As unsustainable as Print Command (Ctrl+P)!Universal blanket standardization of best practices to save our planet.

Please visit my web page "Urban Tenets" at https://urbantenets.nl/

************************************************

(Reshared; original post 2012)

Oh, another bunch of refined paper goes to waste-bin thanks to extremely complex and varied document printing processes across the varied software environment, across the government, corporate and educational institutions, across the world. Taking heavier and heavier toll on environment with every “Ctrl+P+Enter”, possibly every second rather micro-second in some corner of world.

It’s fairly easy for a planner specially an architect planner to acknowledge this fact of unsustainable printing practice and track down the reasons behind that due to their diversified nature of work, active participation in software environment and multiplicity of technological affinity. An average planner with architectural background is usually familiar with at least 10 to 15 software even excluding downstream subsidiaries of parent software programs, comfortable working with 7 to 10 software and currently must be using 3 to 7 software applications spread across desktop to online to cloud based environment; Some frequently used software tools ranging from drafting to data gathering and aggregation, to data analysis and interpretation, to collaboration, to mapping and image interpretation to presentation and simulation and so on, printing system ranging from tiniest of printers to the largest of plotters available. And he or she can easily recognize that one thing common in all these tools, systems and activities, is that nothing is common when it comes to Ctrl+P, i.e. print command i.e. printing process. Hence the huge environmental losses!

It’s not that you must have a global authority to control printing behavior across this technological landscape, its more about morality of tech-producers, corporate management as well responsibility and choices at user’s end. Still, it won’t be a bad idea to have some form of global printing governance and management through a nodal or distributed agencies across the globe just to identify, evolve and clinically establish the best probable practices in printing, standardizing and implementing the best printing practices and related programming practices through integration at software programming stage itself or to introduce plugins at regular intervals as tech-retrofit or to printducate (education of best practices about printing) while kids are still getting educated or even through organizational incentives if needed. Some examples of technological intervention even if you consider these at lighter note can be like default “Always draft mode otherwise specified” setting across the printer and plotter community and product lines across the world no matter small or large, something like having two big display/ push buttons one green and one stark red which will appear the moment you press the Ctrl+P (print command), green bottom (default draft mode) saying something like- “Thanks for choosing me because you are helping mother nature to thrive, btw do you really need to do even this?” and the red button (customizable for higher resolutions) saying “think twice before going ahead with higher-resolution, with this single click you might add little more burden to our mother nature, can’t you think of some other way to communicate to help save little more of ink cartridge and little more of paper?”

One interesting and probably right observation and recommendation is that we might need to revise the definition and perception of Draft Print Resolution. At present drat image or text resolution is kind of too much pixelated draft, and creates vast disparity in the outcome of high-resolution (even normal-resolution) and draft-resolution print, hence more and more people are opting for either high or normal resolution across the organizations, leaving draft unattended. We need to raise the print resolution of default draft resolution little higher than the present configuration so that people do not immediately make higher resolution print choices discarding the draft.  There is one dilemma here as well, a common educated person, environmentally conscious as he or she thinks of himself or herself, making more damage to environment than the average person with stubborn but consistent printing behavior.  Most of the environmentally conscious persons take draft mode printouts as a natural choice to protect the environment only to realize that printouts are too hazy, unclear, un-presentable to the client or audience and they end up taking same print again in normal or higher resolution format (shear wastage point No. 1, in the name of being environmentalist), they also tend to take higher size/ A3 content on an lower size/A4 paper in their deliberate (sometimes showing-off) effort to save paper/ environment, only to realize that the texts printed are almost unreadable or at least not presentable and hence they end up taking printouts again on larger size paper (shear wastage point No. 2, in the name of being pro-green or something), same story in case of slide Vs handouts as well. All of this wastage can be avoided just by keeping print command in universally default draft mode while making draft mode with little better resolution format so that people don’t always have to make choices between mostly discarded draft mode and frequently chosen normal or high resolution mode for print.

