YOUNG ENGINEERS AND SUCCESSION PLANNING
The judges take notes during a presentation by one of the teams, watched by a sizeable audience.
energy use, and minimising waste. Each team’s prototype, created within a tight time limit on the Faraday Challenge Days, was then submitted to the IHEEM judges. They assessed the entry, and awarded marks for ‘Planning’, ‘Development of the product’, ‘Use of budget’, ‘Product engineering’, a presentation by the team involved, and ‘Teamwork’. While the thought, imagination, and
creativity put into each entry, and the quality of the engineering were all key, the judges also placed considerable emphasis on how well teams members had worked together, and used the available ‘budget’. Made available to each team was a range of ‘Electrical components’ and ‘Construction materials’ from which to create their prototype – from crocodile leads, LEDs, piezo buzzers, and servo motors, to Correx, plastic syringes, cogs, paperclips, elastic bands, cable ties, baking parchment, and aluminium foil. Each electrical component or ‘construction material’ was priced in ‘Faradays’, with each team set an overall budget of 100 Faradays.
959 teams have taken part In total, some 165 Faraday Challenge Days were held for the 2021-2022 competition, with 959 teams and 285 schools from across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland each entering a six- strong team, and some days involving up to six schools competing. From this, a league table based on the marks awarded to each team was drawn up and regularly updated. The five schools that ended up at the top of the league were then awarded a place at the Final, which this year took place on 29 June in The Institute in the Park building next to the new Alder Hey Children’s Hospital.
‘‘
IHEEM was well represented at the event, both by some of the Head Office team, and a number of Council and other members.
The five six-strong finalist teams – from Berkhamsted Girls School, Hertfordshire, St Aidan’s High School, North Lanarkshire, Egglescliffe School & Sixth Form College, Stockton-on-Tees, Fulford School, York, and St Edmund’s Catholic School, Portsmouth – not only took part in an exciting Final attended by senior IET and IHEEM personnel, teachers from their schools, and staff from Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, but were also given a tour of the futuristic and imaginatively designed Alder Hey Children’s Hospital the previous evening. Leading it was David Houghton, the
Trust’s Deputy Project Director, who played a key part in the new hospital’s development, and particularly in ensuring that the views of past and current patients were considered in the hospital’s design and construction. The result is a building which – with its distinctive undulating ‘green roof’, parkland setting, spectacular high-ceilinged atrium, and numerous features designed to make young patients feel ‘at home’ – has a faraway feel from that of a ‘typical’ large hospital, and should make coming into hospital considerably less daunting for the youngsters treated there. David Houghton – who coincidentally retired from the Trust on the day of this year’s Faraday Challenge Final – was also among the audience the following day to witness the five finalist teams battle it out to be crowned this season’s champions.
This season’s Final brief The brief for the Final set the teams the challenge of designing and building a prototype product which would help encourage an imaginary patient of 5-7 years old (each team was allocated a young patient of between these ages) –
While the thought, imagination, and creativity put into each entry, and the quality of the engineering were all key, the judges also placed considerable emphasis on how well teams members had worked together, and used the available ‘budget’
who had spent long periods in hospital since birth – to eat and regain their energy while in hospital. The brief explained that the patient had recently found coming into hospital increasingly difficult, and wanted to be at home with family and friends, and that staff had noticed they were becoming less and less interested in playing, reading, or watching television, and were not eating properly. The teams were asked to focus on one aspect relating to the patient’s lack of motivation, rather than addressing them all, and were told that their prototype must include an electrical circuit and at least two ‘components’ – not including the battery pack and wiring, and be constructed only with materials purchased from a Faraday Shop set up in the room on the day. Each team was allocated 100 Faradays as a ’budget’ – which IHEEM ‘topped up’ at the Final with a further 20 Faradays – and was given a list of all the items available to purchase.
IHEEM representation on the day IHEEM representatives at the Final included CEO, Pete Sellars, President, Paul Fenton, and COO, Tania Davies, plus a number of Council members, many of whom had attended Challenge Days throughout the season, and some of whom helped ‘staff’ the shop – a long table from which the team members could purchase the components and materials they required. They also kept a close eye on a cutting station equipped with a cutting knife and other tools – which teams could use in creating their prototype – to ensure the children’s safety. Once the five teams, their teachers, and
the day’s other guests, had assembled in the room selected for the Final, one of the two presiding Faraday Challenge Leaders, Keira Hart, set the scene – reiterating that since last September, 165 Faraday Challenge Days had been held at schools UK-wide. From each, a winner was chosen, and added to the year’s league table. She told guests: “The five teams here today are the top five in the table from the whole of this season.” She and fellow Challenge Leader, Phil Hart, then showed a video illustrating
August 2022 Health Estate Journal 35
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
