Day Three

We started the day each presenting an idea for all three functions: generating of information, dissemination of information and storage of information. We used this ideas to find articles on ‘Ask Nature’. Every one of us picked one function he would make a slide for on the presentation. For the generation of information, I came up with an interesting article about how fungi explore their environment on the search for food. They fungi’s roots grow in all different directions and once they find a source of food, the reinforce the shortest connection route and all redundant roots just disappear. Since we want our bio-based engineering faculty to be innovative, gathering new information and doing good research is very important.
The presentation itself went quit good. We got the suggestions that we should dig deeper into the content instead of being too general. This was for us a bit of a surprise since we worked hard to make a clear and short presentation focusing on the division in separate functions. We had decided to not focus already on the ideas we had the day before about the importance of the students well-being at the campus to ensure good communication with one another. It was a pity to conclude that this was what the part of the jury specialized in the Importance of presence and witnessing was looking for. As a team we took conclusions and were engaged to proof ourselves during the next presentation.
What followed were very exhaustive but productive hours who flew by. We came up with arguments, ideas and things we find important. The listening to the suggestions of other groups helped us looking for a solution that fits also the ideas of the other teams. We worked hard towards the presentation in which Drim and I were going to focus on the students environment, and Lucas and Jiachen would summarize the technical solutions and communication systems improving students education. Drim and I started to think about how we could combine the concept of the ‘shelter-team’ with our need to mix aula’s, PC-classes, dining places, plants, libraries, places to relax or do team-work together in order to improve communication between all people. Like in chemistry, we think that mixing and integrating all these places catalyzes the interdisciplinary communication. We formulated how we would like to adapt the existing concept, based on a sketch. After presenting this first part, the jury was not really satisfied with the result. Unfortunately, the critique that we didn’t came up with any specific bio-based technical systems caused a discussion in which we tried to explain our goal of integrating all functional areas in another. We tried to explain our audience the explicit solutions we had been working on, but it became difficult to filter our proposes out of the discussion. Time pressure forced us to move on. I realize that we should have made the transition from the first part of the presentation to the second smoother in order to avoid confusion.
I’m a bit worried that our group is since the beginning considered as one with the most difficulties and are going to be judged differently as the other groups. I hope that this is not the case since I’m convinced we’re working hard towards a good solution. Tomorrow morning we will evaluate our presentation again. I’m sure this will put us back on tracks so we can start with a positive vibe again.