A random thought which also comes to mind is that may be the life cycle cost of providing every student and employee an upgradable device like ipad or tab or something for the regularized communication, discussion and presentation purpose within the premises or on the go might be much less than lifecycle cost of all the printing gimmicks that goes across the educational and organizational landscape (someone need to do the math), annual, monthly, quarterly, weekly and daily reports sometimes in hard copies, documentation and stacks of documents in so called database or reference library, presentation pamphlets, organizational profile handouts, educational assignments, submissions and so on and on; you know it better or better know it early! Similarly the lifecycle cost of buying and operating ipad or tab or something for reading news (which also has added customization advantage) might be much-much less than the lifecycle cost of buying newspaper for rest of your life. Just a thought though!!       

Need for printed information is not going to go anywhere anytime soon but we can always find out better ways to communicate and better print management at product design end as well as programming and user end, to save the paper and ink cartridge, just to contribute a bit for making this planet a better place!! 

Why architectural clients should be more demanding today?

Need of "Creative demand" and false in-vogue benchmark of "what is good!"

In a time of century when you should be asking for interactive customizable digital walls for your indoors as a client you are still busy choosing wall colors and wallpaper patterns, in a time when you should be demanding multiple mood lighting possibilities for your every room you are apparently happy and content with your stylish off-the-shelf chandelier and much propagated energy saving CFL lighting fixtures, when you should be asking your architect what kind of living experience he or she is envisaging and designing for your home, you are busy asking what would be the effective sqft area of your house, when you should be deliberating about multi-tier security system for your hard earned asset called home,  you are busy choosing stylish looks of your door knob, when you should be looking for indoor ambiance inspired by your sun-sign, you leave this design choice to the idiosyncrasy of architect after little deliberation, who will now design "your" house inspired by his or her "own" sun sign traits - if you believe in such thing called sun sign! And there are ample other examples which demonstrate you are more or less content will "Less" when it comes to Architecture for your home.

You do demand as an architectural client but mostly in a wrong direction. And you know, you only get what you ask for.  You really need to channelize your demands towards design, ambiance, technology integration, customization and personalization and to the little architectural elements which is going to make your life better and effortless at home. All you need to do is to be little more creative in your demand. Also you need to shed this notion that “popular is good”, that’s not the case when it comes to architecture because you as an individual or a group of family might have a totally different needs and aesthetic perception than your friends, or neighbor or that guy with million dollar Mansion, so your house need not necessarily be exactly like others no matter how tempting those options are.     

You see, if you are of this opinion that insisting your architect for your favorite pink or blue color for your living room wall makes you a good client, then you need to take a look way back to realise that those cave men were more creative for their homes, decorating their caves with such amazing cave paintings or drawings, even after thousands of years later you are still struggling to decorate your living room wall with pink or blue or some painting of great artist! Have you really evolved in this large span of time or are you repeating the same old story in some way or other. That full clad digital living room wall which you can color customize everyday or on which you can write your daily to-do-list or which can remind you of unpaid bills in a flash or where you can leave a message for your loved ones while leaving home is just an example to make your realise that there are no boundaries which defines and restricts architecture or interior design. 

The best part is that architects like challenges, so if you demand "more" as a client in terms of stretching the possibilities of design and innovation, they would be more than happy to help you and probably will give you something many shades better than your expectations, all you have to do is to be little more creative in your demand. 

Next time you are bullied tell them you are on an exponential learning curve!

Is it "the right time" for education system to introspect on its evaluation and certification process?

You see, you have been bullied every now or than for apparently no good reasons especially in your early growth phase as you can recall from your childhood memories and being bullied even today while you undertake every new challenge. Take a pause and rewind, being bullied for not performing as well as the next bright child in your class or neighborhood, not been able to memories the obvious answers to the obvious questions asked in the endless class tests, being bullied for not performing financially as well compared to people with similar background in life.

