Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Lead judge info session 2018

409 views

Published on

MBA ICC Lead judge info session 2018

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Lead judge info session 2018

  1. 1. Information Session Lead Judges 2018 ICC
  2. 2. Welcome to the Executive MBA Sponsored Breakfast Patrick Kelley Executive Director, Corporate Relations Marie Lyster Manager, Business Development and Recruitment Sharon Nelson Assistant Director
  3. 3. The John Molson Executive MBA • Proud sponsor of the 37th MBA International Case Competition • Many judges are graduates of JMSB’s MBA and EMBA – we welcome you back as our ambassadors! • As involved members of the Montreal business community, you understand the value of graduate business education • Let us briefly introduce the JMSB EMBA
  4. 4. The John Molson Executive MBA • First EMBA in Quebec – founded in 1985 • Extensive network of 900 EMBA alumni around the world • Boutique EMBA with a carefully selected cohort of 20 participants (on average) from a wide range of industries, encouraging classroom discussions and interactions
  5. 5. EMBA Curriculum & Schedule See pages 7-12 of brochure • A rigorous academic program • Many hands-on and practical components and complementary features • One day per week schedule (alternate Fridays and Saturdays) • 15 months of class time (over 20 months)
  6. 6. EMBA: ROI for employers & employees Beyond the business administration curriculum… • Broaden participants’ knowledge beyond their industrial sector • Further develop a wide of range of skills - Problem solving - Communication - Time management • Exposure to leading best practices, weekly • Gain confidence, on a personal & professional level
  7. 7. Questions ? Contact us Andrea Limbardi, EMBA 2016 Vice President Strategic Initiatives at Indigo Rui Lopez, EMBA 2002 Director Business Marketing at Elekta concordia.ca/emba
  8. 8. • Our Internal Stakeholders • Key Elements of the Competition • Quick Review of Judges’ Roles and Responsibilities • Introduction of New Team Evaluation Form & Scoring • Demonstration of Online Team Evaluation Form • Final Words Lead Judge Information Session Outline
  9. 9. Ken Brooks, EY Bita Sehat, Battat Inc. Diane Belliveau, BDCChris Chandler, Access Cash The Board of Directors Patrick Lauzon, Attraction Group Jean Béland, RBC, Retired Regis J. Rehel, Elopack Ron Dahms, Optimum Talent Dr. Sandra Betton, JMSB Dr. Anne-Marie Croteau, JMSB Andrea Polatos, Bombardier Diane Lanctôt, Lanctôt LTD Bill Meder, Advisor
  10. 10. Harshita Nigam Karolyne Courville Jean-Simon Castonguay Adriano D’Angelo Aleksey Cameron Ela Profka Jesse Prent Misbah Natour Kuldeep Patni 2018 MBA ICC Organizing Team
  11. 11. Sunday December 31 Monday January 1 Tuesday January 2 Wednesday January 3 Friday January 5 6 6 6:30 6:30 7 7 7:30 7:30 8 8 8:30 8:30 9 9 9:30 9:30 10 10 10:30 10:30 11 11 11:30 11:30 12 12 12:30 Team Registration 12:30 13 13 13:30 13:30 14 14 14:30 14:30 15 15 15:30 15:30 16 16 16:30 16:30 17 17 17:30 17:30 18 18 18:30 18:30 19 19 19:30 19:30 20 20 20:30 20:30 21 21 21:30 21:30 22 22 22:30 22:30 23 23 23:30 23:30 24 24 New Year's Eve Party 21:00-02:00 Opening Ceremony 8:30 - 9:55 Saturday January 6 Hockey Game 20:00-23:00 Case 1 11:30 - 16:20 Coaches' Briefing 10:00 - 11:00 Thursday January 4 Breakfast 7:45-8:55 Case 4 - Live Case 9:00 - 15:55 Breakfast 7:00 - 8:25 Case 3 (short case) 14:45 - 17:35 Lunch 13:30 - 14:15 Breakfast 6:30 - 7:30 Case 2 7:45 - 12:35 Mange & Mélange and Coaches' Dinner 19:30-22:30 Afterparty 22:00-00:00 Breakfast 7:00 - 9:30 Coaches Debriefing 8:15 - 9:45 Case 7 Finals 10:15 - 16:00 Final Banquet 19:00 - 22:00 Theme Party 22:00-00:00 Breakfast 6:30 - 7:15 Case 5 7:25 - 12:15 Lunch 13:15 - 14:45 Networking Cocktail 18:00 - 21:00 Case 6 Semi-Finals 15:15 - 21:00 The 2018 ICC Theme: Business Ownership Venue: Hotel Bonaventure
