In a previous post, I discussed the way we could improve the mapping of a tool we all use frequently: email. However, the benefit of the 'good mapping' rule is best achieved by personalising it to your own work situation (actually, this applies to all of the Usable Business rules).
To do this, you need to start considering the key inputs to your work and how you need to transform these so you can do your outputs/actions. I.e. how can you better map the stuff that falls into your 'in tray' to your actions and thus process them more quickly and effortlessly...
Of course, many of the inputs we get are from other people so we now have the hard task of how to support or influence them to give us inputs that better match our outputs (such as how to encourage them to do good email Subject Lines). However, sometimes we create our own inputs and due to historical reasons these may not actually be the best format we could use to support ourselves going forward. Of course, we also need to be good citizens ourselves and think about how we input into the work of others and how we can make our inputs more useful for them (thus making use of karma; hopefully if we do unto others they might be slightly more tempted to do unto us...or something like that).
Regardless of who controls your inputs - now's the time to start thinking about them. I suggest keeping a diary for one week that catalogues all of the inputs you work with and what the output was (and perhaps how hard the transformation/mapping was). I suspect in a few days you'll start to see some easy patterns and may not have to keep this going for the whole week. This will definitely take some effort, but I think the results will be worth it. At the least, maybe you could take a half hour to try to brainstorm typical inputs/outputs - this would still be better than nothing! Your notes might be something like this:
Example 1
Task: requests to make changes to website
Input: multiple emails
Mapping: transfer to spreadsheet so can keep track of requests and assign to individuals in team
Output: actioned changes
Frequency: once a week
Example 2
Task: answer question on project deadlines
Input: email requests for project information
Mapping: open project folder for each project, search for Project Plan, open and review, save answers, email answers
Output: email reply
Frequency: once a day
and so on...
this analysis should give you an insight into opportunities to action common tasks with less effort merely by looking at the formats used for the inputs/outputs.
Taking our example 2 (request for project information), this analysis might start us thinking...
Can I make the project status always visible? An online project chart?
If not, is there a way to create an automated response taking data from the Project Plan? (we might have to ask our customers to use a standard email Subject Line, but this might not be too big a deal)
Can I find a way to automatically put project deadlines from multiple projects into one document or online form that is readily viewed? Can this be shared with customers?
Can I delegate this task (and similar) to someone? Maybe even someone external to the organisation at low-wage (outsource low level admin tasks?)
Some answers may rely on looking at purchasing online tools, some might make use of automation features of desktop software and some might simply look at how you choose to organise your files and folders. It doesn't really matter - the key is to take the big idea of 'better mapping' and explore how it relates to your specific situation and use that to generate new ideas/insights for improvement. There are no rules or simple tips here - just new ways of thinking about organisational ways of working and problems. So, feel free to explore and have some fun and experiment.
Monday 31 May 2010
Accidentally invisible
Many of the ways we communicate are 1-1 instead of many-to-many and thus, accidentally, obscure important information from the group (or rely on the memory of individuals to share important information - never wise).
For example, many of us still email key information as attachments (an attached document, for example) - particularly when sharing with people outside our own organisations (within an organisation, hopefully most people understand to email a link to a document on a shared central location; but from my own experience I know this isn't always the case). For example, a document author may send their document to multiple reviewers. The problem with this approach is that it only supports 1-1 communication; the actions and thoughts of each reviewer is hidden from the others, resulting in confusion and also replication of work and effort. It also opens up the pain of having to amalgamate comments and changes from multiple documents into a new 'master' document. Finally, it opens up the chance of document versions getting mixed up. The simple solution is to have one master document available in one location for all. Fortunately, there are many online tools that support this, a well-known example being GoogleDocs. Many of these offer fantastic features to track changes across multiple authors and can even notify group members when parts of a document has been changed (another great example of making things visible). Many of these are even free. So, a good starting point for all of us it to keep asking ourselves how we can move from the relative invisibility of 1-1 sharing to group-sharing (making things visible to the group).
I've also found that traditional documents seem to have an inertia to being changed; they quickly become 'dead'. I.e. the effort of updating them and then sending the updates by email to multiple recipients quickly becomes 'not worth the effort', so people stop doing it. However, changing an online document is relatively easy and also opens the possibility of other users being automatically notified that the change has been made (thus inviting comments/responses, without the author of the change always having to explicitly ask for this).
