# Military Intellectual Blasts Endless PowerPoint Briefs



## daftandbarmy (17 Mar 2007)

Military intellectual? Sounds like an oxymoron to me... ;D



 Military Intellectual Blasts Endless PowerPoint Briefs 

A curious fact about the American military, and American private industry, in the early 21st century is their insistence on holding formal meetings. The practice is curious because these same institutions spend a great deal of time and effort studying "good management," which should recognize what most participants in such meetings see, namely that they are a waste of time. Good decisions are far more often a product of informal conversations than of any formal meeting, briefing or process.



History offers a useful illustration. In 1814, the Congress of Vienna, which faced the task of putting Europe back together after the catastrophic French Revolution and almost a quarter-century of subsequent wars, did what aristocrats usually do. It danced, it dined, it stayed up late playing cards for high stakes, it carried on affairs, usually not affairs of state. Through all its aristocratic amusements, it conversed. In the process, it put together a peace that gave Europe almost a century of security, with few wars and those limited.



In contrast, the conference of Versailles in 1919 was all business. Its dreary, interminable meetings (read Harold Nicolson for a devastating description) reflected the bottomless, plodding earnestness of the bourgeois and the Roundhead. Its product, the Treaty of Versailles, was so flawed that it spawned another great European war in just twenty years. As Kaiser Wilhelm II said from exile in Holland, the war to end war yielded a peace to end peace.



The U.S. military has carried the formal meeting's uselessness to a new height with its unique cultural totem, the Powerpoint brief. Almost all business in the American armed forces is now done through such briefings. An Exalted High Wingwang, usually a general or an admiral, formally leads the brief, playing the role of the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert. Grand Wazoos from various satrapies occupy the first rows of seats. Behind them sit rank upon rank of field-grade horse-holders, flower-strewers and bung-holers, desperately striving to keep their eyelids open through yet another iteration of what they have seen countless times before.



The briefing format was devised to use form to conceal a lack of substance. Powerpoint, by reducing everything to bullets, goes one better. It makes coherent thought impossible. Bulletizing effectively makes every point equal in importance, which prevents any train of logic from developing. Thoughts are presented like so many horse apples, spread randomly on the road. After several hundred Powerpoint slides, the brains of all in attendance are in any case reduced to mush. Those in the back rows quietly pray for a suicide bomber to provide some diversion and end their ordeal.



When General Greg Newbold, USMC, was J-3 on the Joint Staff, he prohibited briefings in matters that ended at his level (those above him, of course, still wanted their briefs). Instead, he asked for conversations with people who actually knew the material, regardless of their rank. Five or ten minutes of knowledgeable, informal conversation accomplished far more than hours of formal briefing.



Why does the American military so avoid informal conversations and require formal meetings and briefings? Because most of the time, the people who actually know the subject are of junior rank. Above them stands a vast pyramid of "managers," who know little or nothing about the topic but want their "face time" as they buck for promotion. The only way they can get their time in the sun without egg on their faces is by hiding behind a formal, scripted briefing. At the end, they still have to drag up some captain or sergeant from the horse-holder ranks if questions are asked.



The Powerpoint briefing is another reason America has a non-thinking military. The tendency toward useless, formal meetings is of course broader than the American military -- again, the business world is full of it -- but good leaders cut around it. 



When General Hermann Balck was commanding 48th Panzer Korps on the Eastern Front with General F.W. von Mellinthin as his I-A, Mellinthin one day reproached Balck for wasting time by going out to eat with the troop units so often. Balck replied, "You think so? OK, tomorrow you come with me."



The next day, they arrived at a battalion a bit before lunchtime. They had a formal meeting, Balck asked some questions and got some answers. Then, they broke for lunch. During the informal conversation that usually accompanies meals, Balck asked the same questions and got completely different answers. On their way back to the headquarters, Balck turned to Mellinthin and said, "Now you see why I go out so often to eat with the troop units. It's not for the cuisine." 



When Generals Balck and von Mellinthin visited Washington in 1980, John Boyd asked them to reflect on their leadership of 48th Panzer Korps and how they would have done it if they had possessed computers. Balck replied, "We couldn't have done it." Boyd didn't ask about Powerpoint, but I suspect General Balck's reply would have been equally to the point.



Despite the situation in Berlin, the Wehrmacht did know how to think.





William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation. 

Published Friday, March 16, 2007 10:18 AM


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Mar 2007)

Where "military", sometimes read "government" - and I don't necessarily mean JUST the U.S., either... :


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (18 Mar 2007)

Unfortunately, some of us see things like this every day.  

Some days, one has to wonder that our general and flag officers ever get to think about any decisions to make as their days seem to be filled with Death by Powerpoint.  They sit through pre-briefs so they can run to briefings, then to meetings where they are presented multiple slide printout packages and more powerpoint briefings, then off to another round.  All are highly scripted, formalized, timetabled with little time to actually discuss the issues with those that know them intimately.  Most are presented by those give oversight about the issues at hand but cannot answer in-depth questions and are not the experts because "only a Level (insert number here) can present in that forum."

