THESIS STRUCTURE

School of Art and Architecture

Sushant University

Batch:
2018-2023

22 January 2023

Prepared by:

Himanshu Sanghani
Professor & Thesis Coordinator, SAA
Preamble

The final year B.Arch has three major courses – Internship, Electives and Design Thesis where Electives
and Design Thesis are being conducted in 10 th Semester. There are 98 students appearing for thesis in
2022-2023 and a teacher to students’ ratio of 1:6 has been identified as most suitable ratio this year.
However, this ratio is subjected to change depending on future trajectories.

This year the architecture thesis is structured in following way –

a. Review – This has 4 to 5 reviews gathering data collection to final design.
b. A panel of counselors – Thesis Committee - comprising of senior faculty to orient and direct
students further.

Understanding Thesis

It is expected that learning from first four and half years of architecture studies should be applied in
design thesis; however, sometimes it is different from the expectations and students often gets dissuaded
or find thesis to be a daunting task. To simplify, a student can understand thesis by identifying the need
of local area or address the problems of future by analyzing the present situation. Generally, thesis is
understood in two or three ways viz; addressing an existing issue, developing a proposed building
typology and/or addressing utopian or dystopian era (research based). These approaches should and must
strongly justify the purpose of a project and mentors need to direct students on above constant, as they
tend to be more protean.

Examples of understanding thesis:

Topic based : Museum and Convention Center for Contemporary Art.

Issue based : Salvaging the fading art of distillation for perfume in Kinnauj, UP.
Utopian/Dystopian : Designing habitable spaces on Moon or Mars or structures on Earth ready
for launch

Thesis Committee

Often times students feel disconnected or dissuaded while discussing their work with mentors and others
are waiting for that opportunity to be on the same page with their mentors. In order to bridge this gap, it
is decided that a committee of counselors be formed who would mentor the students in case above
situation arise. This shall be construed as tutorials and students should approach the committee in case of
cases for e.g.;

1. If a guide informs the student to approach the committee/member

2. If a student feels directionless or wedged and acknowledged by member
3. If the thesis coordinator preaches for committee to mediate in an acrid situation.
4. Design crit in general
5. Organise reviews for parity

This shall be run in an online discussion mode, whereby attendance shall be considered mandatory. The
committee members will also assist thesis coordinator in evaluating the post review assessment in order
to achieve parity in grades (committee will decide the method).

Following are the members of the committee:

1. Prof. Amrita Madan

2. Ashish Agarwal
3. Amit Gupta
4. Gaurav Sanan
Reviews

Interim reviews are kept in order to understand the progress of a student while comprehending thesis.
These reviews will allow mentors and committee to identify orientation, approach, gaps, deliverables,
learning outcome, design skills and/or presentation style.

The Reviews are organized as follows;

1. Review 1.1 – 1.2 : Data collection, programme definition, vision clarity and project formulation
and set of Five detailed panel discussions to understand the application of above.

The details of Reviews have been elaborated in following sections.

Review 1.1

This stage involves identification of topic/issue, background research, site-selection, list of case-studies
and developing the idea for thesis by discussing with assigned guides. In order to efficiently deliver the
above concept a structure is configured, which needs to be monitored by guides. This structure will be
called Review 1.1 and details are highlighted in the table below. Review 1.1 will be marked out of 100
Marks based on the rubrics enclosed. Refer Appendix A for details.

Sr. No Description
1 Rapid identification of thesis topics and issues by students.
2 List of nominated guides and students will be shared by the Thesis Coordinator
3 First draft of thesis synopsis – to be submitted by students, must narrate 16 January, 2023
identified problems/issue/interests, an overall scheme and depict a vision.
(Guides’ purview) (interim report not to be graded)
4 Second draft of thesis synopsis – A.2, to be submitted by students, must have 30 January, 2023
point no.3 above mentioned, indicate purpose-methodology, objectives and
description of potential site(s) (include images). (Guides’ purview)
(30 Marks)
5 Review 1.1 Presentation that includes extended synopsis, cursory site analysis, 30 January, 2023
function/programing and initial zoning.
(70 Marks)
6 Submission of Review 1.1 marks 30 January, 2023 31 January, 2023

The outcome of Review 1.1 will be in form of a draft report with relevant images/drawings/flow charts
and other info-graphics that may support and shape student’s thesis.

