Presentation Reviews

Travis Gengler

Eng 316 – Sec 006?

Presentation reviews

Group 1 – “Student Express” Cafeteria in the LSB

Good:

Well researched

Well planned (blueprints of proposed facility, frequency of students eating on campus)

 (All statistics were made up, but still very impressive)

Improvements:

Could be more engaging with the audience (Not really a big issue, focus was to be informative)

Group 2 – Improved exercise facilities for students

Good:

Very engaging, asked our input

               Did a legitimate research study to back up benefits of exercise.

Improvements:

               Could propose a way to pay for the project (Perhaps expecting investor funds?)

Group 3 – Us!

Group 4 – Big O tires On site auto mechanical service

Good:

Energetic presentation

Focused on the investor

Improvements:

               Could have addressed a few more technical details, for example customer confirming service before service is done. But that’s not terribly important for the pitch

Group 5 – “Smart eat” app for healthy eating

Good:

Good approach to qualifications

Good visuals for the presentation, graphs, etc.

Improvements:

Could have engaged the audience a bit more, but the focus was to be informative, so it’s understandable

Group 6 – Exon biodiesel fuel investment

Good:

               Good explanation of current situation, flowed well into the presentation

Good coverage of the issues, validated their proposal by addressing disadvantages of bio fuel

Improvements:

Just slightly too technical. Depending on the audience, may want to make the pitch more accessible. Found details fascinating though!

Group 7 – Utah trail maintenance

Good:

Included expert opinions in their presentation, helps for qualifying their proposal

Very well focused on the problem at hand and provided a concise, simple solution

Improvements:

Can’t think of anything, very impressed with this presentation

Group 8 – BYU transfer student scholarship policy change

Good:

Well qualified, have personal experience with the current scholarship policies

Very simple plan, could foresee this being very easy to implement

Improvements:

Talked about the financial impact of reviewing the scholarship applications, but what about rewarding the scholarships? Just another consideration to make, perhaps not terribly important

Group 9 – Password policy

Good:

Related the issue directly to students

Explained the issue simply

Improvements:

Could have talked about how to get students to change their passwords, would it be a forced policy after making the changes? Really though, this is a trivial issue. Good presentation