please follow the instructions mentioned in the assignment and there should be 0% plagiarism.
SAD assignment 1 CI4305 COURSEWORK 1 App Design Prototype Project (Part 1) Introduction2 Your team3 Evidence Of Your Team Engagement4 Coursework 1 Requirements, Deadlines, Weighting Feedback4 Feedback5 Plagiarism5 Deliverables and Marking Scheme – Coursework 16 Marking Criteria Grid – Coursework 18 Introduction In this coursework, you will employ a User-Centred Design (UCD) approach to design a prototype application for a device of your choice. The following steps are provided to give you some ideas. 1. Select one of the following: a) eBook Store b) Game/TV/Film Tracker Software/App c) Online retail store (e.g. clothes, electronics, second-hand shop) 2. Choose a device that your application will be designed for, e.g. · Games Console · Tablet · Smart Phone · Web · Smart TV · Desktop · Laptop (You might choose more than one of these) 3. Select a business model (i.e. how your App will generate revenue), e.g. · Direct sales (creator to consumer as in musician to fan) · Freemium (Free entry level and premium services) · Subscription (e.g. streaming as in Spotify or Audible) · Commission (e.g. earn per transaction between hosted parties) Background Research You will need to research existing Apps and to critically appraise their benefits and limitations. You will also need to research and consider the commercial environment in which they are active. For example, this might include competition, the impact of technical innovations, potential legislative concerns, as well as factors that affect users. Note that your background research should help you to justify the building and subsequent design choices for your prototype App. About this Project This a substantial project that provides participants with the opportunity to develop and enhance a diverse range of skills. It is envisaged that the final prototype will be added to student portfolios and should be suitable for demonstrating at interviews (e.g. potential employers). As this project has many diverse deliverables, it is a team-based project. Your team You will be working in a team throughout the academic year on this project. Each team will consist of 4-5 members from the same workshop group. Workshops provide the opportunity for teams to work together on subject matters relevant to the coursework. It is therefore not permissible to form a team across different workshop groups. However, if you are unhappy with the original team that you might have joined, you may join a different team of your choice provided that: · The new team will have no more than five members, including yourself. · You inform your workshop leader by the fourth workshop week of the teaching block. Because we allow you to change your team as late as week 4 into a teaching block, we expect that after week 5 your team will work well together. However, if you still experience team problems (e.g. some members make very little contribution to the coursework) you must report this to your module leader immediately so that we can intervene and help resolve your team problems in an appropriate time frame. No action can be taken if you tell us after the coursework has been submitted. EVIDENCE OF YOUR TEAM ENGAGEMENT As part of this project, you are required to document the time spent in meetings, and on developing artefacts for each piece of coursework. You need to record this as a log. This allows for the collaboration and teamwork contributions to be validated. If there are disputes over contributions, then these documents along with workshop staff and team members’ testimonies will be used. An individual’s final group coursework mark may be adjusted in the light of their contributions to teamwork. Here are 2 examples of how adjustments can happen. 1. Each group has a number of members, say 5, so if there is an equal contribution from all, then they do 20% of the work each. If in the log someone does more than 20% (say 25%) then the following formula is used: (Coursework mark)+( Coursework mark*5%) since they have undertaken 5% more work than the ‘baseline’ of 20%. 2. If someone does less than the baseline, in this case say 15%, then: (Coursework mark)-( Coursework mark*5%) since they have undertaken 5% less work than the ‘baseline’ of 20%. 3. There may be cases where the level of contribution is so low, that this model cannot apply. In these cases, the module leader will make an academic judgement when assessing. Coursework 1 Requirements, Deadlines, Weighting Feedback Coursework 1 Template Document Your Coursework 1 assignment must be submitted on an appropriate team report template, that can be found on Canvas under the Coursework 1 assignment link. It is your responsibility to check that your full name and K-number are on the cover page of the team report. Marks will be awarded only to the students whose names are on the cover page of the report and on your workshop leader’s team list. Submission This coursework must be submitted on a basis of ONE submission per TEAM and NOT one submission for each member of a team. In order to submit as a team you have to have joined a Group in Canvas. This enables one submission to be allocated to all team members. The submission with the latest time-stamp will be marked, provided that it does not exceed the submission deadline. Deadlines and Mitigating Circumstances You must meet all deadlines. Failure to do so will result in a penalty. Deadlines for the module assessments are given in Table 1. Work submitted late but within a week of the