product design portfolio

Wine-Ease

11

12

15

16

When I tested my model in the bottle it did not work efficiently and would not work every time so I have dissuaded to continue with my other product and to stop this one

18

10min

10min

5min

2 hours 30secs

19

20

21

10min

10min 10min 10min Yes Yes 10min

20min

22

23

24

25

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA CRITERION 1 INVESTIGATING THE DESIGN CONTEXT MARK

7 (out of 8)

COMMENTS The candidate has provided evidence of a good understanding and analysis of the design context. As the problem identified has not yet been addressed commercially (as far as the candidate was able to establish) there was little analysis of relevant products or systems undertaken but the candidate has not been penalised for this as the assessment criteria encourages a degree of risk-taking. Comprehensive analysis of relevant and focussed research undertaken leading to design criteria, which reflects the analysis undertaken.

Target market for product has been identified.

CRITERION 2 DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN PROPOSALS (including modelling) MARK 26 (out of 32) COMMENTS Imaginative and innovative ideas have been developed, demonstrating creativity, flair and originality. Further developments made to take account of ongoing research. Although several of the ideas are lacking in feasibility the candidate has recognised this and isolated two ideas for further development through prototyping. An appropriate design strategy was used, with evidence of planning, adopted for most aspects. Development of design proposals takes into account the main functional aspects of the problem although environmental and sustainability issues are totally ignored. The silicon diaphragm would require the bottle to be broken to remove it for future use. Good development work achieved through working with a variety of modelling techniques, making excellent use of CAM. Appropriate materials and components selected with regard to their working properties.

A limited product specification has been produced which reflects most obvious features of analysis.

CRITERION 3 MAKING MARK

31 (out of 32)

COMMENTS The final outcomes show a high level of making/modelling/finishing skills and accuracy. The candidate has selected and used appropriate tools, materials and technologies including, where appropriate, CAM correctly, skilfully and safely. The final product, although not particularly demanding, has been manufactured using a rapid prototyping machine and is packaged to a high standard. Additional prototyping includes making a mould from acrylic using a laser cutter to enable a silicon diaphragm to be produced, some preliminary rapid prototyping and work cut from polypropylene. The packaging was manufactured by vacuum forming a blister over a turned wooden former and sandwiching inside a card sleeve produced by sublimation printing onto coated card. The candidate has worked independently to produce a rigorous and demanding outcome. Quality controls are evident throughout the project and it is clear how accuracy has been achieved through the use of a variety of computer aided manufacturing techniques. The outcome has the potential to be commercially viable, is suitable for the target market and has been presented as it would appear in the shops.

CRITERION 4 TESTING AND EVALUATION MARK 9 (out of 12) COMMENTS Appropriate testing and evaluation throughout the designing and making process taking account of client/user or third party opinion in the summative evaluation. All aspects of the final outcome have been tested against the design criteria and/or the product/manufacturing specification. The candidate has evaluated and justified the need for modifications to the product and some consideration given as to how the outcome might need to be modified for commercial production

CRITERION 5 COMMUNICATION MARK 4 (out of 6) COMMENTS The candidate presented the design folder as an electronic portfolio using PowerPoint. It is focussed, concise and relevant and demonstrates an appropriate selection of material for inclusion. All decisions communicated in a clear and coherent manner with appropriate use of technical language although there are numerous errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling.

TOTAL MARK 76 (out of 90)