Unlikely Triumph At The Stamina Case Competition - Purdue University

The Stamina Case Competition was organized for the first time this year by the Business Information and Analytics Center (BIAC) at the Krannert School of Management, Purdue University. The BIAC aims to deliver cutting-edge research in the field of big data analytics and facilitate practical learning for graduate and undergraduate students with the help of corporate partners.

Why is the competition called “Stamina”? Because it demands nothing less from the participants. Analysing a business case and then preparing a convincing presentation in 4 hours can be nerve wracking. One of the judges assured us that we might not face such a situation in real life but it doesn’t hurt to be prepared.

This competition pits students from the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University – Bloomington against students from Krannert. In the preliminary round students in groups of four were required to prepare presentations on a case in 4 hours. Based on their presentations 12 groups were shortlisted. These 12 groups would then present their analysis and recommendations before a panel of judges. The judges finally selected 4 teams which would represent Purdue in the finals. In the final round, 4 teams from Krannert and 4 teams from Kelley would compete against each other.

The first-round take place on 20th of September 2016. Over 20 teams participated. After a sumptuous dinner, all the teams received sealed envelopes containing the business case. Each team had 4 hours to complete their presentation starting from 8 pm.

Though members of our team had known each other since January, we had never actually worked together on assignments or projects. But we were quite confident. The case was quite interesting. It was about an organization which provided relief to animals affected by natural or man-made disasters in the US. This issue had attracted a lot of attention in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In our presentation, we were supposed to recommend locations in the US from where the organization could reach disaster zones in the least amount of time. This recommendation had to be based on an analysis of the most disaster-prone zones.  We also had to suggest analytical tools to manage the number of volunteers as well as estimate the number of animals supported during disaster. The organization was a not for profit and was entirely dependent on donations. Therefore, all suggestions had to be cost effective.

In 4 hours, we were supposed to do a thorough analysis and come up with implementable solutions. We got a little too carried away in the initial two hours with our analysis. By 11.15 pm we realized that we had done a lot of analysis but we didn’t have any slides. So, each of us started to prepare slides on the topics we had worked on. In the last 15 minutes, we had to start bringing each of our slides together and giving the entire presentation some structure. We did not have a second to spare till 12am. We walked back home by 12.30 am after our stamina had been stretched.

The results were expected the next day. We were hopeful because of the 1 in 3 odds of getting selected.

The next day we received the confirmation that we were among the twelve teams shortlisted. We were happy that our presentation was up to muster but also realized that we had to devote some time to prepare for delivering our presentation. We would be presenting on the next day.

When it comes to delivering a presentation, there are many schools of thought. The first school advocates preparing a script of what to say and the other school emphasizes on knowing what the slide contains and talk about it spontaneously. Our team comprised of proponents from both schools. So, a few of us wrote a script and then practiced it, others tried to further develop the ideas expressed on the slides.

When it came to tackling case competitions, we were still in the initial stages of the learning curve. So, inadvertently and a few advertently as well, we committed many errors. The response we received from the judges was quite favorable and we left thinking that we have a chance of being among the top 4. The first stage culminated with a grand dinner. But, we did not secure a place in the final four. We were quite dismayed. But, we had received some very good feedback – both positive and negative. This gave us a lot of confidence to participate in future events.

A few days later, one of the other teams from our batch got an email from the organizers that they had been ranked 5th among the 12 and, because one of the finalists had backed out, they would get a chance to compete. Though we were happy for our friends, we wished it would have been us instead of them. But, lo and behold, two days later we too received a mail from the organizer that we were ranked 6th and another team had backed out and we could compete instead. This was just three days before the event. The four finalists had got the chance to attend sessions on honing their presentation skills and other useful information. We were entering the competition without any of this. But I must say, that we did receive a lot of help and advice from one of our competitors. They gave us a lot of useful tips without having the slightest misgivings about assisting a competitor.

The day of the final began at 7 am. We woke up a 5.30 in the morning, despite spending most of the night preparing for the competition. A satisfying breakfast was waiting for us at the venue. We were told about the day’s schedule. We would receive the case at 8 am and then we would have 4 hours to prepare our slides. The presentations would start from 1.30 pm and the sequence would be based on a draw of lots. We certainly did not want to be the first team to present.

The four hours were nerve wracking. The case included mountains of data based on which we had to draw conclusions and devise recommendations. The case was very interesting and had real world implications. The last half an hour was extremely tense. Each of us was preparing a few slides. Towards the end all the slides had to come together. So, people had to be pushed to make sure they sent their slides immediately. We managed to complete our slides without a minute to spare. We later found a few glaring technical errors we hoped wouldn’t catch the judges’ eyes.

We were lucky in the draw for presentation time slots. Our slot was at 4 pm. We were exhausted and felt tired. After lunch, all of us wanted to relax for a while. But, everything hinged on how well we present. We needed to be sure about what to say. All the lessons we had learned in the last venture could not be repeated. The first few rehearsals did not make us feel very confident. But we kept on trying. We knew that the team which delivered their presentation with the most confidence would definitely have a strong chance. That was the thought in all our minds when we entered the judges’ den.

We were able to deliver our presentation quite smoothly and effectively. The judges listened to us attentively and their interest in our ideas was apparent. Their feedback was largely favorable. Our favorite one was that they observed a “consultant’s polish” in our presentation. We left the room feeling good about our chances.

The winners would be announced at a formal dinner at the historic Purdue Memorial Union. The dinner was not just about declaring the winners it was also about talking to the other participants from Purdue and IU. The judges had also come as well as faculty members and office bearers from the BIAC. All of us enjoyed the dinner as well networking.

The moment of truth soon came. Our team was declared 2nd Runners Up. We were called to the podium to receive a cheque of $600 from the Dean of Krannert, Prof. (Dr.) David Hummel. It was a great night. Not only did we leave with the cheque we also got a lot of fresh insights on solving management problems."

-Written by Syed Omar Alam

**Published on behalf of Media & Industry Interaction Cell, IIM Udaipur.