ARTX-C1018 - Digital Service Design Project, Lecture, 6.9.2022-20.10.2022

Topic outline

• Evaluation criteria
  The maximum point count from the course is 75 points:
  

  • 6 x 5-point weekly submissions by the group (30 p total)
    
  • 5 points from the final report by the group (5 p)
    
  • 2 x 10-point essays individually (20 p total)
  • 4 x 5-point MOOC rounds individually (20 p total)

  The final grade (1-5 or failed) resulting from the accumulated points will be determined based on the point distribution in the end of the course.

  Depending on the activity in the class and in group work, the grade suggested from the points above can be changed up or down by 1 point in the final course grade.

  
  

  Group submissions

  The following tasks need to be completed but they are not evaluated with a grade:

  • Participate in at least 2 interviews with research participants recruited by the group (week 2-3)
    
  • Giving a mid-term presentation for the class
  • Participate in at least 2 user evaluation sessions with research participants recruited by the group (week 6)
  • Giving a final presentation for the class and customer
    

  The following weekly tasks are evaluated with a grade:

  • Interview schedule (pass/fail): An interview schedule of the research participants. 
  • Discussion guide (0-5 points): A semi-structured guide of the topics to cover for the user interviews including a visual probe. 
  • Service map (0-5 points): Visualisation of the Posti services, using the customer experience structure, and showing all the front stage channels (online and offline), touchpoints and stakeholders involved. 
    
  • Storyboard (0-5 points): Visual illustration using the storyboard format in 6 scenes that shows how the future service could better work based on one real use case scenario. The storyboard identifies one (new) digital service touchpoint of the service and describes the experience of interacting with it.
    
  • User evaluation plan  (0-5 points): 

  • Figma/XD prototype (0-5 points): An interactable web frontend prototype (built e.g., with Figma) of one (new) digital touchpoint of the service that is used in the evaluations with users. 
  • Programmed prototype (0-5 points): A HTML+CSS+JavaScript based prototype that illustrates one possible interactive functionality that a real service could have.
  • Project report (0-5 points): A three-page report, which documents the project and describes the design process. 

  
  
  Please check Submissions & Instructions folder 
  

  
  

  Individual submissions

  The following tasks are evaluated, and they affect the grade:

  • Weeks 1-4: MOOC rounds: 1-5 points if the round is completed by the end of the week (Sunday night). In problems, the round can be completed with 0 points by participating in the following Monday's MOOC tutorial. All the rounds need to be completed in order to pass the course.
  • Week 3: Reflective essay I: Report your learnings and personal reflections about pros and cons of involving users in the design process. (500 and 800 words in English)
    
  • Week 7: Reflective essay II: Reflecting back on your project and design process, what would you do differently, and why? (500 and 800 words in English) 
    

  Please check: Individual submission folder
  
  

  Evaluation criteria for groups' weekly submissions

  
  

