The John Molson MBA ICC Online Refresher Session for returning judges. It features: Overview of the Competition Roles and Responsibilities Scoring & Feedback Forms

1. INFORMATION
SESSION
Judges

2. Outline
• The Organizing team
• Overview of the Competition
• Roles & Responsibilities of a Judge
• Scoring & Online Evaluation Form
• FAQs
• Commitment

3. The 2016 MBA ICC Team
Sarah Nidish Cinzia Sean
Miguel Kristina Anju Genevieve Andrea

4. Overview of the Competition
• Over a quarter million dollars to run the
competition
• 6 Diamond Sponsors
Sponsors
• 36 top MBA schools from around the globe
• 144 participants
• 50 coaches
Students
• 270 Senior Executives to judge the competitionJudges
• 300 Volunteers to flawlessly execute the eventVolunteers

5. Sean Smolka
• Sponsorship
• Marketing

6. Sponsorship
• Non-for profit
organization
• Expenses of
$340,000
Sonsors,
$152,000
Donors,
$55,900
In-Kind
Sponsors,
$40,000
School
Registration
fee
$90,600

7. Cinzia Ruberto
• Schools
• Volunteers
• Sustainability

8. SCHOOLS

9. 36 Schools – 19 Countries
Location #
Canada 11
US 4
International 21
Total 36

10. Canada (11)
School Name Country
Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba Canada
Concordia University - John Molson School of Business Canada
FSA - Université Laval Canada
Goodman School of Business - Brock University Canada
Haskayne School of Business - University of Calgary Canada
HEC Montréal Canada
Laurier School of Business & Economics - Wilfrid Laurier University Canada
McMaster University - DeGroote School of Business Canada
Memorial University of Newfoundland - Faculty of Business
Administration
Canada
Telfer School of Management - University of Ottawa Canada
Université de Sherbrooke Canada

11. International (21)
School Name Country
Australian Graduate School of Management, UNSW Australia
FIA - Fundacao Instituto de Administration Brazil
Universidad de Chile - Graduate School of Economics and Business Chile
Barna Business School Dominican Republic
The American University in Cairo - School of Business Egypt
Aalto University Finland
Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf Germany
University of Kaiserslautern Germany
University of Paderborn Germany
Munster School of Business and Economics-University of Munster Germany
Corvinus University of Budapest, Strategic Management Department Hungary
University College Dublin-Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School
Ireland
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Israel
American University of Beirut Lebanon
EGADE Business School Mexico
Nyenrode Business Universiteit Netherlands
Porto Business School Portugal
Nanyang Technological University- Nanyang Business School Singapore
National University of Singapore - NUS Business School Singapore
University of Cape Town - Graduate School of Business South Africa
Lund University School of Economics and Management Sweden

12. USA (4)
School Name Country
Katz Graduate School of Business - University of Pittsburgh United States
Kent State University - College of Business Administration United States
University of Arizona - Eller College of Management United States
University of South Carolina - Moore School of Business United States

13. SUSTAINABILITY

14. Sustainability
• 12th Greenest MBA program in the world ranked by The
Corporate Knights
• Involving local based cooperatives as suppliers
• Judge’s appreciation package:
• Plant the John Molson MBA ICC Forest in the name of each
participating judge (total of 250 judges so far)

15. Nidish PC
• Hotel
• Technology
• Logistics
• Budget

16. HOTEL

17. Hotel
• Hotel – Fairmont Queen Elisabeth
900 Rene Levesque Blvd. W, Montreal

18. TECHNOLOGY

19. Technology
• Mobile Application (Android & Apple)
• Access to detailed schedule
• Access to training videos
• Events Manager
• Links to select schedule availabilities
• Online feedback form to fill

20. SCHEDULE

21. Competition Schedule
Sunday
January 3
Monday
January 4
Tuesday
January 5
Wednesday
January 6
Thursday
January 7
Friday
January 8
6
7
8 Coaches Briefing
8:00 - 9:30
9 Opening Brunch
9:30 - 11:00
10
11
12 Case 1
11:30 - 16:20
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Mange & Melange
19:00 - 22:00
20
21
22
23
Openning Ceremony
17:00 - 18:00
Mange & Melange
19:00 - 22:00
Case 1
11:30 - 16:20
Yoga
6:00 - 6:45
Coaches Briefing
8:00 - 9:30
Opening Brunch
9:30 - 11:00
Breakfast
6:30 - 7:30
Lunch
13:30 - 14:15
Case 2
7:45 - 12:35
Case 3
14:45 - 17:35
Networking Cocktail
18:00 - 19:45
Yoga
6:00 - 6:45
Breakfast
8:00 - 9:30
Case 4 - Live Case
10:10 - 15:55
Hockey Game
19:00 - 21:00
Breakfast
6:30 - 7:15
Case 5
7:25 - 12:15
Lunch
13:15 - 14:45
Semi-Finals
15:15 - 21:00
Theme Party
(Montreal en
Cirque)
22:00 - 23:59
Snacks &
Refreshments
18:00 - 21:00
Yoga
6:00 - 6:45
Breakfast
7:00 -
9:30 Coaches
Debreifing
8:15 - 9:45
Comedy Night &
Coaches Dinner
21:00 - 22:30
Final
10:15 - 16:00
Final Banquet
19:00 - 22:00

