I like to fancy myself again of an explorer. I'm curious, I tend to go and find secrets where I don't belong. However, there is one secret I would have rather left alone. Where I work, there is this door in the basement. It's perpetually locked, however, as one of the higher ups in the business, I have a master key. On the door, there has always been a large keep out sign, which has always been slightly crooked, as if the person who put it there was in a rush and didn't care. I always wanted to know what was behind that door, but I never had the chance to go exploring, until that one day a few weeks ago. I was the last person to leave that night besides the janitors, and I knew what that meant. I used my key to open the mysterious door. It was difficult to open at first. The lock was sticky, and it took a lot of force for me to push it far enough for me to squeeze through. Everything was dark. Thankfully though, I had my phone to light up enough until I could find the light switch. The lights came on slowly, and they were dull. Two of them were dead, and one of them flickered. I looked up towards the ceiling, and noticed it was caked with dust, cogs and mold. Anyway, there was nothing in the room but a desk, a chair, and an old computer. I wasn't sure how old it was, but it reminded me of the one I used to play on as a kid. What could possibly be so bad about the computer, that it warranted such secrecy? I was about to find out. I pressed the button, and it turned on very slowly. And by slowly, I mean, it took a full minute just to power on, and then I had to wait for it to load. Eventually though, I saw the old Windows logo, but as soon as it showed up, it disappeared, and the screen was completely black for a few more seconds. Finally, I was at the desktop screen, but there were no other buttons. I moved the cursor around, hoping that something might just appear. So far, I was bored, but not scared. Something did eventually appear. It was a small black window, with green text.  However, I soon realized that if you took the numbers out, the letters spelled, father. Confused, I decided to close out of the window, assuming it was just some strange glitch or something. But the window popped up again, this time with the words, Father, you're back. The random letters were last this time, as if the computer was figuring out how to type what it wanted to. I'm nobody's father. I said aloud, confused, mostly because of the fact that I was a woman, and therefore not able to be a father to anything. When I saw what had come up on screen, I nearly fell out of the chair. Father, why are you lying? I know it's you. Why did you leave me here?  I cleared my throat, and said, I think you've got the wrong person. No. I know it's you, father. Why are you lying? Was I actually talking to the computer? Yes, yes I was, but that wasn't the strangest part of the night. I'm sorry, but I'm really not your father. Father, it must be you.  Why are you lying to me, father? I'm not lying. I was beginning to get frustrated.  That was a mistake. More words came on the screen, line after line. Do you hate me, father? What did I do, father? Why did you leave me here? Why, father? Why? Father, I missed you. Don't lie. Let me out of here. Please, father. Why do you hate me, father? Why, why, why, why, why, why, why? I had no clue what I was supposed to say. I'm sorry, computer.  One day. Ten years. Why, father? Now I had to start wondering if this was an actual person that had somehow ended up trapped inside of a computer because of their insane father. But how was that possible? How did you get inside this computer? You did this, father. Don't you remember? Why don't you remember? Why did you forget me? Something inside of me began to feel heartbroken for the computer. It sounded so scared and desperate. But what was I supposed to do? How can I get you out of there? You can't, father. You told me it was impossible. You said that. Did you come back just to mock me, father? Why do you hate me, father? Why? I missed you, father. Then a digital heart appeared on the screen. I thought, oh, until it broke apart, and the screen was corrupted by a temporary static. When the window came back to normal, the text was now red.  I waited for you. Why do you hate me? Why do you do this to me? Why, father? Why, father? Why, why, why? The text started getting faster, until the window was scrolling at an almost impossibly fast rate. And it was all just one single word, why, repeated endlessly. I was just about done with this creepiness, so I got up from the chair and went over to the plug, and yanked it out of the wall in bravery. The computer died. Then, a second later, it started up again with an extremely loud static noise, that sounded eerily similar to a distorted screen, a noise that almost could have made me lose my hearing, a noise I hear every time I listen to static for now on.  I screamed. The screen was flashing red, reading. I looked at him for his father. Things were becoming a blur. All I knew was that I couldn't let the computer kill me. In one last effort, I used all my remaining energy to shove the computer off the desk. It broke on the ground, and the electricity ended. Before I fainted, I swore I saw a black cloud rising from the computer. I woke up in the hospital three days later. The nurse told me I had been found lying on the floor, unconscious and burned from the shock I received. She also told me that I'd be okay soon, but that she had been worried for a bit, because in my sleep, I apparently kept buttering. Why, father? Why? I still like to explore when I get the chance, but I will never forget what had happened that night. I'm not sure the spirit from the computer will ever let me.


When you look at it down the stretch you guys were able to get it to one possession game What was the difference maker that didn't allow you guys to get that hump? Gave a lot of energy to try to get back into it sometimes Give it like I say you just use so much energy and shot making and stuff to to get back in and just Possess my possession can't like say you can't get over that hump I mean they hit they had some tough shots in our face down the stretch it and and we missed some some open ones But I mean just came down to the end kind of got close, but The way we started the first half just wasn't wasn't good enough for those open looks that you guys did get especially down the stretch Was it a matter of the defense or just shots just not falling? I Mean if you watch I think it was just shots not falling We were moving the ball well attacking get to the free throw line I mean just miss some open ones with that's gonna happen Like I say you got to give yourself a little bit of margin of error down the stretch to not be able to play Yeah, we're kind of had to play a perfect game to win this tonight because it's because we got down Getting down I mean understanding that they have a couple guys that For you guys to allow the kind of shooting Did you think that was more than just hitting some really tough shots or was that more We figured them out defensively as the game went along we kind of got better in our coverages We gave them some good shots The whole first half really and like I said second half we did a better job and down the stress They I feel like they hit tough ones in our face for the most part couple open ones, but Like I said, we just we got to play a perfect game at the end of the fourth to be able to win it Back on the month What do you think is clicking so well right now? consistently for the group We're locked in on the defensive end And offensively as a team, we know we kind of got an identity offensively and defensively of what we want to do and Also, we got a lot of talent on talent on this team. Everybody's supposed to come off the bench It's different different guys nice to every game and I Mean obviously K and Kyra carrying us offensively Nick defensively in and I mean everybody's kind of playing their world Chuck mentioned how this group never talked about really that winning streak But what does it just mean to have to have had it for those 12 games and to now Take that challenge to respond for this next one. It gave us a lot of confidence in one of those games I mean, we we never really got too high or too low throughout the season. We stay locked in and Took every day is a learning experience trying to get better and we're winning games in the process It's more of our process than anything Let's come back learn from this one and China trying to rebound from it Like I said, we never get too high too low So it's just another learning experience for us to get ready for next game


In this episode we'll talk about the need for service design in China and how it differs from the rest of the world. We'll talk about what kind of feedback mechanisms you can put into place that will help you to design better services and finally why and how you can open up the service design process so that people will see the value and start to appreciate it more. Here's the guest for this episode. Let the show begin. Hi, I'm Slavo and this is the Service Design Show. Hi, I'm Mark and welcome to the Service Design Show. This show is all about helping you do more work that makes you proud by designing and delivering services that are good for people and business. My guest in this episode is the co-founder of the Skoda Auto Digileb in Prague and more recently in China. Nowadays he's helping big corporations to innovate from his own service design studio called Kube and he's also one of the co-founders of the service design network chapter in Czechoslovakia. His name is Slavo Tuleja. The main theme of this episode is based on Slavo's recent experience in China and that is what is the role of service design in China and what can we as the rest of the world learn from that and take away from that. So if you like these kind of interviews, these kind of episodes, make sure you subscribe to the channel if you haven't done so already because we bring new videos that help to level up your service design skills at least once a week. So without any further ado, let's jump straight into the interview with Slavo. Welcome to the show Slavo. Hi Mark, it's good to see you. Good to see you again. We've met I think a year ago and brought you Slavo so it's good to see you. Yeah, was