Networks and PowerPoint, a twofer

[Jay Cross]

Valdis, that is a very cool interactive map. If one waits long enough, does the
top map ever reach an end-state, i.e. become still? The network looks as if it
is breathing: does the degree of anamosity vary over time?

I once considered Tufte to be a god. Then I lost the faith. See Don Norman's In
Defense of PowerPoint. http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/in_defense_of_powerp.html

Excerpt:

"It has become commonplace to rail against the evils of PowerPoint talks; you
know, those dull, boring never-ending ordeals where the speaker — or should I
say "reader" — displays what appears to be a never-ending progression of
slides, each with numerous bulleted points, sometimes coming on to the screen
from unexpected directions in unexpected ways, each one being slowly read to
the audience. PowerPoint should be banned, cries the crowd. Edward Tufte, the
imperious critic of graphic displays has weighed in with a document entitled
"The cognitive style of PowerPoint," in which, among other things, he credits
poor PowerPoint slides with contributing to disaster with NASA's space shuttle
Columbia, January 2003. (Tufte, E. R. (2003). The Cognitive Style of
PowerPoint. Cheshire, CN: Graphics Press.)

"I respectfully submit that all of this is nonsense. Pure nonsense, accompanied
by poor understanding of speech making and of the difference between the
requirements for a speech-giver, the speech-listener (the audience), and for
the reader of a printed document. These are three different things. Tufte—and
other critics—seem to think they are one and the same thing. Nonsense, I say,
once again."

jay

Jay Cross
internettime.com

[Valdis Krebs]

Thanks Jay. No, this network has too many conflicting forces to ever
settle down [kind of like the REAL Middleast, eh?].

Also this old software -- we used a 1995? SUN demo app and enhanced it
a bit -- OK for simple demos. You can click on the Stop button and
then move the nodes so that you can easily see the interconnections
when you are happy with the layout you can take a screen shot. Notice
the graph on the bottom settles down better... it is a simple
structure[no crossing lines] and has no negative forces. We try to
emulate some human behavior with network physics -- knowing that we
will never get real good, but maybe close enough for some
understanding/insight --> sense-making through play!!!

Valdis

[Valdis Krebs]

Verna,

Talking about the the forces at play in the Middle East... have you
ever done a VNA on that? I wonder if you took the nodes of the
interactive map as a starting point [yes, I know they are not "roles"]
and started looking at the tangible and intangible flows between them
and maybe label them + and - [ever do the +/- before?]... it might be
interesting to see what all is in play here.

Anyway, it may be an interesting project for a group of folks here, and
it may turn out very useful and bring attention to VNA from those who
would not normally do so.

FWIW,

Valdis

[Verna Allee]

There has been a lot of interest lately in using VNA to look at
communities and political dynamics. Oliver Schwabe has been doing a bit
of VNA mapping in Austria looking at the political situation there. I
don't think he was too happy with it because of the quality of the
data, but there definitely is a theme there to explore. If there are
others interested in tackling this or something similar we are
certainly open to that. I have a pretty full plate already with
customer projects and the pioneering work we are doing to combine
VNA/ONA approaches to understanding the customer support environment.
But I am always happy to be a thinking partner with people who want to
explore something like this.

[John Maloney]

Hi Jay --

IMO, the concern with PowerPoint is that it simply interferes with authentic
conversation and creating shared meaning. That's particularly true in
small-group settings, organizational knowledge transfer and sensemaking.
PowerPoint is widely misused. The consequences are grave.

Nancy Dixon (Common Knowledge) has been researching the quality of
conversations both from a historical perspective (Watergate, 9/11, Columbia)
and a practical perspective, enterprise knowledge transfer. The Texas
Cluster has asked her to appear and lead a conversation concerning these
findings Sept 29 in Irving -- http://www.vncluster.com/DFW.htm

--
The Actuality

Findings on PowerPoint and Columbia were done by two blue ribbon review
committees in 2003 and 2005. They were the Columbia Accident Investigation
Board (2003) and the Return to Flight Task Group (2005). Both review boards
independently concluded that:

1) PowerPoint is an inappropriate tool for engineering reports,
presentations, documentation;
2) the technical report is superior to PP.