Let’s see what's the DNA of this bullying business and has it any significance in the light of the fact that learning and absorption capacity of a person is mostly independent of their childhood performance due to several unknown and very unpredictable environmental influences and opportunities available in one's life as they grow compared to limited and intentionally restricted options available/ provided to them in early childhood. Has it any significance at all in today’s rapidly changing world with emerging technologies, accessible and free resources of knowledge and why this business of bullying should fade away real fast, at least why its high time for the same to happen. Let’s see why the boundaries of education system should and will disappear very soon.

If you will closely observe the peripheral resources of learning available today while tracing the chronological changes in streams of information dissemination and future possibilities of technological infusion in informal learning process which all cumulatively presenting a new and broadened learning process, this informal learning process is getting so inclusive, so fast every passing day that it will make your head spin. These informal learning tools are mostly ignored in education process at present. 

Let’s look at the parallel growth in education system, which apparently seems way behind the real life real time pace of development when it comes to learning process - internet, smart phone, social networking just couple of examples though, you know! Unfortunately none of these wonderful tools of information exchange and knowledge transfer which have become core of everyone's everyday life are in the priority list of education system at all, and neither going to be an area of interest or exploration very soon for them, rather they will make sure that this plethora of life changing tools shouldn't get into the education system in the name of discipline, in the light of childhood vulnerability! Of course you need some kind of regulatory mechanism.

If we go with the current ideology of educational evaluation system then people in their life should be arranged in the exact same order of professional success as they were arranged in their school or graduation class, as evaluated based on their marks gained, based on their knowledge of the curriculum, but take a look around and you will realize it’s not true, it can’t be and it will never be true. The current evaluation system doesn't acknowledge the real potential of individual; they just care about the part of potential confined to their established boundary of curriculum, including peripheral limited activities like cultural and sports participation, ignoring the future environmental influences especially technological ones.

Present educational evaluation system seems somewhat flawed and bit dangerous as well; this whole process of establishing and certifying who has what capacity at the very early stage of individual's growth period while the growth of a person is directly proportional to what kind of opportunities he or she received in post schooling or later part of educational or personal life. Imagine a hypothetical situation in which an institution firmly establishes this fact that some particulate child has capacity of a D+ grade performance in primary or high school level, imagine if he or she could not get through selection process of a good school at secondary or higher secondary level and hence could not further got enrolled in a good university because of that D+ grade. Now imagine, what if that same child becomes extremely knowledgeable and efficient few years down the line after completing primary or high school education possibly due to new environmental influences, due to the latest learning tools and vast knowledge resources available today, what if he or she is the first one to grasped and master the latest tools of learning and research, what if that D+ grade student is technically the soundest candidate for higher secondary or university entrance but couldn't secure admission just because some institution had long back established and authoritatively certified the poor grade of student based on some skewed benchmark. A dream might get devastated due to early certification of knowledge on a discreet fragmented evolution system often within a limited bandwidth of educational framework. Couple of questions for you to answer - Can you justify assessment establishing poor performance of a geek child in cultural and sports activities or visa-versa? Can you justify assessment based on questions asked in class tests, answers of which you can find out in less than 20 seconds in Google? Can you justify bullying of that poor student who does not know the one word answer of that textbook question, when he or she can find out a precise and elaborate answer of that question within seconds while learning much more in the process only if you could have allowed him or her to use their smart phone? What’s the validity of asking such questions today and what is the validity of educational assessment based on such questions today at all? Don’t you think it’s the right time for the education system to introspect?

