Practicing What We Preach
(the Math-to-Mettle Closing)
The Closing of A Game Against Reality hit the subject of surviving. If you have turned the page to find your way here, I will now share some things more personal that I hope will be helpful — helpful in surviving, and, really, actually thriving, through the toughness that we all face in life, whether in our professional life or personal life. I share some of both, but examples will be more from my professional pursuits as they tie in contextually to the subject matter of this book and its predecessor — realities of engineering with real people and for real people, and the realities of real problems with real challenges and real consequences; i.e., those in the real physical world about which all engineers are educated, in its theory for sure and usually at least some practice/reality as well.
I have chosen to do this — to write up this content and include it — because with the most solid of foundations to handle the tough stuff, you can strive to do more and better; doing more and better then tends to bring on more of the tough stuff. I share here my experiences, my learning, my growth, my “how I got through some tough stuff.”
•
•
•
Okay, I’m not doing that. Not here. “The market” indicated otherwise. That is left for another day, another book (free e-book link at the end). But the story of how and why that “stomp on the brakes” happened illustrates two things:
- implementation of some of the “key takeaways” of this book project, and
- elements of the processes, tools, and mindset of engineering design for and with real people in a real world.
Regarding the first, I don’t always practice what I preach, and often do only a so-so job at best. But even in that so-so execution there is something to learn for me, and I hope a last tidbit of something to learn for you. Regarding the second, often when we see something applied in a different realm or context, we see the underlying basics more clearly. In this case we look to the engineering and design of a book rather than a widget, gadget, device, or process. That is, the solution here is a product and that product here is a book (the system-level design) made up of chapters (the function-level design) and their sections, paragraphs, sentences and words (the detail-design elements).
On with a brief (I promise to do my best) story.
1 Setting the Stage
1.1 The Prototype Complete, Looking to Next Steps
Around the time when A Game Against Reality and Math to Mettle (the AGAR–M2M book project) reached effective completion, though still not quite “done,” it occurred to me that there was an underlying theme that had surfaced, though it had not been part of the original purpose of the project. This realization happened in mid-September 2019 when I was writing an email to colleagues and administrators across the College of Engineering and beyond. I was gauging others’ interest in collaborating toward expanding the work my capstone design program team had been doing. And here it is, revealed in what I wrote near the end of that email.
|
|
What I had been doing in our capstone design program is captured in much of the subject matter of the AGAR–M2M book project. The aim was to bring greater focus on professional “normal-world”[ † ] skills and, more so, the associated mindset. In other words, I aimed to bring to the young and budding engineer some realities of the world, beyond the physics (i.e., gravity, friction, resistance, anisotropy, non-rigidity, etc.) in which they are regularly immersed, to the reality that the world is inhabited by humans and that everything of substance involves humans, either working with them or for them, almost always both (Normals, Non-normals, and often a mix of the two, side-by-side and/or face-to-face; see below if you skipped the footnote above). Michigan Tech is well-known for its long history of producing graduates with great practical engineering knowledge and skills. Complementing the technical with an intentional emphasis on professional mindset and skillset, I envisioned, would be a further differentiator.
But this theme — with Others for Others — just materialized on its own, and in hindsight it gets at the heart of why we do what we do as engineers. We aim to serve society by providing solutions (for others) that meet their needs and wants as we understand them (covered in Chapters 7 and 8 of A Game Against Reality). And generally, the trivial challenges aside, we do it through teaming (with others) for increased breadth of capability, greater capacity, and, ideally/hopefully, a good dose of camaraderie (covered Chapters 4 and 5 of A Game Against Reality). As it turns out, traversing the struggles of our professions, whether as engineers or in any job/career, and in personal life as well, follows suit — we survive, and better yet thrive, by traversing the struggles with others and focused on (for) others more so than by ourselves and/or focused on ourselves. This latter perspective — thriving in the struggles of life — was, had been my intended Closing of Math to Mettle, albeit contextualized and geared, by way of the examples chosen, to the subject of engineering and design and in the professional realm more so than the personal realm. On the latter, though, it extends for sure to personal life as well. But…
In mid-November 2019, driving to Chicago, a thought had come to mind sort of out of nowhere — okay, no, totally out of nowhere. It was that maybe what I had written as the Closing of Math to Mettle could be reworked someday to a small book that might be useful to a broader audience. Could it be useful to other professions? And, as noted, could it be useful to others who are facing struggles in their personal life (and that would be all of us, of course!)? Busyness as it is, the thought was jotted down and filed for another day.
