| Subject Code: | MBA672 | ||
| Subject Name: | Data-driven DesignThinking | ||
| Assessment Title: | Critical reviewof the DesignThinking process | ||
| Assessment Type: | Interview and Individual report | ||
| Interview Time: | 5 | Minutes | (+/-10%) |
| Word Count: | 1500 | Words | (+/-10%) |
| Weighting: | Interview: 20 marks Report: 20 marks | ||
| Total Marks: | 40 | ||
| Submission: | In Class andvia Turnitin | ||
| Due Date: | Part 1: Interview, Week 12 in class Part 2: Report, Tuesday 23:55pm(AEST), Week 13 | ||
You are to engage in an interview with your facilitator explaining your understanding of the Design Thinking Process. Then, you are to write a case study analysis report, incorporating the feedback your facilitator gave you after the interview.
Situational setting: An innovative start-up is considering hiring you as a Design Thinking Data specialist. However, they first want to test your critical reasoning ability as well as your knowledge of the Design Thinking framework.
This assessment is in two parts, Part 1 and Part 2.
In Week 12, students will be interviewed by their facilitator in relation to their knowledge of the Design Thinking Process, their initial critique of the article below and their draft report based on the article below.
Preparation: Please make sure you:
During the Interview:
PART B: Individual Report
In this assessment, you will write a critique of the Design Thinking article provided from Springer Open titled
“Applying design thinking for business model innovation”
https://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13731-022-00251-2
In so doing, demonstrate your knowledge of the Design Thinking process, as included in weeks 1, 2, 4 & 5 content. Please see report headings on the following page.
Specific points to critique from the Springer article: In reviewing this Springer article, provide your own critical evaluation of the following points made in the article. Support each of your points with academic references.
For example, Gilbert et al. (2012) described design thinking as ‘an effective means in democratizing innovation’ and ‘a key catalyst in linking strategy to action’.
Design thinking is a mindset characterised by a series of important design principles that are useful for enhancing design processes e.g. reflective practice, communication through visualisation, empathy, fail quickly and cheaply, and structuring the problem-solving process.
(as per Brenner et al., 2016; Gudiksen et al., 2014; Lehmann et al., 2015).
(as per Blois, 2015; Buur & Gudiksen, 2012; Geissdoerfer et al., 2016; Gudiksen, 2012; Gudiksen et al., 2014; Suteu & Perondi, 2016).
In addition to the specific statements provided above, take a position where you:
Present your answer in report format. A guide for headings to include in the report is as follows:
Objective
This section outlines the reason for your critique of the Springer article.
Critical Review
This section outlines the merit of the Design Thinking process, including situations in which a Design Thinking approach is likely to be more useful and the pre-requisites for successful execution of the Design Thinking process.
Detailed considerations
Critically evaluate the 3 specific statements provided in relation to the Springer article based on your knowledge from Topics 1, 2, 4 & 5 and your research.
Conclusions
Summarise the key insights from your analysis.
Recommendations and Reflections
Provide the key implications of your critical appraisal of the Design Thinking process. Reflect on how you changed your report based on your interview with your lecturer in Week 12.
References
Include a reference list (supported by in-text citations) using Harvard referencing.
Submission Guidelines
Students must submit their individual document via TurnItIn on Tuesday of Week 13 at 23:55pm AEST.
This file must be submitted as a Microsoft Word document. Uploaded files with a virus will not be considered as a legitimate submission. TurnItIn will notify you if there is any issue with the submitted file. In this case, you must contact your facilitator via email and provide a brief description of the issue and a screen shot of the TurnItIn error message. Students are also encouraged to submit their work well in advance of the time deadline to avoid any possible delay with TurnItIn similarity report generation or any other technical difficulties.
Penalties will be imposed on late assignment submissions in accordance with Kaplan Business
School’s Assessment Policy.
Number of days | Penalty |
| 1* - 9 days | 5% per day for eachcalendar day latededucted from the student’s total Marks. |
| 10 - 14 days | 50% deducted fromthe student’s totalmarks. |
| After 14 days | Assignments that are submitted morethan 14 calendar days after the due date willnot be accepted and the studentwill receive a mark of zero For the assignment(s). |
| Note | Notwithstanding the above penalty rules, assignments willalso be given a mark of zero if they aresubmitted after assignments have been returned to students. |
*Assignments submitted at any stage within the first 24 hours after deadline will be considered to be one day late and therefore subject to the associated penalty.
If you are unable to complete this assessment by the due date/time, please refer to the Special Consideration Application Form, which is available at the end of the KBS Assessment Policy: https://www.kbs.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/KBS_FORM_Assessment- Policy_MAR2018_FA.pdf
What is academic integrity and misconduct? What are the penalties for academic misconduct? What are the late penalties?
How can I appeal my grade?
Click here for answers to these questions: http://www.kbs.edu.au/current-students/student-policies/.
Submissions that exceed the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at which that limit is exceeded.