Of course, this doesn't just have to be about document sharing. Anywhere we traditionally share information by paper or by 1-1 email we have an opportunity to make things more clear and visible. E.g. online project management tools that allow everyone to see shared deadlines, tasks, documents and information.
Another good example is email. Often you respond to a question by someone with information that would be useful to others. When you only respond to one person, this useful information is lost. However, it is not helpful to constantly CC: people into every email. Two possible solutions:
1) Favour online collaboration tools that allow you to attach emails to projects or areas of interest, so that anyone can view them when they choose.
2) copy all emails (as a default setting) to a shared repository area so people can browse/search this when they choose.
The benefits of this approach are so big, I'm tempted to say that we should perhaps abandon ANY simple information creating application that is on our Desktop (e.g. a word processor) and ALWAYS use online versions who have a default setting of public to the group. This wouldn't work for everything (some power applications don't currently have good online alternatives), but might be incredibly helpful for 90% of what we do.
For example, many of us still email key information as attachments (an attached document, for example) - particularly when sharing with people outside our own organisations (within an organisation, hopefully most people understand to email a link to a document on a shared central location; but from my own experience I know this isn't always the case). For example, a document author may send their document to multiple reviewers. The problem with this approach is that it only supports 1-1 communication; the actions and thoughts of each reviewer is hidden from the others, resulting in confusion and also replication of work and effort. It also opens up the pain of having to amalgamate comments and changes from multiple documents into a new 'master' document. Finally, it opens up the chance of document versions getting mixed up. The simple solution is to have one master document available in one location for all. Fortunately, there are many online tools that support this, a well-known example being GoogleDocs. Many of these offer fantastic features to track changes across multiple authors and can even notify group members when parts of a document has been changed (another great example of making things visible). Many of these are even free. So, a good starting point for all of us it to keep asking ourselves how we can move from the relative invisibility of 1-1 sharing to group-sharing (making things visible to the group).
I've also found that traditional documents seem to have an inertia to being changed; they quickly become 'dead'. I.e. the effort of updating them and then sending the updates by email to multiple recipients quickly becomes 'not worth the effort', so people stop doing it. However, changing an online document is relatively easy and also opens the possibility of other users being automatically notified that the change has been made (thus inviting comments/responses, without the author of the change always having to explicitly ask for this).
Of course, this doesn't just have to be about document sharing. Anywhere we traditionally share information by paper or by 1-1 email we have an opportunity to make things more clear and visible. E.g. online project management tools that allow everyone to see shared deadlines, tasks, documents and information.
Another good example is email. Often you respond to a question by someone with information that would be useful to others. When you only respond to one person, this useful information is lost. However, it is not helpful to constantly CC: people into every email. Two possible solutions:
1) Favour online collaboration tools that allow you to attach emails to projects or areas of interest, so that anyone can view them when they choose.
2) copy all emails (as a default setting) to a shared repository area so people can browse/search this when they choose.
The benefits of this approach are so big, I'm tempted to say that we should perhaps abandon ANY simple information creating application that is on our Desktop (e.g. a word processor) and ALWAYS use online versions who have a default setting of public to the group. This wouldn't work for everything (some power applications don't currently have good online alternatives), but might be incredibly helpful for 90% of what we do.
Mapping - a simple example and solution
A simple mapping problem that we all encounter frequently is 'mentally translating' emails into outputs/actions. The typical inbox is full of email Subject Lines that offer no support for translating the email into a useful output from the recipient. Usually the recipient has to open them to even begin to process them. Even once the mail is open, the format usually does not map well onto the outputs required of the individual. In short, most emails take too long to process. They are a high-bandwidth activity; unnecessarily so. Given how many emails most of us have to respond to in a typical day, solving this problem really should be a priority of individuals and organisations.
Many books look in detail at how to improve email, so I'll just quickly look specifically at one small way to help by improving the mapping. In order to 'action' an email, the learner is usually trying to map the information from it to the following:
Do I need to open this email? is it important? can it wait?
Is this providing information or a request for information or action?
If this is sent to many people, who should respond? me?
If an action, when should this done by?
Is this a priority item? Can it wait? Does it have a small or major impact if I don't answer it?
What is the key information I need to see? What is secondary?