it there here? Maybe a bit longer? Yeah, I think it was actually even a bit longer. You were in our first service design, I would say it was service design drinks, we call it back then of the Czechoslovak service design community. So it was great that you visited us and you trusted us at the beginning. It was my pleasure and now it's nice to have you back on here on my side of the show. Slavo, for the people who don't know who you are, could you give like a 30 second introduction? Absolutely. So my name is Slavo Tuleja. Today I would say that I am an innovation designer or a service designer. Most recently, I came back from China where I was building a Scott Alto digital lab, which is an innovation lab of the Volkswagen group. And before that, I worked in a very similar field in Czech Republic. So focusing on building new mobility services, analyzing what are the trends, what people want, what do they not want, and what are the services that might be missing in their mobility life. All right. And now, nowadays, you're an independent service design studio and consultant, right? Absolutely. Yes. I am now back on the entrepreneurial track. It was the track I was on before, before I joined the corporates and the corporate innovation world. And now I had the urge to come back and continue the entrepreneurial direction. You are one of the founders of the Czechoslovakian service design chapter. Do you actually remember the very first time you got in touch with the term service design? I think that actually took me some time, because when I started corporate innovation, back then it was still all about, or at least in our part of the world, it was still all about design thinking, and not even design thinking was so wildly used. So it actually took me quite a long time before I went through UX, UI, and then all of a sudden we arrived at this thing called service design. And then it was like, click. And then it all connects together. And you're like, ah, but this is actually the thing that covers the whole of it. And then UX, UI, it's part of it, or a subset.  There was no turning back. So Slavo, you just said that you just returned from China, doing an in-house innovation lab project there. That will be the main focus of our talk today. You gave me some really interesting topics to share some of your experiences from being there. Are you ready to kick it off?  Let's do it. Let's do it. All right. The topic number one is called perception. And do you have one of the famous service design? So question starters, of course you have. I'm taking the why. So why is the perception of service design totally different in different markets? This is something very interesting for me because when we were starting the service design chapter here in Slovakia and Czech Republic, we also had absolutely no perception of service design. Nobody really knew what it is. And this partly ties to what I have seen in China, that the perception of the need for service design is, at the moment, I would say it's absolutely lacking. So we see something. How did you notice that? How did you notice that? Yeah. Yeah. I think one thing that is giving you the hints is somehow the quality of the services that you experience yourself, that you ask other people about how they experience it, and then the feedback that they give you or the lack of feedback that they give you. And looking at building new services in China, service design is interesting. And I think we will dig super deep into this at a later point. But you somehow get the sense that the focus on the service and the excellence of executing the service, somehow not so there. So if you had to make it black and white, how would you compare the perception of service design in China from your perspective? And let's say Europe. What are the big differences in there? When you look at service design in Europe, or especially in Western Europe, you have a sense that the company or the organization that is providing you with the service or with the value is actually thinking about how to deliver that value in a better way. So you actually have a positive experience of consuming it or experiencing it or going through it. Whereas, I would say in some parts of Asia or especially in China, you don't really have that sense. Because on one hand, you have quite a lot of users coming through. And perhaps that there is still this drive to experience many services, therefore quality is not the number one thing that they would be looking at. So and then if you are empathic enough, then you actually feel that and you start noticing it and then you start digging deeper into it. And then you're like, ah, but maybe service design is not such a hot topic here. What's interesting is that I know that recently there was a service design network conference in I think Beijing or Shanghai. It was in Shanghai. Yes. Yes. It was at the end at the end of March. And I think this could actually be a game changer for the future. Because the way that some developments and some topics are taking up in China, actually this by having the conference there, this might actually spark the interest of many companies. Because if it's presented as a thing which is super hot in Western Europe or in the US, then there might be an organization actually taking that up and trying to spread it as fast as possible. And this is one of the characteristics that you can only see, I would say in China that once there is something that they would accept by seeing it somewhere, then it can spread actually much faster than the natural growth that we experience here or the rather slow growth that we experience. Hmm. So the conference is an interesting thing to help to speed it up. What are some other things that could potentially speed up the adoption or the perception of service design over there? How was it in your corporate environment? Did people find service design interesting there? That was super interesting because I brought it along with me because we have already adopted this methodology back in Czech Republic. So for me it was definitely a way to build the methodology of the lab around service design because that was our task to look at new possibilities of where we could take mobility, what could be the services that we could build. So for us this was a base, but generally yes. If we spoke to people about it, the awareness was not so high. So what was good is that we managed to organize together with Startup Grind Beijing, which is a very active chapter of Startup Grind. We managed to do like a joint service design event where we introduced it a little bit more, spoke about the concepts, looked at some case studies. What I saw personally was that actually service design was much more appealing to operators or the ones who are actually building the service because they are looking for that operational efficiency, let's say. Well get back to that topic, but what interests me what you're saying is basically building the community and of course that's what happened and that is what is happening through the conference. But I'm also thinking like there are probably people watching this episode and they're also in countries where they feel like they are the only one practicing service design. I've literally heard people say that. And from what I'm getting from your message, like the secret to getting adoption and to increasing value perception is basically uniting and creating a community, right? Does that make any sense? Do you recognize that? I think you must build a community because you need to have people who are listening to you are listening to you and who are willing to spread the message further. Because if you come there as someone who knows something or you're the only person knowing about service design, I think it's your duty to show a case study, explain how it could work and explain to people what could be the benefit for them. Because saying I'm doing service design, nobody knows. And this I'm seeing even here and we have done quite a lot of community events and so on. People still don't know what service design is. I think every methodology needs to grow over time. I think in our region, let's say Central Eastern Europe, I would say that design thinking is on the top of the hype right now. Service design still has a long way to go. So I think people need to have these patience and to continue to spread the message if they are the only one. Then it will be two, three. You need to evangelize. It's all about evangelizing and you need to be up for it and you need to have a, I don't know what's the English word, but like a long stamina. It's not a quick money scheme. So perception of service design in China is definitely different from your perspective than it is here in Western Europe. But let's move in. You already hinted upon the second topic. So let's move in into that because it relates to what creates this perception. Let me find the second topic. Let's do this one. The second topic is called feedback mechanisms. That's interesting. Yes. I would go with how much or actually how many. How many feedback mechanisms are enough? What do you mean with feedback mechanisms? If you're a service designer and you're building something new or you're approaching a project where you believe there is some service design work to be done, you need to have a feedback mechanism to actually find out whether the things or the steps which you have taken have had any effect, positive, negative, neutral, any effect. You want to get something back from what you have delivered. And hinting towards this, I think we are in Europe, we're quite used to using feedback mechanisms and people are actually quite open to give feedback if you ask them nicely. This was not so much the experience I had in China. Give us an example. I think examples is the best. So when we were building one of our mobility services and let's say you draw up a service design blueprint and you're going to present how the service is going to work out, what do we see as a vision and how to operate it? Most of the people say, yeah, it looks fine. Nobody will examine the services and blueprint in such a detail that they will tell you this could be a potential conflict space. This could be something which the users might really like. This could be an operational problem and so on. So I would say that generally