KEGAS DESIGN PACKAGE

for

EMPACT
MARS ROVER/LANDER PROTOTYPE

Angus Franklin, Sally Hillam, Emily Lawler, Judy Storer, Keira Petty

1
Table of Contents
1.0 Drawings.............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1.1 Plan View ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.1.2 Plan View ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Front View ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.3.1 Side View....................................................................................................................... 7
1.3.2 Side View....................................................................................................................... 8
1.4.1 Cross Section ................................................................................................................. 9
1.5.1 Exploded View ............................................................................................................. 10
1.6.1 3D View....................................................................................................................... 11
2.0 Specifications ..................................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Materials List .................................................................................................................. 13
2.3 Tools List ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.4 Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 14
3.0 Risk Management Plan ....................................................................................................... 15
3.1.0 - Introduction ................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.0 - Assessing Potential Risk ................................................................................................ 16
3.3.0 - Project Establishment ................................................................................................... 17
3.4.0 - Construction................................................................................................................. 19
3.5.0 - Post-Handover Testing .................................................................................................. 21
4.0 Tender Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................... 23
4.1.0 - Introduction ................................................................................................................. 24
4.2.0 - Criteria Summary.......................................................................................................... 24
4.3.0 - Criteria Explanation and Marks ...................................................................................... 24
5.0 GANTT Chart29

2
1.0 Drawings
CLIENT: EMPACT
PROJECT: MARS L ANDER /ROVER
D ATE: 30/03/2017
REVISION: B

Table of Contents
1.0 Drawings.............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1.1 Plan View ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.1.2 Plan View ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Front View ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.3.1 Side View....................................................................................................................... 7
1.3.2 Side View....................................................................................................................... 8
1.4.1 Cross Section ................................................................................................................. 9
1.5.1 Exploded View ............................................................................................................. 10
1.6.1 3D View....................................................................................................................... 11

3
1.1.1 Plan View

4
1.1.2 Plan View

5
1.2.1 Front View

6
1.3.1 Side View

7
1.3.2 Side View

8
1.4.1 Cross Section

9
1.5.1 Exploded View

10
1.6.1 3D View

11
2.0 Specifications
CLIENT: EMPACT
PROJECT: MARS L ANDER /ROVER
D ATE: 30/03/2017
REVISION: B

Table of Contents
2.0 Specifications ..................................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Materials List .................................................................................................................. 13
2.3 Tools List ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.4 Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 14

12
2.1 Introduction
This document outlines all the details required to construct the designed mars rover/lander
including materials, tools and the procedure.

2.2 Materials List

Revision: D

Material Amount Location Cost

Wood-pine 1x Bunnings $2.10
(70x30x1000mm)
PVC pipe caps 4x Bunnings $7.20 ($1.80each)
(1000mm-d)
Threaded metal rod 1x Bunnings $6.10
(3\8x42)
Washers (3/8-inch) 12x Bunnings $0.96 (8c each)
Nuts (3/8-inch) 8x Bunnings $0.88 (11c each)
Wood screws (50- 8x Bunnings $1.44(18c each)
55mm long)

Rubber bands - J. 32x Officeworks $3.65 per 100g pack

burrows (87x6mm)
TOTAL
$22.33

2.3 Tools List

Revision: D

Tool Application Alternative

Hack saw Cut threaded rod N/A
Circular saw Cut wood Hack saw, Hand saw

2x Adjustable spanners Tighten nuts 2x non-adjustable spanners

(size of nut)
Power drill w/ N/A
Drill bit (11 mm) Drill axle holes

Screwdriver bit (Philips head) Screw wood together N/A

2x C or F Clamps (size Secure wood while screwing Bench vice
appropriate to rover width) together
Ruler (wooden) Measure wood & rod N/A
load bottle into rover
Pencil/Pen/Marker Mark measurements on N/A
wood/rod
Chisel (size >20mm wide) Smooth edges of wood so Planer, Belt sander or
rubber bands dont rub Sandpaper
Sandpaper (medium grain) Smooth edges N/A
Square Ruling right angles Anything with a right angle
edge
13
2.4 Procedure
Revision: D

