Preparing Outstanding Presentations, Part 3 -- Introductions: The RAMP Formula.
Downsizing: A Lesson to Learn -- We can learn career resilience through experience -- our own and our colleagues'.
Legislative Report -- Legislation not likely soon on deregulation of electric utilities; No NS-E-F; House panel looks at bils to define independent contractors; Both parties compete for pension reform 'high ground' in Congress; Web info on employment benefits.
Section Activities -- Message from the Chairman, Anniversaries, Brainbuster
Cheryl Reimold, IEEE Professional Communications Society, reprinted from PCS Newsletter
In parts 1 and 2 of this series, I discussed 1) how to find a strong main message and key points based on the needs and interests of your listeners and your own purpose, and 2) how to arrange that basic material most effectively. The universal structure I recommended consists of an introduction (rapport builder, attention getter, main message, and presentation plan), a body (three or at most four key points backed up by evidence and examples), and a summary (restatement of main message, plus call to action). This time, let's take a detailed look at the introduction.
In the introduction, you have to accomplish four important goals:
The RAMP formula helps you achieve all four goals. It is simple to remember - just think of a ramp leading up to the body of your presentation. Here it is:
Rapport builder (5-15 sec): Some variant of "Good morning! I'm delighted to have this chance to talk to you."
Attention getter (30-60 sec): An event, problem, quote, discovery, or benefit that clearly illustrates the importance of your main message to your audience.
Main message (15 sec): The main point you want the audience to take away with them.
Plan (15 sec): Preview of the key points you will discuss.
The whole introduction should never take more than two minutes. Specifically, you must get to your main message within 90 seconds, or you will miss the high part of the audience's attention curve. So, don't get carried away with a lengthy rapport builder ("funny things that happened to me on the way to this presentation") or attention getter.
The attention getter should relate directly to you main message, in a professional way. For example, if you are proposing a piece of equipment, the attention getter might be a severe problem that will be solved by the new equipment. You might even reinforce the point with a figure that shows the problem - but don't get into an extended discussion. Stay away from jokes; they are usually neither professional nor related to your message.
Most presentations don't follow the RAMP formula at all in the introduction. Instead, they start with a lame pseudo message, perhaps followed by an agenda. Here's an example from a presentation given by a manager of purchasing to a group of engineers:
"This morning, I'd like to run through our purchasing procedures. I'll be reviewing our objectives, explaining the step-by-step process we sue, and discussing some problems we have been having over the last six months."
This is a pseudo message because it says nothing useful about the topic (purchasing procedures) - it just announces it.
A real message tells the audience members something useful to them about the topic. Contrast this opening with the previous pseudo start:
"This morning, I am going to show you how you can save a good deal of time and money on your next order of supplies - just by following our purchasing procedures."
When you hear a real message, you're not tempted to ask "Who cares?" as you are after a pseudo message. Make sure your main message passes the "Who cares?" test, and you'll develop a presentation with strong start.
What make so many people gravitate toward weak "agenda style" beginnings? The answer is simple: fear!
It take courage to be different. If everyone in the company follows the agenda style, you may be afraid to stick out. It's up to you to make a decision: Do you want to be like everyone else (and give a terrible presentation), or do you want results from your presentation? You can't have it both ways!
Another common fear is that a strong message start "puts you on the line." For instance, you might be nervous about opening with the admission that your project hasn't produced any results yet and in fact has run into unforeseen obstacles. How tempting it is to wear the audience down with a blow-by-blow account of all the work you did. Then you smuggle the bad news in later, when it won't get noticed so much. Right? Well, ask yourself: How often have other people been able to fool you that way? And what did you think of them?
Your listeners want to hear the bottom line. So give it to them in the first 90 seconds, whether it's good or bad. You'll score points for courage - and you will prepare your audience to listen well to what you have to say.
by John R. Davis, Fort Worth Section Member
Most engineers by now, if they haven't personally experienced the shock, know of someone who has had the job security rug pulled out from under them. I am one of those - and I never saw it coming. Now happily re-employed, I am passing along my story in the hopes that others may learn from it and be ready for this "new way of doing business."