A couple weeks later (December 6, 2019), I had a chat with an editor at a publisher. My brother-in-law had connected me to the founder and CEO of the company. When her assistant saw the subject matter of my books, she put me in direct contact with the editor of nonfiction professional development books where my work might fit. In our first conversation, that editor indicated the full pair of books might not be for them. She graciously offered and I accepted some great free advice on some things to consider as I move forward with them. But she also asked “if you had one key piece to pull out and publish as a short, 10,000–16,000-word book for a one-hour read, what would it be?” She liked the non-textbook nature of what she had seen in the overview of material I had provided. But in terms of content and audience, she was thinking a single key piece of the subject matter might fit one of their imprints and its new series of business and personal growth books that can be read in an hour or less.
As I thought that weekend, the Math-to-Mettle Closing, what it had been at the time, came to mind given the Chicago drive-time thought mentioned above. Then the content on ‘problem understanding’ (Chapters 7 and 8) from A Game Against Reality hit right on its heels, and that is more the sort of content she was likely thinking about. But as I pondered on and off over that weekend, a beer or three at hand, I started seeing that with Others for Others theme and the potential of six short books, decontextualized from the engineering space, back to the “normal-world” space, but written from the perspective, life, and mind of a nutty engineering educator and entrepreneur. I leave more of that story for that series. But it connects here since the subject of what was originally the Closing of Math to Mettle really was deeply rooted in both doing and surviving, and really thriving, in one’s work of doing for others, typically doing so with others.
1.2 Prototype Refinement — An Opportunity at Hand
I had gotten the AGAR–M2M book project to a point of prototype. It was now in the hands of about 200 students (and some others) in its complete form for the system-level testing part of “design verification.” And while that prototype testing was taking place I was looking ahead to some next steps, toward “commercialization” (publication) in various flavors, as noted above. And then the prototype testing illuminated a flaw in the design.
That flaw was brought to light just last week, now December 17, 2019 in the timeline. It arose as a roadblock of sorts that erected itself in regard to the content of that original Closing of Math to Mettle, what “this” was before being rewritten to what you are seeing; that’s not accurate, this new Math-to-Mettle Closing is not a rewrite, it is a complete replacement.
When the roadblock was raised, I had decided very easily and within hours of hearing about it “what” I would do in response, for reasons I will note below. But now about five days since it came to light, this morning while in church it came to me — I suddenly saw the opportunity that had surfaced with the noted roadblock. That opportunity defined the “how” to do the “what” I needed to do out of necessity imposed on me. The necessity was not about removing the closing, it was that I now needed to write a new closing; moving out the old closing was simply the market verifying the product’s alignment, or rather misalignment, with market wants and needs. Anyway, as the saying attributed to Plato goes, “necessity is the mother of invention.” The inventive step, so to speak, was executing on the just-realized opportunity, what I could to with the new Closing of Math to Mettle. That’s this.
We’ve covered this idea of prototype testing and refinement, but sometimes, like this, the prototype failure brings about more than just a refinement aimed at getting it to work as planned. Sometimes it illuminates an opportunity beyond just a fix. It inspires a transformation to something that could be even better than originally planned or conceived. In this case, this Sunday morning, I saw how I could go beyond simply moving the original content to another place as a workaround to the roadblock, leaving what seemed to me a gaping hole at the end of Math to Mettle. I saw beyond putting the old, “disputed” content online where it would be free for access by whoever wanted it, including by way of a simple referral/link here at the end of Math to Mettle. Instead, in addition to the content move and referral, I could write a new closing that briefly (again, I promise (as best as I can)) tells the story of what happened that led to the roadblock. And, in so doing, I provide an example of some of the “designing for and within the real world” content as well. It could also connect to a number of the key takeaways from the AGAR–M2M book project. By this morning quite a few of those takeaways had already surfaced — gone active — or so I realized in hindsight; it would be disingenuous to claim intentionality in that happening. But it is Sunday evening now and grades are due at noon tomorrow; time to focus on that as a priority.