deadline will be capped at 40% and receive a grade of LP (Late Pass) unless it is not of a passing standard in which case it will receive a grade of LF (Late Fail). Work submitted beyond a week of the deadline without approval, will get 0% with a grade of F0. For retakes, late work receives no marks. If you are ill or have problems that prevent you from meeting the deadline, you may be able to negotiate an extension in advance. The University Mitigating Circumstances policy may apply. You will need to complete a form and attach suitable independent documentation. Remember if you submit a piece of work or attend an examination, you have judged yourself fit to undertake the assessment and cannot claim mitigating circumstances retrospectively. Project Deliverables Where Deadline Weighting Coursework 1 Canvas TB1 – 15/12/21 23:59 40% Table 1: Coursework 1 Deadline Details Coursework 1 - TB1 Captures activity from stages 1, 2 and part of stage 3 of the Software Development Life cycle for your project. 1) Stage 1: Justification, feasibility, market conditions, research 2) Stage 2: Analysis, stakeholders, requirements, UML Models 3) Stage 3: Navigation design, wire frames Feedback Coursework marks and feedback comments will be available via Canvas within three weeks from the respective coursework submission deadline (excluding holidays). Plagiarism Plagiarism is presenting somebody else’s work as your own. It is an offence to copy materials (even if it is a phrase or a sentence) from the Internet or other work and publications. You must write everything in your own words. There is a heavy penalty for plagiarism, which could see you receiving a ZERO mark and subsequently your academic record may be affected. Further details about plagiarism and referencing can be found at: https://www.kingston.ac.uk/aboutkingstonuniversity/howtheuniversityworks/policiesandregulations/#ag Deliverables and Marking Scheme – Coursework 1 COURSEWORK 1 – Project Justification Maximum Points Introduction and background research: Max 2 pages 1.1 A medium, device, and delivery model for the prospective prototype has been clearly described. 5 1.2 A business model for the prospective prototype has been clearly described. 5 1.3 Valid benefits and limitations of existing Apps have been detailed and opportunities for the prospective prototype App have been identified. 10 Total 20 Stakeholders and Requirements Elicitation 1.4 A minimum of 3 primary stakeholders have been identified and described 3 1.5 Identified stakeholders have been assigned to appropriate areas of a correctly formatted power interest grid 4 1.6 An appropriate requirements elicitation technique has been selected and justified 7 1.7 A total of 10 elicitation questions have been presented 5 Total 19 Requirements Table: Functional and Non-functional Requirements 1.8 Ten valid functional requirements have been presented in a verb-noun format 10 1.9 Five Non-functional requirements have been presented in an appropriate format 5 Total 15 Requirements Modelling, Validation and Documentation 1.10 A suitably complex Use Case Diagram has been presented and completed correctly 3 1.11 A suitably complex Use Case Description has been presented and completed correctly 3 1.12 Three Requirements Catalogues have been presented and completed correctly 3 Total 9 User Persona and User Stories 1.13 Two appropriate user personae have been supplied and are based on cited research data. They are in an appropriate format. 6 1.14 Eight relevant user stories have been presented and are in an appropriate format 8 Total 14 Navigation Design 1.15 Navigation design includes evidence of functional requirements 3 1.16 Navigation design is presented as a logical indented list 3 Total 6 Wireframing 1.17 A series of wire frames have been presented that relate to the use case provided. The set is complete for the Use Case. 8 1.18 Wireframes are appropriately annotated to show how they relate to the Use Case 7 1.19 Wireframes are monochrome (no colour) 1 1.20 Wireframes do not include graphics, images or icons 1 Total 17 Total Score (Max 100) for Coursework 1 100 Marking Criteria Grid – Coursework 1 Coursework 1 (module weight 40%) – Marks out of 100 Deliverables Mark Exceeded Expectations 100-80% Met Expectations 79-60% Close to Expectations 59-40% Below Expectations 39-1% Introduction & Background Research 20 All relevant elements have been addressed expertly Most relevant elements have been addressed appropriately or only some have been addressed expertly Some elements have been addressed appropriately whereas others have been addressed ineffectively Most elements have been used ineffectively or fail to use appropriate techniques Analysis (Stakeholders and Requirements Elicitation; Requirements and Non-functional Requirements) 34 All relevant techniques have been used expertly Most relevant techniques have been used appropriately or only some have been used expertly Some techniques have been used appropriately whereas others have been used ineffectively Most techniques have been used ineffectively or fail to use appropriate techniques Design (Requirements Modelling, Validation and Documentation; User Profiles and User Stories, Navigation Design; Wireframing) 46 All relevant elements have been addressed expertly Most relevant elements have been addressed appropriately or only some have been addressed expertly Some elements have been addressed appropriately whereas others have been addressed ineffectively Most elements have been used ineffectively or fail to use appropriate techniques Maximum 100 8