Have you ever had an experience that ended up meaning a lot to you? perhaps even seemingly out of proportion with the thing itself? You know, like getting a particularly complicated peice on the piano right, or completely reciting a poem without mistakes, or getting a dance step right, or just saying the perfect thing at the perfect time, or getting a wee prize or note of recognition, and having it mean the world. Those kind of experiences where response does not *seem* proportionate to the thing inspiring the response.
That kind of thing happened to me recently after completing the RKC, the Russian Kettlebell Challenge instructor certification course. i'd been training for this for the better part of a year. So ok, you say, naturally, that kind of effort, one's going to feel pleased with its successful completion. Ah ha, i say, granted. But there seems to be something else going on - and i hadn't gotten my head round what it is. But i knew for sure, Something Happened.
In the following post i walk through some of what i think that Something may be - and that it has a whole lot less to do with the thing itself - the specifics of what the course was teaching (though that was grand) - than the principles that seemed to be embodied in the way the course was delivered.
Technorati Tags: kettlebell, Pavel Tsatsouline
A single kettlebell in rest state
The Basics: the course itself as part of the experience
My first question is why would a three day certification course in a fitness center's gym and field somewhere outside Copenhaggen have engendered what might be refered to as a Profound Effect?
I've come to the view in thinking through this experience that the material for the course is almost immaterial to getting at what i'm trying to get at, but for the sake of information and complete context, it might be worth reviewing what the RKC Cert is about. It's about refining one's own technique in basic kettlebell swings and learning how to teach, analyze and tweak the technique of others for these same moves.
Kettlebells, just to get that clear as well, are more or less round iron bells/balls with handles on them. The movements with these things are particular because they are *movements.* The handle is used to enable these things to be swung - with one or two hands - from between one's legs to over one's head. There are skills to learn to do this well - so as not to wrench shoulders or dislocate spines. It sounds intense, but the thing of it is, practiced right, these moves are excellent for what ails ya - i've writen more on that elsewhere.
The purpose of taking the course: because of all the good these things can do, and because they take up little space and so can be used anywhere one can swing a cat, i happen to have a couple at work, and i want to be able to show folks how great these are - and show them safely.
Now if one wishes to teach another how to do something, it's generally seen as a good idea (a) to make sure one knows how to carry out the process correctly oneself and (b) understands how to address at least the common problems that come up when showing other folks the same. Hence the desire to take the course.
Two Kettlebells from the first kettlebell division of the kb mitosis process
Why the RKC?
As with anything, there is more than one way to swing a cat or a kettlebell. So why *this* course? There are at least a few styles of kettlebelling, and many more weekend certs. Where i live alone there are at least three organizations - and these not including the one i went to nor one other large one in the states - that offer courses that say you are a certified instructor upon successful completion.
I wanted to do the RKC in particular because of its provenance / pedigree. Elsewhere i've charted how i found kettlebells, via trusted sources like Clarence Bass who has nothing but good things to say about the lead instructor of the RKC, Pavel Tsatsouline. Now, i have as many DVDs (and reviewed 'em) of as many other KB heros as a person probably can have, and if their authors showed up in town, i'd surely take a class with them, but for teaching, which includes not only the technique but the analysis of and solutions for problems with that technique, i keep coming back to the RKC. It seems over a period of years of developing the approach, the technique for getting at the basics and doing those key moves clearly, effectively and well in order to achieve strength and conditioning has been thought through extremely well. And *most* of the other Big Boys on the KB scene got their initial training from this very same source, this very same person. So, decision made on that one. RKC for me.
ASIDE: I should make clear that health and fitness is a passion; it is not my main gig. As i've been asked on more than one occaision, therefore. "so why are you doing this?" since the majority of RKC participants are people for whom their livelihood is training of one form or another. Me, i'm an academic; and on really good days, perhaps, a scholar. I schol, sir. When i''m interested in something, i love to learn about it, study it, and especially communicate what i find back to others (often by courses taught or via papers). My students know that of late my research has been looking at Quality of Life and how computer science may be able to do something to support enhancing it (short paper outlines some of this if you're interested). Understanding how we move, can move better; understanding how our bodies actually work to support our minds seems a signficant part to approaching questions of how computers may actually be able to help us make the space for rather than steal time from what is important about being brains in bodies. So, for me i hope to develop the research connection, but fundamentally as well, it feels increasingly like a responsibility as a teacher to be able to offer a more wholistic approach of brain/body to the learning/supervision of students. More on that some other time.
Technique Adjustment
Ok, that said, what about this profound certification experience?