  12. 12. SPONSORSHIP Aleksey Cameron
  13. 13. •Not-for-profit organization •Expenses of $347,986 Cash Sponsorship, $171,550 Donors, $59,070 Schools Registration Fee, $99,000 In-kind , $20,000 Sponsorship
  14. 14. SCHOOLS, VOLUNTEERS & SUSTAINABILITY Ela Profka
  15. 15. *schools in blue= first-time registrations CANADA (11) GERMANY (4) IRELAND INDIA University of Calgary Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf University College Dublin Narsee Monjee Institute McMaster University University of Kaiserslautern Universite Laval University of Paderborn DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MALAYSIA Wilfred Laurier University University of Muenster Barna Management School Putra Business School Memorial University Concordia University PORTUGAL SWEDEN MEXICO University of Alberta University of Porto Lund University Universidad Panamericana Guadalajara HEC Montreal Brock University SINGAPORE NETHERLANDS URUGUAY University of Manitoba Nanyang Technological University Nyenrode Business Universiteit ORT University University of Windsor FINLAND LEBANON USA (5) Aalto University School of Business American University of Beirut University of Rochester University of Pittsburgh ISRAEL CHINA University of South Carolina Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Xiamen University University of Arizona Clarkson University SOUTH AFRICA BRAZIL University of Cape Town FIA Business School 36 Schools – 19 Countries
  16. 16. LEAD VOLUNTEERS: Work Directly with Organizing Team TEAM HOSTS: Escort Teams & Enforce Rules SUPPORT VOLUNTEERS: Ensure Smooth Running of Assigned Tasks JUDGE COORDINATORS: Escort Judges & Coordinate Presentations 300+ Volunteers
  17. 17. JUDGES Karolyne Courville
  18. 18. Male Female Total Lead 33 20 53 Regular 113 63 176 New 23 53 76 Total 169 136 305 Registered Judges
  19. 19. 47% 20% 10% 9% 7% 3% 4% C-Level, President or VP Founder/Partner Senior or Executive Manager Middle-Level Manager Consultant Other Retired Registered Judges by Position
  20. 20. 55% 45% Male Female Registered Judges by Gender
  21. 21. JUDGES, CASES & EVENTS Jesse Prent
  22. 22. Business Ownership Theme Cases 5 Regular Cases 1 Short Case 1 Live Case
  23. 23. Preparation • Review sequence of activities & judging procedures with panel Q&A Session • Open Q&A session after each presentation Deliberation Period • Initiate discussion during evaluation period • Manage time given for deliberation • Complete online evaluation form & include feedback for each category • Confirm that online evaluation form reflects paper form Lead Judge’s Role
  24. 24. Role Dos Don’ts Introduce yourself • Short intro (name, position & company) • Long intro (> 30 sec) Listen • Be open minded • Listen attentively • Note down comments & questions for Q&A session • Communicate verbally & non-verbally • Listen passively Ask questions • Be culturally sensitive • Ensure clarity in question formulation • Demonstrate patience when seeking an answer • Lead the conversation • Undermine participants • Move on too quickly • Initiate a debate Deliberate • Support decisions with concrete examples • Consider the alternatives • Identify potential lead judges for next year and inform organizers • Fixate on one solution based on preconceived notion • Penalize teams who appoint one member to answer questions Provide feedback • Provide detailed positive commentary and constructive criticism • Point out development opportunities and areas for improvement • Provide short, vague sentences & general comments • Discuss case with participants Introduction Presentation Q&A Session Deliberation Period Evaluation Dos and Don’ts in the Presentation Room