It was 1967, I was 22 and graduating from a four year Engineering College. I had 24 interviews and six offers. Accepting one of those offers, I worked as an Electrical Engineer installing large steam and gas turbine generators and later performing maintenance, upgrades, inspections, and trouble shooting and later overseeing large turbine generator outage work scopes. I traveled 100%, sacrificed family and friends to do what I loved - field work. It was very satisfying and challenging. I worked a lot of weekends, holidays, and overtime, and I was paid accordingly. I didn't twist arms to get the merit raises the company passed on to me. I enjoyed the challenges and had many friends in the corporation.
Last year while on summer vacation, I was called into the office to attend a "big meeting." I was on time, even a little early, but my supervisor was waiting for me by the front door. The meeting was only the two, and his job was to hand me a one page letter, and some booklets, and say sorry to see you leave.
The letter just said "you are being removed from your position" and "it's not your fault." Reading between the lines I read "with business flattening out and our board members wanting more profit, we are getting rid of you because you climbed too far up our pay scale ladder and we want to make our corporate boat lighter and faster." You can keep you hard hat, safety shoes, safety glasses, ear plugs and pair of company work coveralls.
I didn't have much to say either. It took less than five minutes and I was outside the office building. I stopped, looked back, and all I could think of is "what am I going to tell my wife." She sacrificed a lot for me and my job.
After 28 years and two days with the same employer, I had just lost my career, salary and friends. What could be worse? I wondered why I didn't see it coming. I missed the signs because I didn't know what to look for. I had a merit raise in January - why would they get rid of me in July?
The answer is downsizing. I was one of 250 laid-off (19,000 over two years). However, I was one of the lucky ones: I was out of work only six weeks. I sent out 1267 resumes (43% rate of response) and had four interviews.
What is to be learned from this experience and others like it? If you are smart and act accordingly, maybe you won't step in the same thing your predecessors stepped in. Read, understand and profit from what has transpired. Be constantly on the look out for your next opportunity.
Some very large companies are discouraging their employees from thinking of working for the company until retirement. Companies now expect to keep engineers an average of three and a half to four years. Listen and heed - the new way of doing business.
Note: this is the first in a series of member submitted articles. Awards will be given to the author of the best article. Contact the Editor for details.
Utility watchers have been speculating whether or not legislation will be passed this session on the deregulation process. The best judgment is that the session is too short, the problems too many, and Congress itself too divided for agreement to be reached.
At a hearing of the House Energy Subcommittee (of the Commerce Committee), a representative of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) advised members to go slow and "refrain from adopting legislation which imposes a single solution to the questions of retail competition." NARUC also suggested that industry in the near term should focus on "the efficient and expeditious implementation of the recent FERC order." NARUC believes wholesale competition is easier to achieve than retail.
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the association of shareholder-owned electric utilities, said "competition needs to be introduced and structured so that it results in real efficiency improvements, not mere cost shifting or cost avoidance." EEI strongly urges that past regulatory commitments be honored during the transition by authorizing recovery of stranded costs through the states and FERC. Stranded cost estimates range from $50-300 billion. (Stranded costs are those unamortized costs of prior investments that are scheduled for recovery through regulated monopoly rates but would not be recovered under competition.)
By a recorded vote of 339-58 the House removed a provision that would change the name of NSF to the National Science & Engineering Foundation. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) said the issue has nothing to do with "respect for engineering." He deems engineering a part of science but thinks it illogical to include the engineering subfield (of science) in the name of the organization. The sponsor of the name change, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) argued that there are over six million practicing engineers in the U.S. who deserve recognition.
The classification of workers as independent contractors continues to be a problem. Many businesses and individuals believe the IRS has been overzealous in its pursuit and assessment of taxes and penalties against employers who may have misclassified their employees. Legislation to ease their burden was examined by a House Ways & Means subcommittee.
Two bills dealing with worker classification, HR1972 and HR582 were discussed at the hearing. Under HR1972, to qualify as an independent, an individual must meet three basic criteria: investment, independence and contract. The bill "does not eliminate the 20-factor test nor the safe harbor provision of Sec. 530. It simply provides an alternate test that can be used if you comply with all income reporting requirements."
IEEE-USA has joined a 100-member Independent Contractor Coalition, spearheaded by National Federation of Independent Businesses in endorsing HR1972 and a Senate counterpart, S1610.
