---
# System prepended metadata

title: Tribe A review

---

# Tribe A review

## Q1
**Did this tribe get evaluated correctly? Qualify your Yes/No with reasons.**


We think that the tribe A deserves 9.25 marks out of 15 marks because of the following reasons

-   (+0.25 marks) YAML is used correctly
-   (+0.75 marks) Table of Contents, list of figures has a dynamic feature, by clicking on a heading, it takes the reader directly to the specific location in the document However there is no feature that takes the reader back to table of contents after each heading
- (+0.75 marks)  Doc statistics are correctly included
-  (+0.75 marks) Doc readability indices are correctly included. 
- (+0.5) List of Abbreviations is partly correct. Some abbreviations are not listed (IB68 , LA and terms used in LTspice circuit diagrams)
-  (+0.75) List of Tables is correctly given
-  (+0.75) Motivation and abstract are stated
- (+0.25) the List of images and the List of figures is correctly given, but references to images are not given
-   (+1.75) Gantt Chart, work packages, task view are done. Resource breakdown is not very understandable
- (+3 marks) Average technical content
- (+3 marks) Correctly formatted 
- (-3 marks) The reuse of different used materials is not mentioned specifically
- (-0.25) Spelling mistakes

## Q2

**What are the best things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe’s report? These are points you will incorporate in your next report.**

The overall report was fine but we would sincerely like to include the following points in our next report:-

- extensive use of LTspice software for circuit diagrams and analyzing the performance of circuit design
- they used most features available in markdown
- figures have been captioned and linked to in the list of figures
- citations have been put immediately after the fact or concept

## Q3
**What are the worst things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe’s report? These are points you will avoid in your next report.**
Some mistakes were

-   Completely missed out the reusability section and closure document. (No specific work done in week 4 as given in the task description)
-  Requirements of appliances are not completely correct. according to the needs of the customer. No discussion or planning on the basis of location
-  Wrong units- kW is used in place of kWh multiple times
-   Subsidies not included in the cost analysis for solar panel. Cost analysis of solar panel is incorrect.
- No backup energy source specified. Off grid home is reliable only on Solar energy and also considered that the solar panel works in all weather conditions 
- No mention of types and specifications of battery used like lead- acid battery, nickel iron, lithium ion battery etc.
-   The report doesn’t have a monochromatic color format. Color should be avoided as far as possible
- Subheadings directly started with bullet points
- There should be an appendix at the end for abbreviations, units, and other terms for a better understanding of the document by the reader
- The source link for each diagram should be given at the location of the diagram
- 
## Q4
**Please make some good appreciative/encouraging/positive comments about the effort made by this Tribe in putting together their report. Organize your comments on the rubric of sub-efforts – documentation, technical content, teamwork, tool usage, readability, usability for a possible product offering.**

Some of the good points were:

### Documentation
They explained the project concisely in the Abstract. Documentation and readability are good. We think that the organization of tables and figures was nice. They included embedded links for materials which is good. Mindmap was used to describe various components of the document.

### Technical Content
Their research is easily understandable. They should consider alternative energy sources in case solar panels don't work. Reasoning could have been put in the final design. Overall the technical content was average.

### Team Work
Most people participated in the project. Participation (as mentioned in the report) is in the range 0.9-1. 

### Tool Usage
They have extensively used LTspice for circuit diagrams and aanalyzing performance of circuit designs.

### Readability
Readability is good. The readability indices scores give a very positive outlook on the document’s readability.


# Tribe B review

## Q1

**Did this tribe get evaluated correctly? Qualify your Yes/No with reasons.**
We think that the tribe D deserves 13.1  marks out of 15 marks 

**Deductions**
These are things they could have done better:
- There were a few things that needed improvement like page numbers were not provided, links to the figure in the list of figures were not provided, images used in Gantt chart and critical path were blurred etc.
- The choice of fonts could have been better
- The content is highly technical  for a client with limited understanding of Science and Technology

1. Technical content  1.75 / 2
The report submitted was well researched and data driven arguments were also provided and    estimations of the requirements were reasonable. A margin for error for the same has also been taken into account for unknown contingencies. However, the content is highly technical for a client with limited understanding of Science and Technology

2. Team work 1.9 / 2
Everyone in the team except for 3 scored full on participation points indicating good team work 

3. Usage of Tools  2 / 2
The final report was submitted in Markdown and  it included a variety of tools and models like the CAD model, mind maps, charts, sheets etc.
	