--
The Famous Cut Off

1/24/03 Transcript of a Columbia Mission Management Meeting:

"Ms. Ham repeatedly stressed in the following discussion that the foam posed
'no safety of flight'concern and 'no issue for this mission' Ms. Ham cut off
a NASA engineering manager, Don L. McCormack, Jr. while he was presenting
uncertainties and unknown risks for the piece of foam that struck the
shuttle some 80 seconds into the flight."

--
Background: The Truth of the Matter

Before Tufte began his PowerPoint crusade, he created an academic discipline
to study how people interpret visual information. When Tufte says
PowerPoint's visual style encourages "generic, mushy, simplistic thought,"
people listen.

Soon after the loss of Columbia, Tufte filed a Freedom of Information Act
request for PowerPoint briefings pertaining to the flight.

Tufte was aghast. The slides were a muddle of banner headings and bullet
points. Important findings were buried in subheadings. "I couldn't believe
it," Tufte recalls. So he posted the slides on the Internet.
http://tinyurl.com/e4atx

The members of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board couldn't believe it
either.

The investigators singled out one slide that proved pivotal in the failure
of NASA executives to grasp Columbia's jeopardy. It is classically bad
PowerPoint, a "festival of bureaucratic hyper-rationalism," Tufte writes. It
contains six levels of hierarchy: A banner title followed by a big bullet
point, a dash, a diamond and a little bullet point to denote subpoints, and
finally, a set of parentheses.

--
The Irony

Finally, isn't it ironic that Don Norman's "In Defense of PowerPoint" is
done in a very thoughtful, personal and effective essay? Apparently, for
Don, crafting well-conceived, complete sentences and using an attractive and
persuasive narrative style is best. Hmmmn...

Cheers,

-j

[Valdis Krebs]

Exactly! Especially when people read their PPTs. To get around this I
try to NOT put any words on my slides -- just a picture or diagram. I
then talk from that and ask the audience questions from that. Of
course some slides require words, but I try to keep them to an absolute
minimum. Keeping words to a minimum keeps people from "reading forward"
if they have a handout.

Valdis

[Jeff Hester]

It's worth noting that Tufte himself uses Powerpoint slides in his own one-day presentations. It's not the tool that's bad, but how it's used (or misused). The same could be said of any tool.

[Jeffrey D. Hawley]

Has anyone attended an unconference? How successful was it? I have
read on unconferences, but am always double booked and never get to
attend.

Jeff

[John Maloney]

Noteworthy.

University of Toronto management professor David Beatty says: "PowerPoint is
like a disease. It's the AIDS of management." He advises spending 85 percent
of one's time on figuring out what to say, and only 15 percent on how. He
also reports that 3M has strongly discouraged the use of PowerPoint because
"it removes subtlety and thinking." Other prominent executives in the
information technology industry have declared their offices "PowerPoint-free
zones".

-j

________________________________

From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Hester
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:08 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Festival of Bureaucratic Hyper-Rationalism

[John Maloney]

Hi Jeff --

 

Yeah, PowerPoint is an okay presentation application. It allows ordinary people to master projection of photos, diagrams, maps, analytics, visuals, data and so forth. That is not the problem. The problem with the software is the utter misuse of the outline style, headings, bullets, titles, subtitles and so forth. Reading bullets interferes with authenticity, conversation, emotion and collaboration. 

 

At you next meeting, try saying no PowerPoint (gasp!) outlines (bullets, titles, sub-bullets) allowed to be projected. It is guaranteed you will have a far more thoughtful, effective experience. Just try it! 

