MMME2041 – User Centred Research and Design
Coursework 1 (total weight: 40%)

1




Coursework 1:
Efficient and Safe Cleaning through User-Centred Research and
Design (UCRD)



1. About Coursework1
The purpose of Coursework 1 is to enhance the student’s skills to properly apply user research tools
and methods for formulating user requirements. Through the completion of coursework 1, the
students are expected to acquire an adequate competency in User-Centred Design.

This coursework is worth 40% of the total module mark. This is equivalent to 8 credits which equates
to 80 notional hours. The submission of coursework 1 is a 1200-word (excl appendices and
references) of portfolio that reports the activities undertaken to complete the set tasks as outlined in
Section 3. The portfolio is an individual submission, and must be submitted by the given deadline.

Late submissions, without an approved EC, will receive a penalty of -5% per day.

The submission of coursework 1 will form the basis to evaluate the following learning outcomes:
- LO1: Apply a range of human factors/ergonomics tools and methods to evaluate design
interventions.
- LO2: Interpret and extract relevant ergonomics data to inform design for users.

2. Coursework1 Background
FAST-CLEAN, with over 5 years of good reputation in the cleaning industry, has currently 150
cleaning staffs. The company provides a wide range of cleaning services, including office cleaning,
household cleaning, hallway cleaning, hall cleaning, and many other packages customizable based
on the client’s needs. The company has recently received an anonymized criticism posted to a well-
known social media platform. The criticism was based on a couple of photos (see Figure 1) showing
an unsafe work posture of their cleaning staffs.

MMME2041 – User Centred Research and Design
Coursework 1 (total weight: 40%)

2

Figure 1: Hazardous Work Posture of Cleaning Staffs

In response to this, FAST-CLEAN has decided to hire an expert to explore into measures that could
optimize work efficiency while ensuring safety to avoid occupational injury. As a User-Centered
Research and Design expert, you are offered this job by FAST-CLEAN.

3. Task
The tasks listed in the job description issued by FAST-CLEAN are as follows:
a) Select one cleaning task that you consider will need attention in the human-
factors/ergonomics aspects. The selected cleaning task must be comprised of a series of
activities that shall be completed with the aids of cleaning-related equipment or tools. Make
this cleaning task as a case study.
b) Use the method of Hierarchical Task Analysis to analyse the selected cleaning task for
efficiency and safety optimization purposes.
c) Identify usability issues with respect to the use of cleaning-related tools/equipment in the
process of completing the selected cleaning task.
d) Propose improvements to the task-related and usability issues identified from b) and c).
e) Evaluate the proposed improvements.
f) Generate a portfolio supported with relevant diagrams, pictographic illustrations, and
explanatory texts, to communicate the key findings.
g) A clear evidence of investigating a real-life case must be provided in the form of photographs
or video footages (if consent from user is obtained). The provided evidence will form the
MMME2041 – User Centred Research and Design
Coursework 1 (total weight: 40%)

3
basis for distinguishing the submitted study contents (i.e. analysis processes and outcomes)
are from actual investigation on a real case but not from AI production.

4. The Required Portfolio Context
Upon the completion of all the tasks listed in the job description from FAST-CLEAN, a portfolio
encompassing the following context must be generated. The quality of the portfolio content forms
the basis for evaluating coursework 1.

1. Introduction (10%)
Introduction of the selected cleaning task:
- Explain the context of the selected task, e.g. cognitive skills and physical strength
needed, time consumed for task completion, individual or group basis, task’s surrounding
setting - performed indoor/outdoor, equipment/tools used, typical use (or task performing)
scenarios, etc.
- Justify how and why the cleaning task is selected. Show evidence of
2. Body Chapters: (70%)
a. Understanding user (15%)
o Describe the targeted user. Targeted user could refer to a person who perform
the selected cleaning task. Targeted user could also refer to a test participant
invited to evaluate the proposed improvements.
o Put emphasis on how the targeted users are different than everyone else in
relation to the selected cleaning task. Are the users lead users or end users?
What is their age, interest, usual practice, problem/challenge to complete the
cleaning task, etc?
b. Analysing usability (35%)
o Describe how the chosen user research methods (e.g. Hierarchical Task
Analysis, cultural probes, observations, etc) are applied in analyzing the cleaning
task.
o Explain why the methods are chosen through discussing the pros and cons in
achieving their purposes.
o Develop diagrams, graphical illustrations (e.g. HTA diagrams, user journey maps,
layout diagrams) that are in adequate details to reflect the proper application of
the selected user research methods for acquiring the corresponding findings.
o Analyse the research findings through creating a physical and cognitive demands
table.
o Discuss how the different research methods applied complementing one another
in usability analysis. Relate the research methods and the corresponding findings
MMME2041 – User Centred Research and Design
Coursework 1 (total weight: 40%)

