FACULTY OF ARTS, DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY

Programme : BEng Manufacturing and Production Engineering

: FdSc (Manufacturing) Mech-Man Engineering
: FdEng Production Engineering

Programme Codes : J901

: UH3AA
: UH3AB

Module Code
Title

: 5ME511
: Innovation and Engineering Context

Module Leader
Room Number
Telephone Number
Email Address

:
:
:
:

Mike Briggs
MS104 (Markeaton Street)
01332 593125
M.Briggs@derby.ac.uk

Assessment Brief
Coursework Assignment No: 1
Assignment Title : An individual study based on the history
of a specific engineering innovation.
Weighting

50%

Issue Date
Hand-in Date

:
:

Thursday 23rd January 2014

Monday 10th March 2014 (Noon)

Prepared by
Approved by
Date
Academic year

:
:
:
:

Mike Briggs
Terry Watson
14th January 2014
2013-14

Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology

School Of Engineering and Technology

LEARNING OUTCOMES
There are two Learning Outcome that you have to satisfy for this module:
1. Demonstrate how engineering and innovation have evolved within industry over
time.
2. Evaluate and apply appropriate innovation techniques in an industrial context
This assignment is based on Learning outcome No 1

THE BRIEF
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Innovation has been happening even before the word was invented.
From as early as 500,000 yrs BC when it is understood that fire was discovered by
Homo Erectus (an earlier species to Homo Sapiens (us)) through to current times when
mankind is sending vehicles to the planets in our Solar system and beyond, the concept
of change through development has been occurring due to our curiosity.
The Oxford Dictionary defines innovation as:
Making changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods,
ideas, or products:
Clearly to do this in a purposeful way then some form of tool is required, although many
innovations especially in earlier times arose from trial and error or the development of
mistakes or errors when looking for something else.
Modern innovation such as the Dyson vacuum cleaner which has borrowed technology
from larger scale technology used to extract saw dust from the sawing operation in large
saw mills, owes their existence to the people that persevere in their endeavours to
invent a new product that will improve existing and provide the stakeholders with a
return on their investment.

METHODOLOGY
The objective is to individually appraise a product, process or person within a time
frame to provide, to a good depth, a professionally laid out report that demonstrates
your depth of research with evaluation of possible other developments from the main
one if a different course had been taken (or not, whichever the case may be).
This will be a review in hindsight however, it will demonstrate your line of thinking.
coupled with engineering knowledge should provide an interesting debate.

READING MATERIALS
Module lecture and support notes.
See module reading list in the module handbook
Note: These sources are guides only to commonly available material. Students will
also be expected to consult other relevant source material according to the nature of the
project.

5ME511 Assessment No 1 MjB

Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology

School Of Engineering and Technology

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
The following deliverables are required:
An individually produced planning document will be required for formative
assessment submitted by e-submission 10th Feb 2014. This could be your study report
with planning charts demonstrating your depth of engagement and progress to date. It
should be work in progress that you will develop into the final document for submission.
The level of presentation at this stage is not overly important but should be considered.
An individually produced word-processed report (2,000 words maximum, or
equivalent taking into account diagrams, visuals etc.) detailing your personal research
from an investigation into the historical development of a specific innovation from within
the engineering sector.
Included in your report should be a full set of visuals depicting the time base of the
development with the major players and events that influenced its development, with
some thoughts given to what if scenarios if development had taken a different turn.

MARKING
The table below indicates how your work will be marked
Report Section
Subject Content (Depth of Study)
Structure and Format
Analysis and Conclusions
Appropriate Use of Images
(Annotations etc)
Referencing (Harvard System)

Max Mark
Available
40
20
20
10
10

This submission should be written in the same style as outlined in:

The Guide to Technical Report Writing published by the Institution of Engineering
and Technology (IET) and can be found on course resources in Study Materials.

SUBMISSION DATE
See front sheet.
The assignment must be submitted through the Assignment Turnitin facility that can be
found on the course Resources for the module in the assessment folder.
Specifically you are reminded that personal computer/printer crashes or errors
ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE ACCEPTABLE REASONS FOR THE GRANTING OF
AN EXTENSION TO THE HAND-IN DATE.

Late submission is not an option without the specific approval from the
subject manager, see the section on Late submissions in the Module
Handbook.

5ME511 Assessment No 1 MjB

Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology

School Of Engineering and Technology

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
UG Assessment Grades will be used. All grades given for assignment work are
provisional until confirmed or otherwise by the relevant examinations board.

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
For 70-100% Excellent (First) The student will have demonstrated a very clear and
thorough understanding of the requirements for innovation development. The work will
demonstrate an outstanding, high to very high standard with a high level of critical
analysis and evaluation, showing incisive original thinking and commendable originality.
There will be evidence of exceptionally well researched material, presented with
exceptional quality and clarity of ideas integrated with excellent coherence and logic.
There will be trivial or very minor errors.
For 60-69% Very Good (2:1) The student will have demonstrated a very good
understanding of the requirements for innovation development. A very good level of
critical analysis and evaluation with significant originality providing a well-researched
submission with a very good standard of presentation and pleasing clarity of ideas
presented thoughtfully and effectively. The work will show very good sense of
coherence and logic with minor errors only.
For 50-59% Good (2:2) A good standard;
The student will have demonstrated a good understanding of the requirements for
innovation development.
A fairly good level of critical analysis and evaluation with some evidence of original
thinking or originality. Quite well researched with a good standard of presentation
demonstrating ideas generally clear and coherent. There will be some evidence of
misunderstandings and some deficiencies in presentation.
For 40-49% Satisfactory (Third)
A sound standard of work. The student will have demonstrated a fair level of critical
analysis and evaluation for innovation development. There will be little evidence of
original thinking or originality. The work will be adequately researched and a sound
standard of presentation. Ideas will be fairly clear and coherent. It is expected that there
will be some significant misunderstandings and errors, some weakness in style or
presentation but satisfactory overall.
For 35-39% Unsatisfactory (Marginal Fail)
Overall marginally unsatisfactory, there will be some sound aspects of satisfactory work
but some of the following weaknesses will be evident. Inadequate critical analysis and
evaluation, little evidence of originality and not well researched. The standard of
presentation is unacceptable with ideas unclear and incoherent and some significant
errors/misunderstandings.
For 1-34% Very poor (Fail)
Well below the pass standard. A poor critical analysis and evaluation with no evidence
of originality and poorly researched. The standard of presentation is totally
unacceptable, with confused ideas and incoherent text. There will be evidence of some
serious misunderstandings and errors providing A clear fail well short of the pass
standard.

5ME511 Assessment No 1 MjB

Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology

School Of Engineering and Technology
At the bottom of the range the work demonstrates nothing of merit where you will clearly
not have understood the requirements for innovation development.
For NS No Submission
For Z Academic Offence notification
Applies to proven instances of academic offence.

5ME511 Assessment No 1 MjB