TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
P. Casal Campus, Manila
ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 9 (AR511S4)
PROGRESSIVE CONSULTATION FORM FOR CHAPTER 3: DESIGN INPUTS
THESIS PROPONENT : _____________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT TITLE AND LOCATION : _____________________________________________________________________________
NO. DESCRIPTION LESS SATISFACTORY
The proponent was not able to
clearly explain the learnings
from the case studies reviewed
RRCS Foreign:
3A1 as well as its influence the
Quality of Analysis study
1 pt
The proponent was not able to
clearly explain the learnings
from the case studies reviewed
RRCS Local:
3A2 as well as its influence the
Quality of Analysis study
1 pt
The proponent was not able to
identify and explain the
pertinent laws and regulations
3A3 Building Laws related to the project type
1 pt
The proponent was not able to
clearly discuss the chosen
design concept, with most parts
3B1 Design Concepts either lacking or vague
1 pt
The proponent was not able to
clearly discuss graphically how
the concept will be translated,
Design Form with several steps that are
3B2 missing and/or the translation
Concept Evolution
used were literal
1 pt
The proponent was not able to
clearly discuss the chosen
design philosophy, with most
parts of the discussion either
Overall Design
3B3 lacking or erroneous or
Philosophy incompatible with the project
being proposed
1 pt
The proponent was not able to
clearly discuss verbally and
graphically the chosen
planning theory, with most
parts either lacking or vague
3B4 Planning Theory and/or no graphical discussion
of the application of the
planning theory to the
proposed project were given
1 pt
SATISFACTORY
The proponent was able to
explain the learnings from the
case studies reviewed but
was not able to discuss clearly
how this will influence the
study
3 pts
The proponent was able to
explain the learnings from the
case studies reviewed but
was not able to discuss clearly
how this will influence the
study
3 pts
The proponent was not able to
identify and explain most of
the pertinent laws and
regulations related to the
project type
3 pts
The proponent was able to
discuss the chosen design
concept, but with a few points
in the discussion that are
missing and/or erroneous
2 pts
The proponent was able to
discuss graphically how the
concept will be translated but
with a few steps that are
missing and/or the translation
used were a combination of
literal and abstraction
2 pts
The proponent was able to
discuss the chosen design
philosophy, but with a few
points in the discussion that
are missing and/or erroneous
or the proponent was not able
to relate the philosophy to the
project being proposed
2 pts
The proponent was able to
discuss verbally and
graphically the chosen
planning theory, but with a few
points in the discussion that
are missing and/or erroneous,
or the graphical discussion of
how it will be applied in the
proposed project were
unclear
3 pts
VERY SATISFACTORY REMARKS
The proponent was able to
clearly explain the learnings
from the case studies reviewed
including how this will influence
the study
5 pts
The proponent was able to
clearly explain the learnings
from the case studies reviewed
including how this will influence
the study
5 pts
The proponent was able to
identify and explain the
pertinent laws and regulations
related to the project type
5 pts
The proponent was able to
clearly discuss the chosen
design concept, including the
principle behind the concept
and the reason for choice, all in
relation to the project
3 pts
The proponent was able to
clearly discuss graphically how
the concept will be translated
from the original idea to its final
application in the project,
employing abstraction or
metaphorical translation
3 pts
The proponent was able to
clearly discuss the chosen
design philosophy, including
the principle behind the
philosophy and the reason for
the choice, all in relation to the
proposed project
3 pts
The proponent was able to
clearly discuss verbally and
graphically the chosen
planning theory, including the
principle behind the planning
theory and the reason for
choice, all in relation to the
proposed project, as well as
how it will be applied in the
proposed project
5 pts
 The proponent was not able to
clearly discuss verbally and
graphically the chosen
structural system, with most
parts either lacking or vague
3B5 Structural System and/or no graphical discussion
of the application of the system
to the proposed project were
given
1 pt
The proponent was not able to
clearly discuss verbally and
graphically the chosen material
finishes, with most parts either
lacking or vague and/or no
3B6 Material Finishes graphical discussion of the
application of the material
finishes to the proposed project
were given
1 pt
The proponent was not able to
clearly identify the areas that
require another professional’s
expertise and/ or very vague in
3C Specialized Allied discussing the specialized
allied services that are needed
to be tapped for the project.
1 pt
The discussions under Chapter
3 (Design Inputs) was not
comprehensive and/or
Overall unorganized that the juror can
Cohesiveness of have the notion that the
Chapter 3 proponent is lacking in
knowledge-base in the type of
project being proposed
1 pt
The proponent was able to
discuss verbally and
graphically the chosen
structural system, but with a
few points in the discussion
that are missing and/or
erroneous, or the graphical
discussion of how it will be
applied in the proposed
project were unclear
3 pts
The proponent was able to
discuss verbally and
graphically the chosen
material finishes, but with a
few points in the discussion
that are missing and/or
erroneous, or the graphical
discussion of how it will be
applied in the proposed
project were unclear
3 pts
The proponent was able to
clearly identify the areas that
require another professional’s
expertise but was vague in
discussing the specialized
allied services that are
needed to be tapped for the
project.
2 pts
The discussions under
Chapter 3 (Design Inputs)
was mostly comprehensive
and organized that the juror
can assess that the proponent
has an acceptable
knowledge-base in the type of
project being proposed
2 pts
The proponent was able to
clearly discuss verbally and
graphically the chosen
structural system, including the
principle behind the system
and the reason for choice, all in
relation to the proposed
project, as well as how it will be
applied in the proposed project
5 pts
The proponent was able to
clearly discuss verbally and
graphically the chosen material
finishes, including the
specifications of the chosen
material and the reason for
choice, all in relation to the
proposed project, as well as
how it will be applied in the
proposed project
5 pts
The proponent was able to
clearly identify the areas that
require another professional’s
expertise as well as the
specialized allied services that
are needed to be tapped for the
project.
3 pts
The discussions under Chapter
3 (Design Inputs) was very
comprehensive and organized
that the juror can clearly assess
that the proponent is well-
versed and knowledgeable in
the type of project being
proposed
3 pts
TOTAL SCORE
_______________________________________
Signature Over Printer Name of Thesis Adviser