ROEVER ENGINEERING COLLEGE

Approved by AICTE & Affiliated to Anna University, Chennai

(Inclusion under Sections 2(f) and 12(B) of the UGC Act, 1956)
Accredited with ‘B++’ Grade by NAAC (2nd cycle)
ELAMBALUR, PERAMBALUR - 621 220

DEPARTMENT
OF
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

2024 - 2025
Vision
 To be a leader in Computer Science and Engineering Education, fostering graduates who excel in meeting the
evolving needs of Industry and Society.
Mission
 Provide a rigorous learning environment in Computer Science and Engineering, enriched with ample
opportunities for Hands-on Practice, Research and Innovation.
 To equip students with recent trends in Computer Science and Engineering through Industry - Institute
Interactions.
 To imbibe ethical and human values to nurture Interpersonal and Entrepreneurial skills.
 ROEVER ENGINEERING COLLEGE
Approved by AICTE & Affiliated to Anna University, Chennai
(Inclusion under Sections 2(f) and 12(B) of the UGC Act, 1956)
Accredited with ‘B++’ Grade by NAAC (2nd cycle)
ELAMBALUR, PERAMBALUR - 621 220

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

PROJECT MEMBERS DETAILS

ROEVER
ACADEMIC YEAR: 2024 - ENGINEERING
2025 COLLEGE
BATCH: 2021 - 2025
Approved by AICTE & Affiliated to Anna University, Chennai
(Inclusion under Sections 2(f) and 12(B) of the UGC Act, 1956)
Accredited with ‘B++’ Grade by NAAC (2nd cycle)
REGISTRATION
ELAMBALUR, PERAMBALUR - 621 220 STUDENTS’S
BATCH NO STUDENT’S NAME
NUMBER PHOTO

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
 At Roever Engineering College (REC), we follow a structured method to identify student projects and
assign faculty members as supervisors. Our project workflow is designed to help students from the start, by
forming teams, all the way to finishing their projects. This process ensures that every step is well-planned,
promoting teamwork and good results.
1. Formation of Project Batches
The first step involves forming project batches. Students are grouped into teams to work on their
assigned or chosen projects.
2. Literature Review & Base Paper Selection
Once batches are formed, students conduct a literature review and select a base paper that will serve as
the foundation for their project.
3. Zeroth Review (Satisfactory or Not)
A zeroth review is conducted to evaluate the preliminary work, including the literature review and the
selected base paper.
 If the zeroth review is satisfactory: Proceed to the next step.
 If the zeroth review is not satisfactory: The batch needs to revisit and improve their literature review
and base paper selection.
4. Project Identification and Supervisor Allocation
After a satisfactory zeroth review, students are required to identify their project topics. A project
supervisor is then allocated to oversee the batches progress.
5. Project Reviews: Monitoring and Evaluation
Regular reviews are conducted to monitor the progress of the project and evaluate whether it is meeting
the set objectives.
6. Assess Individual and Team Performance
The performance of each individual and the team as a whole is assessed based on their contribution and
teamwork throughout the project.
7. Verification of Completed Project
Once the project is completed, it undergoes a verification process to ensure all requirements are met,
and the project is successfully executed.
Outcomes:

CO1: Identify mathematical, engineering and other relevant knowledge that applies to a given
problem

CO2: Apply processes / solution methods for solving the problem

CO3: Build models / prototypes to develop a diverse set of design solutions

CO4: Examine an experimental approach with appropriate equipment and procedures

CO5: Predict modern engineering tools, techniques and resources for engineering activities

CO6: Explain various engineering roles pertain to protection of the public and public interest.

CO7: Determine impacts of and engineering activity in environmental dimensions of sustainability

CO8: Examine and apply moral & ethical principles to professional practice.

CO9: Implement the norms of team work, to accomplish a goal.

CO10: Read, understand, interpret, produce and present well-constructed engineering documents

CO11: Identify the tasks and resources required to complete an engineering activity

CO12: Recognize the need to keep updated regarding new developments in your field

Project Work: CO, PO / PSO Mapping

Table 2.2.3.1. CO PO / PSO Mapping of project work

COURSE POs PSOs

CODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2
C407.1 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 3
 C407.2 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - 3 3
C407.3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - - - 3 3
C407.4 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - - 3 3
C407.5 3 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3
C407.6 - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - -
C407.7 - - - - - - 2 2 - - - - - -
C407.8 - - - - - - - 2 2 - - - - -
C407.9 - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 - - -
C407.10 - - - - - - - - 2 2 2 - - -
C407.11 - - - - - - - - 2 2 2 - - -
C407.12 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - -

C407 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
Process for monitoring and evaluation
Project Presentation and Review:
1. Preparation for Review:
The project coordinator prepares a circular containing the review committee list, schedule, and venue
for the project reviews. Students prepare a PowerPoint presentation, gaining approval from their supervisor.
2. Staged Reviews:
Project progress is reviewed in four stages:
1st Review: Assessment of 30% completion of proposed work.
2nd Review: Evaluation of 60% completion of proposed work.
3rd Review: Assessment of 100% completion of proposed work with a demonstration.
Preparation of Report:
1. Draft and Final Project Report Submission:
Students submit a draft project report (excluding results) to their guide. The final project report, along
with a demonstration, is submitted for evaluation.
2. Completion Certificate for Industry-Based Projects:
For industrial-based projects, students obtain a completion bonafide certificate from the industry, which
is attached to the project report.
3. Library Submission:
The project coordinator collects both soft and hard copies of the project report and submits them to the
College and Department libraries.
Publication/Grants:
1. Paper Publication:
Students are encouraged to publish their projects as papers in reputable journals/conferences
(SCI/SCOPUS/UGC journals and conferences).
2. Project Grants:
Students can apply for project grants from organizations like TNSCST, RUTAG, etc. The project
coordinator identifies suitable projects for submission to grant agencies based on periodic announcements.
Process to assess individual and team performance
 REC follows a transparent process for the assessment of individual and team performance in project

work.

 Initially review will be conducted starting of the semester.

 The students should give a power point presentation during the review.

 The template for content presentation for each review and the guidelines will be given to students by

project coordinator.

 Project presentation is taken thrice per semester in the presence of a project panel as well as weekly

meetings and discussion with the concerned project supervisor.

 A model viva voce examination on project work is conducted before the end semester examination.

 The project team will submit the project report in the prescribed format given by the University.

 Individual performance is evaluated through project team contribution, participation and presentation.

 Team performance assessment is the process of evaluating a project team’s effectiveness, efficiency,

and productivity in achieving project goals and objectives.

BATCH DETAILS

Member1 Member2 Member3 Member4

1. Name of the
: Selvaraj s
Students

2. Registration Number : 813521104072

 36 E kamarajar street ,
3. Address : kurumbalur,perambalu
r (dt), 621107

4. Mobile Number : 7094255684

5. Email ID : [email protected]

6. Title of the Project : CropCure Nexus: AI-Powered Plant Health and Harvest Optimizer

7.Inernalm Guide : DR.M.Tamilselvi

7.1 Name of the

:
Internal Guide

7.2 Mobile Number :

7.3 Email ID :

8. External Guide :

7.1 Name of the

:
Internal Guide

7.2 Mobile Number :

7.3 Email ID :

7.4 Name and

Address of the
Industry / Company, :
the project is
undertaken

9. Student’s Signature : Selvaraj.s

DATE:

Internal Guide External Guide Project Co-ordinator HOD

 Project Attendance and Minutes
S.
Member Member Guide
N Date Details about Project Discussion Member2 Member3
1 4 Signature
o

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Project Co-ordinator HOD

GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT REVIEWS AND PRESENTATIONS
 Documents for project presentation Review Date of Review
Proposed Project Title
Literature Review Zeroth Review
Base Paper (if any)
Title, Abstract - Problem Identification
Literature Survey/ Innovation & Novelty First Review
Presentation and Viva Voce
Objective and methodology of proposed work
Application of Engineering Principles Second Review
Presentation and Viva Voce
Final Design
Interpretation of Results Third Review
Presentation and Viva Voce

Report for Zeroth Review

Date and Time of Review Presentation: _________________________

Guide Approval
Rubrics
Yes No
Proposed Project Title
Literature Review
Base Paper (if any)
Mapping: Put a Tick mark wherever applicable “”
Project Title POs PSOs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2

Type

Application Product Research Review Others

Satisfactory in terms of
Environment Safety Ethics Cost Standards

Remarks:

Signature of the Guide Project Co-ordinator HOD

 ABSTRACT

Guide Project Co-ordinator HOD

 Report for First Review

Date and Time of Review Presentation: _________________________

Guide Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2

Rubrics Approval R1 R2

Yes No M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4

Problem Identification
Literature Survey/ Innovation &
Novelty
Presentation and Viva Voce

Avg.
First Review Evaluation
Average M1 Average M2 Average M3 Average M1
(R1(M1) +R2(M1))/2 (R1(M2) +R2(M2))/2 (R1(M3) +R2(M3))/2 (R1(M4) +R2(M4))/2

Remarks:

Note: Excellent:81-100 | Very Good:61-80 | Good:51-60 | Satisfactory:<=50

Guide Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Project Co-ordinator HOD

Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory

Rubrics / Range
81-100 61-80 51-60 <=50

Elaboration of the Brief explanation of Good explanation of Average explanation

Problem
purpose and need of the purpose and need the purpose and need of the purpose and
Identification (100)
the project of the project of the project need of the project
Very Good
Elaborate explanation Good explanation Average explanation
explanation about
Literature Survey/ about Gathering about Gathering about Gathering
Gathering
Innovation & information and information and information and
information and
Novelty (100) Innovative Innovative Innovative
Innovative
approaches approaches approaches
approaches
Appropriate content
Appropriate content Appropriate content
presentation and
presentation and presentation and
delivery along with
delivery along with delivery without clear Appropriate content
Presentation and not clear but audible
clear and audible and audible voice. presentation and
Viva Voce voice. Provided
voice. Provided Answered most of average delivery.
accurate answer
accurate answer with the question with
without clear
clear explanation clear explanation
explanation
 Report for Second Review

Date and Time of Review Presentation: _________________________

Guide Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2

Rubrics Approval
Yes No M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4
Objective and methodology of proposed
work
Application of Engineering Principles

Presentation and Viva Voce

Avg.
Second Review Evaluation
Average M1 Average M2 Average M3 Average M1
(R1(M1) +R2(M1))/2 (R1(M2) +R2(M2))/2 (R1(M3) +R2(M3))/2 (R1(M4) +R2(M4))/2

Remarks:

Note: Excellent:81-100 | Very Good:61-80 | Good:51-60 | Satisfactory:<=50

Guide Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Project Co-ordinator HOD

Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory

Rubrics / Range
81-100 61-80 51-60 <=50

Very good Incomplete Some of the

Proposed work has
Objective and justification of justification of objectives are
clear objective along
methodology of objectives and proposed objectives explained but steps
with clearly specified
proposed work (100) methodology but not with unclear are not specified to
module
specified in detail methodologies solve the problem

Application of Application of
Application of Application of
Application of engineering engineering
engineering principles engineering principles
Engineering principles ensuring principles ensuring
ensuring reasonable ensuring reasonable
Principles (100) reasonable results in reasonable results in
results in moderate results in average
excellent satisfactory

Appropriate content
Appropriate content Appropriate content
presentation and Appropriate content
presentation and presentation and
delivery along with presentation and
delivery along with delivery without clear
Presentation and not clear but audible average delivery.
clear and audible and audible voice.
Viva Voce (100) voice. Provided Answered most of
voice. Provided Answered most of the
accurate answer the question without
accurate answer with question with clear
without clear clear explanation
clear explanation explanation
explanation
 Report for Third Review

Date and Time of Review Presentation: _________________________

Guide Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2

Rubrics Approval
Yes No M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4

Final Design

Interpretation of Results

Presentation and Viva Voce

Avg.
Third Review Evaluation
Average M1 Average M2 Average M3 Average M1
(R1(M1) +R2(M1))/2 (R1(M2) +R2(M2))/2 (R1(M3) +R2(M3))/2 (R1(M4) +R2(M4))/2

Remarks:

Note: Excellent:81-100 | Very Good:61-80 | Good:51-60 | Satisfactory:<=50

Guide Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Project Co-ordinator HOD

Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory

Rubrics / Range
81-100 61-80 51-60 <=50

Design meets or Design meets Not capable of

Design meets desired
Final Design (100) exceeds desired minimal desired achieving desired
objectives in average
objectives objectives objectives
Changes are made as
per Minor Changes
Minor Changes are
Changes are made as Changes are made as are made as per
made as per
Interpretation of per reviewer's per reviewer's reviewer's suggestion
reviewer's
Results (100) suggestion and suggestion and but not justified
suggestion but not
explained clearly partially justified clearly reviewer's
justified clearly
suggestion but not
justified clearly
Appropriate content
Appropriate content Appropriate content
presentation and Appropriate content
presentation and presentation and
delivery along with presentation and
delivery along with delivery without clear
Presentation and not clear but audible average delivery.
clear and audible voice. and audible voice.
Viva Voce (100) voice. Provided Answered most of
Provided accurate Answered most of the
accurate answer the question without
answer with clear question with clear
without clear clear explanation
explanation explanation
explanation
 Report for Model Viva

Date and Time of Model Viva Presentation: _________________________

Working Model Prototype Simulation Others

Type

Guide Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2

Description Approval
Yes No M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4

Quality of working

Quality of components / Module

Aesthetics / Architecture

Avg.
Third Review Evaluation
Average M1 Average M2 Average M3 Average M1
(R1(M1) +R2(M1))/2 (R1(M2) +R2(M2))/2 (R1(M3) +R2(M3))/2 (R1(M4) +R2(M4))/2

Remarks:

Note:
1. Excellent:81-100 | Very Good:61-80 | Good:51-60 | Satisfactory:<=50
2. Project Report duly signed by guide and HOD
3. PPT soft copy in CD
4. Completed project kit in CD

Guide Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Project Co-ordinator HOD

Evidences of papers published /Awards/Conference Certificate received by student projects:

Evidences of papers published /Awards/Conference Certificate received by student projects: