ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title	MIS605 Systems Analysis and Design
Assessment	Video Collage
Individual/Group	Group
Length	15 minutes
Learning Outcomes	The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include: (d) Demonstrate team work skills and empathy while maintaining high level of ethical and legal behaviour and standards as a professional.
Submission	For 12-week Duration: Due by 11:55pm AEST Sunday end of Module 6.1 (Week 11) For 6-week Duration: Due by 11:55pm AEST Sunday end of Module 6.1 (Week 6)
Weighting	30%
Total Marks	100 marks

Task Summary

For the given case study provided to you by your facilitator, apply human interface design skills and design a prototype, either as a web application or a mobile application. Create a short video explaining your prototype to a hypothetical client.

Context

In assessment 1 and 2, you conducted requirement analysis and made a high-level design for the given case study respectively. Using the human interface design principles and techniques, now it is time for you to develop a prototype for the case study provided to you with assessment 1. You have to consider a scenario in which you are selling your prototype to your potential client with your team. Certainly, you would have to show the interfaces to the clients. You would also have to explain to the client how this prototype caters all the functional and the non-functional requirements that were part of the original case.

Instructions

Group Formation

• Please read the attached ‘Group Working Guide’ document for more information about group formation.

Case Scenario

• Please read case study provided to you by your facilitator with assessment 1. Note that every piece of information provided in this case study has a purpose.

• The solution that you provided in assessment 1 and 2 and the feedback of your Learning Facilitator against these assessments would also serve as an input to assessment 3.

Complete the following tasks:

Part A – The Prototype

Based on the case study as well as the requirement analysis and design specification that you submitted for Assessment 1 and Assessment 2 respectively, develop a prototype for the system. The prototype must address the following criteria:

• conform to human interface design guidelines explained in Module 5
• include all functional and non-functional requirements of the case study and the additional requirements that you identified in Assignment 1 and 2
• be in a digital form and should be prepared using some software/tool
• enable all actors of the System to perform their designated task
• be designed as either a web application or as a mobile app

Part B – Video

Now all group members will record a video for a hypothetical client. In this video, ALL group members will present the prototype that your group built in Part ‘A’. The length of the video should be between 13 to 15 minutes. As a minimum, your group needs to demonstrate:

• how the prototype (solution) meets the business requirement of the given case
• the advantages of specific type of application over the other. For example, if the prototype is a mobile app, explain advantages of a mobile app over a web application for this case.
• how each actor of this case study will interact with the system and how they would be able to complete their tasks using the solution that you are proposing

Note: Your group should be able to convince the client that your solution is exactly what they need. Think of this as a sales and marketing presentation.

Part C – Peer Evaluation

• It is required that each individual student completes a confidential peer evaluation for other team members.
• Please see the documents ‘Group Working Guide’ and ‘Group Participation Matrix’ found in Assessment 3 link via main navigation menu.

Referencing

It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing in the Academic Skills webpage.

Submission Instructions

There are two submission points for this assessment:

Graded submission- Group submission

• Each team will submit a video via the Assessment 3 section found in the main navigation menu of the subject Blackboard site. All participants should be visible in the video and so should be the solution, preferably in Microsoft PowerPoint. Only one member of the team should submit the video.
• You are required to compress the file into a single zip file.

Peer Evaluation – Individual Submission

Each individual student is to submit a completed Group Participation Matrix document in the

Assessment 3 – Peer Evaluation submission link.

Academic Integrity

All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately referenced and academically written according to the Academic Writing Guide. Students also need to have read and be aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are available at https://www.torrens.edu.au/policies-and-forms.

Students also must keep a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.

Special Consideration

To apply for special consideration for a modification to an assessment or exam due to unexpected or extenuating circumstances, please consult the Assessment Policy for Higher Education Coursework and ELICOS and, if applicable to your circumstance, submit a completed Application for Assessment Special Consideration Form to your Learning Facilitator. These documents are available at https://www.torrens.edu.au/policies-and-forms.

Assessment Rubric

Assessment Attributes	Fail (Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49%	Pass (Functional) 50-64%	Credit (Proficient) 65-74%	Distinction (Advanced) 75-84%	High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100%
User Interface Design 40%	Students have limited knowledge of the user interface design.	Student have functional knowledge of the user interface design.	Student have proficient knowledge of the user interface design.	Students have advanced knowledge of the user interface design.	Students have exceptional knowledge of the user interface design.   The solution is visually very appealing.
Completeness and accuracy       20%	The user interface designs are not complete. Major case study requirements are not being met in the proposed solution.	The user interface designs are partially complete. Some case study requirements are not being met in the proposed solution.	The user interface designs are largely complete. Most of the case study requirements are being met in the proposed solution.	The user interface designs are complete. All the case study requirements are being met in the proposed solution.	The user interface designs are complete and accurate. All the case study requirements are being met in the proposed solution. The solution is very comprehensive and detailed.

Assessment Attributes	Fail (Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49%	Pass (Functional) 50-64%	Credit (Proficient) 65-74%	Distinction (Advanced) 75-84%	High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100%
Effective Communication     25%	Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.   Stilted, awkward and/or oversimplified delivery.   Limited use of engaging presentation techniques. (e.g. posture; eye contact; gestures; volume, pitch and pace of voice)   Presentation aids are not employed or developed as directed.	Presentation is sometimes difficult to follow. Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical.   Correct, but often stilted or awkward delivery.   Sometimes uses engaging presentation techniques (e.g. posture; eye contact; gestures; volume, pitch and pace of voice)   Employs basic, but generally accurate presentation aids as directed. A number of aspects require further refinement (e.g. amount of information, styling, editing, etc.).	Presentation is easy to follow. Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.   Correct, but occasionally stilted or awkward delivery.   Uses engaging presentation techniques (e.g. posture; eye contact; gestures; volume, pitch and pace of voice)   Employs clear and somewhat engaging presentation aids as directed. A few aspects require further refinement (e.g. amount of information, styling, editing, etc.).	Engages audience interest. Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented. The presentation is logical, clear and well-supported by evidence.   Clear and confident delivery.   Confidently and consistently uses a range of engaging presentation techniques (e.g. posture; eye contact, expression; gestures; volume, pitch and pace of voice; stance; movement)   Employs succinct, styled and engaging presentation aids that incorporate a range of elements (graphics, multi-media, text, charts, etc.).	Students clearly exhibit the art of selling.   Engages and sustains audience interest. Expertly presented. The presentation is logical, persuasive, and well- supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.   Clear, confident and persuasive delivery.   Dynamic, integrated and professional use of a wide range of engaging presentation techniques (e.g. posture; eye contact, expression; gestures; volume, pitch and pace of voice; stance; movement)   Employs succinct, creative and engaging presentation aids that effectively integrate a wide range of elements (graphics, multi- media, text, charts, etc.).

Assessment Attributes	Fail (Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49%	Pass (Functional) 50-64%	Credit (Proficient) 65-74%	Distinction (Advanced) 75-84%	High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100%
Team Work 15%	All team members did not participate in the presentation.   Poor team dynamics are obvious.   There is almost no synchronisation.   Team output does not meet expectations.   Overall team performance is not satisfactory.	All team members did not participate in the presentation.   There is hardly any synchronisation between team members.   Team output barely meets expectations.   Overall team performance is below average.	All team members participated in the presentation.   Team output meets basic expectations.   Overall team performance is above average.	All team members participated in the presentation.   Team output meets expectations.   Overall team performance is very good.	All team members participated in the presentation.   Clear synergy can be observed within the team members.   Team output exceeds expectations.   Overall team performance is exceptional.

Get expert help for MIS605 Systems Analysis and Design and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!