With a small amount of thought, it is easy to see how emails can be formatted to map more readily onto these recipient-requirements. Here's some examples:
Standard Subject Line
If all email Subject Lines followed a standard structure, many emails could be processed without even being opened. A good subject line should have:
ACTION vs. FYI (for your information) vs. INFO REQ (information request)
Meaningful headline
Completion date or priority
Some examples
ACTION complete task by TOMORROW
ACTION respond to proposal; HIGH PRIORITY
FYI cafeteria closed; LOW
ACTION comments on idea; by 5th June
These subject lines have a good mapping to the main concerns of the recipient, thus lowering the mental 'translation' required to do something useful with the emails and respond appropriately.
This approach also makes use of the rule of 'visibility' - well structured Subject Lines make important things 'stand out' (i.e. makes them visible) and thus speeds processing.
This approach can then be continued in the main body of the email. A good structure for an email might be:
Why copied in? Note why individuals have been copied in
Need to respond? Note anyone who needs to respond
Headline: main information/requirement of the email
Body text: detail to support headline
For example
John, Sarah, Bob - copied you in just for you information; no need to respond
Ian - need a decision from you please
Should we hold our annual conference in Hawaii?
As you know, we often have our conference in Slough. I can't help but think that a more sunny venue might improve our spirits for the important yearly brainstorm....
So, as an organisation, you could all agree to a standard format for emails to speed up daily email processing. If the format is adhered to firmly, it can even be used to support individuals who use automatic rules when processing emails (e.g. setting up a rule to send any email that starts with 'ACTION' to their tasklist).
I read one author who discussed how they format their emails in such a way as to guide responses in helpful ways to minimise their mental processing, for example:
When should we meet up? Please put YES after one of the following:
tomorrow at 10am
Wednesday at 2pm
Other date (please specify)
You could even create a web page that explains why your company uses these rules and share it with your customers to encourage them to join in.
Of course, this only starts to tackle the problem of information overload. The bigger issue is that email in general often maps poorly onto the tasks we want to perform. Often the solution is to choose an entirely different vehicle for certain types of task. E.g. using a specialist system to receive customer complaints that automatically sorts and organises them in different ways and ensures each is processed. More on that later...
Many books look in detail at how to improve email, so I'll just quickly look specifically at one small way to help by improving the mapping. In order to 'action' an email, the learner is usually trying to map the information from it to the following:
Do I need to open this email? is it important? can it wait?
Is this providing information or a request for information or action?
If this is sent to many people, who should respond? me?
If an action, when should this done by?
Is this a priority item? Can it wait? Does it have a small or major impact if I don't answer it?
What is the key information I need to see? What is secondary?
With a small amount of thought, it is easy to see how emails can be formatted to map more readily onto these recipient-requirements. Here's some examples:
Standard Subject Line
If all email Subject Lines followed a standard structure, many emails could be processed without even being opened. A good subject line should have:
ACTION vs. FYI (for your information) vs. INFO REQ (information request)
Meaningful headline
Completion date or priority
Some examples
ACTION complete task by TOMORROW
ACTION respond to proposal; HIGH PRIORITY
FYI cafeteria closed; LOW
ACTION comments on idea; by 5th June
These subject lines have a good mapping to the main concerns of the recipient, thus lowering the mental 'translation' required to do something useful with the emails and respond appropriately.
This approach also makes use of the rule of 'visibility' - well structured Subject Lines make important things 'stand out' (i.e. makes them visible) and thus speeds processing.
This approach can then be continued in the main body of the email. A good structure for an email might be:
Why copied in? Note why individuals have been copied in
Need to respond? Note anyone who needs to respond
Headline: main information/requirement of the email
Body text: detail to support headline
For example
John, Sarah, Bob - copied you in just for you information; no need to respond
Ian - need a decision from you please
Should we hold our annual conference in Hawaii?
As you know, we often have our conference in Slough. I can't help but think that a more sunny venue might improve our spirits for the important yearly brainstorm....
So, as an organisation, you could all agree to a standard format for emails to speed up daily email processing. If the format is adhered to firmly, it can even be used to support individuals who use automatic rules when processing emails (e.g. setting up a rule to send any email that starts with 'ACTION' to their tasklist).
I read one author who discussed how they format their emails in such a way as to guide responses in helpful ways to minimise their mental processing, for example:
When should we meet up? Please put YES after one of the following:
tomorrow at 10am
Wednesday at 2pm
Other date (please specify)
You could even create a web page that explains why your company uses these rules and share it with your customers to encourage them to join in.
