|1505||Answered a few questions wrong, didn't address the journal entry PI during presentation (just during Q&A), organize thoughts a little better, split up talking a bit more.|
|3244||Make sure to let your partner finish before speaking, kept distracting her from her train of thought and was difficult to keep track of the presentation with it bouncing between both people, all numbers except ADA under % of sales were correct, good job describing differences and explanations overall.|
|1644||Great presentation, all numbers were correct, answers were correct and succint, good presentation skills (speaking and sharing the information effectively.|
|2251||Good presentation, answers were well done, correct and questions and performance indicators were all touched, more structure is needed when presenting to allow judges to follow along better, back and forth was a good addition.|
|2284||Should try to storytell a bit more/commit to roleplay more, introduce yourselves at beginning of presentation, had time left which could have been utilized to discuss the difference between the methods more and provide more details regarding the impact on financial statements, good sharing of information between partners, and good mention of reversal entry.|
|3588||Good presentation, needed more explanation, had a good split of talking and flow of information, provided good details on background of case, numbers were correct but more structure was needed for answers, encourage you to think before answering questions - no one will fault you for asking for a breather.|
|1428||Good presentation, very professional, numbers were all correct, good split of talking and answers to questions, try not to fidget with papers if possible.|
|3169||Good presentation, numbers were almost all correct, good to answer to questions, try to remember the performance indicators asked and translate them more smoothly into a cohesive presentation.|
|2340||Hit most of the key points on the rubric. Strong intro, ran out of time for conclusion. Struggled a bit with presentation skills. Had a tangible solution. Presentation overall was very informative! The group had a very good introduction and maintained their professionalism and roles throughout the presentation. The group made some recommendations such as "avoid plastic", "education programs" prior to the issues that the company faces, while the recommendations and issues were good, it would be nice if the presentation order was the other way around. The group also mentioned points about the company such as "[plastic bottles] may not be the best products" or "looks bad on the Company". Although it is good to bring awareness to these points, it would be nice to address these issues and explain to the CEO how the company can go about to resolve the issues so that the company can maintain its brand image while producing consumer valued products. Don't just mention bad things about the company, but also elaborate on the resolutions.|
|1845||The presentation was well done. Good eye contact from the group and good division of parts. In the future, in role-play presentations, avoid saying things like "as said in the case". No need to present a summary of the company as you're presenting to the CEO of JoyLite. Some good points were made in regards to trends like green marketing, health concerns, triple bottom line. In future cases, the group can use a SWOT analysis in their presentation to help them organize thoughts, and think of realistic resolutions that can be implemented. Presented very well. Spoke about consumer trends and made it relatable. Spoke about how businesses should foster a triple bottom line. Their recommendations were not tangible. Did not stay consistent when speaking about outsourcing to China. Did not hit all of the key points on the rubric. Presented as if we were not management.|
|4027||Good job - focus more on how you present and be more persuasive. Don't just talk about the numbers - we can see the sheet after but instead focus on why the investment opportunity should be taken. Team F2 addressed the issue at hand and provided an overall recommendation on the issue. Prepared a forecast income statement and the NPV of investment; explained time value of money concept. Overall good presentation.|
|1217||Nice work - quantitative analysis was weak but stuck to recommendation which was good. Identified issue and presented the forecast income statement. Team F3 interpreted increase in fixed costs to be an incremental $10k increase per year when the case question was directing the team to identify an overall increase from $25k to $35k. Overall good presentation.|
|1800||Good job - didn't fully understand the time value of money and NPV calculations but overall income statement projections and financial forecasting was well done with some minor issues. Did not calculate payback period which is nice to know. Team F4 addressed the issue and provided a conclusion on the investment decision. In assessing whether an investment decision should be made, cash flows should be addressed (see solution template that would lead the team to discount with/without investment based on cash flows). The team addressed revenues and discounts revenues. Overall good presentation.|
|4948||Well presented - could improve on using the quantitative analysis to tie into recommendation. Incremental net income calculations didn't really make sense. Only one person spoke throughout so try to split it between members to have a more consistent and flowing presentation. Strong presentation skills - very articulate and provided answers to our questions that were consistent with the analysis (i.e. does the forecast appear reasonable and the team's response to why/why not was addressed based on their analysis). The team did not address what the payback period would be and the net present value of investment (indicators #4 and #5).|