Retirement security has emerged on the political radar screen as an election year issue of increasing concern to many Americans. As a consequence, both parties in Congress are pushing legislation designed to capture the political "high ground."
Democrats in the House and Senate have recently introduced legislation to carry out the Administration proposals on improving pension coverage, safety and portability. On May 23, the Democratic leadership introduced
S1818 through S1821 (Senate) and HR3520 (House) to improve retirement security.
Meantime, the Republicans are advancing their own pension initiatives, which are part of a small business tax package that the House passed on May 22. That bill simplifies pension rules, reduces the vesting period for multi-employer plans, and makes it easier for employers to get preferential tax treatment for sponsoring pension plans.
The Senate version of the Small Business Job Protection Act was passed on July 9. HR3448 includes a number of tax breaks for small businesses, pension-simplification provisions, an expanded IRA for non-working spouses, and extensions of expiring tax provisions - including the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance and the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit. IEEE-USA's Engineering Employment Benefits Committee (EEBC) will support the Senate version of the bill in the upcoming conference committee.
IEEE-USA has also joined a coalition of engineering societies in endorsing HR3077, which would develop recommendations for the improvement of the nation's private pension system. Similar legislation will be introduced in the Senate.
IEEE-USA's Engineering Employment Benefits Committee (EEBC) has unveiled a new Web site offering comprehensive information on benefits issues as well as financial-planning advice. Check out URL www.ieee.org/usab/ DOCUMENTS/FORUM/COMMITTEE/ eebc.html (case sensitive).
Certainly we have all desired some sense of what the future has in store for us. I read recently that future automobiles will offer joysticks in place of steering wheels, fingerprint recognition in place of keys and satellite guidance systems in place of paper maps. An interesting list indeed. Similarly, I asked your Executive Committee to look into the future of IEEE Membership and, fellow members, I contend that the future looks grand!
Our 1996 to 1997 operating year marks the 40 Year Anniversary of the Fort Worth Section of IEEE. In addition to some special events to be announced later this year, we, the Executive Committee of this section will celebrate its anniversary by writing a plan of business. Included in this business plan will be a simply stated mission to:
Provide Superior Service to Fort Worth Members
I do not have any reservation in writing that together, we can accomplish this mission.
What will it take? I believe the success of this Section rests with an understanding of you, the member. Some of you will be sent surveys this year and I hope you take the time to give us your comments, favorable or not. In addition, I would like to offer you a direct line to the Executive Committee through me. (phone: 817/215-6496 or email: j.painter@ ieee.org) We want to hear from you.
With this understanding, we will work towards exceeding your expectations in services and products. This will take some forecasting or some "looking into the future," if you will. This may sound challenging and it will be, but again, with your help, the Executive Committee will continue the success of this Section for 40 more years and beyond.
James C. Painter
Chairman
On May 18, 1996 at UTA the Alliance of IEEE Consultants' Networks (AICN) held its seventh National Consultants' Workshop. This followed on the heels of the organization of the latest Consultants' Network in Dallas in April. The Workshop was directed at both the experienced consultant and those contemplating first time entry. Topics covered included Getting Started, Marketing, Liability Insurance, Fee Setting, Networking, International Consulting, Contracts, and Resources on the Internet. The Workshop's climax was the introduction to the Ft. Worth Business Assistance Center (BAC).
The BAC is a model project, unique to Ft. Worth, and supported by contributions from local corporations and a grant from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the Department of Commerce. The program is the first of its kind in the nation bringing together small business assistance resources such as the Service Core of Retired Executives (SCORE), Small Business Administration (SBA), Ft. Worth Economic Development Corporation, Electronic Commerce Resource Center, TCJC Small Business Development Center, TCJC International Small Business Center, U.S. Export Assistance Center, BAC Legal Specialist, and Texas Manufacturing Assistance Center (TMAC).
Recognizing our Section members for their long-time committment to the profession on the anniversary of their joining IEEE.
25 yrs David J. Sykes, Member
How many different squares are on a checkerboard?
Answer to last month's Brainbuster:
Fill in the blanks - Electrical engineers should recognize this series of numbers as a list of standard 5% resistor values:
10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 43, 47, 51, 56, 62, --, --, --, --, 100