design thinking process

MGMT201402018T2-Assessment2MarkingRubric.docx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >design thinking process

MGMT20140 ASSESSMENT ITEM 2 – MARKING RUBRIC

In case of high Turnitin similarity scores, markers analyse the similarity score on a case by case basis and you will see relevant comments in your assignment, if necessary. If high similarity derived purely from reference lists and/or the fact that you may have copied the assessment brief into your submission, no comments are made as you can find this information out yourself by exploring the similarity score on your Turnitin report.

Late submission penalties are being applied to this assignment as per the university regulations.

Any students deemed to have conducted Academic Misconduct are being reported and will be informed of the outcome of the investigation and any related penalties via their student email address.

Group Presentation
Criteria	0 (Not Shown)	1 (Poor)	2 (Unsatisfactory)	3 (Satisfactory)	4 (Good)	5 (Very Good)	6 (Excellent)
1. Ability to describe and critically evaluate a minimum of 10 suitable DT tools/techniques (that your group has used), alongside their outcomes 15%	No description of DT tools/techniques presented. Presentation content irrelevant for the task.	Significantly less than 10 relevant DT tools/techniques presented and/or insufficiently described. Outcomes may be missing or are insufficiently described. No critical evaluation present.	Less than 10 relevant DT tools/techniques presented and/or insufficiently described. Outcomes may be missing or are insufficiently described. No critical evaluation present.	10 relevant DT tools/techniques and their outcomes are described in a basic and uncritical manner.	10 relevant DT tools/techniques and their outcomes are described. Some critical evaluation of some of the tools is evident.	More than 10 relevant DT tools/techniques and their outcomes are described and evaluated. May not be critical throughout and/or may contain minor omissions.	More than 10 relevant DT tools/techniques and their outcomes are well described and critically evaluated. Critical and complete throughout.
2. Presentation of evidence that your group has utilized these tools/techniques 15%	No evidence presented.	No clear evidence presented or evidence for significantly less than 10 tools/techniques presented. It is not clear to the viewer whether the group has carried out these tools/techniques.	No clear evidence presented or evidence for less than 10 tools/techniques presented. It is not clear to the viewer whether the group has carried out these tools/techniques.	It is clear to the viewer that the group has carried out 10 tools/techniques but evidence is limited and/or incomplete. Evidence may not be integrated well in the presentation.	It is clear to the viewer that the group has carried out 10 tools/techniques and suitable evidence thereof is provided. Evidence may not be integrated well in the presentation.	It is clear to the viewer that the group has carried out more than 10 tools/techniques and suitable evidence thereof is provided. Evidence may not be fully integrated in the presentation.	It is clear to the viewer that the group has carried out more than 10 tools/techniques and suitable evidence thereof is provided and fully integrated in the presentation.
3. Ability to identify how far your group has progressed in their DT process. 5%	No mention of progress and/or the DT process.	Attempt at identifying progress is made. Incorrect identification and/or consideration of the DT process.	Attempt at identifying progress is made. Incorrect identification and/or consideration of the DT process.	Progress is identified and correctly presented within the DT process.	Progress is identified and correctly presented within the DT process.	Progress is identified and correctly presented within the DT process.	Progress is identified and correctly presented within the DT process.
4. Ability to work in a team to prepare a professional presentation in the nominated format, with appropriate professional standards (dress, verbal and non-verbal communication). 5%	Unprofessional presentation, no consideration of the required format and/or professional standards. Presentation seems unpracticed.	Unprofessional presentation; mostly not in line with the required format and/or professional standards. Presentation seems unpracticed.	Generally unprofessional presentation; mostly not in line with the required format and/or professional standards. Presentation seems rather unpracticed.	Reasonable presentation, generally in line with the required format; limited professional standards demonstrated. Presentation may not have been practiced much and may not run smoothly/professionally.	Good presentation; generally in line with the required format and reasonably professional. Presentation may not be entirely smooth or professional, but seems to have been practiced.	Very good presentation; almost entirely in line with the required format and professional standards. Presentation is generally smooth and seems to have been practiced.	Excellent presentation; fully in line with the required format and professional standards expected of managers. Very smooth presentation, which seems to have been practiced extensively.
5. Breadth and quality of research, using a minimum of 8 academic sources. 5%	No academic sources used. Possible Academic Misconduct case.	Limited amount of academic sources (<8) and/or use of poor quality inappropriate sources. Some may be fictional or irrelevant.	Limited amount of academic sources (<8) and/or use of poor quality inappropriate sources. Some may be fictional or irrelevant.	Eight suitable sources used, which may include a couple of poorer quality sources (e.g. websites; lecture notes).	A body (>8) of generally high-quality and appropriate sources, which may include small omissions and/or errors of judgment.	A body (>8) of almost entirely high-quality and appropriate sources.	An extensive body (every claim is referenced) of purely high-quality and highly appropriate academic sources.
6. Correct use of the APA referencing system. 5%	No use of the APA referencing system in the assignment, or the reference list with no correctly cited sources.	Very poor use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and/or in the reference list, with incorrectly cited sources.	Unsatisfactory use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and/or in the reference list, with few correctly cited sources.	Satisfactory use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list; mistakes and/or omissions present.	Competent use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list; generally correctly cited sources but small omissions and/or errors of judgment may be present.	Very good use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list with almost entirely correctly cited sources.	Faultless use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list with completely correctly cited sources.