Mutation of educationsystem due to technological infusion is an emerging area of exploration which educational strategists should focus on. Learning is a constant process, and with the exponentially growing free and accessible resources of knowledge, learning process is bound to be an exponential phenomenon. So, if you are a parent or a teacher or educationalist think twice before bullying your child or student or to those supposedly less knowledgeable than you today, because they are going to come back tomorrow loaded with knowledge and laced with such innovative tools of precise knowledge acquisition which we can’t even imagine today. Today's comparison of two kids has no realistic relation or reflection at all with the actual success in their life in future when they will be at the highly accentuated curve of learning, the only deciding factor would be who shows how much interest in the emerging technologies and sources of learning, who familiarize himself or herself how much and who absorbs how fast and all of this is totally independent from the performance and potential assessment of today.

It’s not just the fault of education system which apparently fails to timely acknowledge the impact and possibility of technological development which has and will always outpace the development of educational system. Education system has its own constraints which we should also acknowledge, which is that they need to thoroughly investigate, assess and validate everything before letting it into the curriculum of education system, they can’t really merge the trending knowledge into the mainstream education without thorough understanding of the trend and its possible impact on the students, young or mature, and by the time they understand the trend and tame it down to the extent to be eligible for the mainstream educational inclusion, that trend becomes outdated, hence this constantly lagging process of chasing new knowledge and hence this outdated dissipation of knowledge through structured education system. And since the benchmark of assessment is outdated, there is grossly wrong process of assessment of students as well. For another example, no matter what and how extensively that particular student knows about some area of his or her interest, it is not going to help him get the good grade unless that knowledge is about one of the couple of subjects specified in the curriculum. That student is supposed to stick to the curriculum diet imposed on them by the institution; apparently every other knowledge is irrelevant in the eyes of education system at least that’s what they think is important to secure a good job at the end of the day. A fundamentally wrong notion of educational performance at least a highly irrelevant model of evaluation of talent in today's world when you are not just solely dependent on schools and universities for your learning, while you are learning wherever you are, whenever you want, in that very moment, learning on your mere wish. In spite of all this free and immense knowledge the existence of educators can’t be negated, what is needed is to have a holistic approach towards talent evaluation and fast inclusion of technological shifts.

This is "Learning on the go" generation and we can’t confine it in the predefined boundary of education, we can’t impose on others what they should learn, rather they should decide what they want to learn and it’s our responsibility to provide them the customized curriculum of their individual interest, education system will increasingly have to be much more flexible, it’s inevitable and its need of the hour. What needs to be done here is that to create a macro framework for the education system, flexible, fast and inclusive enough to quickly notice, sanitize and accommodate the changes occurring in technological field and otherwise, into the mainstream education system. A framework which makes the educational system sensible and smart enough to allow unlocking the true potential of unique individuals rather than mass production.

How representative are “Top something or other City” tags?

Why average outcome doesn’t work for average urban population?

Why city ranking may not necessarily be a reflection of the state and policies of a city and might not be of much direct or immediate relevance for average stable urban population other than attracting business and outside population and tourists? A city provides and should provide a very unique opportunity to each individual through its unique micro environmental influences which most often supersedes the average ambient environment of a city which is showcased by positioning of a city on varied ranking scale ranging from livability to competitiveness and so on. An average ambient environment of any city (economically or otherwise) might not be a reflection of actual environment for an individual or unique sets of individuals with similar needs, like - people falling under different hierarchical economic profiles from extremely poor to ultra-rich, working and voluntarily non-working population, skilled and unskilled section, jobless people, children, aging population, differently abled segment, entrepreneurs, educationalist, illiterate population, people with health and lifestyle issues,  government representatives, corporate lobbies and countless urban social hierarchies and so on and on, each segment with differing needs and aspiration seeking and demanding distinct opportunities and support structure! That “n”th global or national rank of a city which is representation of average situation of city life doesn’t make much immediate sense to each of the above segments since most of the population is either one side or other of average with their very distinct situations and needs from the projected average. It’s not much of relevance unless it gets translated into their customized needs, enhanced economic condition, lifestyle and peace of mind and doesn’t directly relate to their livelihood opportunities and their specific needs. 