4. Readability 1.95 / 2
Document readability index is well within the desired range and despite having high proportion of technical content in the report , it is not very  complicated for the user to understand. However the choice of fonts could have been better

5. Documentation 3.25 / 4
The content is well organized and Table of content, Gantt Chart, Readability index and other parameters are stated in the starting of the report for the reader. The content is reference supported in the desired format. However there were few things that needed improvement like page numbers were not provided, links to the figure in the list of figures were not provided, images used in gantt chart and critical path were blurred etc.

6. Usage of Product offering 2.25 / 3
A good model meeting the energy requirements within budget has been designed and the details about implementation, maintenance and reusability has also been provided. However report is more focused on technical aspect and some more customer relevant sections can be added


The first week's report has been evaluated very accurately since the report missed out many critical sections like lists of figures and abbreviations. No abstract or aim was given. But these are majorly documentation errors and even after being marked 'excellent' in technical content, the tribe has not even been given 50% of the total marks that week. Moreover, many rubric items in the grading were mere suggestions and not guidelines. 

In the second week, this team did not submit the compiled PDF in its final submission which accounted for the massive marks deduction. 2 marks for including the bibliography have not been granted, moreover, an additional 1 mark has been deducted for not having the Bibliography in the standard format. It is suggested to reconsider this deduction of 3 marks despite including the bibliography. But, considering a real-life scenario, these mistakes were taken very sincerely and the later versions of the report presented every section minimising those errors. Given the nature of this lab, these efforts should be awarded duly since the team has shown ownership and precision. A revised marking for week-2 could be done. Despite most of the team's efforts and time being spent on exhaustive end-to-end research, technical research does not enjoy the importance in terms of marks assigned to it. 

Learning from the errors made in the first two weeks, the tribe worked on its documentation errors that were highlighted. These improvements can be clearly reflected with the increase in marks, in the third week showing that the report submitted was good in technical aspects but lacked presentation. The efforts made by the team were not highlighted from the marks they got in the first 2 weeks as they could have deserved more.

Overall yes, the report seems to be have been evaluated right for the most part considering all the factors in detail, giving importance to parts that were necessary and addressing the mistakes that were done to correct in the subsequent submissions but weightage for each component (requirements, specifications, etc) could’ve been based on the amount of effort that had been put in, say, requirements component was relatively easier compared to the other components. 

## Q2

**What are the best things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe's report? These are points you will incorporate in your next report.**

- The document is well-structured into clearly demarcated sections and subsections with corresponding headings and hyperlinks, which flow logically one after the other

- Resources are used wisely, divided among different tasks, so most of the members are able to contribute to some extent. The report shows good usage of project management tools like mind maps, critical path and gantt chart, to that effect

- It is evident that much effort has been given into researching the requirements and identifying the problem being addressed, and taking minimal assumptions, with energy requirements for even minute appliances like exhaust fans being taken into account. This will help in tailoring the proposed product to the actual needs of the user.

- Sources are listed with every figure and infographic for corroboration and validation of research.

- Many different approaches to the problem have been considered to arrive at a solution rather than choosing between only one or two direct solutions. This increases the probability of having a more optimised product. Even procurement sources have been listed having many different options, with comparisons

- The CAD model was given quite accurately. Video was also provided for the same which helps in having a better picture of the model.

- A good and detailed demonstration of the product has been shown by installing it in a sample use case, a dummy home for this project, depicting the expected usage and the manner in which the proposed product helps solve the problem of self-sufficiency.

- The project has been developed keeping its future scope in mind, both for a consumer who has to consider the long-term costs, maintenance and warranty, and for the designers who can build on the project, further improving it or using it for other use cases.