Of course, this only starts to tackle the problem of information overload. The bigger issue is that email in general often maps poorly onto the tasks we want to perform. Often the solution is to choose an entirely different vehicle for certain types of task. E.g. using a specialist system to receive customer complaints that automatically sorts and organises them in different ways and ensures each is processed. More on that later...
Thursday 27 May 2010
The magic of mapping
Sorry, going to be jumping around a bit with these posts...just writing what I want to keep the momentum going.
I need to explain the term mapping as it may not be familiar to everyone. However, this is most certainly not MY term and has been much more clearly explained by others, e.g. Don Norman the 'Godfather' of usability.
Mapping refers to the relationship between controls and the things being controlled. Take the steering wheel: when you turn it to the right, the car moves right; to the left and it turns left. Easy. No mental translation required. The mapping is easy and effective. Some physical controls have less desirable mapping. For example, the stove with four gas rings arranged in a square grid with the on/off controls arranged in a neat, vertical line next to them. It is not immediately easy to see which control turns on/off each gas ring. To get round this problem, each control usually has a little icon next to it to clarify the gas ring it controls. But you need to look at the icon and you have to take a small mental pause while you mentally map from the linear arrangement to the square grid arrangement of the actual gas rings. It doesn't take much effort to do the translation; but it takes some. It's also easy to make mistakes with this arrangement, especially when you go into 'automatic pilot' mode. Again, mostly these mistakes don't matter much; more an annoyance than anything.
Another way of thinking about mapping is proximity (though I'm stretching the term somewhat, but this is after all just a thought experiment). How close are the controls to the thing being controlled? The bigger the distance the more effort required to understand how the controls affect something. If the light switch is in another room to the light, you may not immediately see that manipulating the switch has an effect. Or, you may be in the room and not be able to find the light switch at all. Note distance needn't be only physical, it can be cognitive or temporal. More on this later.
The working world is full of situations that require us to translate one type of information or task into another form. The original form of the information or task doesn't necessarily map well to the new work goal. Or, the tools we use may not map well onto the tasks we are undertaking. Or, the time taken to find the things we need to do the tasks may be too long. Here are some simple examples of poor mapping in the workplace:
Damn, got to pause it there...it has suddenly got very late!
I need to explain the term mapping as it may not be familiar to everyone. However, this is most certainly not MY term and has been much more clearly explained by others, e.g. Don Norman the 'Godfather' of usability.
Mapping refers to the relationship between controls and the things being controlled. Take the steering wheel: when you turn it to the right, the car moves right; to the left and it turns left. Easy. No mental translation required. The mapping is easy and effective. Some physical controls have less desirable mapping. For example, the stove with four gas rings arranged in a square grid with the on/off controls arranged in a neat, vertical line next to them. It is not immediately easy to see which control turns on/off each gas ring. To get round this problem, each control usually has a little icon next to it to clarify the gas ring it controls. But you need to look at the icon and you have to take a small mental pause while you mentally map from the linear arrangement to the square grid arrangement of the actual gas rings. It doesn't take much effort to do the translation; but it takes some. It's also easy to make mistakes with this arrangement, especially when you go into 'automatic pilot' mode. Again, mostly these mistakes don't matter much; more an annoyance than anything.
Another way of thinking about mapping is proximity (though I'm stretching the term somewhat, but this is after all just a thought experiment). How close are the controls to the thing being controlled? The bigger the distance the more effort required to understand how the controls affect something. If the light switch is in another room to the light, you may not immediately see that manipulating the switch has an effect. Or, you may be in the room and not be able to find the light switch at all. Note distance needn't be only physical, it can be cognitive or temporal. More on this later.
The working world is full of situations that require us to translate one type of information or task into another form. The original form of the information or task doesn't necessarily map well to the new work goal. Or, the tools we use may not map well onto the tasks we are undertaking. Or, the time taken to find the things we need to do the tasks may be too long. Here are some simple examples of poor mapping in the workplace:
- The company values: we believe in empowered employees. A most difficult mapping: how do employees 'map' the term 'empowered' to their day-to-day tasks.
- Company organisation: often the organisation of a company doesn't map well onto new work tasks as it evolves and changes. E.g. a company made up of separate, well defined departments may struggle when more inter-departmental team work becomes necessary.
- Emails: most emails contain a mix of questions, instructions and information. It takes quite a lot of mental effort for people to 'parse' each email and translate it into actions. The email format does not map well onto enabling people to respond quickly and effortlessly.