Group Report
Criteria	0 (Not Shown)	1 (Poor)	2 (Unsatisfactory)	3 (Satisfactory)	4 (Good)	5 (Very Good)	6 (Excellent)
1. Ability to compare own experience within this unit and the realities of implementing Design Thinking in organisations 15%	No comparison presented. Report content irrelevant for the task.	No comparison presented and/or insufficient or inappropriate content to compare own experience with realities in organisations.	Some basic comparison may be present but insufficient or inappropriate content to demonstrate ability to compare experience to realities in organisations.	An attempt at comparing own experience to realities in organisations is made but this is very superficial and basic.	Good comparison between own experience and realities in organisations; focus may be unbalanced towards experience or realities only and comparison may be somewhat basic.	Very good comparison between own experience and realities in organisations presented. Generally balanced and detailed but with inconsistencies.	Excellent comparison between own experience and realities in organisations presented. Balanced and detailed.
2. Ability to critically discuss challenges of implementing Design Thinking in organisations 20%	No challenges discussed and/or content entirely irrelevant for the task.	Failure to demonstrate understanding of challenges of implementing DT in organisations. Highly incomplete report, and/or mostly irrelevant content.	Failure to demonstrate understanding of challenges of implementing DT in organisations. Mostly incomplete report, and/or mostly irrelevant content.	Basic understanding of challenges demonstrated. Report is complete but may not be fully relevant, thought through, and/or not detailed. Content may be overly basic.	Good understanding of challenges demonstrated. Report is complete but may contain areas with omissions and/or detail and/or relevance. Content may be somewhat basic.	Very good understanding of challenges demonstrated. Report is complete but may contain small areas with omissions and/or detail and/or relevance.	Excellent understanding of challenges demonstrated. Report is complete, detailed and fully relevant.
3. Ability to work in a team to prepare a professional and cohesive report in the nominated format, with appropriate professional standards. 5%	Unprofessional and in-cohesive report, no consideration of the required format and/or professional standards.	Unprofessional and in-cohesive report; mostly not in line with the required format and/or professional standards.	Generally unprofessional and in-cohesive report; mostly not in line with the required format and/or professional standards.	Reasonable report, generally in line with the required format; limited professional standards demonstrated.	Good report; generally in line with the required format and reasonably professional.	Very good report; almost entirely in line with the required format and professional standards.	Excellent report; fully in line with the required format and professional standards expected of managers.
4. Breadth and quality of research, using a minimum of 8 high-quality sources. 5%	No sources used. Possible Academic Misconduct case.	Limited amount of high-quality sources (<8) and/or use of inappropriate sources. Some may be fictional or irrelevant.	Limited amount of high-quality sources (<8) and/or use of inappropriate sources. Some may be fictional or irrelevant.	Eight suitable sources used, which may include a couple of poorer quality sources (e.g. websites; lecture notes).	A body (>8) of generally high-quality and appropriate sources, which may include small omissions and/or errors of judgment.	A body (>8) of almost entirely high-quality and appropriate sources.	An extensive body (every claim is referenced) of purely high-quality and highly appropriate sources.
5. Correct use of the APA referencing system. 5%	No use of the APA referencing system in the assignment, or the reference list with no correctly cited sources.	Very poor use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and/or in the reference list, with incorrectly cited sources.	Unsatisfactory use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and/or in the reference list, with few correctly cited sources.	Satisfactory use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list; mistakes and/or omissions present.	Competent use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list; generally correctly cited sources but small omissions and/or errors of judgment may be present.	Very good use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list with almost entirely correctly cited sources.	Faultless use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list with completely correctly cited sources.