- Zotero and IEEE convention has been used to write the bibliography in a very formal manner.


## Q3

**3. What are the worst things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe's report? These are points you will avoid in your next report.**
- Page Numbers have not been provided anywhere, this makes it highly inconvenient to use when a hardcopy is  required.
- Table of Contents(2-3)- Page numbers should also include page number to provide the reader an idea on the length of different sections.
- Authors (Page 4—7)- The heading of the last column is not clear and is cut because of alignment issues, the horizontal scroljl bar at the end of the table on page 6 is unpleasant to look at.
- Gantt Chart (Page 9) and Critical Path (Page 11)- The screenshot used is blurred which makes the text difficult to read, a clearer image should have been used for it to be easy on the eye.
- Giffy Diagramatic Representation- Lines are needlessly bendy, straight lines could have been used.
- List of Figures, List of Tables and List of Videos (Page 14-15) - No linkage to the figures nor the corresponding page number has been provided
- For Figure 1, the source link goes on till 4 lines and looks very untidy, the source could have been linked without typing in such a long URL.
 
- Figure 2 (Page 23): Same label (Wind Speed in 2021 in Kolkata) has been given 3 times. Moreover, wind speeds for some place closer to the coordinates should have been used.

- Figure 3 (Page 24): Same label (Average Wind Speed in Kolkata has been given 3 times). 
 

- Table 3 (Page 25): Table should have been started on a new page, the table breaks because of the page break which seems odd.

- Lithium ion battery (Page 33-35)-  Subheadings are in ‘Italics; this convention has not been followed in other parts of the report.
 

Overall: 
The font is not very easy on the eye. Standard official fonts like Arial and Times New Roman should have been sued.

The font used to label tables and figures is different and doesn’t look like “labeling” font, tables are not centre-aligned.

While bibliography is given it is not immediately apparent which source is to be referred for which piece of text, resources should be matched to their corresponding text.

No blatantly obvious grammatical  errors were found but at some places, certain words are capitalised in the middle of the sentences for example,  “Due to Economical Constraints, we are not using biogas as a source of electricity generation.”

The content is highly technical but for a client with limited understanding of Science and Technology, these details are neither necessary nor easy to understand.


## Q4
The overall report submitted by Tribe B is well researched and presented achieving the final objective of designing a sustainable off-grid home within budget constraints. The Research team did a good job of obtaining data from scratch and using the same data in their design specifications in the end. The participation from all the members barring a few exceptions is quite positive. Further things noticed in the report are-

**Documentation**
On the first look the report seems a neat project in Markdown with all the content well organised. Table of content, Gantt Chart, Readability index and other parameters are stated in the starting of the report for the reader. Similarly all the data sheets used and the content is reference supported with each reference being neatly mentioned in the desired format using Zotero. Although inline references could have been used to better help the user as the sheer number of them could be overwhelming at first glance

**Technical Content**

The team has done a very good job when it comes to research. Every subtopic whether energy source or the battery is data supported with all the data collected from scratch. One of the examples being research done on wind pattern in Kolkata and optimum position of solar panel to decide on its location. Data driven arguments as used in the report helps in making sure that we do not over or under-estimate our requirements and stay within the budget constraints. A margin for error for the same has also been taken to account for unknown contingencies (Backup power provided in case one of the sources fails). The CAD Model of the house is very impressive given the time frame. All components are real life size proportional and all the  detailed views of the horse being given(like floor plan, isometric view, 3D video) for the consumer.

**Team Work**
The participation from the team is quite encouraging as except 3 members everyone has scored full on the participation points(0-1).The Tribe Coordinator being in maximum number of teams shows the example of leading from the front with sub-team coordinator being made to appropriately divide up the work. It could have been better if the author list was mentioned team-wise

**Tool Usage**
The class started with the instructor providing us with a large number of tools that might be helpful to us in the subsequent duration of the courses. A large number of those tools can be seen used in the report. While the final report was submitted in Markdown, it included a variety of tools and models like the CAD model, mind maps, charts, sheets and more.

