Tma 05 Case Study
The final concept (number6) was selected from the shortlist of three Appendix C. by reason of:-
Proposal number 3. fails to clearly define the problem, with a wide remit to purchase food, control the flow of comestibles, and generally create a mid-twentieth century “dad’s army” (Jimmy Perry) solution and is therefore rejected.
Proposal number 2 is an idealistic approach where there is an unlimited number of responders available, this is deemed not practical and is also rejected.
The chosen concept was number 6. Using Who, Where, Why, When and practicality as the valuation criteria in a matrix, this concept is the clear winner
4. a brief summary of work done since TMA 05.
Since TMA 05 meetings have been held with carers to clarify their
Proposal number 3. fails to clearly define the problem, with a wide remit to purchase food, control the flow of comestibles, and generally create a mid-twentieth century “dad’s army” (Jimmy Perry) solution and is therefore rejected.
Proposal number 2 is an idealistic approach where there is an unlimited number of responders available, this is deemed not practical and is also rejected.
The chosen concept was number 6. Using Who, Where, Why, When and practicality as the valuation criteria in a matrix, this concept is the clear winner
4. a brief summary of work done since TMA 05.
Since TMA 05 meetings have been held with carers to clarify their