1.3 A Solution Concept Surfaced Now Becomes Reality
As I pick this back up about two weeks later, I see more clearly that I had, in the early stages and beyond, exercised a few of the key takeaways. That realization produced the title of this chapter. Now, to be brutally truthful as I have tried to be throughout this project… sadly, I know that I do not do as I say all of the time, bringing to mind the quote “do as I say, not as I do.” But I am better than I used to be (or don’t suck as bad as I used to), and strive to get better, and see some places at least in these few weeks where I did “practice what I preach” as related to this situation. Knowing we all struggle to apply principles if they are never modeled for us, or discussed with examples, I figured it was worth taking the time to write a bit more. Hopefully, if you choose to read this last little bit, you will find it worth the time taken to read it.
Moving forward, I will refer to the content of the original Math-to-Mettle Closing as the “disputed content” and the other 92% of the two companion books as the “main content.” The main content is the substance of the book project. The disputed content is connected for sure, in my mind, but not necessary. My including it was actually me pushing a boundary against what I teach in regard to overdelivering, knowingly so. That is, I teach the following in relation to exceeding expectations, or, overdelivering:
- overdeliver in how you do your work, its quality and your interactions.
- don’t overdeliver on what you do in design — don’t deliver functionality not needed to meet the engineering requirements or performance far beyond the requirements.
2 It’s Just DFMEA, Prototyping, Testing, and Refining
… before it goes to market!
2.1 DFMEA to Prototyping
I formally included the disputed content at the end of Math to Mettle because it was connected. This was not just a belief; I had evidence that surfaced well before formally including it, that it was received well by some of my earliest audiences as a standalone element. But, as noted, I also was not blind to the reality that including the (later) disputed content[ ‡ ] would not be of interest to some-to-many in the audience that was my target for the main content of the books. I was not blind to the reality that the (later) disputed content might be rejected by some in my target audience, so much so that they would forego the main content altogether. And that would suck.
There are no equations by which that audience/market response can be modeled and sized-up in advance. But I did resort to the engineer’s alternative, what we would call preliminary/feasibility engineering of the “physical” sort (versus analytical modeling or computational modeling). Or, rather, the writing was in good shape, so it was more akin to later-stage function-level/subsystem testing. I did that by way of initial releases of the (later) disputed content. These releases were done outside the book itself on two occasions over the two preceding years, as a standalone element as noted. Anyway, in such cases where there is no reasonably applicable math/modeling, we apply our best efforts with trials, even at times qualitative assessment, speculation, and hypotheses (educated guesses) as to how things might go, in particular for the worse.
As engineers, we are simply seeking to go in with our eyes as open as possible. We seek to identify potential problems and pitfalls — potential “failure modes” of the design. With the potential failure modes identified, their relative importance can then be quantified, albeit by way of speculative, though not blind, considerations. That quantified importance we call their “risk priority number,” or RPN. RPN captures how likely the failure mode is to occur, how severe its effect could be, and how detectable it is before it hits (so one might prepare or preferably avoid its onset). Sparing the details here, this leads to countermeasures that can be put in place in the design stage to reduce the associated risks. That is largely what a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is. We support our decisions along the way by sound quantitative engineering (physical, analytical, and computational modeling and simulation, covered in Chapter 3 of Math to Mettle), and even thoughtfully qualitative assessments as noted above. Ultimately, though, we build it, test it, and go from there.
Applying DFMEA (design FMEA) to the book design meant identifying those potential failures related to the (later) disputed content — the lack of “blindness” noted above. The effects, as noted, could be reduced impact of the main content; impacting young and budding engineers with that main content was the overarching goal of my AGAR–M2M book project and efforts. Countermeasures in the design stage included taking care to not write the (later) disputed content in a way that pushes beliefs or opinions. Rather, the writing aimed to present that content with experiential stories of how I have seen it, even connecting it largely to the profession of commercialization engineering and the design we see around us.