- Software: we all use software that doesn't seem to map well onto the task at hand. The 'bloated' word processor we use to write software or the application chosen by someone else who doesn't really understand the tasks we do.
- Information: we all spend ages searching for information (documents, emails, knowledge in people's heads) that isn't close at hand when we are doing a particular task.
Damn, got to pause it there...it has suddenly got very late!
Tuesday 25 May 2010
In praise of visible (1)
Of all of the design principles, I think visibility deserves a special mention. We are first and foremost perceptual creatures - we perceive quicker than we think. With our senses we can immediately and intuitively grasp an idea or concept and therefore act on it quickly and effortlessly. Sure, this mode of thinking can sometimes lead us astray but on the whole it serves us well. When we need to cognitively process an idea or concept the process tends to take more effort; more strain (though sometimes rewarding, despite this)
So, when thinking of ways to help people work more productively and with less effort, making things visible seems a good place to start.
It is important not to confuse visible with visual. I am using the term visible to refer to something that is easily perceived or noticed; that effortlessly comes to our attention when needed. An audio tone can make something visible (i.e. bring it to our attention) or the spatial layout of our task environment. A friend shouting across the room to remind us of a task can make it temporarily visible to us. The layout of staff in a room or building can make certain unspoken rules or hierarchies visible (sometimes intentionally; sometimes not).
Visibility is also not simply a matter of having something available to our senses. Something can be 'present', i.e. available to our senses, and yet invisible to us - drowned out by surrounding 'noise'. The important email lost in the over-full inbox, the button on the overcrowded remote control we can never find how ever many times we look, or the important trends lost in the mass of numerical data (or the pair of socks in the draw).
The key to making things truly visible (and therefore helping us be more productive and less stressed) is to find ways to ensure the right information is available to us at the right time in the right format. The accompanying guideline is to find ways to hide information that hinders the current task ('the noise').
Think how much time we lose each day searching for the right email, the document we were working on yesterday (and the right version), the information our friend told us that we have now forgotten, the place where we can find the directions to the meeting, the chunk of text that would be perfect for the current paragraph we are writing and so on..so on...
When things aren't visible to us in the right way, not only do we lose time, we lose concentration, we lose energy and we spoil any chance of getting in 'the zone' (or experiencing the flow state). When things ARE visible we focus on the task and we find we can achieve tasks quickly and effortlessly and enjoyably.
Visibility can benefit us at many levels: the person, the group and the organisation. I suspect that where we improve visibility at each of these levels we also improve it in some larger, holistic fashion.
So, where do we begin in achieving the holy grail of visible? Visibility can be supported by software tools, organisation, the physical environment, ways of working/processes, the way we allow others to interact with us and even a group culture (e.g. 'we WANT to see bad news EARLY! Don't hide things from us!). What do we apply these 'tools' to? Well, at the personal level a good place would be our most common (and important) work tasks - both general 'hygenic' tasks (i.e. tasks like reading email that we do everyday just as a function of being in a working environment) and our specific work tasks that perform parts of our job function. At the group level we might focus on key communication interfaces, i.e. those places where the transference of information or work products (e.g. a document) is necessary to allow individuals to perform work as part of the group. At the organisation level we might focus on the visibility of direction (or purpose) - i.e. ensuring everyone can easily understand the overall goals of the organisation and how these are 'translated' into tasks/actions that can be performed by groups and individuals. At all levels feedback is also key - how easy is it for people/groups/organisations to get quick, clear and accurate feedback on actions so that appropriate responses can be formed.
Well, that's the overall idea. Details to follow....
The map
To get things going, here's an initial brainstorm of how I think this idea might evolve. A map of the territory....so I don't lose my way...
Good mapping
Employees are in control
Good help/support
Good feedback
Speak the employee's language
Is designed for tasks/goals not 'functions' or 'operations'
Is user-tested/iterated - i.e. organic improvement/rapid evaluation and change
Is logical/easy to learn
The usable business has the following features (with some examples):
The Principles
Visibility The Principles
Is it easy for people to see the current status of projects/work/tasks?
Is it easy for people to see when mistakes are happening?
Is it easy for people to find important information?Is it easy for people to find important information/documents?
Is it easy for people to see when mistakes are happening?
Is it easy for people to find important information?Is it easy for people to find important information/documents?
Good mapping
Are the tools needed to do a job close at hand?