**Readability**
Document readability index has been provided in the starting of the report. Readability index emphasises that short sentences written in plain English are better than long complicated ones.
Given the high proportion of technical content in the report all the indexes are within the desired value and not too high or complicated for the user to understand. Overall the report is well presented and well explained and easy to comprehend for the user without too much background reading required despite its technical nature.

**Usability**
Overall a decent job has been done by the team in designing an off grid home meeting energy requirements within the user budget. All the details provided about the implementation with additional components such as maintenance and reusability make it a consumer friendly service. Although to be converted to a product that can be sold in the market a little more work needs to be done. Current report is more on the technical aspect and other consumer relevant sections need to be added (like daily time division for usage of each source, monthly variations in weather leading to a different energy output,instructions for users to keep the service running).








# Tribe C review

## Q1

**Did this tribe get evaluated correctly? Qualify your Yes/No with reasons.**

We think that the tribe E deserves 8.75 marks out of 15 marks.


### Deductions

- Tables and diagrams could be adjusted in one whole page in a consistent way. (-0.5)
- Monochromatic diagrams and text. (-0.25)
- Zotero not used somewhere(-0.5)
- Task Usage explicitly not present(-0.5)
- Formatting errors at a few places(for ex- Page 11)(-0.5)
- Table of Contents isn't Dynamic(-0.5)
- Size of Fonts are not properly adjusted at many places. Example at page 25, section and subsection have same font size.(-0.5)
- Sources of figures aren't mentioned(-0.5)
- Links mentioned aren't clickable(-0.5)
- Few Headings haven't been capitalized(-0.25)
- Cover page isn't formatted correctly as expected(-0.5)
- Abstract is written in bulleted points which is not expected(-0.5)
- Mind-map isn't as diverse as expected(-0.25)
- Cost units style isn't uniform(few places &#8377; and other places INR has been used)(-0.5)


## Q2

**What are the best things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe's report? These are points you will incorporate in your next report.**

These are the points on which you appreciated.
- It looks like they have good team collaboration. Every part is equally good, which tells that every team has given valuable input.
- Good work in writing document readability indices. They have mentioned inference, which helps understand what the respective score is telling about the document readability.
- The document has a “Scope” section, which talks about the document's scope. It seems helpful and necessary for every paper. 
- The document also has a “Workflow” section. It tells the details about the document workflow.
- In the list of tables, they have added hyperlinks to each table. This makes the document more smooth and improves the reading experience. The team has included hyperlinks in the list of figures as well.
- Numbering sections and subsections is a good thing and help to quickly find things and also make it easy to create references for information ( like the cost of wind energy is discussed in sections 1.2.1 )
- Information is conveyed in points instead of paragraphs, making the document easy to read and understand.
- Included figures are more logical and relate to information. In this field, Tribe-C has done a better job.
- Very detailed analysis, which has been expressed in a logical and straightforward language. I can understand every information told in each section.

## Q3

**3. What are the worst things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe's report? These are points you will avoid in your next report.**

Some mistakes were:- 

- The report doesn't have a monochromatic color format. Color should be avoided as far as possible.
- Markdown is not used properly. The list of tables and list of figures is full of errors like there’s written “[fig 3.1][#Mechanical figures]” instead of just fig 3.1.
- Formatting is not done properly. For eg: The table of contents should have started from the second page.
- Some of the references are typed, which should be avoided.
- Some diagrams are bigger than required. For eg: Piezo shoe sole CAD model.
- Table of Contents is not dynamic i.e., clicking on a heading does not take the reader into the specific location in the document although they are specified in blue color.
- In the mind map, it’s mentioned- “Does your house have enough solar power for the recommended tier”. How can we know prior to research that solar power will be used? We can try to avoid specifying such information, if we are going for a basic mind map like - “How to choose your ideal system”.
- Team should’ve asked the client for the location because giving geographical requirements for different energy sources does not make much sense as whatever the geographical location we choose, the supply of energy for the equipment isn't going to be continuous. For eg: there isn't going to be sunlight for 12 months in a year for solar-based. Hence, we have to use a hybrid system at any geographical location as it’s more efficient and reliable.
- There should be an appendix at the end for abbreviations, units, and other terms for a better understanding of the document by the reader.
- The source link for each diagram should be given at the location of the diagram.