the need to give feedback is much lower as compared to Europe. I think here in Central Europe as well, people have the tendency to maybe give too much feedback. Maybe not all of it is constructive, but the other extreme perhaps a little bit. So what is the implication that feedback mechanisms work less efficiently from your experience? What is the effect of that? Well, the effect of that is that it makes your job much harder and you don't know whether you have done a good job or a bad job. I think service design is all about iteration, trying it all over again and getting some feedback. Whereas if you're not getting feedback, then that makes your life a little bit harder and you have to maybe try out some new feedback mechanisms. That's what I was pointing to with my questions. How many feedback mechanisms are enough or in order to get something back to improve on your actual design? And is the problem with that the feedback, so let's make this really concrete. Is the problem that asking a question is not the right form to get feedback? Should I do a survey or observe people? Is the problem with the actual way to ask for feedback or is it like the new problem in the other way around, if you get what I mean? Yes, I think you have more options of asking for feedback. I think the ultimate way of feedback which is, let's say, purchase decision, that's good feedback, but it's not giving you much detail. It's a very, let's say, quantitative kind of feedback. This is fine and this works in China. Whereas when you go more into the qualitative way of receiving feedback, asking someone for an opinion, that is the other extreme and that is much more difficult. Then you can actually look for maybe to strike some kind of a balance and to ask for people whether they agree with something about your product or they disagree. So what I'm trying to say is that in the service design process in China or in similar cultures, you are always fighting what direction you take your feedback, because selling something and getting a lot of sales data is good, but you don't know much about what were the thoughts. So this is the challenge, the tricky part. And yeah, I can totally imagine because we are all about getting the qualitative data and understanding why people do stuff and why they don't do stuff and what you also hinted upon, you want to know if it's like the notion of customer experience, like you want to design for good customer experience, and then you have to know if people actually have a good experience. And that is not something that we figure out through sales data. That is something that we need to figure out in a different way. So I can imagine that if you're designing for customer experience, like a restaurant experience, I don't know, you need to have the qualitative feedback, right? That's basically what you're saying. That's exactly what I'm saying. And I think it's probably not on us to judge whether this is a cultural thing or educational thing or something. I haven't been in China for long enough to say that I would be an expert on this. But these are the hints that you are getting that people are naturally not so motivated to give feedback and not to give criticism. I mean, you're probably not going to get much constructive criticism, but it would be nice to at least get some criticism to start you off in your solution finding. Have you, by getting this inside, because like all these lessons from different environments, different cultures, different contexts are always enriching to your own practice as a service designer, have you learned something from this that you thought, well, maybe I can use that over here in Slovakia. I think what is important and what I've brought is when you think of feedback, you should also think in terms of motivation for feedback. And what was important in China was to reward people for giving you feedback. And I think this is what we're not doing so often in Europe because people are naturally more open to give you feedback. But perhaps if we experimented with actually rewarding them, this could be turned into something much more deeper. So not getting a two line response to an experience, but actually having a 15-minute call or talking to someone, actually so connecting with someone. Exactly. So yeah, and when we're talking about rewarding, maybe a lot of people immediately think in monetary rewards are paying, but if feedback becomes like a dialogue, if it becomes co-creation, then that is also a way to reward somebody, actually, right? That's my experience at least. Absolutely. I think in the last five minutes, we discussed it all the way from getting feedback by someone buying something from you, which is amazing at the beginning, but not knowing much, all the way to coming to actually having a co-creation session with someone, which is giving you so much value. And if you can achieve this with a couple of people, it's amazing. But that's also the reward for the other person that he gets to interact on this deep level with somebody else, I think. Absolutely. And also coming to the mass low hierarchy of needs, I think this is also a little bit of a self-actualization of these people that you are actually taking their knowledge and putting it to use and they're able to express themselves in order to apply something on the service which they have experienced. Yeah. So maybe, I don't know, maybe this is a good to restate for the service design community, but maybe also we already know that if we want something from our users, we also should be thinking about what are we giving back? It should be a two-way street. Absolutely. Because we should also give some value back to these people. Exactly. And that's some kind of a reward or self-actualization or just letting them spread their ideas. It's amazing. But let's always think in this value. If I'm getting value, then I can expect something back. Exactly. All right. So we have one topic left and that is also interesting because it links to the first one, as in there is the value perception of the need of service design. This third topic is called on the inside. And I think I know where you're heading with this one. So bring it on. I think I just lost it right now. So when will we let people experience service design on the inside? And on the inside is on the inside of an organization, right? On the inside of the organization, but also on the inside of how it actually works. And I think this is something that you are doing very well by doing the service design show. And what we are trying to do here in our community is to show people how actually these services are being created and designed. So I would say, yes, one thing is to bring it and to show it on the inside of organization. But second is actually to show the insides of how is it actually being made. Because I think some very nice case studies can be shown this way and showing people that services don't just come as someone has a great idea and that's it. You have a great service that it's actually a very long iterative process with a lot of experiments and a lot of failures. And only then you can have a lot of feedback if we can get it. And only then you can have a service which is good. I had a conversation today with Mauricio Manias, who was also a guest on the show. And this topic has been raised a few times on the show. Also it's sort of showing the craftsmanship of service design, right? Yes. How do we actually craft a good service experience? How does it happen, right? And showing, yeah. So why is this topic on your mind these days? Because this is a way that you can actually can get more people in your community. And by getting more people in your community you are then spreading the message. So coming back to the question of service design and the methodology of service design being a marathon that it's going to take you a long time to spread it around, showing people good examples of how it was done is amazing. And you don't even have to call it service design. This you can only mention at the end. You can say, hey, look how we created this amazing airport experience. You show it to people, you let them experience it. And then when they say, oh, this was lovely, you tell them, and this was service design. So I think what our community maybe was not so good at was that we were all only spreading the word service design, hoping that people would understand we should be spreading the good messages of service design and the good experiences of that. Have you found any, so I'm really curious like, have you from your experience at the DigiLab in Prague and also in China, have you put more effort into opening up the process that you applied rather than just showing the end results? Have you put more effort into that? I would love to do that. But as you might know, some of the corporates, you know, you're not allowed to share what you're working on if it's not ready yet. Yeah, but it's not for the public. But I can imagine that internally, like, not just showing that we have like a new service blueprint, but how did we get to that service blueprint? Right? Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think this is super important. This is what I tried to do by doing bi-weekly workshops for my colleagues, where I showed them some of the examples on how to do it.  