1. Measure and cut two 310mm and two 75mm pieces of wood from the 30x70 mm length of
pine using a circular saw.
2. Lightly sand any rough edges using a fine sand paper.
3. Using C clamps secure the wood lengths in their required positions as shown in drawing
(1.1.1 plan view).
4. Using the 50 or 55mm wood screws whilst the wood is clamped join the two 310 mm pieces
of 30x70 mm wood to the two 75 mm pieces of 30x70 mm to form the chassis structure.
5. Using a hand-held power drill with a 10 or 11-mm drill bit drill a hole through both shorter
sides of the chassis as shown in drawing (1.4.1 cross section). Along with this drill a hole in
the centre of the four PVC pipe caps.
6. Using a hack saw cut two 190mm pieces off the 3/8-inch threaded metal rod.
7. Scrutiny Testing - Ensure these sections of threaded rod fit within the holes drilled in step 4
and have room to rotate freely. If so then both components are up to standard. If they do
not rotate freely then use a 12-mm drill bit to enlarge the hole drilled in step 4.
8. Using a chisel followed by medium grain sand paper round off the bottom and top outside
edges of both the 310mm sides of the pine chassis.
9. Stretch 16 elastic bands around the rounded off sides of the chassis and leave them
stretched around the middle as shown in drawing (1.1.2 plan view).
10. Stretch another 4 elastic bands around each wheel running parallel to the edge of the wheel
as shown in drawing (1.1.2 plan view).
11. Place both previously prepared 190 mm metal threaded rod pieces through the holes drilled
into the chassis.
12. On both sides (protruding from the chassis) of the metal threaded rod pieces place a 3/8-
inch washer followed by a 3/8-inch nut. Tighten the nut with an adjustable spanner leaving
1-2mm between the chassis and the washer as shown in drawing (1.5.1 exploded view).
13. Scrutiny Testing If the axle does not rotate due to too much contact with the washers then
increase the gap between the chassis and the washer by 1mm.
14. Now place another washer and then one of the four 100 mm wide circular PVC pipe caps
onto each end of both metal threaded rod pieces with the concave side facing outwards as
shown in drawing (1.5.1 exploded view).
15. Place a 3/8-inch washer on the outside of each of the PVC pipe caps on the metal rod
followed by a 3/8-inch nut on each as shown in drawing (1.5.1 exploded view).
16. Tighten this nut using two adjustable spanners (one holding the interior nut and one
tightening the outside nut) until the PVC pipe cap (the wheel) is firmly in place between the
two nuts.
17. Scrutiny Testing When the rover is rolled along a flat surface for two metres it should not
deviate by more than 4 cm left or right. If it deviates by more than this amount the holes
drilled for the axles need to be double checked to ensure they are straight. If these holes are
not straight, then the entire rover needs to be dismantled and the wooden chassis beams
need to be replaced. If these holes are straight but the rover still deviated by more than 4
cm then the axle needs to be checked to ensure it cannot slide laterally by more than 3mm
through the chassis.

14
3.0 Risk Management Plan
CLIENT: EMPACT
PROJECT: MARS L ANDER/R OVER
D ATE: 31/03/2017
REVISION: D

Table of Contents
3.0 Risk Management Plan ....................................................................................................... 15
3.1.0 - Introduction ................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.0 - Assessing Potential Risk ................................................................................................ 16
3.2.1 - Consequence ............................................................................................................ 16
3.2.2 - Likelihood................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.3 - Level of Risk.............................................................................................................. 16
3.3.0 - Project Establishment ................................................................................................... 17
3.3.1 - Hazard Identification ................................................................................................. 17
3.3.2 - Mitigation................................................................................................................. 17
3.3.3 - Residual Risk............................................................................................................. 18
3.4.0 - Construction................................................................................................................. 19
3.4.1 - Hazard Identification ................................................................................................. 19
3.4.2 - Mitigation................................................................................................................. 19
3.4.3 - Residual Risk............................................................................................................. 20
3.5.0 - Post-Handover Testing.................................................................................................. 21
3.5.1 - Hazard Identification ................................................................................................. 21
3.5.2 - Mitigation................................................................................................................. 21
3.5.3 - Residual Risk............................................................................................................. 22
References.......................................................................................................................... 22

15
3.1.0 - Introduction
This document outlines the risk assessment and management of the Mars Rover. Within this
document all three stages of the Mars Rovers production are covered, it includes the project
establishment, construction and lastly post-handover testing of the vehicle.