Review Details

Review 1.2:

For this cross-review students will submit 7500 words report, not more than 24 pages including diagrams
and bibliography, as per Review 1.1. This will be an online submission, where guides will be grading the
students based on document uploaded. Link for uploading the document will be shared with students.

Date of Submission : 27/02/2023 Date of Review 1.1 : 27/02/2023

The review will have two marking system:

1. 30 Marks for Report
2. 70 Marks for online presentation covering the details of the report

Guides are requested to grade students on their review deliverables and hand in the same by 28/02/2023
Following is the requirement for Review 1.2

Submit 7500 words report, not more than 24 pages including diagrams and bibliography, having –
Fonts : Garamond
Pt Size : 12
Spacing : 1.5

(use of correct headings/section numbering i.e

1 Heading 1
1.1 Heading 2
1.1.1 Heading 3
1.1.1.1 Heading 4

Other necessary formatting as per topic.

The report must highlight following areas (formatted with all necessary details, template will be shared with you)
may or not be the same headings and students can change the heading as per their discussions with guide;

1. Introduction
a. Motivation / cause (student’s end)
b. Purpose / need of the project (project’s end)
c. Approach /methodology
d. Idea argument
2. Vision / Structure
3. Aim, Objectives and Research
4. Feasibility and viability of project
5. Approach and process diagramming
6. Area statement
7. Site analysis
8. Case-Study analysis
9. Zoning / Circulation Plan
10. References and Citations

Post Review 1.2 students and guides will continue the discussion to refine thesis requirements. The
details of Review 1.3 – 1.5 are elaborated in following pages.

Note:

If in Review 1.1 & 1.2 any student whose score is more than 45 Marks on 50 Marks shall be reviewed
again for better understanding of the project and guidance. This holds true for Reviews 1.2 – 1.5
Review 1.3 – 1.5

Review 1.3 – 1.5 involves a set of three panel discussions to channelize students in refining their thesis.
These reviews will have digital presentations just as Review 1.1 and 1.2. The brief outline1 is as follows;

Review Description Dates

1.3 Online presentation of project definition, background research on issue/topic, 20 March 2023
problem analysis, methodology, detailed case studies, detailed site(s) analysis and
initial zoning/circulation. Bye-Law study, Schematic Layouts/Double Line Dwgs
(Cross Review but with Parity)

1.4 Final Area Statement, Bye-laws study, thorough inferences from case-studies, 17 April 2023
interim thesis report, detailed/final layout plans (cross review)

1.5 Complete design drawings with study models (3D) and pre-final report. (With
Guides)

Final Internal jury with Report submission. 24 April 2023

Review 1.3 – 1.5 will be marked out of 300 Marks in total, based on the rubrics enclosed.
Refer Appendix B2 for details.

May 2023: Final External jury (To be declared by University)

The reviews will be based on the grading criteria and assessment rubric (see appendix); guides are
requested to be conscientious in their marking. The grades of each review will be shared online with
students. Approximately 18 students will be reviewed by a panel of three and the reviews may take
place over two days in a slot common to all the reviwers. The final internal review will be with the
guides. The following paragraphs will highlight details about each review.

Review Details

Review 1.3:

This cross-review (with parity) will hold presentation by students in PPT/Web based application format
showcasing project definition, vision, background research on issue/topic, problem analysis,
methodology, detailed case studies, final zoning and site description. The panels/sheets will be collected
from students two days before the review

Date of Review-1.3 : 20/03/2023

Guides are requested to grade students on their first review deliverables and hand in the same by
20/03/2023. This review will be conducted in multiple parallel sessions from 01:00 pm onward. The list
highlighting allotted rooms and panelists will be shared a week before the review.

