This course will be terminated and replaced by a new decision making course.
If you have not yet passed the assignment or the seminar assignments, they can be submitted to to joeri.van.laere@his.se and joeri.van.laere.his@analys.urkund.se at 6 December 2011 at 23.59 at latest.
One more opportunity will be given under 2011, at 6 December.
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is for you to gain practical experience of a decision support application and to reflect upon its decision supporting abilities.
Description of assignment
You should work collaboratively in groups of three with the provided application. You should analyse the tool from a user perspective and write a report which reflects your experiences and thoughts of the tool.
Begin by acquainting yourselves with the tool (read the description provided to the right).
- Analyse the tool, based on course literature, regarding the following questions:
How does the application support decision-making (what decision making theories/issues is accounted for)?
From a user perspective, which are the main positive aspects of the tool?
From a user perspective, which are the main negative aspects of the tool?
In what ways can the tool be improved in order to strengthen its decision-supporting capabilities?
Can the decision-supporting features and characteristics of the tool be applied in other domains, e.g., corporate domain? If so/if not, in what way? - Write a report of which the following applies:
The report shall consist of a title page, an abstract, a table of contents, an introduction, a description of the tool, the analysis of the tool, a summarising discussion, and a list of references.
The report shall consist of the answers of all stated questions. NOTE: Use the course literature to support your arguments when answering the questions(use at least 5 papers, each question should be supported with literature).The report shall have a clear structure where each answer is easily identifiable.
The answers shall be related to relevant literature and be constructive in the arguments.
Use the Harvard reference system
.
The report shall consist of about 7-10 text pages and can be written in either Swedish or English.
See assessment for further information.
Submission
Submit an electronic version of report to the following e-mail address (joeri.van.laere.his@analys.urkund.se) and a paper version of the report in the grey cabinet in the office corridor at the third floor in the E-building at the latest at 15:00, the day of the deadline. The opening hours are 8:00-12:00 and 13:00-17:00. In addition, you may hand in the report at the seminar the same day. Your report will be checked by Urkund. You can read more about Urkund here: www.urkund.com.
When your report has been reviewed and marked you will be notified via e-mail. You can then find your report in the grey cabinet in the office corridor at the third floor in the E-building. The opening hours are 8:00-12:00 and 13:00-17:00. The reports will be handed out at the latest 18 work days after the submission deadline.
If you do not receive a pass on the assignment you have the possibility to correct and complement your report and submit it again. You shall then submit a new, complete report within two weeks. Hand also in the old report.
Assessment
The grading scale of this assignment is Pass (G), Pass with Distinction (VG) or Fail (U). The assignment must be graded Pass in order for you to be graded Pass on the course.
In order to be graded Pass, you should have
- Conducted a tool analysis, that embrace all the stated questions, in a reasonable way
- Theoretically grounded your arguments in a relevant and reasonable way, i.e., the answers to the questions are motivated and related to at least 5 different course literature references (or other relevant scientific literature)
- Reflected on the consequences for the user depending on the qualities of the tool in a relevant and reasonable way
Included all prescribed parts of the report
Referred, with help of the Harvard reference system, to the sources you have used without larger flaws
Structured the report in a reasonable way
Written, linguistically and stylistically, without larger errors and flaws
In order to be graded Pass with Distinction, you should, in addition to the pass-level criteria, have
Conducted an extensive tool analysis, which includes frequent, nuanced, and insightful theoretical grounding
Accomplished a careful, nuanced, and insightful tool analysis and discussion
Clear and comprehensible descriptions and arguments
Structured the report in a logical and clear way
Written in a well formulated way
Managed your references in an correct and stylistically elegant way