Elemental

There’s a new sustainability forum over at Building (the brainchild of Phil aka zerochampion and Micheal aka Breezeblock). A guest post from Che Wall kicked off the proceedings and there is a flurry of activity since, no doubt helped by the inducement of a free iPod Touch for the first 50 posters.

Phil has asked for comments, so here are my thoughts.

From a practical viewpoint there are a couple of really good things about the forum, and a one really annoying one.

The main good point is also the annoying one, which is that RSS feeds are available for threads, but much like the government’s DCLG Discussion Forum any answers to the thread are not included.  They must both be using the same engine.  The only way to automatically get a thread’s answers is to put a reply yourself, which I suppose is one way to ensure a high participation of readers. You then get the thread replies by email.  As I have said many times, email should be reserved for actionable items, not passive items (like newsletters, for example).  So, kudos for having the RSS, but not quite a hit in my book. I realise I am in the minority in using RSS, so by no means a deal breaker for the majority of users.

What I do like is the fact I can add an avatar and my website to my profile.  A good tip I heard once for encouraging people to use avatars is to make the default someone no-one would want to be (Jeremy Clarkson might be appropriate for this particular forum…). I also like all the stats available, although the option of knowing how long each user has spent online feels a little ‘big brother’.

I found a very old draft post in which I was going to list what makes a good forum based on Kathy Sierra’s post “How to build a community, pt. 1″. Kathy’s is a good post and gives good tips on how to police the forum.  The basic premise is play nicely, and reward the users (Building win on that one straight away).  Kathy has 6 rules:

1. Encourage newer users–especially those who’ve been active askers–to start trying to answer questions
   One way to help is by making sure that the moderators are not always the Ones Who Know All. Sometimes you have to hold back the experts to give others a chance to step in and give it a try.
2. Give tips on how to answer questions. Post articles and tips on how to answer questions, which also helps people learn to communicate better. You can include tips on how to write articles, teach a tough topic, etc.Tell them it’s OK to guess a little, as long as they ADMIT they’re guessing
3. Adopt a near-zero-tolerance “Be Nice” policy when people answer questions
   Don’t allow other participants (especially the more advanced users) to slam anyone’s answer. A lot of technical forums especially are extremely harsh, and have a culture where the regulars say things like, “If you think that, you have no business answering a question. In fact, you have no business even DREAMING about being a programmer. Better keep your paper hat day job, loser.”
4. Teach and encourage the more advanced users (including moderators) how to correct a wrong answer while maintaining the original answerer’s dignity.
   And again, zero-tolerance for a**holes. All it takes is one jerk to stop someone from ever trying it again.
5. Re-examine your reward/levels strategy for your community
   Is there a clear way for new users to move up the ranks? Are there achievable, meaningful “levels”?

I forsee the main stumbling block will be the competitive environment and culture that pervades the industry. Open source culture has a long way to go in the industry although developments such as this forum all help. There’s a post up there at the minute on water which is remarkably open and useful, but the poster was unsure of guidelines on pimping their own or other’s products.  Kathy’s post covers this – clear guidelines would be a great help.

So I’m impressed but have a few wishes:

• full RSS feeds
• clearer guidelines on posting especially regards products and companies
• enticements for adding avatars and signatures etc

Good work guys.

mel starrs Geekery building, Forums, Jeremy Clarkson, Kathy Sierra, Micheal, Sustainability

BIM (Building Information Modelling) has long been the way I think the industry ought to work. It just seems so logical to me. The premise is simple – build an intelligent 3D model of a building which can be exported and manipulated by various designers, including architects, structural engineers and building services engineers. This model is in effect a virtual prototype of the proposed building. Various proposals can be tested in the virtual model, resulting in an actual building whose vagaries are well understood before a brick is laid.

Sounds great on paper, but the reality is that this is still a long way off. What does the industry need to change in order to further this technology, which exists today but is grossly underexploited?

One problem is that the information in CAD is not suitable for direct export into BIM (this article explains well). IES are hoping to have moved one step closer. They have teamed up with AutoCAD Revit to enable BIM more easily.

What worries me slightly is the claim:

This direct link means the user can run a variety of analyses, without needing specialised skills, separate analysis packages or separate models for each analysis. Greatly increasing the quality and speed of the technical feedback this development enables building designers to examine the implications of alternative design strategies at the touch of a button and use the tools for sustainable design rather than just plant sizing.