So, yes, prepped for it since last summer. so yes, makes sense passing the thing would be important. That would be a Happy Thing to have worked towards a goal and have the validation of the certificate at the end to say You Did It. Fine.
Within the cert there's a strong focus on one's own technique development. It was both a surprise and a joy to find that my technique was improving throughout the progress of the weekend; things were clicking. In other words, it wasn't just going in, learning a new skill and being tested on early mastery; it was also getting something i'd been working on for some time and cared about was getting better - i was seeing more - that was also a joyful thing. It was also a scary thing to see how much there is to see about another person's technique and without that deep knowledge, we're sufficient to teach. wow. This is not unique to fitness: there are a range of expertises equally qualified to teach the same intro material, and some Newbies do better than experienced hands, but generally, i wonder if say professional drivers wake up in the middle of the night in fear thinking about how little the rest of us know and we're entrusted with these 2 ton beasts.
I'm digressing, and still ain't even at the good part.
kettlebell mitosis continues rapidly
Organization
The structure of the weekend is based around teams with assistant instructors on each team, and team leaders on each course, working with the key instructor. The notion of team is important: it's an easier unit to manage than a whole huge group to make sure that practice of drills is going well for each candidate. While the model is designed for efficacy, the effect is a certain development of team spirit; team identification. The teams however come into the main circle frequently enough for key instruction sessions that there is also a group feel. I was not aware of inter group rivalry. This may be because each of the team leads also lead parts of the course as a whole and were regularly supported by each other without reference to team. So good vibe on the ground.
So, so far, we have a feeling of happiness from passing a course after much practice. A good feeling on personal technique improving and new things to share. A good enviroment for work and support in the field. For instance, there was a terrific warm up/recharge in QiJong lead by the company founder John Du Cane on the last day of the course. That was awesome. And that certainly shows a thoughtfulness and caring about the design of the program that each morning we were treated to a slightly different style of warm up to help us increasingly worn candidates continue. But these program approaches do not quite get at that uber-compelling component.
Interaction
I think the ghestalt effect that takes the course beyond the excellent approach to training, practice and technique is the how the interaction within the teaching team is modelled. There is an obvious respect from the members of the team for each other. As said, they support each other when one of the other is leading part of the course. By support i mean literally support. They fetch and carry, anticipaing what the other may need; they are obviously impressed by each other's own skills; when you hear them talk with each other there is playfulness, and respect respect respect and admiration. This is not just the team leads' response for Pavel Tsatsouline, though that is plain; it's for each other. It's also plain that respect had been earned.
In my own case, i went from observing this phenomenon among the team thinking that's cool, to starting to feel it within my own team and self. My team lead, Will Williams is an awesomely powerful Big Ex-Marine Guy and someone i would likely be too afeared to approach in any other context. And yet in the course he was not the typical big guy stereotype marine bad ass at all (though heh, i bet he could be). He was just bloody *nice* - he was positive, encouraging, very good at spotting technique points and offering ways to address them. That all sounds great - and really we've all i hope had experiences where a good teacher makes the difference between getting it or getting bummed, but i had my own Ah Ha moment when he actually demonstrated a particular technique for me. It was SO gorgeous and graceful - it was completely unexpected. Admiration hit right there. Why? becuase this is not someone just doing a move; this is someone who had plainly worked on the technique and acheived grace with it: when a process moves from technique to art, to expression of something else beside the move, that's amazing to behold. It's like the difference between someone playing a piece of music with technical proficiency, and someone else with that same piece breathing LIFE into it - that's art, no? I hadn't expected a front squat with a kettlebell to reach artistic expression - mine sure hasn't - but Will's did. AND he's a NICE guy, who can teach. That's what you call Role Model. That's Inspiring. Someone who not only talks the talk - and a great lecturer he is - but clearly walks the walk. Respect. Have you ever had that experience where someone makes this kind of connection for you, and you just look at them differently, like something special has been revealed in that moment? It's an insight, to be sure, isn't it.
On reflection, therefore, it makes sense why these guys have these kinds of responses to each other that i was having about Will Williams: they've seen each other up close like i saw will. They've had this experience of the support, encrouagement and personal expertise, carried with respect that i saw. No wonder their eyes seem to shine a bit.
