by Fred Steinhauser, OMICRON electronics GmbH, Austria
Most presentations or conference sessions conclude with Questions & Answers.
The presenters eagerly wait for questions, but what they get asked is
sometimes not what they wish for
Q&A sessions are intended to provide a technical discussion of the subject of the
presentations, but they can also turn into a diverse challenge.
It starts with the way questions are asked, often humbly introduced by the questioner that it may be a silly question, which is, of course, prompted by responder that there are no silly questions. Other presenters are trained to prompt any question with “great question!” in the first place. Good questions ask for clarifications or further details. Really great questions from the view of the presenters provide the opportunity to emphasize on certain points or even add arguments that had been forgotten to mention during the actual talk.
And of course, there are valid critical questions if the talk contains questionable, controversial or provocative statements, but that’s fair. Sometimes, the Q&A is used for stating a comment instead of asking a question, which can be a good thing if kept in bounds.
Receiving questions is in itself a form of recognition, confirming that the audience has noticed what had been said and that the topic was interesting enough to follow up. Well-prepared session chairs have questions ready themselves in case no one in the audience asks, so they don’t have to let a presenter leave without being asked. But there are also questions of very disturbing nature and they seem to follow a pattern.
I remember a very interesting presentation at an international protection conference. The topic was an innovative protection concept. It was given by a young engineer who possibly had her first appearance on such an event. The concept included the use of time synchronization, as many modern concepts do. But the presenter was careless enough to mention that GNSS receivers were used to implement the proof of concept, although this was not at all essential for the core message of the talk.
Then the Q&A came, and the first question asked was one that entirely neglected the essence of the matter presented. The questioner stated that there are known GNSS vulnerabilities and if this had been considered during the development of the protection concept.
The presenter was noticeably confused by this question. She was for sure prepared to answer anything regarding the protection concept, but understandably not such side issues which she has possibly never been asked to investigate. Not surprising, her response was bumpy and the whole Q&A was fouled by that, what I consider, inadequate question.
The same thing can happen when a matter presented builds upon communication – and which important concept of today doesn’t?
The related disturbing question is one stating concerns about cyber security …
Don’t get me wrong: both topics, reliable time synchronization and cyber security, are very important. But they are not unsolved problems which need to be mentioned at any occasion. And the solutions must be part of the infrastructure and should not be brought up on a case-by-case basis. For discussing innovative technical concepts, it can be assumed that such a proper infrastructure is in place.
Even experienced presenters, when completely immersed in their topic, can be thrown off by unexpected questions as described. Therefore, preparing for such situations should become best practice. It helps to deal with the situation confidently and respond politely.
Biography:
Fred Steinhauser studied Electrical Engineering at the Vienna University of Technology, where he obtained his diploma in 1986 and received a Dr. of Technical Sciences in 1991. He joined OMICRON and worked on several aspects of testing power system protection. Since 2000 he worked as a product manager with a focus on power utility communication. Since 2014 he is active within the Power Utility Communication business of OMICRON, focusing on Digital Substations and serving as an IEC 61850 expert. Fred is a member of WG10 in the TC57 of the IEC and contributes to IEC 61850. He is one of the main authors of the UCA Implementation Guideline for Sampled Values (9-2LE). Within TC95, he contributes to IEC 61850 related topics. As a member of CIGRÉ he is active within the scope of SC D2 and SC B5. He also contributed to the synchrophasor standard IEEE C37.118.
