“…so basically, you just drew some squiggly lines.”
Another lesson from this year’s IBC tournament: In the final round, one of the competitors on the Washington (I believe) team decided to explain the concept of the “bullwhip effect“. She showed three different graphs showing how the data fluctuates as information travels up the supply chain.
Knowing full well that the girl was explaining a theoretical concept, the head judge raised his hand and the conversation was (more or less) as follows:
- Can you show us the numbers behind that?
- (confused) Sorry?
- Show me the data for those graphs.
- Ummm, well I was just using them to explain the concept of the bullwhip effect… and ummm…
- OK, but can you show me the data that you used to plot those graphs?
- Well…I…ummm…
- Do THOSE graphs have ANYTHING to do with the present situation at Ford? (Ford was the company being analyzed)
- Ummm…no.
- Right, so basically, you just drew some squiggly lines.
- (annoyed) Yes.
- Fine. Move on.
Ouch. I remember cringing the minute he asked for the numbers behind the graphs. We all knew she was about to get chewed out. The graphs would have been OK if she had actual Ford data and then said: “We clearly see the bullwhip effect in these charts.” I’m assuming she was explaining theory in order to fill time (which some people do). Had she skipped the graphs and said something like: “The bullwhip effect shows us how information can fluctuate as it travels up the supply chain. That seems to be a problem at Ford.”, I believe it would have been fine.
The guys in this story (a few weeks ago) also wasted a lot of time explaining theory.
The only time you want to explain a theoretical concept is if: A) YOU are proposing a new theory or B) you truly believe the concept is so complex that the average audience member will not understand. If you must, don’t take more than 5-10 seconds explaining theory. Anything more will either offend the audience, because you assume they don’t understand basic concepts, or you might get into trouble by showing meaningless diagrams.