Come August 2019, the progressively growing main content of the book project had been used for four semesters with my students, rolled out initially as a growing series of web pages. That usage amounted to early-stage testing and refinement of the pieces, like functional and subsystem testing we do in design engineering. Over that period there were a lot of refinements, additions, adjustments, etc. to be sure. There were even a couple subjects not in the original design that came about in those two years. Most importantly, a decision was made to split the whole into two. It is here, in the final full “system-level” design, where the thought congealed and the design decision was made — some in the target audience claimed benefit in the initial trials, so some would value inclusion of the (later) disputed content in the final full product. But, as noted above, from the DFMEA standpoint, would it really serve the needs and wants of enough of the audience while not turning too many away. Previous trials involved a standalone, clearly optional offering, not an inclusion in the books themselves; the design was now a bit different.
With the main content complete, and in typeset form as a pair of PDF files, it all took shape as a pair of actual books rather than a series of web pages. The (later) disputed content was worked in as the Closing of the second book, as noted. The full, system-level prototype was now in hand and available for system-level testing.
This testing, putting it in the hands of a new set of students, would show if those countermeasures in regard to the manner in which I tried to write the (later) disputed content would do their job. Did the end result touch on those areas of personal beliefs and/or opinions in a way that was seen as objectionable, or as beneficial and sufficiently connected to the main content. The former — a finding of objectionable by some and, more so, the (albeit short) progression of events from that — is what carries the story further and brings in some of the key takeaways.
2.2 Testing to Refinement
It was Tuesday of finals week of the first semester I had deployed the books in their complete, typeset, PDF form; December 17, 2019, as noted earlier. I received an email from my department chair saying he needed to see me about some student complaints. There have been a couple other times he has wanted to discuss complaints, ones that he did not support himself as they had to do with workload or the like, but he felt I should be aware of. But this seemed different and I started, in my nature, thinking about what it might be. But pretty quickly, in the midst of about 18 hours of first-semester project continuation reviews spread over two days, I set the thoughts aside; I would find out when I find out. We met the following day at which point I learned what it was.
He and the dean of the College of Engineering had been called in to see the university’s general counsel. Three students had independently raised complaints about the (now) disputed content, the Closing of Math to Mettle, the second of my two new books I had my students using. And, I was told that if there were three that spoke up with a complaint, there were surely more who shared that view but didn’t speak up. I agree 100% on that extrapolation.
The memorable student comments relayed to me by my department chair were:
- It is inappropriate content, unrelated to the course.
- It only presents one viewpoint.
General Counsel told my department chair and dean that I needed to make a change. During my conversation with my department chair, he offered a suggestion, though I do not know who of the three of them conceived of it. The idea was that I could just move the disputed content to some other place outside the book, a web page or the like, and refer to it in/from the book. The design engineer in me thought “okay, that is one concept, and it is certainly plausible seeing that I am the author (i.e., its design engineer).” As noted, that is how I had presented it before when I did that initial trial of the disputed content in the first couple years — on a standalone web page outside the web-paged book and not shown or linked to in its table of contents. Anyway, as I collected my thoughts, I shared a few matters of fact, to assure we were on the same page; they were:
- Each of the two books has ten numbered chapters plus an introduction and closing, 24 “chapters” in total.
- All but two chapters are assigned in the Canvas[ § ] course content to be read, having associated Canvas quiz questions to be answered.
- The chapter on leading/leadership — directly preceding the disputed Closing — is not assigned. Though, students are explicitly informed of its existence by way of the Canvas course content for those who may be interested, seeing that we did have another reading assignment on leadership, a single chapter selected from another book.
- In contrast, the disputed Closing is neither assigned nor even mentioned in the Canvas course content, nor is it ever mentioned by me in class.
- The books, for the time at least, are provided for free (as Google-Drive shares). The students do not even buy them, though that would obviously change once published.
