MUO-E3041 - Designing for Services, Lectures, 13.9.2021-22.10.2021

Topic outline

• Evaluation and Rubrics
  In this course assessment is calculated as:
  

  • 60% Project Work
  • 30% Learning Diaries
  • Participation and individual activity 10% 
  • 80% Mandatory attendance, a maximum of two sessions can be missed

  (Please scroll down to see the detailed Project work and Learning Diaries evaluation criteria (Rubrics)

  
  Project Group Work 

  In the evaluation, we will look at the following criteria: 

  • The holistic understanding of the case and the big picture; 
  • finding design opportunities through application of various means including empathic understanding of users & partners; 
  • the strength of the concepts and argumentation of the insights; 
  • project communication (presentations/documentation) 
    

  
  The final grade is calculated following the below criteria (Rubrics). In the grades 3–5 of the table, the previous standard of quality is included in the next.

  Criteria	Below average (1 - 2)	Average (3)	Above average (4 - 5)
  Holistic understanding of the case and the big picture of the project brief	The project presented does not work within the given constraints – there are no arguments or conscious decisions provided.	The team choices clearly reflect an understanding of the brief, including the partner’s drivers and intended goals. The project has developed within the given constraints, outlining the context, and the argument demonstrates understanding of service design as well as the context and decisions.	The team provides a critical perspective on the original brief horizons and agendas. The re-frame of the brief considers the wider context in society and in the future. The argumentation benefits from literature and deeper understanding of the role of service co-creation and service design.
  Application of research methods, including empathic understanding of users and partners involved in the service	The team has not engaged with the key stakeholder groups involved. Inappropriate use of research and design methods. Design opportunities don’t demonstrate empathy with the key stakeholder groups.	The team has engaged with the key stakeholder groups by using justified co-design and other research methods appropriately. Opportunities show empathy with the identified stakeholders.	The team identified, engaged and uncovered relevant needs from the partner and their stakeholders. The team creatively explored/adapted the use of co-design methods to their research participants and setting.
  The strength of the solution and argumentation based on the research insights	The research insights lack in-depth analysis. The solution does not build on the identified research findings.	The solution is consistent with the research findings. Evidence from research clearly supports the team’s argumentation for the identified design opportunities. Appropriate selection and application of service design tools demonstrate application of the key principles in service design practice and research.	The solution demonstrates in-depth understanding of the topic and the systemic context. The solution is presented with tangible examples, and it considers the stakeholder’s real context. The argumentation elaborates on the benefits for stakeholders and partners. It includes clear next steps, such as tools or recommendations for the partner to implement the project. The solution argumentation is supported with theory and research demonstrating the ability to apply the key principles and concepts in service design practice and research.
  Communication and documentation of the process	There is a lack of research evidence, which creates inconsistencies with the project decisions and argumentation. Writing and visual material contain errors, such as typos.	The design process is well-structured and well-documented with literature references and project materials, such as fieldwork. It includes well-written descriptions of the process. Co-design and service design terms and concepts are used adequately.	Additional references to literature support the team’s own reflections.

   

  Learning Diaries 

  The learning diary Part 1, 2 and 3 shows what you learned in this course and the evolution of your learning should be especially elaborated on Part 3.
  
  The evaluation focuses on how the student is able to communicate reflections and insights that show a learning process by referencing to literature, lectures and other timely activities. This evaluation is also influenced how the student follows the given timelines.
  
  

  Criteria	Below average (1 - 2)	Average (3)	Above average (4 - 5)
  Reflection on learning and course content	The learning diary (LD) does not include insights on individual weeks, literature assignments and lectures.	LD Part 3 includes a process of continuous learning (building on LD 1 and 2) communicated with references to the course literature, lectures as well as links to the questions and activities in project work.	LD Part 3 includes insights and critical reflections demonstrating skills to explain and apply the key principles and concepts in service design practice and research, and making references to previous knowledge
  Other	The learning diaries are not delivered in time and are incomplete or have poor language, the overall LD Part 3 shows glimpses on what student has learned over the course.	The LD Part 1 and 2 are delivered in time and Part 3 shows learning over the duration of the course.	The LD 1 and 2 are delivered in time and LD Part 3 shows active and insightful learning over the duration of the course.