ColChambers

Why only drinks that stimulate thirst are profitable

2011-08-08T09:15:00.002+01:00

So I've had this niggling question for quite a while now. 'Why do most drinks available not quench your thirst?'. for along time I've been ordering a separate glass of water with any drink at a restaurant. In a club or bar I just accept that each drink is going to make me want another.

But why is this the case? Why is each drink so strong and often quite concentrated to make me need a separate glass of water?

I think the reason is basic economics. I don't think it's anything particularly sinister on the manufacturers or sellers part. The drinks market is very competitive and needs sales volume to turn a profit. So each drink must be sold in volume. I just think that it doesn't make sense financially to sell drinks that don't encourage repeat purchases because you won't sell many units of a drink that actually quenches your thirst.

This explains to me why the best sellers are coffee, tea, coke and many other caffeine related drinks. Caffeine makes you pee so you lose some of the water you drink with it. It's also addictive. So you feel the need for another. Chocolate is the same.

I expect that many drinks have been sold over time that do quench your thirst but very few of these have survived for this very reason. They just didn't sell in the volumes required. They were outcompeted by other drinks. I don't see how drinks without elements that keep you coming back for more like strong flavours, addictive agents or diuretic properties can compete in this market. It's these properties that produce drinks that won't quench your thirst because they're too concentrated with sugarand laced with diuretics and addictive ingredients.

The alternative is to price these thirst quenching drinks higher so you don't need to sell the volume but I don't think that sits well with consumers. Mainly because the drinks don't fit the expectations people have of higher priced drinks. They taste more like the simple drinks you'd have at home not expensive drinks for a special occasion.

This is just my opinion. It helps me accept these things for what they are. We may see this change in the future but I'm not holding my breath. Ultimately I'm saying that consumers are making the choices. Manufacturers and retailers have to sell products that make them a profit. to do this you need people regularly coming back for more. By definition that means you give them what they want instead of what they need.

The funny thing is, I think the exact same thing has happened in the food market. the same pattern and results for exactly the same reasons. Often food and drinks are seen to complement each other.

It's also why my approach is to make my body strong enough to be able to handle the food and drinks on offer. Instead of spending my time avoiding the delights on offer I prefer to believe our bodies can thrive with a little of these foods so longer as we maintain our true hunter gatherer roots. That is that we must hunt and gather which means move, play, search. Do that and you'll be able to do what you want when you want.

Hypertension, sodium and activity. Any relation?

2011-07-25T13:12:00.000+01:00

So, something just struck me. No... nothing physically hit me :-) I just heard something about blood pressure that linked a bunch of information into one. I'm not sure if this is a new insight so I'm logging it here for future reference.

The first thing was reading that increased potassium in the diet is associated with a lowering in blood pressure. I've probably heard this many time before but not really thought about it. What struck me is the link between potassium and sodium. They are fundamentally involved in propagating nerve impulses. So it struck me that an imbalance in sodium and potassium could have an effect on nervous action throughout the body.

Combine that with marc peletiers insight that High blood pressure is fundamentally a problem with regulation of sodium. He has found structures in the brain that filter sodium much like the kidney does. It's these structures that have a huge impact in high blood pressure.

It's becoming clearer over time that diabetes in a problem with regulating blood sugar and that exercise helps by helping us deal better with sugar. So naturally I'm wondering if exercise has the same effect on helping us regulate sodium and potassium better. Mainly because exercise puts specific pressures on the body. forcing adaptations which make it able to handle the strains applied by daily life. Hence exercise forces the body to keep sugar and possibly sodium levels in check.

Just a thought.

Adapt: Is there evolution in business?

2011-06-28T09:40:00.002+01:00

For me the answer is a definitive yes. The more I apply evolutionary principles in thinking about business the more I see it fits and the more I feel I understand business. It's why I like capitalism. It's a very harsh approach, which I don't like, but then is'n't natural selection. Natural selection is about competing for energy and essential nutrients, capitalism is about competing for money and resources that help you get more money. So capitalism is a harsh game but it's important to understand it before you can learn how to thrive in it. If you can do that then maybe you can do some good.

This morning I heard Tim Harford talking about his book Adapt on the science weekly podcast titled how to achieve success through failure. In his book he applies these evolutionary principles and shows how well they can explain what we see in business. Through history and across continents the analysis stacks up. Now I haven't read the book yet, it's on my wish list, but I've been viewing business through evolutionary eyes for so long I feel I know what it will cover.

I wanted to show that it's not just me noticing evolution everywhere and feeling that this insight could help me survive in the world. I think it's why the silicon valley model works so well and it's what I do. I don't worry about anything I do being a perfect fit. I worry about adaptability and flexibility. A perfect product one year is often a flop or waste the next. The best products are those that can adapt enough to be relevant no matter the fashion.

Essentially, as Darwin summarised. It's not the best adapted that survive, but those best able to adapt.

Learning on demand (LOD)

2011-06-14T10:31:00.001+01:00

Following on from a previous article on 21st century learning I feel we're moving to an area where learning on demand will be as normal as Video on demand (VOD).

I see the emergence of 24-7 tutorials and motuto as early attempts at this. I can't vouch for the quality and economic viability yet but I do see that the learning market is biased towards young people. All infrastructure and policy focuses on this demographic.