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

Edited for grammar/sentence structure.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (18 Mar 2007)

You ever wanna feel like a lab Rat,

Give a briefing to a Capt(N) (Col for the soldiers) in a room full of 2 and a halfers and a couple of full two bar a@@kissers. the best you're a killick with no power point firing from the hip because you got a shake 10 minutes ago.

At the end the "old man" said, no bullshit eh? you guys should take some lessons. maybe using your lips without microsoft's biggest waste of time since "project" does hold credit.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Mar 2007)

Disenchantedsailor said:
			
		

> You ever wanna feel like a lab Rat,
> 
> Give a briefing to a Capt(N) (Col for the soldiers) in a room full of 2 and a halfers and a couple of full two bar a@@kissers. the best you're a killick with no power point firing from the hip because you got a shake 10 minutes ago.
> 
> At the end the "old man" said, no bullshit eh? you guys should take some lessons. maybe using your lips without microsoft's biggest waste of time since "project" does hold credit.



You wouldn't mind cleaning that up a bit so that the rest of us could understand what the heck you were talking about; other than saying you had to give a briefing to a Capt (N) (Col), a bunch of Majors (Whatever Navy), a couple of two barred Capts (Lt (N)).  Then you went and rambled off the deep end......... ? ? ?  ???


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (19 Mar 2007)

Long story short the "old man" CO wanted to know why one of his systems wouldn't work, and how to fix it, most guys would've taken an hour built up a great big PPT with logs of visual aids, instead I stood up and told him what the problem was, leaving out the technical jargon, took 5 minutes to brief (rather than the hour my P1 told me it would) the no BS answer while the LT(N) Capt's looked at me like I had a third eyeball, Apparently the CO wasn't a big fan of PPT and clouds of " I don't have a clue" the usually surround such topics, hope it clears a few things up


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Mar 2007)

Thank God we have a Navy (with some senior Officers that don't do PowerPoint).


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (19 Mar 2007)

we had one LT(N) try to send a 938 slide powerpoint back to Esq by email, all pictures for family isn't that cute


----------



## Bane (19 Mar 2007)

This makes me want to commision a half million dollar six month study Entitled 'Toilet seat up or down? The question for the ages'

That article made me laugh something fierce. I wonder how many briefings he endured to snap like that? And I wonder which particular one made him really lose it?


----------



## Centurian1985 (19 Mar 2007)

Why was this posted?  The qualities of the author, a military intellectual of such stunning brilliance he works in the 'Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation', are self-evident.  In addition powerpoints, arent actually blasted, only the concept of meetings.  

Are you putting this up because you: 
a) support it  
b) disagree with it  
c) thought it was good for a laugh?

I would be interested to see his work environment.  Most likely they are an organization where everyone hides in their office and sends emails to each other.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Mar 2007)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Why was this posted?  The qualities of the author, a military intellectual of such stunning brilliance he works in the 'Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation', are self-evident.  In addition powerpoints, arent actually blasted, only the concept of meetings.
> 
> Are you putting this up because you:
> a) support it
> ...



You mean a workplace just like army.ca?  

I agree with it wholeheartedly. In my civvy career I spend alot of time helping organizations stuck in the 'powerpoint' communications trap. PowerPoint has it's place, but there's no substitute for looking people in the eye and having a real two way discussion.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Mar 2007)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> ..... the 'powerpoint' communications trap.



The result of a strictly hierarchical communications tradition confounded by poorly understood and even less effectively applied software tools.  To change institutionally, we need to evolve our communications facilities (both inside and between units/HQs) in order to move from IT focussed control of data storage and handling to a functional IM focused environment that shares and employs data in a realtime collaborative way.  Powerpoint is the tip of an iceberg; let's not forget the associated troubles of limiting data storage, the inefficiency of sharing/discussing issues across mass-mailed one-to-one email networks, WANs that lack standard user interfaces for individual users to upload and edit shared data .... we could all expand the list of issues that show how having a computerized work environment tools does not automaticaly make a fully functional staff/decision-making system.  The best air-nailer in the world is just an expensive rock if used to pound in one nail at a time.


----------



## eerickso (19 Mar 2007)

Forget powerpoint presentations. Has anybody ever taken a course where the instructor provides you with a ppt file or 50 pages of printouts to study from!!   :threat:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Mar 2007)

OK.  I will be the dissenting voice I guess (no surprise there).  I have been doing PPT for a long time now - and have briefed at every concievable level with the sole exception of PM using the tool.  The bullets don't matter - the verbiage does.  I use PPT to keep me on track - and that is all.  I find it to be a useful tool (as I am sure many of the pers I have briefed see me...)


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (19 Mar 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The result of a strictly hierarchical communications tradition confounded by poorly understood and even less effectively applied software tools.  To change institutionally, we need to evolve our communications facilities (both inside and between units/HQs) in order to move from IT focussed control of data storage and handling to a functional IM focused environment that shares and employs data in a realtime collaborative way.  Powerpoint is the tip of an iceberg; let's not forget the associated troubles of limiting data storage, the inefficiency of sharing/discussing issues across mass-mailed one-to-one email networks, WANs that lack standard user interfaces for individual users to upload and edit shared data .... we could all expand the list of issues that show how having a computerized work environment tools does not automaticaly make a fully functional staff/decision-making system.  The best air-nailer in the world is just an expensive rock if used to pound in one nail at a time.



