The aftermath

Yesterday was a very hectic day, with lots of discussions.
The collegue who started the whole fuss, did so because seemingly one of the attendees to my presentation had called me "an embarrassment" for the whole company.
I found this what 'stern'language, more so because I value this persons opinion with high egards.
But come on: one presentation embarrasses a whole company of thousands of employees? I find this very hard to believe!
Because of this choice of words other people within my company found it necessary to perform 'damage control' and to set strict rules for presenting at events (even the consultants who have allready got a trackrecord must now submit to a pre-screening), but not only that; the whole external communication policy was now a discussion (what one presentation can cause;
N’est-ce pas?)

There was also an evaluation of my presentation; what it was, what I intended and what it could have been. After some discussion I found out that some parts that I found logical and common knowledge where not in there so that the subject didn't land. Some other parts where also pointed out, like setting the definitions on the usage of jargon. For example: I used the word (test)Strategy which was then perceived as the high-level document on (test)policy within an organisation; I ment the chapter within the testplan on which your 'plan of attack' (strategy) is described).

I've allready made a visual lay-out with help of the V-model to explain the principle. I have even set a couple of new (re-worked) definitions and decided to write a paper on this (which will off course have to be evaluated by a lot of collegues, since this is new policy).
It is to be continued!

I would like to remarkt that I also got a compliment: the presentation technique was OK as was 'the guts' to present on such a controversery / innovative subject.