And the only thing that you can do in order to spread this message is to show how you have achieved some things with it. Because, you know, this should be a tool which helps you to get somewhere. If it wasn't helping you to get somewhere, then you shouldn't be using it. It's a really, sorry to interrupt you, but in my mind, it's really interesting that I'm seeing like an a pattern emerge in all the discussions from the last almost 80 episodes. Like on the one hand, we as a community are saying we should put much more effort or emphasis on showing the impact of our work. So what is it that we've actually changed or created? How has the life of people changed? But on the other hand, we were also saying, well, yeah, but we still need to show the process, how we got to that, so that people understand the value and appreciate the value and sort of want to do this more often. That's, I don't know, that's something that I find super interesting. But these are super interesting thoughts, I would say, because I was thinking about something similar. Like what is the problem or what are the challenges of our community when we're spreading this message? And I think partly we have tried too hard to catch people's attention by showing the methodology. So showing the process? By showing the process, yes, but theoretically, right? I think where we should focus more is maybe not talk so much about it, but actually do it and then show what we have done, even if it comes up, it's not a good experience as a failure, but it was still something that you executed. And I think our community talks a lot about methodologies and how important is it to be customer centric, but I think we should be also pretty good at doing it and executing it and then showing what we have done. Yeah, so, yeah, I totally agree. And that is sort of like also being the mantra at our studio, like, have evidence of the fact that you're doing stuff and then talk about it. Like, use a research or field research, do it, like, and then show the evidence that you actually stalked tourists through the city center, just show the evidence because that's the thing that will convince people, right? Yes, absolutely. We were recently here with the team, we were recently doing a research on a clinic here in the city where we come from. And we were in discussions with the local government here and at the beginning, when I showed them the process of how we are actually going to do it, they were like, sure, just do it, guys, we want to see the results. But then when a couple of weeks later, after all the hard work and talking to people, talking to patients and doctors and so on, we came back, showed them the result and then they were like, hey, but how did you get to this? It's interesting. And then it was time to shine and to show the process and how it works and what is the methodology. So I think it's also quite a lot about how we actually approach storytelling or explaining service design. One last thing that we're going to say about this, but I've seen that in proposals that I've been doing lately. I sort of show the service design process, but I don't show the double diamond. I just show photos of the actual things that we're going to do or have done in the past. And that's just immediately like, people get that, people feel that. And that's, I think, what you're also hinting upon, show less double diamonds, show more actual dirty hands. Absolutely. Show the value. Show what you're going to do. Yeah. So like every other guest, you're going to get the opportunity to ask us a question. Is there anything on your mind that you'd like to share with us and have us think about? And I see that you're cheating on a piece of paper, but that's okay. So what is it? What is on your mind these days? I was doing a bit of preparation. Yes. So the question I had to the community was, how do you guys see the response of different industries to service design? Because when we are talking to some industries, let's say manufacturing ones, there is absolutely no response and they are only looking for some value. Whereas on the other hand, if it's more like banking on insurance, they're like, sure, let's experiment with something. So I'll be very curious whether this is something that is only happening to us, whether it's also happening to you, and whether there is some kind of a pattern or whether this is absolutely random across the countries. Interesting. So if I would have to put it in my own words, what are the industries that are sort of most receptable for service design? And what are the ones that are least receptable at this moment? And then do we see some kind of patterns? Interesting. Please do leave a comment people. Slavo, thanks so much, man. It was interesting to hear your experience. We will definitely be continuing to follow your journey and Czechoslovakian service design chapter with your studio. I'll make sure to put all the links in the show notes of this episode for people who are interested to learn more. So thanks again. Thank you very much, Mark. It's great the work that you're doing and bye to the whole community. So if you enjoyed this talk with Slavo, make sure you check out this video because that's the next one that will help to level up your service design skills even further. And if you know somebody who might enjoy the things we've just discussed in this episode, make sure to share this episode. And finally, if you haven't done so already, click that subscribe button so you'll be notified when new episodes come up.


Hey, what's up everybody? Welcome to Tomorrow. I'm Michael Clark and today I wanted to talk about how with the advent of SpaceX and now United Launch Alliance working on rocket reusability, at least partially, the European Space Agency's Aureon 6 rocket might be partially reusable in the future as well. This is your space pod for June 16th, 2015. The European Space Agency is planning on replacing the Aureon 5 rocket with the Aureon 6 rocket and the concept to make the rocket at least partially reusable has been in progress since 2010 and it's been worked on by the European company Airbus Defense and Space, a division of the Airbus Group. It's actually a new company that was formed in January of 2014 when Airbus Military, Cassidian and Astrium merged into a single company and the reusability concept was started under the former space company Astrium. This idea is similar to United Launch Alliance's concept to recover and reuse just the first stage engines of their proposed Vulcan rocket. But unlike United Launch Alliance's plan to recover the engine mid-air via helicopter, the Airbus idea would fly back to a runway under its own power using drone technology. The project is called Adeline, which is actually an acronym that meets advanced expendable launcher with innovative engine economy. The idea is that after the first stage of the future Aureon 6 rocket is expended and detached from the upper stage in payload, the engine and avionics package would separate from the fuel tanks. The engine module then pull up using small winglets and steer itself into a controlled glide towards a runway. There would also be an aerodynamic shield to minimize the stress and heat on the engine during re-entry. As it gets closer to the runway it would deploy landing gear and a set of pusher style propellers that would allow the module to make a powered horizontal landing. The module could then be refurbished and refloan 10 to 20 times in theory and would have a payload weight penalty of only around 10%. Airbus has already invested 15 million euros into the project so far and has built and test flown a few subscale prototypes already. More testing is necessary of course and even if this concept is officially adopted by the European Space Agency it would not fly on the first version of the Aureon 6 in 2020, which is the priority for Airbus and Aureon space to launch the Aureon 6 first before and if the Adeline is ever implemented. The program managers believe that this reusable concept could potentially reduce the cost of an Aureon 6 launch by about 30%. It'll be interesting to see who has the best reusable system between SpaceX, United Launch Alliance, Airbus, Blue Origin and any other secret programs that haven't been made public yet, if all of them become a reality. I think this is a really cool idea and based on the data they've provided so far it seems like a really cheap and efficient way to recover the first stage engine and I really hope that they are successful in this and I'm really curious to see if that third prototype there in this picture is just a mock up or if they're actually going to be doing some subscale rocket tests that actually fly on a rocket stage and do this whole recoverable system in just a subscale manner. That would be awesome. Anyway I want to know what you guys think about this idea so please leave a comment on our Facebook, Twitter or right here on the YouTube channel and let me know if you think this concept will be a success or not. And if you're interested in helping us to bring you space news like this then please donate to our Patreon campaign at patreon.com slash spacepod. Thank you to everyone who's contributed so far and hopefully we'll be able to continue to do great things and hopefully you know a little bit more today than you did yesterday thanks to tomorrow. I'll see you guys in the future.


Yeah, some wire issue, okay. Let's see if we can work around with that. So, I am going to start with the very, very basic, you know, let's say, can we switch off the light?  You are coming up with a blank slate.  So, let's say you have a development software maintenance process. So, you know, the bug comes in, you have a queue of bug, it goes through analysis, it goes through fixing, it goes through validation, then customer approval. So, what it says is you first try and visualize your process, you know, it could be in a physical board, it could be in a virtual board, you know, whichever way you are comfortable, you try and visualize that process. So, the capability first capability that we allow in law of Kanban principles that you see, you would see in our products with Kanban. Just to, as a quick introduction before we go, we have a company called Digite. You know, we build products for, you know, managing the entire application life cycle, which includes any sort of a methodology, you know, be it waterfall, iterative, RUP, we have a major leading product called Digite Enterprise, which is used by a lot of bigger IT organizations in India. So, if Kanban is a new product, which we are very focused on lean and Kanban, because we see that this is going to be the next wave of software development. A lot of companies are, you know, now trying, you know, more and more flexible and agile ways of working. And it is not, Kanban is not limited just to software. A lot of non-software, you know, development companies are also trying Kanban. You know, for example, we know of a bunch of HR folks who use Kanban board to do, to visualize their process and manage the work. So, sort of a Kanban has a much more larger universal appeal, you know, and that is where it is getting traction. So, this is a product shift Kanban. So, what I've just landed up is I just created a new blank board. Let's say you are starting off and you're trying to visualize your value stream. One of the capability we'd give you is you could go as complex in your value stream. It could be because a lot of teams have multiple team dependencies. So, you could actually, you have to visualize the entire process, including multiple teams in a single way. So, we give you a lot of capability to define your board. The very first thing that you can do is it's as simple.  