Assessment type: Individual report Word limit: 3,000 - 5,000 words (+/- 10%)
Assessment type: Individual report Word limit: 3,000 - 5,000 words (+/- 10%)
Table A2: Assessment scheme for Assignment 2
Assessment item Percent. you arrange in table of contents.
System overview and system requirements 20%
Functional decomposition 35%
System synthesis deciding the physical architecture 20%
Design options and evaluation 15%
General proposal structure, logical development of thoughts, use of illustrations 10%
Criterion 1: System overview and system requirements
Criterion 2: Functional decomposition
Criterion 3: System synthesis deciding the physical architecture
Criterion 4: Design options and evaluation
Criterion 5: General proposal structure, logical development of thoughts, use of illustrations
Dear Thon, Thank you for submitting assessment 2. Please find three types of feedback below:
Feedback on your assessment, including areas where you have done well and areas that could be improved. Please note, I have inserted comments throughout your assignment with specific feedback where areas were noted and/or could have been improved.
The marking rubric.
Feed forward, providing tips on how to build upon what you have done here to prepare for your next assessment.
By providing you feedback and feed-forward, I hope that you will be better prepared for your next assignment. Feedback Unfortunately, your assignment does not meet the expectations as large parts of the assignment brief have not been addressed.
Important sections of document missing: Functional hierarchy, system synthesis, trade-off study
User Requirements and System Requirements need to be mapped with unique ID's.
Add specific discussion related to the system engineering areas of 'Integrity-Stability-Compatibility-Safety-Sustainability'.
Systematically synthesise the system and address identified conflicts and gaps. Marking Rubric: Please refer to the marking rubric. Feed forward: Please address above comments for assignment #3. You should especially focus on the following:
A clear statement of the environment in which the ADAV will be used e.g. Australia and Australian conditions/ geography/ terrains/population,
A clear set/list (table format would be the simplest method) of user requirements-system specifications using unique referencing ID's,
Reconsider your high-level functions. Show cohesion of the functions back to UR's and SR's (consider adding System Specification level also).
Use models such as flow chart and/or FFBD, Pugh matrix, functional hierarchy consistently to demonstrate your understanding of these methods Address the engineering principles relating to Integrity-Stability-Compatibility-Safety-Sustainability
Make sure you clearly demonstrate the linkage between user needs and requirements to the functions of your system and how you verify and validate them Please reach out with any questions. Regards, Marco
Assignment 2
Assessment scheme
Criterion 1: System overview and system requirements 20%
Marking Rubrics: Score 10.0
11.9 to >7.9 Pts
Accomplished
Provide an adequate overview of what the ADAV system is
expected to do.
Provide detail information on the context in which the
ADAV system is expected to be used.
Content is sufficient to determine if the ADAV system
outlined can perform in that environment.
System requirement description is clear and contains some
measureable parameters.
Additional comments:
You have outlined the general background in Australia but
there are no specific operating scenarios that suggest special
features that must be designed into the system. The main
characteristics such as AD (air deployable), A (amphibious) are
not highlighted properly in clearly explained contexts leaving
doubt to whether such vehicle is going to fulfill mission
requirements.
It is not possible to design a system that can cater for
situations universally. There must be some good fit
applications that the system is aimed for and these are defined
in user requirements. From user requirements in the form of a
list of expectations, mapping system requirements are
defined. These key systems engineering steps are somehow
muddled into paragraphs and words making the systems
engineering process un-traceable.
Criterion 2: Functional decomposition 35%
Marking Rubrics: Score 8.0
15.9 to >7.9 Pts
Developing
Functions are identified in headings and supported by
some descriptions.
The descriptions are somehow confusing.
Additional comments:
The SE V Lifecycle process is used to synchronise designs and
actions in the Integrated Product Team (IPT). The IPT for
ADAV is expected to have hundreds, if not thousands, of
engineers and technicians. Therefore, in a SE V Lifecycle, the
IPT members will expect a well-defined functional hierarchy
that gives an overview of distribution of functions and
responsibilities that are assigned to individual groups and
people.
You have not defined systems requirements properly. You
didnt define any functional hierarchy. You didnt define and
design the functions in a traceable manner. There is no way
that the system that is described in this document will fulfill
the expectations of the user.
Many paragraphs are copied from various sources but many of
them do not form or be able to be pulled together as a
contiguous system structure. Functions are ambiguous and
are not decomposable from current descriptions to finer levels
for manufacturing and testings purposes.
