. Good summary of most important parts of project. Written to manager's level, free of jargon and unfamiliar acronyms. Figures, tables (if present) cited. No more than one page long.” • A/A+: Very clear yet concise. Gives an excellent summary of the truly most important parts of the project. Easily understandable by someone with managerial authority for project, yet not condescending. Contains no abbreviations, acronyms, or unfamiliar terminology. Begins with problem statement, balance focuses on key aspects. No more than one page long. A+ is faculty level / journal quality. • B: As A/A+, but not as clear/concise. Too technical or too elementary. Contains some jargon, acronyms. • C: Lacking clarity. Wordy. Missing one or two important points and/or dwelling on unimportant details. Jargon and/or acronyms. Too technical or too elementary. • D: Unclear. Dwelling on unimportant points and missing several major points. Lots of jargon, many acronyms. Too long/short. • F: Major elements missing. Too long/short. • F-: Completely omitted or no useful content

9. 6. Implementation(for Final Report) “Complete, clear description of actual implementation. Final engr. drawings, 3D models, bill of materials, process diagrams, facility layouts, etc., and engineering analyses, if changes were made between Final Proposal and Testing. Photographs of prototype, if appropriate. Project budget with actual expenses. Descriptions of problems encountered in implementation and how they were resolved ”. • A/A+: Clear, technical description of implementation of design described in the Final Proposal (FP) incl. drawings, models, diagrams, budget vs. expenditures, EBOM, and photographs (as useful). The following provided for all changes from FP occurring during implementation: (i) technical motivation, (ii) supporting engr. calculations, (iii) technical drawings, (iv) actual / expected impact on performance, budget, etc. A+ is faculty level / journal quality • B: As A/A+, but lacking completeness / thoroughness (e.g. minor drawings missing, some technical motivation / justification for changes is lacking) • C: All / nearly all elements of A/A+ are present, but significant technical content is lacking in terms of motivation, justification, and description. • D: Multiple key elements are missing (e.g. no motivation for changes, no supporting calculations, no drawings of changes, no budget discussion, etc) • F: Entire sections missing (e.g. no discussion of implementation of FP or changes made) • F-: Completely omitted or no useful content

10. 7. Testing “Description of how each design requirement was tested according to the Testing Procedures of section 2.3. For each test failed, a compelling technical argument as to why success was expected is provided. For each test failure a detailed and technically justified redesign given, including supporting engineering calculations and drawings as necessary.” • A/A+: For each testing procedure, referencing section 2.3, a description is given, a thorough explanation is provided of how the actual test run was conducted, results of the test are given and technically analyzed as appropriate, pass/fail is clearly indicated. If failed, a compelling technical argument is provided as to why success was expected. For each failure, a redesign is provided including technical justification and drawings. A+ is faculty level / journal quality • B: As A/A+ but lacking thoroughness (e.g. some technical rigor lacking in arguments / justifications, some drawing detail is missing) • C: All / nearly all elements of A/A+ are present, but significant technical content is lacking in terms of why success was expected or why redesigns will work. • D: Multiple key elements are missing (e.g. no description of actual test runs, no meaningful discussion of test results, no discussion of redesigns for failures) • F: Entire sections missing (e.g. no mention of redesigns for test failures) • F-: Completely omitted or no useful content

11. Clarity and Conciseness • “Clear, concise, and focused; main ideas stand out; supporting details and references are effective and relevant. Writing is free of padding with no unnecessary repetition.” • A/A+: 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). A+ is faculty level / journal quality. • B: Point of sentence apparent, but some rearranging would help. Arguments are effective, but could be made more so with additional detail & references. Sentence length is appropriate for content, and words are used effectively. • C: Reads like a rough draft. Sentences are relevant, but may require effort to understand. Arguments are more-or-less effective, but may be weak, with some misplaced details. Some awkward sentence construction. • D: Some sentences irrelevant, others difficult to understand. Incomplete, ineffective arguments. Appears text was added simply to increase word count. • F: Large sections of text are incomprehensible. • F-: Large sections of text are missing. Focus here is on sentence-level issues; Issues of organizational clarity are covered in following section

12. Organization • “Effective sequencing and paragraph breaks. Writing is easy to follow. Writing includes smooth, effective transitions among sentences, paragraphs, and ideas. Details fit where placed.” • A/A+: Sections begin with introductory text. Paragraphs begin with topic sentence; middle sentences expand topic; ending sentences summarize & transition. Bulleted/numbered lists used appropriately & correctly. Transitional language guides idea flow. Tables, figures & appendices constructed and captioned properly and introduced/addressed in text. A+ is faculty level / journal quality. • B: Section introductions, paragraph and list structure, and table, figure, & appendix use are handled properly, but frequently could be improved. • C: Most sections begin w/ intro sentence / paragraph. Paragraph structure exists, but topic sentences may be weak & transitions sometimes absent. Lists, tables, figures, appendices used, but referencing & captioning only minimally sufficient. • D: Intro sentences / paragraphs weak or frequently absent. Paragraph structure is evident, but topic sentences or summary / transition sentences are consistently absent. Tables, figures, and appendices not referenced / captioned. • F: Sections lack introductory sentences or paragraphs. No effective paragraph structure. Lists, tables, figures, appendixes are not used or used inappropriately. • F-: Large sections of text are missing.