Agreed, so did someone at marpac, created a cell called collaboration at sea, they use domino based applications, and much more valuable collaboration tool Lotus Sametime, instant messanging with shared whiteboards, works like a charm, so well in fact the Joint command centres have asked the Navy for help setting up thier own sites, maybe PPT wont be so heavily relied on, 

PPCLI Guy,

I didnt say the PPT didn't have a time and a place, and can be a great tool if used properly, thats the problem not everyone uses it properly as you do,  I've been on courses where the instructor stood at the front of the room and read off the handouts, with powerpoint, it seems, you don't really have to know what you're teaching, just how to read.


----------



## Centurian1985 (19 Mar 2007)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You mean a workplace just like army.ca?



This is a workplace?  Where's my paycheck?

The US powerpoint problem is not the same as ours.  While most Canandian presentations made are merely tedious and unimaginative, the US ones are crammed with an unbelievable density of useless data that the audience does not need.    

I can well recall from when i was in what you are refering to in your criticsm, and still see it here in the private sector.  However, Powerpoint is an excellent communication tool.  'The 'trap' you mention is the people, who, due to a lack of proper training in using and understanding the tool, do not use the tool effectively or properly.  Its like giving a 6 year old a machine gun.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (19 Mar 2007)

I found the start of the article a bit hard to follow.  The author appears to be ascribing the results of the Treaty of Westphalia as compared to the Treaty of Versailles based on the methods used to hammer them out and then link them to the use of powerpoints and briefings.  There may have been some other factors at play that influenced the periods after the respective treaties.  The Treaty of Verailles was a piece of vengeance against a foe that had not been vanquished and its fruit was bitterness and a desire for revenge itself.  I wouldn't blame that on how the Treaty of Versailles was drafted but on the motivations of the people going in.

Turning back to powerpoint and briefings, you can have too many briefings.  "Mission Analysis" can turn into "Mission Paralysis."  Perhaps what the author is actually asking for is a return to intuitive decision making as opposed to a staff-produced estimate.  Some commanders can take it all in with a _'clin d-oeil'_ and be right.  That method can also lead to disaster.  

A good commander and staff should be able to employ both methods.  Powerpoint is a useful tool, especially when combined with a good map graphics software package.  Briefings are necessary to keep staffs working towards the same goal and with the same information.  I've seen some really bad BUBs and some really good ones, just like I've heard some really good SITREPs over the radio and some really bad ones.  Just because a SITREP wasn't done very well doesn't mean that it wasn't necesary.


----------



## kratz (19 Mar 2007)

I instruct a few courses. When the first AMFR was approved, it had over 377 slides to show. This was seven years ago. With the updates that have been approved, I have managed my power point to 80 slides for the 30 chapters that we must cover. 

In my opinion, the presenter owns the presentation. Show the slide or not, you will have to know the information.


----------



## kratz (19 Mar 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> Forget powerpoint presentations. Has anybody ever taken a course where the instructor provides you with a ppt file or 50 pages of printouts to study from!!   :threat:



*sigh* Take my AMFR1 course, I keep forgetting to offer the photocopies, but yes I do have them ready for issue so that my students can study them.


----------



## Staff Weenie (19 Mar 2007)

God, I love this - I have seen enough examples of these situations to choke a goat.

I've watched a course-mate of mine get applause from the DS for a brilliant ppt presentation of a Brigade Med Plan - problem: The plan was crap - but damn, did it ever look good - and apparently that was all that mattered.

Every corporation has a culture. The US military, and lately the CF, have at very senior levels fallen into the trap of presenting massive, yet meaningless, presentations. I'm almost reminded of Hitler's ability to quote ammo loads for vehicles and ships, and demand such info from his staff, but have no grasp of the strategic situation.

It's often quantity, and not quality and insight etc that gets somebody noticed. And Staff Weenies and Senior Officers everywhere strive like mad to out-do each other.

I had a US three-star teach me at RMC on Mil Int - his analogy was relevant here - the Int guys would give presentations on the weapons, doctrine, politics, card-game tactics etc of the enemy - but they never got around to telling the commander exactly who and how many were just waiting over the next hill....


----------



## edgar (19 Mar 2007)

I love PPT, because I have done lesson plans and briefings with OHP, which sucked. As a Cpl, I used to love meetings. Imagine getting paid to sit on your arse with a coffee.  8)
As a Tp Cmd, I hated those "O Groups", that wasted my Tuesday nights. I had too many things to do.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Mar 2007)

In a related topic, I completely despise "General Instructions" and 40 page Op Os that no one ever reads.  I have banned their use in my organisation - all that is permitted is a one page matrix order, followed by actual coordination.  The Op O for Athena R4 / Archer R0 was 4 pages, with annexes, and we issued a one pager for the move from Kabul to Kandahar.  The Synch Matrix was 40 feet long though...


----------



## Journeyman (19 Mar 2007)

> * ...formatted for readability and utility, not staff duties.*



I just sensed a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of RCR cried out ...  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Mar 2007)

In defense of PPT, I have seen it used well in online learning forums, conference calls and other situations where all involved in a meeting can't be face to face. It helps guide discussion and provide a visual framework for problem solving and idea generation that would not otherwise be available as mentioned above. 