Criterion 3: System synthesis deciding the physical architecture 20%
Marking Rubrics: Score 1.0
3.9 to >0 Pts
Missing
System functions are not associated with any physical
architecture.
Additional comments:
System synthesis is to use the fully expanded functional
hierarchy of the system to allocate physical components so
that the system can be moved to detailed design and
manufacturing.
No such synthesised physical architecture is found in this
document. Instead, descriptions of hardware components are
found. Furthermore, these descriptions are often not
connected. It is not sure if some components such as UART
are required in this system.
Criterion 4: Design options and evaluation 15%
Marking Rubrics: Score 0.0
2.9 to >0 Pts
Missing
No design option is proposed, i.e. only one design
presented.
Additional comments:
A function can be fulfilled in different ways (options). There
are many factors influencing selection from the list of options.
This documents does not attempt to provide any possible
flexibility for the IPT to make decision.
Criterion 5: General proposal structure, logical development of thoughts, use of illustrations 10%
Marking Rubrics: Score 5.0
5.9 to >3.9 Pts
Accomplished
Structured according to suggested headings.
Content in sections follows a logical development
according to functional decomposition, system synthesis
rules and trade-offs.
Additional comments:
It can be seen that you have put effort into the assignment
with a lot of information collected somewhere. The trouble is
that the copied information either did not match correctly
with the requirements of the system. Sometimes, the
document talks about something that shouldnt be included in
this assignment submission, e.g. section 8.3.
To do a good assignment, you should check what is required in
the assignment instructions and practise in the way the course
has defined. The system has been mistaken as a drone which
is not the system that is expected.
TOTAL 24 / 100 or 24 out of 100.
Dear Thon, Thank you for submitting your first assessment. Please find three types of feedback below: Please find three types of feedback below:
- Feedback on your assessment, including areas where you have done well and areas that could be improved. Please note, I have inserted comments throughout your assignment with specific feedback where areas were noted and/or could have been improved. - The marking rubric. - Feed forward, providing tips on how to build upon what you have done here to prepare for your next assessment.
By providing you feedback and feed-forward, I hope that you will be better prepared for your next assignment. Feedback Overall your assignment does not meet the expectations. While I appreciate the effort you put into it, it needs improvements in a number of areas:
A clear statement of the environment in which the ADAV will be used e.g., Australia and Australian conditions/ geography/ terrains/population and what this means for the system.
A clear statement about the stakeholders and their specific user needs.
Clearly identifiable User Requirements and System Requirements with unique ID's, also summarising in one table all UR's-SR's (& SS's)...this will help later mapping back from validation/conclusions.
Conclusion section with specific key findings stated e.g. number of user requirements, identified functions, etc.
Add specific discussion related to the system engineering areas of 'Integrity-Stability-Compatibility-Safety-Sustainability'.
Add details about your chosen systems engineering methodology and how this is reflected in the document.
Large parts of the assignment deal with technical detail that is not linked to the user needs and the assignment task. The focus was on high level functions of the system and how they meet the user requirements.
Large parts of your assignment have been copied from external sources without appropriately acknowledging those contributions. Please refer to https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/rights-and-responsibilities/academic-integrity for your responsibilities. Marking Rubric: Please refer to the marking rubric. Feed forward: Please re-baseline your ADAV assignment #2 noting the above and specifically including:
Address the tasks set out in the assignment rubric,
Follow the systems engineering process as described in the lecture through the phases of the V-model, Further expansion of the specific stakeholders and their specific needs,
A clear set/list (table format would be the simplest method) of user requirements-system specifications using unique referencing ID's,
Consistent use of models such as flow chart and/or FFBD where suitable.
Create the narrative relating to Integrity-Stability-Compatibility-Safety-Sustainability.
Provide clear linkage between system functions and user requirements.
Ensure you correctly reference external sources.