|3932||Good presentation - professional and convincing with excellent answers to questions. Income statement was well forecasted and defended. Good attempt at calculating PV and other quantitative analyses - broad concept generally understood but details / numbers weren't as accurately used in the analyses. Accurately identified the incremental net income and concluded on an investment decision. Time value concept should be revisited - the net present value of the investment should be assessed based on cash flows (the team calculated the present value of the revenues). Strong responses to questions, particularly to the reasonability of fixed operating expenses throughout the period given increases in sales. Overall, strong performance.|
|4229||Good job forecasting the income statement. Did not fully understand the concept of present value but attempted to answer questions on it. Improve on eye contact when presenting. Questions were answered and was consistent with overall recommendation to the project at hand. Provided for an overall recommendation to address the ask for this case. Accurately forecasted income statement. Team F7 selected a present value factor based on 5% at year 5 throughout the forecast period - the PV factor should be selected based on how many years out (i.e. PV factor 5% - 1 year for 2019, 5% - 2 year for 2020, etc.).|
|1225||Well presented - recommendation was well supported by facts and analyses. General understanding of time value of money. Struggled with payback period. Income statement has several errors including the exclusion of fixed costs and expensing of capital investment. Questions were well-answered. Strong presentation skills. Addressed the main issue and provided an overall recommendation. Note to Team F8 that the initial investment of $35k was counted twice in assessing NPV - calculated PV of cash flows of $106k (which included the $35k investment in Year 1 forecast) and then deducted the initial investment of $35k again. Forecast should not include the initial capital outlay of $35k in Year 1 income statement.|
|1036||Good presentation - generally understood concepts (e.g. time value of money, payback period) but did not apply accurately throughout case. Questions were well-answered to show understanding of concepts. Some mismatch in answers of questions and the recommendation provided in the case. Team F11 was able to identify the issue and concluded on a recommendation to (not) invest in this new project. Team F11 misinterpreted the fixed costs increase - the case tried to lead candidates to arrive at fixed expenses of $35.0 thousand overall, rather than a $10k year over year increase. Team F11 did not address the PV of cash flows given the negative amounts calculated and accordingly did not analyze NPV. Overall good presentation and recommendation/responses were consistent with analysis.|
|3313||Very good presence in that they both looked engaged while the other partner was talking. Also had very good projection, and spoke clearly.
However, team provided little to no introduction/background information with regards to the effects of the drug, its impact on society. Based on the rubric criteria, I was looking for a general introduction regarding the actual significance of the drug, its impact on society generally and how it harms the individual -- even just a version or some information from the first paragraph from the case study would have been a good introduction to the topic and problem at hand. Team went straight into the promotional strategies, which is fine, but based on the 1st and 2nd Performance Indicators I was expecting some background information or a "hook" to their thesis argument.
With regards to Performance Indicator 3 -- they were able to effectively identify the "target audience," by relating it back to the root cause of the opioid crisis which was good. Their introduction was actually almost all about the "cause" of the opioid crisis, which helped them fulfill the expectations for Performance Indicator 4-- as they were able to relate the problems of the previous advertising strategies of the company and discuss how, based on their identification of the 'cause" of the opioid crisis, their new marketing strategy would be more effective.
I thought that for their marketing strategy this also could have applied to their Performance Indicator 5. They actually thought very creatively with their approach on targeting hospitals/doctors etc. -- get it at the root cause, which I think was relevant or useful.
Lastly, with regards to their answers from the questions-- I thought they answered effectively and concisely. There might have been some comprehension issues with regards to what the question was asking, but they generally answered the overall idea.
Points of Improvement: Overall, I thought their presentation was good; they both spoke slowly and clearly. They had great body language, (ie, stood up straight, made eye contact, didn't lean on their feet, had their heads up) were respectful of each other's talking points (didn't look bored when the other person was talking) and in general stayed in character (ie, was very professional and used professional language -- no slang, no "umms" etc.) However, one thing that I think they can improve on is content. Their presentation was very short, not even five minutes. I think in presenting an argument, there should be a clear progression of ideas -- introduction, thesis and conclusion, which helps make the presentation easy to follow as well as memorable. Though arguably their thesis or main argument was effective, having an introduction to set the tone of the presentation (what is the drug, what are the effects of the drug, how does it impact society -- all performance indicators and information generally detailed in the case) and a conclusion to reinforce their arguments and establish their main point (sum up how their marketing is different and effective) would have made for a better presentation overall.