Apparently, there is a fundamental issue with the methodology and process of determining rank of a city. An issue with “Samplifying” the population, though samples apparently being inclusive and heterogeneous! Simply being inclusive won’t work, choosing a heterogeneous sample groups also won’t, because both of these approach will only lead to an average outcome, a clumsy generalized outcome which is bound to be alienated from the highly specific needs of individual components and groups which makes the society, which makes that supposedly heterogeneous and inclusive sample as well. Needs of a highly diversified society or a city with further diversified economic profile, age group, ethnicity, regional needs, conditioning and so on can’t be met by a single average solution, no matter how inclusive that solution sounds, no matter how heterogeneous was the sample. For example, you can’t simply average out the needs of a beggar and a millionaire, both part and parcel of a city, and come up with an average solution which should work for both of them. They need totally different solutions to grow and sustain. Hence the ranking of city based on accumulative impression of its different components, both tangible and perceived, which is an “Average” might give a deceptive impression of opportunities which any city provides for its inhabitants, does that sweeping statement like the best city to live in or so means that this particular city provides equal or ample growth opportunities for millionaires as well as the poorest section of the city or to the diversified segments as discussed earlier, or does it anyway gives an account or impression of having diversified livelihood instruments and strategies in form of public policies for different strata of city society. Public strategies and instruments are very distinct and regional in nature which can’t be quantified in a manner to be compared globally or nationally on a same appraisal scape with other cities! We need a very tender approach to deal with specifics of urban livelihood opportunities and state of its people, ranking seems over simplification at times, we need to do a reality check!

All said and done we still agree that city ranking is must, whether on the scale of livability or competitiveness or so on! Because it gives a scale of competitiveness on which city heath is monitored and compared with the benchmarked cities. A scale, on which the growth performance of a city can be monitored! Hence it helps shape the aspirations of a city and helps pave the way for its sustainable future. City ranking has a larger purpose to serve than just to conclude the state of infrastructure and ambient environment, city ranking creates an image of a city which further draws attention of world and hence attracts investment and generate revenues which further gets channelized in the making of a city through increased economic activities, strengthened infrastructure, enhanced regional accessibility, increased livelihood opportunities and so on. But apparently still city ranking is more of the external representation through its image building aspect than the state of actual internal health and opportunities in a city! Also a catch here, while creating a positive image of a city through ranking tools, originally envisaged to attract business and high spending population i.e. tourists, corporate activities etc., this enhanced image also accelerates the process of in-migration from the neighboring regions in search of better projected livelihood opportunities which further calls for urgent expansion of already constrained city infrastructure, delay of which can cause the damage to the same city image which they are deliberately trying to create, hence an image deficit vicious cycle. Focus has to be on autonomous networked decentralization in the region through regional ranking instead of / in addition to city ranking which otherwise encourages choking concentration of city. City doesn’t function in isolation; it’s a resultant of overlapping regional activities hence the focus should be on regional ranking, a periodic regional assessment, assessment beyond SWOT, call it ranking or whatever, which is much inclusive and more realistic in nature.

As unsustainable as Print Command (Ctrl+P)!

Universal blanket standardization of best practices to save our planet

Oh, another bunch of refined paper goes to waste-bin thanks to extremely complex and varied document printing processes across the varied software environment, across the government, corporate and educational institutions, across the world. Taking heavier and heavier toll on environment with every “Ctrl+P+Enter”, possibly every second rather micro-second in some corner of world.

It’s fairly easy for a planner specially an architect planner to acknowledge this fact of unsustainable printing practice and track down the reasons behind that due to their diversified nature of work, active participation in software environment and multiplicity of technological affinity. An average planner with architectural background is usually familiar with at least 10 to 15 software even excluding downstream subsidiaries of parent software programs, comfortable working with 7 to 10 software and currently must be using 3 to 7 software applications spread across desktop to online to cloud based environment; Some frequently used software tools ranging from drafting to data gathering and aggregation, to data analysis and interpretation, to collaboration, to mapping and image interpretation to presentation and simulation and so on, printing system ranging from tiniest of printers to the largest of plotters available. And he or she can easily recognize that one thing common in all these tools, systems and activities, is that nothing is common when it comes to Ctrl+P, i.e. print command i.e. printing process. Hence the huge environmental losses!

