PROJECT (2012/2013, Semester 2) 

 MODULE OUTLINE Created: 27-Jul-2004, Updated: 18-Jan-2013
Module Code EE3001
Module Title PROJECT
Semester Semester 2, 2012/2013
Modular Credits 4
Faculty Engineering
Department Electrical & Computer Engineering
Timetable Timetable/Teaching Staff
Module Facilitators
ASSOC PROF Tay Teng Tiow Lecturer
ASSOC PROF Ho Weng Khuen Co-Lecturer
PROF KK Co-Lecturer
PROF Xu Jianxin Co-Lecturer
ASSOC PROF Chan Mun Choon Co-Lecturer
PROF Tulika Mitra Co-Lecturer
PROF Abhik Roychoudhury Co-Lecturer
ASSOC PROF Leong Wing Lup, Ben Co-Lecturer
PROF P S Thiagarajan Co-Lecturer
DR ZHOU Zhiying, Steven Co-Lecturer
Weblinks Blog Website Excellent resource.Excellent resource.Excellent resource.Excellent resource.
Tags --

Learning Outcomes | Teaching Modes | Assessment


The purpose of the projects is to introduce students to the electronic product creation process. A key objective is to demonstrate to students the relationship among business goals, application/products, engineering practices and technologies. No actual engineering developmental work is conducted in these projects. The deliverables are feasibility reports on the topic of study and are focused on the following aspects:

  1. The formulation of a conceptual marketable electronic product or service. The product concerned may include high volume consumer products/services or specialized industrial equipment or processes. Definition of a user feature set will be made and if appropriate industrial design concept and packaging will be considered.
  2. Development feasibility. No actual engineering work is performed but students have to show clearly the approaches and technologies needed to realize the final product. Consideration will also include regulatory requirements such as EMI, ESD, etc.
  3. To consider costing and realistic pricing policy to realize market potential.
  4. To consider the manufacturability aspects of any developed engineering prototype.
  5. Preliminary study on market feasibility of the product. This will include market size, acceptance, share, etc.
  6. To show realistic planning and scheduling for the project execution. This will also include a budgetary financial planning.

Learning Outcome

  1. Product Conceptualisation: Able to identify the needs of a market segment & conceptualise a new sustainable product/service to address the needs.

  2. Business & Technology Review: Able to conduct a comprehensive review of the product landscape for a newly conceptualised product.

  3. Business Sustainability: Able to articulate and assess the factors that may impact the viability of a proposed new product /service.

  4. Technical Specification & Design: Able to formulate the technical specification and perform a comprehensible paper design.

  5. Product Sustainability: Able to articulate the factors that may have an impact on the realisation of a conceptualised product.

  6. Market Approach & Assessment: Able to determine and assess the marketing approach to maximise the commercial success of a new conceptualised product.

  7. Financial Assessment: Able to perform simple financial analysis to determine the commercial viability of a conceptualised product.

  8. Project Management: Able to determine and execute a project management plan.

  9. Risk Management: Able to determine a risk management plan for the commercial realisation of a newly conceptually product/service.

  10. Written Communication: Able to write comprehensive, clear, and well-organized reports.

  11. Oral Communication: Able to deliver clear and concise technical presentations.

  12. Team Work: Able to contribute positively to the project goal and decision making of the team.

  13. Critical Thinking & Evaluation: Able to critically evaluate an engineering product proposal on its technical, market, and financial viability.

  14. Lifelong  Learning Attitude: Able to articulate some and recognise the existence of the complex evolving issues concerning the conceptualisation of new products.


Welcome to EE3001. This is going to be an exciting module with lots of participation from everyone.

There are weekly sessions from 6pm to 8pm, unless I otherwise. Introductory lectures will be given during the first 2-3 sessions. Starting from Week 5, 3 groups will be scheduled to make presentations on their projects in each session.

All students must attend the presentations. Attendance is taken. While attending the presentation, students must listen carefully to the presentations. Each group is required to ask at least one question or make one comment during the session. If any group did not ask any question or make a comment during a session, that group will be penalised accordingly. Questions and comments must be well conceived or that group will also be penalised.

In addition, TOPICS relating to comments for each of the groups has been created. After each presentation, and within the next 1 week of the presentation, each group must draft out well conceived question or comments for each of the presenting group. Note it is for all groups. In other words, after Group 1's presentation, we should see postings under "Comments on Project of Group 1" by Group 2 to 20. Please identify your group in each posting. These posting will be monitored and accordingly marks awarded  for your group, depending on the quality of your posting. Therefore you should go to each presentation well prepared for taking notes.

