Project Proposal

Deliverables and Marking Schemes
Deliverables and marking scheme
Deliverables and marking criteria for Computing projects
Deliverables
1. Project proposal
2. Preliminary project report
3. Weekly logs – to be collated and assessed at end of term 2
4. Draft report (end of term 2)
5. Final deliverables: report +/- implemented system
6. Presentation +/- demo
The draft report will not be formally assessed as there will most likely be substantial common content with the final report. The proposal is not formally marked except on a pass/fail basis, but students must have an approved topic before embarking on the project.

INTERIM DELIVERABLES
Proposal (pass/fail)
Preliminary report (10%)
1.Introduction
2.Aims and objectives
3.Methods
4.Project plan
5.Progress to date
6.Planned work
7.Appendices (if appropriate)
8.References
See Tim Taylor’s Project guide p. 28 for details of what should go in these sections. Around 2,000 words.
Weekly logs (5%)

• Evidence of regular and productive meetings with supervisor
• Project logs show clear plan of work including milestones such as literature review, requirements analysis, prototype implementation, testing and evaluation; target dates were generally met.
• Around 1 page per week
Presentation (5%)
The presentation will be assessed on:
• How clearly you describe the initial problem(s) your project addresses.
• Your account of the development or research process.
• Your evaluation of the results in terms of the original requirements.
• The quality of the presentation and how you handle any questions.
FINAL DELIVERABLE: Implemented system (if applicable) and report of 8,000 – 10,000 words (80%) marked out of 100
Technical content (40/100)
Software OR Hardware+Software implementation:
• good design
• correctness
• elegance
• usability
• level of difficulty
• originality
• the significance of the work in relation to the state-of-the-art
• all parts of the system working
• good user interface
• effective error handling
Research project:
• Statement of Research questions.
• The methods by which the questions are answered.
• The results of the research are clearly stated and summarised
• Level of difficulty of the research problem(s) and methods used
Report (40/100):
Software project
• Clear structure
• good introduction and fair discussion of literature
• Clear statement of problem and effective problem analysis
• Justification of design decisions
• Good argumentation and justification of claims
• clear documentation and user guide
• conclusion and discussion of future work
• sufficient and appropriate references, and good citing method
• Good layout and formatting, especially of tables, figures, formulae and code examples
• Correct and readable English in an appropriate style for academic work
Physical computing (Hardware+Software) system
• · Clear structure
• · Good introduction and fair discussion of related literature/systems
• · Clear statement of problem the system addresses
• · Clear statement of system architecture, including electronic schematics and hardware designs
• · Good argumentation and justification of claims
• · Conclusion and discussion of possible extensions to the system
• · Sufficient and appropriate references, and good citing method
• · Good layout and formatting, especially of tables, figures, formulae and code examples
• · Correct and readable English in an appropriate style for academic work
Research project
• Motivation for research question(s) including relevance to programme LOs
• Justification of the approach. How rigorous is it?
• The research is put into context and compared with similar work in the literature
• future work relating to the research is considered
• sufficient and appropriate references, and good citing method
• All parts of report present including abstract, introductory and concluding chapters, appendices where appropriate.
• Good layout and formatting, especially of tables, figures, formulae and code examples
• Good, clear argumentation, considering arguments for and against a thesis and arriving at a conclusion.
• Correct and readable English in an appropriate style for academic work
Testing and evaluation 20/100
Testing and evaluation of Software or Hardware+Software implementations
• Systematic testing regime including design of appropriate test cases
• Justification of testing methods
• User evaluation involving representative stakeholders
• Insightful discussion of results
• Evaluation of own work in relation to original proposal and plan
Evaluation of research outcomes
• Evaluation of own work
• Significance of results discussed
• Original proposal has been substantially achieved or if not, any deviation from original goals is justified in the report

Deliverables and marking criteria for research+implementation (“hybrid”) project
Markers will use appropriate criteria from the Research and Software or Physical Computing checklists.
There must be clear and direct links between the research and implementation components; for example, the software or physical system may be a direct outcome of the research, or it may be used to carry out a research programme