Design Thinking for Business

                                           

Assessment Type:

Individual Written Report

Word limit: 2,500 (+/– 10%)

Due date:

Sunday of Week 3, 23:59 PM (AEST)

Weighting

30%

School of Business

—

BUSM4742:

Design Thinking for Business

Assessment 1: Reflection

Overview

This assessment takes the form of a reflective paper.

The reflective paper requires you to investigate the topic of design thinking: to collect, and evaluate evidence, and to establish a position on the topic, as guided by the following questions. In 2,500 words or less, you are to address:

1. What is Design Thinking?

2. What are the benefits of Design Thinking?

3. What are the criticisms of Design Thinking?

4. In which context(s) might application of Design Thinking be useful?

This reflective paper calls for significant study of relevant literature or previously published material and asks you to contextualise your findings with regard to the application of Design Thinking. The purpose of the assessment is for you to engage deeply with Design Thinking early on in the semester and begin to formulate an informed opinion about its usage and value to managers.

Learning Outcomes

This assessment is aligned with:

• CLO 1: Analyse and discuss the significance of design thinking, and its manifestations and implications across organisational contexts.

Assessment details

Before you begin

You are expected to draw upon written material, however your reflection in this instance should be a synthesis of sources (i.e. one source is not enough). You should clearly break up your reflection piece into the following headings, with evidence and argumentation interwoven throughout. Each section below is worth 25% each.

Submission file type: Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, or Microsoft PowerPoint

Assessment Guidelines and Marking:

You are expected to draw upon written material, however your reflection in this instance should be a synthesis of sources (i.e. one source is not enough). You should clearly break up your reflection piece into the following headings, with evidence and argumentation interwoven throughout. Each section below is worth 25% each.

Please be mindful of word limit and communicating thoughts and ideas succinctly. A 10% allowance over the word limit is applicable; anything over 10% is liable for penalisation. Word limit applies to main section/body only. Please seek further clarification from an instructor if you are unsure about adherence to word/length limits.

Part 1: What is Design Thinking (weight 25% of total assessment weighting).

Explain what Design Thinking is in your own words. You may draw upon definitions; however, this section should be a synthesis of sources, overlaid with your own view. In explaining the framework of Design Thinking, you are advised to address the different lenses or approaches contained within DT, and its origins (I.e. where/when it originated).

Part 2: Benefits of Design Thinking (weight 25% of total assessment weighting).

Explain the benefits of Design Thinking in your own words. From a managerial perspective, what are the potential benefits/strengths of DT as a framework?

Part 3: Criticisms of Design Thinking (weight 25% of total assessment weighting).

Explain the major criticisms of Design Thinking in your own words. From a managerial perspective, what are the potential criticisms/weaknesses of DT as a framework?

Part 4: Application contexts of Design Thinking (weight 25% of total assessment weighting).

Explain which application contexts may serve to gain the most from the use of Design Thinking (i.e. which industries, or what kinds of projects). You may speak at a general level, or a more granular level, depending on your chosen approach. Please note, if being specific as to the application of certain elements of DT, please be clear about which elements apply to which contexts.

Guiding Principles:

Exec Summary

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

How to succeed in this assessment:

Well thought-out discussion relating directly to each question.

Address the question as deeply as the relevant parameters (i.e. word count) allow. Seek depth of coverage and insight.

Evidence: To be considered well informed, this paper should cite between 10-20 sources of high quality. Detailed reading allows you to learn about the topic and to understand different points of view so that you may choose a position and support it with evidence and argumentation (rationale), while translating potential benefits and

limitations in context.

Overlay your own synthesis/analysis: For highest marks, ensure that you do not simply regurgitate information, but actively reflect on what you have read, providing critical analysis and/or synthesis of perspectives.

Attend to professionality, and parameters as set out in assessment guidelines (i.e. rubric criteria, word limits, design and structure of presented information).

Referencing guidelines

You must acknowledge all the courses of information you have used in your assessments.

Refer to the RMIT Easy Cite referencing tool to see examples and tips on how to reference in the appropriated style. You can also refer to the library referencing page for more tools such as EndNote, referencing tutorials and referencing guides for printing.

RMIT College of Business Harvard referencing style or footnotes

Submission format

Upload as one single file via the Assignments submission page within Canvas as an Adobe PDF. (Please save your final submission to PDF before submitting. Note: Non-text PDFs not accepted.)

Academic integrity and plagiarism

Academic integrity is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging the work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge and ideas.

You should take extreme care that you have:

• Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you have quoted (i.e. directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in your assessment through the appropriate referencing methods,

• Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source if necessary. This includes material taken from Internet sites.

• If you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarism because you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate referencing, as if they were your own.

RMIT University treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct. Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:

• Failure to properly document a source

• Copyright material from the internet or databases

• Collusion between students.

• For further information on our policies and procedures, please refer to the University website.

Assessment declaration

When you submit work electronically, you agree to the assessment declaration.

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

HD

D

C

P

N

Criterion 1

Evidence

Quality/quantity of evidence used is of an exceptionally- high standard

Quality/quantity of evidence used is of a high standard

Quality/quantity of evidence used is in- line with, or above, expected standard

Quality/quantity of evidence used is in- line with expected standard

Quality/quantity of evidence used is below standard

7.5 to >5.99 Pts

5.99 to >5.24 Pts

5.24 to >4.49 Pts

4.49 to >3.74 Pts

3.74 to >0 Pts

7.5

Criterion 2

Contextualisation

Specificity and relevance of discussion is of an exceptionally-high standard

Specificity and relevance of discussion is of a high standard

Specificity and relevance of discussion is in-line with, or above, expected standard

Specificity and relevance of discussion is in-line with expected standard

Specificity and relevance of discussion is below standard

7.5 to >5.99 Pts

5.99 to >5.24 Pts

5.24 to >4.49 Pts

4.49 to >3.74 Pts

3.74 to >0 Pts

7.5

Criterion 3

Presentation & Structure

Structure, format, and professionalism of an exceptionally-high standard

Structure, format, and professionalism are of a high standard

Structure, format, and professionalism are in-line with, or above, expected standard

Structure, format, and professionalism are in-line with expected standard

Structure, format, and professionalism are below standard

7.5 to >5.99 Pts

5.99 to >5.24 Pts

5.24 to >4.49 Pts

4.49 to >3.74 Pts

3.74 to >0 Pts

7.5

Criterion 4

Insight & Originality

Depth of reflection (analysis/synthesis) produces an exceptionally- high standard of originality/insight

Depth of reflection (analysis/synthesis) produces a high standard of originality/insight

Depth of reflection (analysis/synthesis) is in-line with, or above, expected standard of originality/insight

Depth of reflection (analysis/synthesis) is in-line with expected standard of originality/insight

Depth of reflection (analysis/synthesis) is lacking – regurgitates ideas, but with little originality/insight

7.5 to >5.99 Pts

5.99 to >5.24 Pts

5.24 to >4.49 Pts

4.49 to >3.74 Pts

3.74 to >0 Pts

7.5

Total

30.0 pts