 

Concerning value network visualization, PowerPoint is part of the portfolio of useful applications. In the SME (subject matter expert) value network there are deliberate development activities to achieve fundamental advancements and open integration of network visualization and analytic applications. See:  

 

1. InFlow 3.1:  http://www.orgnet.com/inflow3.html 2. NetDraw (2-dimensional) http://www.analytictech.com/netdraw.htm 3. MAGE (3-dimensional) http://kinemage.biochem.duke.edu/kinemage/magepage.php 4. KiNG (3-dimensional) http://kinemage.biochem.duke.edu/software/king.php 5. Pajek (2 & 3-dimensional) http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ 6. MS PowerPoint (2-dimensional) http://tinyurl.com/5a724 7. VRML 1.0/2.0 : http://www.vrmlsite.com/ 8. Cortona VRML Client: http://www.parallelgraphics.com/products/cortona/ 9. UCINet: http://www.analytictech.com/ucinet.htm 10.) MS Visio (2-dimensional) http://tinyurl.com/46bs3   Please add to this list.

Creating the new alphabet, vocabulary,  visualizations and the language of networks is essential to economics, business, productivity, innovation and growth. It is a fast moving and sharply growing area. 

 

-j

http://www.vncluster.com/

 

 

 

---

From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Hester
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:08 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Festival of Bureaucratic Hyper-Rationalism

[David Meggitt]

John Maloney wrote:
> Noteworthy.
>
> University of Toronto management professor David Beatty says: "PowerPoint is
> like a disease. It's the AIDS of management." He advises spending 85 percent
> of one's time on figuring out what to say, and only 15 percent on how. He
> also reports that 3M has strongly discouraged the use of PowerPoint because
> "it removes subtlety and thinking." Other prominent executives in the
> information technology industry have declared their offices "PowerPoint-free
> zones".
>

Also:--

Has anybody ever sensed evil, or the power for good when someone enters
a room behind them?

I would suggest that you can have a lousy "presentation" but be moved /
motivated to bits by something memorable about a person's
contribution/presence.
(We are talking about a host of interconnected things here:
authenticity, beliefs, integrity - all mentioned in other posts)

The good professor quoted is a third right. You need 85% deciding what
to say, another 85% getting the verbal/visual bit right; (and this IS
indeed taking up a lot of VNA SME time) and another 85% dealing with
the non verbal communication.

If one also adds in the unfolding of the implicate order that a highly
aligned value network (project or business) could be tuned into/around,
(another 185% effort!), then the holy grail of negotiated value
co-creation could emerge.

That is my ambition anyway, and a good application can be found in the
sustainable development of the infrastructure to our civilisation that,
for example, civil engineers are deeply committed to designing and
delivering. It's all quite possible. We just need to do it.

D

[Shannon Clark]

Jeff,

I have attended a number of "unconferences" and dozens (perhaps as many as 100) events in Open Space (which is slightly different from what is usually meant by "unconference"). My conference, MeshForum has one day in Open Space format and the two days of sessions have some aspects of the unconference format - though not all.

As defined by Dave Winer, an "unconference" has session leaders instead of speakers - the session leaders then manage the conversation for a block of time (at his events this is a long block generally 1 1/2 hours, at other events such as Gnomedex it was shorter, more like 30 minutes). Typically an unconference is held in a single track format - so all attendees experience the same set of speakers.

The format has many strengths but also has some very real and serious weaknesses.

The strengths - done well, it can lead to rich conversations and interaction between the audience - with a moderator on stage facilitating but not dominating the conversation. It can be a great experience and often leads to richer comments and input from the audience than typically seen at most conference.

The weaknesses - there is a very valid and important role, I feel, for giving experts on a topic time and a forum to present their knowledge (and especially to document it for future reference, such as via recording/videotaping it). The unconference format forgoes this and thus often results in lots of questions and ad-hoc suggestions from an audience without the substance that a good presenter can add to an event. Also no matter how efficient the discussion leader is, the format is inherently single tracked and limited by the format of one questioner from the audience speaking at a time - meaning that for most of the audience you are merely listening - but to a lot of voices vs. the one of a more traditional presentor.

