Presentation Reflections

  1. Identify FIVE specific things in your slides that you could have done differently.
    1. We should have had a slide on the micro problem our project is trying to solve. This could be a specific person’s story and how plastic pollution in the Philippines affects them.
    2. We should have been more in depth on our research publications we are working on. We mentioned that we are working on one publication currently and plan to have 3 done by the end of the year however we didn’t mention that our first publication is building on the one from our previous semester, so we are well-along in our first draft for it. 
    3. We should have shown how some people have already made biodegradable packaging. Some of our referees mentioned that our project is ambitious so we could have shown that we are not making a brand new lab process, we’re just building on previous knowledge and applying it to an important field.
    4.  We should have shown what companies are out there and how our approach is different. One referee commented that there are big companies working on our project and asked what makes us different.
    5. We should have been more in depth of our business cycle and less in depth of our lab process, because referees cared more about details of our business cycle rather than our lab process. 
  2. Identify FIVE specific ways that you could have delivered your presentation better.
    1. We could have included a story or hypothetical scenario that would make the presentation more personal, and also likely keep the judges attention better.
    2. We could have focused more on the work that we have already completed like going more into depth with the research and papers so that the judges could have seen that we are making progress towards our goals. They may have been less likely to say that our project was too ambitious this way.
    3. We could have also talked more about the micro problems because we skipped over that part more quickly. 
    4. For the questions, we could have better broken up who specifically was going to address each type of question. Also next time we can prepare what to do if we get comments instead of questions.
    5. We could have given a very brief description of what our project is working on at the beginning, so that while we are explaining the background information the judges would have more context for why the information is relevant, and not just guessing what we are working on. 
  3. Identify FIVE specific ways you could have built your credibility further.
    1. More detailed plan and what we’ve already done to set up how we plan to achieve our goals in our timeline
    2. We could have built our credibility further if we explained more of the work that we already accomplished. Specifically, if we talked about our research, the judges would know that we were knowledgeable in what we were presenting on.
    3. Could have expanded more on our partnerships and potential partners to show that we are working with other groups and building on their credibility as well as our own.
    4. We could have included more pictures of us actually working to show what we have accomplished. This may be more applicable for the next presentation.
    5. We could have mentioned more that we are working with Professor Pearson in the lab because he is a trusted faculty member on campus. 
  4. Identify FIVE specific questions that you could have answered better. What were the questions, how did you respond, and how should you have responded to each?
    1. Not a question, but a comment: addressing whether our goals are achievable
    2. A question that was brought up was if we were “trying to reinvent the wheel,” to which we responded no because things have been done before similar to our product which were found in literature review. We could have expanded more on this and should have further explained how our product fit into the bigger picture.
    3. A question came up about the bigger companies being our competitors. We should have answered that we don’t necessarily need to be competing with larger companies doing the same things, and we can even work with them. A lot of what’s occurring in the Philippines in terms of biodegradable products are outsourced, so we are trying to make it so it can be done locally.
    4. Could’ve explained better how our product would be different: sourced locally, transparent about the process and ingredients used, affordable and would feed into the local economy.
    5. Many of our questions were asking how our project was not too ambitious. We should have clarified that we are not trying to solve all of the plastic pollution issue, but instead are trying to start efforts in the right direction.

Leave a Reply