A nice philosophy, but beware of putting software in the hands of those without specialised skills. You still need to know how to interpret results, even if you no longer need to be a master at 3D building modelling, something which Kathy Sierra* touched on here.

But does BIM actually reflect reality?  I don’t think so.  Do you know anyone who uses Hevacomp or IES to it’s full potential? Or are you more likely to come across engineers who use a mish-mash of pencil and paper, excel spreadsheets with a little bit of hevacomp and perhaps a little IES thrown in? This dissonance between what the software is capable of doing and what the user actually wants it to do is probably part of the problem.  Users see the software as too complex for what they want to do and so don’t want to overcome the hurdle of learning a new way of doing things.  There’s some great writing out there on this topic including this (old) article from Jeffrey Phillips :

 So the conundrum is, we’ve got to design for lowest common denominator in a user interface, while providing as much functionality as is necessary for the customer to be interested and excited in the application.  Unfortunately, the users of applications are rarely the buyers of applications, so we need a better method to get the proposed user interface in front of the actual users as often as possible.

So is the problem with the software or with the users?  It’s probably a bit of both.  Another Kathy Sierra’s post tries to explain some of the reasons from the users’ perspective.

A final word from Jeffrey Phillips again:

The real rationale is that requesting a new feature is costless. A customer or prospect can ask for features all day long. However, the user interface and its complexity has tremendous cost, since most people are lazy and don’t want to think – and good design should not require them to think overly much. In fact good design should lead a user to the right conclusions and actions without a lot of training or support help, regardless of the number of features. What people are really saying is: give me the features I want, but simplify the interface to make it even easier to use, so I don’t have to receive training, or support this application once we start using it.

This is a topic I’ll be returning to.  I hope BIM is the future, for lots of reasons, but for the minute there are hurdles to overcome…

*Sadly, Kathy hung up her blogging boots back in April 2007 after a nasty cyber incident involving death threats.  Yikes.  I still miss her blog…

mel starrs Uncategorized Building Physics, Built Environment, CAD, Engineering, Jeffrey Phillips, Kathy Sierra, Productivity

Kathy Sierra is one of my regular reads on management and productivity.  She has a blinder of a post here which everyone should read.  I agree with virtually everything she says.  In particular I like her two opposing lists. 

I think we’ve all met a few of these characters in our time (the overkeen career engineers):

Passionate about the company:

* The ultimate team player who goes along with the group rather than voice dissent

* Works late nights and weekends because “everyone needs to pitch in on this project”

* Defends the company to anyone, anywhere that criticizes or questions its products, policies, or practices

* Puts responsibility to employer above responsibility to customers, without question

* Questions, but does not challenge the status quo

* Is well-liked because they do whatever is asked, enthusiastically

* Accepts (and uses) phrases like, “this is what corporate needs us to do.”

* Cares a lot about his career path in the company; focused on getting management recognition.

But wouldn’t we all prefer to work with what Kathy calls ‘mavericks’ in the ‘Hollywood Model’?:

Passionate about the work:

* Scores well on the 4-question test:
- keeps up with trade/professional journals
- knows who the key people in the industry are
- would spend his own money, if necessary, for better tools
- if they were NOT doing this as their job, they would still do something related to it as a hobby

* Works late nights when, “I’m just one-compile away from this awesome refactoring that’s going to make this thing run 40% faster.” In other words, they work late when they’re driven by something they know they can do better on.

* Defends the quality of his own work (and, in the Hollywood Model, the work of his team).

* Puts responsibility to his own ethics and values–especially related to quality of work–over responsibility to employer.

* May not be extremely well-liked, but is highly respected and tolerated because he’s known as one who, “cares deeply about doing the best possible job, and is very good at what he does.”

* Does not accept, “this is what corporate needs us to do” when it conflicts with quality and ethics. Must be given a damn good reason why a corporate decision is worth the downsides.

* Does not care about upward mobility in the company. Cares about doing fabulous work and possibly the recognition of his peers in the industry. May strive for professional recognition.

Kathy probably is glamorising the ‘maverick’ and no doubt some will argue that the first list is much more stable, predictable and safe, making life much easier for management.  Working purely within the second list can be exhausting, for all involved. In reality, I think a bit of both lists exists in most companies.  There are times when it’s appropriate to be a maverick and times when it’s good to know when to quit.