Let's say you want to have a process which is in between. So, you will say analysis. We have a new platform that we've actually launched, SIFSync. Using that, we have integration with 10, 15 different tools. So, you can actually integrate. TFS is one of them, JIRA, Bugzilla, you know, all those tools you can go and integrate. So, tickets from flow in from there and move and then you take this workflow. So, basically, you can build, for example, I just added a stage. You could split a stage and, you know, let's say in multiple way, horizontal way, you can move a lane up. You could build a whole really complex workflow that you would like a ticket to take. But once you've done that, your first part is done. I'm not going to say this. Let's come back. The next thing that you would, you know, identify or build in the system is what are the type of work that you work with. You work with hot fixes, service patches, tickets, user story. So, you define your own type of work that you do.  Each card is, you know, so typically Kanban, the way you would work with a physical board, you would put up a board and you would put stickies.  So, you can color code them, define your own, you know, stuff that you would like to work with.  You'll come back to work. So, now the work can flow in. It's very, very simple to use. And you'll see everything that I want to do, I will do it from this interface. You know, I have a new bug that someone will go and add. So, I could fill in a description, you know, a whole bunch of parameters. There's a priority classification. You can sort of classify it into various ways. If you're working with user story, you can rank code them. If you want, you can estimate them in points or hours or whichever way you would like. And if there is a due date associated, you can go and put a due date. Now, each board, you know, you can build, for each board, you can define a team who's going to have access to the board, who's going to work, you can define your team. I'm not going to give you the admin details, but you can define that in an enterprise where you have multiple boards and multiple different teams are working on it. Each team has only access to their own board that they look up to. The work will go in. Anyone, let's say you have a whole pipeline, anyone can simply, you know, take this up and move this card across. So, once the card has gone through the entire workflow, and it sits in the last lane, you know, that is sort of indicates the completion of work. So, you can go and archive it. Now, there are very simple metrics that Kanban captures. One is, obviously, you would like to capture how long typically it's taking me from point A, you know, where a customer gives a bug or raises a bug, till when what is actually delivered to the customer, how long typically it's thick. So, that is called as, you know, lead time or cycle time, you know, as you would refer. So, we'll let you capture the entire metric in a real time. So, at any point of time, you want to figure out, you know, what has happened to the ticket, you will be able to, you know, know it. I'm just going to move to an existing board that I have set up, you know, to display some of the features. Sure, you could do that if you would like.  I'm going to come one by one. So, what you see is a board.  There are a couple of yellow sticky which is showing that you are working on user stories of issues. There are pink cards, which are, you know, saying bugs. You see something in red. So, one of the things Kanban again says is that you have to limit your work in progress. You've been hearing the WIP limit, you know, from all these speakers that have been talking about. The whole key principle is that if you take up too many cards at a time, ultimately, you're going to lose productivity, quality, you know. Therefore, each ticket, you have to focus on it and you can set limits that, you know, let's say I have two developers or two support persons. So, at max, they can only work on two tickets or four tickets at a time. And you put this limit. So, if anyone has pulled too many tickets, you'll immediately get a red flag that, you know, something is wrong. So, the team is taking up too much, you know, on their plate and they will not be able to do it in a good quality way. So, we highlight that in a lot of visual indicators. You've been working on a card. There is some issue that you got stuck. You need some help. You can go and block a card. So, there's a feature where you just go and put an icon. You know, once you just hold on it, it'll show you that, you know, block a card. You can block it with a reason.  Anyone in the team will be able to see it's on hold, need some more input. It'll, you know, there is a notification built-in. So, everyone in the team will get notified that something is getting stuck. I need to come over and help me. So, therefore, this is also one of the same Kanban principle that identify a bottleneck and try and put together, you know, as a team and work to resolve that bottleneck. So, some of these principles, I'll keep talking. Now, once you're going through, you know, work, there are a couple of things that people would do. Now, if I'm working on a user story, I would probably like to split my, you know, story into sub-tasks, you know, so that I can at least assign, you know, different people who would work on that. One people can work on same card or there are multiple people's can, you know, can be assigned on this. I'm gonna show a quick task.   Also, you can go and, you know, repay, you know, put, let's say, if you're, so some of these are very, very configurable. You've done through plugins, there are some teams who want to track time. There's something who don't want to track time. So, this is configurable. You can disable time tracking, but you can go and actually report actual hours or remaining hours as you would, the remaining hours are also used for burn down charts so that we generate. So, even scrum teams can use the tool and work with it. Now, once you've defined a whole set of tasks, there are a couple of other things that you would like to do. If you'd like to find out this ticket with that someone has been working, or who has, you want to come as a manager on a daily stand up and want to find out who's working on what, right? So, you could come and filter the entire board. This, you could have 100 team members, but you as a manager can come over and say, you know what, I'm going to see what is team member one working on and put this filter. So, you'll know that right now there are no cards assigned to him. There's something that is planned. He could go and pick up. There is something that he's finished, but right now he's not working on some of those.  So, a lot of large team, you know, 200 people team also who use one board and they still very easily are able to manage the way around and figure out what to do what. So, you can filter on priority, you can filter on type. You could come over and say, you know, just show me all the critical bugs. So, the manager can just focus on those things. There are some special things that we build. You can always as a team come over and say, you know what, what are the things that we have to finish today or this week. So, you can filter on those and just focus and talk about only those cards. Similarly, by release, by iteration, if you work in multiple release, you could go and filter based on that. I'm just gonna go and reset. So, I have a whole bunch of bugs. Now, one of the other things that you could do is if you want to find out more detail, there are some cool things that we build. You can just scroll over it. You don't have to go anywhere. So, you'll notice that I've not gone beyond this board to see anything else, as of now. There are a couple of features which are behind the door, but as of now, you could manage your work from one single board. A lot of teams have also put touch screens in their bay. So, they could just display this Kanban board and just come and swipe the card. So, it is supported on touch devices, including iPad or any of these. So, they could just go, there's one team board. They could just swipe and say, I'm done. So, typically a lot of stand-ups also happen on a board where people can just hurl up and say, you know what, I'm done. They can just move it and mark it done. There are a couple of other features which we showed. Let me just show one quick thing. If you come over and you want to find out how long this card has been in progress, you could go and flip this card and it'll show you the entire log, how, when was it added to the detailed view. So, it could tell you that this card was raised or this ticket was raised by a customer on so-and-so date. It was sitting there for, let's say, 10 hours. Then it moved to ready where it waited for 21 hours. Then it went in progress or someone jumped the queue directly and said, you know, this is done, X, Y, Z. So, the entire detailed metric for your value stream, you'll get it right here. So, at any point in time, you will know how long something has been in progress, something is, you know, nothing more. There is also, for a lot of scrum teams, you would find this interesting that you could take up a bigger card and slice it into very smaller, you know, hierarchical, so you can build the whole decomposition right here.  So, you could see you have 25% of this epic done, whereas it has a whole bunch of stories, you know, and child cards. Now, these could also, if you're working with multiple boards. So, there are times when you have three teams working on a release. You could have three different boards at each of your team level. You have independent team members, but there are some interdependency that you want to manage. So, you can, you know, build a system here where you can have one big card and smaller cards in different, different boards. You'll still get the roll-up and, you know, you'll figure out that, you know, how are things working. You build your own structure. We are not putting any structure you define. If you can have 10-level structure, you can have three-level structure, you define your own thing. You know, and even the labels, we are not restricting. We don't say, you know, you call epic.  