In my opinion, the presentation lacked fluency mostly because they allowed questions being put during the actual delivery (I haven’t seen this happening at other presentations). Besides this, there was too much time allowed for asking questions. Computer Science students are used to well defined limits.

You are right about the presentation lacking purpose. I said the same thing in the 3rd paragraph. The target of the presentation was not clearly defined, even though somebody wanted to make it clear by asking about it. We both know that Computer Science students do not like ideas not clearly defined. Unfortunately, the target of the presentation was not clearly defined and it remained that way for the rest of the presentation.

Using two year old facts is indeed not worth the image of a big company. I have taken it as an error. As I said in my post, all I remember about the first part was: Tornado is big, Tornado is big, Organizational Flowchart, Tornado is big, solutions, brands, Tornado is big. If that’s what they wanted to tell us, they really succeeded.

As our Educational Psychology teacher said today, Computer Science students expect something from the teacher, they expect input. If the input does not come formatted the right way, they loose interest. I believe this is exactly what happened during this presentation. The delivery was not adapted to Computer Science students (this is a prerequisite of a presentation). It was more oriented towards an exchange of ideas. When the way of receiving information is not given before the information is sent to the listeners, the listeners use the default input format (this is starting to sound a bit technical). Listeners, like you, didn’t know how to receive that input. Decoding the input revealed there might be some communication issue in the middle. When somebody asked why we were called there, the input format was given - useless at that point. Nobody can rewind and apply the input format on the input given in the past.

Other than that, I really liked the 2nd section, the one about networking solutions. The initial delivery was indeed oriented towards people not knowing about networking - which is not entirely true in our case. After some time, the ‘level’ of the vocabulary has risen as the technical questions flowed in. That’s what I call a good live adjustment in presentation delivery.

The last section suffered from a short time-frame (with all the inherent problems). It was mostly oriented towards information, real facts. Computer Science students are used to technical specs. That’s what the last section offered. Other than that, it was nothing special about the delivery of that section.

I believe they planned a loose delivery, not time/plan constrained delivery and that lead to a conflict with the inner workings of the typical Computer Science student.

I wonder how the ASE students would have received it…