Engineering Methods

Academic year 2025/26

Project

Within the Engineering Methods course, you will develop a project proposal for its subject focus in the form of an application for research and development project solutions, a review of the current state in the field in the form of an article, and a presentation. The goal is to stimulate creativity and create space for implementing your own ideas, develop your communication skills, and practice technical writing and presentation methods. You work on the project and its components as a team and are evaluated as a team. The project and its components require work outside of exercises.

The project consists of these parts:

1. Project Focus (5 points)
2. Preliminary Project Version (20 points)
3. Project Presentation (30 points)
4. Project and Its Components (30 points)

The basic student obligations for project implementation are defined in the completion requirements.

Submission deadlines for individual project parts are listed in the Exercises / Submission Deadlines section. All project parts are submitted to the AIS system, for which corresponding submission locations will be created.

Develop a specification of the project focus; project title, its acronym, and brief annotation within a maximum of 2000 characters. This specifically concerns three items: VV-A1-03; VV-A1-04; VV-A1-09, from the applied research application form (Appendix 5 – Applied Research Application Template [pdf, 844 kB]). In the annotation, clearly state what you plan to focus on.

Write using diacritics.

The project title and focus are subject to approval and possible modifications by the instructor.

To be submitted: source (LaTeX) document with project focus specification .tex and its .pdf output. Content relevant to the three items is mandatory: VV-A1-03; VV-A1-04; VV-A1-09, from the applied research application form.

Evaluation

The evaluation method is as follows: clear and transparent intent – 5 points; mostly clear and transparent intent or inadequate or missing own title, acronym – 2–4 points; unclear and vague intent – 0–1 points

^

Prepare the article as an article class document according to the example article and bibliography.

To be submitted:

• forms VV-A through VV-E applied research application file in LaTeX and PDF format
• form VV-F project subject intent file in LaTeX and PDF format
• source form of review article:
  • LaTeX file with review article text
  • BibTeX file with bibliography
  • (if the review article contains) images in source format (in which they were created) and in the format in which they are inserted into the article
  • (if the review article contains) tables in source format and in the format in which they are inserted into the article (if not created directly in LaTeX)
• review article in PDF format

Evaluation

For the preliminary project version to be evaluated with a non-zero number of points:

1. it must correspond to the project focus (submitted according to point 1) including modifications by the instructor
2. it must be written in LaTeX and must be translatable to PDF format
3. the review article must have at least 4 pages of the specified format
4. the review article must reference a source that primarily guided you to the given topic and at least 7 other related sources (in text) and BibTeX must be used for this

The evaluation method is as follows:

