MBA ICC Lead judge info session 2018

1. Information Session
Lead Judges
2018 ICC

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. • 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. 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. 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. 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. SPONSORSHIP
Aleksey Cameron

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

15. SCHOOLS, VOLUNTEERS &
SUSTAINABILITY
Ela Profka

17. *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

18. 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

19. JUDGES
Karolyne Courville

20. Male Female Total
Lead 33 20 53
Regular 113 63 176
New 23 53 76
Total 169 136 305
Registered Judges

21. 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

22. 55%
45% Male
Female
Registered Judges by Gender

23. JUDGES, CASES & EVENTS
Jesse Prent

24. Business Ownership Theme
Cases
5 Regular Cases
1 Short Case
1 Live Case

25. 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

26. 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

27. • 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

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. Lav Crnobrnja
Online Evaluation Form

34. • 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

35. 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)

36. • 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!

37. • 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

38. Any Questions?
We’ll See You in January!