Week 5: Approval of plan review (by project supervisors) – 15% of final grade 
Each team will need to make a presentation to the supervisor on the  concept of their product and the preliminary technical, market and financial assessment.

Week 12: Final Assessment (by project supervisors) – 20% of final grade 
Each team will need to submit a final report of their project and make a final presentation to the supervisor. Each member will be assessed on a number of factors as detailed in the attached grading sheet.

Week 14: Workshop Presentation (by panel of examiners – not including supervisor) – 35% of final grade
  1. About 5 to 6 teams will be assigned to each workshop.
  2. A panel of 5 examiners will preside over each workshop.
  3. Examiners will not be given reports of the teams. Handouts may be given by the teams during the workshop.
  4. During the workshop, each team will be given exactly 30 minutes to present their findings. The team is free to decide on the utilization of the 30 minutes. It can either use the time solely for presentation in which there would be no time left for clarification by examiners.
Week 5-11: Tiger Force Review -– 10% of final grade
1. Starting from the 5th week, 3 groups per week will be scheduled to present their findings to the class for review.

2. Groups are to sit together during these review sessions.

3. Attendence will be taken about half an hour after the official commencement time of the class. Each group will be asked to stand up and the number of members present will be counted and recorded. Late members will be counted as absent. For groups that do not have full attendance during the count, one member of the group must email me at (cc all other members) the names of the missing member(s) no later than one hour after the official end time of the class. If your group failed to do so within the time limit, then all members of the group will be award half of the points they oobtained for the session instead of the full.

4. Note that the performance of the presenting groups are NOT assessed in these reviews, unless in my opinion, you do a really bad job in which case I will consider adding a special penalty to your group's final grade. Instead the rest of the class will be assessed. That is, for every session, each student will be received some points except those absent.

5. The sessions will be conducted as follows. Scheduled groups will present their findings for 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, they will be asked to stop.

6. I will open the floor to "First Questions" for about 5 minutes. During this time, only groups that have not asked a question in the entire session may put up their hands to ask. After 5 minutes or if there are no more hands, I will open the floor to "Free for ALL". During this time, anyone can put up their hands to ask. Note that once I open the floor to "Free for All", no priority will be given to groups that have not asked a question. Note that if there are 3 scheduled presenting groups in a session, then there are 3 "First Questions" periods, one after each presentation.

7. I will use the grading form below. I will put a tick under one of the 1, 2, 3,or 4-point columns for your group depending on the quality of your question/comment. The criteria for each column is listed at the end of the table. If you asked more than one question, with one graded as 2-point and the other 3-point, then your group will receive the higher of the two as the points for the session. You may want to make use of the "Free for All" question periods to improve your group's score after your first question. Note that all members of the group will receive the same number of points, except those absent.

8. The maximum number of points for each qualifying student in each session is 5, with the last coming from attendance.

Week 5-11: Open Consolidated Review -– 20% of final grade
Following each presentation by the groups in the Tiger Force Review sessions, all the groups are to post a consolidated review report for each presenting group  in the forum page of the module. You are to post them under the correct Topic/Heading. Please put your Group Number on the first line of your post.
Your post can examine the concept, technical, market or financial feasibilities. Please be concise. All reviews must be in within one week from the date of the respective presentations.
The group receiving the comment may respond to the comments/review as sub-comments. Please ensure you put them at the appropriate level for ease of tracking by me.
The quality of each review will be assessed by me using the following criteria. I would suggest that you distribute the workload with each member responsible for consolidating 2 to 3 reviews. All in, each group needs to do 19 reviews, minus your own group.
1: superficial, thoughtless comments
2: Some thoughts, but generally disparate.
3: Identified strength and shortcomings of the proposal in a potshot manner, without much thoughts with respect to a viable business proposal.
4: Correctly identified the focus, strength and shortcomings of the proposal within the context of a business proposal, with preliminary suggestions for improvements.
5: Deep searching evaluation, clearly identifying the focus, strength and shortcomings of the proposal from a holistic perspective. Provide constructive comments that has the potential to help the presenting group evolving their proposal into winner.

Once all the comments are in, the presenting team would have to collate and summarise all the issues surfaced. It would then put forth how it intend to address them so as to improve on its proposal. The team would then rank the postings from 1 to n (1= most useful, n= least useful) the usefulness  each of the 19 postings in assisting it to be more thorough in its project.

You may download all forms from the module workbin.