OHIOU ME SRD Project Executive Summary Design Report Guidelines - 2010

For 2010, the final design report will use a modified form of the Ability One Network Design Challenge Executive Summary Format, plus Appendices.

Specifically:
replace all text related to employment opportunities for an individual with a disability with more general text consistent with our focus of designing to make a difference. Also, content related to sections 9.1 and 10 of the design report guidelines on the SrD WebBook should be included within the executive summary report, and the Appendix should include content from

> Section 7 (FMEA plus other items),
> Section 8.1 (ME451 and ME488 reports, updated/modified as necessary),
> Section 9.2 (Manufacturing plans, costs, and drawings),
> the User’s Manual,
> Other applicable material.

Basic Guidelines copied from the Ability One Design Challenge Application

IV. Paper Format for the Discussion Paper

This should contain a discussion of work completed on a particular assistive technology aid, device or rehabilitation technology system. The following order of headings is suggested: Abstract, Background, Statement of the Problem, Rationale, Design, Development, Evaluation, Discussion, References and Acknowledgements.

V. Formatting Guidelines

The following guidelines provide basic information about format and style for discussion papers. Authors should refer to accepted style guides for additional assistance.

Overall length: Maximum five pages: minimum two pages (This does not include the title page, Abstract, “Author Agreement” or graphic attachments)

Columns: Single column throughout paper

Font: Times, Times New Roman or CG Times

Font Size: 12

Line Spacing: Single

Margins: Left and right: 0.90;” Bottom: 1.00;” Top: 1” top margin to Title (page 1 only)

1” top margin to text (pages 2, 3, etc...)

VI. General Style Guidelines

Title: Capitalize all letters and center-text. An abbreviatedtitle in caps should be placed on the second, third, etc., pagesaligned at the top, flush left on the page.

Authors: Use initial capitals to indicate authors’ names andaffiliation (all center-justified). List complete address of thefirst author at the end of the paper.

Abstract: This should be a short (less than 150 words)summary of the overall paper.

Headings: Major headings should appear in ALL CAPS.Sub-headings should use initial capitals and be italicizedor underlined.

Header: Shortened paper title, ALL CAPS, flush-left for all pages starting on page 2.

Graphics/Video: Graphics and video are accepted andencouraged. Whenever possible, pictures, graphics (charts,figures, etc.) and videos should be embedded in their properlocations within the paper. You may wrap text around graphicsand tables to conserve space.

The review panel will score each submitted paper basedon the following criteria. Those papers that are found to beclosest to these statements will receive the highest scores. Themore errors found or information missing in a paper will resultin a lower score:

Abstract: The abstract clearly describes the content of thepaper and is a good, quick and easy, overview.

Usefulness of Device/System: The applicant(s) clearlycommunicated how this design is different, better, set-apartfrom what already exists. The device will allow an individual

or population of workers not currently employed to findemployment or employed people with disabilities to havesignificant gains in productivity. The judges deem the device tobe very useful and unique.

Solution (Overall): The applicant(s) clearly communicate whatthe solution is, who the device is for and how it helps peoplewith disabilities in the workplace. The judges concur with theconclusions.

Solution (Cost): Material list and cost are clear and complete.The cost seems reasonable.

Solution (Ease of use and implementation): The device is veryeasy to implement and use in the workplace.

Solution (Safety/safety features): Device is very safe. Safetyfeatures have been added or are intrinsic to the design.

Prototype (Construction quality and accuracy): Deviceexemplifies high quality and accuracy.

Prototype (Consistent and accurate function): Devicefunctions correctly without flaws.

Testing and Evaluation (Is there an increase in productivity?):Test procedures are clear and well documented. Photos ofsetup are provided. Results are well documented, valid, andreliable.

Conclusions: Conclusions are well thought out and accurate.The judges concur with all of the conclusions.

Overall Report (Quality): Report is complete, clear, neat, andwell organized with no grammatical or spelling errors. Figuresand/or charts are clear and references are provided. Report iswithin the 5-page limit.

In addition to the above, use the following checklist toensure a higher score:

• State whether or not this device was developed for anindividual, a large market or universal design, and indicatethe transferability of the technology.

• State before and after measures (i.e., first the individual/group was doing this, now they are able to…).

• Indicate and explain the intent of the design: conceptualcreativity and innovation, practicality, replicable, orimmediate use for a specific individual or population.

• Indicate how this design is different, better, set-apartfrom what already exists in the market. Indicate thedevices’ marketability.

• Describe the design process: what was considered, what wasabandoned and why (too cumbersome, too outdated, toomany steps, etc...).

• Indicate what level of independence this device will providefor an individual/group.

• Describe interaction with faculty, staff, individuals withdisabilities, job coaches, physical therapists, etc. in thedevelopment of the device.