Assessment 1
Criteria Ratings Pts
Criterion 1: Introduction, context, description 15to >12.9Pts
Exemplary
Provide a detail explanation of the ADAV as a system with parts using researched examples. Given information are interpreted with innovative ideas and substantiated with researched data. Explain the conditions of several environments in which the system will be used. Information about the environment is substantiated with researched data. Describe two or more system concepts of operation with outline of every step of the system working in all described scenarios. Explanation is supported by graphical representation. 12.9to >9.9Pts
Outstanding
Provide a detail explanation of the ADAV as a system that can have several parts. Given information are interpreted in detail and substantiated with researched data. Explain the conditions of the environment in which the system will be used. Information about the environment is substantiated with researched data. Describe two or more system concepts of operation with outline of every step of the system working in the described scenario. Graphical representation is used at minimum. 9.9to >6.9Pts
Accomplished
Provide an explanation of the ADAV as a system that can have several parts. Given information are included but there are some errors in understanding. Explain the conditions of the environment in which the system will be used. Describe one system concept of operation with brief outline of the steps of the system working in the described scenario. Graphical representation is expected. 6.9to >2.9Pts
Developing
Provide an explanation of the ADAV. Most explanation is a repeat of given information. Provide some description of the environment in which the system will be used. Describe one system concept of operation of the system working in the described scenario. 2.9to >0Pts
Missing
Provide very little explanation of what the ADAV system is expected to do. Provide very little information on the context in which the ADAV system is expected to be used. System concept description is a repeat of given user requirements.
15pts
Criterion 2: Elaboration of user requirements 15to >12.9Pts
Exemplary
Provide a detail interpretation of the user requirements and use this interpretation to elaborate the user requirements in two or more working scenarios in which the system will operates substantiated with researched examples. 12.9to >9.9Pts
Outstanding
Provide an interpretation of the user requirements and use this interpretation to elaborate the user requirements in two or more working scenarios in which the system will operates. 9.9to >6.9Pts
Accomplished
Provide an interpretation of the user requirements and use this interpretation to elaborate the user requirements in one working scenario in which the system operates. 6.9to >2.9Pts
Developing
Re-state given user requirements in the assignment instruction. Demonstrate an attempt to infer implication of give user requirements to system outcomes. 2.9to >0Pts
Missing
Basically re-state given user requirements in the assignment instruction.
15pts
Criterion 3: Clarity of high-level functions proposed (at least 3 functions expected) 45to >38.9Pts
Exemplary
More than three functions are identified in headings and supported by detail descriptions and illustrated with graphics and high-level functional representations. The descriptions and functional representations are clear. No conflict is detected. 38.9to >29.9Pts
Outstanding
More than three functions are identified in headings and supported by detail descriptions and illustrated with graphics. The descriptions and illustrations are clear. Some minor conflicts are detected. 29.9to >20.9Pts
Accomplished
Not more than three functions are identified in headings and supported by detail descriptions. The descriptions are generally clear but there are some conflicting errors among the functions. 20.9to >10.9Pts
Developing
Functions are identified in headings and supported by some descriptions. The descriptions are somehow confusing. 10.9to >0Pts
Missing
There are no clear nominated functions and descriptions are confusing.
45pts
Criterion 4: Cohesion of high-level functions to achieving user requirements 15to >12.9Pts
Exemplary
Functions are presented with high level descriptions and function modelling tools and supported by detail explanation and illustrated with graphics on how the user requirements are satisfied by the functions when they are integrated. The integration process and possible validation plan are also explained. 12.9to >9.9Pts
Outstanding
Functions are presented with high level descriptions and function modelling tools and supported by detail explanation and illustrated with graphics on how the user requirements are satisfied by the functions when they are integrated. 9.9to >6.9Pts
Accomplished
Functions are presented with high level descriptions and supported by detail description of how the user requirements are satisfied by the functions when they are integrated. 6.9to >2.9Pts
Developing
Functions are presented at high level descriptions with some explanation of how the functions are satisfying the user requirements. 2.9to >0Pts
Missing
There are no clear nominated functions and not related to any user requirements.
15pts
Criterion 5: General proposal structure, logical development of thoughts, use of illustrations 10to >7.9Pts
Exemplary
Proposal structure has been adjusted in an innovative way to suit the content. Sections are developed and enhanced in a logical sequence with reference to systems engineering V model. Contains a lot of illustrations to ensure full coverage of ideas. 7.9to >5.9Pts
Outstanding
Proposal structure has been adjusted to suit the content. Sections are developed and enhanced in a logical sequence with reference to systems engineering V model. Easy to read. 5.9to >3.9Pts
Accomplished
Structured according to suggested headings. Content in sections follows a logical development according to systems engineering V model. 3.9to >1.9Pts
Developing
Structured according to suggested headings. Content in different sections are not separately referenced and developed. 1.9to >0Pts
Missing
Structure of report is confusing. Not possible to identify a clear line of message. Grammatical errors are found.
10pts
Total points:100