## Q4

**Please make some good appreciative/encouraging/positive comments about the effort made by this Tribe in putting together their report. Organize your comments on the rubric of sub-efforts – documentation, technical content, teamwork, tool usage, readability, usability for a possible product offering.**

Overall the report was good, some of the good points were:

### DOCUMENTATION

- Headers of each table were organized. There were no missing header columns in the document. 
- The Overall document looks neat and clean.
- A list of tables, figures, Gantt chart, Mind Map, etc was provided in an appropriate way. All the figures were correctly aligned. 
- Document Readability and Statistics were included in the correct format. Spacing between table headers and headings is as expected. Font sizes of the document are also good.
- Page numbers are mentioned.

### TECHNICAL CONTENT
- The depth of details of information provided in the documents tells that the team has done intensive and organised research. They are capable of good research.
- In each section ( or topic ) they have included major desirable points like cost, efficiency, output, figures, and diagram, physical dimension.
- They have mentioned geographic limitation, which is logical and should be mentioned in every document like this.
- The technical team has searched the vendors and mentioned their details in the document. This makes this document a complete solution for the off-the-grid home.

### TEAM WORK
- The overall document looks like the reliable hard work of the overall team.
- Almost all the members of the team have a significant contribution to the work since the participation index is 1 for almost all of them.
- The documentation team and CAD teamwork looks very good
. 

### TOOL USAGE
- The team has used appropriate tools for making the document better. Using various tools is impressive and makes the document smooth. 
- Teams have used Markdown for documentation, Tinkercad for creating CAD models,  LTSpice for making circuit diagrams. They have created Mind-Map and Gantt-Chart.

### READABILITY
- Readability of the overall document was good. The readability indices mentioned are also quite fair. 
- Appropriate spacing and bulleted format have been used to enhance readability. 
- The vocabulary used is also quite understandable to anyone.

### USABILITY
- The team has presented an end-to-end solution for the off-the-grid home.
- The document talks about the technical aspects of the solution presented in the document. The document can be used for finding the technical details of different energy resources and energy storage solutions. And also document provides a detailed technical and economical comparison between different technologies.
- Along with technical details, material estimation and budget estimation are also included in the document. With slight changes in person-to-person requirements, this document can be a very good and efficient guide for an off-the-grid home.



# Tribe E review

## Q1

**Did this tribe get evaluated correctly? Qualify your Yes/No with reasons.**

We think that the tribe E deserves 9.5 marks out of 15 marks because of the following reasons

- YAML is used correctly and innovatively. (+0.25 marks)
- Table of Contents,list of figures etc have a dynamic feature- by clicking on a heading, it takes the reader directly to the specific location in the document(+1.75 marks)
- Requirements and specifications are mentioned very briefly and upto the mark.(+3 marks)
- Gantt charts, list of abbreviations are included and Cad models are presented beautifully. And also tables are used very frequently and effectively. It made the data readable and attractive as well (+3marks)
- The reuse of different used materials is mentioned specifically(+1.5 marks)

### Deductions
- The only backup plan mentioned was to have a “diesel generator” which was not accounted in the “total costs”.(-0.25 marks)
- The dimensions of the CAD model are not included.(-0.75 marks).
- Code written in markdown language didn’t compile at some instants for ex it is somewhere written “$\pm$ 2%” and at some other point  “<=100A $\pm$“ which didn’t transform into correct mathematical expression.(-1.5 mark)
- The batteries have been connected in series, mention of battery failure mitigation measures and also installation cost has not been justified, it seems arbitrary. (-1.5 marks)
- Warranty and safety precautions on working with the equipment are not described. The closure of the report doesn’t look promising(-1.5 marks)

## Q2

**What are the best things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe's report? These are points you will incorporate in your next report.**

