NCO205 Tutor-Marked Assignment 01 – Written Reflection
This assignment is worth 40% of the final mark for NCO205 User-Centred Design: Human Factors and Design Thinking. This is an individual assignment.
Please make your assignment submission in Canvas. Please check your submission deadlines. The submission deadline is STRICT.
Notes to Students
1. The assignment consists of 1 question with 5 sub-questions. Your answer must keep to the word limit of no more than 2000 words for the whole assignment, excluding citation and bibliography. Your answer beyond the word limit will not be graded.
2. You may append up to 2 A4-sized pages of images (pictures, diagrams, etc) to the end of your submission. Your answers may reference these images. Images beyond this limit will not be considered when grading.
3. You are to include the following particulars in your submission: Course Code, Title of the TMA, SUSS PI No., Your Name and Submission Date. You are required to make your submission via your tutorial group site in Canvas. Verify and review your submission.
4. Name your submission file strictly to this format with the corresponding filename extension:
FullName_PI#_CourseCode_Semester_Tutorial-Group#_TMA
For example, TanMeiMeiSally_A1234567_NCO205_Jan26_TG01_TMA
5. You are strongly encouraged to submit your assignment before the specified deadline. Multiple submissions are allowed before the specified deadline. Only the latest submission will be graded. There is strictly no extension of assignment deadline. Mark deduction scheme for late submission applies. Please refer to the Student Handbook for more details.
6. Please refer to Learning Centre’s resource on Academic Integrity
(https://rise.articulate.com/share/i4wup4aZRMcXCL293kJqgBgfp3UmaQMl#/) for details regarding plagiarism, collusion, copying, and responsible use of generative AI tools in assignments. The University has strict guidelines and will enforce severe penalties for direct and unacknowledged copying of course materials or the work of any other authors, including AI-generated work, as this is regarded as cheating.
Please use APA style for your in-text citations and your bibliography.
See examples below:
Example of in-text citation
In 2019, Senator Elizabeth Warren arguing for the breaking up of Big Tech said: “Today’s big tech companies have too much power — too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation.” (Warren, 2019)*
Example of reference in the bibliography
*Warren, E. (2019, March 8). Here’s how we can break up Big Tech. Medium.
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c
You can find more information on APA citation style here: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/ Please contact your tutor or the Course Chair if you have any doubts or need assistance.
Question 1
Critically reflect on your GBA project by answering sub-questions (a) to (e). Your answers should not be a chronological account of what happened in your GBA project or a summary of your GBA project presentation. Your answers should not be about how your GBA group functioned as a team. Your answers should highlight the points in your GBA project that you felt went particularly well and/or not well, and thoughtfully explain why by drawing insightful connections to Human Factors and Design Thinking.
(a) Describe what was done well in the Empathise phase of your GBA project and illustrate how it contributed to the project’s user-centred design outcome. Describe what was not done well in the Empathise phase of your GBA project and how might it be improved. Explain how Human Factors knowledge and/or the outcome from other Design Thinking phases contributed to the Empathise phase of your GBA project.
(20 marks)
(b) Describe what was done well in the Define phase of your GBA project and illustrate how it contributed to the project’s user-centred design outcome. Describe what was not done well in the Define phase of your GBA project and how might it be improved. Explain how Human Factors knowledge and/or the outcome from other Design Thinking phases contributed to the Define phase of your GBA project.
(20 marks)
(c) Describe what was done well in the Ideate phase of your GBA project and illustrate how it contributed to the project’s user-centred design outcome. Describe what was not done well in the Ideate phase of your GBA project and how might it be improved. Explain how Human Factors knowledge and/or the outcome from other Design Thinking phases contributed to the Ideate phase of your GBA project.
(20 marks)
(d) Describe what was done well in the Prototype phase of your GBA project and illustrate how it contributed to the project’s user-centred design outcome. Describe what was not done well in the Prototype phase of your GBA project and how might it be improved. Explain how Human Factors knowledge and/or the outcome from other Design Thinking phases contributed to the Prototype phase of your GBA project.
(20 marks)
(e) Describe what was done well in the Test phase of your GBA project and illustrate how it contributed to the project’s user-centred design outcome. Describe what was not done well in the Test phase of your GBA project and how might it be improved. Explain how Human Factors knowledge and/or the outcome from other Design Thinking phases contributed to the Test phase of your GBA project.
