YesWeCan!
Team Members Kendrick Angkasa (University of Technology, Sydney)Su Chen (University of Technology, Sydney)Amirreza Sawal (University of Technology, Sydney)Rahul Mohta (University of Technology, Sydney)
Synopsis
Year 2007-2008, the world’s economy was hit by one of the worst financial crisis that has ever occurred in the history of mankind. Companies failed, banks collapsed, bank accounts shrunken. Cancer Council Australia, an organisation aimed towards creating awareness and research on Cancer has proposed a challenge to develop a model to evaluate licensing/CRM business proposals. A new and revolutionary model is required to better gauge and guarantees the financial viability of the companies interested in licensing/CRM as well as to make sure that the company will not tarnish Cancer Council’s reputation.
As of 9 April 2009, a new model to evaluate businesses’ proposal for licensing/cause related marketing (CRM) is born. It has a unique point-grading system which is developed by four students from University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) from the group named “YesWeCan!” and it consists of three sections with menu-like headings. The three sections are inevitably the three criteria which the group decide to evaluate companies upon. The evaluation process will follow a systematic procedure.
As a basic requirement, candidates will have to be able to complete the first section of the evaluation process (Entree) in which they would need to provide certain fundamental information of their companies as well as the first 2 section of the second section, (Main Course). Upon completion, candidates will be judged by the point system through the rest of the Main Course’s section. They will face a series of questions which is targeted towards gaining a better understanding of their financial position as well as their financial performance whereby they will be required to provide supporting documents. The documents will be graded upon their availability as well as the quality they possessed. Successful candidates to be able to proceed to the grand finale (Desserts) will have to get a score of nothing else that a high distinction (56.1 / 66 points).
When the remaining “strong” has managed to surpass the first two tests, they will proceed on to the last section of the evaluation process whereby most of the candidates will be eliminated from the two questions in which they would be graded as well. The potential candidate will need to achieve the highest overall score.
As of 9 April 2009, a new model to evaluate businesses’ proposal for licensing/cause related marketing (CRM) is born. It has a unique point-grading system which is developed by four students from University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) from the group named “YesWeCan!” and it consists of three sections with menu-like headings. The three sections are inevitably the three criteria which the group decide to evaluate companies upon. The evaluation process will follow a systematic procedure.
As a basic requirement, candidates will have to be able to complete the first section of the evaluation process (Entree) in which they would need to provide certain fundamental information of their companies as well as the first 2 section of the second section, (Main Course). Upon completion, candidates will be judged by the point system through the rest of the Main Course’s section. They will face a series of questions which is targeted towards gaining a better understanding of their financial position as well as their financial performance whereby they will be required to provide supporting documents. The documents will be graded upon their availability as well as the quality they possessed. Successful candidates to be able to proceed to the grand finale (Desserts) will have to get a score of nothing else that a high distinction (56.1 / 66 points).
When the remaining “strong” has managed to surpass the first two tests, they will proceed on to the last section of the evaluation process whereby most of the candidates will be eliminated from the two questions in which they would be graded as well. The potential candidate will need to achieve the highest overall score.
View the Submission
- Manual Book Marking System MS Excel Spreadsheet (Click to download)
- Evaluation Model (Degustation Menu) MS Word Document (Click to download)
For a more better understanding of our evaluation model on a flowchart , Please visit our website at www.yeswecan-wewillwin.webs.com.
By Rahul on April 10 2009, 11:58 AM
To view flow chart click on "detailed flow chart" and press "Ctrl" and "+" keys together on the keyboard to view it better.
By Rahul on April 10 2009, 12:02 PM
The purpose of the simple flowchart is to create a better understanding for not only students and judges, but the public on the elimination process and how the top ranking potential candidates have been assessed and valued.
By Amirreza on April 10 2009, 2:47 PM
I have to admit that I was put off by your title scheme; the whole Entrée, Main Course and Desert was kinda off-putting. But once I got past that, it was a very good proposal evaluation model, you guys covered almost everything and actually have a working marking scheme for providing the all valuable "yes" "no" answer to whether to accept a proposal, which I think most other teams have forgotten. But I think the Assurance section let you guys down a bit. Funnily enough, the word 'Assurance' didn't even come up once in your report.
By Cameron Kuek Jin on April 13 2009, 11:55 PM
Good use of the grading system. You covered a lot of points, but much too briefly. I would have liked to see more detail and specific examples.
By Anton on April 15 2009, 11:44 PM
Thank Cameron & Anton for your comments, we really appreciate it. Re Cameron: The reason that we do not include the word Assurance is because we believe that if one company manages to pass the entire evaluation process, it will be "self assured" that it will be able to make payments to Cancer Council. Re Anton: I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe our model has potential, it will be a new model to undertake the evaluation process if the marking criterias were expanded. However, due to the time constraint (to juggle our University's obligations & doing research for our proposal) as well as the pages constraint in the Word document, we were unable to provide a fully developed grading criterias as we would have wanted to. What being covered in our proposal are the basic yet vital criterias which will be relevant is accessing a particular company's financial position & performance.
By Kendrick on April 17 2009, 9:57 AM
I believe that in the financial analysis part, once you get pass all the criteria, you can be indicated that you already have certain financial capabilities to overcome the unexpected situation. The word "assurance" has been explained by the process. But anyway, we appreciate all the attention from you.
By Su on April 17 2009, 11:09 AM