The of the Ikea Company Customer Self-Service System - PowerPoint Presentation Example

Number The presentation provides a good definition self-service, its forms and a good example of a self-service system, the Ikea Company customer self-service system that utilizes conversational interface. The interactivity of conversational interfaces is brought out lucidly by the samples of different facial expressions that the online assistant, Anna, can perform in response to dialogue with a human client. However, the presentation is not solely about customer self-service. The presentation, we believe, seeks to show how natural language and conversational interface are being utilized to enhance customer self-service systems. The presentation fails to define natural language and conversational interface, which are two key terms that should not be left undefined because we, the audience, need to understand the presenter’s scope of definition. Other limiting sections of the presentation are the First Street Investments example that does not fully capture the concept of natural language and conversational interfaces, and the use of only two references by the author. The researcher should have used at least six references to add depth to his arguments. Scoring Understanding of Given Topic 2/5 – use of a good example and good definition of a key term. The lack of a definition for natural language and conversational interface, limits our ability to fully evaluate the author’s understanding of these key terms. Limited use of references. Presentation Structure 4/5 – the PowerPoint slides are logically placed and help us to follow the presentation Presentation Skill 3/5 – there is nothing remarkable about the presentation and likewise there is nothing dislikeable. Overall Score 3 / 5 – it is our opinion that understanding the topic should have more weight which therefore lowers the overall score. Number 2 The first item we notice is a wrong presentation title. The title is not appropriate because a communication interface need not necessarily be a conversation interface. Graphical interfaces are also communication interfaces and from the presentation the author restricts himself to conversation interfaces. Another concern is that the presentation is unnecessarily lengthy probably because of redundancy for example conversation interface is defined in slide 3 and 12, and the slides look clumsy from too much wording. Nevertheless, one of the biggest strengths of the presentation is the definition of key terms - natural language, conversation interface and natural language – and the presenters discipline in restricting his/her conversation within the given boundaries. Based on the author’s definition of both natural language and conversation interface the example provided about a webpage is appropriate. However, we notice that half of the resources used for reference are pre year 2000. The presenter should seek more current references to work with. Scoring Understanding of Given Topic 3/5 – Presenter has restricted his arguments within the definitions of key terms that he had provided. An adequate number of references have also been presented. Presentation Structure 4/5 – the PowerPoint slides are logically placed and help us to follow the presentation Presentation Skill 3/5 – the presentation is too lengthy and the slides are too wordy, which make the presentation to appear cluttered. Overall Score 3 / 5 – the presenter had a good understanding of the topic and a good presentation structure. Number 3 The presentation structure and skill utilized here are of very good quality. Good definitions of all key terms: conversation agent, conversation interface, natural language and interface have been provided. The presenter has also used appropriate and refreshing diagrams to help us understand some concepts such as the relationship framework diagram provided in slide 12 which is an excellent depiction of the role of the conversation interface in linking natural language and conversation agent. However, our criticisms for the presentation lie in issues that are pertinent to any given academic research. The first issue is about citation. The definition of natural language process in slide 6 has been quoted without citation. This is unacceptable in academia because it is plagiarism. Additionally, more than half of the reference list is from Wikipedia, which is also unacceptable. The author needs to use more peer-reviewed journals for his/her work. Scoring Understanding of Given Topic 4/5 – the presentation gives clear definitions and simple explanations of the topic: natural language and conversation system. Brevity also depicts clear understanding on the part of the presenter. Presentation Structure 5/5 – the PowerPoint slides are logically placed, easy to follow and pleasing to the eye. Presentation Skill 5/5 – the table of contents is well laid out, with an equally good delivery. Overall Score 3 / 5 – in spite of scoring highly in all sections above, the gravity of lack of citation and poor selection of references are too grave to be ignored. These two major setbacks to the presentation are represented via a lowering of the overall score. Number 4 Understanding of Given Topic 3/5 – good description of key terms and sufficient examples provided. Presentation Structure 3/5 – slides are sequentially arranged to build upon the discussion, however a conclusion is lacking. Presentation Skill 3/5 – an ordinary presentation approach has been utilized. Overall Score 3/5 – lack of citation and references limits the overall score. Number 5 If the topic being presented here is on the history of conversational agents, then the presenter has digressed from it. The history component starts at slide 10 where the author introduces us to the first conversational agent, Eliza. The presentation does not take us through the chronological development of conversational agents, from then to now, but instead offers us descriptions of traditional, current and future conversational agents. In this regard, the author should have given us the timelines and turning points if the intention was to introduce us to that history. All the same, the presentation is replete with examples of conversation agents. This however, may backfire on the presenter since too many examples may drive focus from the discussion, for example the inclusion of the slides on Inteliwise and Chatterbox is either a clear redundancy or the presentation has failed to bring out their relevance to the discussion. Finally, there are many direct quotations which we believe should be paraphrased by the author of this presentation. Scoring Understanding of Given Topic 3/5 – the presenter has defined conversation agents in the past, present and future with examples but failed to give us their history. Presentation Structure 3/5 – redundancy of information as depicted by use of numerous examples where one would have sufficed. Presentation Skill 3/5 – the presentation was unnecessarily long. We believe that the author could have done better with few slides and reduced usage of direct quotations. Overall Score 3 / 5 – this score is reflective of all the scores in this table Number 6 Presentation commences strongly with background information. We are then given the history of a selected conversation agent in the first half of the presentation then the topic changes from history to contemporary aspects of conversation agents: dialog systems, speech recognition and natural language processing. However, considering that the topic for discussion is the history of conversation agents, the presentation needed to have emphasized this as its core topic. The brief definitions and explanations covered by the presentation aides in the development of a good presentation structure though at the expense of discussion depth. The reduced discussion depth is visible through the author’s choice to restrict his/her discussion to the history of chatterbots and modern agents to be found under dialog systems, speech recognition and natural language processing. Furthermore, we notice that 90 percent of the references used in this presentation come from Wikipedia, a resource that is not recommended for academic citation. In addition to that there are no citations within the presentation which is a grave offence for any literary work. A wider reference list would have provided the author with more material to strengthen his/her presentation points. In as much as the presentation structure is good, content is still the more important. Scoring Understanding of Given Topic 3/5 –. Good understanding though limited by restriction to a singular conversational agent i.e. chatterbots. Presentation Structure 4/5 – brief, uncluttered presentation layout. Sequential following through of arguments is commendable. Presentation Skill 4/5 – good Overall Score 3 / 5 – the 90 percent references from Wikipedia acts to lower the overall score. Read More