PHASE-1 REPORT FEEDBACK - TEAM 5 E IT22

The group starts with a good introduction to the project. Yet, when it comes to the SWOT analysis, they
have looked only at the group and not at DINEX, which is the main task. The idea of using the SWOT on
their own group is potentially helpful but may not add much value when the other collaboration tools are
factored in. The group mainly presents the findings and concludes a bit on them, but no meta-reflections
are presented.

The Pestel analysis provides some promising findings, and the group has demonstrated an ability to move
beyond a typical weakness of the Pastel, namely that it becomes very generic. Yet, the group does not
elaborate on the process and collaborations that led them to these findings. The group thus lacks to engage
in meta-reflective practices.

Likewise, the market analysis provides good insights but not much in terms of meta-reflection on the
process, collaboration, tool, etc.

Well-argued SDG analysis, especially by integrating the severity of the NOX emissions.

The internal analysis still forgets that it is DINEX’s internal aspects that the tool is supposed to address. The
understanding of the intended recipient is short and very sketchy – mainly summing up some already
established facts. Thus the IR analysis is not sufficiently elaborate and not entirely on track.

The challenge analysis brings to the table some good insights on how the group accepted the face value of
the challenge and didn´t dig deeper into questioning it. This leads to some meta-reflections on how they
could have done it differently. Still, especially why they didn’t manage to see it earlier could undoubtedly
be discussed more and better – so the group knows how to avoid a similar problem another time (perhaps
with other group members).

The group has good, detailed reflections on the collaboration tools.

Idea generation was described, including why the group found it helpful, but the group did not provide
much in terms of how they approached the tools and how that impacted the effects of the tools. E.g., could
they have been used better, and would that have given better results?

The steps concerning, e.g., evaluating the ideas, the group’s choices, and experiences are present but don’t
provide much in terms of insights about the limitations of the tools and how to avoid they become used
uncritically.

OPENING STATEMENT

During the phase one group went through the external and internal background analysis, including PESTEL,
SWOT, and SDG analysis in order to external and internal factors influencing the flow and the result of the
project. Which lead to the challenge and intended recipient analysis to help the team to understand the
final goal of the project, challenges that team might face and values which have to be met with a final
product. And pretty much during the whole of a phase 1 different team-oriented tasks in order of building a
team, managing, and improving it. Last step was the ideation where the team has come up with the ideas
and ended up on continuing with only one in the phase 2 and creating a plan for it.

Team did indeed made mistakes applying some of the tools, however, team managed to reflect on the
result and given feedback and make a conclusion on what could have been done differently. For example,
SWOT analysis should have been done differently, intended recipient analysis could have been more in-
depth, or idea selection more specified.