Compare and Contrast: RKC with Any Other Professional Gathering
And now we're getting closer to what i think was the particularly special bit for me at the course. I go to conferences all the time. At these conferences i see many many colleagues, all of us toiling away at pushing the boundaries of our wee part of the field a little further out. As with any community ya get to know each other; you may even work with subsets of these folks on committees so even more up close and personal. I can't think of a time where i've seen people's eyes light up overjoyed at seeing *each one* of their colleagues in such settings. Can you? When was the last time you saw that? Or when people really wanted to be in the room to hear what someone else had to say *even if* that person had been asked to give a similar talk previously, and they'd heard it before. You know, what is THAT?
It's the Code
The sytle of an organization is framed by its leadership. Such, it became increasingly clear, is plainly the case in the RKC space. One of the things i really liked about the prereqs for the RKC course was to be ready to abide by the posted code of conduct: in becoming certified, a candidate is agreeing to uphold this code of practice. It includes things like.....the very things modelled throughout the course by the leadership team. It's taken seriously: an entire teaching session was dedicated to this Code in what it means to be an RKC and Team Leads Jon Engum and Doug Nepodal gave powerful presentations around and about this code.
The RKC Code of Conduct (from the RKC cert page)
I am an RKC therefore I shall:
1. Represent my school with honor in my professional and personal life.
2. Treat my ‘victims’ with respect and tough love.
3. Carry my strength with modesty. Remember that my job is to teach, not to impress.
4. Never overstep the boundaries of my expertise and be humble enough to say, “I don’t know.”
5. Never stop improving my instructor skills and enhancing my own strength.
6. Conduct myself as a gentleman or a lady in public places, including the Internet. Exhibit restraint, the hallmark of a professional.
Should I violate the code my RKC certificate may be revoked.
The RKC program is not a just trainer certification program but a school of strength. A school proud of what it stands for: the gold standard of instruction, integrity, and quiet professionalism.
Prior to the course i thought the code was a good idea because of the tennor it seemed to help set in the discussion forums hosted by Dragon Door, where folks ask a lot of questions about technique or share recent personal bests. It is *far more* respectful in its exchanges than many similar such spaces on the net.
After watching the team leads interact throughout the certification, however, the code became something more to me, and it's also where i got a little worried. I began thinking "i'm an RKC: i have a responsibility to this group to carry myself a particular way because, as they said, this is a small community, and one RKC's conduct reflects back on the group, and the group will also react to that, because they value their reputation."
And that's what got me worried: i could feel myself thinking as i stood talking with the hotel desk staff discussing a list of problems with my room "i'm (about to be) an RKC: i have to deal with this person humbly and respectfully while addressing this problem as i am representing the School in this interaction while here for this cert."
WHAT??!! Good greif. When i heard part of myself talking like that i *knew* there was something funny going on that i needed to unpack, which motivated this post. I had to think, well, what if i wasn't "an RKC" , would i be interacting any differently? I hope not, but there was certainly an extra omph there because of that talk about The Code the day before.
So the profound question of how do i define myself started to press: i do not want to define myself as an RKC and be motivated to act from that, because what happens if something takes that away (nihilistic or what, eh?) - suppose something happens and i can't swing again, or recertify (yes, as with any pro certification there is a requirement for renewing one's skills every two years) or whatever. Does that mean i would feel like a lesser person? I try to ask myself this about any accomplishment - am i defined by it such that if they were lost i would think of myself as less than i am now?
I think what occured to me as i heard this inner voice bursting with pride about "being an RKC; i uphold the code!" is that fundamentally (yes, we're there at last) it's the code of the RKC and how i found it embodied in the leadership team, their interactions with each other and their interactions with us candiditates that inspired me.
Walking the Walk - Really
The final straw here (in a good way) was the last effort of the day: the grad walk. We had heard this was gruelling, and were encouraged by instructors to just "grit it out." The description felt horrible. The reality was that it was instructor lead. Team Lead Jon Engum *lead* this walk, did every step with the whole group, and every person on the team was out on the field encouraging and supporting their team across the field and across the line. That (a) a team lead did the actual event with us and (b) everyone supported everyone else again just walked the walk. Carry your stregnth humbly. Respect each other. I was completely blown away by this participation approach rather than, what is clearly not part of the code, you're on your own go crawl across the field on your own. model model model.
Thinking about Steven Covey's Principle Centered Leadership, or really any of his work, he speaks of leadership - of oneself or of others - as being based on principles. The principles of the RKC, fundamentally, are what resonate with me and what i think is important. I don't demonstrate these traits all of the time - perhaps not alot of the time - but they're where i want to be. For example, carrying strenght humbly. Now, what is my strength? Compared either to the extremely wirey and strong guys or the very powerful gals at the cert, i am but a wee white woman with a bad back. But there's other stuff where i'm strong that is important to carry humbly. Again, if i lost it, what would happen? is that how i define myself? Humility is important. Any of the things by which we define ourselves can be taken. Principles, ways of being in the world, these cannot.
