meta data for this page


This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
courses:cs30a7400:2014:group4 [2014/11/13 16:46]
courses:cs30a7400:2014:group4 [2014/11/13 16:59] (current)
Line 236: Line 236:
 ==Final presentation on 03-NOV-14== ==Final presentation on 03-NOV-14==
 +**Final date of presentation was updated to the 13-NOV-14**
 +==Final presentation on 13-NOV-14==
 **Please find the file for the presentation below.** **Please find the file for the presentation below.**
 {{:​courses:​cs30a7400:​2014:​presentation_group_4_-_transparenfy.pptx|}} {{:​courses:​cs30a7400:​2014:​presentation_group_4_-_transparenfy.pptx|}}
 +From the selling pitch presentation we got the following results:
 +Green (Buying) - 5/6
 +Red (Not buying) - 1/6
 +  * The arguments on which this negative response was based were wrong since the opposite concepts were explained during pitch and as a response from our team the concepts were mentioned again for the student and audience to clear any doubt.
 +  * Arguments: ​
 +  - People will need training. Fact: No training needed since customers only get the report.
 +  - Why to trust the results ?. Fact: The report doesn'​t tell you to trust or not if it's corruption, it only indicates which happenings are suspicious (and why), the "​flags"​ should be analyzed so the customer tells by his judgement and knowledge.
 Workload was splitted evenly and all members participated in all meetings. Workload was splitted evenly and all members participated in all meetings.