New technologies make it targetting the wider market financially viable. There is also a serious lack of supply compared to demand. Yet education budgets around the world are dwindling putting pressure on jobs.

This recipe implies to me that cloud based LOD services could meet this extra demand while at the same time saving the teachers under threat of redundancy. These teachers could either join the LOD services directly, or their schools and institutions could partner with the service to bring in additional paid work to meet the staff resources they have.

This scenario means teachers keep their jobs. Schools get to expand without increasing fixed running costs like building new classrooms and education grows as a sector to meet the growing demand.

It's a nice dream anyway. It's probably a few years early now but, from what I'm hearing across the web, there's a lot of work going into initiatives like this and there's a huge demand. Particularly internationally. So long term I think it will be a success. Just how it will evolve is yet to be determined.

Disease gene blocker sneaks past cell defences

2011-04-06T13:55:00.000+01:00

Just found this fascinating article in new scientist title Disease gene blocker sneaks past cell defences.

A vision for 21st century learning

2011-04-05T11:06:00.003+01:00

So I had a vision over Christmas of the kind of learning and teaching I've always wanted. As I wrote it down I became more and more convinced that this is possible right now. It also pulls together my passion for understanding human excellence with my experience in taking ideas to deliverables. It's still very much a work in progress but I'm really excited by it and everyone I've shared it with feels the same.

It's not about revolution but evolution. My main view is that very little these days is new. The internet isn't enabling much that's new just a new scale, speed and quality of what existed before. Good learning and teaching is the same now as it was 1,000 years ago. What made Plato and Aristotle great will be similar to what made Einstein great.

What's changed is what one human can achieve in one day with a small budget. The same goes for one team or one organisation. We can just do a lot more with a lot less. So we now get to revisit what good learning and teaching is and figure out what we would do if we could build on the great work that's already being done but with all these great new opportunities and tools that didn't exist before.

My vision for learning in the 21st century is built by merging best learning practices with the methods of achieving scale in this era and partnerships with leading providers of the components that will be needed.

I learned to thrive due to a world class educational system. I want to bring this to the world and evolve it to fit todays capabilities and expectations.

Part of this involves each student understanding their potential through experience of a virtual body. The human being, particularly their mind, far exceeds the capabilities of any technology yet invented. I want a system designed around it. To make winners of anyone in the world who takes the time to develop their abilities. The knowledge and skills to do this already exist and we're perfectly placed to make use of it.

I've broken this down further into components. Each component is already in existence and will mainly require reuse of current skillsets, personnel and assets.

So now I'm spending time developing these ideas further. What I've found so far is that much of what I'm looking for already exists but the components have never been put together in this way before. I've also found I'm not alone. There are many efforts to improve education from a peer to peer university where you can suggest the currciulum or even opt to teach a class to an open high school finding ways to deliver “one-on-one tutoring for every student in every subject".

So there you go. I'm clarifying my vision for 21st century learning. Through this I'm finding that I'm not alone. In fact I keep finding more people with a similar vision that are already implementing it. I don't care who delivers it. I just want it for my children and for everyone who thrives on learning.

Could hygiene obsession cause allergies?

2011-02-23T15:33:00.001Z

Just came across this fascinating article at sciencefocus.com opening the debate about how clean is healthy? I've always wondered if we need a little dirt to teach our immune system what's good and what's bad for us. They go a step further and say that our immune system needs bad stuff otherwise it might start attacking the good stuff within us.

That completely turns the argument on its head.

“The micro-organisms that we evolved with, long before we began this modern lifestyle, became a crucial part of our physiology,” says Rook. “In this state of ‘evolved dependency’, these microbes took the role of switching on the regulatory pathways that allow our immune systems to function as they should. Without exposure to these microbes, our immune system attacks otherwise harmless foreign molecules.” Rook has labelled this new hypothesis the ‘old friends mechanism’; others call it the ‘microbial exposure theory’.

read more

Things you can do better asleep than you can awake

2011-02-09T09:35:00.000Z

following on with the theme that sleep is far more important than many of us realise. Here's an analysis of things we can do better asleep than when we're awake.

Essentially there seem to be three main areas that we do better asleep:

Forming accurate memories
Heal from infection
Deal with stress

Lets summarise each area:

Forming accurate memories

Most neuroscientists agree that sleep is when we organize memories for long-term storage. People whose sleep is disturbed after studying have far more imperfect recall than people who get a good eight hours of shuteye. But a study published a couple of weeks ago shows that you can use simple memory reinforcement techniques while you're sleeping that will make your recall better than average.

Heal from infection

We don't just need sleep to improve our minds - we need it to heal our bodies. Physiologist Marc Opp argues that it's possible that sleep is part of our immune system, and that we may have evolved sleep alongside our other bodily defenses against infection. In fact, our ability to dream appears to be connected at a molecular level to our healing abilities. When researchers reduce the levels of proteins used in healing wounds and fighting infection, it also reduces REM sleep. Raising the levels of those same proteins causes people to dream more. So when you go to bed with a cold and wake up feeling better after a night of weird dreams - well, there's a good reason for that.

Deal with stress

Dreaming also appears to be one of the main ways we maintain emotional equilibrium. Sleeping appears to organize our emotions in the same way it organizes and solidifies memories. Researchers report that sleep helps people recognize other people's emotional states, maintain calm in the face of difficult situations, and even develop feelings of trust more easily.

Can amazing abilities be taught?

2011-02-08T09:28:00.000Z

I've been talking for a while how everything we see other people achieving we could actually achieve ourselves. We just need to learn to bring it out of us.

A couple of weeks ago I ate at a restaurant and the waitress showed exactly what I'm talking about. There were four of us and we had a lot to order. She didn't write anything on a notepad though. She just remembered it. We all thought she was just showing off and it would all go horribly wrong.

Sure enough by the end of the meal she'd remembered all drinks, all 3 courses for each person, all the minor adjustments to the meals and the side orders. The only thing a machine did for her is add up the bill.

We were really impressed and debated whether she just has this really cool memory or if she learnt how to do it.
So I had to ask. As I thought, the answer was that she'd trained herself to do it. There are many techniques you can use that help you remember things by helping organise your brain but you have to work at them like anything else. That's what she did. She used her job to train her brain. From what I could see it meant she found the job easier than other people because she was more self sufficient.

Just like derren brown and others. Who perform amazing feats both physical and mental. They all admit that they've trained themselves to do these things. Some say that makes it less interesting. For me it's the opposite. To feel that I could do what they do is so inspiring.

That's what I want to bring to education. Help connect people with these amazing feats. Give them the belief and the support to achieve them themselves. See that learning is the key to amazing things.

Could education learn from the Google docs business model?

2011-02-08T09:03:00.001Z

Building on a blog post ive written discussing the notion that flow of resources is key to life. A colleague helped me understand how the same can be said for business models and can explain how to make money in this new connected age. How services like google docs could make good money and education could scale itself.

In this case we're talking about how google can build a business by selling their tools. Gmail and gdocs are just their tools. Gdocs doesn't contain adverts so where's the business model?

To start with you can by extra space when youve used up the free allowances But that doesn't explain how they can stay competitive. We had to look a little deeper to realise that cloud providers can do things that local organisations and individuals find difficult. Real economies and practices of scale.

We realised its actually just like the economy being built from banking. If every person withdrew all their cash the banks couldn't actually give it back. They only hold what's necessary to give people what they need day to day. They resell the money they hold and that's how they make money.

This is because it's cheaper for restaurants and car manufacturers to focus on what they do well and pay someone to look after their wealth. It's nore profitable for banks to see their cash as stock and resell it than to lock it up. That's just how the economy and most mature industries work and thrive.

So that's how google make a profit in software and tools. It's too expensive and a waste of effort for every company or individual to build and maintain their own web based office suite. Better to use one from a brand you trust. To make it profitable Google will not have the capacity for every person to use all their allowances at once. It's too expensive to actually buy and maintain the hardware and resources to support this. And also no one uses all their allowance all the time. It also doesn't matter if each persons data is in one place or distributed all over the place.

All that really matters is the current demand. As long as Google can pull it all together and present it in the way the customer wants and expects they're happy.

So Google have so many customers they'll work on trends. They see documents and tools as data and customer traffic as data traffic and requests for data. Each day an average amount of new data storage is required. It will vary over time but this can be predicted with certain contingencies in place to cater for unpredicted events.

Once you master this you can build a reputation for global reliability. You always "just work". The price you can charge and the loyalty you gain for such reliability and dependability is huge. And this approach to it is cost effective and thus profitable. Thus it's a business model.

That is why I want to bring this to education. This is enterprise structure with enterprise profitability with an enterprise approach. It's what education needs. A platform and infrastructure that's built to scale to modern standards using time honoured approaches of achieving scale. Stand back and see things for what they are. Honesty, no warts. Go back to what you're good at and what people want. Reapply all you know but with a modern focus.

Neural Darwinism: is this how we learn?

2011-02-07T09:16:00.001Z

I'm excited to have just discovered Neural Darwinism through an interview with Gerald Edelman on all in the mind.

The idea that our brain constantly adapts to our environment using the same evolutionary principles described by Darwin is what I've been coming to believe. It's clear that we create and remove connections every day during sleep and that our brains are constantly evolving from the events of the day.

It's nice to hear I'm not alone in my view and that there is a theory to go along with it.

The only true disability is a crushed spirit

2011-02-04T13:16:00.001Z

Watching Aimee Mullims ted talk title "The opportunity of adversity" is just fascinating. She makes such a beautiful case for the strengths and values people gain from disability it becomes very clear that the adversity that may entail generally adds far more to us than it takes away.

Gaming can make a better world

2011-01-14T17:09:00.002Z

Ok, so I'm just watching the best presentation I've seen for a while. I just had to share it.

The premise that gaming can make a better world is something I share and have actively been looking at how to bring gaming to education via the OU. I think Jane McGonigal just nails it and explains how gaming is a wonderful at create a problem solving mindset which is a fundamental attribute of good education.

The idea is that gaming has 4 characteristics that can lead to a better world

Blissful Productivity
Social Fabric
Urgent Optimism
Epic Meaning

life as play: new blog started

2010-11-24T09:28:00.000Z

So, any one who's been following me for a while will notice that I cover a ton of different things on this blog.

I decided to start a new blog to deal with the main fascination of my life. Turning life in to play. I was going to call it simplify life but that name and other versions of it are taken so I chose http://lifeasplay.wordpress.com/. The aim of this new blog is to cover all the stuff I'm doing to make life as fun as possible yet still get stuff done.

Hopefully it's going to give me more direction and be more focused.

RSA Animate - Changing education paradigms

2010-11-15T15:18:00.001Z

Blimey, this is a fascinating video. I agree with everything Sir Ken Robinson is talking about and I really appreciate him summing so much up in just 10 minutes. Right. Now I've got the right message. I'm off to change the world.

Is the OU really behind part time learning?

2010-11-14T14:27:00.002Z

I don't normally talk about the OU in my blog but today I have a burning issue that i feel i just need to express. Infact I've got a few but I'll see what I manage to express here and save the rest for later.

Why is the OU so afraid of the very thing it was created to push? distance learning. Why is it so sheepish in promoting something that should be a fundamental part of our daily lives.

Why am I so frustrated and being so blunt is probably what you’re thinking? Well... despite the OU’s well publicised success in delivering a world leading Online learning environment, delivering on itunesU and mobile and countless other fronts I say one thing. The OU doesn’t use any of these tools and services in its internal day to day delivery. Customers use it but for some reason staff don’t in their jobs. As a customer I’d say this means the OU tools can’t be very good. You don’t see Steve jobs using a google phone to make calls. Fords CEO hardly drives around in a honda. You get the point. If you sell something then you’d expect to use it within your organisation where it’s supposed to be used.

The tools we provide for teaching and learning cover just about every espect you need in daily life. You can chat and debate with people through forums and chat tools. You can share documents. You can assess things. Why, as an OU employee can I not use this stuff day to day to get my job done. Why is it reserved for students and course teams. If, en masse we used these things internally we’d damn well ensure they were market leading tools that got the job done. Most importantly we’d all be aware of their strengths and weaknesses. We’d consider carefully how we developed and delivered them because we depend on them.

Right now there is a huge disconnect between what we use to deliver and experience and those who experience what we deliver. As a customer I only go with companies who use their tools and understand them in depth. I just bought a new phone. I had very specific requirements a smart phone (android not iphone) with a keyboard from an android expert (htc desire z ). From the online store (mobiles.co.uk) to the network (t-mobile) I wanted people who knew their stuff. I ignored all the companies that tried to tell me an iphone or an htc hero would be good enough. They clearly don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t take the time to understand me and fit the solution to me. the companies I chose do. I’ve always been like this as a consumer and I’ve found I’m not the only one.

Right now there’s no major competitor to the OU but I keep hearing that’s set to change. I certainly feel that it’s not that hard to replicate what we currently do. It’s been difficult to replicate us at scale for decades but the barriers are falling like leaves in autumn and right I don’t genuinely feel there are any real barriers to replicating our model. the biggest challenge the OU faces is changing its mindset. Internally I find vbery few if any meetings and discussions that take place solely on line. The choice is always face to face meetings or chatting on the phone. That’s just not good enough. We’re telling our customers they can do everything they need online but doing the exact opposite in real life.

Any one who wants to tell me that it’s just not possibnle to do everything sitting at your desk using the net and a decent phone setup should be warned that I worked for 2 years just down the road in Linford wood working in a callcenter for an it helpdesk. We didn’t just have one contract we had a few thousand. We ran 24 hours and basically solved any technical question a customer could ask round the clock. Even christmas day. We handled it all from our desks. Occasionally we’d walk over to nearby control panels but 99% of our jobs could be completed where we sat. I fixed problems for customers in the US and europe and had conference calls when needed. Would you believe this was 10 years ago when dial up was still common. So in 2010 things have moved on drastically. The tools I used then are still available. they’re even easier to use now.

Back then when a customer phoned up to chase an issue I could find out everything that had been done or said in relation to the issue. I could get up to speed really quickly, then help them appropriately. I was also used to fixing the customers issues without actually seeing the problem itself. Just by listening carefully, asking appropriate questions and being patient I could fix issues I’d never come across before.

These skills are the same skills you need for teaching. Helping a human understand something that previously made no sense to them. to do the job well I needed good training and support. I also needed experience using the tools but it was possible then. So why isn’t this already being done, online at scale already. That’s my real bone of contention. From the day I arrived at the OU I could see the relation between
it and my first real job, the helpdesk. In both instances one human is trying to help another. The tools and skillsets required are all about enabling humans to do what they do best, solve problems and learn something in the process.

The OU doesn’t believe that part time learning provides a competitive advantage because it doesn’t encourage its staff to do so during work time. Google do and 3m do and they’re not the only companies that do. Google is famous for it with their 20% times and flagship products like Maps have come from this initiative. Yet the OU, the official flagship for part time learning in the UK don’t support part time learning for their employees during work hours. How can the OU sell the idea of part time learning as a good to a company if they openly don’t believe in it. You see my frustration.

I’m a self directed learner. I make a point of learning something every day. so naturally I search for the best, most advanced and cost effective tools for the job. I don’t use the OU tools because they’re not up to it. I act like a customer, I expect return on the investment I make. The OU considers itself successful because it has over 200,000 students but all I see is the students they turn away or those that won’t study with them. I’m hoping that in the next 5 years they’re looking at ways to reach 2 million.

Ok, you can see I’m venting. Don’t think I dislike the OU. I don’t. They are a wonderful company to work for an do an excellent job. I’m just saying some of the things that I feel are important. i’ve felt these things from the day I started so I’ve finally got to get them off my chest. The OU do a wonderful job and are a credit to the education community but I feel they can be so much more. I feel they’re the shy self conscious kid who does wonderful work and gets straight A’s but no one really notices because they’re still struggling to fit in.

Every year the environment is getting more and more suited to part time learning. All I see is opportunity for the OU. There are lots of threats but, being an employee, I know how good they are so I know they’ll get through because they’re good. But I do see things that I think other people see. The elephant in the room so to speak and I don’t think it helps to ignore.

edit 15th November 2010
I just found a quote by Bill Clinton that I can easily adjust to fit what I'm saying here.

I ask you to join in lifelong learning. We need to empower our learners so they can take more responsibility for their own lives in a world that is ever smaller, where everyone counts.... We need a new spirit of community, a sense that we are all in this together, or the Dream of lifelong learning will continue to wither. Our destiny is bound up with the destiny of every other learner.

the point to me is that learning happens everywhere and so does teaching. It is not confined to place, time or any other boundary. It's just human to human. That's all you need. We really need to start getting out of the way and get back to the human activity of helping others achieve their dreams. Open their world up to new possibilities through passing on what we know. lets make it an intuitive everyday process. Not something that's only available if you fit certain criteria. Only then is learning truly open and the Open University can truly justify its name.

My point is that we can do this now. We are in fact doing it at a basic level. But I can't openly say that I do it. It seems to be frowned upon and that, to me, seems the wrong way round.

Enough talking. How about a video :-0. Well check out this short video on what motivates us. See what you think and how it might apply to learning and to work.

Sir Paul Nurse: Organisms are information networks

2010-11-12T15:52:00.001Z

How often is it that you find a video of someone expressing the exact view you've had of something. It's increasingly common these days but not exactly everyday is it. That's what I got what I discovered sir Paul Nurse' talk explaining the notion that Organisms are information networks.

The idea that dna is basically a data storage mechanism, that you can think of the hardwiring inside a computer in relation to the wet wiring inside a human. The idea of airplane networks resembling the networks in the brain. These concepts I've touched on before.

I really like the end comment about the new age of biology we seem to be entering. He compares physics at the turn of last century going from newtonian to einsteinian physics. The huge change this had on the way we viewed physics from something thats common sense to something extremely abstract and difficult to comprehend.

It all comes from the advancement of better tools of analysis which lead to better theories and understanding. Physics and chemistry have theirs. Now biology has enough tools to reach it's next phase of understanding.

It's just fascinating and exciting to hear such an eminent biologist make this statement. Makes me feel I'm not alone with my views and look forward to the coming discoveries.

My first tennis matchplay

2010-10-30T22:22:00.004+01:00

So I played my first matchplay today down at Sutton tennis academy. Thought I'd record it here for reference later.

I'd been playing badly all week so I wasn't very confident going in. My shots lacked rhythmn and my serve was a nightmare. I kept double faulting. The week before I had been playing so well and I was really confused. On Friday realised I'd been tossing the ball really low. Tossing a little higher and I instantly served better.

As for my shots I'd been really patient and aiming at the hit zones of the guys I'd been playing. Allowing them to play good shots against me and forcing me to work on my footwork. Last week I stopped that. I started to try to win points outright, so the rallies we shorter, neither of us got a rhythm and we play badly.

So I was a little nervous going in. Getting a rhythmn on my shots is one thing but if I'm doubling faulting atleast once each service game then it's really hard to win a set. You're bound to lose atleast one service game this way and that can be enough to lose the set.

It was also a long drive down. I guessed it would take about 2 hours but given the road works that are on basically the whole route and the fact that it was the first time driving there it ended up being about 3 hours. So my bum was a little sore by the time I arrived, thankfully about 45 minutes early since I'd left about 11:40.

Normally I wouldn't mention this but it's worth remembering for next time cos I'm not used to playing a match after such a long drive. And I need to figure out the best way to handle it. Having a few warm up games might help but I didn't want to tire myself out.

When the match started I was a little nervous. I could feel my heart racing and was a little tense. Thankfully I managed to get my second serves in and my opponent didn't take too much advantage. I managed to win the first service game so got off on a good footing. I won the first set mainly because I kept my focus. I got very few first serves in. I couldn't find a rhythmn on it at all but my second serve was fine. I think I made just 2-3 double faults. I was broken once or twice but then broke my opponent several times. Kind of normal for the 9.2 level I'm playing.

My opponent was basically a pusher. He had no big shots to hurt me with but he was VERY consistent. I found that if I got into a long rally and didn’t attack him then he’d win out. But I generally won when he came to then net, I love a target. I also found he wasn’t that great on the move but I didn’t really exploit this enough. I kind of settled into baseline rallies a little too much. I found that whilst he never put any shot back very hard he often dropped them quite short or very high but generally with little pace. This is actually hard to attack. Atleast I find it hard. In the first set I think I was more patient. I didn’t try to win the point directly. I moved him around and quite often found a winning shot or made him miss

The funny thin is that while I won the first set, neither of us could find a first serve. The second set was different because we both started finding our first serve. Me more than him. The problem was that it then gave him a consistent shot to hit and he started returning well. I often find this problem when I hit my serving stride. A serve with pace can easily get returned with pace. Many of my serves weren’t return and I even got an ace. He left me so much space on his right side I couldn’t miss.

I remember when starting the second set feeling really happy to have won the first. I felt I could relax and play my game more. Go for my shots. Bad move. Other competitions I’ve played only do 2 sets. So you either win or draw. I’d forgotten this competition plays a championship tie break so I still needed to win the second set.

I was starting to get a feel for the court, player and ball. Each were different than I’m used to. Indoors I find spin has more of an effect that outside. The balls seemed to bounce differently, but that’s probably cos they were fresh out of the tin and not 500 years old and bald . I also don’t play anyone like this guy so I was certainly winging it.

So I started swinging more freely. Against a pusher this isn’t the best move. In hindsight I should have started moving my feet better. Reason being that I was often slightly out of position when I played my shots. It was a small amount but it matters when you hit hard. It magnifies any mistake and throws your technique off. As is usual for me I tried to power my way through (I’ve been working on this, and get in better position, be more patient, yada yada yada but I am who I am and I did what I do and I paid for it). I should have taken the advantage I’d gained to explore my opponents weaknesses and strengths more. I don’t remember doing that. I just tried to hit harder. I had no real reason to feel this would help. Normally you just start hitting out when before you used to be just inside the line.

So unfortunately I started losing. I lost my serve, broke back then ended up 4-1 down. Mainly though losing my focus. I wasn’t being as cunning and throwing away points. I fought back to 4-3 but then lost the next two games and the set being complacent again.

For the championship set decider I never got ahead. I think the main problem is that I hadn’t figured out any particular strategies to beat the guy. I was just hitting as I felt. I noticed that he was attacking my backhand and I still hadn’t relaxed enough to punish him for that. While I was feeling confident on serve I wasn’t confident on my groundies enough to really attack him. I still put this down to lazy footwork and also a lack of tactics. I didn’t even think of the basic 1-2 punch. I didn’t use my serve as a tactic i was just happy to get it in.

I eventually lost 10-6. So overall it was quite close. All the other matches had finished by then so we’d certainly taken out time. I really enjoyed it. I’m kicking myself because I really felt I should’ve won but that’s why I want to compete. You have to earn you wins and I didn’t. I’m happy that I didn’t get down on myself at all and I got rid of my nerves. But I didn’t push hard enough with my footwork. Ao I still feel I could have attacked more by sorting out my base.

I was sweating like a trooper, glad I had a towel with me but I definitely need to get some sweatbands. My glasses were covered in sweat which actually got in my way at times. I should have cleared it off I was worried that I’d just smear my glasses and not see any better. it’s happened before but in truth I know I could have cleaned them properly on my top and being able to see well is what it’s all about.

I think I need to drink more water when I compete indoors. It just gets so hot and I sweat so much.

I’ve also got to start figuring out standard routines to win points. With my serve I should just expect a short ball and be ready to attack it. I should also move my opponent from side to side. This guy didn’t have great movement but I hardly tried to move him at all. He also wasn’t that tall but I didn’t bring him in and lob him. I need to be practising all these different tactics so I’m familiar with them and remember them when I need them in a match.

I’ve also got to tie these routines with tactics. I need to work on identifying my opponents strengths and weaknesses. I didn’t figure out what I should be aiming at. I was just hitting without purpose. In hindsight I don’t know why I stood so far behind the baseline. I’ve been working on this cos I often stay on the baseline after the serve. This exposes me to guys who hit strong deep shots but this guy didn’t. Most were short and without power. I don’t know why I didn’t come in to mid court more so my shots would penetrate more.

To fix this I need to vary my practice more. Play against different guys and adopt these basics regularly. I really need to impose my style. This time I succumbed to a pushers style. I need to start forcing my style. then my shots will come together.

Perhaps you can now see why I’m a bit bummed. I think I really should have won but my tactics and approach was weak. I’ve got the shots but I didn’t use them properly. I'm glad I kept my cool and enjoyed myself. I also got my shots, particularly my serve working under pressure. Something I didn't do well previously. I think I played the points a little too much not the ball. I can work on these things. I’m hoping to try again in a month so hopefully I’ll do better.

The Minister, the Entrepreneur and the Civil Servant: a cautionary tale

2010-10-27T10:28:00.000+01:00

Just read this article and, like the author, I've seen this happen enough to feel it's a pattern worth recording. I can't say I've been dealing with mp's but I find the same happens when you deal with managers who are just plain busy and rely on their staff to actually get the job done. You either get lucky and the allocated staff help you out or they don't. If you get that wrong and the manager isn't 100% behind you then you're stuck.

How far does uni education need to change its practice in order to successfully deliver digital scholarship?

2010-10-22T10:17:00.002+01:00

This is a big question.. I'm not going to answer it here, apologies. No, I recently attended a coffee morning asking that question. I'm just going to post my suggestion. It's about money. I know you'll think that's not really what is being asked and my answer is that unless you can pay for the idea you have then you're stuck. I don't see anything technically that can't be done. It's just what we can afford that matters. I want better research, better policy, better tools. I want the whole lot but unless I explain how I'm going to pay for it I won't get anything. Or I'll just have to accept what I'm given

If there's one thing I would do that doesn't seem to be getting talked about then it would be delivering a simple micro payments system that some one developing a solution to an educational need could plug into their project and thus monetise it. Removing the need to go begging for funding.

A major barrier to getting an idea out there is cost. We would support much more innovation if we could deliver ideas in the knowledge that monetising them was relatively simple. I've noticed how the business model of internet games such as farmville is based on micropayments. They have 80 million users and just aim to get £2-£3 from each. They've made the payment process so simple and the price so low that there's very little barrier to payment. If similar options were available to OU projects then more ideas could get off the ground.

I'd like a place or team I could approach that had expertise in monetising solutions that could advise and support the idea I have. This would provide a means to funding a project outside of current funding models. One that develops my institutions ability to attract paying customers and develop solutions customers will pay for. It also removes the barrier to innovation that I keep coming up against. That is, getting funding and the politics that are involved.

Education is an industry that's used to having a patron. Generally the government. It's used to being a public good. But I also feel that this protection from competitive forces has inhibited innovation. I feel that funding for smaller, seemingly insignificant projects is hard to achieve because the process of getting funding is so tedious and has no guarantees. You're also stuck with needing to demonstrate a given benefit. You don't have to go far to find a situation where the people who have the money don't believe there's a need in the first place. Now you're in a catch 22.

So I just want the option to ask the customer directly. Would you pay for this. Give them paypal, world pay, mobile payments or which ever is appropriate or can be put in place. Let your customers decide what is worth paying for. So you focus on figuring out how to help your customers enough to make them want to pay.

I'm kind of tired of these people who have money who expect me to justify why I should get it so I can help some one that they don't even know about. Why should these money men get to make the decisions. That's not exactly and open and fair way of doing things. If an idea is good enough and the team providing the solution can figure out how to monetise it then doesn't every one benefit

Seth Priebatsch: The game layer on top of the world - Seth Priebatsch (2010)

2010-10-19T14:54:00.000+01:00

Just like mobile and social have come along and are now here to stay. I strongly believe that games and gaming styles are coming in the next few years. Here's a great talk explaining why.

Seth Priebatsch: The game layer on top of the world - Seth Priebatsch (2010): "By now, we're used to letting Facebook and Twitter capture our social lives on the web -- building a 'social layer' on top of the real world. At TEDxBoston, Seth Priebatsch looks at the next layer in progress: the 'game layer,' a pervasive net of behavior-steering game dynamics that will reshape education and commerce."

Gaming as a teaching tool

2010-10-15T16:31:00.000+01:00

Just had to pass on this short article about gaming as a teaching tool. I've grown up with games. But then games have been around for thousands of years and are often designed at their core to teach us something. Monopoly teaches basic maths and cncepts of buying and selling. Snap teaches about comparisons between objects in terms of looks and value.

So whilst I saw heavy criticism in the comments I feel that we all inherently know and accept that games are a natural and crucial part of learning. .

Working in the 21st century

2010-10-11T10:52:00.002+01:00

I've felt for quite a while now that the arrival of the internet will eventually lead to a fundamental revolution in how we work. I was reminded by the article Innovation:Online army turns the tide on automation of Amazon Mechanical Turk, an example of how this might play out. At the same time I also feel that this could lead to a revolution in the way our qualifications are assessed and gained.

Any business has a bunch of tasks that need to be done that don't need a genius to do them. They just need someone with basic a skillset. Til now you'd bring in a temp and train them up. Hence you've got to pay for the overheads they bring. The tools they need, the space in your office, even holidays. And you've got to pay the agency fee. Surely the internet can do a better job.

Amazon is now trying to be the middle man, the agency. They've provided a place to manage the tasks, rate workers and even gain qualifications. it's no surprise to me that they've added this accoutability to the process. At the same time they're making it easier for people who might struggle in gaining academic qualifications get some basic qualifications. Sure they're only relevant int he amazon context but then if this grows enough then it may be all they need to get decent references.

My point is really that if you think distributed then you'll break your work up into the stuff that you can outsource like this and the stuff you need done in house. Then you can improve your profit margins by only paying for what you need to outsource. Hence you're more likely to survive.

Workers get the freedom they don't currently have of truly being able to pick and choose the work they do. They pick when they work and have some say over what they get paid. they can also decide how much time they put in.

Both sides gain. At the moment I still see this as a young immature market but I can only see it growing. It may take many years to gain acceptance and Amazon may not have the winning solution. That's to be seen. But the concept is, for me, a real winner. Particularly for the next generation. If I were 16 again and wanted a little money then I think this approach would draw me in. I could do work at 11am when I wake up or 2am when I'm bored and can't sleep. I don't have to go out when it's freezing outside. It's not perfect it probably doesn't pay brilliantly at first, but the flexibility and freedom would be a real draw.

The impact on qualifications is huge. Amazon have provided a place where you can pick and choose the qualification level of those who work for you. I expect it's quite simple at the moment but it wouldn't take long before this could handle much more complex qualifications and you might be able to cherry pick the particular qualifications you require. Being very specific in your requirements becomes possible due to the scale of the workforce you're targetting. We're talking hundreds of thousands and potentially millions instead of thousands.

An ideal education: My thoughts

2010-10-03T12:54:00.006+01:00

It’s very much a time to look at existing ways of doing things and reinvent them with all our new knowledge, tools and skills.

The essence of education is, I feel, a service that changes the way you think. As you become more educated you see the world differently than before, your mind is opened. You can do things and see things that you couldn’t before. Well, why don’t I hear lots of talk about improving the fundamental metric behind this. The speed that you can educate someone. The speed at which they can do and see new things.

I see a future where learning is free. Basic content and learning systems are free and open. Openlearn is a good example. So there are no barriers to you just diving into a topic and beginning your learning journey.

If you want/need to learn faster then you pay. The faster you want to learn the more you pay. I get that this puts up a barrier but I see this as a natural part of the way the world works and should work. Developing tools and services to speed learning is very costly. You need to recoup the costs and turn a profit. Over time the tools become standardised and cheaper and thus open to more and more people. Eventually they’re free. In the meantime there are models of funding, such as grants, available that could be used to connect those without the means to pay for the premium fast learning and enable everyone an opportunity to access premium services and institutions to make a profit.

This type of model is already being used to great effect in many of the newer online games. Farmville has attracted 80 million users by blending a free to enter game with tools and products you can buy to enhance the experience further. Most of these ‘addons’ are relatively cheap and allow you to choose where to spend your money.

In education what should underpin this is a science of human performance. I envisage real and virtual laboratories where the underlying facts of how humans learn are studied and shared along with how to apply this in the real world to help students and everyone involved in learning.

We need to be focusing on improving the speed and quality of getting information and concepts into peoples heads. At the same time we need to help them express this new found knowledge better. We respect and hire people not because of what they know but what they can express and apply.

Unfortunately I don’t see much money being spent on this type of research compared to most other areas. Yet I see this has one of the widest levels of application. There are 6 billion people that can benefit from this knowledge and it’s not hard to show that the world economy would greatly benefit from a more educated population. In short we’ll benefit very quickly so the return on investment would be high.

Exams and interviews are two key methods used to assess knowledge yet I also see little scientific and systematic education on how to to master either. I see bits of exam practice on courses but I don’t see a systematic application of principles designed to help students consistently apply the knowledge they’ve gained to a high standard in practice.

By this I mean that exams should be getting consistently harder to pass yet the pass rate should be about the same each year. This should be achieved because the tools and support available is getting better. Students should be finding it easier and easier to grasp complex and challenging concepts faster, in more detail and should be getting better and better at applying and expressing this knowledge or skill in more contexts and scenarios. Year on year.

Education providers should be competing on how difficult their exams are whilst maintaining consist pass rates and minimising barriers to learning. That to me is how you create an open competitive market where students can see value for money. They can compare their investment of time, money and effort with the return they get in knowledge, skills and qualifications.

To be honest I don’t like the concept of a failure rate. If I paid for learning and I put the effort in then I should pass. Otherwise I’ll go to another provider who can teach me better. Maybe I’m talking about it being an acceptable failure rate. Students don’t pass the exam but they can retake it whenever they like. They can also buy further services if they like, to help them pass.

I also wonder whether it should just be a pass or failure. We have the technology for better granularity these days. You should pass on your strengths and then only have to retake exams on you weaknesses. I just see it as wasteful to only pass or fail an entire course. I don’t see how that helps anyone.

In terms of applying this in the real world I also expect an institution to be using it’s own learning service to educate its staff. If they aren’t then it can’t be very good. I expect newer features to be developed in house and trialled on staff and student cohorts in a beta and alpha fashion.

What I mean is that as part of the staffs day or week they should be undertaking courses. Each institution should be figuring out how to fit learning into the standard working day instead of leaving it as a bolt on to home life. There are methods of achieving a balance between r&d (learning) and delivering a solution (applying that learning). It’s in every learning providers interest to figure out how to fit learning into the busy lives we all lead. The institutions that succeed and do it well will prosper

In summary, I would like an education system that focused on improving the speed and quality of learning while also simplifying its provision. Making it easier to fit in our busy lives. One where the experience of learning gets more enjoyable and satisfying year on year yet the quality and depth of my understanding is greater. A students ability to express and apply this knowledge is also improving every year so the time and effort it takes them to go from being introduced to some knowledge and then having a firm grasp of it is so much less than it used to be.

This would be a world where the return on investment for education is continually growing. One where the prospects of all individuals who apply themselves to learning are getting better year on year.

These improvements would come about through increased research and focus on human performance. Far more than is currently done. Increasing the shared knowledge on how best to transfer information into humans along with what they need to best share this information with others and apply it in in their lives. This knowledge is then fed into the tools, processes and practices used to learn and teach.

I’m increasingly realising that’s my dream. I’m working on tools and things that can bring this to reality but I’m just one guy with limited time. I really hope that some one out there is pursuing this and making it a reality.

How Social Gaming is Improving Education

2010-10-02T00:40:00.000+01:00

I just had to link to this article. It's where I think education is going in the near future.