Judging the Complexity of Processes

I’ve been downloading and installing various pieces of software lately, particularly in connection with my work for INFO 498.  One of those pieces of software, oXygen XML Editor, requires a 30-day trial key, and getting that key requires a form to be completed.  I want to demonstrate what’s horribly wrong with the image below:

videodemo

The problem?  The “watch this video demonstration” link.  Why is this a problem?

  1. If your registration process is so difficult as to require a video, your registration process needs to be rethought badly.
  2. Why the video is required is not obvious; the registration process on the web page itself is self-explanatory, since it’s just completing the form and pressing “Submit”.

But wait – what does the video cover?  If you watch it, it walks you through two different forms of registration – via the program itself and via the program’s web site.  Both registration forms to request the e-mail are very, very easy.  The hard part (well – more like “the confusing part”) of the registration actually comes after you complete the e-mail; there are nine lines of e-mailed text to copy and paste into a licensing dialog.  Why nine lines?  Why not one?

  • They failed to consider their audience.  This is an XML editor geared towards developers.  If developers don’t know how to complete a registration form and copy/paste into a text box, we’re all in serious, serious trouble.
  • They failed to simplify their information entry process.  Why the hell do we need nine lines of licensing information to paste into the program?
  • The video restates the same facts twice.  It presents registering via the program and then entering the registration information into the dialog box provided with the application, then presents it via the web site and doing exactly the same process with the application.  There’s no difference between the two methods other than the point of initiation of the request for the trial license.

What did they do right?

  • At least with the online form, they marked required fields.
  • They left the default value of the “Please send me news about upgrades, discounts and special promotions” checkbox unchecked.
  • They only asked for what they needed.  They didn’t request your mailing address, birthdate, or any of the other extraneous information that can make people suspicious of a company’s true intent with the information you provide when registering.

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Emissions Standards

The Seattle Times reports that a number of states are lining up to sue the federal government in order to get them to stop dragging their feet about federal emissions standards for automobiles. It’s interesting that they have finally realized that turning to legal resources is probably one of the only ways to get the federal government to cooperate; it has seemed blindingly obvious for quite some time that the Bush administration has absolutely no interest in improving fuel economy for the United States automobile fleet. This may seem like an incredibly myopic view of things; however, consider this quote from the article:

But these 16 states, representing about half of potential car-buyers, want to do better. That’s a lot of market share to entice car manufacturers to improve emissions-limiting technology.

But the Bush administration, which dragged its feet on acknowledging climate change, inexplicably seems intent on doing whatever it can to thwart states’ efforts to take the lead. The EPA was having none of it, rejecting the only waiver among more than 40 applications in 30 years.

It seems interesting that the government is afraid to allow states authority to enforce their own standards; for instance, the state of California, for a long time now, has had some of the strictest standards nationwide.  This is partly because they realize their responsibility, but also partly because the voters in the state actually support the endeavor.  It is no coincidence that many other states tend to adopt California’s standards after they are made; it is primarily because those states recognize the wisdom of these standards.  Let us hope that the federal government can do the same.

First Day Debrief

Winter quarter is here, which, of course, means that today was the first day of classes. Today covered PBAF 594 and IMT 580, two very distinct courses.

PBAF 594, otherwise known as Economics of Environmental Management, is shaping up to be quite an interesting course, although the textbook reading is a bit dense. This course focuses on the idea that environmental resources can be evaluated under an economic system. This will be an interesting exercise, since I am certainly not used to the idea of the environment being reducible to a number or a set of numbers. However, Maria Damon, the faculty member teaching the course, seems to know quite a bit about the subject and is quite knowledgeable. This course should not require any mathematics at the calculus level, however, a glance at the textbook makes clear that some mathematical knowledge is definitely going to come in handy. This includes quite a bit of information about being able to actually interpret graphs properly. Normally, this is not something that I’ve actually had a problem with, but it is certainly something that I am a bit rusty at. There will be a lot of reading for this particular course, and a lot of it will be stuff that I am not used to actually reviewing. We’ll see how it goes.

IMT 580, otherwise known as Management of Information Organizations, was taught today by Mike Crandall, the head of the MSIM program. The normal instructor, Jochen Scholl, is currently in Hawaii attending a major conference there. However, since Mike has taught the course before, it really wasn’t that much of a problem — it will be interesting to see the differences between the two teaching styles. This course mostly focuses on the idea of — of all things — management, and how management can effectively change the way the information is handled within an organization. There really isn’t that much to say here, since we didn’t get very in depth. Most of today was simply an introduction to the course. We did get into some of the ideas behind management — such as the basic definition of management — but we didn’t get into anything the text did not cover.

It is becoming quite clear to me that, even though I haven’t had INFO 498 or IMT 530 yet, the amount of reading this quarter may very well end up being ridiculous. Already, I have several readings for all these classes, and quite a hefty stack of papers. I have nothing for INFO 498, however, since nothing has actually been assigned yet. Well, as Mike Crandall made a point of saying in IMT 580 this afternoon, “Hey — welcome to graduate school.”

Sustainability and Personal Freedom

Someone once told me — perhaps in a far more eloquent way — that we should pursue that which makes us happy; that if something fails to make us happy, and should be abandoned.  As I think about this statement, I wonder whether or not this idea is directly applicable to the idea of sustainability.  For instance, we have people who greatly enjoy buying vehicles such as the Hummer, which is one of the lowest rated vehicles for fuel economy on the market — in fact, it is exempt from the EPA fuel economy scale due to its weight.  If sustainability does not make us happy — indeed, if its exact opposite makes us happy — should we pursue sustainability?

The problem is, sustainability is really something focused towards the greater good.  While some people are certainly happy implementing sustainable ideals, this is not globally true.  Nor is it really our responsibility to make it so, since we value the idea of personal freedom.  So what happens when the necessity of preserving a way of life overrides our need for individual freedoms?  We can certainly promote sustainability as a cultural movement, which is entirely appropriate, since there are a large number of people who believe in it.  But to force sustainability upon people who don’t want it is to alienate them from the idea.  This would almost suggest that we should focus on the young, that we have to focus our efforts on people who are growing up around the idea of sustainability, encouraging them to make sustainable decisions.  But then we have the same problem that we had before — we are forcing sustainability on a population that has no choice in the matter.  Yes, we can educate the young to make sustainable decisions, but is that really allowing them their own freedom?

One of the ideas that we must struggle with, then, is that sustainability, while necessary, cannot simply be foisted upon others.  Much the same thing can be said about our energy independence, where alternative energy supporters practically presume that everybody else is wrong and we are right — that we must force upon people the ideas of solar power, wind power, and other alternative energy sources.  While many people are certainly receptive to this idea, one could argue it is a violation of freedom.  So where do we start?  How do we make this an effort that makes everybody happy?  Is this even possible?  Sustainability is yet another field where we deal with this contradiction.  The answer to all of these questions is both yes and no — it simply depends on our approach.

Sustainability as a Point of Conflict

The New York Times wrote recently on conflict between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minerals Management Service.  In brief, these two agencies plan to implement two different policies that will impact the polar bear population.  The Fish and Wildlife service intends to list the polar bear population as endangered, while the Minerals Management Service intends to open up potentially vital habitat for the polar bear to oil companies.  The energy problems surrounding this notwithstanding, this is a beautiful example of how two kinds of sustainability come into direct conflict with one another.  Which is more important – energy or saving world species?

This is where value judgements enter quite strongly into play, and, much as we might like to ignore the fact, sustainability is in fact a value – more specifically, it’s a personal value rather than a cultural value, since the culture of the United States as a whole has yet to embrace the idea.  Economists would say that sustainability is also a part of a person’s utility, since doing things to assure sustainability increases a person’s well-being.  When that’s the case and sustainability is not prevalent enough on a cultural level, which way do you swing the pendulum?  Do you declare the species endangered to protect their habitat, or do you attempt to increase our energy independence by allowing drilling operations?  Doing both is certainly entirely possible, but one act makes the other inherently more complicated.

I’m not sure there is a right answer here, but there is certainly a more correct answer given the direction of the economy and the overall political environment: declare polar bears endangered and protect their habitat, but allow for drilling elsewhere if it is feasible and can be done in a reasonably low-impact manner.  I acknowledge the relative absurdity of the previous statement, since by definition, no drilling is low-impact, ever, and the likelihood of such drilling occurring anywhere within the lower 48 states is likely to be met with extreme resistance by concerned citizens.  The debate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and drilling rights there notwithstanding, Alaska is, plain and simple, an easier state to drill in, since much of its population is concentrated.

One hopes that we can arrive at a sustainable solution for both the problem of habitat and energy independence; indeed, it’s the only thing we can reasonably attempt as a nation.

Potential MSIM Internship

For those of you who may not know, the MSIM program requires an internship of all its graduates. One of the possibilities I came across is with the Washington State Department of Ecology. From what I understand, this would involve working with them on the state’s sustainability measurements, coming up with a better framework that would allow them to produce these reports more effectively.

I talked briefly with the person that suggested this as a internship project: it turns out that the state’s sustainability work actually started in about 2005. The overall idea is that all state agencies collect roughly the same data and report on their consumption. Example measurements include gasoline use, electricity use and the amount of recycled paper used. The state is really quite serious about this effort, so much so that Governor Gregoire has issued a Climate Change Challenge to the state. The Department of Ecology has been responsible for the majority of the organization of this project, though there seems to be some state-level involvement. The sheer scale of this project seems quite impressive, and I would really look forward to being able to do this as a project. Though I was a little doubtful, it sounds as if the MSIM program actually allows for programming as a major part of the internship. It sounds as if I may be well prepared by taking INFO 498 next quarter, since that will introduce me to C# as a programming language, which will be quite an interesting experience, since it will be my first introduction to .NET as a programming architecture.

I am quite eager to see whether or not this will work out as an internship. I’ll keep this blog updated as I get more information.

By the way, I wrote this whole blog post using Dragon NaturallySpeaking, which was an interesting experience.

Sustainability in Job Searches

As of late, I’ve had a job search agent working for me on careerbuilder.com, sending me all jobs that match the phrase "sustainability".  I originally intended it to try to isolate jobs that involve environmentally sustainable planning, advocacy, management, and thinking, but that’s not quite what’s turned up.  Here’s a sample of job titles from the most recent alert on January 2nd:

  • Geologist
  • Civil and Structural CAD Technicians
  • Civil Engineers
  • Architects/Architectural Designer
  • Electrical Engineer
  • Mechanical Engineer
  • Regional Sales Manager – Retail

It’s fairly clear that at least some of these have some sort of ties to the environment – architecture and geology have clear ties (and to a lesser extent, so do the engineers).  But why the regional sales management position?

Keep in mind: this is a keyword search.  Thus, it simply matches the word "sustainability" in anything, and will match:

Supports marketing initiatives and ensures successful implementation and sustainability within the Region.

This is an indicator of two things, at least from my perspective as both an information management graduate student and as someone highly interested in sustainability:

  1. It’s all about context. "Well, duh," I can hear you say, but it’s amazing how many people forget this.  Search engines are only as good as the amount of context it has about what you’re searching for.  What does this have to do with environmental sustainability?  Pretty much nothing, until you consider:
  2. While "sustainability" may be synonymous with "environmental sustainability", the reality of the job market would seem to dictate otherwise.  Tying back to my previous post, this synonymy is not universal, though it would seem to be by glancing at the political atmosphere of  a good chunk of first world countries.  My job search might pull up a job that directly has to do with sustainability – my alma mater, The Evergreen State College, recently posted a job ad for a Director of Sustainability, for instance.  But it’s equally as likely to suggest regional sales positions precisely because the meaning of "sustainability" depends upon its context!