Principles are fine, in principle. Embodying them is challenging. And yet, this is what was happening during the cert. Principles rarely expressed explicitly except for those discussions about the code and what it means to be an RKC, but demonstrated, constantly, repeatedly, on a variety of levels. These guys were not just turning it on for a show and turning it off at the end of the day and telling folks to bugger off while they powdered their noses.
Turtles all the way Down
Indeed, it's a credit to the leadership, that the modelling among the team leads themselves and with their team had such a profound effect on us (well me, for sure but it seemed to be an "us") - that the experience may be remembered more for this interaction than solely in the individual engagement with the Russian (as one team lead references him) himself. This is not to sell Pavel short: as Senior Instructor and Team Lead Mark Reifkind put it after one session pavel lead working with a candidate on tuning a performance issue "That was a master class in strategies of working through techniques" - and it was - but Pavel did not get in any Team Lead's way; indeed he was as supportive of them as they were of him and each other. again taking notes from Covey, Covey asks of Leaders, are you grooming your successor, or is there this sense that once the Leader is gone, that's the end of the organization. The way that this group demonstrated its interactions and expertise, it's cleat that the RKC *is* a school or organization or whatever one might wish to call it that is a ghestalt, or Covey's term, synergistic. While it obviously strongly flows from the vision of a leader, it is also nuturing leaders. In one of Covey's more recent books - the 8th habit - he talks of this practice as empowerment by finding your own voice AND helping others find theirs. There seemed to be a lot of that at play here. Clear vision, solid principles. It's compelling
Here's an example: In the evening on that last day in Copenhaggen, i was chatting with Team Lead Dr. Mark Cheng - he went to the Cert in the capacity of a Team Assistant even though he's a Team Leader, just to be there. He works with Pavel a lot - and he was saying how much he trusted Pavel, and where he leads, and i thought wo. that's pretty intense. But, i have to confess, i had my own nervana experience, as said, with Team Lead Will, where ya, if he was doing something and needed a hand, and i could be there, i would work to make that happen. And i don't even know this guy. And this is just swinging a kettlebell, right? right? so what's with that? The power of the 8th habit? Of finding your own voice and helping someone find theirs? That that also inspires trust?
That that happens in such a setting again is the testament to the model mirrored out from the top. (If he hasn't, Steven Covey ought to do an RKC cert).
It's the Model Embodied
So i think, i hypothesize, that it's those principles embodied in the Team and its interactions that created that warm bright eyed vibe observed among the instructor pose that gets at that gestalt effect where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It's those Code principles modeled or enacted that, it seems, implicitly inspires these folks themselve to keep up and refine their skills, not as something to show off (only), but as a responsibility to hold up their end of the experience among each other as a benefit of the School, the Team, the Organization, the overall strength of the RKC. The kettlebell is incidental to the Way. Did i just say that? yes i did. What Way? I dunno but that way, and i want more of it.
As i've said before, (and it seems with noticeably increased frequency) life is short. Being among a cadre of people who not only had this love for each other but were also open to their students is pretty cool. These was no clique feeling from the leadership team: anyone was welcome to sit down with a group of instructors over lunch, and they were made to feel just as much a part of a discussion as anyone else. When was the last time you went to a group event in your professional community where you felt that kind of unstratefied easy-going-ness?
You might say well perhaps this was a unique event of everything aligning under the stars; it's a fluke. Maybe, gut the responses from participants from other certs would seem to suggest otherwise.
This entry may sound, well, i was going to say flakey, but flakey to me generally means wishy washy. A pal of mine referred to psycho-emotional discourse as "urfy flurfy" - perhaps this is sounding all aglow and agog with urfi-flurfiness. But it's real urfy-flurfiness, dam it. it is trying to get at the sorts of things that cause us to be willing to trust, to follow, to be lead, rather than about, oh, i don't know, 6 new ways to do a swing. Not that 6 new ways to do a swing aren't important, but they're just a way of getting there. There is no spoon; there is no kettlebell. What there? plainly more unpacking to do, eh?