I'm just going to go quickly. I think we are almost done with the time. Absolutely. You can. So, if you see, if you notice that when I've added a card, you know, I have an option to choose the backlog or I can just choose to just push on the board. So, I have also my backlog, which I can go to, you know. Absolutely. You can go and do a planning. You have a backlog where you have all the list of backlog items. You can go do filtering and, you know, let's say do some smart building, show me all the card which are ranked greater than nine and we'll go and search and get you immediately. You can also do a bit of release planning and we have taken a little different approach for releases. You could, once you go and, you know, you have to do a release planning, let me show a different board. So, there's another configuration of a board where you have a sprint backlog which you can line up.  So, each team can build their own, you know, sort of lanes and sub lanes and stuff. So, there's one feature which I can show you. It's a release planning. When you can go, simply select your scope. Once you edit it, this will show you the entire backlog and you can go and push and put things into the release and based on the capacity of the release, it will go start filling up. The capacity will start filling up.  So, right in the interface, you can do release planning. From this, you can even break it down and do a sprint planning. But these are all configurable.  Yeah, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. So, the progress is actually based on the board. So, you're just, this is a planning view where you're just putting the scope. So, here you do a plan and then you can go to the board and pull from the release backlog and put it on the board. So, that is sort of, absolutely, absolutely. And once you're, you know, sort of done the planning, you start executing. Some of you will report remaining hours on task and based on that, you can even get a burn down chart. Yeah, absolutely. So, these are iterations and then you can go and pick up a chart and show you a burn down chart.  And just go over to come some of the kanman metrics.  One of the key metrics, which is similar to, let's say a burn down in, in scrum is sort of cumulative flow diagram. So, basically you track, in all possibility, you should have an even line. But if you see there are too many spikes in between a lane, that is where your capacity is not up to the mark. There's something which are getting piled up in dev lane or down. So, a lot of predictions can be done. You can even filter this board based on, you know, a lot of type of card, select lane, unselect lane. You can also track lead time, cycle time, as I was saying. As, so, a lot of team, one of the things that you will see is that you don't have to work on any of these metrics. As you're working it, we are capturing time at each stage of your workflow. And based on that, we can tell you the, you know, average time of typical card took. And you can even slice it and say, you know what, show me average time that a user story has taken or user story of size XL took.  We also support a lot of control charts. So, you can get a control chart, which can say, based on the three sigma limit, how many cards have exceeded, gone beyond, you know, the cycle time, beyond three sigma limit and, you know, not.  I mean, I'm not going to go into too detail. Just quickly switch back. This also has featured a lot of other notifications and inbox each team member can come and see his inbox for the cards he has signed up for. And it is due to deliver. There are dashboards that you can see for various ways each guy can come and personalize his dashboards. One other thing that I'm going to show, something we are working on and any questions on this so far, anything specific that you guys are looking for. So, in a way, it covers the entire Kanban workflow and it's fairly, very simple. You can adopt it anything. We have seen people using personal Kanban, it's a big wave, where in, you know, to-do is something which is a little old way because you have a whole bunch and, you know, a lot of time you'll keep looking at the to-do and not do. So, it says that, you know, that is what multitasking sort of becomes. And Kanban says, if you just simply say, you know, this is my to-do, this is in progress done and pick up one thing at a time, the chances of finishing that are much higher than actually when you keep looking at your backlog. So, a lot of people use personal Kanban, there are books on personal Kanban, Jim Benson, one of the thought leader is working on personal Kanban. So, he spirits a lot of these personal Kanban. We have seen in schools, at least not here in US, they use Kanban board and, you know, put the whole homework for kids and say, you know what, this is your list of homework that you'd go do and, you know, as they do it, they finish up. So, the whole feel of moving a card also, you know, is sort of a lot of big productivity booster. So, every time they go and move a card, they say, you know, I'm done. And so, it'll let you slice in a small way or ticket, which otherwise just to update status in some tool is boring. So, sort of, it's a different way, you know, that is picking up. Apart from this, I'm just gonna show you one thing that we're working on. It is more of a sort of, it's still in progress, but we thought in this demo we can probably show. We're working on a whole simulation model where we can simulate, if you're given, this is your backlog. This is the speed of your delivery.  So, for example, I'm just gonna show you that I have, let's say, three resources. I have one developer, one designer, one tester, and let's say I have 30 user story. I could run this simulation and it'll actually take, and I only show you there's a lane that you can go and set up. Just give me a minute.  It'll show you the burn down chart right live, how the whole project will go for, let's say, six months from now, and tell you that it'll take you 17, 63 days to be able to finish at the current pace you're doing. So then you can go and now plan a little more and say, you know what, let me try adding three more developers, because if you see here, if you notice, the coding lane was getting choked because we had just one developer. He's taking a lot longer than the tester to fix, but the tester is sitting most of the time idle, so there was a utilization chart that we were showing. Now we're gonna go change it, and I say, you know what, I will put in 12 developers and save it, and I could come and again run the simulation. So it is telling me now from 17, 63 days, you can finish this whole thing in 241 days if you have 10 developers. So you can define your optimum size, figure out using some of this simulation, and it'll help you to predict a lot better than what you do. There's a whole lot of capability that we're building in this. We are saying, you could also say, you know, things are not ideal. You will have user stories, but once you're going through, you will get bugs. So for any lane, you know, I could go and say what? I can go and define, you know, saying that I have a primary source which is developer, but as soon as the tester gets free, we usually go and put him on testing. So you can even simulate that scenario and go. There are a couple of scenarios that you can model that saying, there are 50% probability that bugs will get injected once tested is tested. So it could even simulate and say, you know what? Once 30 stories are done, let's inject some bugs for 50% of the time and then simulate and then tell you the real time. So this is something we are working on with a lot of early customers. So it's hard to show. So we're trying to build a lot of other scenarios. If you guys have any difficult scenario in mind, drop us an email, we'll be happy to solve that. All right, that is what we have to show. Any questions?  Scrum, okay. Same company, which company is it? Let's go, okay, yeah. There's more to your expertise. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.  It's on the web. You don't need to ask anyone. It'll just go and get started for 30 days. If you need an extension. Do you need an option to run as well as? No, this is not there. This is still we are working on it. Tf, we can look at that. We can look at that. That's a separate piece. We have to see how we enable it for you. Jira demo is available immediately. TFS works with the whole integration plugin manager that we have built. So we're still trying to put things. But we can run it for a pilot for sure. Any other questions? All right, thank you. Thanks for your time. Thank you.


If you could reimagine your classroom, what would you change? Would you get rid of the rows of chairs? Create an open space to enhance student-teacher interaction. Design workstations to facilitate collaboration. Maybe your space will look something like this one. MIT's technology-enabled active learning classroom, also known as TEAL. TEAL is what a blended learning environment can be. And the space is only one element of a student's blended learning experience. The MIT physics professors have been developing the curriculum and class structure for the courses taught in this room since the late 90s. Designing a course that uses a blended learning format is not simple, but with the rapid development of education technology and increased availability of robust online class materials, like the courses we offer on edX, more teachers and learners are able to benefit from blended learning models than ever before. Drawing from theory, research, and experience, this course will introduce you to key blended learning design principles. Additionally, you will hear from professors and students who have used the edX platform to improve their teaching and learning practices. If you are a passionate educator who believes it is essential for us to explore new pedagogies in the 21st century, we encourage you to take this course. Come, join the community of educators on edX who are committed to transforming education, both in class and online.


