I touched on this is my post above but I think it would be hard to get away from the 'educational' aspect when you mix something like science with a theme park, even if it's not marketed that way...

I think it was a combination of the location and concept that really lost us the task which would make myself and Roxie to blame. In terms of the concept I still think a science themed park would work but we should have concentrated far more on the science fiction aspect of it which is what my original idea had been but I think I allowed myself to be swayed by Roxie and George's opinions of how to go about implementing it.

To address what David said about none of us really grasping the concept of a theme park. I would say we did grasp the idea but got a bit carried away with some of our more out there ideas. Perhaps one of us should have picked up on the lack of amenities and whilst I think the issue was raised by both Roxie and myself I don't think we addressed it properly and should have done more to accommodate that.

I personally think that science and fun can work really well together. When I was young, I had a great 'Kitchen Experiments' kit which I had a lot of fun playing with - it was educational, but I didn't realise I was learning. In Bristol we have something called At-Bristol, which has a lot of fun scientific exhibits for kids, has been very popular and that is actually more educational in the long run than our theme park. Our theme park is a theme park, with roller-coasters, water rides, fun houses and lots of other things. It just has an original theme to it. The task brief said that we couldn't be a carbon copy of an existing theme park, which was how we came up with this.

However, it was clearly the wrong theme to go with because for whatever reason, you with your 40+ years of business experience consider it a mistake. Maybe we should have gone for our Indian culture theme instead.

Sorry, can you elaborate on this, Iain?

Ok, that is not fair, I was concerned about this but you yourself said I had done enough -

right unless you have anthing new to show me or there's anything urgent I need to do I'm going to go to bed
[02:05:49] Iain Blair: *anything
[02:05:55] George Millman: Honestly, go! You've done enough

Just to show the conversation we had last night. Yes maybe I struggled a bit this task but I worked hard, contributed well and am a strong viable candidate.

Iain, can you elaborate please on something you said in your evaluation and explain to us why you felt there was tension within the group on the task?

This was touched on before but I would like to bring up the layout. George, I was happy that you chose to do this, especially as I had insinuated I would like you to have a go at a graphical based task. I did think there were a few problems however. I'm not going to criticise the artwork as that wasn't particularly important and I know you don't have any expertise in that, but was the layout supposed to be an actual representation of the park? If not, then that was the point of that requirement, and if so, I was a little confused at several aspects of the layout, such as the fact that there was only one toilet in the corner of the entire theme park?

At that particular point, there wasn't anything further that you could have done that wasn't already taken care of. However, in the long run you weren't as available as Roxie and I were. I feel that although she may have made a few mistakes with regards to the educational aspect, it would be very unfair for me to blame Roxie after the amount of work that she put in. I myself worked exceptionally hard, I made decisions when they needed to be made and I don't think that anyone could really say anything against my contribution - I have no doubt that you will because you want to defend yourself, and that's natural and I will respond when it comes to that, but I will be able to respond and point out and and all flaws in your argument. You let your personal beliefs get in the way when we were deciding a concept, were not available to take part in the pitch, and most of what you wrote was much shorter than what Roxie and I wrote - your ride descriptions, for example. I am not denying your work ethic, as you did work very hard on this task and it would be a shame to see you go, but I feel strongly that Roxie and myself deserve to get through to the next stage more than you do, and I feel that way regarding previous tasks as well.

I think the educational aspect of the pitch was a bit misunderstood. It was not intended for every ride neither was it meant to be the USP like George said, I had never said that. My suggestion was that a few rides should be a bit of a learning experience and we should market it like that to parents so that they would see that their children are getting a bit out of it because at the end of the day children are not going to be paying for their tickets, their parents are. I think it has been described a bit poorly - it was never meant to seem like a USP but just an extra way of marketing it. I think actually the main problem lies with the theme itself then because science seems a bit overly educational? I would also attribute it to how our concept was described as the learning aspect should never have had such a big emphasis - it was a simple marketing technique to parents.

Also there was the fact that so much emphasis had been placed on the one ride which was Bohr - which did not seem as big as it did during our talks. I think it was too much of a focal point. As David said, George may have outlined it inappropriately in places - I did mention that it would be odd to have only two restaurants for instance when they are meant to be a main source of revenue. In the description of the rides, Bohr is also emphasised a lot so I would attribute a bit of blame to Iain as well for how much emphasis it was given then as a focal point. But I do think George is partly responsible then for the layout and also giving too much emphasis to the learning aspect within the pitch? And Iain partly for how the concept was described - he did not place so much emphasis on the sci-fi side of it - in fact I did. He was pushing for having a Doctor Who ride which is not at all popular in India.

Yes I mean that we should have had more than one set of toilets and we could have thought more carefully about those basic things.


I think that my objection to George's idea and generally disagreeing with George and Roxie on a lot of issues brought a bit of tension on the task but I do think we get on well enough that that wasn't an issue and I think as a whole it wasn't an issue but I do think it was there and maybe it hindered us a bit though it definitely could just have been how I saw the situation.

