Group items tagged

"The PowerPoint presentation BMJ 2007; 335 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38994.480845.DE (Published 20 December 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;335:1292 Article Related content Read responses (3) Article metrics David Isaacs, senior staff specialist1, Stephen Isaacs, consultant2, Dominic Fitzgerald, senior staff specialist3 Author Affiliations davidi@chw.edu.au The main purpose of a PowerPoint presentation is entertainment. Intellectual content is an unwarranted distraction. In preparing a PowerPoint presentation, aesthetics should transcend substance. The background colour scheme and logo for your slides should be selected for maximum emetogenic potential. The first inverse ridicule rule of PowerPoint presentation states: "The more lines of writing that can be coerced onto a slide and the smaller the font, the lower the risk of anyone criticising any data which has accidentally been included." The second rule states: "The number of slides you can show in your allotted time is inversely proportional to the number of awkward questions which can be asked at the end." PowerPoint has superseded the carousel era, when presentations were severely limited by the number of slots in the slide carousel and the risk of dropping the lot seconds before your talk. Plagiarism laws do not apply to PowerPoint, so cartoons of marginal relevance but high entertainment value can be downloaded and shown at suitable intervals to maintain audience mirth while minimising critical capacity. Research has shown that the ideal cartoon:data ratio is 5:1. The seasoned PowerPoint artist or PowerPointilliste has refined the presentation into a son-et-lumiere extravaganza, in which scattered dots and luminescent clumps of meaningless datasets hurtle on to the screen from all points of the compass, to the strident strains of Handel's Fireworks Music, building inexorably to a Fantasia-style Sorcerer's Apprentice climax. This fulfils an important s

" The SusHouse methodology is in essence a combination of creativity workshops and scenario building together with stakeholders. The methodology has been inspired to a large extend by the methodology developed in the Sustainable Technological Development (STD) Programme of the Netherlands (1992-1997), and in this Programme by the project Sustainable Washing. An important element of the methodology is called 'Back-casting' (think backwards from a desirable or unavoidable future situation). Like in the STD Programme the premise of the project is that in the long term (50 years) a drastic reduction of environmental burden is necessary (factor 20). This reduction will not be reached by just incremental technological innovations. More drastic technological as well as socio-cultural and organisational changes will be necessary. The hypothesis in the project is that there are interesting opportunities for instance in the concepts of sharing, leasing and service-products. The project consists of the following steps: 1. Investigation of functions in countries (Jan 98-Aug 98) 2. Expert interviews and stakeholder enrolling (Jan 98 - Dec 98) 3. Creativity and backcasting workshops with experts and stakeholders (Nov 98-Jan 99) 4. Scenario-building (Jan 99 - Feb 99) 5. Assessment of the scenario's (Feb 99 - Sep 99) 6. Follow Up workshops with experts and stakeholders (Oct 99 - Dec 99) 7. Reporting and spinn-off (Jan 2000 - June 2000) The scenario assessments are threefold: 1. Analysis of environmental gains and impacts (contact information) 2. Assessment of economic consequences and viability (contact information) 3. Assessment of consumer acceptance (contact information) Each of the three SusHouse household functions (Shopping, Cooking and Eating; Clothing Care; Shelter) is being researched in three countries: SCE Clothing Care Shelter Italy X X UK X X Netherlands X X Hungary X Germany X X

"This is a book about the ten mental locks that prevent you from being more innovative and what you can do to open them. Many of the ideas presented here come from the author's experiences as a creative thinking consultant in industry. During the past five years he had the opportunity to work with many innovative and/or interesting companies. He worked with people in marketing, engineering, data processing, finance, research and development, television, and retail. This book contains stories, anecdotes, insights, and ideas that came out of the workshops he conducted as well as many of his own thoughts about what can make you more creative."

"Established companies are "held captive by their customers," in Christensen's phrase, and so routinely ignore emerging markets of buyers who are not their customers. Dominant companies prosper by making a good product and keeping their customer base by using sustaining technologies to continue improving it. The products get ever better-but at some point their quality overshoots the level of performance that even the high end of the market needs. Typically, this is when a disruptive innovation lands in the marketplace at a lower price and relatively poor level of performance-but it's a level adequate for what the lower end of the market seeks. The disruptive technology starts to attract customers, and is on its way to staggering the industry's giants. "Sustaining innovation makes good products better-but then you don't buy the old product. They're replacements. They do not create growth." To bring these powerful ideas into the real world, Christensen in 2001 founded the consulting firm Innosight (www.innosight.com) with Mark Johnson, M.B.A. '96. Now employing about 100, the company works mostly with Fortune 100 companies that are seeking to defend their core businesses and adapt to disruptive environments. It also coaches them on how to disrupt markets proactively, harnessing disruption's engine of growth for themselves. "It's hard to do both," says David Duncan, a senior partner at Innosight who earned a Harvard Ph.D. in physics in 2000. "As successful companies get bigger, their growth trajectories flatten out, and they need to find new ways to expand. But that will look different from what they did in the past. Most are so focused on maintaining their core business that when push comes to shove, the core will almost always kill off the disruptive innovation-the new thing. "The two goals conflict for resources," he continues. "CEOs are accountable to shareholders and feel Wall Street pressure to meet earnings targe

"Learn to write for your most engaged reader, not your harshest critic. Reconnect with your work. Move ahead."