Following are the requirements for Review-1.3

A PPT of max 150MB highlighting (formatted with all necessary details) following

1. Project definition, purpose and vision depiction.

2. Background research on issue/topic narrating existing situation and conditions. Thereby identifying
generic and specific problems to address.
1
The outline and detail review is subjected to change
2
This may or may not be subjected to change
3. Problem analysis, approach, methodology and programmatic design intervention possibilities.
4. Learning from case-studies to draw plausible zoning plan, flow chart etc.
5. Detailed Site Analysis: impacts of orientation, impacts of wind path, impacts of sun path, and impacts
of context on the built form. Impacts of built form on ecology, context, sustainability, economy etc.
Assessing the site for its benefits to the society and vice-versa.
6. Detailed Case-Study Analysis: min 4 Secondary (Case study should focus on analysis and findings
rather than just data collection)
7. A detailed programme requirement and area statement based on site analysis and learning from case
study
9. A broad vision for the project, detailed diagrams, flow charts, zoning plan and detailed double line
diagrams to explain the circulation, movements and patterns.

Students should pay attention to info-graphics.

Review 1.4

This review will hold presentation by students in PPT/Web based application format showcasing final
programmatic requirement, area statement, bye-laws study, schematic drawings of plans, interim thesis
report, detailed site analysis, detailed case study analysis, explaining concept and zoning. The
panels/sheets will be collected from students two days before the review.

Date of Review-1.4 : 17/04/2023

Guides are requested to grade students on their second review deliverables and hand in the same by
17/04/2023. This review will be conducted in multiple parallel sessions from 01:00 pm onward. The list
highlighting allotted rooms and panelists will be shared a week before the review.

Requirements for Review 1.4

A PPT of max 300MB highlighting following

1. Project definition, purpose and vision depiction.

2. Background research on issue/topic narrating existing situation and conditions.
3. Problem analysis, approach, methodology and programmatic design intervention possibilities.
4. Site analysis (more analysis than documentation) case studies (cursory analysis and findings)
5. Detailed Site Analysis
6. Detailed Case-Study Analysis: min 4 Secondary cases
7. Programme requirement and area statement
8. A broad vision for the project, conceptual diagrams, flow charts, zoning plan and single line
diagrams to explain the circulation, movements and patterns
9. Site plan/Master plan, programme placement.
10. Entry level plan(s) with site access and context, drive-way, placement of services, indication of
soft and hard surfaces.
11. Minimum three/four floor plans indicating service core, placement of functions.
12. Minimum 2 no. sections and 2 elevations
13. Other supporting drawings

Study Model/s (or existing site models for the urban level topics) - these may be brought on the
day of jury (COMPULSORY)

Draft report of project.

Review 1.5:

This review will hold presentation of complete design drawings with study models (3D and physical) and
pre-final report. Following are the details:

Date of Review-1.5: 24/04/2023

Guides are requested to grade them on their third review deliverables and hand in the same by
24/04/2023

This review will be conducted in multiple parallel sessions from 01:00 pm onward.

Requirement for Review 1.5

A PPT of max 500MB highlighting following

1. All but presentation drawings

2. 3D Model(s)
3. Pre-Final Report
4. Final Report - 01/05/2023

Report will hold 50 Marks

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Role of Unit
1. Three mentors together shall form a Unit (already shared the Units via Mentor-Student list)
2. The Unit shall have 3:18/19 mentor-student ratio
3. The Unit shall allow the students to discuss with other guides within the Unit (the unit shall
decide the schedule of rotation)
4. The Unit shall decide whether to have discussions online or offline and accordingly will create
links for;
a. Mentor-Student
b. 2nd Mentor-Student
c. 3rd Mentor-Student

Main Mentor-Student Units

Unit 1 Unit 2
Amrita Madan V. K. Malik
Himanshu Sanghani Neha Mallick
Kirant Singh Sehba Saleem
Unit 3 Unit 4
Aditi Padhi Kaustubh Das
Pooja Lalit Kumar Tanya Agarwal
Tejwant Brar Ankit Srivastava
Unit 5 Unit 6
Robbin Dwivedi Varsha Khetrapal
Shahroz Alam Yash Pratap Singh
Sindhuree Iyengar
Marking and Moderations