4
with the taught theories, including anthropometry data, Fundamental Principles for
Usability, Perception, etc.
Note: The diagrams, illustrations created shall be placed in the appendices and
clearly cross-referenced in the text.
c. Improvement Suggestions (10%)
o Suggest improvement measures to enhance the efficiency and safety in
performing the cleaning task.
o Explain with theoretical arguments why the suggestions are found relevant.
d. Evaluation of Improvements (10%)
o Describe how the suggestions are tested in a) typical use/work scenario; and b)
non-typical use/work scenarios (e.g. when users are tired, with minor injuries, new
to the job, etc).
o Clearly specify what user research methods are chosen and why they are
chosen.
Note: The relevant diagrams generated from the evaluation process must be
included in the appendices.
3. Conclusion (10%)
a. Specify the effects and impacts with respect to the suggestions uncovered from the
evaluation process.
b. Reflect based on relevant theories if the improvement suggestions are effective for
varying use/work scenarios.
4. References (5%)
- Include proper citations of references in portfolio texts to support the relevant arguments.
5. Appendices (5%)
- Demonstrate clear relevance of diagrams/illustrations with portfolio texts.
- Diagrams/illustrations produced must have good overall presentation quality.

5. Submission
The total word count of the portfolio is 1200 words (+/- 10%), excluding title page, illustrations,
appendices and references. All figures, including screenshots, photographs, and self-produced
diagrams/illustrations conveying the research process and outcomes, must be clearly documented
with caption text and number. Figures must be compiled as a series of appendices. These figures in
the appendices must be clearly cross-referenced in the portfolio text to support the content.

The portfolio must be submitted as one single PDF to Moodle by 21 March 2025, 23:59 Beijing
Time.

Late submission penalty in compliant with the UNNC’s policy will be applied: -5% per day.

MMME2041 – User Centred Research and Design
Coursework 1 (total weight: 40%)

5
6. Marking
The marking of the portfolio will be based on the level of completion of the content as outlined in
Section 4. In-depth analysis and concise discussion supported by quality visual communication are
the key basis on which the critical thinking skills and the competence of UCD research methods
application will be assessed. In addition, there must be an explicit coherence between the submitted
portfolio content with the provided evidence of real-life case study.

AI tools are allowed for inspirations gathering and ideas refining only. AI tools are NOT allowed to
generate any form of the portfolio content, including research data, texts, images, tables, etc.

Proper citation method must be applied when information from other sources is to be included in the
text.

The marking weight is distributed as below:

Portfolio Component Description Marking Weight (%)
1 Introduction 10
2a Understanding User 15
2b Analysing Usability 35
2c Improvement
Suggestions
10
2d Evaluation of
Improvement
10
3 Conclusion 10
4 References 5
5 Appendices 5
Total 100

























MMME2041 – User Centred Research and Design
Coursework 1 (total weight: 40%)

6


Appendix A
General Layout of Submission

- Title page – with module code (MMME2041), report title (e.g. Coursework 1: Efficient and
Safe Cleaning), student’s first and last name, student ID, submission date.

- Table of Content with page numbers.

- Body text with page numbers. Legible font type and font size, 1.15 spacing.

- Reference List – secondary sources to demonstrate reading beyond the course material and
any material that is not own production must be referenced in the text correctly. Please be
aware that including any text or images from another source without acknowledging the
source is plagiarism.

- Appendices – additional images for supporting scenarios explanation, essential graphical
illustrations meeting the coursework requirements (e.g. HTA diagram, User Journey, etc) are
to be compiled in a series of Appendices. Each element within the Appendices must be
clearly titled and referred to in the text body.


Guidelines on the format
The following information provides guidelines about structure and format.

1. Reports should be written in the third person in an objective, formal and impersonal style.
2. SI units should be used wherever possible, as recommended in ISO 1000 and BS5555.
3. The preferred spellings are those of the Oxford English Dictionary.
4. A list of notations and acronyms in alphabetical order defining all the symbols and
abbreviations used in the report should be provided where appropriate. This should form the
first appendix.
5. Figures should be numbered consecutively throughout the text, i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4...; both line
drawings and photographs must be included in the same numbering sequence. Figures should
appear as close as possible to the text which refers to them.
6. Tables should be numbered consecutively throughout the text and again should appear as
close as possible to the text which refers to them.
7. The report should be organized into logical sections, sequentially numbered with no more than
two grades of subheadings.