It’s not that you must have a global authority to control printing behavior across this technological landscape, its more about morality of tech-producers, corporate management as well responsibility and choices at user’s end. Still, it won’t be a bad idea to have some form of global printing governance and management through a nodal or distributed agencies across the globe just to identify, evolve and clinically establish the best probable practices in printing, standardizing and implementing the best printing practices and related programming practices through integration at software programming stage itself or to introduce plugins at regular intervals as tech-retrofit or to printducate (education of best practices about printing) while kids are still getting educated or even through organizational incentives if needed. Some examples of technological intervention even if you consider these at lighter note can be like default “Always draft mode otherwise specified” setting across the printer and plotter community and product lines across the world no matter small or large, something like having two big display/ push buttons one green and one stark red which will appear the moment you press the Ctrl+P (print command), green bottom (default draft mode) saying something like- “Thanks for choosing me because you are helping mother nature to thrive, btw do you really need to do even this?” and the red button (customizable for higher resolutions) saying “think twice before going ahead with higher-resolution, with this single click you might add little more burden to our mother nature, can’t you think of some other way to communicate to help save little more of ink cartridge and little more of paper?”

One interesting and probably right observation and recommendation is that we might need to revise the definition and perception of Draft Print Resolution. At present drat image or text resolution is kind of too much pixelated draft, and creates vast disparity in the outcome of high-resolution (even normal-resolution) and draft-resolution print, hence more and more people are opting for either high or normal resolution across the organizations, leaving draft unattended. We need to raise the print resolution of default draft resolution little higher than the present configuration so that people do not immediately make higher resolution print choices discarding the draft.  There is one dilemma here as well, a common educated person, environmentally conscious as he or she thinks of himself or herself, making more damage to environment than the average person with stubborn but consistent printing behavior.  Most of the environmentally conscious persons take draft mode printouts as a natural choice to protect the environment only to realize that printouts are too hazy, unclear, un-presentable to the client or audience and they end up taking same print again in normal or higher resolution format (shear wastage point No. 1, in the name of being environmentalist), they also tend to take higher size/ A3 content on an lower size/A4 paper in their deliberate (sometimes showing-off) effort to save paper/ environment, only to realize that the texts printed are almost unreadable or at least not presentable and hence they end up taking printouts again on larger size paper (shear wastage point No. 2, in the name of being pro-green or something), same story in case of slide Vs handouts as well. All of this wastage can be avoided just by keeping print command in universally default draft mode while making draft mode with little better resolution format so that people don’t always have to make choices between mostly discarded draft mode and frequently chosen normal or high resolution mode for print.

A random thought which also comes to mind is that may be the life cycle cost of providing every student and employee an upgradable device like ipad or tab or something for the regularized communication, discussion and presentation purpose within the premises or on the go might be much less than lifecycle cost of all the printing gimmicks that goes across the educational and organizational landscape (someone need to do the math), annual, monthly, quarterly, weekly and daily reports sometimes in hard copies, documentation and stacks of documents in so called database or reference library, presentation pamphlets, organizational profile handouts, educational assignments, submissions and so on and on; you know it better or better know it early! Similarly the lifecycle cost of buying and operating ipad or tab or something for reading news (which also has added customization advantage) might be much-much less than the lifecycle cost of buying newspaper for rest of your life. Just a thought though!!       

Need for printed information is not going to go anywhere anytime soon but we can always find out better ways to communicate and better print management at product design end as well as programming and user end, to save the paper and ink cartridge, just to contribute a bit for making this planet a better place!!