|
SMC of ITAC Award — Judges, Judging Criteria
and Considerations
The judging panel will consist of two representatives
from Canadian industries and one faculty member from
a Canadian university. The judges are asked to select
the exhibit that best meets the following criteria:
Criterion 1: Technical Excellence (20
points)
- Success in operation of exhibit (did it work?)
- Level of difficulty attempted; perseverance in overcoming
problems during development
- Exhibitor's grasp of the technical aspects of the
project
- Originality of design
- Clear presentation of the importance of this project,
i.e. why is this problem important?
- Evidence that technical development has taken account
of industrial manufacturing constraints.
Considerations:
- Did it work?
- Innovation adapting to: scale, equipment, etc.
- Originality - Whose idea was it anyway?
- Degree of technical difficulty attempted
- Social significance of idea/concept/project
- Degree of excellence in taking advantage of the features
of component technologies and/or of integrating component
functionality.
- Does the design show an awareness of the costs of
manufacturing and/or assembling components?
- Does the design demonstrate understanding of trade-offs
(cost, power, size) and worst case/best case design
considerations.
Criterion 2: Application to Industry (20
points)
- What value does this have to the industrial collaborator?
- Probable application area within the company, e.g.,
switch, etc.?
- Is the commercial application practical in terms
of manufacturing and economics?
- Nature of the interaction between the company and
the researcher.
- Extent of investment by the industrial collaborator.
Considerations:
- Is this yet another solution to an insignificant
problem?
- How does this solution compare to others that already
exist?
- Does this present an incremental advantage or a more
significant contribution?
- Is there an awareness of the company's product lines
in which this could fit/application areas which make
this relevant?
- How easy would it be to use this from a user's point
of view (in contrast with the developer's)?
- Did the interaction involve on-site work at the company?
- Has anyone from the company participated on site
at the university?
- Did the interaction involve design reviews?
- Has the company made a financial investment in the
project?
- Has the company made a time commitment to the project?
Criterion 3: Presentation Excellence (5
points)
- Explanation of the background information or theory
in a form understandable to one's peers
- Fluency in explanation; interplay between those making
the presentation
- Humour, flare, originality
- Smooth recovery from an unexpected problem
- Clarity of explanation of key technical points
Considerations:
- Did the presentation give you enthusiasm for the
subject?
- Are the problems and solutions clear?
- Fluency, effective use of time
- Peer support of effort
- Professionalism
- Handling of questions
- Originality
- Humour
- Effective use of visual material during the presentation
Criterion 4: Visual Effectiveness (5
points)
- Layout of backboard, originality
- Quality of written information and effective use
of pictures or diagrams
- Relevance of information (not cluttered with extraneous
material)
Considerations:
- Professionalism
- Interaction with audience
- Legibility
- Use of clear schematic diagrams (grabs them, holds
attention)
- Material that is useful and accessible, not too much
at once
- Adequate lighting
Notes:
- Where projects have been undertaken by a team and
over a period of time, the presenter must clearly present
what the contribution is this time around and what
the presenter's own contribution is.
- Criterion weightings differ from other Awards to reflect
the increased importance of industrial collaboration
and application in this award category.
|
