10 Jan 2017 20:54 IST

Rationale

Arguments well structured and presented

Evaluation was based on correct problem identification, presentation flow and creative solutions

Interestingly, all the entries comprehended the problem appropriately. The entries were evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: Identification of the problem; flow of presentation; application and creative solutions.

Entries for the competition were well structured and presented neatly.

The winners, from IBS

The winning team clearly spelt out the contours of appropriate alternatives for the given problem. In their presentation, the team members put themselves in the position of a decision-maker undertaking the evaluation of the proposed steel flyover. The highlights of the case presented are: Cost-benefit analysis and comparison of the feasibility of alternative projects, and the opportunity cost involved in the project.

The analysis addresses the justifiable reasons for non-feasibility of proposed project because of inherent properties of the metal (steel). The presentation provides crisp, clear inputs, and carries a catchy and impressive tagline: “Let steel not steal the glory of the city”.

Displaying an understanding of both environment and technology, the contestants grasped the issue from an engineering aspect, with regard to maintenance issues of the steel flyover, and also kept in mind the heritage status of the city and environmental issues.

LIBA, the first Runners-Up

The team has identified the given context and is assertively for the construction of the steel flyover, which is a different perspective from the other entries. The presentation is simple and clear. The most interesting part is that the contestants assume they are taking responsibility for executing the project with convincing explanations rather than assuming the role of a decision-maker.

They appear to be biased towards providing alternatives for traffic congestion rather than a holistic solution to the problem stated, which can be inferred from the statement that road and rail are not substitutes; rather, they are complementary in nature. Therefore addressing either of them is not a complete solution for traffic congestion.

Second Runner-Up from Symbiosis

The contestant has identified the issue appropriately and chose to differentiate projects (short-term, which is the elevated steel flyover) and long-term (Metro, with development of existing roads). The participant, in his presentation, has proposed that connectivity be improved through the metro rail project. Although the presentation is simple and systematic, a few more recommendations would have been desirable.

Recommended for you