This last weakness is not a weakness of the Open Space format.

Open Space is a meeting format that differs from the Unconference format in a couple of crucial ways.

First, Open Space is all about the invitation to the space - about who shows up, and what will happen is dependant on the people who are there - not on the selection of session leaders in advance. Rather, the organizer/facilitor for an open space sets up the space (best literally to be an open space with no tables or walls), and sets up some rough discussion areas and a rough timetable.

Then the attendees suggest topics which they are passionate about and which they are willing to lead a discussion on - as they suggest these topics they usually present them to the group and announce a time and place they will convene a discussion on that topic. Often there is some mutual agreements to combine topics that are related.

Then as each session starts the topic leaders comitt to starting the discussion on that topic - but after that, there is also a concept of the "Law of two feet" - which states that you, and you alone, know when you are contributing to a given topic - and so you have permission (and indeed the responsibility) to leave a discussion when you are not contributing and join other conversations (or start a new one). This explicit permission to move about helps achieve another concept - that of "butterflies" - i.e. the cross-polination of discussions and conversations.

Generally Open Space works best when people know each other and share some large common goal. When a group does not all know each other, I find that it is often best to start an Open Space with a round of introductions - whether individual introductions or perhaps even better people introducing each other. Perhaps along with some simple questions or group activities that also help self-identify relationships and interests (and perhaps knowledge) within the group.

The invitation to attend an event in Open Space is critical - it sets the tone for what will happen and what to bring to the event. Only rarely are formal presentations part of Open Space (though they certainly can and do have a role from time to time). More generally however, a group wiki or other online space which can be used during the Open Space to document the conversations and the outcomes of those conversations (and crucially what people comitt to doing as a result of each conversation) is a vital part of the productivity of an Open Space meeting.

Generally I also find that setting up the structure of the meeting to ebb and flow - from full group experiences to sessions and back to the group helps with the overall experience. Often as well shared times such as meals should not also be a time for sessions - the relative stickyness of a table when you are eating limits the open space experience - but sharing meals and the conversations that happen during them is a very vital part of Open Space and should be fostered.

In Seattle after Gnomedex I held an event in yet another format, one I'm working on, this was a MeshWalk - which was a conference of sorts that was held while walking outside. We borrowed a bit from Open Space (literally being out in the open outside) and naturally while walking conversations occurred in small groups and as we paused in our walking we came back together as a larger group. I will be experimenting with holding additional events in this walking format in the future - with the probable modification of having some planned stops and events during the MeshWalk. For example, a MeshWalk for a company might have planned stops at related retailers, partners, competitors, customers etc - as well as art galleries, museums, public parks, cafes etc.

I'm happy to forward links to this list - have to run to lunch meeting now.

Shannon

[Howard Greenstein]

Powerpoint is like any tool.
This is like saying "Our construction site has banned hammers because
we find people spend too much time hammering and not enough
constructing the building."

I find powerpoint as an outline tool and a guide behind me to what's
being discussed as useful.

Then again, I worked for Microsoft and the evil chip may have
activated at your key phrase.

Howard

[David Meggitt]

Howard, excellent digging! to expose an evident fault in my
communication.
(It could be the evil chip at work, though!)

I do agree with your 2nd para. as to ppt's usefulness.
It is used a lot in VNA presentations and case studies, of course.

I anticipate that we both want a well constructed building,
irrespective of how much hammering - and other activity to make it one
- were involved.

Best ...David

Howard Greenstein wrote:
> Powerpoint is like any tool.
> This is like saying "Our construction site has banned hammers because
> we find people spend too much time hammering and not enough
> constructing the building."
>
> I find powerpoint as an outline tool and a guide behind me to what's
> being discussed as useful.
>
> Then again, I worked for Microsoft and the evil chip may have
> activated at your key phrase.
>
> Howard
>
>

> > Has anybody ever sensed evil, or the power for good when someone enters

[Howard Greenstein]

Bwhahah. It is all going according to my evil plan now....