2. All Fails, Low Scores and High Scores will be subjected to second marking.
3. The options for second marking are as below and shall be chosen by the Committee:
a. Second marking may be Full or Sampled depending upon the cohort and Coordinators:
i. Full: Committee/team marks or check all assessments.
ii. Sampled: Committee/team mark or check a sample, based on defined criteria,
of the full set of assessments.
b. Second marking may be:
i. Committee/team assigns a mark. The two marks (first and second) are
subsequently reconciled to agree the mark for the assessment.
ii. The committee/team determines whether the mark awarded by the reviewers is
appropriate, but does not give a separate mark. The committee/team confirms
the mark if appropriate, and brings it to the attention of the Thesis
Coordinators.
c. Second marking may be Blind or Open:
i. Blind second-marking: The committee/team is not informed of the first marks
and/ or comments.
ii. Open second-marking: The committee/team is informed of the first marks and
comments before commencing and can take that into account.
4. The Thesis Coordinators shall decide the dates for second marking and shall inform the mentors
and committee/team accordingly for parity.
5. Parity Meetings
a. Parity meeting shall be held before each review to discuss and develop a shared
understanding of the marking criteria. This shall include comparing marks for a small
sample of student work.
6. Work Samples for marking
a. If the committee/team agrees with the marks for the sampled students, it can be
assumed that marking is accurate for the population. However, if the team disagree with
one or more marks, the sample shall be extended to check the accuracy of marks for all
students in the assessment. Individual student marks will not be changed till all marks
have been cross-checked.
b. The sample shall include the following as a minimum:
i. All Fails
ii. Fifties and Mid-Sixties
iii. 80+ and 90+ marks
c. The above should showcase 20% of all assessments in the batch.
7. Where there is disagreement over a single mark or a group of marks within the sample,
committee/team shall not change the individual student marks. The sample size shall be
extended to check and, where necessary, review the marks of all students in the assessment
concerned, and specific attention shall be on those who are in fifties.
8. Final say will remain with the Thesis Coordinators and Thesis Coordinators after all marks are
reviewed.
 APPENDIX A

REVIEW 1.1 – 1.2

RUBRIC ASSESSMENT
THESIS - REVIEW 1.1 – 1.2
Student Name : …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Thesis Title : …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Guide’s Name : …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Assessment Criteria
Outcome 1
Mastery and Ability to access and
integrate information into a
cohesive overview of current
knowledge; ability to critically
evaluate the meaning, value, and
generic and specific problems
Outcome 2
Clear depiction of vision, ability to
design, implement an appropriate
collection and analysis of data and
ability to articulate a critical
response to aim, objectives and
methodology.
Outcome 3
Ability to draw reasoned
conclusions from gathered
knowledge to understand the
impact of research on the field
Outcome 4
Site identification and cursory
analysis of context and various
other components gathered from
the information
4=Exceptional 3=Strong 2=Marginal 1=Unacceptable N/A Score
A framework for identified issues thus formulating a background/context for the project and definition of the purpose or justification for project
Consistently and articulates the Appropriately demonstrates and Somewhat demonstrates and Does not demonstrates and
relevant issues related to the topic clearly articulates the relevant minimally articulates the relevant inadequately articulates the
and presents a comprehensive issues related to the topic and issues related to the topic and presents relevant issues related to the
overview of the subject presents a reasonable overview a superficial overview of the subject. topic and presents a
establishing the need of the study. of the subject. inapplicable overview of the
subject.
Clarifying a distinctive over-arching vision, structure development of design and reflection of literature study, case study understanding, issues on ground, gaps in
development processes; thus defining aim, objectives and methodology
The study is very experimental The study is conventional and The study is conventional and The study is conventional
or original with new and expected but has explored expected and has failed to explore and expected and has
innovative ideas, explored unique interpretations and unique interpretations and outcomes. presented duplications of
unique interpretations and discovered new outcomes. ; identifies no weaknesses in previously presented research.
discovered new outcomes and identifies minimum interpretation; Demonstrates limited identifies no weaknesses in
identifies weaknesses in weaknesses interpretation; ability to articulate a critical response. interpretation, Lack ability to
interpretation; Demonstrates an Demonstrates above average articulate a critical response.
advanced ability to articulate a articulation to a critical response.
critical response
Methodology from Outcome 2 should help in formulating the basic programmes and requirement &
Student must and should be able to generate matrix of various impacts of the project on the society and analyze. This will help in shaping final programmes.
Discussion was superior, accurate, Discussion sufficient and with Major topics or concepts inaccurately Little discussion of project
and engaging to reflect on few errors; greater foundation described; considerable relevant findings/outcomes; displayed
programmes; thesis is very needed from past work in area; discussion missing; thesis only poor grasp of material; thesis
relevant or has significant thesis has fair relevance or moderately relevant or has little relevance
importance/authenticity to field significance/authenticity to field significant/authentic to field and will or significance/authenticity to
and will make an important and will make a good make a nominal contribution to field. field and will make little
contribution to field. contribution to field. contribution to field.
Initial report on analysis of site, context, climate, vegetation, physical features, noise, footfall, visual connectivity, activity mapping, topography, economy etc.
Site identified and analysis is Site identified and analysis is fair Site identified and analysis is Possible changes in site
relevant will significantly and will channelize the moderately relevant and reassessment location
channelize the programme programme requirement but of site is further required with
requirement additional data may be required. additional data
THESIS - REVIEW 1.1 – 1.2