It's also probably a good idea to develop in our leaders and trainers the capacity to employ facilitative approaches more appropriate to adult learning styles (andragogy), of which PPT is only one small part. For example, our military is first class at engaging learners through the use of experiential - hands on - learning techniques and other more sophisticated strategies to draw out knowledge and add to it through self-reflection. "OK, you will throw this grenade kind of like a baseball... try it with this rock first... have another try"... etc etc. I doubt that anyone has ever sat through a PPT presentation on how to throw a grenade, and they did just fine regardless. Many modern businesses and government organizations would kill to have this type of ingrained experiential learning culture. 

Ironically, we tend to abandon these very effective adult learning approaches when we get into the 'Briefing room' mode. Some tend to ape what they think a modern business boardroom meeting looks and feels like, where the boss has all the answers and is the only one in the room who matters (this approach is changing too, big time, in the corporate world). Here we tend to slip in pedagogical styles, or rather, learning approaches more appropriate for children. The extensive use of PPT is probably more suited to this type of learning approach, where the trainer must assume that the audience knows very little about the topic.

I guess our challenge is to try to introduce techniques that work well on our training programs into the briefing room.


----------



## Centurian1985 (20 Mar 2007)

kratz said:
			
		

> I instruct a few courses. When the first AMFR was approved, it had over 377 slides to show. This was seven years ago. With the updates that have been approved, I have managed my power point to 80 slides for the 30 chapters that we must cover.
> 
> In my opinion, the presenter owns the presentation. Show the slide or not, you will have to know the information.



Excellent! Exactly, what I was refering to! 

377 slides?!! That is lunacy...


----------



## Centurian1985 (20 Mar 2007)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I had a US three-star teach me at RMC on Mil Int - his analogy was relevant here - the Int guys would give presentations on the weapons, doctrine, politics, card-game tactics etc of the enemy - but they never got around to telling the commander exactly who and how many were just waiting over the next hill....



Part of the problem also is that for a single presentation, up to twenty different units/departments/branches may be slated to speak, with each presenter having 3 to 10 slides. You get the idea...


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Mar 2007)

And another broadside from the "I Hate PowerPoint' camp:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html

PowerPoint Is Evil

Power Corrupts.
PowerPoint Corrupts Absolutely.

By Edward Tufte


Imagine a widely used and expensive prescription drug that promised to make us beautiful but didn't. Instead the drug had frequent, serious side effects: It induced stupidity, turned everyone into bores, wasted time, and degraded the quality and credibility of communication. These side effects would rightly lead to a worldwide product recall.

Yet slideware -computer programs for presentations -is everywhere: in corporate America, in government bureaucracies, even in our schools. Several hundred million copies of Microsoft PowerPoint are churning out trillions of slides each year. Slideware may help speakers outline their talks, but convenience for the speaker can be punishing to both content and audience. The standard PowerPoint presentation elevates format over content, betraying an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Mar 2007)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> * It induced stupidity, turned everyone into bores, wasted time, and degraded the quality and credibility of communication. *


 So now you undersand why this site has Mods?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Mar 2007)

Powerpoint doesn't bore people.

People bore people.


----------



## muffin (20 Mar 2007)

Working here in the "education world" we are doing everythign we can to aviod death by power point. I was amused to learn that CFSTG and CFTDC (the TDO's) have an R&D cell dedicated to exploring new technologies for teaching online, electronically, hybrid and otherwise. 

I have seen some of thier Distributed and Inclass courseware and the new stuff they are developping is quite snazzy! 

If you do any distance ed you may want to check out the DLI (Distributred Learning Instructor's) course through CFSTG - it is an online course about 3 weeks I think 1/2 days - otherwise I think it is just a handy course to have taken if you instruct at all.

PPT has always been good for things like breifing notes etc - but not for all the content. I find if your entire presentation is on the slides people are spending too much time staring at the slides and not enough time listening to what you are trying to say.


----------



## Navy_Blue (20 Mar 2007)

I was getting to my last rope today on my equipment phase.  I'm on month 3 of a 6 month equipment phase.  Death by power point is an understatement.  I think a big problem with our friend power point is that we treat it like an over head projector of which you don't need to flip slides.  Most people don't have the knowledge, computer skills, or time necessary to make a power point lecture interesting and to the point (ultimately keeping you awake to absorb the skills).

My academics were as well organized as can be expected from ram rodding info in a short period of time.  We had very well trained university quality Instructors and it was run for the most part by civi's and done well.  Now on the military run equipment phase there are many not easily solved issues.  

ie. Prep time for instructors, resourses for instructors,  money $$$, and maybe the most important the will/motivation of the training system to change the way it works.

We train people the same way we did in the 80's and 90's from what I can tell.  OHP's out and PPT and DVD lesson plans in.  All the same crap just different media.  We are still shown video from the 1960's which were taken from Real to Real put on VHS and now on DVD!