-Great analysis on the impacts of switching suppliers, acknowledged that it may affect quality standards, while at the same time potentially increasing stability for prices.
- Business cards are a nice touch! 🙂
- Good answer to the evaluation of political risks: SWOT, risk model are all great ways to assess risks
- Selection of other countries are backed by good reasoning and supporting data.
- Cohesiveness of presentation: don't speak over one another
- Should work on explaining a bit more about fair trade and the "so what?", how does it impact our company
- Should mention how leaving our current suppliers will have an impact. Leaving current suppliers will strain our relationships, could hurt brand image. Simply switching to another country may not be as easy as it seems.
- Good analysis on what countries to select for alternatives. Supported by facts and supporting data
- Short agenda in the beginning helps set a good understanding of the roadmap of your analysis, and helps guide the listener, keep it up
- Strong analysis of the affect of switching suppliers (might lose loyalty)
- Language could be improved: Sometimes used casual terms "stuff, guys, etc." which would not be professional in an actual meeting with a client.
- Some disconnect between analysis for switching suppliers (negative impact on company), and the actual recommendation. You recommended that we go ahead and switch to other countries, despite saying the negatives of switching
- Excellent analysis on the impacts of switching suppliers (long vetting process)
- This leads to the understanding that we should not be switching suppliers, because supporting the current supplier continues to build our brand reputation, so good job identifying that aspect
- Well done on the analysis of political risks, trade embargo, damaged goods, reliability
- Good explanation of fair value, and how it impacts prices of goods
- Could put a bit more emphasis on the social and humanitarian impacts:
- Very creative recommendations (professor/researchers, sample test, lower prices, discounts
- Strong assessment of the impact of changing suppliers, and how it affects reputation and quality
- Should focus more on the risks, and the impacts on the company. It was mentioned briefly sometimes, but given the situation the company is in, the risks are a big factor to consider.
- Remember to summarize your thoughts at the end of the presentation to recap what you have just talked about
- Finish your thoughts and sentences, even if you lose the trail of thought. It helps with the cohesiveness.
- Next time, remember to start and end the presentation with a handshake!
- Strong understanding of Fair Value: how it is protected by fluctuating costs
- Good emphasis on how everything is on the long-run, rather than short-run
- If you selected your other countries to expand into, should explain why, what are the factors driving the decision
- Should have more focus on the risk factors of importing from a foreign country
- Creative solution with the pop-up booths
- I like the "push strategy"
- Good analysis on the impacts of switching suppliers (eg having to negotiate)
- Mention more about political risks and impacts that it has on current operations.
- More cohesiveness among team members needed
- Mini "slides" are awesome. Makes it easy to follow, and more importantly, memorable!
- Great cohesiveness and team work when presenting and answer questions (did not step over one another)
- Good recommendation suggesting with funding relief efforts
- Strong identification of political risks and impacts
- Focus more on how the CSR can drive customer behaviour. It was mentioned but would have liked to see more connection.
- More cohesiveness between points. Remember to understand the "so what?". Why is the information important. You have great analysis, take it the next step and explain why that matters to the company, and how it ties into the other points.
- Strong speaker, I can tell you definitely know what you're talking about, and you bring up a lot of great points in Q&A. Don't feel nervous at all, take your time and take a deep breath!
- Strong consideration about stigmatizing and sterotyping helping countries in Africa, very good point that often isn't considered
- Take your time talking!
- Could try having an agenda in the the future so that the listener knows what you will be going through
- Quick summary at the end could help wrap everything up
- I like the recognition that the relationship between customer and company brand is an "upside down pyramid"
- Good analysis on the impacts of switching consumers, such as reduced reliability
- Would like to see a more clearer identification of political impacts and impacts on consumer behaviour. They were mentioned lightly here and there, but should dedicate a section to analyzing and presenting fully the impacts.
- Also, consider tying in some of your research to other parts of your analysis. Connect the dots and look at the big picture. Separate analyses were strong, but presentation would be even stronger if there were a big "so what?" answered at the end (how does this affect the big picture)
- Excellent identification that we don't want to abandon our suppliers, but we also want to reduce the costs. Thus the expansion vs relocating analysis is very strong, in that we will be having the best of both worlds
- Also, very good analysis on the impacts of leaving the current supplier, and how there may be questionable relationships, and a decrease in quality (potentially)
- Cohesiveness of presentation: Several times I've heard both presenters say "do you have anything to add". That takes away from the presentation, if there is something else to add, step in and talk.
