Because I have not been fully engaged in this effort my apologies if the
following is redundant to earlier posts. (01)
I suggest that the key output will be the set of elevator speeches. Then these
can be vetted with real prospects and technology management guru's.
A popular elevator speech framework is (after Regis McKenna who put Apple on
the map and had a young employee named Geoff Moore: (02)
We produce (effect) for (beneficiaries).
We differ from (competitors for funding) by (X, Y, and Z)
Our key drivers are (a, b, c.)
Our plan features (m, n, o) which make sense because of (p, q, r) (03)
Ideally less than 40 seconds (100 words). Never more than three of anything.
You know you were successful when they say “Wow, how will you do that?” (04)
Then you get to give them the two minute version. (05)
The Golden Rule applies: He who holds the gold makes the rules, so technology
types are not beneficiaries. There boss is. (06)
Jack (07)
On Mar 3, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Peter Yim wrote: (08)
> Michael and All,
>
>> [MU] I would like for us to have as a stretch goal, to at least have a shot
>at
>> "making the case" in a few paragraphs at the end, say. An elevator case?
>
> [ppy] if you do that at all (the lead editing team's call,
> eventually), I would suggest making (at the least) 6 different
> pitches, one to each of the 6 categories identified ... we have a
> range of sound bites and elevator pitches to choose from (more by the
> time you need them, I hope)
> - see:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_MakingTheCase_CommunityInput
>
> Regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:44 PM, uschold <uschold@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> OK - I think that practically speaking, it may be our only option. And also,
>> it is good to concisely summarize the background work we have done.
>> I would like for us to have as a stretch goal, to at least have a shot at
>> "making the case" in a few paragraphs at the end, say. An elevator case?
>> Michael
>
>
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree: option 1 is the way to go, but with each of the track sections
>>> understanding that they need to direct their material toward the strategy
>>> and the overall goal of "making the case." Probably an Introduction that
>>> describes the overall intent of Ontology Summit 2011 and general issues,
>>> with the individual track section lead-in paragraphs emphasizing how they
>>> view "making the case" in their section, describing their contribution, then
>>> summarizing. Then the Strategy section could pull these together, and in
>>> effect act as summary about how to make the case.
>>>
>>> The more concrete, the better.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Leo
>
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fabian
>>> Neuhaus
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 4:54 PM
>>> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
>>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Communique: makign the case, or summaizing
>>> our results?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>> I believe there is much consensus that it is hard to make the case for
>>> ontology in the abstract, in particular since the presentation needs to
>>> vary depending on the audience. Thus, I would suggest to follow option
>>> 1. The resulting document maybe not more than "solid background material
>>> for writing a document focused on making the case", but in my opinion
>>> that would be a valuable resource to have.
>>> Fabian
>
>
>>> On 3/3/2011 12:13 PM, Michael F Uschold wrote:
>>>> There are two very different ways to write a communique.
>>>> 1. summarize the results of our 5 tracks, tied together in some nice way
>>>> 2. make the case for ontology
>>>> If the former, we can talk about case studies, and the application
>>>> framework etc, and the makign the case part will be discussed in the
>>>> strategy section.
>>>> If the latter, we make no attempt to summarize the tracks per se, we
>>>> just take our best shot at making the caes for ontology, period. This
>>>> is probably more useful, and we can point to output of each track, to
>>>> the extent that they exist. This approach may also be much harder to
>>>> organize, meaning and produce. Having each track lead produce a
>>>> summary of their results is not really much more than solid background
>>>> material for writing a document focused on making the case.
>>>>
>>>> Your thoughts?
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Uschold, PhD
>>>> Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
>>>> LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
>>>> Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (010)
|