I have read many students and friends in the industry about the ppt content of rank promotion, and I have also provided some suggestions for improvement. I have made a summary these two days, and I still hope that I can help you. Of course, it is easy to ask questions, and the actual situation will be somewhat different from what I said. Everyone should not sit in the right place. In essence, I hope to provide some suggestions for improvement. My suggestions for improvement are divided into four categories: basic rules, content format, content form and icing on the cake.
1. Abide by the basic rules
1. Don't use a unified ppt template
2. Adjust the contents of the table of contents at will
3. The time limit for reply is serious
4. Argue with the judges
5. Answer irrelevant questions
2. Content format
1. The content is too short, for example, only 4~6. If there are 41 pages
3. Repeat the whole text, Not refined
4. There are too few cases
5. There are only pictures without words
6. The prompt in the template has not been deleted
7. There are obvious typos
8. The font difference is too large
9. The title is named too casually
11. The selected icon may be misleading
3. Content form
(1) Picture category
1. Key mistakes to be highlighted in the picture
2. Too many dimensions in the brain map
3. Proportional distortion in the picture
3 indicators ABC, trying to highlight indicator C, but the difference between A and B is too big. C can't be displayed
4. Meaningless map
7. Architecture map doesn't conform to the specification
8. The cited data source is not authoritative
(2) Table
1. The hierarchical relationship is fuzzy
2. Results are lack of quantification
3. It is expected to reach 111% after numerical accumulation. But it is too big or too small
4. Too much emphasis
5. The format of key explanations is not uniform, some are bold and some are marked in red. Some are green
(3) cases
1. Cases are projects with controversial background
2. Projects that are not self-led or have low participation
3. Excessive denial of other people's work
4. Inconsistent case information
5. Introducing too many details, showing too much technology failure
6. Using high words. In fact, it is repetitive work
7. It seems to solve the big problem, but there is no application scenario
8. It only highlights the platform value and does not reflect the personal value
9. The expression and results are distorted
11. Personal reflection has no grasp. Generally speaking
11. The conclusion of the case is a long paragraph
4. icing on the cake
1.ppt marks the page number/total page number
2. The model of time axis describes a long-term construction work
3. Frankly communicate the shortcomings and shortcomings in the work
4. Quantify the work effect through a clear formula
5.