- On the same note, Q&A could be shorter. Usually you don't want to keep piling on the answers. If two people have already spoken, I believe that's enough talking for the question
- Would have liked to see more discussion with regards to the political risks identified, impact on imports, and other mitigating factors.
|1775||Mentioned concerned parents as an opportunity but didn't explain building and retaining this specific market. A lot of ideas, could be more focused and interconnected. Didn't discuss USP. Poor explanation of SWOT. Used "their company" instead of "ours". Mentions using social media but doesn't give execution plan. Doesn't state how to market to the parents . Too many points/ideas, need to focus on ONE and create execution plan for it. No timelines. Didn't understand measuring metric of success. Good presentation skills. Diagrams were unnecessary.|
|4736||Please explain SWOT implications, if you don't you're just stating facts from the case which we already know.
Didn't mention USP, but explained during the question period.
Nice slogans for marketing campaigns and marketing plan.
Did not mention how to build and retain the main target market of teachers.
Question answers overall were great!- Didn't explain what SWOT is and why its used in marketing
- Really like the pop up booth idea and marketing campaigns with slogans e.g. "new year, new you" and "get your students ready for exams"
- Timeline (good job adding this in, very useful - add timelines for all marketing plans)
- Good knowledge about opportunities (e.g. integrating with Google API)
- Very good answer to judges questions (converting free users to paid users)
|2029||Did not explain the role of the SWOT analysis.
Good identification of opportunity with elementary students - didn't explain building and retaining of this market.- Didn't explain what SWOT is
- Hiring HS students for $2-$3 - minimum wage is $14
- Good job on identifying new market of elementary school students
|4818||Well structured presentation, very impressed.
Great answers to questions.
Continued to tie things together and reiterate important points which was very good.- Really good presentation structure and tied everything/ideas back together
- Not necessary to show diagram to judges if it's just words
- Was about the clearly identify the problem with the Facebook PR delimma
- Good explaination and supported your ideas well
|4372||- Good job on identify the problem
- Need to structure your presentation
- Don't be so nervous!
- Was unable to provide a SWOT
- Said "or what not" too much in presentation, make sure to avoid filler wordsGood job identifying problem.
Did not review SWOT analysis for us.
|4426||Please provide a thorough SWOT analysis for us.
Outsourcing graduates is a good idea.- Didn't conduct a proper SWOT
- Outsourcing idea doesn't work because each country has their on standard school curriculum
- Don't need to show diagrams if they are just words
- Good: loyalty program
|4752||- Need to analyze the market more to come up with concrete marketing plan
- Mentioned unhappy customer and how they are going to resolve it but apologizing and giving refund: good Provide concrete marketing plan which takes into consideration the various favtors required to build and maintain clientele.
|3643||- Talked too fast
- Don't need to explain case to us since we are the founders
- Good idea for online and video chats
- Need to come up with marketing plans and metricsDid not need to explain the case to us as we are the founders.
Segmentation was very generic, mentioned segmentation based on demographic (age) but didn't provide ages.
Spoke very quickly
|2299||- Really good SWOT and explanation of the SWOT, was able to explain well that a SWOT is used for
- Good structure of presentation
- Good idea with the Youtubers Great breakdown of the steps that will be implemented to address the issues.
Good idea to use youtubers.
USP could use more explanation.
|1976||Clear and articulate, good approach and explanation on solution, would have liked to hear a little bit more about the management aspect as well as solution measurement/assessment and monitoring. Delivery was well done. Would have liked to have both speakers present the same amount of time. Great depth of technical focus, I like how you attempted to explore specific technical solutions, incl. data encryption. The example of MPP (Massively Parallel Processing) isn't applicable as a security measure, btw. Your points on VPN with partners, pictures misuse, ad filtering were very relevant, though.
I suggest next time you give more coverage to the non-technical aspects of the case as well (public perception implications, processes and procedures, etc.)