Do you therefore think the issues lied more within how you put your ideas across, rather than the actual ideas themselves?

The toilet thing was a mistake, I hold my hands up to that. I suppose I was presuming that the restaurants (which many people would go to) would contain toilets as well, but I should have said that in the pitch. It just slipped my mind with all of the other things that I had to think about. But from what you and David have said, that does seem to be the only criticism of it.

I did, as you suggested, change that to two restaurant blocks.

Other than that, it just seemed a bit bare. Most theme parks have multiple shops and restaurants whereas the layout only had a few. It just seemed that not much thought had gone into it, was this the case?

Not at all. We put a lot of thought into it, and knew well where everything was. As I said in the pitch, the two areas labelled 'restaurant' are restaurant blocks, not individual restaurants. We also have a snack bar. I could have crammed more things in, but it looked pretty full when I had designed it.

I would disagree with this Iain, sometimes you were pushing for ideas that were completely inappropriate such as Doctor Who going only by the potential of it when there is no such exisitng popularity for it in India, I don't even think it's broadcasted there yet you were adamant about that. I disagreed only with points I felt were not appropriate.

Also I do not think the location itself is a problem as I explained if anything we were too quick to jump onto location when I had suggested that we come up with a list of locations and list of themes then we can find the most appropriate links, we had decided on India too quickly on anything and that was George. I was happy to change the location but George's reasoning was that it was too late in the day. I did suggest that we change it due to market research but in the end I do feel the points I came up with did substantiate why India really so I do not think location can be accountable for it.

Okay, I'll move on to discussing your individual performances now.

Interestingly, you all put someone different as the weakest this task in the evaluations. Has any recent information changed your mind over that, or do you stick by your initial statement?

I don't see why you're bringing up that as they liked Bohr and the issue was that it was our only 'big ride' which I have previously disputed. I admit I should have emphasised the sci fi aspect of the concept a lot more and argued for that to be the predominant feature. I would point out that it was I who on various occasions tried to steer clear of the educational side but backed down because I thought I had missed a trick that you had picked up on.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't quite right. As I explained earlier, on this task I took great care not to make any decisions too quickly. We had quite a long list of locations, including the USA, Australia, Hong Kong and Europe. India was one of the most popular, but we were bearing all of them in mind when we started work on the concept. When the concepts came up, it seemed like everyone had designed them with India in mind; India was where most of our ideas would work best. So I said, 'It seems like we're all thinking along the lines of India, are you guys happy to go with that?' and Iain and Roxie both agreed. I did consider changing it later, but by that point I think that we were so invested in India (with good reason) that I thought that changing it would be a lot more trouble than it was worth, and could massively backfire on us.

I stick by my original statement.

I'll admit that I was considering putting myself as the weakest candidate but I didn't want to make the mistake that Steve made. I will admit that based on this task solely I probably should be fired but I believe that in the previous tasks I have put in a lot of good work and have consistently been a strong performer. I have been passionate about this competition and winning it but have struggled with balancing this with my uni work and until this task I feel I have done an excellent job doing so.

But Iain, everyone can say that at this stage. It's the final five, we're all strong performers. At the point that we're at now, you cannot afford to be lax on any individual task.

If the educational aspect of it is to blame then yes definitely. I did not advocate making it a USP at all, in fact I had stated it being a marketing point that we could use to market the idea to parents. If it was down to how it was put down then I think Iain is partly responsible as he was given overall responsibility for the pitching the concept, George is also responsible as he was in charge of the overall pitch so he should put less emphasis on it. I did write a bit about how science is loved in India (not so much the learning aspect of our park) so I should have put less emphasis on it wherever I can but I think the overall responsibility and how our concept was pitched lies with George and that was a problem.

Also while David said I may have badgered my way through this task, I think it was more my approach to tasks deciding things via pros and cons and evaluating ideas based off evidence. If George found that more convincing than other people's ideas then that's fine. I think it is also more of the fact that I am always a team player and I want to help my team mates out by contributing ideas to their sections. I want to make sure we win and that is as much a team effort as it is an individual one so I do want to help them out with them. If that made it feel as though I was taking control of the task then fine but I only did what was in the best interests of our idea and the team as I do every task. I give every task my all and help my team mates fleshing out their ideas as much as possible.

Right. Well, obviously as this was the last task before interviews, my decision on who to fire will be based on both this task and the previous task combined.

Based on both this task and your knowledge of the your fellow candidates on previous tasks, can you please tell me who you think deserves to be fired at this point in the competition?

True, but in this case I had no choice but to prioritise real life. I agree that I struggled a bit with ideas and as a result struggled with the write up at times. To refute your earlier point of writing less than you and Roxie, you don't always need to write a hundred words when you can write it in less. It should be an issue of quantity but quality and I believe that what I wrote was of equal quality to anything that you or Roxie did.