  	Fail	Pass
  Week 1: Interview schedule	Information is not completed. Target participants do not match the project brief. The interview schedule is not realistic, happens too late.	Information is completed. Target participants match the project brief. The interview schedule is realistic and happens within the defined timeframe.
  	0-1	2	3	4	5
  Week 2: Discussion guide with visual probe or task	Does not comply with instructions, including timelines and format of the assignment. The visual probe or task is missing or incomplete.	Does not follow correctly the format of the discussion guide. Topics are out of scope. The visual probe or task does not align with the research objectives. Timings are not feasible.	The questions or topics outlined address the research objectives consistently. It is well-structured and it follows the basic discussion guide format. The visual probe or task is suitable but does necessarily prompt deeper conversations. Timings are feasible.	Well structured, it reflects an understanding of the project topic and it applies learnings from in-depth interviews methodology, i.e. formulation of questions seek to uncover the reason why. The visual probe or task prompts further discussions. Timings are feasible	Very well structured,  it reflects an understanding of the project topic and it applies learnings from in-depth interviews methodology, i.e. formulation of questions seek to uncover the reason why. The visual probe or task prompts in-depth discussions. Timings are feasible
  Week 3: Service map	Does not comply with instructions, including timelines and format of the assignment. Layers are missing.	The service map lacks key information and/or elements of the tool structure. The experience of the main stakeholder is poorly communicated.	The service map follows the basic structure and includes the required information, including the touchpoints across channels and a description of the experience step by step. The visualisation could better support the reader to make an analysis of the current service.	The ‘as is’ service map includes a comprehensive list of the existing frontstage touchpoints across channels. Visualisations are self-explanatory and communicate well how the service works today from the user's perspective. The visualisation supports the reader to make an analysis of the current service.	The team excellently communicates the current ‘as is’ experience, and explores further the basic format/layers of the service map tool. The visualisation provides insight or analysis of the current service, (e.g. highlights current gaps) and supports the reader to make decisions or take actions.
  Week 4: Storyboard	Does not comply with instructions, including timelines and format of the assignment.	The use case scenario is not connected to the user group reality, and does not reflect on gathered data from interviews. The solution is not consistent with the identified needs.	The ‘to be’ storyboard builds on a real scenario that represents one of the user groups. There are direct links to the fieldwork interview data and desktop research findings, and It follows the storyboard format correctly. There are multiple problems and multiple touchppoints being addressed instead of one.	The solution is built on a relevant use case. The storyboard identifies one (new) digital service touchpoint to solve one specific problem. The problem that the touchpoint is trying to solve is very well communicated and how the interaction will happen.	The solution is built on a relevant use case. The storyboard identifies one (new) digital service touchpoint to solve one specific problem It communicates excellently the value of solving the problem. The benefits for the client and main stakeholders are clearly articulated and consistent to the use case and proposed solution.
  Week 5: User evaluation plan	Does not comply with instructions, including timelines and format of the assignment.	The plan does not define the focus of the evaluation: what aspects are the target of evaluation, or the methods planned are entirely unsuitable for studying this target.	There is a focus on the evaluation and methods suited for it, but there are gaps in the elaboration and reflection the importance of the focus is not explained, the focus-method match has problems, or the methods are unrealistic. There are appropriate references to the literature/sourve where the method is presented.	There is a well-explained explanation for the focus, the methods are suited for studying the focus, and the plan is realistic.	The methodological details are creatively adapted to this evaluation, or there are well-thought details that the group has invented itself.
  Week 6: Figma/XD prototype that is used in the evaluations with users	Does not comply with instructions, including timelines and format of the assignment.	The prototype is technically so unfinished that it cannot be seen in the browser, or its contents are clearly missing important details. The prototype does not have any interactive element.	Prototype gives a concrete idea about the touchpoint and what the interaction with it could be. It matches with the evaluation plan's focus.	The interactiveness of the prototype is well-designed and gives a fluent user experience.	The prototype is visually pleasant to look at.
  Week 6:  Programmed prototype (1-5 points)	The .zip file cannot be uncompressed or its contents do not open in a browser, or the prototype is submitted late.	The prototype can be opened on the screen, but its functionality is missing important components, and/or error messages appear in the inspector's console.	The prototype opens flawlessly without errors and its feature can be interacted with. The readme file explains clearly what the prototype represents. The prototype also has visual similarities with the clicking/tapping prototype's style.	The prototype is programmed well: the code applies indenting correctly and consistently, variable and function names are well-named, and commenting is used to explain parts that would be otherwise difficult to understand quickly. The interaction with the prototype provides a good user experience.	In addition to 4 points, the interaction design is well-motivated and creative. With this kind of feature, the UX and usability of the service would be enjoyable. Alternatively or in addition, the programming for the prototype is ambitious.
  Week 7:  Project report (1-5 points)	Does not comply with instructions, including timelines and format of the assignment. Writing and visual material contain errors, such as typos.	The description of the work lacks important details as well as evidence to support the documentation. The links between the problem and the solution are not clear. There is a lack of coherence in some of the design activities, e.g. results from the user evaluation with the prototype are reported sloppily. The findings do not match with the goals presented in the evaluation plan.	The description of the work is well summarised and documented with fieldwork evidence (such as quotes from fieldwork, properly referenced) and references from other relevant sources, such as desktop research. There is a correct use of design terms and links to key notions discussed in the course. The solution is coherent with the described problem, e.g. Interactive prototype is clearly connected to the use case and the identified needs.	The description of the work is very well synthesized. Evidence from interviews and evaluations is well deployed to document and justify the solution. It demonstrates a mature understanding of the use of tools and methods in the design process. Findings from user evaluations identify critical aspects that would be useful in the further development of the service.	Descriptions are very well synthesised. Self-explanatory document for the client. Evidence from interviews and evaluations is excellently used to justify decisions made. Findings from user evaluations identify critical aspects that would be useful in the further development of the service. Contains insightful reflections on different parts of the process. The solution excellently supports the identified problem, with excellent justifications and clear benefits articulated for the main users and Posti.
  Reflective Essay (I and II) (2 x 10 points)	The essay is poorly written. Does not comply with instructions, including timelines and format of the assignment, such as length.	The essay is poorly written, and the student lacks personal reflections. References from the readings and lectures are missing.	The reflective diaries are well-written and structured. It includes some personal reflections with clear descriptions and references to key terms and notions discussed in class. Reflections lack discussion, analysis and depth.	The reflective diaries are well-written and structured. In the essay, the student provides interesting reflections that are discussed further, e.g. accompanied by their own examples. The essay has meaningful conclusions.	The reflective diaries are well-written and synthesised. Reflections are analysed deeper, which allows the student to critically reflect on their own design process drawing conclusions that help them evaluate the pros and cons of other design approaches.