Episode 29: Making Sure Q&A Is Consistent with Your Authentic Story

March 12, 2025

In my upcoming workshop for The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, I will discuss the case-solving process's question-and-answer period. On my YouTube channel, I have a video titled "The Scary Q&A Session," as some former team members have described the Q&A session as intimidating. Over the years, I have experienced moments during this session where, as the coach, I have watched my team's opportunity to place or win slip away. Conversely, it is also a time when other teams have performed exceptionally well, leading to their successful placement. I want to explore the factors that contribute to these outcomes.

The four key factors that make a difference include:

• Consistency and not being contradictory
• Greater Persuasiveness
• Provide Greater Clarity and Detail
• Being Efficient

These factors are ranked in order of importance as listed above.

Consistency and Not Being Contradictory

When participating in a Q&A session, it is crucial that the answers provided are consistent and do not contradict the solution you have presented. Failing to do so can quickly undermine your credibility and erode the judges' confidence in your work. Although such situations are uncommon, this will eliminate any chance of placing in the competition.

More frequently, issues arise from a lack of consistency among presenters when responding to questions. Contradicting previous answers can also diminish your persuasiveness with the judges. It is essential to maintain clarity and cohesion in your responses to enhance your chances of success.

Greater Persuasiveness

The Q&A session reveals areas where the judges may not have found your presentation persuasive, giving you a second opportunity to clarify your points. You need to pay close attention to what the judges are asking and tailor your responses to their questions. I frequently observe this common mistake as both a coach and a judge: teams often fail to listen carefully and assume they understand what the judge is asking. If you do not fully grasp a question, asking the judges for clarification is important. Additionally, if the judges do not receive the expected answer, they may rephrase the question. However, this could reduce the efficiency of the Q&A session.

Provide Greater Clarity and Detail

If you have effectively presented your authentic story, the Q&A session should see questions seeking greater clarity and the chance to provide more detail about your narrative. To prepare, consider the questions judges might ask during the resolution phase and include detailed talking points in your appendices. However, be careful not to omit essential details from your presentation, given the time constraints. I encourage my teams to view the Q&A as an opportunity and to look forward to it as a way to continue to sell their solution.

 Being Efficient

I always emphasise to my teams the importance of ensuring that each judge has the opportunity to ask at least one question. If they can ask as many questions as there are minutes in the Q&A session, that indicates efficient communication.

The key is to be concise with your answers. If necessary, let the judges request additional information. Stay focused on addressing the question asked and avoid providing excessive information that may lead you off track.

Be precise in your responses, and in some cases, simple answers like "no," "yes," or "absolutely" may suffice. Allow the judges to guide the conversation. Additionally, try to minimise input from other team members unless it is absolutely necessary and significantly enhances the response already given.

Take Control

One important aspect of Q&A strategies I discuss with teams is the importance of taking control of the session. This involves anticipating the questions judges might ask and preparing thoughtful responses. When responding, it’s crucial to listen carefully to each question and take a moment to formulate your answer rather than feeling rushed. Additionally, aim to be concise in your responses, allowing judges opportunities to ask follow-up questions rather than trying to guess what they may want to hear.