Assessment Criteria 4=Exceptional 3=Strong 2=Marginal 1=Unacceptable N/A Score

Outcome 5
Cursory case-study analysis,
articulation of inferences and initial
zoning and sketches.
Initial report on relevance of case-studies and inferences based on critically analyzing the case-studies identified. The inferences must establish relationship with site,
vision, structure and programmatic development of project. Initial stage of Zoning and Circulation plans.
Case-study interpretation is Case-study interpretation is fair Design principles and elements Little discussion of project;
significant and demonstrates but with errors. Further analysis is incorrectly described. Considerable displayed poor choices of
correct thought processes. required and conclusions to be and relevant discussions missing case-study. Thus not leading
Indicates an advanced ability to based by setting definite goals. leading to incorrect conclusions. to desired unacceptable and
critically respond to programme Indicates an mid-level ability to Refurbishment required. pointless conclusions
requirement critically respond to programme
requirement

Grade Calculations:

Total Marks : 20 Maximum Marks Obtained out of 20 : ……………. Date : ……………………..

Final Evaluation out of 70 Marks Maximum Marks Obtained out of 70 : …………….

Guide Name : ……………………………………… Coordinator’s Name : ………………………………………

Signature : ……………………………………… Coordinator’s Signature : ………………………………………

 APPENDIX B

REVIEW 1.2 – 1.5

RUBRIC ASSESSMENT
 THESIS - REVIEW 1.2
Student Name
Thesis Title
Guide’s Name
Assessment Criteria
Outcome 1
Thorough background research
on the issue/topic narrating
existing conditions and
identifying specific problems
Outcome 2
Ability to define need of the
project, originality of thought,
and clear identification of
programmatic design
interventions.
Outcome 3
Site Analysis & Detailed case-
study analysis. Documentation
and robust correlation with
programme development and
purpose of the project. Ability to
analyze the findings for its
correct implementation.
: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
4=Mastery 3=Accomplished 2=Adequate 1=Inadequate N/A Score
A B C D
Ability to map/list the problems in order to draw plausible solutions and programmatic framework / diagrams to address them
Comprehensive research and has addressed Mid-level research and needs more Incomplete research and lacks Knowledge is unrelated.
critical viewpoints. Command and rigorous methods to address critical rigorous approach to address
understanding of the current research viewpoints. However, relates and critical viewpoints. Lacks
literature in the field. Shows rigorous understands the current research awareness of the research and
creative inquiry and investigation literature in the field. literature in the field.
Ability to amalgamate iterative processes in such a way that the ideological percepts of the project are translated into personal responses thereby leading to vision and program
interventions/ideas/schemes
Convincing vision and purpose of the Tentative vision and purpose of the Doubtful vision and purpose of Undecided vision and
project. Consistently applies fundamental project. Frequently applies the project. Somewhat applies purpose of the project. Does
and advanced concepts to topics in subject fundamental and some advanced fundamental concepts to topics in not apply fundamental
area. Discovering new outcomes & strong concepts to topics in subject area. . subject area. Approach moderately concepts to topics in subject
programmatic interventions. Needs strengthening of appropriate or innovative. Weak area. Problem/purpose of
programmatic interventions programmatic interventions. study lacked creativity or not
new; duplication of previous
work.
Detailed diagrams on analysis of site, context, climate, vegetation, physical features, noise, footfall, visual connectivity, activity mapping, topography, economy etc &
relevance of case-studies and inferences based on critically analyzing the case-studies identified. Initial stage of Zoning and Circulation plans.