So the biggie here, is about what these folks (mainly men at this event - but that is changing) model while also happening to teach kettlebell technique. And it's a precious thing, to see this kind of respect. Life is short, and in a usual professional day that is so rarely enriched by anything approximating persistent, joyful interhuman interaction, getting three days of it in a row full on is rather a profound experience. i think, i hypothesize, that that sense may be something that moved all of us. Yes there was the bonding among the candidates of working concurently through a tough experience, but there was this Other Thing, this modeling of the such interaction. I want that. I want to be around something like that more, and more often.
So in the interim, this experience may suggest that my task, again drawing on Covey's notion of effecting one's own circle of influence, is to see what i can do to bring that experience into my own zone. Which is a new reason for taking the cert: i now have some new strategies, i think, to help do that, and in particular some new (role) models of how to do that, of how to help create a space where people are glad to see each other, motivate and inspire each other.
in the right environment, such as we see here, kettlebell asexual reproduction proceeds at a rapid rate. Mature kettlebells here seen taking on nutrients- all photos j.du Cane, May 2008
i'm sorry this is so long. I need to think about how to make the message shorter and pithier, but the take away seems to be, at least for me, that if you want to be inspired by a model of how a successful group full of anachronistic idividuals interacts effectively, the RKC is where it happens. The cert, while the instruction is great, the environment super, has more to offer than only this level of excellence. It's a model of principle enacted leadership.
mc, phd, cscs, rkc
That local Call that was Free and Normal Service 18 months ago now costs Fifty Thousand Pounds
A few years ago when we arrived from Canada, we went to the bank branch close to where we would live, met with the branch manager and set up various accounts and credit cards. The manager, Simon, kindly gave us his card and said be sure to call anytime. He also told us about places in town for good eats, and places to avoid "Oh yes, that's where i got mugged." Personal service! It was great.
There were very few times we actually had cause to call Simon, but it was lovely to be able to speak with him. We were sad when he moved and wrote the head office a nice letter about how grand he'd been.
That was then. Over the past year or so our branch is no longer a "branch" - it's been re-designated a "service branch" which means it has no manager (if one thinks this downsizing is due to the bank losing money, it's not: they made £11.7BILLION profit last year). If we want to talk with a manager now we cannot call that branch up the road directly; we have to call a call center in India, answer a barrage of security questions ("But i just want a call back; why do you need my date of birth?") and hope that someone local gets back to us.
The main high street banks have now come up with a new Premier Service: they will once again give you a direct local line to your branch manager *if* you have either £50k in savings or make £75k a year AND have a mortgage of 250K or more (see any of the big 4 for their version of same). What was once free, and a default part of banking in England has now become the privilege of the well-heeled few. £50k. For a name and a local phone number.
12 billion in profit and the bank wants 50K for a local phone number. Is that the definition of obscene or have i missed something?
And if you haven't the money reserves to get you into this Premier league of service, count on continuing to be considered suspect each time you pick up the phone and want to ask a question. Your call center will be asking the questions here, bub. And you better be fast with the right answers, or suffer the consequences: getting your call dropped; having your internet access suspended, and/or having a note on your file that you refused to answer security questions.
Don't let anyone tell you there ain't no class system here. As far as UK's big banks are concerned, they've just re-enginered it with a vengeance.
I am a fan of Etymotic's ipod ear cannel headphones, the Etymotic ER6i's. I've reviewed them as great, affordable entry level higher end headphones that can really change your ipod listening experience. They are also great noise eliminators with no need for a battery to get that noise cancellation to work.
Recently, i've also learned that Etymotic provides exceptional, beyond the call of duty, customer support. If you're weighing up options of a company to get your next phones from, besides thinking about quality of product, this tale of after sales support may encourage you to look at this specialist group for their excellent work and quality of support.
Technorati Tags: etymotic, gear, service, support
Here's the story. I bought a pair of ER6i's about 18months ago that went flakey on me about 9 months ago. By flakey i mean that one side was cutting in and out, and finally, pretty much just out. I thought well, that's me: i've just treated them too unkindly and maybe that's why they've turned south. When i can i'll get a new pair. In the interim, the price on these phones has come down almost 50%! making them an even better deal than when i first reviewed them. So i got another set 4 months ago. Truth to tell, i used them rarely as my listening habits in the past four months have changed somewhat. They spent most of their time safely in their case (an excellent redesign of the previous pouch - so an even better value than the earlier phones yet again). I was therefore hugely surprised to find that one day, on plugging them in, the left channel was dead.
I thought oh dang, now i have to deal with customer support and warranties - where's the bill where's the bill. I looked at the warranty page on the web site (they actually make it easy to access right from the main page of the web site) and learned that there was a 12 month warranty on these puppies.