References
1. Harvard referencing system (see University of York Harvard Style Guide on Moodle or University
of Nottingham Harvard Referencing Guide1) is recommended for reporting all reference materials used

1
https://xerte.nottingham.ac.uk/play_46684?_gl=1*fv6kch*_gcl_au*MTE5MTg0MTUyNy4xNzMxNTAzNjI4*_ga*MTkzODI2M
jk4Ni4xNzMxNDE3Njcw*_ga_NTJWP5TDWB*MTczNzkwNjExOC4yNS4wLjE3Mzc5MDYxMTguNjAuMC4w#page5
[accessed 26-01-2025]
MMME2041 – User Centred Research and Design
Coursework 1 (total weight: 40%)

7
in completing the portfolio. Referencing system used should be consistent throughout the document.
This is described in detail in the University guidelines.
2. Each reference should be listed at the References Section only once even if it is referred in several
different places of the portfolio.

Although Wikipedia is a very useful reference source. Wikipedia should not be cited as a
reference because it is not reliable as its content can be edited by anyone at any time.

Useful link for referencing and bibliographies:
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/studyingeffectively/referencing/how.aspx



Plagiarism

Please do not cut and paste text directly from sources without proper citing even if the relevant
reference is listed to avoid the offence of plagiarism.

Information from sources must be summarised in own words, citing references throughout the portfolio
text to show where the ideas and information have originated.
































MMME2041 – User Centred Research and Design
Coursework 1 (total weight: 40%)

8



Appendix B: Mark Sheet


MMME2041: Coursework 1- Efficient and Safe Cleaning through UCRD
Student Name: Mark (%):


(10%) Introduction: Is the selected task (case) well explained with respect to the outlined
requirements? Is the reasoning behind the selection process well justified? Is the task selection
process well described?
Poor/Fail
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory Very Good Excellent


(15%) Understanding user: Are the users well differentiated with proper descriptions? Are the
differentiation well explained displaying a good alignment with the selected task (case)?
Poor/Fail
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory Very Good Excellent


(35%) Analysing Usability: Are the research methods application process well described? Is the
reasoning behind the research methods choice well explained? Are the practical aspects of the
applied research methods discussed in adequate depth? Are there any relevant graphical
representations (e.g. HTA diagram, Journey map, layout diagram) created? Are the generated
graphical representations in good clarity to demonstrate evidence of usability issues? Are findings
(e.g. usability issues) justified using related tools (e.g. cognitive/physical demands table)? Are
findings discussed using relevant theoretical arguments?
Poor/Fail
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory Very Good Excellent


(10%) Improvement Suggestion: Are improvements suggested? Are they reasonable and practical
based on the given explanation?
Poor/Fail
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory Very Good Excellent


(10%) Improvement Evaluation: Are the improvements justified with proper research methods? Is
the reasoning behind the choice made for research methods explained? Are any relevant graphical
representations produced?
Poor/Fail
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory Very Good Excellent


MMME2041 – User Centred Research and Design
Coursework 1 (total weight: 40%)

9
(10%) Conclusion: Could any conclusion drawn from the improvement evaluation? Why is such
conclusion made? Is any reflection made basing on the learned theory?
Poor/Fail
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory Very Good Excellent



(5%) References: Are references included in the portfolio? Are references reported correctly in
proper format (e.g. Harvard)? Are references cited in text? Are references related to taught theory?
Poor/Fail
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory Very Good Excellent



(5%) Appendices: Is there clear reference to text? Is the visual of representation in good quality?
Poor/Fail
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory Very Good Excellent





Comments:



























MMME2041 – User Centred Research and Design
Coursework 1 (total weight: 40%)

10




Appendix C: Mark Rubric



Level Descriptor Range Marks
Excellent
For an excellent performance displaying a high
level of command of all aspects of the relevant
evaluation component, with no or only a few
minor weaknesses.
H 90+
M 80 – 89
For a very good performance displaying a high
level of command of most aspects of the
relevant evaluation component, with only minor
weaknesses.
L 70 – 79
Very Good
For a good performance displaying good
command of the relevant evaluation component
but also some weaknesses.
H 67 - 69
M 63 – 66
L 60 – 62
Satisfactory
For a fair performance displaying some
command of the relevant evaluation component
but also some major weaknesses.
H 57 – 59
M 53 – 56
L 50 – 52
Needs
Improvement
For a performance meeting only the minimum
requirements for acceptance.
H 47 – 49
M 43 – 46
L 40 – 42
Poor/Fail
For a performance which does not meet the
minimum requirements for acceptance
0 - 39

学霸联盟