3.2.0 - Assessing Potential Risk

Once hazards have been identified they will be evaluated for their likelihood and consequence. The
combination of their likelihood and consequence will result in the level of risk that these hazards
pose. All the hazards will be evaluated this way and the results will provide information as to
whether they are detrimental to the project.

3.2.1 - Consequence
Table 1: Consequence Matrix
Level Descriptor More Detail Injuries Operational Impact
1 Low Small inconvenience and no None Little impact <1 hour
effect on result
2 Minor Inconvenience and/or possible Cuts and Bruises Inconvenient delay
effect on results 1 hour 1 day
3 Moderate Small problem and/or slight First Aid Significant delays
effect on results 1 4 days
4 Major Problem and/or effect on Medical Major setback 4 7
results Assistance days
5 Critical Large problem and/or large Extensive Inability to achieve
effect on results Treatment deadline
This table is adapted from table from City of Rockingham, Risk Management Plan (Guide Only) see references

3.2.2 - Likelihood
Table 2: Likelihood Matrix
Level Descriptor More Detail
1 Almost Certain Is expected to occur is most circumstances
2 Likely The event will probably occur at least once
3 Possible The event might occur at some time
4 Unlikely The event is not expected to occur
5 Rare The event will only occur in exceptional circumstances
This table is adapted from table from City of Rockingham, Risk Management Plan (Guide Only) see references

3.2.3 - Level of Risk

Table 3: Risk Matrix
Likelihood or Consequence Severity
Frequency Low Minor Moderate Major Critical
Almost Certain High High Extreme Extreme Extreme
Likely Moderate High High Extreme Extreme
Possible Low Moderate High Extreme Extreme
Unlikely Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Rare Low Low Moderate High High
Table acquired from Lecture 2, Slide 41 by Nicoletta Maynard, see references

16
3.3.0 - Project Establishment

3.3.1 - Hazard Identification

a. Unforeseen Circumstances Causing a Member of KEGAS to be Unable to Complete Work
Due to unforeseen circumstances a team member is unable to complete work by the deadline given.
This could be due to major injury or sickness causing them to be unable to physically unable to
complete their work or the workload being larger than originally expected causing them to have
trouble with completion.
Likelihood: Possible Consequence: Moderate Risk: High
b. Computers Crashing and Causing Work to be Lost
As most work done by KEGAS occurs on a laptop or other miscellaneous electronic tool, there is
always the possibility of the electronic tool to fail. If it did fail all the work done would be lost in
cyberspace and possibly impossible to retrieve.
Likelihood: Unlikely Consequence: Moderate Risk: Moderate
c. Crucial Information About the Project Not Reaching Everyone
As the team is not always together it is possible for crucial information from one member of the
team to not be circulated effectively to all the others. If not effectively managed miscommunication
could cause confusion and frustration as all needed information is not openly shared in the group.
Likelihood: Possible Consequence: Minor Risk: Moderate

3.3.2 - Mitigation
a. Unforeseen Circumstances Causing a Member of KEGAS to be Unable to Complete Work
To control this problem, it is important as a group to warn the group as soon as any possible
problems crop up. It is better for the group to understand that a member is struggling before it
becomes a major problem closer to the due date. If a team member is injured or sick and struggling
with work, they must tell all group members immediately. This allows the rest to organise an action
plan, so if needed we can pick up some of the incapacitated members workload. Workloads should
be monitored by the group, in order for the load to not be too heavy on one member and also so
that if someone is unable to complete their work another can step in and help. In case of these
problems arising, it is important to keep tabs on the group members and make sure they are coping
with problems.

b. Computers Crashing and Causing Work to be Lost

To prevent this from causing massive problems for deadlines, work should be saved in more than
one place. It should be saved on the computer, sent to another team member for safe keeping and
saved on an external hard drive to cover all bases. If it is saved in multiple places, no matter what
revision is lost, there should be no major issue as not all of the work will need to be rewritten from
scratch. Work should also be saved regularly while it is being worked on in case the computer
crashes before you finish changes or creating the document.

