Assignment 1 (Group Presentation) Feedback

Module Digital Strategy and Student 2030181, 2004957, 2038734, 2042543

Leadership (M31217) Numbers
Assessment title/description 14th Jan, 1.30pm, Digital Transformation: GE
Case

Structure and Logic

Well laid out and structured. Good introduction/overview. Transition between segments could
have been improved.

Content and Analysis

Theme 1 Good analysis, and good identification of the macro-issues. But there was scope
to build more detailed insights. The use of the five pillars of DT was a good idea,
but some more specific details would have added to the section. The value
creation/savings section was highly insightful, similar segments could have been
designed using the other elements
Theme 2 Excellent analysis, the comparison between the two CEOs was very well done. In
addition to differences in activities, differences in terms of leadership
styles/strategies could have been discussed too. Immelt’s role via the three
pillars were well laid out. Good use of data.
Theme 3 Excellent analysis again. Very detailed, good set of data, incisive observations.
Despite the range of factors, the balance was maintained rather well. The
globalisation element needed some more clarification though (GE did not do
globalisation, but what conditions were created due to globalisation and how GE
harnessed those – that’s the key)
Theme 4 The critique of the business strategy was combined with the recommendations.
This is a good approach. Relevant weaknesses were identified and several useful
recommendations were proposed. However, the clarity was somewhat missing
as the critique and the recommendations were juxtaposed to some extent. A
clearer delineation of the two analytical strands would have improved the
section.
Theoretical Assessment
Some theoretical concepts were used, but there was scope to bring in more details (for e.g.,
leadership strategies; customer engagement/digitised solutions strategy; value creation,
innovations management – these would have brought more depth to the presentation)
Presentation Style & Overall Comments

On the whole, this was a good presentation, of substantial analytical depth and empirical detail.
Slides were well-designed and informative.

In terms of presentation style, transition could have been better (for e.g. the audience shouldn’t
be thanked in the middle of the presentation on completion of an individual component, this gives
a sense that it’s more about individual sections rather than the whole; there were also some
inconsistencies in changing slides – switching between slides before the speaker had finished).
Also, it’s not a good practice to speak/write in first person singular when it’s a team work…
whatever’s being presented is a collaborative output, there shouldn’t be any individual ownership.
Second Marker Comments

The presentation identified the main issues in the case study. Evidence of wider reading was good
and depicted by supporting material. Evidence of excellent analysis in some areas, while not
sufficient in others. Overall, students spoke clearly throughout. However, coherence among group
members and the presentation overall was somewhat lacking. Recommendations were displayed
from a personal perspective (e.g. “I ….”), despite it being a group effort. Q/A part at the end was
not managed very effectively.  

Total Marks: 2004957- 68

2042543- 68
2038734- 70
2030181- 70