For our system a MS/PO is posted in.  He receives a lesson plan that has never been complete or accurate (not for lack of trying).  He is give minimum amount of time meterial and training aids (not for lack of requests) to try and make it functional.  Teaches the material once maybe twice, finds all his own faults and then before he can change it, he is posted back to sea.  The cycle starts all over again with a new PO and new courses getting sub standart training.  If the lesson plan is ever sorted out a new QSP decides to change everything.  I've been through a QL3, QL4 and now on QL5 and nothing has changed.  

The biggest thing that should be realized with the training system is that wether you can admit it to your selves or not *most* people with more than 15 years in are already dinosaurs with regards to teaching and keeping the attention of the new generation.  The kids who go into the recruiting centers now at 17, 18 and even early 20's are the video game generation.  In some cases they have been in contact with a PC since before they could walk.  They live in an environment were they can go on google and find info on anything from 100000 different perspectives.  How could any of these people be expected to learn from our system without frustration.  Ultimately they (the smart motivated ones we want to retain) will seek other employment and release to an incredibly competitive modern work force.  Even one person who gets this frustrated could be poison to a small course of people who could begin to think the same way.

To change any of this the military needs to maintain a pool of skilled and competent personnel to maintain its equipment and trade specific training system.  2 years at this point will not turn the tide you need these people for three or more years and a complete revolution in the way we teach people needs to occur.

If anyone reading this is in a postion to make changes to the system I hope my criticism is helpful and is not seen as disrespectful.

Thanks for letting me vent


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2007)

Disenchantedsailor said:
			
		

> Agreed, so did someone at marpac, created a cell called collaboration at sea, they use domino based applications, and much more valuable collaboration tool Lotus Sametime, instant messanging with shared whiteboards, works like a charm, so well in fact the Joint command centres have asked the Navy for help setting up thier own sites, maybe PPT wont be so heavily relied on,



Too bad we have fallen so deep into the Microsoft trap: I doubt many people know, have access to or are willing to use these tools. I had a hell of a fight getting a calendar program called iCAL for 31 CBG; the G6 response was: "You can do that with Outlook" (even though you could not do any of the functions of iCAL with Outlook 97, 2000 or 2003........)


----------



## Centurian1985 (20 Mar 2007)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Most people don't have the *knollage*, computer skills, or time necessary to make a power point lecture interesting and to the point (ultimately keeping you awake to absorb the skills).







			
				Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> The biggest thing that should be realized with the training system is that wether you can admit it to your selves or not *most* people with more than 15 years in are already dinosaurs with regards to teaching and keeping the attention of the new generation.



Most untrue! Well, okay maybe it is true in a lot of cases, but its not true for everybody with more than 15 years in...


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (21 Mar 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Too bad we have fallen so deep into the Microsoft trap: I doubt many people know, have access to or are willing to use these tools. I had a hell of a fight getting a calendar program called iCAL for 31 CBG; the G6 response was: "You can do that with Outlook" (even though you could not do any of the functions of iCAL with Outlook 97, 2000 or 2003........)


The C@S guys have been so successfull we sent a guy to NDHQ to setup a dominso system for them so that sametime/IPWaR are no longer Navy specific


----------



## Navy_Blue (21 Mar 2007)

"Knollage"  :threat: Dam spell checker!!!  I know I can't spell....

I say most but from what I'm seeing and living right now the DND's training system is in trouble.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (21 Mar 2007)

Ain't this ironic, I hate PPT lectures and have a PPT brief to give in April on safety, this should be good


----------



## Thorvald (21 Mar 2007)

If you want to see how to properly deliver a PowerPoint style slide presentation, go download and watch any of Steve Job's Keynotes from Macworld.

His slides are typically only a few words long for punch, a picture or a graph, all in basic black background and white text, he does the rest and just cleans house.  Then go watch a Bill Gates presentation and fall asleep in seconds.

As Red Five stated, "people bore people" but you do have to have a passion for what you are presenting.


----------



## vigillis (23 Mar 2007)

My biggest problem is with people who use PPT as PowerParagraph, oh yeah and those who read off of their slides on the board.

I know it has been posted before but I am an idiot when it comes to using Army.ca search engine, so here is a nice link to a revolutionary way to use power point to solve the Iraq problem.  Done by a US Army Capt.  I could handle briefing like this more often.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/11/powerpoint-how-to-win-in-anbar-province-in-18-easy-steps/


----------



## xena (23 Mar 2007)

;D ;D ;D

Brilliant!


----------



## 3rd Herd (23 Mar 2007)

Red_Five said:
			
		

> Powerpoint doesn't bore people.
> 
> People bore people.



Well said. For the longest time the solution to this was a group with international chapters called 'Toast Masters'. Yes speaking is an art that takes a considerable amount of practice. Practice is one area many over look in the haste to get the assignment completed. In assisting my daughter in her post secondary plans I hosted a dinner in which one of my guests was/is the director of a tri university program in oceangraphics. Aside from the usual requirements such as overall grades he mentioned that he looks for the effectiveness of the prospective student in being able to speak. His rational as explained to myself and I agree one hundred and ten percent is that "you can be the most knowledgeable person in the world on a given topic but if you cannot articulate your knowledge competently it is a waste". 

