Docstoc

Judging Information _Judging She

Document Sample
Judging Information _Judging She Powered By Docstoc
					                                   MIT Meter Design Contest
                              Submittal Deadline January 23, 2008
                           Judging Information (Judging Sheets next)

GOAL: Design a technology product that demonstrates a fresh approach with
reference to the MIT Design Competition Considerations and the Judging Criteria.

Develop an electronic device that will read the total electricity input into a typical
residential, single-family house. The device should “read” the electricity main line-in
(without altering that line), convert the signal from analog to digital (and condition it for
wireless, if applicable), and send the data via WiFi or 1-Wire1 to a central database.
The device should send the electricity usage in increments that are as small practical,
ideally every second.

The device must be able to transfer data to a database. We plan to send this
information back to the homeowner after modifying how the output is displayed. The
information will be displayed to the user either on their home computer, or on a stand-
alone commercial display such as the “chumby” (www.chumby.com).

The first phase of this project will design the device/system pictured in the dashed
outlines in the two diagrams below. The 1-Wire design appears to be much easier to
design, although ambitious designers may want to target the wireless device. The
target price for the device, per house, is $200. Flexible and innovative designs are
encouraged, and it is not necessary to follow the exact approach suggested although
the functional capability must not be compromised.

The second phase of the job is to design the prototype. The winning designer of the
device (first phase) will receive $1,500 pay, in addition to employment and expenses to
build the prototype. Today’s judging will select the team that will build the prototype
device.

JUDGING : A panel of Judges will select five (5) Finalists according to the Judging
Criteria below. The decisions of the Judges are final.

JUDGING CRITERIA: All Entries will be judged according to the following equally-
weighted Judging Criteria (20 points each). Although we have set forth this criteria, it’s
most important that the judges use their own judgment to select the best design of the
device. Most important is that the prototype can be built and that we can manufacture
about 150 items. We are looking to the judges for a feasibility check.

      A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
         The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
         factor and highly usable by the intended users.



1
    See http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/dallas/1_wire.cfm or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Wire
   B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
      from a technology product design perspective?

   C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
      solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
      listed above?

   D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
      manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
      the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
      a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
      varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
      and intellectual property referenced?

   E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
      entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?

   F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
      materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
      visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
      using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
      ideas?

   G. The five (5) Finalists from Phase One and a winner will be selected by a panel of
      MIT judges and notified on Sunday, January 27th. This person will be given to
      go-ahead to build the prototype.

JUDGES: The teams are listed in the order that they submitted their entry. Please fill
out the judging forms for each entry. Also, please narrow it down to the top five finalists
and choose one winner. Thank you so much for your help. I honestly couldn’t have
done this without you!
                            1ST TEAM JUDGING SHEET

Team Member(s):

Farrukh Jawed   IEEE-LUMS Student Chapter, Lahore University of Management Sciences. Pakistan   Bsc
Hasanat Kazmi                                                                                   Com

Judge Name:                                                                           .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

  A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
     The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
     factor and highly usable by the intended users.




  B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
     from a technology product design perspective?




  C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
     solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
     listed above?




  D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
     manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                             2nd TEAM JUDGING SHEET

Team Member(s):

John      University of Michigan               powerline
Hiddema   alum                      BSE 04     communication    jhiddema@hotmail.com



Judge Name:                                                                           .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

  A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
     The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
     factor and highly usable by the intended users.




  B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
     from a technology product design perspective?




  C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
     solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
     listed above?




  D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
     manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                            3rd TEAM JUDGING SHEET

Team Member(s):

Themistoklis                Electrical and
Karafasoulis                Computer Engineering                tkarafas@ee.duth.gr
Vasouris Paraschos          Mechnical Engineering   Wireless



Judge Name:                                                                           .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

  A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
     The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
     factor and highly usable by the intended users.




  B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
     from a technology product design perspective?




  C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
     solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
     listed above?




  D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
     manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                            4th TEAM JUDGING SHEET

Team Member(s):

Samreen Amir   Assistant Professor, National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences-FAST   MS (Ele
Fahad Raees    Lab Engineer                                                                    BS (Ele



Judge Name:                                                                           .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

  A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
     The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
     factor and highly usable by the intended users.




  B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
     from a technology product design perspective?




  C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
     solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
     listed above?




  D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
     manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                              5th TEAM JUDGING SHEET

Team Member(s):

Simon Nuk                                                                nuk@ecf.utoronto.ca
Mike Micek   University of Toronto   Electrical Engineering   Wireless   micek@edf.utoronto.ca



Judge Name:                                                                               .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

  A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
     The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
     factor and highly usable by the intended users.




  B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
     from a technology product design perspective?




  C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
     solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
     listed above?