c. Important Information About the Project Not Reaching Everyone

All important information must be given to all members of the group at once. This should be done by
using a group email so that all members can receive the information or work. This causes the
information easily accessible to all those in the group, however the information should also be
posted on the Blackboard Threads. Although the information will be readily available to the group it
is important that the group members check for any new information at least once a day on their
emails and/or the Blackboard threads.
17
3.3.3 - Residual Risk
a. Unforeseen Circumstances Causing a Member of KEGAS to be Unable to Complete Work
If a team member is too proud to ask for help or is unable to ask due to lack of internet or phone
coverage, or in the extreme case of being unable to ask due to being in hospital and unable to send a
message.

Likelihood: Unlikely Consequence: Moderate Risk: Moderate

b. Computers Crashing and Causing Work to be Lost
If the work had not been saved yet due to forgetting to regularly save the work while it is being
worked on. Then the work will be lost in cyberspace and must be rewritten again and hopefully still
with time to complete the task in time.

Likelihood: Unlikely Consequence: Minor Risk: Low

c. Crucial Information About the Project Not Reaching Everyone
If someone is out of internet or phone range, then they will be unable to receive the information
until they have access again.

Likelihood: Unlikely Consequence: Minor Risk: Low

18
3.4.0 - Construction

3.4.1 - Hazard Identification

a. A Disorganised Workshop Causing Injury
When tools are not put away once they have fulfilled their use and are unneeded they create clutter
and are only an obstacle in the workspace. Tool scattered around and hanging cords are a trip
hazard and a way of injuring yourself. This is because injuries are more likely to happen in a messy
cluttered space than a clean open space.
Likelihood: Likely Consequence: Moderate Risk: High
b. Long Hair or Loose Clothing Becoming Caught in Equipment
When there are no regulations to what you wear while in a workshop or how you wear your hair it is
highly likely that an injury will occur. Loose clothing and hair is easily able to be caught in a tool or
equipment around the workplace. This could cause the ripping of hair and/or clothes and immense
pain.
Likelihood: Possible Consequence: Moderate Risk: High
c. Unexperienced Workers Hurting Themselves Due to Inexperience with Tools
People who have never used tools before are more likely to hurt themselves than those who are
experienced in using them. If they are not careful or use the tools in a risky or unsafe manner they
put themselves in danger of hurting themselves.
Likelihood: Possible Consequence: Moderate Risk: High Extreme
Major
d. Constructors Making Mistakes and Causing Materials Bought to be Wasted
If the instructions and drawings are not followed exactly then the constructors will make mistakes
while creating the rover. If the constructors accidentally cut or drill in the wrong place, then the
material is possibly unusable. If this happens there is not enough money in the budget left to rebuy
the material and so the vehicle will either not be made or go over budget as the group must replace
the materials they wasted.

Likelihood: Possible Consequence: Moderate Risk: Moderate

3.4.2 - Mitigation
a. A Disorganised Workshop Causing Injury
To prevent injury tools not in use should be put away to reduce clutter. Cords hanging in the
workplace should be obvious and not dangling in a hazardous way as to trip or entangle others as
they move around the workshop. When moving in the workshop, one should be careful to watch
where they are going in case of things that have not been put away or cords (such as extension
cords) across the floor, which could be trip hazards.

b. Long Hair or Loose Clothing Becoming Caught in Equipment

While working in the workshop clothes should be form fitting and hair should be tied back if longer
than shoulder height. To eradicate dangers of hair getting caught in any equipment a hairnet could
be worn. Nothing that dangles should be worn, for example necklaces, while working with tools and
equipment.

19
c. Unexperienced Workers Hurting Themselves Due to Inexperience with Tools
Unexperienced workers may not know the proper way to use tools, so they should either be
monitored by someone with more experience or not use any tools that could hurt them which they
have no experience using. To eradicate this problem, inexperienced workers could not be allowed to
work on anything they have not attempted or done in the past.

d. Constructors Making Mistakes and Causing Materials Bought to be Wasted

For this to not be a problem the plan should be consulted for everything which is done.
Measurements should be double checked both on the materials and the design before work is done.
Also, instructions should be referred to throughout the whole build, as nothing should be done
without first referencing the drawings and design specifications. Ensure that the constructors adhere
to the scrutiny tests within the procedure. The designers must check for discrepancies in the design
package, so that there will be no confusion due to mismatching information, and hence less of a
chance of the constructors making mistakes.