Thanks David. I've seriously seen great PPTs - they're usually great
handouts behind a good speaker.

Howard

On 8/1/06, David Meggitt <ma...@davidmeggitt.com> wrote:
>

[Edward Vielmetti]

There's a web-based slide presentation tool called Slidy
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bblfish?entry=slidy_better_than_powerpoint_or

which is what Tim Berners-Lee is giving presentations in
these days.

Ed

[Howard Greenstein]

It requires you running a local server and doing some light coding.
That knocks out about 95% of the world using this...

HG

[Patti Anklam]

Delighted to see these great conversations about visualization, unconferences, and so on that are continuing to feed themes I'm working on at present. Just wanted to jump in on the "unconference" and provide an historical tidbit.

 

I met David Weinberger and Stowe Boyd at KMWorld Dallas in 1999. We subsequently met (with Henry Ogilby, who is now at IDC) to brainstorm about bringing some kind of event into Compaq (my employer at the time) around knowledge management but we laid it out specifically as an "Unconference" with the principles below. Obviously similarities to TED, Renaissance Weekends, and the like... of course we were looking for sole sponsorship by Compaq, and the "no sales pitches" part and the need for upfront funding made it a non-starter.

 

/patti anklam

Patti Anklam, Hutchinson Associates
Leveraging Context, Knowledge, and Networks

http://www.byeday.net/weblog/networkblog.html

 

Theme: “You know something’s happening, but you don’t know what it is…”

 

Size: 100 people

 

Audience: People who are literate in the swarm of topics around knowledge management but have reached a point where they are apprehensive about what comes next, and what to make sense of the confusion and believe the path through confusion is dialogue.”

 

Value Proposition:

Find out what is emerging, what is “next” after knowledge management.

Make sense of the confusion, cut through the buzz.

Reduce the risk of making the paradigm shift (falling off the edge) to whatever “next” is.

Duration: Evening + 2 Days.

 

Differentiator: No vendors, no exhibits, no sales pitches.

 

Things to Do (including some Ideas Stolen from Others)

·       A few (no more than 5) really good lectures

·       Late night TV format: guest/host, moving into the audience for direct questioning by facilitator to audience, specific members of the audience

·       Only one track – everyone is in the shared experience

·       Field trip to the kitchen – get a perspective on knowledge management in a realworld environment

·       Have attendees create Web pages in advance so that people will know who they might want to meet and spend time with

·       Make the “unconvention” – how we are turning the traditional conference format upside down – visible and conscious

·       Long breaks, structured networking time, assigning groups to brainstorm topics

·       Group facilitators

·       Enable self-aggregating groups of common interest

·       Multidisciplinary

·       Provide toys/books/CDs as gifts throughout the conference (donated by companies). No conference bags! (Or conference bags with no bottoms!)

·       Provide a “spiritual” break – alternative stress reduction

·       Give all attendees a mini Myers-Briggs or similar personality typing exercise and provide a map of how people in different job disciplines / roles fall into the types

 

Infrastructure

·       Access to Web/Web pages/discussion forums

·       Mail boxes for attendees to communicate with each other

·       Personal Web pages with interests, conversations people want to have

 

Things to NOT Do

·       Standard conference/convention agenda/schedule/breaks

·       Talking heads

·       Speaker ribbons

·       Show bags

·       Tracks

·       Published proceedings

 

Input to Conference:

·        Assign  people to their “learning groups” or subteams prior to the conference, giving each a “thought assignment.” Compaq could provide a server in advance for the threaded discussions that would (obviously) continue to be available to the attendees throughout the conference, and afterwards. This actually starts the conference before the event itself and provides the infrastructure that will enable the conversation to continue afterwards.

 

Output of Conference:

·       Some container (presentation, wall/time line) of the knowledge created by the conference, distilled into a reusable form.

·       Video tape edited from conference activities

·       Continuation of conversations on the Web afterward leading toward another event. (Events are needed to trigger participation.)