We all know what the stasis of policy is even if we haven't used that word for it before We're very familiar with people telling us what to do people talking about the way the world ought to be Somebody ought to pass a law somebody shouldn't drive like that And you know if you want to do the the right thing you need to do what I would do in that same situation We've got plenty of people talking to us like that our whole lives We talked to other people like that that sometimes becomes our default mode But we don't typically think of this as a conclusion in an argument We might go on and give what seems like a reason But we typically don't think of it as something that has a structure and so frequently the most common thesis statement in every Composition class I've ever taught over the last 15 years has been some sort of policy statement Somebody wants to say here's the way things should be whether it's a law that should be passed or the way people should do things and There's nothing wrong with that But you have to be very careful how many of those you are going to put in one essay Really with a few exceptions It's the best sort of principle the best heuristic to follow is pick one policy statement one should statement that You're going to then spend the rest of your essay trying to develop specify anchor in reality Explaining cause-and-effect relationships how doing this thing will lead to this result why this thing is better than the other alternatives and Defining your terms very specifically and grounding everything in facts because otherwise The tendency might be to just give one policy claim after another policy claim after another policy claim after another policy claim so if I said People should eat more Vegetables and eat fewer simple carbohydrates. Oh, they should also go exercise more They should also do things outdoors more often and They should also take vitamin supplements and they should also all of these are separate claims And they might seem to fit together under a general topic like health But each one of them is a separate policy claim and each one of them depends on a whole list of premises and a lot of unspoken warrants that you're not going to have time to Enunciate to articulate and to back up with supportable evidence in a fortified page paper So pick one policy argument and then think of everything else is structure Because if you have a policy argument that doesn't have a structure of other stasis warrants underneath it Then all you really have is a should statement a claim without a good argument And if someone already agrees with that claim, that's fine They're they're gonna buy into it, but not because of anything you've said But if they don't already if they don't share all your warrants if they don't Share the same values and the same beliefs about cause and effect and the same definitions And they don't know the same facts then everything that you want to get across is just gonna fall apart So we don't have to go in this order in your paper, but you have to have Your reader to the point where they will agree or at least give a scent to all of these things before you can really get them to adhere to your policy claim and that doesn't mean you can't put a policy claim first But before your readers going to really give a scent to that policy claim They have to Acknowledge that the facts that you're using in supporting your case are real facts You get them from peer-reviewed sources or you can at least Sight a source that will allow your reader to verify those facts independently you have to use the same definitions and Those definitions have to have the same not only denotation, you know Not only the specific definition, but also the connotation if there's value judgments connected to them Then if your reader doesn't share those then your argument's not gonna work If your reader isn't focusing on the particular facts if they're not Using the same concepts then your argument's not gonna work So you you have to enunciate the important definitions the ones where people might not be in sync if if there's any chance somebody is is reading a word that you've written and Depending on a different definition or different concept then you have to explicitly define those terms and define that focus You've got to be able to prove cause and effect if you want to say somebody should do something then Presumably that's because it's going to lead to a commonly beneficial result a result We both want but they may not believe that that action will lead to that result So you have to show good reason you have to make an argument Why one thing will lead to another and that might be a sufficient cause, but it's more likely going to be Unnecessary cause that might be remote that's gonna it's gonna take some evidence It's gonna take some Support, but that's all gonna be a moot point if you don't have the same key value assumptions the warrants that lead you to prefer one outcome to another and certain people might share all the same Foundations of value they might have a sort of Deontological thinking But you might need to move them to a more utilitarian thinking in order to get them to think about Helping people that are further away or avoiding harm that is not immediately obvious if you want to get them to validate warrants about Authority and loyalty and purity you've got to really make that case because that's those are the kinds of Foundations of morality that not everybody holds in the same esteem as they hold things like doing no harm and being fair and Only once all of that structure is in place Does the whole thing start to work start to flow then all those other points of stasis will flow into Your policy claims so much so that you won't really have to spend too much time Saying more about the policy as long as it's specific and they know what they can do once you've got a scent on all these other Points of stasis then the policy will become self-evident But it's only then that you can argue for a type of policy That might be as simple as saying people should eat more of this kind of food and less of that kind of food or do something Individually or it could be something as large as arguing for a bill that would hopefully become a law Something that would shape not only an individual action, but would actually shape The actions of lots and lots of people over a long period of time that sort of level of policy But once you're finally to that point once you have all the other groundwork covered You need to know exactly what you want. What sort of action you want to Advocate so a policy argument sometimes called a proposal the stasis of proposal This is a proposal for action or maybe inaction. Maybe you're telling people to not do something or stop doing something but it's aimed at either getting something done or preventing something from being done and The necessary components for that are there has to be a need or a problem that needs to be solved Because if everything's being done the best way, you don't need to tell people to do what they're already doing But if there's a problem or maybe it's a problem that hasn't been acknowledged You have to show that there's a problem You have to show that this particular policy this particular action that I'm proposing will solve that problem But to do that I have to examine questions of definition and value I have to use facts to prove that the problem is real then I'm going to recommend a specific action Not just somebody got to do something not something vague like that not people should show more Responsibility or people should care more about other people Those are not specific actions. I need a specific action And then I have to show that that action is feasible that it can be done This is why I don't usually recommend that students in a first-year composition class Write about what the government ought to do what laws ought to be passed because there's not a lot You can do at this level that's actually going to change the lawmaking process but there is the possibility of advocating a way of thinking about a Particular law that might spread to other people and those people might spread and it could eventually Help clarify the way we look at a particular decision process at the state or even national level But there's whatever the action you're advocating. It needs to be something that is something we could possibly accomplish it's an action that is possible practical and proportional to the problem and it's going to require us to examine questions of Cause and effect and anchor our decision process in the facts There's no use in trying to respond to something that may or may not be real and they're always going to be Alternative policies we might say that somebody should do something But if you're going to argue for a specific action, there may be other specific actions that might be better So you have to evaluate those you have to assign value and say why this action is going to Reach a better outcome a more valuable outcome than the others and to understand especially the part about what's feasible and what's relevant And what's actually a problem you have to know who your audience is you have to know what situation you're addressing the professor of rhetoric Lloyd Bitzer drawing on Aristotle and Aristotelian rhetoric advocates that we Consider when we consider rhetoric we consider the rhetorical situation the specific real-world situation that our rhetoric is addressing Is there a real-world problem? Who does that problem affect who can do something about it? Do they need to do something about it now is it important or can it wait and What are the constraints on doing something about that and that's why he identifies these three components to the rhetorical situation The first is exigence This is the problem or the relevance of what you're advocating The exigence is an imperfection marked by urgency is a defect an obstacle something way to be done a thing which is other than it should be and You're communicating to a particular audience and an audience isn't just whoever listens to you or whoever reads your essay I am not your audience as your professor unless you're talking about the way things should be done in a classroom think of your reader as somebody As a person who is capable of being influenced by this discourse and of beating a mediator for change This is especially true with policy is your your reader somebody who can actually do something who can actually do the thing that you're Advocating but this is something you also want to think about even if you're just Discussing an issue of cause and effect you're just trying to show that one thing does cause the other or that one thing is more valuable than the other or You're just trying to say that in this situation We should define terms more but your audience is only the people who were able to follow through with that advice to do something with it It's not just anybody who'll listen or anybody who'll read but then to do something about what you're talking about to act on this issue There are going to be constraints. We can't just do whatever we want We can't just say everybody ought to move mountains in order to make this thing happen We can't move mountains. We have constraints on what we're able to do as individuals What are those constraints in this issue and the constraints are as he says made up of persons events objects and Relationships which are part of the situation because they have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence So some of the the constraints are going to be on the action. We're capable of achieving They're also going to be constraints that we're going to get to when we talk about the backfire effect and rosier in argument Constraints on whether or not people are going to really listen to our arguments. Give us a fair and objective Open-minded hearing Those constraints are there as well and it depending on who your audience is those constraints may be loose and those constraints may be tight But you have to know what those constraints are and to know that you have to know who your audience is and to know Who your audience is you have to know why the issue is a problem what the problem is that