Talking Tempo! at the University of Gothenburg School of Business, Economics, and Law Alumni Network

We had lunch before the presentation. It was a great opportunity to speak with some of the alumni members.
I've been talking Tempo! again. This time at the University of Gothenburg School of Business, Economics, and Law Alumni Network. It was great fun. The alumni network meets up two to four times a month at the university. They have lunch, and follow up with a guest presenter.

Feeding the audience before a presentation is an excellent idea. As an added bonus, the presenter gets fed too, something I was in a position to appreciate very much.

Bo Ribbenholt
Presentations like these are often arranged through networks. A friend of mine, Joakim Olinder, whom I met through BNI, also knows Bo Ribbenholt of the alumni network. Joakim knew I look for opportunities to present, and he heard me talk about Tempo! at BNI World Trade Center in January. He contacted Bo and Bo contacted me.

I won't spill the beans about the content of the presentation. If you read Swedish, you can check out the CHV blog. Bo is writing an article about it. (I'll update the link to point directly to the article when it is published.)

I will write a bit about my approach to making presentations though:

I mentioned in an earlier post that I customize my presentations to suit my audience. I knew the audience this time would consist of experienced professionals with a strong background in economy. The presentation would be about 30 minutes.

My previous Tempo! presentation was at an Agical geek night, for a group of software developers with a strong interest in Agile software development. That presentation was more than two hours long.

Cutting a two hour presentation to 30 minutes while switching focus from software development to economy, while keeping it coherent and fun for the audience, is difficult. So I didn't.

Instead, I rebuilt the presentation from the ground up. I went back to the planning stage, and worked in FreeMind, my favorite mindmapping program. This allowed me to figure out what would be most interesting to my audience, and focus on that. I used my old presentations for source material, added some new stuff, and built the presentation slide by slide.

This approach made it a lot easier to design an entertaining presentation. It allowed me to tie in to some events that recently made the news here in Sweden, and it made it a lot easier to stick to the 30 minute time limit. I designed the presentation to be slightly more than 20 minutes. That way, I get a bit of margin, and ensure there is time enough for questions.

The most important part of a presentation: the audience. 
The most important part of a presentation is the audience. A presenter is there for the audience, not the other way around.

People want to hear you because they want to learn something new and because they want to be entertained. (Scott Berkun has a more complete list in Confessions of a Public Speaker. If you are interested in presenting, I recommend you read it.)

They want you to succeed in teaching and entertaining them, so you usually have the audience on your side from the beginning. What you need to do, is to take the best care of them you can. If you sincerely do your best, and let your passion show, you are off to a great start.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waterfall vs. Agile: Battle of the Dunces or A Race to the Bottom?

Image
The major software methodology wars since the mid 1950’s. Someone was wrong on the Internet, so here we go… In a recent HBR article, It’s Time to End the Battle Between Waterfall and Agile , the author sets up a false premise: There is a war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. The war must end. And finally, you can combine the approaches to get the best of both worlds. This sounds good, but the article is based on a misunderstanding of both Waterfall and Agile. Also, there is no war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. There can’t be, because Waterfall methodology does not exist! Waterfall is a name for large projects that failed in the 1960’s. Waterfall was never a methodology, but a failure to apply the methodologies that existed back then. As I will show towards the end of this article, at least one of the “successful” Waterfall projects mentioned in the HBR article was neither successful, nor a Waterfall project. I got invaluable help from Alistair Cockburn. He fact che...
Read more

Performance Evaluations, Business Strategy, and Agile Methodologies

Image
It is performance evaluation time in many companies. This can be stressful, both to the people being evaluated, and the people doing the evaluation. In companies adopting agile software development methods, the tension can be extraordinary. Individual performance evaluations run counter to agile philosophy, which emphasizes team performance over individual performance. However, managers and corporate leaders need to take a few steps back, and consider the impact performance evaluations have on the organization as a whole. Especially now, in the midst of a recession, it is important to look at a companies current policies to see if they can be improved, or if they are actually holding the company back. So, how can a manager evaluate policy? Performance evaluation policies can serve as an excellent example. I'll confine myself to discussing the so-called ‘rank and yank’ methods. These are performance reviews were employees are ranked using a forced ranking system. It usually looks so...
Read more

Agile Requirements Structures, Part 1

Image
If you have worked in large Agile projects or programs, you may have noticed that there is often quite a bit of confusion about requirements, what the requirement types are, their purpose, how to write them, how to use them, and above all, what not to do with them. There are many causes for this confusion. Here are some of the more common I have seen: Nobody in the organization has read up on the requirements model it is using, so everyone makes their own interpretation. The organization deviates from a standard requirements model, but nobody knows which standard model the organization is deviating from, and/or there is no agreement about how they deviate from it. The organization has not documented its own requirements model very well. The organization mixes two or more different requirements models, often without realizing it. The organization has documented its requirements model, but finding the documentation is an epic project in itself, on par with when Henry Sta...
Read more