  25. 25. • Simplicity • Previous form had too many overlapping categories, some of which were not properly understood • Emphasis Where it Matters • Score inflation in some categories made differentiation between teams more difficult • Not all categories are equal • Categories that present the greatest challenge (i.e. Implementation) should be given additional weight • Quantifiable Feedback for Teams • Easier to rationalize panel’s decision The Evaluation & Feedback Form Has Changed
  26. 26. Old Form New Form 14 categories to assign 1-10 scores to 5 comprehensive categories to assign 1- 10 scores to Categories not weighted Each comprehensive category given weight based on importance/challenge Category scores unrelated to match point distribution Differential between teams’ cumulative score used to assign match points Doesn’t give quantifiable reason for choosing one team over another Quantifies reason for choosing one team over another The Changes
  27. 27. Category (AssignedScore 1-10) Weight Multiplier Presentation x 1 Analysis & Development of Alternatives x 2 Recommendation(s) x 2.5 Implementation x 3 Question Period x 1.5 Team Evaluation Criteria * A score in the midrange of a category indicates that the team met the judges’ expectations.
  28. 28. Comparing Cumulative Evaluation Scores 11 Match Point Split 5 point or less differential 6 match points to winning team 5 match points to losing team 5.5-10 point differential 7 match points to winning team 4 match points to losing team 10.5-15 point differential 8 match points to winning team 3 match points to losing team 15.5-25 point differential 9 match points to winning team 2 match points to losing team 25.5 point or more differential 10 match points to winning team 1 match point to losing team Match Scoring
  29. 29. Match Example 1 Category Team A Team B Presentation (x1) 8 8 6 6 Analysis & Development of Alternatives (x2) 6 12 7 14 Recommendation (x2.5) 7 17.5 9 22.5 Implementation (x3) 6 18 7 21 Question Period (x1.5) 8 12 6 9 Cumulative Score 67.5 72.5 Score Differential 5 Match Points Awarded 5 6
  30. 30. Match Example 2 Category Team A Team B Presentation (x1) 8 8 6 6 Analysis & Development of Alternatives (x2) 6 12 7 14 Recommendation (x2.5) 5 12.5 9 22.5 Implementation (x3) 6 18 7 21 Question Period (x1.5) 6 9 8 12 Cumulative Score 59.5 75.5 Score Differential 16 Match Points Awarded 2 9
  31. 31. Lav Crnobrnja Online Evaluation Form
  32. 32. • Deliberation period of 1 hour • Comment in French when University presents in French • Space for comments available under each category • Providing feedback is more important than the scoring for participants to improve • Comments are mandatory – our participants need to know how they can improve in the next round! Evaluation Form
  33. 33. Question Period: Did the team use the question period to effectively defend, support, and/or build its recommendation(s)? Were the responses clear, concise, on-point, and given with assurance? Score _____/10 x1.5 = ______ Comments: TOTAL _____/100 What did the team do particularly well? What might the team have done better? Where did the team succeed or fall short when compared with the opposing team? 3 Additional Mandatory Questions: • What did the team do particularly well? • What might the team have done better? • Where did the team succeed or fall short when compared with the opposing team? Evaluation Form (cont’d)
  34. 34. • We do not have back-ups • 10-15 judges typically do not show up per case • No shows without advanced explanations will not be invited back next year • If, for some reason, you are unable to make your case, please let us know as soon as possible We’re Counting On You!
  35. 35. • Thursday, January 4th from 6:00pm – 9:00pm • Mingle with sponsors, participants, volunteers, and other judges • Enjoy wine and cheese in Hotel Bonaventure’s ballroom • You’re invited! Networking Cocktail
  36. 36. Any Questions? We’ll See You in January!

×