We like the following points in their report:- 

- Requirements are represented neatly and in clear language
- Presented how they calculated the total power consumption of each appliance. Also, they give their assumptions(in explanations column) used to come up with the value
- Attributions section is given in which all the softwares used and how they are used is given
- Reuse of different used materials is shown specifically
- Tables are used very effectively. It made the data readable and attractive as well
- Abstract was provided that gave the idea of the whole product in advance which made the report comprehendible
- Dynamic table of contents is given which makes the report easy to navigate and read
- The links to buy products are also provided. This increases the completeness of the report and quite handy for readers

## Q3

**3. What are the worst things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe's report? These are points you will avoid in your next report.**

Some of the Common Mistakes were,
- Dimension of the CAD model is not included
- No information related to warranty and services of product used is included(Closure is not included)
- Data sheets of the components like solar panel, battery are missing in the report
- Only a few energy sources are considered like solar energy and generators
- Wiring requirements have not been justified, the specified length, 15 m, seems to be an arbitrary number
- Installation cost has not been justified, it seems arbitrary
- The backup time of electrical equipment is not mentioned. There is no mention of any backup measures taken
- There is no dealer information for batteries used 
- The batteries have been connected in series, no mention of battery failure mitigation measures
- There is no description of installation. There is no diagram explaining how everything should be connected and everything fits together
- The work packages section in the project management section shows a cost of zero rupees everywhere
- There is no mention of the arrangements to run the backup generator, i.e. how they propose to obtain diesel to run the generator
- The Biogas plant has been mentioned to be “optional” in “Technical requirements”. “Optional requirements” is an oxymoron. The spelling of biogas is not consistent, is “Biogas” the same entity as “Bio gas”?
- If a Biogas plant is part of the requirements, there are no details describing how to set up a biogas plant, what material is needed, etc. The cost of a biogas plant is not included in total costs
- Warranties and safety cautions while working with the equipment are not described. The closure of the report doesn’t look promising

## Q4

**Please make some good appreciative/encouraging/positive comments about the effort made by this Tribe in putting together their report. Organize your comments on the rubric of sub-efforts – documentation, technical content, teamwork, tool usage, readability, usability for a possible product offering.**

Overall the report was good, some of the good points were:

### Documentation
The report succinctly described all aspects of the requirements.The requirements seem to be very exhaustive, i.e. they cover all aspects of the requirements of a comfortable life. They have tabulated energy requirements and categorised them in an understandable manner. They have also attempted to account for all expenses in a tabular format.

### Technical Content

- The technical team has searched the vendors and mentioned their details in the document. This makes this document a complete solution for the off-the-grid home
- The information provided in the documents are in depth tells that the team has done intensive and organised research
- Cad figures enhances the technical content and provides more understandibility for the whole report

### Team work
We believe they worked together very efficiently as we can’t imagine such a huge piece of work to be accomplished without teamwork.

### Tool usage
We really liked how they used all the tech tools. Their use of the following tools was impressive.
- Readability check (vs code extension) to get readability indices
- Markdown all in one (vs code extension) to make the table of contents
- ProjectLibre project management tools
- Draw.io for interactive mind maps
- Tinkercad for designing 3D models and plans for the project
- Excalidraw for designing the circuit diagram for the project 
- Zotero for collecting and managing references 

### Readability

The readability indices scores give a very positive outlook on the document’s readability. The team made a great effort at tabulating and making diagrams to make information more understandable.

### Usability for a possible product offering

Although with some changes and more clear specifications, we believe the project can be used for a real life offgrid solution.

# Tribe F review

## Q1

**Did this tribe get evaluated correctly? Qualify your Yes/No with reasons.**
We think that the tribe E deserves 8.85 marks out of 15 marks because of the following reasons-
- Most of the possible energy resources are used.
- Content is better explained.
- All the Vendor details are mentioned