  D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
     manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                                6th TEAM JUDGING SHEET

Alfred Inacio   University of Toronto   Computer Engineering   Wireless   alfredinacio@hotmail.com



Team Member(s):



Judge Name:                                                                               .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

   A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
      The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
      factor and highly usable by the intended users.




   B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
      from a technology product design perspective?




   C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
      solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
      listed above?




   D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
      manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
      the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                              7th TEAM JUDGING SHEET


Harsh Singh     University of Toronto   B.A.Sc Computer Engineering   Wireless        ram.uoft@gmail.com
SriRam Kalyan                           B.A.Sc Engineering Science    Option 1-wire



Team Member(s):



Judge Name:                                                                              .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

   A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
      The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
      factor and highly usable by the intended users.




   B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
      from a technology product design perspective?




   C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
      solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
      listed above?
  D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
     manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                              8th TEAM JUDGING SHEET


Christopher Hewitt   Christopher Newport University   Computer Engineering   1-Wire   christopher.hewitt.0



Team Member(s):



Judge Name:                                                                              .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

   A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
      The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
      factor and highly usable by the intended users.




   B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
      from a technology product design perspective?




   C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
      solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
      listed above?




   D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
      manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                             9th TEAM JUDGING SHEET


Dane Kouttron          Electrical & Electrical Power Dual major (RPI '09)                          kouttd
Andrew Armenia         Electrical engineering, Computer systems engineering (RPI '08)
Andrew Tamoney   RPI   Electrical engineering, Computer science (RPI '11)               wireless



Team Member(s):



Judge Name:                                                                             .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

  A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
     The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
     factor and highly usable by the intended users.




  B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
     from a technology product design perspective?




  C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
     solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
     listed above?
  D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
     manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                            10th TEAM JUDGING SHEET


Harry Irizarry                  Electrical Engineer   Wireless   harry.zarry@gmail.com



Team Member(s):



Judge Name:                                                                          .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

   A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
      The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
      factor and highly usable by the intended users.




   B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
      from a technology product design perspective?




   C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
      solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
      listed above?




   D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
      manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                             11th TEAM JUDGING SHEET

Michael Pepen   RIT   Electrical Engineering   wireless interconnected system   map8201@rit.edu
Matthew Hicks                                                                   mbh0620@rit.edu




Team Member(s):



Judge Name:                                                                             .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

  A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
     The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
     factor and highly usable by the intended users.




  B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
     from a technology product design perspective?




  C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
     solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
     listed above?
  D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
     manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                                   12th TEAM JUDGING SHEET

Colin Tse      University   of   Toronto   Engineering   Science   (electrical option)   1-Wire   colin.tse@utoronto.c
Charles Lo     University   of   Toronto   Engineering   Science   (electrical option)
Ben Tsai       University   of   Toronto   Engineering   Science   (electrical option)
Jonathan Li    University   of   Toronto   Engineering   Science   (electrical option)
Gordie Parks   University   of   Toronto   Engineering   Science   (physics option)



Team Member(s):



Judge Name:                                                                                          .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

   A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
      The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
      factor and highly usable by the intended users.




   B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
      from a technology product design perspective?




   C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
      solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
      listed above?
  D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
     manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
                            13th TEAM JUDGING SHEET



Team Member(s):


1- Mr. Ahmed Hussain (Team Leader)
2- Mr. Muhammad Mujahid Iqbal
3- Mr. Muhammad Tabish Iftikhar
4- Mr. Ahmad Bilal
5- Mr. Kishore Kumar


Judge Name:                                                                          .

OVERALL IMPRESSION:




JUDGING CRITERIA (20 POINTS EACH):

   A. DESIGN SOLUTION: Aesthetics as well as a sensitivity to form follows function.
      The design must not only be visually appealing but also be purposeful in its form
      factor and highly usable by the intended users.




   B. INNOVATIVENESS: How profound is the idea and how innovative is the solution
      from a technology product design perspective?




   C. COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS: How well did the design
      solution address each of the various Computing Technology Considerations
      listed above?
  D. FEASIBILITY & CONCEPT VALIDATION: How realistic is it? Can it be
     manufactured in the near term or long term under manufacturing constraints? Did
     the entrant do a sufficient amount of investigation regarding what is possible from
     a functional and manufacturing perspective? Are the research sources cited,
     varied, and valid? Did the entrant provide proper citations and credit for research
     and intellectual property referenced?




  E. DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESS & METHODOLOGY: How well has the
     entrant captured the process of creating the final design solution?




  F. PRESENTATION: Has the entrant effectively presented the concept? Are entry
     materials neat and well-organized? Has the entrant made effective use of
     visualization tools? How well did the entrant communicate the ideas and solution
     using text and imagery? How well did the entrant make use of media to express
     ideas?




ADDITIONAL JUDGE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:

				
DOCUMENT INFO