2.4 Design Strategy Presentation

Teams are required to give a design strategy presentation to a panel of subject matter expert judges. The goal of the presentation is to share the team’s system design approach to the challenges presented in the Autonomy Challenge, specifically the capabilities required for each task. The presentation should include:

• a concise description of the team's strategic vision, and

• how the vehicle design compliments the team’s goals.

2.4.1 Deliverable Requirements

This presentation must be conducted in English and may include visual aids (i.e. digital slides, poster board). If digital slides are used, teams must provide their own computer and adapters for an HDMI connecter to use the presentation display monitor. Teams receive an assigned 30-minute presentation time. Please find the latest presentation schedule here: roboboat.org/2025. This presentation includes:

• Team introduction video - 3 minutes

• Team presentation – 20 minutes

• Judges’ question and answer – 5 minutes

2.4.2 Scoring Metrics

The design strategy presentation is worth a total of 180 points. The scoring metrics include a scoring weight with guidance for scoring considerations that are provided to the judges during evaluations.

Competition Strategy (30% of score)

Outstanding	Presentation includes a concise description of the team's strategic vision and how the vehicle design compliments their goals. The team clearly explains how they developed their competition strategy.
Strong	Presentation describes their competition strategy and how their vehicle design aligns with meeting their competition goals.
Average	Presentation includes a brief overview of how the vehicle design aligns with the team’s competition strategy and goals.
Below Average	Team mentions a competition strategy but no additional details on how it was developed or how it led to their strategic vision.
Requirements Not Met	Team does not mention their competition strategy, vision or how their vehicle design is aligned with vision.

Design Rationale (30% of score)

Outstanding	Team presents their design process and how their decisions relate to their overall competition strategy. Lessons learned from testing or previous competition experience are described, including application throughout the design process.
Strong	Presentation includes a description of the team’s design process and includes narrative on how testing or previous experience influenced vehicle design.
Average	Team describes the rationale behind the vehicle design process.
Below Average	Presentation includes mention of the design process, lacking a clear rationale of design choices.
Requirements Not Met	No mention of the team’s design process or the rationale behind the design process.

Effective Communication & Professionalism (20% of score)

Outstanding	Presentation materials and team members’ knowledge are effective and support the team's message. Team members are engaging, respectful, and professional, while interacting positively with the judges and each other.
Strong	Presentation materials are presented in a professional manner and support the team’s message. Presentation is well prepared and appears to be rehearsed in advance.
Average	Presentation materials are presented in a mostly professional manner and support the team’s message.
Below Average	Presentation materials and styles are adequate but less than engaging.
Requirements Not Met	The message was not effective, and the presentation was not organized.

Judge Questions & Dialogue (20% of score)

Outstanding	The team effectively uses evidence, experience, and research from their project to inform responses to all questions and discussion posed by the judges.
Strong	The team responded professionally and knowledgeably to judges’ questions.
Average	The team responded adequately to most or all of the judges’ questions, mostly interacting with courtesy and professionalism.
Below Average	The team did not provide sufficient answers to the judges’ questions and interacted with minimal courtesy and professionalism.
Requirements Not Met	Team members were not able to respond to many or all questions and did not take the initiative to engage in dialogue with the judges.