Site identified and analysis is relevant & Site identified & case study Site identified and analysis and Possible changes in site
Case-study interpretation is significant and interpretation and analysis is fair and design principles and elements analysis. Student may have to
demonstrates correct thought processes. will channelize the programme incorrectly described. Is review the site and raise the
Will significantly channelize the requirement but additional data may moderately relevant and critical viewpoints again.
programme requirement. The programs be required. The programs need to reassessment of site is further Little discussion of project;
identified are appropriate & robust be added or deducted from the required with additional data. displayed poor choices of
implementation of findings. reviewed list. Weak implementation Considerable and relevant case-study. Thus not leading
of findings discussions missing leading to to desired, unacceptable and
incorrect conclusions. pointless conclusions. Re-
Refurbishment required. analysis required.
 THESIS - REVIEW 1.2

Assessment Criteria 4=Mastery 3=Accomplished 2=Adequate 1=Inadequate N/A Score

A B C D

Outcome 4 Final Zoning, Flow Chart, Circulation and Master plans

Ability to represent site study
and case-study findings in
zoning, flow chart and other
such initial drawings to indicate
design formation.
Thesis is very relevant or has significant Thesis has fair relevance or Thesis only moderate relevance or Thesis has little relevance or
importance/authenticity to field and will Significance/authenticity to field and significance/authenticity to field significance/authenticity to
make an important contribution to field. will make a good contribution to and will make a nominal field and will make little
field. contribution to field. contribution to field.

Grade Calculations:

Total Marks : 16

Maximum Marks Obtained out of 100 : ……………. Maximum Marks Obtained out of 100 : …………….

Date : …………………

Reviewer One Name : ……………………………………… Reviewer Two Name : ………………………………………

Signature : ……………………………………… Signature : ………………………………………

THESIS - REVIEW 1.3-1.5

Student Name : …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Thesis Title : …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Guide’s Name : …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

4=Mastery 3=Accomplished 2=Adequate 1=Inadequate Score

Assessment Criteria
A B C D

Knowledge of the pertinent and long-term problems – cultural,

T01 environmental, social, physical infrastructure, and overall context that
impacts the design decisions and articulations
Knowledge Knowledge of the technologies and the material systems that allow
T02
architecture contemplation, generation and articulation
Awareness of current building bye-laws, planning and development
T03
control regulations and relevance of these to design
Understanding of the various architectural and/or urban design
T04 values and principles that influence the design decisions, and capacity
of critical evaluation of the values on the architectural system
Understanding of individual’s project methodology leading to iterative
Understanding T05 generations indicating design as an emergence process rather than
preconceived appropriation
Understanding of principles, structural systems and its relationship
T06 with people, scale, occupations, programmes etc. in order to create a
more meaningful space
Making meaningful urban environments that reflect behaviour and
T07 interaction of the inhabitants and the objects using innovative
thought process
Ability
Integration of all aspects about building design and its working
T08 including structures, services, building materials and environmental
impact (sustainability)
Design communication - skills to be able to present the constructs
T09
and in a structured manner
Skills Be able to use and build upon the analogue-digital capabilities learnt
from their previous semester studios and be able to demonstrate their
T10
capacity as not only mechanisms of communication but architectural
design derivations.