In immediate response to item 4, I was told that students see a chapter in a book and just figure they should read it. Huh?! While there are exceptions, I am sure, students generally do not read unassigned chapters in books for a course. And with certainty, at least in engineering, it is common to have one or more chapters in a book that are not used in the course — they are not related to what is covered in the course and thus are not assigned. While I hold firm to my position on this, it is more a matter of having the facts straight than it is a matter of what I should do as a result of the facts.
I explained briefly how I had figured there might be some who might find the disputed content objectionable, but this was not quite how I envisioned it. What is this world coming to that students approach General Counsel on such a matter? Turns out they went to the dean of students, and from there it went to the general counsel and then from her to my department chair and dean. That makes sense; I emphasize here the students were fully within their right, and in my opinion took the right path under the circumstances. I would not want them to come directly to me. I have been told I am objective almost to a fault, but there is never room for even the appearance that an instructor might have an axe to grind.
I then asked if this was an issue because I was the author? He said that fact probably does not help the situation, but no, it goes beyond that. I then noted that if I was not the author, then the suggested solution of moving the content would be impossible. In that case, the book simply could not be used for the course. I don’t recall if there was a response or what it was, but enough said.
In my promise to keep this brief, I will not expand to the entirety of the story, not to mention I was not recording it and don’t recall every detail. But I can say it was a professional and constructive conversation, as is always the case with my department chair with whom I share a strong mutual respect and appreciation. And I must point out that General Counsel was doing her job, looking out for the legal interests of the university; that is, (in my words) defending the university when needed and minimizing the risk of having to do so being all the better. She was looking ahead to possible legal or PR issues, and if she didn’t do so I would consider that a negative. She did the right thing in raising the dispute levied by these three students and then seeking a resolution. And to her credit, she had no access to the content, only third-hand information. All that said, I do regret this situation consumed time for any of them as I know they have many responsibilities and work to be done. But, good can come from this as with any struggle or challenge if I/we look for it, if we give the good a chance to surface — and some good had already surfaced at this point, for me at least, as related to my pursuit of maximizing and not diminishing the impact and reach of my books.
This initial conversation with my department chair closed with me throwing another idea out there. Honestly, it was more a matter of curiosity and my desire to better understand this foreign territory in which I had found myself. I knew already that if this is how things roll at a place like MTU, the disputed content surely would inhibit use of the book elsewhere either by university policy, or just because an instructor does not want to deal with the blowback that might arise; these were on my radar already in the DFMEA, as noted. Testing had now confirmed this uncertainty. But, in the spirit of design engineering, I asked if an alternate solution might be to state clearly upfront, in the course content and even in class, that this (original) Closing exists in the book, but is explicitly not assigned and not used in the course, only there for anyone in the broader target audience (student through first decade of engineering practice) who might be interested. My department chair offered to raise that question with the general counsel. I asked that he be very clear I was not challenging her position with this, rather was curious if this was a possible solution; it would be viable in a more general case where I was not the author.
The answer came back that we really need to get this content out. But, in answering that, the general counsel offered to have a meeting with me to discuss further if I thought that would help. I did, and with an email introduction by my department chair, we set up a meeting and had a nice chat. I learned more about the world she faces in this regard, the threats that abound from the world we serve as a public university. And I had a chance to raise some other perspective “from the inside” of the institution, concerns others may have with the general nature of the resolution at hand. Threats abound from the outside, but is there potential threat from the inside? I emphasize that is not my style, desire, or position, but felt it my responsibility to raise this other perspective. She has a lot of experience in the academic world, so she was not blind to that. I learned a lot in that half hour meeting, and now know someone else on campus who I didn’t know before.
All said, I see the above matter as not a potential threat from within, rather that if it came to light it might be an opportunity to engage the university community in a productive conversation — how do faculty members, and a broader representation of students as well, think the university should respond to a minority complaint of the sort. Like I wrote already, well before the conversation with General Counsel, I had decided based on engineering practice and business drivers that the best book/product/design refinement option is that which is in line with the original suggestion — put the disputed content elsewhere [in this book] and refer to it from the main-content book.
