Discipline makes Daring possible.

Rescuing babies

Rescuing babies

Sometimes, all it takes to solve a new problem is to revisit an old technology, applying the best of the new technologies we’ve developed since we last used it, to make it work far better than last time.

Sail Cargo is one such solution, using ancient technologies in a 21st century way.

Another is Homespun/Homegrown – where the old textile town of Blackburn will grow and make it’s own jeans using the even more ancient technologies of flax and woad, alongside some thoroughly modern manufacturing, marketing and distribution methods.

Babies don’t have to be thrown out with bathwater.

You can fish them out first, and help them grow up gracefully.

Appropriate Technologies

Appropriate Technologies

The internet is a wonderful technology.   For instance, I’ve just bought an antique dining table with a few clicks and couple of phone calls.   Not so long ago, it would have been impossible to find it, never mind buy it so easily.

The telephone is still great technology.   In combination with the internet, it can be wonderful.  Yesterday I booked an X-ray with just one phone call.  A human being answered and booked me in.   I updated my online diary as we spoke.  Job done for both of us.

Yesterday, I also tried to book a blood test.   Same NHS trust, different department.   This time I got an automated answer offering the option of a long wait in a queue or to be sent an online form.   I chose the online form.  A link was sent to my phone.   I followed it and completed the form.   So far so good, if a little clunky.

But as soon as I’d submitted it, the form was gone.  No email, no text, not even an acknowledgement of receipt.  It’s gone into a black hole.   I don’t know when it might be reasonable to try again.  I have no record that I filled it in at all.

In other words, as far as I’m concerned, it didn’t work.

Adding the internet doesn’t automatically make for wonderful.   What’s really needed is appropriate technology.  Whatever makes the job easier for everyone.

Choosing it takes empathy.

 

Keeping it simple

Keeping it simple

I needed to consult my GP, and I wasn’t looking forward to spending hours on the phone to get an appointment. Imagine how pleased I was that in response to

Semiotics

Semiotics

I keep thinking about yesterday’s recorded message, about how simple it was, how effective.  And how creating such a message isn’t rocket science.  It probably doesn’t even need the latest tech or AI.

It reminded me of a visit to a care home a few years back.  It was more like a hotel, or serviced apartments, actually.  The decor was lovely, the amenities were plentiful, a lot of support was included.

But the main thing that made it attractive was the attitude.

“This is home for everyone who lives here.  They should be able to live as they would at home.  So we run this place around them.  There are no mealtimes, no prescribed activities, no common routine.  Just lots of extra support, from simple things like extra deep dado rails to a hoist over the bath and onsite carers.” 

In other words, the attitude drove the design of everything – the building, the services and the atmosphere.  It showed.

It always shows.

When everything behind the sales pitch sends the same signal, nobody can be disappointed.

Building precision

Building precision

When you’re putting together a machine that needs to run without you, precision engineering is key.  Each component must fit tightly to the next, in exactly the right position in order to perform a single highly specific function, and no other.

The upside of this approach is efficiency, durability and a kind of austere beauty.  Standardised parts are simpler to mass-produce and easy to replace.  You can reach a much larger market.  And the whole thing runs as we say, ‘like clockwork’.

The downside is that building a machine takes a lot of upfront investment, and when new technology comes along, that highly-engineered investment turns itself into a pile of scrap.  This is true of software machines too.

So maybe the answer is to take our cue from nature and build ecosystems instead?

Software error

Software error

It turns out that yesterday’s AWOL veg box wasn’t down to a new driver, but to a problem with the navigation software.

The driver did a great job of sorting things out.   He bought a new phone, double-checked his route and corrected the mistakes.   He took responsibility and did what needed to be done to really keep us happy.

Meanwhile head office was offering refunds.

Technology is brilliant, but you need a systematic way of identifying when it’s broken, as quickly as possible.   Analogue visual indicators work well for this e.g.the address label on the box, a line marked on a bottle that used every day.

You also need a fall-back manual process for when the software breaks.   That way, things may take a little longer, but nobody is taken by surprise, and nobody is let down.   And you don’t have to compensate unnecessarily.

Do you check your phones are working every morning?  Do you have backup phones?  Do you keep an up-to-date back-up (maybe even hard copy) of your contacts?  Do you have a process for learning from mistakes and accidents?

I’d be surprised if you do.

Automate Drudgery

Automate Drudgery

I’m a firm believer in automating drudgery – boring, repetitive unsatisfying work, often physically hard, and often involving tasks that we humans really aren’t that good at.

So I welcome software that automates sending emails, or makes it easier to book people onto a job, or does my bank reconciliation for me.

But every time we automate, we insert a veil beween us and the people we serve, making it easier to forget why we are doing the work – to help another human being flourish.  As layers build, it becomes all too easy to slip into thinking about people as mere statistics, rather than the flesh and blood individuals they are.

The way to counteract this is to consciously use the energy and attention released by automation to make a deeper connection with the person on the other side.

For the people who spend their lives behind whole walls of automation and disconnection, this will feel ‘wasteful’.  It isn’t.

It’s an investment that will pay off handsomely, for both sides.

Labour

Labour

This week, work started in earnest on our new extension.   I’ve spent quite a bit of time already, observing it.

Not, I hasten to add,  because I’m eyeing up young, fit workmen, but because I’m fascinated by the process.

How stop-start it is.   How much shuffling around of stuff is involved.   How much collaborative problem-solving it involves.   How many adjustments are made.   How ad-hoc it seems.   In other words, how Agile it is.

Of course this is just the beginning, when the team are getting to grips with the actually existing terrain, so they have a lot to find out, on the fly, before the more systematic parts of the process can kick in.   Agile is completely the right approach.

It’s a privilege to watch.  And the essence of why humans beat robots any day.

Despite all the hype.

 

Witch-hunts

Witch-hunts

Famously, a common test of whether you were a witch or not, left you dead either way.

If you floated when thrown into water, you were a witch, ripe for burning.   If you drowned you were innocent.

That must be pretty much how the sub-postmasters using The Post Office’s Horizon system must have felt, when they discovered discrepancies in their accounts.    They could either make up the difference themselves (again and again, as the error repeated itself), or stand accused of theft.   Either way they lost everything.

The difference is that this is 2020 not 1620.   Computer systems are human artefacts not gods.   Blind faith in them is unforgiveable.

 

PS.  This very angry post is my 400th.

If you’d like to help these people get justice, you can support them.

My workflow problem

My workflow problem

I’ve long had a problem with ‘workflow’.   It’s taken me a while, but I think I’ve finally worked out why.

Workflow is the application of a pin factory model to service businesses, to professions.   It breaks a process into tiny, individually repetitive steps that can be done faster and faster over time, making the whole process more efficient.

This is great for pins, and was a leap forward when Adam Smith wrote about it in 1776.   Back then, “See a pin, pick it up, then all day you’ll have good luck.” made sense.  A pin was valuable.  You were lucky to find one for free.

Nowadays, we don’t have a shortage of pins, or of other simple things that can be efficiently made using the factory method.   We have made enough garments to clothe the next 4 generations of the entire human race.

We do have a shortage of what’s needed to thrive in the face of enormous  and challenging complexities: empathy, creativity, imagination, judgement and flair.

You can’t make any of those in a pin factory.