St Petersburg Local Qualification 2012 Feedback Report By

St. Petersburg Local Qualification 2012 Feedback Report By Louise Berglund, TIMES Team Member European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management www. estiem. org

General Questions I Out of the nine who answered the feedback, four had participated in TIMES before I Main reasons for participating was Improve skills(teamwork, presentation, analytic thinking) n Practise case-solving n Possibility to travel to a Semi-Final n Competing against other students Have you ever participated in TIMES before? n 56% 44% Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 2 _x 0003_Yes _x 0002_No

General Questions I All those who answered the feedback form seven had been active in ESTIEM prior to the LQ I Active members most likely formed teams together Had you been active in ESTIEM prior to the Local Qualification? 22% _x 0004_ Yes _x 0003_ No I Although for some TIMES is the first ESTIEM experience 78% Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 3

Case I The scale used was a Likert-type scale, with grades ranging from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) I Overall we can see a feeling of good performance Case: Overall Performance _x 001 d_ 4. 44 Questions from the Jury? _x 001 f_ solving time and the point Feedback from 4. 33 the jury? “Interesting to solve” had the lowest scores _x 0008_ Quality 4. 56 n The quality of the case and jury had high scores 3. 33 _x 001 a_ Interesting to solve? Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 4 _x 0018_ Level of 4. 14 difficulty _x 0011_ 3. 44 _x 000 d_ Solving time

Infrastructure & Organization I Same system used here as the previous slide I We can see that the participants seem satisfied with the services n The food points had the lowest scores but the score was still good material and the rooms had also good scores Services: Overall Performance _x 0010_So lving Material 4. 22 _x 0011_Fo od. Lunch/Din ner 3. 4 _x 000 b_Fo od-Snacks 3. 89 _x 000 d_So lving Rooms 4. 33 n The Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 5

Infrastructure & Organization I Overall we can see that the participants were satisfied with the organization of the event Quality of the Local Qualification in general 5 4 4, 56 3 2 1 0 Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 6

Final Impressions I Finally the overall TIMES experience was very good I Which is confirms the previous points How do you rate your overall TIMES experience? 5. 00 4. 33 3. 00 2. 00 1. 00 0. 00 Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 7

Selected Comments I ”More teams, much time ” I ”More food” I ”More sponsores” I ”Organizers should improve food, we need more snacks not only biscuits. ” Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 8

Final Impressions I Out of the nine that answered eight would participate again Would you participate again 11% _x 0004_ Yes I The one that said no is graduating _x 0003_ No 89% Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 9

Final Impressions How likely is that you would recommend participating in TIMES to a friend? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% -100% 78% Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 10

Final Impressions I The Net Promoter Score is a standardized measurement of the impact and likeliness of promotion that a certain product or service has achieved towards its users. In our case, we ask “How likely is that you recommend participating in TIMES Local Qualification to a friend? ” in a 0 -10 scale. Then, responses are classified either as “Promoters” (score≥ 9), as “Passives”, (6<score<9) and “Detractors” (score ≤ 6). I After that, percentages of each group are calculated and percentage of Detractors is subtracted from percentage of Promoters to calculate the final score. Thus, the NPS can be as low as -100% (everyone is a detractor) or as high as +100% (everyone is a promoter). Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 11

Final Impression I Conventionally, a Net Promoter Score of +50% is accepted as the lower threshold of excellence. I The score of +78 is thereby a great score, which shows that participants are excited to promote the event to friends. Given the positive experience the participants had, this is not a surprise. Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 12

Any Questions? I Please contact us! Feedback Report TIMES Local Qualification 2013 European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management Feedback. times@estiem. org | Slide 13