I still prefer to work with those in the second list though…

mel starrs Uncategorized Kathy Sierra, Management

Turns out the message isn’t half as important as how the message is conveyed. Sounds rational, doesn’t it? I started writing this post with a view to reviewing carbon rationing but it quickly evolved into a lesson on communicating and persuasion. I’ll begin with a video of Mayer Hillman on YouTube from BBC Breakfast on Carbon Rationing:

Debate on BBC Breakfast between Professor Mayer Hillman and Professor James Woudhuysen about the Carbon Ration Card proposal announced by Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs David Miliband.

I have read Mayer’s book “How We Can Save the Planet” and there is some useful and interesting information within it. A review of the book and some lively comments are available over at World Changing. Mayer argues the case for contraction and convergance and most of the time he has me convinced. What I do have issue with Mayer over is the tone of his message, both in the book and on the clip above. Despite the fact that I agree with most of what Mayer preaches, after watching the clip above, I was more convinced by James Woudhuysen. James does have some valid points but they are less to do what he is proponent for (technological innovation*) and more to do with his attack on Mayer’s ‘finger-wagging’ tactics.

I explained in an earlier post how you can’t scare people into being green. Unfortunately the overriding message throughout Mayer’s book (and the interview above) is that of guilt and regret. We know this tactic will not wash it with most humans. It a real shame as I do believe he has an important message that deserves to be heard – but he’s not saying it in a way which people will listen to.

Conversely Kathy Sierra has pointed me towards this great article in Fast Company which also points out that telling people that something is good for them is also inadequate motivation for them to change behaviours. Instead the author, Alan Deutschman, suggests that by invoking feelings of hope and optimism, behaviours will change. Reframing the positives to fit the perspective of those you wish to persuade, coupled with a short, sharp shock approach and a support mechanism or community is also advocated.

So as an industry our challenge is how to persuade people to change their behaviours using hope and optimism. Quite a challenge.

An easy win normally cited is installing automated (‘idiot proof’) energy conservation measures such as daylight saving sensors on lighting, intelligent BMS and automated window systems. But even this can be fraught with difficulty. Humans, by their very nature, just aren’t happy unless they perceive that they have some control over their environment. The trick is getting the balance right between an ‘nannying’ of occupants who can be happy that carbon is reduced but miserable that they can’t change the temperature, or giving free rein to occupants, who will be deliriously happy that they can turn the cooling down to 19ºC but wracked with guilt over the consequences on the environment. Forcing a behaviour change will not work, it has to be on the terms of those whose behaviour you are trying to change.
The UK government has a useful leaflet available with advice for communicating climate change.

They give the following advice:

Research has shown that there are some important issues you should consider when you communicate climate change:

– People are rarely motivated to act by threats to their long-term survival – think about how many people still smoke despite the known risks. In fact, when it comes to climate change, people are not even normally motivated by concern for their children’s future.

– Don’t create fear about climate change without showing what people can do about it. If people can simply avoid frightening issues, or put them to the back of their minds, they will.

– It’s often unhelpful to criticise behaviour that people consider normal in their home or family. Instead, make behaviour that reduces the threat of climate change seem positive and desirable.

– Don’t rely solely on logic, facts or even money-saving incentives – people need to be inspired and provoked.

– Encourage discussion between individuals in your audiences – debate raises awareness.

– Associate climate change with people** your audience admire or respect, or with things they care about, like home improvement or local green spaces.

– Be consistent in your use of language and your explanation of climate change – this will help it stick in people’s minds.

This goes some way to explaining the success of certification schemes such as BREEAM and LEED. They provide frameworks to demonstrate what can be done. The goal of achieving a better rating than contemporary buildings makes it desirable and provides something to aspire to. This isn’t the complete answer to our problems though. Any further thoughts anyone?
I’ll guess I’ll have to try writing the carbon rationing post another time.

*I’m a firm proponent of the ‘Lean, Green, Clean’ hierarchy of energy consumption. James’ technological innovations do have a place in the debate and would come under the clean and green categories, but his assertions that individuals should not have any personal responsibility for their own consumption is idiocy. Of course you have a responsibility for your own actions. By failing to reduce consumption in the first place, we have set ourself an even bigger technological challenge to face. Whilst I’m always up for a challenge, making it bigger than it needs to be seems daft to me – maybe I’m just being lazy?

**On this point, feel free to point any avid readers of Heat magazine towards Ecorazzi. You never know, reading about Brangelina’s latest escapades may have a bigger effect on the majority of the country than any targetted TV campaign…

admin Psychology Alan Deutschman, BBC, BREEAM, communications, crabon rationing, David Miliband, James Woudhuysen, Kathy Sierra, LEED, Mayer Hillman, negative message, persuasion, positive strategies