Note 1: A reduction in grade will be applied if any part of the assessment displays any evidence of the use of AI generated content, without acknowledgement / referencing of this source / generative question
Note 2: A reduction in grade will be applied if any part of the assessment is deemed by the assessor where it shows an over-reliance on AI generated content in your answer. There needs to be demonstration of original thought, preferably supported by peer-reviewed journals and industry journals
Please see the level of Generative AI that this assessment has been designed to accept:
Traffic Light | Amount of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenerativeAI) usage |
Evidence Required | This assessment (✓) |
Level 1 | Prohibited:
No GenerativeAI allowed This assessment showcases your individual knowledge, skills and/orpersonal experiences in the absence of Generative AI support. |
The use of generative AI is prohibited for this assessment and may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. | |
Level 2 |
Optional: You may use GenerativeAI for research and content generation that is appropriately referenced.
See assessment instructions for details
This assessment allows you to engage with Generative AI as a means of expanding your understanding, creativity, and idea generation in the research phase of your assessment and to produce content that enhances your assessment. I.e., images. You do not haveto use it. |
The use of GenAI is optionalfor this assessment, except for Part C.
Your collaboration withGenerativeAI must be clearly referenced just as you would reference any other resource type used.
In addition, you must include an appendix that documents your GenerativeAI collaboration including all prompts and responses used for the assessment.
Unapproved use of generative AI as per assessment details during the content generation parts of your assessment may potentiallyresult in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. Ensure you follow the specific assessment instructions in the section above. |
✓ |
Level 3 |
Compulsory: You must use GenerativeAI to complete your assessment
See assessment instruction for details This assessment fully integrates Generative AI, allowing you to harnessthe technology's full potential in collaboration with your own expertise. Always checkyour assessment instructions carefully as there may still be limitations on what constitutes acceptable use, and these may be specific to each assessment. |
You will be taught how to use generative AI and assessed on its use.
Your collaboration withGenerativeAI must be clearly referenced just as you would reference any other resource type used. In addition, you must include an appendix that documents your GenerativeAI collaboration including all prompts and responses used for the assessment.
Unapproved use of generative AI as per assessment details during the content generation parts of your assessment may potentiallyresult in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. Ensure you follow the specific assessment instructions in the section above. |
Assessment Marking Guide
PART A: Interview |
Rubric /20 | |
| Preparation and Report Planning | ||
| 0-4 | 5-8 | /8 |
The student has demonstrated limited achievement:
Has not considered thearticle or reflected on report requirements. Has limited understanding of relevant topics from the course. Has undertaken limited research to identify relevant sources. | The student has achieved all or mostof:
Reading the article and by considering the elements of the report, producea short plan of what they intend to write.
Reviewing relevant topics and sources to prepare for a critical review of the article.
Finding twospecific sources andrelate these sources back to your analysis. | |
| Research and Preparation for Critical Evaluation | ||
| 0-6 | 7-12 | /12 |
Has demonstrated limitedachievement of:
Has not read the article in full or considered the core assertions. Lacks knowledge and basic preliminary research to consider the statements provided. Has not undertaken anyreading outside the article to develop an opinion. | Has demonstrate achievement in all or most of:
Good evaluation of the assertions in the article and articulation of agreement or disagreement with reference to knowledge and initial research. Demonstrated ability to connect course content with research to consider article statements with at least some critical reflection. (Marks are not awardedfor having a perfect report prepared, or for knowing all the answers, but rather for demonstrating the thought process for commencing research and critical analysis). | |
PART B: Individual Report | Rubric /20 |
| Part A: Critical reviewof the DesignThinking process, supported by references | |
| 0-3 | 4-6 | /6 |
Has demonstrated limited achievement: Little or basic understanding and review of the Design Thinking process. | Has achieved all or most of: Demonstrated a carefully considered, deeply insightful andcritical reflection on the Design Thinking process. | |
| Part B: Critique of Springer article, supported by references | ||
| 0-3 | 4-6 | /6 |
Has demonstrated limited achievement: Has produced little or a basiccritiquing of the Springer article and minimal consideration of applications where Design Thinking is applicable as well as the more detailed considerations. Ideas are not appropriately referenced. | Has achieved all or most of:
Has demonstrated a high degree of proficiency in critiquing specified points from the article, and the ability to evaluate general applicability of Design Thinking. Has outlined specific situations where Design Thinking is likely to be useful and isolated the unique characteristics of these situations. Appropriate referencing to support ideas. | |
| Part C: Conclusions, Reflections and Recommendations | ||
| 0-3 | 4-5 | /5 |
Has demonstrated limited achievement: Has delivered basic conclusions and recommendations, with lack of insightand limited reference to research. Has not reflected on facilitator feedback on report draft frominterview (Part A). If so, then award zero marks for Part C. | Has achieved all or mostof: Has demonstrated good depth and insight into the topicthrough the conclusions. The implications of the conclusions have been very well expressed with recommendations. Has reflected on facilitator feedback on report draft from interview (Part A) and made necessary adjustments to structure or content. | |
| Part D: References andStructure | ||
| 0-1 | 2-3 | /3 |
Has demonstrated limited achievement: Basic Harvard referencing (or other appropriate referencing style) is not used to acknowledge most ideas or conclusions. Less than three references used. Poor structure which lacks logical consistency or flow. | Has achieved all or most of: Harvard referencing (or other appropriate referencing style)is used to acknowledge ideas and concepts drawn on to make a conclusion. Three or more references used. Report structure is logical, integrated and flows well. | |
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.