3.4.3 - Residual Risk

a. A Disorganised Workshop Causing Injury
If people do not watch where they are going they still have the possibility of tripping over a cord or
bumping into a piece of equipment. This could still cause them to injure themselves.

Likelihood: Unlikely Consequence: Minor Risk: Low

b. Long Hair or Loose Clothing Becoming Caught in Equipment
If people are not bothered with the safety warnings and do not wear the correct things with hair tied
up while operating tools they have a high possibility of hurting themselves.

Likelihood: Unlikely Consequence: Moderate Risk: Moderate

c. Unexperienced Workers Hurting Themselves Due to Inexperience with Tools
Instructions are not followed and the unexperienced workers do not heed any warnings. They also
work without the supervision of an experienced worker.

Likelihood: Unlikely Consequence: Moderate Risk: Moderate

d. Constructors Making Mistakes and Causing Materials Bought to be Wasted
Tools are faulty. For example, their square isnt square or their ruler isnt exact.

Likelihood: Rare Consequence: Minor Risk: Low

20
3.5.0 - Post-Handover Testing

3.5.1 - Hazard Identification

a. Wheels Break on Impact
If the rover lands and the wheels shatter, then the rover will have major damage and this will result
in reduced marks in the testing and performance stage. This is turn could cause damage also to the
cargo if not only the prototype.
Likelihood: Possible Consequence: Major Risk: Extreme
b. Rover Lands on its Side
If the rovers centre of gravity is not central and the way that the rover leaves the ramp causes the
rover to flip on its side it could land not in the form which it is supposed to do. This could cause the
prototype to be damaged and possibly the cargo. It also could result in a loss of marks in the testing
and performance stage.
Likelihood: Unlikely Consequence: Major Risk: High
c. Rubber Bands Break Around the Cargo
When the rover lands on the ground the rubber, bands hold the cargo in place and act as a form of
suspension for the cargo. If the bands were to break due to stress, then there would be major
damage to the prototype and the cargo has a chance of coming loose and possibly falling out of the
cargo bay.
Likelihood: Unlikely Consequence: Major Risk: High

3.5.2 - Mitigation
a. Wheels Break on Impact
KEGAS has researched different materials which could be used as a wheel. We have considered
different materials and their strength to properly choose what is the best material to use for our
rover. We have also conducted drop tests on materials to see what sort of damage could be
sustained by the rover in the testing and performance stage, to make sure that wheel is sturdy
enough to not shatter on impact. The wheels also have a few rubber bands around them to help
absorb the impact and allow the wheels to be less hard on the edges, hence less likely to break due
to the elastic in the bands protected the wheels to a certain extent. If one wheel breaks the rover is
also still capable of rolling.
b. Rover Lands on its Side
KEGAS has designed our rover so that no matter which way the rover falls it will always land on at
least two wheels, even if they are not situated on the same axle. However due to the drop distance
and the centre of gravity of the rover it should not flip within the drop it will encounter in testing.
Resulting in the rover landing with either one or two sets of wheels in direct contact with the
ground. Through the design process we eradicated the risk of the rover not landing on any wheels
due to the proportions of the wheels.

c. Rubber Bands Break Around the Cargo

To minimise this risk KEGAS has included multiple bands to spread the load of the cargo. KEGAS has
also conducted tests to be certain that the amount of rubber bands carrying the bottle is more than
able to absorb the movement of the cargo on impact and the amount allows the cargo to be easily
visible and able to be loaded and unloaded in a quick and efficient manner.

21
3.5.3 - Residual Risk
a. Wheels Break on Impact
If the rover lands on only one wheel the wheel will take majority of the impact and possibly shatter
due to no dispersion of the impact across more than one wheel.

