Strengths and Weakness of the Singapore Cornerstone of Creativity and SMU Eagles Inc Group Projects

Singapore Cornerstone of Creativity

Strengths

The PowerPoint presentation is wholly cultivating; it offers a high degree of data with little information. The use of multiple fonts and sizes on each slide leads the viewers, to identify not with the content but with the feeling of being captured and captivated at the moment. The objectives are stated from the beginning of the paper. The front page outlines vividly what the writing is all about. The use of an explicit illustrative photo captures the attention of the audience, hence the title is not misleading at any point. The method of minimal words and more description is illustrated by the images used since images speak louder than words. The agenda page is very illustrative and allows room for a careful perusal of the presentation.

The footer at the bottom of each slide allows the audience to stay on track with the topic and not get lost in the information provided. The introduction of each section is quite creative and catchy. It is vividly displayed with different fonts to stress on the topic at hand. The use of a background photo also allows the audience to focus to see what happens; therefore its a very interactive way to keep the audience focused on the presentation. There is also a stunning use of moderation, the graphics used do not overshadow the content of the paper, and they are used sparingly in such a way that they capture the vital message without confusing. Most of the slides are subdivided into three portions each displaying different info to avoid confusion; they also help reduce the number of words used while maximizing on space. The topics are short and very descriptive; the use of quote at the beginning of each issue takes the audience to the real world, memories and thus provoking them to think.

The paper closes with an invitation for questions from the audience which is very vital in a presentation. Being a concise presentation capturing so much information that is a way of covering loopholes and clarifying unclear information.

Weaknesses

Having captured the moment the paper surely doesnt come without flaws. The graphical presentation of the paper is fantastic, creative and interactive. However, there are places where this limit went overboard and confused the audience. A few incidences are such as the footer information that appears on every slide, considering the size of the page numbers the footer information should have as well been the same size. This info is frequently repeated therefore it is more professional if the font size was smaller than those of the text, close to that of the page numbers. On page 17 the circles are way too big, they are filling up a third of the space, and they are not that necessary, they add very little weight to the content.

The paper feels a little disorganized especially in page 5(try to remove the first box from the rest since it is not part of the list), page 9(a little messy to follow), just to name a few. I feel that if the all the quotations in the text should appear in the same color, font and same position in the slides where they seem to ensure that the text doesn't look too messy. This will also help the audience follow and not be lost while trying to decode the tremendous amount of information in a particular slide. Any extra information should also follow suit as long as the information provided is just an addition to add weight to the info, it should have a designated font, space, and color which is entirely different from that in the main text. For instance page 9 the last box appears in several other slides, although it is secluded for easy identification, I feel like the writer should have used a different font and color if possible.

Lastly, the paper failed to capture the research problem and objective. The objective of the paper is not well obtained at the beginning of the paper; there was hardly any discussion of why this paper was selected, the interest and contributions of the paper, this would help listeners to understand what they expect to see. The paper also failed to give enough weight to the weaknesses of the Lee Kuan Yew's leadership as much as they had given to other attributes unless the intention was only to capture the positives which are not explicitly stated either. This portion has just one slide with all the info crumped together; it would have been more explicit to expound more on that.

SMU Eagles Inc

Strengths

SMU Eagles Inc research project, unlike the previous plan, is straightforward with minimalized information. The content page is creative and candid; the following slides are merely bold and visible. The data presented inform of graphs is stated and quite understandable. The background image used in the slides depending on the topic of discussion ensures there is uniformity and breaks monotony and boredom of a white background, it also looks entirely appearing to the eye. The images that accompany each information are illustrative and gives more elaborate details on the specific information provided hence providing engaging the listeners.

The use of elaborate images from the website actualizes the research paper by providing more concrete information; the hashtag also helps engage the audience and provokes them to search for more information on the web. Thus the emphasis on the hashtag is significant. The last slide quite attractive and invites the audience into a conversation. Overall the paper is quite decent.

Weaknesses

I find this paper quite shallow with the information it displays. A leader cannot independently follow through accurately without listening to the explanations. The info provided is superficial, for instance, the content page does not indicate specific page each information is found, the key challenges slides does not offer adequate information that will enable the reader to understand what the statistics are all about. Regardless of the info availed the leader is left with questions. There are so many questions left in the reader's mind after going through the paper.

The overall layout is also a bit flawed; the lack of page numbers to assist the audience to follow through, and the footer is too dimmed and causes the eye to strain. The footer is supposed to give the audience guidance on the different topic that is being discussed and therefore wholly blurring other parts except the portion being discussed, denies the reader the option to navigate around freely. Like the previous paper, this paper has also failed to state the reason why they choose this paper, why they were interested, the objective and the contributions of the paper. These are denying the audience the right to understand what to expect before the end of the presentation; they do not have a clear objective which will make them follow the whole performance.

In the Technique application tab, problem framing, the information provided on that slide is not that straightforward, a question such as how will the word substitution be applied? Is apparent. It is quite stunning how too much information can be provided in such a limited space, however, also little information can often lead to being misunderstood. The survey portion ought to have provided more information or description to the audience. This being a project that targeted the youth, it would have been more reasonable if the presentation was a little bit attractive and eye-catching.

Conclusion

Both projects managed to capture the vital information for their target; they managed to give a vivid description of their project within the limited space. I recommend them for the interactive presentations; however, there are a few issues here and there that would have made the displays more attractive, engaging and presentable. Moderation is the best way to maximize on paper, too much information can also be tiring for the eye and too little information can lead to misunderstanding, the same applies to the use of creativity and graphics in a presentation.

It is always vital to consider the target audience and customize the project which the second plan failed to give unless that was their intention. The first project was commendable, but it also stalked too much information together in which the second project worked on minimizing. The research overall was done adequately, and the discussion followed the topic of interest. Both projects are commendable in that they used different unique ways to display their arguments and discussion in a way that can be easily understood by any audience.

References

Chuen, C., Yong, J., Vung, L., Ong, N., Jie, P., & Raguraman, V. (2016). Singapore's Cornerstone of Creativity: Lee Kuan Yew. MGMT227& Group 6, 1-40.

Claire, Crystal, Joel, Joey, Shuan, L., & Vanessa. (2017). #EagletsInc with SMU Eagles Inc. 1-47.