As for the subject at hand for those with access a perfect example of a speaking performance combined with power point was recently given by Col. Craig Hilton on his MA thesis. It was an excellent case of balance and again an excellent example of speaking effectively resulting in a very effective lecture. In the realm of teaching I have had some students create some mind blowing presentations to the point the roles have/were reversed. In that I the teacher became the student. Part of this is due to the fact that their technical expertise is light years ahead of my own. Also they are not yet 'trained in a certain mind set or conforming to the box'.

my .02 cents


----------



## Kalatzi (23 Mar 2007)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Why was this posted?  The qualities of the author, a military intellectual of such stunning brilliance he works in the 'Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation', are self-evident.
> I would be interested to see his work environment.  Most likely they are an organization where everyone hides in their office and sends emails to each other.


Bill Lind is the author of "The Maneuver Warfare Handbook" adopted by the Canadian Army
A disciple of Col. Jack Boyd, 4th Gen warfare. Strong critic of the current American Military
He's sometime way off on a tangent.  many of his articles are excellent. This seems to be one of them.


----------



## NL_engineer (23 Mar 2007)

Doyle RS said:
			
		

> My biggest problem is with people who use PPT as PowerParagraph, oh yeah and those who read off of their slides on the board.



A simple rule I learned about ppt is no more then 6 words per line and 6 lines on a page.  All other information should be read from notes, filling in the information not covered by the points.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (4 Apr 2007)

When I saw the following  http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2091641070403.gif, this thread immediately came to mind.


----------



## edgar (11 Jun 2007)

An Ode to Powerpoint:

While you were making your [PowerPoint] slides, we would be killing you.

-Russian officer commenting to a US officer on who would have won if we had ever actually fought WWIII in Western Europe.

stole this from longorshortcapital.com


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jun 2007)

edgar said:
			
		

> An Ode to Powerpoint:
> 
> While you were making your [PowerPoint] slides, we would be killing you.
> 
> ...



We could beam PPT's into Taliban strongholds using high powered projectors and put them to sleep or even cause their hearts and minds to stop functioning...............


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Jun 2007)

More PPT bashing.... 

Pitching Out Corrupts within....

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_pp


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jul 2009)

Fresh anti-PowerPointless assaults in the AFJ. Right flanking!

Essay: Dumb-dumb bullets
As a decision-making aid, PowerPoint is a poor tool
BY T.X. HAMMES

Every year, the services spend millions of dollars teaching our people how to think. We invest in everything from war colleges to noncommissioned officer schools. Our senior schools in particular expose our leaders to broad issues and historical insights in an attempt to expose the complex and interactive nature of many of the decisions they will make. 
Unfortunately, as soon as they graduate, our people return to a world driven by a tool that is the antithesis of thinking: PowerPoint. Make no mistake, PowerPoint is not a neutral tool — it is actively hostile to thoughtful decision-making. It has fundamentally changed our culture by altering the expectations of who makes decisions, what decisions they make and how they make them. While this may seem to be a sweeping generalization, I think a brief examination of the impact of PowerPoint will support this statement. 
The last point, how we make decisions, is the most obvious. Before PowerPoint, staffs prepared succinct two- or three-page summaries of key issues. The decision-maker would read a paper, have time to think it over and then convene a meeting with either the full staff or just the experts involved to discuss the key points of the paper. Of course, the staff involved in the discussion would also have read the paper and had time to prepare to discuss the issues. In contrast, today, a decision-maker sits through a 20-minute PowerPoint presentation followed by five minutes of discussion and then is expected to make a decision. Compounding the problem, often his staff will have received only a five-minute briefing from the action officer on the way to the presentation and thus will not be well-prepared to discuss the issues. This entire process clearly has a toxic effect on staff work and decision-making. 