22. Sarah Nasr
• Judges
• Cases
• Events

23. CASES

24. Cases
Annual Case Writing
Competitions
• 1,500 international case
writers in our data base
• Submit unpublished and
untested cases
• $21,000 cash prizes
7-Business Cases
• 5 cases from case writing
competition
• Short Case
Think-on-your feet case
• Live Case
Live presentation by a
company on one of the
challenges they’re currently
facing

25. EVENTS

26. Events
• Don’t miss the Networking Cocktail – 5 à 7 January 5th
Ø Attended by coaches, participants, volunteers, sponsors & judges
Ø RSVP required

27. JUDGES

28. Roles & Responsibilities
Dos
Don’ts
Before
Presentation
Introduce
yourself
-­‐ Short introduction
(Name, Company, and position)
-­‐ More than 30 seconds
During
Presentation
Listen
-­‐ Keep an open mind
-­‐ Take notes & write down questions
you would want to ask during Q&A
session
-­‐ Actively listen & Understand
-­‐ Simply listen
-­‐ Verbal & none-verbal
communication during
presentation
Q&A Session
Communicate
&
Ask Questions
-­‐ Be sensitive to culturally divers
backgrounds
-­‐ Ensure students understand the
question you’ve asked them
-­‐ Demonstrate patience when waiting
for an answer
-­‐ Dominate the conversation
-­‐ Under mind the students
-­‐ Move on too quickly
-­‐ Hastily dismiss students’ idea
-­‐ Initiate a debate
Deliberation Deliberate
-­‐ Support your decision with concrete
examples
-­‐ Consider the alternative
-­‐ Fixate on one outcome based on
a preconceived notion
-­‐ Penalize teams who have
delegated certain tasks to 1
member of the team
After
Deliberation
Give feedback
-­‐ Give constructive criticism
-­‐ Provide accurate and fully developed
comments in the feedback form
-­‐ Point out specific development
opportunities that would benefit the
team based on performance (not
personality)
-­‐ Short sentences
-­‐ Providing general comments
-­‐ Discuss the case with students

29. Role of a Lead Judge
Before
Presentation
Review sequence of activities & judging procedures with panel
Q&A Session
Open the Q&A session after each presentation
Ø Avoid any debate with the students
Deliberation
Period
Initiate the discussion during evaluation period
Manage allotted deliberation time
Cast the deciding vote in case of a tie
Fill the online evaluation form
Ø Ensure to type feedback in the online evaluation form
during the discussion rather than wait until the end of
the deliberation period

30. Scoring
Cases 1 to 5
Judges will allocate 11 points between the
2 teams for each case
A. If Judges agree on the winning team
than winning team will have a min of 7
points & max of 11 points
30 bonus points for winning team
OR
A. If Judges don’t agree on the winning
team (split panel 3-2 on a 5-judge
panel) than the winning team will get 6
points
20 bonus points to winning team &
10 bonus points to losing team
Semi-Finals & Finals
• No point allocation
• Semi-Finals:
Judges will declare a winner for each
division
• Finals:
Judges will decide on 1st, 2nd & 3rd
place winners
(Announcement at the closing dinner)

31. Scoring
Cases 1 to 5
Judges will allocate 11 points between the
2 teams for each case
A. If Judges agree on the winning team
than winning team will have a min of 7
points & max of 11 points
30 bonus points for winning team
OR
A. If Judges don’t agree on the winning
team (split panel 3-2 on a 5-judge
panel) than the winning team will get 6
points
20 bonus points to winning team &
10 bonus points to losing team
Semi-Finals & Finals
• No point allocation
• Semi-Finals:
Judges will declare a winner for each
division
• Finals:
Judges will decide on 1st, 2nd & 3rd
place winners
(Announcement at the closing dinner)

32. ONLINE EVALUATION
FORM
Lav Crnobrnja

33. Online Feedback Form
• Step 1:
ü Username & password will be provided to you in an envelope
ü Access: www.mbacasecomp.com/leadjudge
• Step 2:
ü Fill the number of points for team 1
• Step 3:
ü Fill the score for each item in the 5 categories & the summary section
• Step 4:
ü Review
ü Save
ü Submit