13. Conventions • “Writing shows control of standard writing conventions (punctuation, spelling, capitalization, grammar, and usage) and uses them effectively to enhance communication. Errors are few and minor.” • Based on number of errors, text appears to have been proofread. • Sentences are complete and grammatically correct. • Punctuation is used correctly (is in the right place and enhances clarity). • Acronyms are spelled out at first mention. • When a sentence begins with a number, the number is spelled out. • Proper nouns are capitalized and all other nouns are lowercased. • Sentence subjects and verbs agree. • Verb tense choices are appropriate. • A/A+: Always or almost always yes to all. A+ is faculty level / journal quality • B: Usually yes, no obvious errors • C: Usually yes, but some obvious errors • D: Occasionally yes • F: Rarely / never yes • F-: Large sections of text are missing

14. Citing Sources • “Significant claims cited in text and listed in References using format given in course syllabus. Tables and figures cited correctly in text. Few omissions or errors.” • Aside from common-knowledge, information from external sources is cited. • Supporting external evidence is provided for all claims / conclusions requiring it. • Cited sources enhance report and author credibility. • Except in section 1.2, borrowed information is paraphrased, not directly quoted. • In-text citations and Reference List entries conform to a technical format. • The Reference List includes all sources cited in text, and no additional sources. • Tables, figures, and images borrowed from other sources are properly cited. • A/A+: Always or almost always yes to all. A+ is faculty level / journal quality • B: Usually yes, no obvious errors • C: Usually yes, but some obvious errors • D: Occasionally yes • F: Rarely / never yes • F-: Large sections of text are missing

15. Engineering Notebooks / MemosFinals Week • Due by 5:00PM, Wed. of finals week outside instructor’s office • Same requirements as fall term

16. Peer Performance EvaluationFinals Week • Due by 5:00PM, Wed. of finals week in 102DB • Use peer review form on website (Peer & Team Performance Review) same as fall term

17. Evaluation TwoFinals Week Fall Term (ME / IE 497) Winter Term (ME / IE 498) IMPLEMENT & TEST Research & Design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 F Final Pres. Teams, Projects Oral Rep.1 Oral Rep.2 Oral Rep.3 Status Mtg.1 Status Mtg.2 Status Mtg.3 Status Mtg.4 Status Mtg.5 Eval. 1 Status Mtg.6 Eval. 2 & Final Rep. Back.. Rep. Prelim. Prop. Final Prop. • Evaluation 2 • Team meeting with instructor • Scored based on extent to which design meets requirements • Evaluated by Instructor for team grade. Criterion: convince a skeptical instructor that the tests have been passed. • 25% of winter term grade Not all course deliverables and meetings are shown, see syllabus

18. Evaluation TwoFinals Week • Evaluation 2, more details… • Tests must be conducted EXACTLY as you wrote them in the Final Proposal (unless changed by petition) • Targets and tolerances will be used EXACTLY as you wrote them in the Final Proposal (unless changed by petition) • No petitions accepted during Evaluation 2 time slot • Grading procedure • Students present results from a given test • Results are compared to target value with tolerance • If result is within tolerance, credit given for satisfying ER • All ERs associated with a given CR must be satisfied to earn weighting points for CR • Sum of earned weighting points is E2 score • Burden is on students to convince instructor that test was run properly and results meet targets within tolerances. • Ambiguous results will be interpreted as a failure

19. Communications Deliverable Comments From Tracy Ann Robinson

20. Final Report • New Content • Executive Summary • One-page narrative intended for executive-level reviewers and decision-makers. • Must be a “self-contained” document; most ES readers will never read the entire report. • See additional document guidelines on project website • Implementation chapter • See grading criteria in FR rubric • Changes to existing content • Revise to respond to grader comments in FP and your own continued efforts in goal areas • Where appropriate in reporting on a completed project, convert present- and future-tense constructions used in the project proposal into past tense narrative. (E.g., change all instances of “We plan to do such and such” to “We did such and such.”)

21. Final Report (continued) • WIC Culture of Writing Award Nominations • All final reports are potential nominees for a WIC Culture of Writing Prize • Graders will be asked to submit nominations • MIME faculty committee will review nominated reports and select this year’s winners (one each from Product/Process subgroups). • $50 prize for all members of the winning teams. • Winning reports will be uploaded to the Valley Library Scholar Archives; the WIC Program will feature prize winners in its university-wide quarterly publication and notify winners’ home-town newspapers; and MIME winners will also be announced in the MIME ebulletin.

22. Capstone Experience Memo • See course website for details. • Reflective assessment of course experience: Comment on your development as communicator, team collaborator; propose personal “next steps” in professional development; and provide feedback and suggestions for course improvement. (Note: To encourage candid responses in all areas, these memos will not be available for instructor review until after grades are turned in.) • Designed as tool for articulating impact of capstone design course on your development as an engineering professional. Keep in mind that much of what you write here could potentially be recycled for use in application cover letters, interviews, presentations, etc., so recognize that the time and effort you put into preparing this document now may end up saving you a good deal of time and effort down the road. • Format: Single space, 2 pages max, use header information specified in assignment; attach returned Mid-Course Goals Review document for cross-reference (points taken off if this is not done).

23. Final Project Presentation • See website for schedule and grading rubric. • Use slides to enhance and extend the orally delivered information with visual imagery. They should not simply contain the same words/information that you are presenting orally. • Practice individually and together – A LOT. To maximize the opportunity to improve through practice, consider videotaping your practice sessions and/or teaming up with another project team to trade peer feedback. If at all possible, practice in the room where you will be giving your presentation and to avoid any technical glitches, test-run your slide presentation ahead of time on the computer and projector you’ll be using during the actual presentation. • Consider your presentation choreography as well as the information being delivered. Remember that your audience will be watching all team members, not just the person who is currently speaking, so determine what the non-speakers will be doing, where and how they’ll be standing, etc., to enhance rather than detract from presentation impact