Is the information needed close at hand? Are different inputs/outputs (e.g. documents) in a format that supports the person who then uses them?
Is help/guidance/instructions next to the things they apply to?
Is the information needed close at hand? Are different inputs/outputs (e.g. documents) in a format that supports the person who then uses them?
Is help/guidance/instructions next to the things they apply to?
Employees are in control
Can employees make their own decisions? Is the system flexible? I.e. supports multiple ways of doing things? Does it force a 'one size fits all' approach? (bad)
Does the system encourage experiment and change?
Does the system encourage experiment and change?
Good help/support
What support is in place? Do employees have access to help guides? Books/references? Internet? Can employees quickly put knowledge back into the system - i.e. knowledge management? Is information easy to find? Is it placed close to the tasks where it is useful?
Good feedback
How quickly does an employee find out they've done something right/wrong How quickly does the business know it has done something right/wrong What routes have been opened for feedback (internal and external)?
Speak the employee's language
Can everyone translate the company's goals in a way that makes sense for their day-to-day work?
Is there an absence of jargon and management speak?
Is there an absence of jargon and management speak?
Is designed for tasks/goals not 'functions' or 'operations'
Has the workflow been designed to take account of how different parts of the business fit together? Is the workflow designed to make it easy for different people/tasks to coordinate well together?
Is work organised around results/products rather than tasks?
Are tasks frequently questioned to see if they still fit the company's goals?
Are tasks frequently questioned to see if they still fit the company's goals?
Is user-tested/iterated - i.e. organic improvement/rapid evaluation and change
Can the business quickly try things out and then evaluate them and change/improve them? Is there a route to allow testing/evaluation to happen?
Is logical/easy to learn
Is the system designed to make it easy to do the right thing? I.e. supportive templates, workflow, safety-nets, etc?
Does the company and the culture support good or bad practice?
Have things been simplified as much as possible, but no more?
Does the company and the culture support good or bad practice?
Have things been simplified as much as possible, but no more?
Supports editing over production
Are there templates for common functions/tasks?
Are there re-usable building blocks to build things?
Are there guides, tick lists, etc to complete tasks?
Is it easy to find the work of other people so you don't reinvent the wheel?
Supports flow
Is there a way to block out distraction?
Is waiting minimised (quick feedback and information loops)?
Is challenge suited to the employees (is there challenge at all? Is it the right size?)
Can people immerse themselves in problems/tasks?
The process
- Observation
- Questions
- Diaries
- Task analysis
- Brainstorms
- Group design sessions
- Ideas
- Rapid prototypes
- Evaluation
- Development
- Refinement
- Iterate again
Sunday 23 May 2010
The Usable Business
I'm passionate about helping people to be more productive at work (and therefore hopefully happier too). I'm one of those people who can't wait to share the latest widget or software application or productivity hint/tip when I come across one. However as seductive as those hints, tips and widgets are, I've found that after a while they just don't seem to make that much difference. What's needed is a framework or a system that helps us understand why certain tools or habits help make us more effective. Now, what could that be...hmmm....
Well....after my psychology degree, I took an MSc in Human-Computer Interaction. It provides a framework and a process for designing software that takes advantages of the strengths, and is forgiving of the 'weaknesses', of people. It offers many rewards:
- Increased productivity
- Reduced training/learning time
- Fewer mistakes
- Worker satisfaction
The most valuable resource for Knowledge Workers is concentration. When you increase the ability of employees to concentrate, they work faster, make fewer mistakes, learn more effectively and are more satisfied.
This blog seeks to add to the list of methods available to make employees happy and productive by maximising their opportunities to concentrate. It shows how to take an organisation's (or person's) existing ways of working and maximise them by making small changes to take advantage of the way people naturally think and work. I think it might work as both a way of evaluating a company's current ways of working as well as a process/approach for making things better.
This blog is an attempt to organise my thoughts on this topic and see if they lead anywhere useful. It is the start of a journey, so apologies if at time it is a bit unstructured and maybe even a bit, um, rambling....It might also cut down on the amount of TV I watch and the time I spend on reddit.
This is also a call to arms. In the same way that we demand certain Health & Safety standards for our bodies, we should fight for the same rights for our minds. With countless work hours being lost to stress, unhappiness, lack of motivation and even depression, perhaps now is the time to acknowledge that our minds have limits just as surely as our bodies.
Stu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)