Evaluation Instrument of the Multi-Sourced Power Bank

Name: _____________________ Profession: ____________________

Instruction: The statements below are the evaluation criteria to evaluate the level of
technical feasibility, economic/financial viability, environmental soundness, political
acceptability and social acceptability of the Multi-Sourced Power Bank. Please encircle
the number that corresponds to the descriptive value of your assessment using the rating
scale below:

5 - Excellent
4 - Very Good
3 - Good
2 - Fair
1 – Poor

1. Technical Feasibility

1.1 Durability of Parts

a. The parts are fixed properly. 5 4 3 2 1

b. The electronics components are soldered well. 5 4 3 2 1

c. The parts do not easily break down. 5 4 3 2 1

1.2 Safety of Operation

a. Safety precautions are indicated in the device. . 5 4 3 2 1

b. Splices are insulated properly. 5 4 3 2 1

c. The device has operations manual. 5 4 3 2 1

1.3 Simplicity of the Mechanism

a. Ease of operation:

The device provides a better alternative 5 4 3 2 1

source of electricity.

b. Availability of assembly parts:

Simplicity of the design derives from the use 5 4 3 2 1

 of common and readily available materials.

1.4 Precision of design

a. The device can be charged efficiently by

solar, hand-crank and ac source 5 4 3 2 1

b. Efficiency as power bank:

The present device can be used for charging

cellphones and other gadgets. 5 4 3 2 1

c. Originality of the Design:

The conceptual design was not copied 5 4 3 2 1

and is the original idea of the maker.

d. Overall appearance of the Design:

The device is novel in appearance, 5 4 3 2 1

presentation, and structure.

1.5 Portability

a. The device is comparatively light 5 4 3 2 1

and easy to transport from place to another.

b. It is not bulky and the storage does not require 5 4 3 2 1

too much space.

2. Economic / Financial Viability

2.1 Cost in terms of:

a. Maintenance:

The device does not require complex 5 4 3 2 1

cleaning, repair, and maintenance.

b. Affordability:

The device is affordable. 5 4 3 2 1

 c. Competitiveness:

The device is cost-competitive with existing 5 4 3 2 1

technologies and it fits the needs of the end-users.

3. Environment Soundness

a. The making of the device does not pose threats 5 4 3 2 1

to environmental sustainability.

b. The device does not pose hazardous effects 5 4 3 2 1

to plants, animals, and human.

4. Political Acceptability

a. The device matches the objectives and 5 4 3 2 1

interest of the target end-users.

b. The technology meets the regulatory 5 4 3 2 1

requirements and standards for its utilization
and commercialization.

5. Social Acceptability

a. The technology fits the local socio-cultural 5 4 3 2 1

environment. (social practices, local traditional,
mores and cultures)

b. The device serves the needs of the majority 5 4 3 2 1

of the beneficiaries.

c. Gender Acceptability:

The device can be operated by both 5 4 3 2 1

sexes with ease of operation.