But, as noted, there was an opportunity beyond that, as has been the subject of this chapter, to tell that story, do so in the context of design and commercialization engineering, and highlighting some examples of how some key takeaways come to bear on our work as engineers. That’s next, then on with things.
2.3 The Takeaways at Work
2.3.1 Reason Over Rights!
|
|
There is something in the academic world referred to as “academic freedom.” In simple terms, it means a faculty member has freedom to teach and express ideas without risk of unreasonable interference or restriction from law, institutional regulations, or public pressure, or risk of professional disadvantage. I can only offer its description in those simple terms as I have never studied the subject myself, though General Counsel provided me some written information and explanations as a starting point to our conversation. It was quite informing, though there is, like many things, a gray area of subjectivity in many cases.
I have only heard one colleague at MTU raise it on only one occasion. It was unfortunate in that it stifled a conversation about a course where creative and open idea sharing was part of the content. He was a predecessor instructor of capstone design well before I assumed the role of director of the capstone design program. He claimed academic freedom as a small group of us entered into a creative conversation, in his effort to preempt that conversation. The conversation was about ideas on how to teach this course all of us were involved in. It was his way of shutting down a possible change he did not want to entertain making. I don’t recall the specific ideas or opportunity at hand, but I still remember it from perhaps 15 years ago, and that tags it as an unfortunate situation given how crappy my memory often is.
But beyond that singular personal experience, I have heard of various instances outside my institution where it has been blatantly abused, in my non-legal (and other commentators’) opinion. I am very careful in all aspects of life in regard to “just doing so because it’s my right to do so,” and since that mindset has served me well, I offer it as a key takeaway. Reason should trump blind exercise of rights!
If you need to justify it,
as within your rights to do it,
it’s maybe not right to do it.
I stress the word “maybe” — that is, it warrants some more-than-cursory thinking before responding, and certainly not posed as a reaction. That having been said, there are times and places where one party is being aggressively oppressive of your rights. In such cases, by all means stand up for your rights, and those of others who are being oppressed. Just take seriously your assessment of the other party and their oppressive nature versus your desires.
2.3.2 Can = Should? Not!
|
|
Right on the heels of the previous takeaway comes another. Even if something is not in “my right,” I can still act. There are many matters that are not a matter of rights — call them rights-neutral. While I chose not to argue this matter based on my rights of academic freedom, I still could have taken action.
For me, I prefer to focus on other arguments for teaching as I see fit, meaning doing so because reason and evidence supports doing so, with the freedom focused more on how one teaches than on what one teaches. The constraints that I believe supersede academic freedom, in regard to “what” is taught, say the content should be relevant to the course at hand. As noted, at least one of these students claimed the content of the Closing was not relevant to the course. Still, I could certainly have fought it, fighting certain claims made by the complainants, not claiming for myself some general rights.
How? I would argue that the content of the original Closing was indeed relevant to the course, presented with substantive design context and with abundant examples of commercialization engineering. But, just because I can fight it doesn’t mean I should. My “why” was about having a positive and reaching impact on not only young practicing engineers, but also on engineering students. The signs were clear; fighting this would not be right with my “why.” Like the previous takeaway, this too applies personally and professionally. And on the professional side, specifically in design engineering… there are all sorts of things we can design and ways to achieve certain functionality that just shouldn’t be done. And I am not talking about ethics here (though that is true too!), I am talking about things that just shouldn’t be done even though it is technically achievable/viable/feasible.
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should;
get your “why” right.
2.3.3 From Harbor to Destination
|
|
In all this, I kept in mind first and foremost the long-term. Most important in the end is that I reach the largest audience possible with the main content — 92% of the entirety (the 8% balance being the disputed content). I had to focus on next steps toward publishing (mid-term), and simply deal with the near-term situation at hand. That is not to say the near-term is unimportant, rather that the long-term must be our foremost consideration as it is so easy to lose sight of it. As Steven Covey states, “begin with the end in mind.”