• Excellence – 5 points (High level (excellent level): The project intent is clearly and convincingly formulated, with innovative and well-justified procedures and high application impact. The problem being solved is highly current and original, with potential to bring breakthrough solutions. Project goals are very clearly defined, realistic and measurable. The methodology is correctly chosen, detailed and fully supports goal achievement. Solver outputs are excellent, with demonstrable contribution to practice. The solver and team are internationally recognized experts, with clear vision for further development and capacity building. Significant involvement of young workers with emphasis on their growth and expertise building. High competence of all involved organizations and individuals - 5 points; Medium level (good excellence): Project intent and procedures are reasonably justified, have clear application level, though with certain limitations. The problem being solved is current, originality is partial or only in some aspects. Project goals are clear and mostly achievable. Methodology is relevant, but with minor weaknesses in connection to goals. Solver outputs are quality and have application potential. The solver and team demonstrate good level of expertise and professional competence, there is also potential for further growth. Young workers are involved, but rather marginally. Competence of involved organizations and individuals is good, but not completely balanced – 3–4 points; Low level (weak excellence): Project intent is unclear, proposed procedures are insufficiently justified or inappropriate. The problem being solved has low currency or is already being solved in other projects without originality. Project goals are indefinite, unrealistic or only formally declared. Methodology is incorrectly chosen, without connection to project goals. Solver outputs are low quality or do not demonstrate applicability. The solver and team show limited expertise and experience, lacking vision for further development. Weak or no participation of young workers. Competence of involved organizations and individuals is insufficient – 0–2 points)
• Impact – 5 points (High level (excellent impact): The project has fundamental contributions to knowledge development, applied research and innovation – brings new or significantly improved products, technologies, services or social innovations. Results are clearly usable for applicant/user in Slovakia and abroad, with high application potential. Economic and social benefit is significant and demonstrable (e.g., increased added value, job creation, quality of life improvement, environmental benefits). Measures for result maximization and communication are systematic, thoughtful and ensure broad project impact – 5 points; Medium level (good impact): The project has clear contributions to knowledge and innovation development, though not completely breakthrough. Results are usable for applicant/user, mainly in Slovakia, with limited potential for abroad. Economic and social benefit is identifiable, but partially limited. Measures for result maximization and communication are defined, but with reserves in scope or quality – 3–4 points; Low level (weak impact): Project contribution to knowledge, research and innovation is limited, little original or only declarative. Declared results have low usability, are difficult to apply for applicant/user in Slovakia and abroad. Economic and social benefit is unclear, little demonstrable or negligible. Measures for result maximization and communication are inadequate or absent – 0–2 points)
• Implementation – 5 points (High level (excellent implementation): The project is processed clearly, comprehensibly, with logically connected goals, steps and procedures. The project plan is realistic, detailed with clear schedule, milestones and well-defined work packages. Project management is well set up, with effective management processes and control mechanisms. Implementation risks are thoroughly identified, with systematically prepared risk mitigation strategies. Budget is transparent, realistic and clearly connected to project goals and outputs. Existing workplace infrastructure is quality, provides guarantee of excellent project solution and goal achievement – 5 points; Medium level (good implementation): The project is processed clearly, procedures and goals are logical, though not completely detailed. Project plan and schedule are appropriately set, contain basic milestones and work packages, with certain weaknesses in details. Project management is defined, management processes are functional, but not always completely systematic. Implementation risks are identified, mitigation methods are proposed, but only partially developed. Budget is mostly justified and appropriate, with minor reserves. Existing infrastructure is sufficient for project solution, even if not at top level – 3–4 points; Low level (weak implementation): The project is processed unclearly, with low comprehensibility and illogical connection of goals and procedures. Project plan is incomplete or unrealistic, schedule is inappropriate, clear milestones or work packages are missing. Project management is insufficiently defined, management processes are weak or missing. Implementation risks are not identified or mitigation methods are not proposed. Project financial security is weak, budget is inappropriately set or unjustified. Existing workplace infrastructure is insufficient, does not provide guarantee of quality solution – 0–2 points)

• text organization, stylization and work with sources – 5 points (clear and transparent structure, clear and correctly formulated sentences and correct references to correctly listed sources – 5 points; mostly clear and transparent structure, mostly clear sentences or minor errors in formulations and minor errors in referencing sources or in listing sources – 3–4 points; unclear and vague structure, unclear but still comprehensible sentences or major errors in formulations or major errors in referencing sources or in listing sources – 0–2 points)

^

^

• forms VV-A through VV-E applied research application file in LaTeX and PDF format
• form VV-F project subject intent file in LaTeX and PDF format
• source form of review article in LaTeX (LaTeX files with text, BibTeX file with bibliography and images created in graphic tools including export to PDF for LaTeX) and tables (if created in MS Visio tool, also in this format including possible export to PDF for LaTeX)
• article in PDF format

Evaluation

For the project and its components to be evaluated with a non-zero number of points:

1. it must correspond to its focus (submitted according to point 1)
2. it must be written in LaTeX and translatable to PDF format
3. it must reference at least 12 sources (in text) and BibTeX must be used for this

The evaluation method is as follows:

• Excellence – 7 points (High level (excellent level): The project intent is clearly and convincingly formulated, with innovative and well-justified procedures and high application impact. The problem being solved is highly current and original, with potential to bring breakthrough solutions. Project goals are very clearly defined, realistic and measurable. The methodology is correctly chosen, detailed and fully supports goal achievement. Solver outputs are excellent, with demonstrable contribution to practice. The solver and team are internationally recognized experts, with clear vision for further development and capacity building. Significant involvement of young workers with emphasis on their growth and expertise building. High competence of all involved organizations and individuals - 5-7 points; Medium level (good excellence): Project intent and procedures are reasonably justified, have clear application level, though with certain limitations. The problem being solved is current, originality is partial or only in some aspects. Project goals are clear and mostly achievable. Methodology is relevant, but with minor weaknesses in connection to goals. Solver outputs are quality and have application potential. The solver and team demonstrate good level of expertise and professional competence, there is also potential for further growth. Young workers are involved, but rather marginally. Competence of involved organizations and individuals is good, but not completely balanced – 3–4 points; Low level (weak excellence): Project intent is unclear, proposed procedures are insufficiently justified or inappropriate. The problem being solved has low currency or is already being solved in other projects without originality. Project goals are indefinite, unrealistic or only formally declared. Methodology is incorrectly chosen, without connection to project goals. Solver outputs are low quality or do not demonstrate applicability. The solver and team show limited expertise and experience, lacking vision for further development. Weak or no participation of young workers. Competence of involved organizations and individuals is insufficient – 0–2 points)
• Impact – 7 points (High level (excellent impact): The project has fundamental contributions to knowledge development, applied research and innovation – brings new or significantly improved products, technologies, services or social innovations. Results are clearly usable for applicant/user in Slovakia and abroad, with high application potential. Economic and social benefit is significant and demonstrable (e.g., increased added value, job creation, quality of life improvement, environmental benefits). Measures for result maximization and communication are systematic, thoughtful and ensure broad project impact – 5-7 points; Medium level (good impact): The project has clear contributions to knowledge and innovation development, though not completely breakthrough. Results are usable for applicant/user, mainly in Slovakia, with limited potential for abroad. Economic and social benefit is identifiable, but partially limited. Measures for result maximization and communication are defined, but with reserves in scope or quality – 3–4 points; Low level (weak impact): Project contribution to knowledge, research and innovation is limited, little original or only declarative. Declared results have low usability, are difficult to apply for applicant/user in Slovakia and abroad. Economic and social benefit is unclear, little demonstrable or negligible. Measures for result maximization and communication are inadequate or absent – 0–2 points)
• Implementation – 7 points (High level (excellent implementation): The project is processed clearly, comprehensibly, with logically connected goals, steps and procedures. The project plan is realistic, detailed with clear schedule, milestones and well-defined work packages. Project management is well set up, with effective management processes and control mechanisms. Implementation risks are thoroughly identified, with systematically prepared risk mitigation strategies. Budget is transparent, realistic and clearly connected to project goals and outputs. Existing workplace infrastructure is quality, provides guarantee of excellent project solution and goal achievement – 5-7 points; Medium level (good implementation): The project is processed clearly, procedures and goals are logical, though not completely detailed. Project plan and schedule are appropriately set, contain basic milestones and work packages, with certain weaknesses in details. Project management is defined, management processes are functional, but not always completely systematic. Implementation risks are identified, mitigation methods are proposed, but only partially developed. Budget is mostly justified and appropriate, with minor reserves. Existing infrastructure is sufficient for project solution, even if not at top level – 3–4 points; Low level (weak implementation): The project is processed unclearly, with low comprehensibility and illogical connection of goals and procedures. Project plan is incomplete or unrealistic, schedule is inappropriate, clear milestones or work packages are missing. Project management is insufficiently defined, management processes are weak or missing. Implementation risks are not identified or mitigation methods are not proposed. Project financial security is weak, budget is inappropriately set or unjustified. Existing workplace infrastructure is insufficient, does not provide guarantee of quality solution – 0–2 points)

• text organization, stylization and work with sources – 9 points (clear and transparent structure, clear and correctly formulated sentences and correct references to correctly listed sources – 7-9 points; mostly clear and transparent structure, mostly clear sentences or minor errors in formulations and minor errors in referencing sources or in listing sources – 4–6 points; unclear and vague structure, unclear but still comprehensible sentences or major errors in formulations or major errors in referencing sources or in listing sources – 0–3 points)