Likelihood: Rare Consequence: Moderate Risk: Moderate

b. Rover Lands on its Side
If the rover does not travel straight down the ramp, then due to one wheel exiting the ramp before
the rest the rover could spiral and land on its side.

Likelihood: Rare Consequence: Moderate Risk: Moderate

c. Rubber Bands Break Around the Cargo
If a few of the rubber bands have factory defects and are weaker, then they could possibly still snap.

Likelihood: Rare Consequence: Moderate Risk: Moderate

References
CIty of Rockingham. (n.d.). Risk Managment Plan (Guide Only). Rockingham, Western Australia,
Australia. Retrieved March 17, 2017, from
http://www.rockingham.wa.gov.au/getmedia/83b92e70-a4c5-419a-a70f-5816f0fc6295/PD-
Risk-Management-Plan-Template.pdf.aspx

Maynard, N. (2017, March 9). Engineering Foundations: Principles and Communications. Perth,
Western Australia, Australia.

22
4.0 Tender Evaluation Criteria
CLIENT: EMPACT
PROJECT: MARS L ANDER /ROVER
D ATE: 31/03/2017
REVISION: B

Table of Contents
4.0 Tender Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................... 23
4.1.0 - Introduction ................................................................................................................. 24
4.2.0 - Criteria Summary.......................................................................................................... 24
4.3.0 - Criteria Explanation and Marks ...................................................................................... 24
4.3.1 - Experience in a Workshop Environment ..................................................................... 24
4.3.2 - Experience with Appropriate Tools............................................................................. 25
4.3.3 - Effective Organisational Skills .................................................................................... 25
4.3.4 - Workshop Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Qualifications and Experience........... 26
4.3.5 - Experience Following Instructions .............................................................................. 26
4.3.6 - Effective Communication........................................................................................... 27
4.3.7 - Access to Appropriate Tools....................................................................................... 27
4.3.8 - Effective Time Management ...................................................................................... 28

23
4.1.0 - Introduction
This document outlines the tender evaluation criteria against which all construction teams tendering
to build the Mars Rover designed by KEGAS will be judged. It includes a description of what each
criterion entails, how many marks each criteria is worth, and what must be demonstrated for each
criteria to gain those marks.

4.2.0 - Criteria Summary

Criteria Marks
available
Experience in a workshop environment 20
Experience with appropriate tools 10
Effective organisational skills 20
Workshop Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) qualifications and experience 5
Experience following instructions 10
Effective communication 10
Access to appropriate tools 10
Effective time management 20

Total 105

4.3.0 - Criteria Explanation and Marks

4.3.1 - Experience in a Workshop Environment

Experience in a workshop environment indicates that the team/member has at least a base
understanding in the skills required for the construction of the rover. These skills may include
experience in the use of hand/power tools, basic understanding of occupational health and safety
requirements and implementation, experience following instructions, working in a team, and
effective time management.

Marks 0 7 14 20
Skill/evidence No evidence Evidence (e.g. Evidence (e.g. Evidence (e.g.
demonstrated provided to photos) photos, school photos, work
indicate indicating report) experience
experience in a experience in a indicating documentation,
workshop home workshop experience in a etc.) indicating
environment. environment high school experience in a
(e.g. backyard workshop professional
project.) environment. workshop
environment.

24
4.3.2 - Experience with Appropriate Tools

Experience operating and utilising the tools required as per the tools list in a safe and effective
manner allows the rover to be built safely and to the highest quality. This minimises the physical risk
to the constructors and the academic risk to both the designers and constructors.

Marks 0 3 6 10
Skill/evidence No evidence of Evidence of Evidence of Evidence of
demonstrated experience with experience experience training and
relevant tools or using similar using relevant experience
any similar tools. tools (e.g. tools. using the
(e.g. alternative Alternative relevant tools.
tools specified.) tools specified.)

4.3.3 - Effective Organisational Skills

Good organisation, both individually and as a team, ensures that the rover will be built in the most
efficient manner. If the construction team is well organised in their group meetings, with all
members having an understanding as to their roles and all paperwork (minutes, agenda, design
package supplied, etc.) being accessible and fully completed, the project construction is more likely
to be completed as per specifications. Good organisation within the team should also translate into
effective organisation in a workshop environment, reducing the physical risk to constructors.

