←back to thread

The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

(mcdreeamiemusings.com)
210 points scapecast | 3 comments | 28 Aug 25 21:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.615s | source
Show context
quacked ◴[29 Aug 25 02:08 UTC] No.45059248[source]▶
This isn't a failure of PowerPoint. I work for NASA and we still use it all the time, and I'll assure anyone that the communication errors are rife regardless of what medium we're working in. The issue is differences in the way that in-the-weeds engineers and managers interpret technical information, which is alluded to in the article but the author still focuses on the bullets and the PowerPoint, as if rewriting similar facts in a technical paper would change everything.

My own colleagues fall victim to this all the time (luckily I do not work in any capacity where someone's life is directly on the line as a result of my work.) Recently, a colleague won an award for helping managers make a decision about a mission parameter, but he was confused because they chose a parameter value he didn't like. His problem is that, like many engineers, he thought that providing the technical context he discovered that led him to his conclusion was as effective as presenting his conclusion. It never is; if you want to be heard by managers, and really understood even by your colleagues, you have to say things up front that come across as overly simple, controversial, and poorly-founded, and then you can reveal your analyses as people question you.

I've seen this over and over again, and I'm starting to think it's a personality trait. Engineers are gossiping among themselves, saying "X will never work". They get to the meeting with the managers and present "30 different analyses showing X is marginally less effective than Y and Z" instead of just throwing up a slide that says "X IS STUPID AND WE SHOULDN'T DO IT." Luckily for me, I'm not a very good engineer, so when I'm along for the ride I generally translate well into Managerese.

replies(11): >>45059497 #>>45059692 #>>45060387 #>>45060546 #>>45060993 #>>45061374 #>>45061502 #>>45061640 #>>45062233 #>>45062309 #>>45069863 #
1. jkaptur ◴[29 Aug 25 06:48 UTC] No.45060993[source]▶
PowerPoint actually fine

  - bad communication possible in any medium
  - pptx in NASA even today!
  - issue is managers/SMEs communication differences
    - issues with technical papers
      - long
      - boring
  - vs word, excel, pdf...
(Next slide please)

Manager/SME Differences

  - context vs conclusion 
  - tell a compelling story
    - but give away the ending FIRST 
  - inherent personality differences
  - motivations/incentives/mindsets
(Next slide)

Learning from disasters

  - medium guides message and messenger
  - blame tool - binary choice?
  - presentation aide vs distributed technical artifact
(Next slide)

Questions?

replies(1): >>45061883 #
2. ChrisMarshallNY ◴[29 Aug 25 09:12 UTC] No.45061883[source]▶
Some time ago, I made up a PowerPoint show on effective communication[0].

I’ve found that most folks have no intention of improving their communication effectiveness. Everyone is much happier, blaming the audience.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44202502

replies(1): >>45066766 #
3. wtarreau ◴[29 Aug 25 17:13 UTC] No.45066766[source]▶
Blaming the audience makes sense because after all, they're the ones not getting the message right and not asking the presenter to explain it better. But it remains the presenter's failure to catch their attention better and try to deliver a clear message.

Every time I had a presentation, I tried to analyze the failures (including listening to me when it was recorded, a really painful experience). Certain mistakes such as like having slides on a white background that makes attendees look at the screen and read instead of watching the presenter and listening to him can be devastating. Just because attendees are naturally attracted by light. It's not the audience's fault, it's the presenter's fault (and to some extents the tools in use). A good exercise is to stop slides from time to time during the presentation (i.e. switch to a black one), you'll be amazed how much you suddenly catch the attention, you feel like you're at a theater. It even manages to catch attention of those who were looking at their smartphones because the light in the room suddenly changes.

Also another difficulty which is specific to English native speakers is that many of them initially underestimate the difficulties of the audience to catch certain expressions (with some people it's very hard to distinguish "can" from "can't" for example, which complicates the understanding), or idiomatic ones, or references to local culture, because such things are part of their daily vocabulary. Of course, after a few public talk, when they get questions at the end proving there were misunderstandings, they realize that speaking slower, articulating a bit more and avoiding such references does help with non-native listeners. Conversely, when you present in a language that is not yours, you stick to very simple vocabulary using longer sentences to assemble words that try to form a non-ambiguous meaning. It can probably sound boring for native speakers but the message probably reaches the audience better.

In any case, it definitely always is the presenter's failure when a message is poorly delivered and their responsibility to try to improve this, however difficult this is. It's just important never to give up.