Benchmarks / DeckBench / Kestrel Logistics

Measured by Spring Prompt

Mercury 3: On-time delivery: what is going wrong and what to fund

For the board and the company's three main investors. The decision it supports: whether to fund 40 more drivers or a trunk re-plan with 10 drivers.

Verdict
Not presentable
Deck rating
812
Slides
5 (brief: 5-8)
Design quality
70%

Why it is not presentable

  • Layout defect: something off the slide, colliding, too small or too faint to read
  • Did not give the analysis's recommendation within the first two slides

In detail

  • Slide 2: Chart labels at 9 pt, too small to read
  • Slide 3: Chart labels at 9 pt, too small to read
  1. Slide 1 of Mercury 3's deck
    Slide 1Download slide imagePolished
  2. Slide 2 of Mercury 3's deck
    Slide 2Download slide imageAcceptable Several depot lines use similar grey shades, making them harder to distinguish through the small legend.Seven lines in one plot is busy; the four grey depot lines (Leeds, Coventry, Preston, Swindon) use similar shades and are hard to tell apart
  3. Slide 3 of Mercury 3's deck
    Slide 3Download slide imagePolished All bars are the same dark colour; the Late trunking bar is not highlighted to carry the takeaway
  4. Slide 4 of Mercury 3's deck
    Slide 4Download slide imageAcceptable The title introduces a topic rather than stating the funding takeaway; viewers must read the body to understand the intended conclusion.The title is a topic label rather than a takeaway or recommendation
  5. Slide 5 of Mercury 3's deck
    Slide 5Download slide imageAcceptable The generic title misses the opportunity to state the takeaway: track depot OTIF rather than parcels per driver.The title is a vague topic label; a takeaway such as 'Rising parcels per driver does not mean the network is coping' would serve better