Marks 0 5 10 15 20
Skill/evidence No evidence Evidence of Evidence of Evidence of Evidence of
demonstrated of good poor moderately good excellent
organisation organisation good organisation organisation
(e.g. skills (e.g. organisation (e.g. almost (e.g. on time
Frequently often late (e.g. mostly always on assignments,
late assignments, on time time frequent
assignments, infrequent or assignments, assignments, meetings
no meetings, infrequently fairly frequent frequent attended by
minutes, etc.) attended meetings, meetings all, and well
meetings, adequate almost always maintained
poorly written minutes, etc.) attended by and
minutes, etc.) all, good constructed
meeting minutes and
minutes, etc.) agenda.)

25
4.3.4 - Workshop Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Qualifications and
Experience

Having relevant health and safety qualifications and certifications in a workshop environment
ensures that the constructors can complete the construction of the rover in a safe manner
minimising risk. Having experience applying these OHS measures ensures that they can be applied
correctly and quickly without hesitation.

Marks 0 2 4 5
Skill/evidence No OHS Have OHS training Have a Hold a White
demonstrated experience or or experience in a certification of Card.
training. non-workshop have done a
environment. training course
involving
workshop OHS.

4.3.5 - Experience Following Instructions

Having experience following instructions like the ones provided in the design package (interpreting
drawings that are referred to, following procedural steps, understanding listed tool and material list,
etc.) ensures that the provided specifications are followed and implemented as accurately as
possible. This results in the highest quality rover that is the closest to what is specified by the
designers.

Marks 0 2 4 6 10
Skill/evidence Have no Have Have Have Have
demonstrated experience experience experience experience experience
following following following following following
instructions. basic more complex very complex
instructions complex instructions instructions
(e.g. instructions involving involving
following a (e.g. a relevant skills many
recipe to complex Lego (e.g. use of relevant skills
bake a cake.) model or tools) for (e.g. building
other example, flat a treehouse,
complex pack shed,
model.) furniture. outdoor
table, etc.)

26
4.3.6 - Effective Communication

Effective communication between within the construction team as well as between the constructors
and designers ensures that the rover is constructed in an efficient manner with no confusion as to
what exactly is to be done and how to do it. Effective communication includes detailed group
meetings, the sharing if documents between all members, and polite and prompt replies to emails.

Marks 0 2 4 6 10
Skill/evidence Does not Often does Often replies Always replies Always
demonstrated reply to not reply to to to responds to
attempts at communica- communica- communica- communica-
communica- tion, takes few tion, replies in tion, replies tion, replier
tion. days to between 1-2 within 1 day, within 12
respond, or days, and and almost hours, and
gives gives mostly always gives always gives
convoluted or clear and clear and clear and
unclear concise concise concise
response to response. response. response.
communica-
tion.

4.3.7 - Access to Appropriate Tools

Having access to the tools specified in the design package ensures that the rover can be built to
specification. This results in the most accurately built rover. Having access to the tools specified also
implies some experience and knowledge as to how to use them.

Marks 0 2 4 6 8 10
Skill/evidence Has no Has access Has access Sometimes Has access Owns all
demonstrated access to to some of to has access to the recomme-
recomm- the alternative to the recommen- nded tools.
ended or recomm- tools. recommend- ded tools.
alternative ended or ed tools.
tools. alternative
tools.

27
4.3.8 - Effective Time Management

Being able to manage time effectively within the team ensures that the rover is completed within
the time limit without it having to be rushed which could compromise quality. This can be
demonstrated through previous examples of time management (e.g. evidence of planning out of
tasks and completing and submitting them on time in stage 1)

Marks 0 5 10 15 20
Skill/evidence Demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates
demonstrated no time poor time adequate good time excellent time
management management time management management
skills. (e.g. skills (e.g. management skills (e.g. skills (e.g.
late or rushed very little skills (e.g. considerable considerable
assignments, planning, some planning, and detailed
no planning, assignments planning, assignment planning,
etc.) often rushed assignments always on assignments
or late.) almost always time and always on
on time and almost always time and
unrushed.) unrushed.) unrushed.)

28
5.0 GANTT Chart

29