Product, campaign and corporate identity design
| Structure Type: | Course |
|---|
| Code: | KMST3V01 |
|---|
| Level: | Bachelor |
|---|
| Credits: | 10.0 points |
|---|
| Responsible Teacher: | Leikkari, Esa |
|---|
| Teacher Team: | Savola, Esa |
|---|
| Language of Instruction: | Finnish |
|---|
Course Implementations, Planned Year of Study and Semester
| Curriculum | Semester | Credits | Start of Semester | End of Semester |
| KUMU-2014 |
4 autumn |
10.0 |
2017-08-01 |
2017-12-31 |
| KUMU-2015 |
4 autumn |
5.0 |
2018-08-01 |
2018-12-31 |
| KUMU-2015 |
4 spring |
5.0 |
2019-01-01 |
2019-07-31 |
| KUMU-2016 |
4 autumn |
5.0 |
2019-08-01 |
2019-12-31 |
| KUMU-2016 |
4 spring |
5.0 |
|
|
Learning Outcomes
Students will learn to
- take into account principles of external and internal corporate identity creation as a point of departure for product, campaign and corporate identity design
- create a desired image based on narrative, product, campaign or corporate identity and the market situation
- manage the development of desired images into product, campaign or corporate identity
- apply the principles of design management to construct corporate identity; apply these principles in management
- use graphic design skills and principles in planning and implementing visual product, campaign and corporate identities
- take into consideration financial constraints in implementing corporate visual images and pay attention to communication-related, personal and cultural constraints and challenges.
Student's Workload
Stduent's total workload ca 260 hours
Contents
Product and corporate identity design 5 cr
- basics of product and corporate identity design
- graphic and visual design
- desired image
- narrative approach
Campaign identity design 5 cr
- basics of campaign design
- graphic and visual design
- desired image
- narrative aspect
Recommended or Required Reading
will be announced at the beginning of the course
Mode of Delivery / Planned Learning Activities and Teaching Methods
-lectures, assignments, group work for a customer
Assessment Criteria
0 FAILED
1 SATISFACTORY (POOR)
Design process develops poorly with different stages unclearly defined, personal achievements and counselling in unbalance, specification(s), goal(s) and criteria for intended product(s) not clearly organized and analyzed, background work for design commission minimal, quantity and quality of design work (iteratively poor, routine like, mechanical) barely acceptable compared to time used, presentation(s) (customer meeting(s), portfolio, partial deliveries, assessment discussions, final delivery, complementary deliveries etc.) only moderately (overall comprehensiveness, visual and verbal quality) and mechanically developed by student.
2 SATISFACTORY (FAIR)
Design process develops satisfactorily with different stages at least partially defined, personal achievements and counselling still in some respect unbalanced, specification(s), goal(s) and criteria for intended product(s) satisfactorily organized and analyzed, background work for design commission in most respect satisfactory but with little source criticism, quantity and quality of design work (iteratively modest, routine like but with some personal traits) satisfactory compared to time used, presentation(s) (customer meeting(s), portfolio, partial deliveries, assessment discussions, final delivery, complementary deliveries etc.) satisfactorily (overall comprehensiveness, visual and verbal quality) and with some personal traits developed by student.
3 GOOD
Design process develops fairly good with different stages clearly defined, personal achievements and counselling are in most respect balanced, specification(s), goal(s) and criteria for intended product(s) in main respects well organized and analyzed, background work for design commission is good with adequate source criticism, quantity and quality of design work (iteratively good, fairly innovative and with clear personal traits) good compared to time used, presentation(s) (customer meeting(s), portfolio, partial deliveries, assessment discussions, final delivery, complementary deliveries etc.) good (overall comprehensiveness, visual and verbal quality) and with clear personal traits developed by student.
4 GOOD (VERY GOOD)
Design process develops very good with different stages very clearly defined, personal achievements and counselling are in all respect balanced, specification(s), goal(s) and criteria for intended product(s) in all respects well organized and analyzed, background work for design commission is very good with clear source criticism, quantity and quality of design work (iteratively very good, clearly innovative and with strong personal traits) very good compared to time used, presentation(s) (customer meeting(s), portfolio, partial deliveries, assessment discussions, final delivery, complementary deliveries etc.) very good (overall comprehensiveness, visual and verbal quality) and with very personal traits developed by student.
5 EXCELLENT
Design process develops independently with different stages sharply defined, personal achievements and counselling are excellently balanced, specification(s), goal(s) and criteria for intended product(s) in all respects excellently organized and analyzed, background work for design commission is extremely good with clear source criticism, quantity and quality of design work (iteratively excellent, very innovative and with artistic personal traits) excellent compared to time used, presentation(s) (customer meeting(s), portfolio, partial deliveries, assessment discussions, final delivery, complementary deliveries etc.) excellent (overall comprehensiveness, visual and verbal quality) and with strong and artistic personal traits developed by student.
Back