Evaluation of Two Groups That Created Marketing Strategies of Introducing a New Brand - Coursework Example

Reflection Report on Group Presentation Introduction Group work is one of the most essential tools for business development especially in enhancing research. Research findings form a critical element that used for policymaking as it concerns the quality of recommendations made. The purpose of this reflection report is to assess the performance of two groups on the experiences, strengths and weaknesses, and lessons learnt during the presentation. In this project, groups were mandated to research and propose recommendations on the most viable marketing strategies of introducing a new brand to a local a market. The brand in question is Hawaiian Punch, which is a successful brand America. To assess the level group efficiency, this report compares the experiences of two groups. It is notable that the groups brought together the dynamics of group members making the research work simpler. Summary of Individual Team Presentation Groups sought uniqueness in the manner in which they presented their findings. In this report, I will compare one presentation and mine. We chose charts and PowerPoint, because we thought they present simpler forms of summarizing data for many people to understand. We chose to be more elaborate by choosing to accompany these two forms of data presentation with comprehensive lectures. These methods proved worthy for the presentation. There was a different approach from another group, which chose to use video clips. They looked more fashionable considering the level of attention they attracted. They were faster in presentation, pausing the video at some intervals to explain, clarify, and answer questions. This group, however, was interrupted more frequently because of a universal feeling of hastiness. They also had a problem answering some questions from the audience, prompting the conclusion that they did not research adequately. Team Strengths Working as a team presented a completely new experience for members of my group. The most obvious strength was the coordinated effort of many presenters. The report was split into sections and efficiency achieved by assigning each group member a specific section to present (Cohen, Philips & Hanson, 2009). All the groups took this direction and shared work among them. It was the main strength common for the research work and presentation processes. It helped to avoid tedious presentations and made the presentation process livelier. It gave a chance to the groups to research on the most appropriate responses to questions raised by the audience. Strength for both groups was innovative nature of group members. There was a shorter time spent on presentation of the findings of the project than researching because groups were innovative on selection of methods of presentation (Cohen, Philips & Hanson, 2009). I found my group more efficient and more elaborate because we used wall charts to summarize most of the information gathered about the market and product orientation. This was a landmark achievement for the group, because it made the findings clearer. Groups stayed connected to each other even though they worked separately. They expanded their scope of the subject researched and presented. Working as one whole unit in sharing the research findings is what made the connection more realistic. The process also enabled individual skills to coordinate through group work. There was an element of specialization enabling more accurate data presentation (Cohen, Philips & Hanson, 2009). Results indicated that the market was very competitive and that there was a need for thorough advertising. Despite these notable strengths, there was the weakness of personal conflicts based on different ideologies. This deterred the progress of some groups and mine in particular. It took some time before members could decide on a methodology of presentation (Cohen, Philips & Hanson 2009). That could have been faster working had the work been individual effort. Even while data assembled fast, there was a delay in organizing them into logical sequences as required by the instructions. This is yet another element of time wastage. In comparison, one group had very dynamic members and was ahead of all the rest of the groups. They finished their presentation in time and had clearer information. They were unchallenged in presentation of the findings. However, their group was too hasty for some of the members of the group to participate. Those who did not match the pace ended up spectating. My group was the slowest in presentation, because members chose on more elaborate data presentation methods. They chose wall charts and PowerPoint accompanied with explanations. This was time consuming, but with a relative advantage of a deep audience understanding. Learning Experiences and Personal Developments Overall, our team had a very encouraging experience. There was participation from all most of the members, considering that we had still worked together in the fact-finding process. We got along with each person eager to contribute. I found the experience challenging because I worked as a group member for the first time. Usually, when we had group work, I acted as a team leader, but not this time. I, therefore, had some hard time picking instructions from other members. At times, I almost assumed the role of the group leader in trying to lead ideas in the direction of my thoughts. For example, one group member kept on distracting the rest when we were preparing the charts and the PowerPoint slides. I took responsibility and asked him to concentrate. I learnt to concentrate and listen to other people. This was a major learning experience, which developed my listening skills and team coordination (Cohen, Philips & Hanson 2009). Should we have subsequent group work, I will still prefer to act in the same capacity. It feels practical to participate in as a worker in the group because it gives a chance to have trial at the most basic details of the project. Conclusion From this report, it is evident that for group work to be a successful undertaking there is a need for coordination. There must be good leadership to achieve this goal, coupled with determination from the group members. This gives a chance for group members to develop personal skills of communication and to listen to goal attainment. It also allows group members a chance to take on new challenges, which diversifies classroom-learning experiences. Participants also learnt to relate with each other. It is evident that despite the advantages, this process is challenging because decision-making slows down because of consultation. Reference Cohen, M., Philips, H. & Hanson, M. (2009). Strength and Diversity in Social Work with Groups: Think Group: New York: Taylor & Francis. Read More