That's when i felt like a fool: when my first set died, they were under warranty; now they weren't. But at least the current set were. I wrote customer support whom it turns out i'd written about a year before to ask about filters for the original phones and they'd been great then. This time i was writing though to ask about two things:
First, i was asking how do i proceed to do a warranty claim on the new headphones.
Second, i asked if there was any chance they'd look at the old headphones, even though they were now 6 months out of warranty and it's my fault for not thinking of that sooner.
The response and subsequent interaction was amazing. The customer support person - it turns out the same person i'd dealt with previously, said yes send them both along! That's the first great thing. The second is that i said i'd be in the states for a bit and perhaps if they were able to turn around checking them out, they'd be able to send them to me in the US, rather than back to the UK where it would take me awhile to catch up with them. Yes again - please give us both addresses and we'll do what we can.
And they did. Within a week they were out of my hands, in their shop, and then back to me.
The third great thing, that just blew me away is that in the return box, there was only one pair of headphones. The second had not made it. When i asked about this via email, they were extremely apologetic and said they'd send out that replacement pair via UPS red and that i'd have them the NEXT morning. Now, my email asking about the missing pair went to them late that afternoon. UPS red is not cheap, but they opted to use this service so i'd have both pairs before i left the country. I wrote back to say it's ok; please just send them to the UK by whatever means: i have the one pair now i can use; the other can follow. But no, there they were the next morning. There was even an extra couple sets of ear tips - i'd asked why the tips were now grey rather than white on the replacement pair. Apparently they're all going to this better grade grey tip, but since i expressed a preference for white, the extras were included with this next set.
Now, every step of that experience, from looking after an out of warranty repair, to facilitating a particular shipping request, to recovering from the smallest of errors with the greatest of grace, every step here was a demonstration of a company going above and beyond the written letter of their warranty, beyond customer satisfaction, and getting to customer delight.
It's experiences like this, along with great product to start with, that build customer loyalty for sure.
Here's a shout out to Maureen Defoort of Etymotic Customer Service and to a company that supports this kind of care.
Yet another reason to recommend these excellent headphones.
The UK Government wants to push through ID Cards to use biometric data to connect the card, its data ("basic personal information") and its owner. Uh huh. While one can theoretically imagine how such a scheme would work (and the govn't is dealing in theory since its own site says it doesn't know yet what the cards will actually be like), you would be hard pressed to find any technologist (not funded by a biometrics company) who would say that such a scheme is practical at scale. Indeed, the summary of the consultation exercise on ID cards, which found largely against the practicality or efficacy of such a scheme is - no longer to be found on the Govn't web site. You can still find news articles quoting various computer science experts who spoke to the committee on the multiple problems with ID cards.
And you'd think that such concerns might be part of why the house of lords chucked out the ID Card Bill yesterday. Apparently, though, they were worried about costs - the fact that they weren't well enough defined by the government. Who knows, maybe that's a really good first act rejection: because if the government comes back with a better cost breakdown, perhaps the House will get to the gnarly question of "how can we trust those figures."
Why would they ask such a question? Because the Government has a lousy track record when it comes to specifying and delivering - no matter what the budget - national IT systems. And if they can't get a national database right on the smaller scale of specialist IT systems like the Magistrates court, Ambulance Services [additional research paper pdf], doctor's surgery systems, the police's IMPACT program or Tax Credits, how on earth can they be trusted to get an even more complex system like an ID registry with databases, specialized hardware for collection of biometric data, specialized hardware and software for matching biometric data, specialized training, and specialized secure documents delivered?
So the question is pretty simple the next time the house of lords gets the ID Card Bill back: even if delivering an excellent ID Card system were possible, and even if there were no questions about the technology, about the biometrics, the database security, the security layers between the system itself and humans accessing it, the hackability of the cards, and never mind the social, moral, or economic issues, or for that matter the political ones about whether or not such a system could even stop a terrorist [look here for a list of all these issues and the organizations that query them], disregarding all that and cutting to the chase, would the UK Government simply have the wherewithall to deliver it?
In the vein of stating the blindingly obvious:
designing useful and usable tools isn't just about good widgets. There can be great widgets that will let a person carry out a task.
But what if the person doesn't want to carry out that task?
For insance,
In the UK there's a requirement to make publicly funded research publicly available - many places are turning to repositories like Eprints that will enable this process to happen. But right now, getting papers into Eprints is a manual, tedious process: filling in fields and fields in forms.
The "pro bono" argument is that increased access to the data will enable better access to cutting edge research.