### Deductions
- (Page 1) - The size of the IITD logo is giant, and the text size is too small to be readable(-0.5)
- (Page 5) - Poor utilization of white space (-0.1)
- (Page 6) - Text Format doesn’t look good, the listings should’ve been left-aligned instead of center (-0.1)
-  Hydrogen cylinders should not be used due to high storage costs (-1)
- (Page 9) - The roles should have been more specific, according to what work each member performed(-0.2)
- (Page 12) - Highlights within tables shouldn’t have been vibrantly coloured(-0.2)
- (Page 15) - They should have brought down the whole table in one page(-0.2)
- (Page 16) - The background color of mindmap makes it less readable(-0.2)
-  (Page 17) - 3.2.1 should be explained a bit like 3.2.2(-0.2)
- (Page 18) - 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.2 have been left blank without any explanations(-0.25)
- (Page 20) - All prices should have been in INR instead of USD(-0.5)
- (Page 23) - The whole table should have been easily fit on a single page
- (Page 25) - The images are coloured, and their positioning is also poor(-1)
- (Page 39) - There was no need for an eagle-eye view
- (Page 49) - The unit of Cost in both the tables are not mentioned(-0.5)
- (Page 67) - The publication date of references are not mentioned along with the citations(-0.25)
- Some of the vendors are outside of India (-0.25)
- Full stops after every bullet point (-0.5)

## Q2

**What are the best things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe's report? These are points you will incorporate in your next report.**

The overall report was good but we would sincerely like to include the following points in our next report:-
- All the required data and equations are given in the appendix
- Reuse for the team has been given
- Water plumbing system has been shown in CAD
- Mindmap of every major task was given
- Mindmap made in Mermaid
- Vendor information is given separately



## Q3

**3. What are the worst things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe's report? These are points you will avoid in your next report.**

Some of the Common Mistakes were,

- White spaces would have been utilized in a much better way
- The coloured images used should have been black and white
- Images like LED bulb, TV, laptop, tube light etc are unnecessary
- Unnecessary usage of Fuel Cells and Biogas makes the system costlier and lesser environment-friendly

Page wise mistakes are, 
- (Page 1) - The size of the IITD logo is giant, and the text size is too small to be readable
- (Page 5) - Poor utilization of white space
- (Page 6) - Text Format doesn’t look good, the listings should’ve been left-aligned instead of center-aligned
- (Page 9) - The roles should have been more specific, according to what work each member performed
- (Page 12) - Highlights within tables shouldn’t have been vibrantly colored
- (Page 15) - They should have brought down the whole table on one page
- (Page 16) - The background colour of mindmap makes it less readable
- (Page 17) - 3.2.1 should be explained a bit like 3.2.2
- (Page 18) - 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.2 have been left blank without any explanations
- (Page 20) - All prices should have been in INR instead of USD
- (Page 22) - The background colour of mindmap makes it less readable
- (Page 23) - The whole table should have been easily fit on a single page
- (Page 25) - The images are coloured, and their positioning is also poor
- (Page 39) - There was no need for an eagle-eye view
- (Page 49) - The unit of Cost in both the tables are not mentioned
- (Page 67) - The publication date of references are not mentioned along with the citations


## Q4

**Please make some good appreciative/encouraging/positive comments about the effort made by this Tribe in putting together their report. Organize your comments on the rubric of sub-efforts – documentation, technical content, teamwork, tool usage, readability, usability for a possible product offering.**

Overall the report was good, some of the good points were:

### Documentation
They explained the project concisely in the Abstract. Documentation and readability are good. Nice organizing of tables and figures. Mind maps were given at every stage. Font selection and sub-indexing are good. But the pictures should have been given in black and white, and some CAD model images given were not necessarily like pictures of an LED. They included embedded links for materials which are good.

### Technical Content
The technical content is fairly nice because they have considered every possible resource of energy and have researched each component well. Their research is not too difficult to understand as well. They have explored the sources which are not necessary like fuel cells, but it shows that the team was trying to strike off all possibilities. But at some places, they have not given feasible product buying options. More reasoning could have been put in the final design. Overall the technical content was good.

### Team Work
Most people participated. PI is 1. The team made a great effort at tabulating and making diagrams to make information more understandable.

### Technical Content


### Tool Usage
They have used almost all the tools given to us by our instructor. They have used planning tools like project libre. They have used a different CAD software called tinkercad, which is a unique thought, but it does not make the design look professional

### Readability
Readability is good. The readability indices scores give a very positive outlook on the document’s readability. 

