Aerial Ropeway
Members:
Shaun Taylor, Paul Chew, Roschelle Gonzales, Reina Bautista, Eugelyn Corre, Jesharelah Yolola.
Presentation Analysis:
One of the main points that the group brought up was that people can lose sight of the fundamentals of communication leading to conflict between members.
They outlined the various conflict types including:
- Background/Gender
- Leadership
- Personality Clashes
- Style and Skill Sets
- Different Goals & Expectations
The groups presentation went into depth on these conflict types, outlining how they effect the group and what that conflict leads to.
Some critical feedback is that the slides were too content heavy in sections, making it difficult to read. Group members were reading off slides, communicating the fact that they maybe had not completely prepared for the presentation.
The final video was very entertaining. The role-playing was an affective way of engaging the class. The scenarios of the video correlated with the conflict types which was very well though out.
Russell also pointed out the fact that they had outlined resolutions to the differing conflict types, displaying their thorough research into their topic.
Group:
The Last Suprematist
Members:
Benjamin Kalgovas, Daming Yan, Molly Wu
Presentation Analysis:
Their presentation lacked the same effect as the previous group.
They just outlined the conflict types without really going in depth.
They were very hard to hear and Daming and Molly read off of their pre-prepared sheets. Ben compensated for this by projecting his voice very well and clearing up any confusion caused by the presentation. There was barely any eye contact from the group causing much of the class to loose interest.
The positive was that the slides contained the right amount of information allowing them not to became too content heavy.
The video was a redeeming feature of the presentation. Again they made use of scenarios that they had presented earlier. It was well put together and was a good way to finish off the presentation.
Relation to our group:
In relation to our group there weren't any instances of conflict between the members. The hierarchy we created within the first meeting help to distinguish how we each went about our roles.
Anthony being the team leader would set up goals for work to be completed as well as contacting our clients to receive and delegate any new work.
Martha was set up as the documenter as well as being a roving helper. This role helped the group to figure out any problems in terms of misinterpretation. The notes taken down in each meeting were a valuable source of reducing conflict to virtually zero.
Darren, Kerre and I were set as the main researchers of info, and once collected, would present it to both Martha and Anthony in order to collate it into presentable work for our client Hank and lecturer Russell.
Thee methods helped to keep conflict down to small discussions in which individual people were wanting to forward their own idea, which is actually a valuable part of group work - people explaining their ideas in great detail and defending them in order for the group to mutually agree on the final outcome.
Some sources of possible conflict as highlighted by the groups is the amount of dedication and effort put in by individual members. This can further be affected by where we all live, work arrangements and personal instances - in that it is difficult for all to meet as a group, especially at uni due to members having differently planned out schedules. The group managed to negate this in part due to modern technology. The improvement of areas such as the Internet as well as social collaboration and online storage helped the group immensely. We would communicate on social media websites to set up times in which the majority could make it and then post the work up onto online storage spaces for all to access, thus ensuring no one had any excuse not to know what was expected by the next meeting. This would allow members to work on tasks in their own times and still contribute to the group.
Relation to our group:
In relation to our group there weren't any instances of conflict between the members. The hierarchy we created within the first meeting help to distinguish how we each went about our roles.
Anthony being the team leader would set up goals for work to be completed as well as contacting our clients to receive and delegate any new work.
Martha was set up as the documenter as well as being a roving helper. This role helped the group to figure out any problems in terms of misinterpretation. The notes taken down in each meeting were a valuable source of reducing conflict to virtually zero.
Darren, Kerre and I were set as the main researchers of info, and once collected, would present it to both Martha and Anthony in order to collate it into presentable work for our client Hank and lecturer Russell.
Thee methods helped to keep conflict down to small discussions in which individual people were wanting to forward their own idea, which is actually a valuable part of group work - people explaining their ideas in great detail and defending them in order for the group to mutually agree on the final outcome.
Some sources of possible conflict as highlighted by the groups is the amount of dedication and effort put in by individual members. This can further be affected by where we all live, work arrangements and personal instances - in that it is difficult for all to meet as a group, especially at uni due to members having differently planned out schedules. The group managed to negate this in part due to modern technology. The improvement of areas such as the Internet as well as social collaboration and online storage helped the group immensely. We would communicate on social media websites to set up times in which the majority could make it and then post the work up onto online storage spaces for all to access, thus ensuring no one had any excuse not to know what was expected by the next meeting. This would allow members to work on tasks in their own times and still contribute to the group.
No comments:
Post a Comment