A slightly more self- interested benefit is that there is research to show that openly available papers are more than twice as likely to be sited than those that are not.
But that petition to self-interest to leverage future benefit to off-set current pain does not have an immediate, perceivable benefit for the person stuck with uploading papers. We've seen that people just don't do it.
As Alan Dix might put it, the perceived cost is higher than the perceived benefit. The What's in It for Me effect only works, it seems, when that benefit is immediately perceivable. For instance: take these steps now to upload these papers and you'll never have to add them to your cv again: they will automatically update; also, one line in a web page will let you publish all your papers formatted anyway you want.
So either the benefit must outweigh the cost or the cost must be reduced to the point where future benefit is sufficient to cost. Seems obvious, eh? But the idea does suggest that usability is about perceived usefulness as well as usable-ness.
about "what's in it for me - NOW" not just "what can i do with it"
This might also be seen as where affect meets effect. This again is not new in the design community: Dillon's proposed model for assessing applications, Process, Outcome, Affect, formalizes the role of affect - how the user feels about their experience in using a system: do they feel empowered. Ethnography has also always looked at what is the cultural context of the planned artefacts to be developed?
One thing that may be new, however, about using "what's in it for me" as a design query, is that it asks the question of affect before the system is developed - but i won't claim that for certain. What i will suggest is that putting design issues in terms of "what's in it for me" is an easy way to translate the iimportance of effective/affective design to non-hci specialists (ie, software engineers).
If your software cannot pass the test of what's in it for me? of the perceived cost being balanced by the perceived benefit, then it's time to rethink the design.
i was at a talk lately where an interesting tool was presented that all the people in the audience said "wow that looks really complicated to try to set up" - and these were rocket scientist type people. The challenge to the presenter was "would it perhaps not have been better to talk with your stakeholders about how they already do what they do and then design the tool to support that, rather than what seems to be the other way around: designing a tool and asking the community to adapt to it?"
The response was a gob-smacker: that if we had designed for one community, then we would have a custom tool not a general tool.
Perhaps having a tool that was useful and useable by one community would provide a path to a tool that was more generally useable - rather than a tool which now is general but that puts the fear of god into anyone who goes near it - where the what's in it for me - the perceived benefit - is (a) unknown and (b) not even approached because the perceived cost is far too obvious.
So, take away: start with finding a me to whom you can ask "what is in it for me" - and test the answers against the push back of cost. it'll likely end up being pro bono, too.
In two articles, Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Terry Eagleton: The Pope has blood on his hands, and the follow up obituary of John Paul II by Peter and Margaret Hebblethwaite, and Peter Stanford, we are presented with an effective portrait not only of John Paul II, but of the Church hierarchy which appointed him.
In Eagleton's piece, JPII's background is contextualized with why he would have been picked to be pope: why his background was appropriate and for whose agenda in the church. Eagleton is a literary theorist of the Derridian cast, for whom the question "nothing is innocent; in whose interest is it" is toujours deja a founding question. Eagleton looks at the Pope's appointment as part of the conservative mission of a considerable part of the Church: to redress the liberalism of Paul VI and John Paul I.
The Habblethwaite/Stanford obituary takes a somewhat more even hand to the Pope's extremes, praising his outspokenness for social justice and the poor, while listing in compelling fashion the number of theologians he condemned (one to the point of excommunication) whom he regarded as at best, uncatholic.
Putting both articles together creates a compelling contrast to the current only positive spin on the pope.
The peons to the pope seem strongly similar to the uncritical accolades received by Reagan at his funeral last summer. Eagleton's piece constructs an historically situated rationale for JPII's elevation, and conservative training, (demonstrated, for example, in his canonization of Opus Dei's founder).
Eagleton draws particular attention to the role of the church's anti-condom position in the spread of Aids in africa, where the church effect is strong (it runs many hospitals). Eagleton is not alone in this critique: an American campaign two years ago also pointed to American bishops' complicity in this health crisis. Eagleton goes on to point to places from ecumenism to women where this pope and his hand-picked college of cardinals have pulled away from Vatican II.
Further context is JPII's efforts to pull the plug on liberation theology. He also famously agreed with the condemnation of homosexuality and gay marriage as "evil", and his writings see women in the Marian tradition of genetic role to reproduce, rather than capacity to serve as priest. Since the elevation of JPII, papal direction has only pulled women further away from the altar - a directive that many parishes have been content to ignore.
Some groups are already calling for the deceased pope's canonization, or at least deisgnation as "Great."