34. 2015 Findings
• Only 13 split panels (All time record!)
• ⅓ of the feedback forms had no comments in sections 1 to 4
• Please write in French when judging French Universities
• We chose our panels based on your profiles
• We are expecting you to raise the bar

35. Feedback Form
• Feedback space available for
each category
• Content of the presentation is
more important than the form
• Comments for part ‐6‐ are
mandatory
• What did the team do
particularly well?
• Where might the team
improve?
• Key reason for decision
Evaluation Form: Team 1 vs. Team 2
Team 1: (School Name)
1. Analysis Scale 1 - 10
Identification of Issue(s)
Validity of Assumptions
Depth of Analysis
Generation of Ideas
2. Recommendations Scale 1 - 10
Consistency with Analysis
Evaluation of Alternatives
Justification for
Recommendations
3. Implementation Scale 1 - 10
Consistency with Analysis
Feasibility
4. Presentation Scale 1 - 10
Content & Delivery
Conviction &
Persuasiveness
Time Management
5. Question Period Scale 1 - 10
Ability to Clarify &
Defend Presentation
6. In Summary
What did the team do
particularly well?
Where might the team
improve?
Key Reason for Decision

36. Good Evaluation
Form
• Full sentences
• State what the team did
well / poorly in
• How can the team
improve in the next
rounds
• Provide concrete
examples
GOOD Evaluation Form
Team 1: (School Name)
1. Analysis Scale 1 - 10
Identification of Issue(s) Analysis covered a lot of ground, but superficially.
Missed much of the link between analysis and the case.
Financial analysis was insufficient to support the
recommendations. Should have expressed some
assumptions & used these to support arguments. Very
good to personalize the customers by their needs.
3
Validity of Assumptions 5
Depth of Analysis 3
Generation of Ideas
7
2. Recommendations Scale 1 - 10
Consistency with Analysis Recommendations did not follow a clear train of
thought. Underplayed the online aspect of the business.
Threat of disconnecting from the DNA of the company.
Selling the company was our of left field.
8
Evaluation of Alternatives 5
Justification for
Recommendations
5
3. Implementation Scale 1 - 10
Consistency with Analysis Good time line, coherent with analysis. Very tactical
rather than strategic.
7
Feasibility 4
4. Presentation Scale 1 - 10
Content & Delivery Good presentation, very clear. Very confident
presentation.
9
Conviction &
Persuasiveness
9
Time Management 10
5. Question Period Scale 1 - 10
Ability to Clarify &
Defend Presentation
7
6. In Summary
What did the team do
particularly well?
Presentation skills very good. Good assertiveness, showed
conviction. Good time management.
Where might the team
improve?
Needs to use assumptions to support financial statements. When you
don’t know, state assumptions in line with your recommendations.
Key Reason for Decision Did not talk about the core business, which is the online business.
Missed this important part of the case. When you are not certain of
your ground, be conservative. Otherwise, with too much detail, you
set yourself up for confusion.

37. Poor Evaluation
Form
• Short 1-word sentences
• No details provided for
the team to use to
improve
• Very vague feedback
• We do not encourage
6-5 scores
• Deliberation period
should not take more
than an hour
POOR Evaluation Form
Team 1: (School Name)
1. Analysis Scale 1 - 10
Identification of Issue(s) 7
Validity of Assumptions 8
Depth of Analysis 7
Generation of Ideas 6
2. Recommendations Scale 1 - 10
Consistency with Analysis 6
Evaluation of Alternatives 7
Justification for
Recommendations
7
3. Implementation Scale 1 - 10
Consistency with Analysis 8
Feasibility 8
4. Presentation Scale 1 - 10
Content & Delivery 8
Conviction &
Persuasiveness
7
Time Management 8
5. Question Period Scale 1 - 10
Ability to Clarify &
Defend Presentation
8
6. In Summary
What did the team do
particularly well?
Clean, concise, good presentation, consistent.
Where might the team
improve?
Broader scope, more innovation.
Key Reason for Decision Good clean consistent presentation.

38. FAQs
Where can I park? Entrance on South side of Belmont Street
Is the hotel accessible by metro? Metro Bonaventure
What time do I need to be there? Refer to your schedule
What is the dress code? Business professional
Food allergy – who should I tell? Genevieve & Sarah
What to bring with me? Nothing but yourself

39. IMPORTANCE OF SHOWING UP
• We don’t have back-ups
• 10-15 judges typically don’t show up
• No shows without advanced explanations will not be invited back
next year
• We’re counting on you