THE ART OF SLIDE-OLOGY 
Let’s start by examining the impact on staff work. Rather than the intellectually demanding work of condensing a complex issue to two pages of clear text, the staff instead works to create 20 to 60 slides. Time is wasted on which pictures to put on the slides, how to build complex illustrations and what bullets should be included. I have even heard conversations about what font to use and what colors. Most damaging is the reduction of complex issues to bullet points. Obviously, bullets are not the same as complete sentences, which require developing coherent thoughts. Instead of forcing officers to learn the art of summarizing complex issues into coherent arguments, staff work now places a premium on slide building. Slide-ology has become an art in itself, while thinking is often relegated to producing bullets. 
Our personnel clearly understand the lack of clarity and depth inherent in the half-formed thoughts of the bullet format. In an apparent effort to overcome the obvious deficiency of bullets, some briefers put entire paragraphs on each briefing slide. (Of course, they still include the bullet point in front of each paragraph.) Some briefs consist of a series of slides with paragraphs on them. In short, people are attempting to provide the audience with complete, coherent thoughts while adhering to the PowerPoint format. While writing full paragraphs does force the briefer to think through his position more clearly, this effort is doomed to failure. People need time to think about, even perhaps reread, material about complex issues. Instead, they are under pressure to finish reading the slides before the boss apparently does. Compounding the problem, the briefer often reads these slides aloud while the audience is trying to read the other information on the slide. Since most people read at least twice as fast as most people can talk, he is wasting half of his listeners’ time and simultaneously reducing comprehension of the material. The alternative, letting the audience read the slide themselves, is also ineffective. Instead of reading for comprehension, everyone races through the slide to be sure they are finished before the senior person at the brief. Thus even presenting full paragraphs on each slide cannot overcome the fundamental weakness of PowerPoint as a tool for presenting complex issues. 
The next major impact of slide-ology has been the pernicious growth in the amount of information portrayed on each slide. A friend with multiple tours in the Pentagon said a good rule of thumb in preparing a brief is to assume one slide per minute of briefing. Surprisingly, it seems to be true. Yet, even before the onslaught of the dreaded quad chart, I saw slides with up to 90 pieces of information. Presumably, some thought went into the bullets, charts, pictures and emblems portrayed on that slide, yet the vast majority of the information was completely wasted. The briefer never spoke about most of the information, and the slide was on screen for a little more than a minute. While this slide was an aberration, charts with 20 items of information portrayed in complex graphics are all too common. This gives the audience an average of three seconds to see and absorb each item of information. As if this weren’t sufficient to block the transfer of information, some PowerPoint Ranger invented quad charts. For those unfamiliar with a quad chart, it is simply a Power Point slide divided into four equal quadrants and then a full slide is placed in each quadrant. If the briefer clicks on any of the four slides, it can become a full-sized slide. Why this is a good idea escapes me. 
PowerPoint has clearly decreased the quality of the information provided to the decision-maker, but the damage doesn’t end there. It has also changed the culture of decision-making. In my experience, pre-PowerPoint staffs prepared two to four decision papers a day because that’s as many as most bosses would accept. These would be prepared and sent home with the decision-maker and each staff member that would participate in the subsequent discussion. Because of the tempo, most decision-makers did not take on more than three or four a day simply because of the requirement to read, absorb, think about and then be prepared to discuss the issue the following day. As an added benefit for most important decisions, they “slept on it.” 
PowerPoint has changed that. Key decision-makers’ days are now broken down into one-hour and even 30-minute segments that are allocated for briefs. Of particular concern, many of these briefs are decision briefs. Thus senior decision-makers are making more decisions with less preparation and less time for thought. Why we press for quick decisions when those decisions will take weeks or even months to simply work their way through the bureaucracy at the top puzzles me. One of the critical skills in decision making is making the decision cycle and method appropriate to the requirements. If a decision takes weeks or months to implement and will be in effect for years, then a more thoughtful process is clearly appropriate. 
This brings me to the third major concern with PowerPoint’s impact on our decision process: Who makes the decisions? Because the PowerPoint culture allows decision-makers to schedule more briefs per day, many type-A personalities seek to do so. Most organizations don’t need more decisions made at higher levels. But to find more decisions to make, a type-A leader has to reach down to lower levels to find those decisions. The result is the wrong person is making decisions at the wrong level. Maneuver warfare and W. Edwards Deming’s methods of quality control drive decision making downward to the appropriate level. PowerPoint works against this approach. 

POWERPOINT’S PROPER USE 
PowerPoint is not entirely negative. It can be useful in situations it was designed to support — primarily, information briefs rather than decision briefs. For instance, it is an excellent vehicle for instructors. It provides a simple, effective way to share high-impact photos, charts, graphs, film clips and humor that illustrate a lecturer’s points. Here, the bullet can function as designed by providing a brief, simple outline of the speaker’s material that facilitates note-taking and even (one hopes) student retention. Yet even in a classroom setting, it is not appropriate for developing a deep understanding of most subjects. For that, additional reading is required. There is a reason students cannot submit a thesis in PowerPoint format. 
PowerPoint also can be appropriate for operational decisions that need to be implemented immediately. In this format, it can inform and stimulate discussion on a subject that should be fairly well understood by most of the participants in an ongoing operation. In a crisis where that background knowledge may not exist, PowerPoint can be used to provide basic background information to a larger group fairly quickly. While not ideal, it is a useful tool when confronted with time pressure. 
Unfortunately, by using PowerPoint inappropriately, we have created a thought process centered on bullets and complex charts. This has a number of impacts. First, it reduces clarity since a bullet is essentially an outline for a sentence and a series of bullets outline a paragraph. They fail to provide the details essential to understanding the ideas being expressed. While this helps immensely with compromise, since the readers can create their own narrative paragraphs from the bullets, it creates problems when people discover what they agreed to is not what they thought they had agreed to. Worse, it creates a belief that complex issues can, and should, be reduced to bullets. It has reached the point where some decision-makers actually refuse to read a two-page briefing paper and instead insist PowerPoint be used. 
Further, it is an accepted reality that PowerPoint presentations — particularly important ones — inevitably are disseminated to a much wider audience than those attending the brief. We have created huge staffs and they are all hungry for information. This means most of the people who actually see the brief get an incomplete picture of the ideas presented. Some briefers attempt to overcome this by writing whole paragraphs in the briefing notes portion of the slide. Clearly, a paper is a better format than PowerPoint. If the concept requires whole paragraphs — and many do — then they should be put in an appropriate paper and provided ahead of time. 
And while the PowerPoint culture leads to wide dissemination of briefs, it has resulted in the reliance on PowerPoint as a record of the decisions made. We used to keep written records of the decisions made at meetings and officials had to initial them and indicate whether they approved or disapproved. Further, they often made notes in the margins to clarify their position. Future historians are going to hate the PowerPoint era; it will be impossible to follow the logic chain of decisions or determine where various people stood on the issues. Of course, that’s only fair since we often don’t know ourselves. 
One excuse given for using PowerPoint is that senior leaders don’t have time to be pre-briefed on all the decisions they make. If that is the case, they are involved in too many decisions. When the default position is that you are too busy to prepare properly to make a decision, it means you are making bad decisions. 
PowerPoint can be highly effective if used purely to convey information — as in a classroom or general background brief. It is particularly good if strong pictures or charts accompany the discussion of the material. But it is poorly suited to be an effective decision aid. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has virtually made a cult of the PowerPoint presentation. 

