OUGD406: Exhibition Branding - Final MockUps & Evaluation

Finals

Here is my contribution to the group exhibition task. I have produced the design process behind the visual identity for the concept, this includes the Logotype and Symbol. I have also designed the front and back of the flyers which will be available/handed out in public and will also be sent out along with the more specific invites, which I also designed..

Logotype and Symbol:

Flyer (front & back):

Invite (front & back):

Evaluation

Studio Brief 03: Collaborative Practice
Self/peer evaluation mark sheet for group work
Your Group:
You need to complete an evaluation for each member of your group – i.e. for yourself and the other members of the group. Award marks in each category on a scale of 0 to 10 – use the mark descriptors below to help you decide what mark would be fair.
Grade	Description
10	Did far more than could reasonably have been expected.
9	Made a major and sustained contribution throughout the project
8	Made a significant contribution to the group’s work at several points.
7	Participated fully and made useful contributions throughout.
6	Participated well and made some useful contributions.
5	Generally participated, but without playing a significant role in the group.
4	The bare minimum, just enough to have participated in the group.
3	There was some participation, but it was too little or too disruptive to receive any credit for the group’s work.
2	Participation was very poor both in quality and extent.
1	Participation was almost non-existent and was purely negative and undermining.
0	Did nothing.

Group member’s name: Sam Hughes (SELF EVAL)
Category	Mark
Effort and contribution to group tasks and management	8
Creativity, critical evaluation of self and others	7
Problem solving, use of others skills and self-reliance	7
Task analysis, organisation, accuracy and reliability	7
Communication, negotiation and management of conflicts	8

Overall, I think I have made a major contribution to our exhibition branding and have played a key role in developing the design process, more specifically organising meetings to evaluate what each of us are doing in order to ensure consistency across all of our work for the proposal. We assigned group roles to ensure an even spread of the work load and I was happy with the role I played in developing the visual identity to go alongside our concept. I have found it more difficult working in a group situation due to mixed abilities and having to accommodate for all, but through regular detailed discussions about our work in the studio (especially when it was more direct responses to the feedback we got from the first presentation) I feel like me, Sophie, Calum, Aneta and Harrison have communicated our concept well between us. 

We have all had to prioritise other module deadlines so time has been short and we have not always been available for meetings at the same time which was frustrating. This did leave me noticing that towards the end of the project people lost interest when we didn't get picked and I could not get sufficient feedback off my group. This is something we could have addressed earlier with a more detailed plan of action, but we still managed to finish all of the concepts off and develop them enough for the second presentation. I think I have still completed all of my work to a reasonably high standard which does represent a solid exhibition identity and concept but I can also understand how our concept didn't get picked. I think we addressed problems in the group very well, for example, when Katie had to take a step back we agreed she would partner up with me to draw the designs in with the rest of our ideas and develop it into a final and recognisable response. When making group decision we were able to sit and listen to eachother and then make a considered decision, often merging our ideas into one to make a bigger concept. I did not agree with all the ideas put forward but I feel I did make my opinion clear and then was still able to accept the group decision that was made. 

Group member’s name: Calum Cooke
Category	Mark
Effort and contribution to group tasks and management	7
Creativity, critical evaluation of self and others	8
Problem solving, use of others skills and self-reliance	7
Task analysis, organisation, accuracy and reliability	6
Communication, negotiation and management of conflicts	7

Calum played a key role in the development of our work aswell by always being available for discussions and openly being able to give his honest opinion through communicating it in a useful way. I had a good working relationship with him and he had a solid influence in a lot of the feedback I asked for upon the designing of the visual identity. He did produce most of his mockup ideas for the exhibition space through sketches which was difficult to include in my documentation of our exhibition proposal but overall I liked working with him and would do again but under different conditions!

Group member’s name: Sophie Oldham
Category	Mark
Effort and contribution to group tasks and management	8
Creativity, critical evaluation of self and others	8
Problem solving, use of others skills and self-reliance	7
Task analysis, organisation, accuracy and reliability	7
Communication, negotiation and management of conflicts	7

Sophie played a big role in developing our actual concept for the 'Bankers Club' and was also always available to talk through ideas and evaluate the appropriateness of our response. She prepared the back-bone to both presentations and I enjoyed building the concept up with her. 

Group member’s name: Harrison Wheatley
Category	Mark
Effort and contribution to group tasks and management	6
Creativity, critical evaluation of self and others	6
Problem solving, use of others skills and self-reliance	7
Task analysis, organisation, accuracy and reliability	7
Communication, negotiation and management of conflicts	8

Harrison was more difficult to get hold of sometimes but when he was here he played a good roll in the group. Voicing ideas and opinions he did help develop a more sophisticated feel to the exhibition as he designs in a similar style to me I think we had most in common in terms of design.

Group member’s name: Aneta Sidorko
Category	Mark
Effort and contribution to group tasks and management	5
Creativity, critical evaluation of self and others	5
Problem solving, use of others skills and self-reliance	6
Task analysis, organisation, accuracy and reliability	6
Communication, negotiation and management of conflicts	6

Aneta was a very quiet member of our group but I think we accommodated for that well. We gave her her own role to develop and she came back with some good ideas for the wayfinding which we were able to help her develop. She partnered up with me at one point when we decided to apply the map design to the back of the flyer and she was willing to listen to the development points I had for it and took them on-board. 

Group member’s name: Katie Sung
Category	Mark
Effort and contribution to group tasks and management	6
Creativity, critical evaluation of self and others	5
Problem solving, use of others skills and self-reliance	6
Task analysis, organisation, accuracy and reliability	6
Communication, negotiation and management of conflicts	6

Katie was playing a keen role in the group before she did have to take a step back. She offered her full support to us from back home and communicated her process for the invitation well. When she realised her designs were not consistent she was able to provide me with her colour research she had carried out and her concepts and considerations she made when designing her version of the invite. This really helped me to take it all on board and then start developing what she had already gathered into a more relatable and considered response.