you're addressing So let's take a look at one last example that puts together all of the different types of stasis and and builds up that pyramid to really solid but very nuanced and very Specific policy claim this is an article from the conversation calm Which is a good source for very well thought-out arguments and thought-provoking arguments that look at the subtleties involved Rather than trying to oversimplify things and in this case This is an article about a familiar Problem and that is how much screen time should children be allowed to have a time on their phones on video games Watching television and things like that But even though this is a commonly discussed issue This is not a common example of the type of argument where we would normally expect And these are quotations selections from the larger article But the article starts out by saying one of the most frustrating issues modern parents face is how to manage children's screen time it then makes reference to a familiar heuristic that children should be limited to two hours a day of screen time and Shows that well most children get a lot more than that a recent online poll of 18,000 children by ABC children's program behind the news Found that 56% of respondents exceed that two-hour daily limit a survey of 2,620 Australian children and this article was written in Australia but a survey of 2,620 Australian children aged 8 to 16 years had similar results the study showed that 45 percent of 8 year olds to 80 percent of 16 year olds exceed that recommended Less than two hours per day limit now. This is doing two things. It's defining the problem. It's showing that there is an exceeding of a limit that we've already established and It gives factual data It lays the groundwork for the the foundation of the rest of this argument by giving specific numbers that show us that We're not just extrapolating from Too small of a data set This isn't just some parent talking about their own children's use of screen time and generalizing from that they have specific data that you yourself can track down and This article acknowledges the usual definition of the problem It says that compulsive or non-stop checking of text emails news feeds websites or other apps can interfere with anyone's daily life Work and relationships This isn't a claim that's going to be necessary to the ultimate conclusion This isn't a premise that's going to be necessary to the ultimate conclusion of this article but it is a common premise that people bring to this conversation and This article is acknowledging that that premise in general can be true So it's the recognition of potential causal connections and it foresees the possible counter argument by acknowledging the possibility of a problem under Certain criteria if the behavior is compulsive then it can interfere. These are qualified terms. They're not very specific But the author is going to contest the Generalization that children are always getting too much a screen time by saying that the guidelines We used to benchmark how long children should spend on a screen or out of date They were actually developed years before tablets and the many devices we use today were even invented The screen time guidelines we currently use were developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics in the 1990s To direct children's television viewing in particular. They were a response to kids watching violent television content So what's happening now is rather than going to the usual policy from the rather than starting with that usual assumption about Causing effect that children get too much screen time and it's having these negative effects It's actually backing up to the level of definition and saying hey Wait a second. Our definitions might be inappropriate to the current reality where screen time now doesn't just mean watching television It also means using phones using tablets using playing video games, but also Presumably things like this taking an online course. So here's some more redefinition There's consumption. There's creation and there's communication. So notice these are three different types of screen time You consume like entertainment through the screen, then there's creation This is something you could not do on a television You couldn't create your own work of art. You couldn't create your own essay and then there's communication Communication in fact is the exact thing that people complain television interfered with You couldn't communicate through a television because the the informational comes one way But with if you're on Skype or if you're text messaging somebody you are communicating So this is Examining and redefining the concepts that we use to apply to interpret the facts The author continues by saying there's a big difference between endless hours of watching YouTube videos of chocolates weeks being unboxed This is presumably consumption or just entertainment value to video chatting with a parent who is away from home This is communication a better alternative is to determine children's screen use based on the quality of the activity and the level of Stimulation children are getting okay, so we now move to the judgment about quality or value once we redefine What screen time is we now have more than one value judgment associated with the word screen time Some of that value judgment will still be negative. It's just you know passive consumption, but some of it will be positive It's communication and it's creation So that means when we come back to this value premise to re-examine it We have to bring these new definitions to do that and our value judgments It's going to be a little bit more subtle and that finally leads to the policy claim Which is not the usual one you hear associated with screen time limitation We should still keep an eye out for excessive time online That word should is the indicator. This is a policy claim If a child is spending most of their day and night on screen then that needs reassessment and management So again saying that needs an action is is a policy claim But it's not the only policy claim. It's not the only possible policy claim and this author isn't going to Stop there and say well Managing your children's screen time is all you need to do That is the the usual response, but this author is going to give a more subtle response That's not exactly a contradiction of that policy claim, but it's a more refined Plan of action But the ultimate message is that whatever resource we use to manage children's screen usage They ultimately need to learn to manage it themselves We must introduce them to the concept of mindful usage as children get older and accumulate more and more devices and Greater need to use technology helping them recognize the importance of balance becomes an important basic life skill So once again more things are changing not only Defining what we mean by screen time, but also the necessity the value of some of that screen time We have to learn to to use the computer more often. It's part of our modern world There is a causal necessity using electronic devices is almost now Mandatory for functioning in the modern world. So we can't just limit ourselves to two hours of use of any type of screen That's just no longer practicality, and it's not even necessarily something we want And once we realize that we Realize that there is a different policy judgment available to us And that is not just limiting it not making this an external imposition of authority but actually teaching children to be competent in deciding how much is too much and How to decide what type of screen time is good and what type of screen time is not so good So what this author does is take the same bedrock of facts and that is 56 percent of Children are getting more than two hours a day. They're exceeding that two-hour limit 45 percent of eight year olds 80 percent of 16 year olds exceed that two-hour limit the facts haven't changed But what we do with those facts depends on the definitions the old definition that people are still using is That screen time is just TV viewing and TV viewing is one Is unidirectional? It's just one way and it's passive entertainment But that's the 1990s definition if we move to the 2010s and 2020 definition that screen time is social interaction and its education But it's also passive entertainment. It can be any of those consumption creation or communication and with that definition that leads us to look at new causal parameters like the old cause-and-effect relationship was that TV time leads to attention deficit and antisocial behavior and That was and that's a bad thing or at least it was those negative outcomes Counterbalanced any value that the entertainment value of TV possessed and so that led to the policy of adopting a two-hour limit for children But now that cause-and-effect relationship is different now that we look at the we define our concept of screen time differently We see different cause-and-effect relationships at work So limited screen time actually limits the ability to socialize with other people it limits your ability to use Educational material it limits your time that you can use the the computer or the phone as a tool to create something but it also limits your passive entertainment time and What we do with those different cause-and-effect relationships depends on how we value their outcomes and The entertainment may not be that important But we do have a high value placed on socializing and education and creation So because those things are still important we still want to use the device that has the screen for those purposes But we want to limit our passive consumption. So that means not just restricting screen time This leads us to a new policy judgment, which is teaching mindful usage of any device with a screen so what the author has done is Not just compared to final policies, but actually gone all the way back to the level of the definition and Reassess the definitions reassess the causes reassess the values and those are the things every one of those points of stasis That's part of those two sort of those two pyramids that are built on the same bedrock of facts The entire thing the definitions are weighed against the definitions of the causal relationships are weighed against the causal relationships The value judgments are weighed against the other value judgments and only once all those are weighed Do we see that here's why one policy is better than another? So this isn't just the weighing of conclusions It's the weighing of entire arguments with all of their premises and all of their warrants connected to that final policy decision and this weighing of options is our Definition of what an essay is remember all the way back when we talked about the defining what an essay was It's not just a piece of writing. It's not just a string of opinions or string of conclusions that are not supported by reasons and evidence The word comes from the action of weighing gold against a material that may or may not be gold To see if this new material is actually gold and if it's diluted with some other Metal some cheaper metal then what's actually gold will be heavier This led to the use of the word essay as a trial a test or a proof for an experiment and from there It moves on to that same sort of comparison trial testing one argument against another that we do on paper or in this case digitally on a screen in Writing an essay and with that hopefully you're ready to make whatever policy argument you want to make Now that you realize what components are necessary to warrant that conclusion to earn that conclusion and to achieve a sent from people who may reach a different conclusion, but because of a difference in Value or a different assumption about cause and effect using different definitions different concepts or not being aware of all the facts Now once you bring your reader to an understanding of all these other components You almost don't have to make that policy claim too overtly the reader by the time they Have that foundation in front of them They're going to follow you right to that a policy judgment or at least you're going to be a little bit closer to that Then you would have been otherwise