Session 09. Exhibition Simulation: From First Contact to an Engineering Project

6 October 2026 · lecture and practical simulation · 1 hour 32 minutes 22 seconds. Source: transcript L5. The names of customers, companies, agreements, partnerships, business locations and some technical cases in the role-play were invented by students as training scenarios; they are not statements of real contracts. The lecturer's subjective cultural and market observations are not verified general laws.

The session's place in the course: from understanding to execution

After creating business cards and a one-pager and reviewing the structure of a proposal, students practise a realistic professional situation. The lecturer takes the role of a potential customer of engineering services (“Otto”, in the scenario, represents a factory-automation company); students represent their own embedded engineering companies. The goal is to acquire a qualified contact and agree on follow-up, not to imitate the immediate signing of a major contract.

The educational route described at the beginning of the session is: attract a client before the first assessment; then structure the project, team and architecture; and afterwards implement an MVP. This is a plan stated in class, not evidence that those stages have already been completed.

1. Preparing the travelling team is an engineering operation

In the scenario, a quarterly business review (QBR) sets an objective: attend an industry exhibition in Europe. The delegation includes engagement and delivery representatives alongside engineers capable of discussing technologies and securing subsequent meetings. The travel function plans routes, overnight stays and work calendars, but attendees should check that the plan allows adequate rest, meetings and preparation.

Exhibition booths require advance logistics: shipping and setting up exhibits, power, monitors, presentation materials, cabling and backup connectivity. The recording advises against relying exclusively on congested Wi-Fi and recommends planning wired networking where a technical demonstration critically depends on connectivity. Rather than uncritically copying a generic equipment list, develop a risk checklist tailored to the particular booth.

2. Meeting KPI: a lead, not a contract

The initial result at an exhibition is a lead—a person or organization expressing an interest. Qualification then asks whether a real problem exists, whether the provider has relevant competence, whether the parties can agree on a meeting and what precise next action follows. An agreed follow-up is a better outcome for this educational simulation than a large pile of random business cards.

An educational conversion model (its coefficients are not empirically estimated):

N_follow-up = N_contact × p_relevant × p_meeting, where N_contact is the number of meaningful contacts, p_relevant is the proportion of contacts with a relevant need, p_meeting is the proportion of relevant contacts that agree to another discussion, and N_follow-up is the expected number of follow-up meetings. This representation helps reason about funnel quality but does not replace CRM data.

3. The first 30 seconds: let the customer speak

A visitor approaches a booth. An unproductive response is to remain silent or immediately begin a generic promotional monologue. A better approach is to greet the visitor, briefly explain the demonstration and ask an open question about their industry and problem. The objective is to establish context rather than win an argument.

In the first scenario, a student offers media-content production services while “Otto” expects industrial production. The example reveals a semantic trap: the word “production” may mean manufacturing physical products or creating media. Clarifying the industry and intended meaning early makes a relevant discussion possible.

4. Technical common ground matters more than a famous brand

During the role-play, student companies position themselves in automotive ECUs, software, ADAS, embedded safety, UAVs, mechanics and automation. The “customer” repeatedly tests their claims: What exactly do you do? What is your technical expertise? Where does it overlap with my problem? Can you demonstrate it?

A company that can explain a concrete module, interface, testing tool, constraint and result has a stronger technical case than one that simply lists recognizable OEM names. All customers and partnerships named in fictional student scenarios must be labelled as role-play examples and not claimed as actual references.

5. Vendor, customer or partner: understand your role

One of the central lessons is that a team must know whom it is looking for before travelling. If the objective is to become a vendor, examine the prospective customer's needs. If your company is sourcing a manufacturing subcontractor, the questions and value proposition are different. A third model is joint development and shared risk, unexpectedly proposed by a student. This requires separate consideration of IP rights, financing, the allocation of risks and benefits, and governance.

6. Walking away from a bad deal can also be a successful outcome

In one dialogue, “Otto” seeks direct access to the student company's existing customers. The student recognizes a possible conflict of interest. Rather than automatically handing over contacts, the provider should clarify the purpose of the request and check contractual and confidentiality restrictions. Ending an unproductive conversation may protect existing customer relationships.

Another character, “Udo”, plays a representative of a division within a well-known OEM. A shared technical area and an opportunity for a verifiable internal introduction provide grounds for a next meeting. Nevertheless, the real identities and contact details of other clients must not be disclosed without appropriate permission.

7. Cultural context without stereotypes

The transcript contains the lecturer's personal observations about German business culture, world regions, pricing and geopolitical risk. In academic notes, these must be read as subjective experiences rather than universal characteristics of countries or people. A practical rule for students is to investigate the purchasing requirements, regulatory restrictions, export controls, confidentiality rules and preferences of the actual person involved. Nationality-based assumptions are no substitute for due diligence.

Discussions of risks arising from war must be truthful, professional and respectful of safety. They must not expose confidential information or offer false guarantees of uninterrupted delivery. Describing real organizational resilience measures is more useful than giving unsupported assurances.

8. After recording a contact: actions during the same day

Immediately after the discussion, record the person, company, profile, specific problem, competencies demonstrated, risks or objections, promised materials and planned next contact. Subject to company policy, transfer this information to the engagement team and CRM. Distinguish between “someone accepted a business card” and “a follow-up meeting was agreed”.

If the visitor passes the booth again the next day, aggressive repeat selling can be counterproductive. A greeting is enough; further communication should proceed through the team channel already agreed.

9. From a company presentation to the next engineering step

After the simulation, each team prepares up to ten substantive slides for the follow-up: who we are, our industry, technical capabilities and evidence, resources, locations, cooperation model, possible deliverables and projected stages. In the lecturer's example, the presentation includes title, agenda, offices, selected clients, partnerships, capabilities, engagement model, technologies and field tests. Unverified logos and actual NDA-protected customer information must not be used.

The next stage in the course is: follow-up meeting → RFI / course-specific RFC / RFQ → proposal → Jira or GitHub Project → MVP. This is how the academic simulation leads into planning real engineering delivery.

10. Individual assignment

1. Define the exhibition objective for your company: act as vendor, buyer or partner.
2. Conduct a three-minute dialogue with a “customer”; record the need, constraints and next step.
3. Evaluate whether the lead is qualified: technical relevance, usable contact and permission for follow-up.
4. Record the meeting in a CRM or training table without confidential customer data.
5. Create a presentation of up to ten slides for follow-up; verify all engineering claims and rights to use references.
6. Prepare five discovery questions leading from a business problem toward a future measurable system requirement.

Self-check questions

• How does a lead differ from a signed order?
• Why is it risky for a vendor to drift unintentionally into the role of a buyer?
• At what point does demonstrated competence matter more than the brand name?
• How can customer contacts be protected and conflicts of interest avoided?
• Which artifacts are required to progress from follow-up to architecture and an MVP plan?

Forecast for the next one or two sessions, based on the source

The following session was planned to cover the follow-up meeting, collection of RFI/RFC information and drafting of a proposal; the subsequent stage would address creating a Jira or GitHub Project and implementing an MVP. In the transcript, this is an announced plan, not a confirmed account of work already completed.