But, as I add to that, the voyage and destination are meaningless if your ship sinks in the harbor. Those near-term things must be attended to and done very well and with character in the heat of the moment. The mid-term… well, long-term aside, if we stay myopically focused on what’s right in front us (near-term), we are likely (in the mid-term) to slam right into something a bit further out, or miss an important opportunity if focused only on the urgent in the moment. So, as you deal with the near-term, keep your head up. Perhaps an image that is so relevant these days (I catch myself still on occasion too!) — don’t walk with your head down texting/reading your phone; that thing you slam into might be a car or truck or just another pedestrian (though if she had her head up, she likely chose to avoid you and you never knew it).
Envision long-term; focus on mid-term;
deal with near-term… in that order.
2.3.4 Not My First Time | Substance Means Tradeoffs
|
|
Don’t think for a moment this is my first time, or will be my last time, to conceive an idea or even take it to creating something based on an idea that pans out to failure, if not sooner, then sometimes later (better sooner than later, though(!), I can say from experience). There have been many over the years. As design engineers, that is just gonna happen. So, we learn from them. And with that learning — intentional learning — from the experiences of life, we develop our gut… our experience. As noted, we engineers do not make decisions based on our gut, but we do capitalize on it for direction. And with better direction of our efforts comes efficiency and even better effectiveness.
Learn with intentionality from the experiences of life,
don’t just experience them.
|
|
In the context of the situation at hand, it is true to say I have offended others in the past, though not with intention. But through that I have learned to be more thoughtful and intentional in how I do what I do, how I say and write what I say and write. At the same time, through experiential learning I know to find a balance. Playing it so safe nothing will ever be a failure of some sort means nothing of substance gets accomplished… we get trapped in the trivial. If there are no tradeoffs, the design problem is trivial.
In the case at hand, while three students raised issue on the disputed content, in the two times I had shared it before, in the initial trials I had mentioned, I had a few students each time contact me either in person or by email. They thanked me for my openness in sharing those things, commending me for doing so as they found it encouraging and/or helpful. General Counsel raised the supposition, with which I agree, that if three with complaints spoke up, there are others who didn’t speak up. But at current count, there are as many who spoke up in the positive, and none in the negative, the two times it was previously released, those times done so with notice given regarding its availability and how to access it. General Counsel acknowledged that in that case, again there would be some who saw value but didn’t speak up.
My gut tells me people are more likely to speak up when dissatisfied than when satisfied. If that is the case, then on a per-trial basis, there would be even more who found it beneficial and didn’t speak up than those who found it objectionable and didn’t speak up. Now, I did not take time to confirm my gut extensively, but with a little poking around I found a few archival publications and a couple customer servicing organizations that confirmed my gut — people are more likely to complain (speak up) when dissatisfied than they are to compliment (speak up) when satisfied. Again, in keeping this (sort of) brief, I will leave it at that. The tradeoff, then, is to not provide benefit to some in order to avoid the fewer taking issue. Well, then, we can resort to Jim Collins’s “genius of the AND” versus that “tyranny of the OR” and have it both ways — put it in a separate short book, refer readers to it, and let those who have no interest, or negative interest, just not check it out. Easy enough; done. This is it.
If there are no tradeoffs,
the design problem is trivial.
2.3.5 Experience, Expectations, Perception, Reality
|
|
Twenty years ago, it is unlikely the disputed content would be disputed, at least in a somewhat more conservative culture like Michigan Tech. I would not have considered its inclusion in the book design as the driver of a failure mode in my DFMEA. But times are a changin’.
Where Western society has evolved to, we all experience through the news and other sources a growing sensitivity to subjects of a personal nature where there are two or more sides or positions. Over time many have come to expect others to be attentive to their sensitivities and take extra care not to offend. And they expect this even if there is no reasonable level of care one can possibly take to not offend and actually meet with success. In fact, there is at times, with some people, a perception that offense is intended, rather than the default being benefit of the doubt, a presumption that the other party is not actually out to offend.