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/07/4061641


----------



## starseed (21 Jul 2009)

I was about to post the AFJ essay, but you beat me to it in the last post of the thread. I think his point is well taken that by briefing by memo, in proper paragraph and page form, it forces the briefer to fully consider the point being made, rather than relying on bullets points or half formed thoughts.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jul 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> I was about to post the AFJ essay, but you beat me to it in the last post of the thread. I think his point is well taken that by briefing by memo, in proper paragraph and page form, it forces the briefer to fully consider the point being made, rather than relying on bullets points or half formed thoughts.



Just curious - is anybody seeing the PowerPoint philosophy creeping into paperwork where, say, the limit to decision briefing notes is two letter-sized pages, with 1/3 of the first page used for the abstract/exec summary?


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jul 2009)

The goal in directing a BN to be no more than two pages is to force the writer to engage in analysis of key issues, and then provide a concise summation of the matters at hand.  Longer BNs rarely contain more useful information - just more useless verbiage or charts and tables with a tenuous connection to the topic at hand.

Indeed, I'd argue that if you can't summarize the issue, it's not ready to be presented to higher - you don't understand it, so how could the higher ups?


Was it Twain who wrote "Sorry about the length of my letter, I didn't have enough time to write a short one"?  Providing a short, concise, direct summary is an extremely difficult task to do well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jul 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Indeed, I'd argue that if you can't summarize the issue, it's not ready to be presented to higher - you don't understand it, so how could the higher ups?



Good point - I've seen requests for short answers to longish questions that lead to loss of some background that could be important.... or is part of that making sure the right question is asked?


----------



## chris_log (21 Jul 2009)

Excellent article, especially the bit about how much time is wasted figuring out what pictures/graphics/colours etc to put into the slides. It annoys me to no end to see the amount of visual diarrhea that populates pp presentations (anything from 'The Army' is particularily bad with the gratuitous use of CADPAT, slogans and LAVIII jpegs). 

Simple solution...everyone stands up during a briefing.


----------



## starseed (21 Jul 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Simple solution...everyone stands up during a briefing.


That would certainly take the guesswork out of getting to the point.


----------



## chris_log (21 Jul 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> That would certainly take the guesswork out of getting to the point.



People find the sound of their own voice far less enjoyable that way.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Sep 2009)

How NOT to use Power Point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cagxPlVqrtM


Not Guilty, m'lud


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Sep 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> How NOT to use Power Point:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cagxPlVqrtM
> 
> Not Guilty, m'lud



Also not guilty.  Reminds me of my last CM's brief.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (29 Sep 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Just curious - is anybody seeing the PowerPoint philosophy creeping into paperwork where, say, the limit to decision briefing notes is two letter-sized pages, with 1/3 of the first page used for the abstract/exec summary?



I have had the pleasure of having to force significant BN topics for a three-star into one page, standard. Any longer would be pushed back for editing. And keep in mind the space taken by the formatting and the signature block. I think this is forcing the PowerPoint mentality into a BN which is designed to be used for decision making. I agree with being pithy and to the point (and two pages is often sufficient), but forcing complex issues for high-level decision making into one page is getting a little absurd. I almost get the sense that someone is trying to prove staff-officer-worthiness by being able to show the shortest BN in the HQ...

With short BNs often come a slew of Flags and attachments as well.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Aug 2010)

Another unsung hero in the war against PowerPointless bites the dust... best of luck Colonel!  


Heroic US officer returns to civvy IT job

A US Army colonel who published a splendid attack on top-heavy bureaucracy and PowerPoint culture at NATO's top headquarters in Afghanistan has been sacked.

Colonel Lawrence Sellin, in his critique of the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command (IJC), suggested that the IJC exists primarily "to provide some general a three-star command", and that it will soon be enlarged because "an officer, who is currently without one, needs a staff of 35 people to create a big splash before his promotion board".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/27/powerpoint_colonel_busted/


US colonel blasts PowerPoint bureaucracy in Afghan HQ 

A US colonel serving at NATO's headquarters in Afghanistan has launched a blistering attack on the PowerPoint culture and top-heavy bureaucracy there.

"Fortunately little of substance is really done here, but that is a task we do well," writes Colonel Lawrence Sellin, who works at the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, or IJC, the organisation nominally in control of the war in Afghanistan.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/27/afghan_powerpoint_rangers/


----------



## xena (27 Aug 2010)

> "I have been known to walk that fine line between good taste and unemployment," he admits.



 :rofl:  Having had some experience with that particular line myself...


----------

