Pecha Kucha "I Duobt""

“Pecha Kucha” : For the first time when I heard that I looked as it might be some Chinese cuisine or might be a name some African sprint racer (I would love to hear from you what you think of the name if you are listening for the first time).

For those who have not yet been exposed to this little wave taking over library land, it’s a presentation, or series of presentations. Speakers go 20 by 20, twenty slides twenty seconds each. The slides are supposed to be artistic and metaphorical, and the content is supposed to hit the high notes. Pecha Kucha (“Chit chat” in Japanese) is another presentation format, much like poster sessions, elevator speeches, or un-conferences. It’s not meant to be a replacement for the traditional conference program that is 45~60 minutes long. You also have to remember that the format comes from the design/art profession where they are used to using an image to convey much more information.

There are a few lessons to be learned from the Pecha Kucha format.s
- It is possible to make a good point in 6 minutes 40 seconds. That also means that 45min session could have at least 6 good points 
- You can have a Pecha Kucha presentation run automatically, which means it can be running on a loop at a poster session or display.
- YouTube has a limit of 10 minute videos, so the Pecha Kucha format is ideal.
- It would make a great exercise for student presentations.

There’s probably more but this is what I can think of at the moment.

At Amdocs's recent internal nerd fest, I participated in my first Pecha Kucha night.

I may be getting myself in trouble here, or possibly get my acceptance to speak rebellion, but I will out myself anyway:  I am not a fan of pecha kucha. I get that bad powerpoint is painful. I get that speakers reading their presentation, word for word, is enervating. And I also get that pecha kucha is really entertaining to sit through. But I think, at its core, pecha kucha is anti-intellectual.  It’s ideas without content, all in broad strokes and generalizations. It feels more about the pretty slides than the meat of the matter. And while I like big ideas, and I like being entertained, I also really like the stuff of the stuff. I want the details. Conferences without the details? are twinkies. and ho hos. I like my conference sessions to be … a little more.

I really find myself left with no option but to enjoy the session as a two min. standup comedy,when the presenter trise to tell me how a Application Manager interacts with Resource Manager with showing me a “Love Birds” on the screen.

Pecha kucha supporters — what am I missing? I’ve watched two, I’ve made one, and I just don’t get it. Is it more than an entertaining trend? tell me what you love about the rapid chatter, either as speaker or audience.

 Halt………………half ways in my blog and after having a good chat with some profound brains around me, ‘m into a fuss. Half of me is in complete agreement, but the other half wants to vigorously disagree.I suspect that a certain measure of the problems I identify derive from the presenter(s), rather than the format. But I also agree that the format doesn’t lend itself to details. Many of them, on the other hand, find that most presentations only give them, at most, one really profound takeaway. They appreciate when someone is forced to deliver that profound takeaway in a very tightly-constructed fashion, rather than stretching it over 30-45 minutes.

 Final Conclusion: Our problem is that this format is totally foreign to us and people haven’t learned how to use it yet. Give it time.