Based on my limited information about the three complainants, I cannot say for sure. But, there are signs in what I heard that make me wonder if the entire Closing, the entirety of the disputed content, was read, or just the title, or maybe the first few pages. The reality of the times is, though, that there are some, if not these three, who would perceive that I was out to offend by reading the title alone. And, that is important. Perception precedes the proof of reality (Chapters 1 and 9 of Math to Mettle). And since I know that, I took care in how I wrote it but also realized that might not be enough for some. Their perception would cut them off before seeing the proof of reality, the writing itself. Then again, I may have just failed in my writing as well; it is available beyond this point for those who wish to read and assess my intentions for themselves.
That said, the reality that I see is that those who are blatantly and intentionally offensive are few, as are those who seek on all occasions to be offended. The majority are generally level-headed and well-meaning, whether in agreement or not with those they are interacting with. We should all focus on them (call them the mid-term, the opportunities for healthy and productive interaction and service) and deal with the others as needed, as makes sense, as I have tried to do here. Of course, like any design problem, there is no single right (rather, best) solution/answer, though there are some wrong ones. It is my belief, based on all consideration I have made as shared in large part here, this is at least not a wrong/bad solution in dealing with the market perspective confirmed by the raised dispute/complaints.
Experience creates expectations,
expectations shape perception,
and perception precedes
the proof of reality.
3 Wrapping Up
Here and all around us we see much negativity and even hostility toward the ideas, opinions, and positions of “others.” Regardless of the divisive realm — be it race, gender, religion/faith, or politics — those who take a side, and with it intentional and active distaste for those who do not share their thinking, are really the minority. Though, they are becoming a more and more vocal minority. And we all need to realize it comes from both directions, with some on each fringe of the statistical distribution, both the “left” and the “right.”
Those at the fringes may seem like many, but that is largely because they are outspoken and catch the limelight of the ever present these-days media. Have faith in your fellow inhabitants of this planet. The vast majority of those with whom we share this planet, the “others with” whom we live and work, and those “others for” whom we live and work and serve, generally want good for others in spite of their differences. And that majority generally realize that it is those differences among us that bring good to the world. Unfortunately, while it may be those on the fringes who speak most loudly about and in defense of those differences and their goodness, often in doing so they effectively and contradictorily shut down those whose position is not the same, that is, different. I am effectively restating what I just said above because it is important to realize the minority-reality to avoid getting sucked into one extreme side or the other, sometimes feeling like it is the majority that sit there at the extremes. That said, revisiting this in the fall of 2020, we are seeing in the United States of America an upswell of what is called “cancel culture.” More sad than scary to me, but it is real and a threat to so much good that can come with open, threat-free exchanges.
Coming full circle to that with Others for Others theme noted, the AGAR–M2M book project has indeed been representative of that. Even in the twilight storyline of the dispute situation covered here, that process occurred with involvement of my department chair, my dean, and the general counsel. In fact, to a degree the “for others” were also “with others” in that the design adjustment came by way of my “extended team” — these initial market-trial candidates; your end-users and customers are always an abstract part of your extended team (“with others”) to the extent you involve them and listen to them.
[ † ] As I have become better acquainted with the world around my world of engineering, I have begun to refer to us engineers, and those who are not, with terms that are offered in fun and lightheartedness, but at the same time founded on statistical and observed reality. I sometimes refer to us engineers, the minority of the human world, as “Non-normals,” and all the others, the vast majority of the human world, as “Normals.” Most engineers recognize we (most of us, but not all; everything is a statistical distribution) are a bit different than the Normals. We see this in social settings and in work settings. And most Normals who associate with engineers recognize the same. So, let’s call it as it is (having some fun and a dose of humility at the same time) and celebrate that difference, one that brings a lot of good to the world of Normals by us Non-normals, while thanking God that us Non-normals have the Normals to keep us well adjusted and with purpose!
[ ‡ ] I will prepend “disputed content” with “(later)” in the story timeline until the timeline reaches the point of said dispute (roadblock arisen).
[ § ] Canvas is one of a variety of online learning systems, the one used at MTU at this time. It is where all the assignments, related information, etc. are provided in weekly modules that the students follow.
wjendres.com 