### Usability
The design is good, but still over the budget limit. Although every possibility has been explored the geographical aspects of the location are not considered. With some changes and more clear specifications, we believe the project can be used for a real-life off-grid system.

# Tribe D Review

## Q1


**Did this tribe get evaluated correctly? Qualify your Yes/No with reasons.**

We think that the tribe D deserves 11.75 marks out of 15 marks because of the following reasons:

The readability and presentation of the report as a whole looks great. Ease of accessibility to different sections and a list of tables/figures included.
Mentioned specifications looks good and Gantt chart, Appendix and figures are nicely presented.

Although there are a few things they could have improved upon or are left untouched- 

References not included and the document didn’t conclude the research and analysis presented in the closure. Closure is left empty.
Mind map not included for brainstorming and presenting ideas in different domains except biomass energy.

Daily household electricity requirement not included and solar panel installation details not mentioned properly.

|Section|Given Marks|Maximum marks
|--|--|--|
Technical content|1|2
Team work|1.8|2
Usage of tools|1.5|2
Readability|1.5|2
Documentation|3.4|4
Usage of product offering|1.8|3
Other add-ons|1|2
Total|11.75|15





## Q2
**What are the best things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe's report? These are points you will incorporate in your next report.**

They used a lot of tables in the specifications part and represented the numbers beautifully and used wording only where required which makes the specifications part a lot more readable and fulfills the main purpose of the section.

They mentioned precautionary measures to be taken and safety practices to be followed for almost every appliance/services and provided industry standard facilities to ensure safety of customer and mentioned all these in the report.
They used a lot of figures and mindmaps wherever needed which makes the reader a lot more engaged, as the human mind likes figures more than words.
Gantt chart at the end is really nice which explains their team work. 
Description of readability indices. The use of figures in the report was pretty good. They also used orthographic projections for better understanding.
Mindmaps are given for biomass subsection in beginning which provide us a clear idea of what they are going to explore in this part. Every flowchart, circuit diagram, and CAD model were nicely presented. Teamwork analysis in the appendix section was quite informative. They showed page numbers at each page.

## Q3


**3. What are the worst things (point-wise) you observed in this Tribe's report? These are points you will avoid in your next report.**

Dimensions of the CAD model have not been mentioned. No information related to warranty of products used is included. Not lot of hyperlinks in table of contents. Only a few energy sources are considered like solar and biogas. Do not mention wiring requirements.Does not mention installation cost




## Q4
**Please make some good appreciative/encouraging/positive comments about the effort made by this Tribe in putting together their report. Organize your comments on the rubric of sub-efforts – documentation, technical content, teamwork, tool usage, readability, usability for a possible product offering.**

### Documentation
The report is well documented. Markdown makes the document formatting simple yet produce such neet documents. They have tabulated all the things which increases the understadibility of report. The report is exhaustive as it takes cares of all the needs for the customer which are requierd to live in an offgrid house. 
	
### Technical content
Technical content is well researched, proper references are given. Flow charts, working as well as cost analsysis is given for the components used, which shows the amount  effort that was put in. Cad figures enhances the technical content as well provides more understandibility for the whole report.

### Tool usage
The team has used a variety of tools to make work efficient as well as presentable. The use of the following tools was impressive.
Markdown for documentation
ProjectLibre for gantt chart and project management
Readability check (vs code extension) for readability indices
Draw.io for interactive mind maps and black diagrams
Tinkercad for CAD models
Zotero for references

### Usability for a possible product offering
The product proposed by Tribe D is ready for product offering and has potential to do well in the Indian market. With a few small changes in the product, we feel the product will be a game changer. 

### Readability
The value of readability index on multiple indices show that an average student in their teens will be able to understand the report. This is a big positive as this shows that the team has used simple language and good presentation to showcase their product. 

### Team Work 
The different sections of the document seem to be connected to each other which indicates that the team has coordinated well among themselves to pull off this monumental task.