(20 marks)
Hire Singapore Assignment Experts for NCO205 Design Thinking TMA
Native Singapore Writers Team
- 100% Plagiarism-Free Essay
- Highest Satisfaction Rate
- Free Revision
- On-Time Delivery
NCO205 TMA 01 Grading Rubrics
| Criteria | Demonstrates mastery
|
Demonstrates competence
|
Demonstrates skills in
development
|
Shows areas in need of
improvement
|
Lacking major components
|
| Empathise
(max. 20 marks) |
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Empathise phase of the project.
Illustrated with insightful elaboration how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved.
Insightful explanation about non-obvious connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge.
|
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Empathise phase of the project.
Adequate illustration with detailed elaboration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved.
Adequate explanation with detailed elaboration about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge
|
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Empathise phase of the project.
Some inadequate illustration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved due to lack of details.
Some inadequate explanation about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge due to lack of details.
|
Mentioned what went well and/or what did not go well in the Empathise phase of the project.
Mostly irrelevant illustration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and/or could be improved.
Mostly irrelevant explanation about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge.
|
Failed to describe and/or illustrate the Empathise phase of the project.
|
| (17%-20%)
|
(13%-16%) | (9%-12%) | (5% – 8%) | (0% – 4%) | |
| Define
(max. 20 marks) |
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Define phase of the project.
Illustrated with insightful elaboration how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved.
Insightful explanation about non-obvious connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge.
|
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Define phase of the project.
Adequate illustration with detailed elaboration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved.
Adequate explanation with detailed elaboration about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge
|
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Define phase of the project.
Some inadequate illustration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved due to lack of details.
Some inadequate explanation about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge due to lack of details.
|
Mentioned what went well and/or what did not go well in the Define phase of the project.
Mostly irrelevant illustration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and/or could be improved.
Mostly irrelevant explanation about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge.
|
Failed to describe and/or illustrate the Define phase of the project.
|
| (17%-20%)
|
(13%-16%) | (9%-12%) | (5% – 8%) | (0% – 4%) | |
| Ideate
(max. 20 marks) |
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Ideate phase of the project.
Illustrated with insightful elaboration how the above contributed to the project’s |
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Ideate phase of the project.
Adequate illustration with detailed elaboration of how the above contributed to the |
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Ideate phase of the project.
Some inadequate illustration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be |
Mentioned what went well and/or what did not go well in the Ideate phase of the project.
Mostly irrelevant illustration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome |
Failed to describe and/or illustrate the Ideate phase of the project. |
| outcome and could be improved.
Insightful explanation about non-obvious connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge.
|
project’s outcome and could be improved.
Adequate explanation with detailed elaboration about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge
|
improved due to lack of details.
Some inadequate explanation about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge due to lack of details.
|
and/or could be improved.
Mostly irrelevant explanation about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge.
|
||
| (17%-20%)
|
(13%-16%) | (9%-12%) | (5% – 8%) | (0% – 4%) | |
| Prototype
(max. 20 marks) |
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Prototype phase of the project.
Illustrated with insightful elaboration how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved.
Insightful explanation about non-obvious connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge.
|
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Prototype phase of the project.
Adequate illustration with detailed elaboration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved.
Adequate explanation with detailed elaboration about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge
|
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Prototype phase of the project.
Some inadequate illustration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved due to lack of details.
Some inadequate explanation about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge due to lack of details.
|
Mentioned what went well and/or what did not go well in the Prototype phase of the project.
Mostly irrelevant illustration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and/or could be improved.
Mostly irrelevant explanation about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge.
|
Failed to describe and/or illustrate the Prototype phase of the project.
|
| (17%-20%)
|
(13%-16%) | (9%-12%) | (5% – 8%) | (0% – 4%) | |
| Test
(max. 20 marks) |
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Test phase of the project.
Illustrated with insightful elaboration how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved.
Insightful explanation about non-obvious connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge.
|
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Test phase of the project.
Adequate illustration with detailed elaboration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved.
Adequate explanation with detailed elaboration about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge
|
Described what went well and what did not go well in the Test phase of the project.
Some inadequate illustration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and could be improved due to lack of details.
Some inadequate explanation about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge due to lack of details.
|
Mentioned what went well and/or what did not go well in the Test phase of the project.
Mostly irrelevant illustration of how the above contributed to the project’s outcome and/or could be improved.
Mostly irrelevant explanation about connections to other Design Thinking phases and/or Human Factors knowledge.
|
Failed to describe and/or illustrate the Test phase of the project.
|
| (17%-20%)
|
(13%-16%) | (9%-12%) | (5% – 8%) | (0% – 4%) |
