My personal verdict (feel free to agree or disagree):
Well, it's not as good as it was when they were competing for the position of employment. However, looking at the positives, I did think that the right person won this year. From what I saw, Ricky was fairly strong throughout the process and he certainly treated it as a learning curve by at least publicly toning down his perceived 'cockiness'. He had the better business plan, which secured the investment.
I thought Nick (the runner up) was quite good as well, he seemed sensible and pleasant but was let down by his business plan. The other two finalists were certainly underwhelming. Jane's business plan would never have fitted Lord Sugar's portfolio, and I was not convinced by the wine guy at all - he didn't seem like a guy who'd ever done a proper days work in his life.
Adam annoyed me the most. Sure, he was a successful market trader and a brilliant salesman, but he just didn't seem to understand big business. I know he thought 'strategy' was just some management jargon, but when you're making crucial business decisions at a high level your strategy is key.
Last year, I was very much underwhelmed by Tom (the inventor) all the way though the 'process' - he was in the losing team pretty much every week and IMO some of the time he had contributed to that result, yet escaped the firing line (and only just on some occasions). However, he had a strong business plan and that seem to win him the investment. That seems to be the key criteria, which does question whether the task process has to be so drawn out!
Do remember that it is selectively edited, they can only fit so much of the task in 40 minutes of the programme. So, generally speaking, it tends to be the really good bits and the 'gaffes' that we see, rather than the sensible 'just getting on with it' (that probably wouldn't make good TV!). This was actually something brought up by a former contestant and I can understand their view on this.