Presentation skills: Good tone and volume. Embrace the role play (act.) Also, don't stand behind a table next time: the fewer obstacles between you and your audience, the closer the connection and the more impactful the delivery + enables you to use hand gestures.
|4695||Clear and articulate from a management's /high level point of view. Delivery was good, organized thought process. Speakers had equal talk time which was good. Would have liked to hear more about the confidentiality info aspect. Answered questions well. Would have liked to see a little bit more confidence. Great coverage of the impact to customer trust and the company future (image, investor confidence.) Liked your focus on raising internal awareness, transparency with customers, and the importance of software patch management.
Wish you provided more technical recommendations + develop a broader solution proposal (you had plenty of time left.) Consider providing 2-3 supporting points to each perf indicator.
Presentation skills: Liked it that you stood right in front vs. behind the table + were calm and had generally good posture.
Next time, introduce yourselves by name either when you shake hands coming in or at the start of the presentation. Shake hands when done and leaving.
Aleksandra: Speak louder, more confident.
|4859||Good management perspective and approach, would have liked to hear a more succinct response in certain ideas. For example, question about accepting the monetary deal for confidential information the answer could be "no, it would be unethical and we are not in the business of selling private info which would violate the trust further". Would have liked to hear specifics around security of handling information. I liked your points about internal education in light of the risks of social engineering. Good coverage of the company financial impacts - loved the visual prop with crumbling and throwing away the paper. The example with Facebook and the Senate hearing was very relevant, too.
I wish you provided specific tech recommendations. The proposed solution also felt too focused on internal controls - consider a more holistic perspective next time.
Presentation skills: Loved the use of visuals and the "crumble and throw away the paper" act
|1348||Great content, organized framework, good risk assessment approach. Major area of improvement would be on presentation skills- eye contact, posture, confidence in delivery. More succinctness in responses. Great, all-encompassing solution. I found the depth you went to for risk and breach management outstanding and just the right amount. The concepts of white hat hackers, risk and breach mgmt strategies, and risk prioritization were excellent and reflective of the real world. Great thinking on the spot in the Q&A and fantastic example of using hard metrics, sentiment (media), and competitor analysis.
Presentation skills: You had a very solid structure to your presentation - loved that you supported every reason with 2-3 points. Tempo and voice were good. I suggest you explore techniques to calm down before a presentation - I could sense nervousness. Watch the "uhm"-s when speaking (common problem for many people in general.)
Sam: I recommend you work on keeping eye contact.
J: Focus on body posture, esp. feet: both feet planted on the floor, shoulder width apart, weight evenly distributed on both legs, no shifting.
|4185||I think this team did a good job on stakeholder impact and identification. Good job on proposing security measures to take for risk management strategy. Good job with answering questions. Would have liked the speakers to have more equal presenting time. Would have liked to hear little bit more about the impact and importance of handling confidential information. Organized approach, area of improvement can be the succinctness of explaining an idea or providing a response to a question. Good breadth analysis of impact, risk and breach compare and contrast. Loved the visuals and especially the analogy with control for cash. The recommendation on end to end encryption and daily key rotation is very relevant.
Could have covered the response to the public proactively (did so in the Q&A).
Presentation skills: Good volume and posture. I recommend more even speaking time between the two of you.
M: Watch the "uhm-s" (common for many people) + posture (both feet planted on the floor, shoulder width apart, equal weight on both legs, no shifting.)
|4776||Good job. Organized. Answered questions well. Succinct presentation and responses. Good attempt at risk and breach mgmt comparison. Liked the idea of using AI-based detection.
Content felt too generic, though - lots of points but little justification on each. I suggest focusing more on structure (e.g., limit # of points) and supporting evidence for each point (2-3.) Suggest working also on presentation flow - smoother, connected transitions between points.
Presentation skills: I liked it that you sat at the table vs. stand and present in front - builds a deeper connection with your audience. Tone of voice was good. Watch the "uhm"-s (common problem for many people.)
|1455||Good job. Organized approach, succinct points. Understood the ethical implications of the case. Only feedback would be to be to focus on the security of information/the technical solution a little bit more. The group did respond well when asked the question. Great coverage of the non-technical aspects. I especially liked the ideas for the user feedback forum and tech competency program for execs. The example of the Ts&Cs and legal implications was also very relevant.
Wish you gave more technical recommendations/depth + used your full allotted time. Great recovery by Nancy, btw, in the QA when asked about tech details and coming back with something like "I can find out and get back to you".
Watch the "uhm-s", and "like-s" when speaking. Great immersion in role play by sitting on the table vs. presenting in front.