But Eagleton's pieces raise the question: is centrist, conservative, regressive, pigheadedness something for which one is to be considered a saint? Or as the Habblethwaite/Stanford obituary puts it:
If his pontificate is to be deemed a failure, it was a very Polish failure, on a vast, magnificent, heroic scale, conducted with zest and panache, comparable to those mythical Polish cavalrymen charging the German tanks in 1939. One admires the dash of it, while wondering whether it was quite the best thing to do.
Our grad advisor once told us we should live our lives backwards: think of what we did in terms of how it would look on our CV. This was supposed to motivate us as we prepared for getting a faculty job in a university. Perhaps we should have done more to consider the source.
In the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Steven Covey characterizes one of the seven habits as "start with the end in mind" - and here the end is not one's CV, but what one wants others to think of them at the real END. What do you want people to say of you? what do you think they'd say of you now? do they match?
It's challenging to think at the end of the day if that day was lived in such a way as to contribute to the sense of self one would hope to hear reflected by others.
Part of the Seven Habits approach is learning ways (habits) to connect daily life with such a reflection. Three of those habits stick out for me: first things first, be proactive, win win
First things First
Covey divides things we do into four quarters - from the little things that suck time and don't particularly need doing, to things that aren't so important but need doing, to things that need doing - that are important - but not urgently, finally, to things that need doing and are urgent.
He says the goal of this habit is to learn increasingly about doing the things that are important, which contribute to that sense of self and mission one wants to achieve, that are not urgent: the result is spending less time on crap or in crisis. Covey has a whole lexicon about trust, emotional bank accounts, and interdependency that makes sense in the context of a personal mission. It's an approach that addresses procrastination without once saying the word (he doesn't): is what i'm doing right now contributing to my mission? my living with the end in mind? Am i farting around with stuff that isn't important and doesn't need to be done? am i spending most of my time in crisis mode? If i focus on first things first, will i spend more time in that quadrant where what i'm doing is important (contributes to that end i want) but isn't in crisis? Where what i'm doing has value and worth?
Be Proactive
Covey also talks about building a circle of influence by being proactive. By owning an issue rather than moaning about a problem. Find the solution, put forward the idea, take the initiative and deliver it. This comes back to trust: saying i'll do something and not doing it or moaning about something rather than finding solutions - unasked for - is not helpful. It does not build up trust, it does not influence. Covey is also big on leading rather than managing people: lead people; manage things. Being proactive is a challenge when feeling worn down. Why didn't i get that opportunity? why wasn't i included in that? can be first reactions. The challenge is to say how can i turn this around by proposing a solution?
Win Win
Related to being proactive, is the notion of "win win" - engaging with people so that both parties feel like the solution they've found together is a better one than the solution they'd proposed alone.
This approach relates to Covey's other arguments about listening: seek first to understand. Be able to reflect back the other person's position, better than they could themselves.
In win win, the desire is to come up with a solution where both parties (let's say there's two parties) feel like they have a stronger solution than they would have without that exchange. One of the attributes of engaging this way is also to say sometimes there's no solution, and to agree to walk away from the matter.
The win win approach is one that Covey says he gets the most grief about as being the least realistic in "real world" settings, but he gives working examples of how this approach can succeed.
It's a life changing thing to think about embodying the habits Covey articulates. The emphasis on building trust underlying communication with others, of building any project from a collaboratively developed mission, is inspiring as well as challenging.
to start with the end in mind, to put first things first, to seek first to understand, to build trust, to develop a shared mission, to be proactive, to go for win win - these are just the highlights - it's worth listening to (or reading ) Covey to get the richer context of this approach. As he puts it, these are not quick fixes. In other contexts he uses the concept of natural laws: it takes time to get to harvest; seeds need to be planted, tended, etc. Trust relationships take time to be built. They take time but promote real change.
I like them, find them effective because they aren't things like "be sure to right down all your to do's" "draw up a budget" Making a to-do list won't work, if you don't have a reason for doing what you do. Covey talks this way about excersise: you do it because it's important to stay healthy for yourself, for your loved ones, not because you feel like it or don't feel like it: we're not run by feelings. We do it because it's the right thing to do. Likewise, if you take a first things first approach, you don't need a calendar to keep you on track (just remind you of where you have to be next). If you don't have a first things first or end in mind paradigm, devices like calendars are just that: devices that don't (at least in my experience) stay stuck.
It's worth checking out Covey's definition of habit, too. And paradigm shift. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People - is available in print, as an ebook and as an audio book which covey himself presents. Great to listen to on your personal stereo device...highly recommended