Author: AndyP (Page 1 of 2)

Building apps? Sweatbox them. We just started doing this, and it works.

Wat? What is sweatboxing?
Film production technique from Disney, also used by Pixar. Animators gather every morning with the film’s director to review previous day’s work (rushes).

  • animation is time-consuming
  • changes are costly and painful
  • many many people are working on a film at once
  • the work needs to fit together so that the vision and story flow

Linky linky

Called Sweatbox because…

  • the room Disney used was hot
  • work people have slaved over is ruthlessly, brutally scrutinised

Why use Sweatbox when building apps?

  • all the same production problems as animation, but with user experience, usability, support and maintenance added for Extra Fun Times
  • quickly find what isn’t working (team-sized variant of hallway testing)
  • find opportunities for plus-ing (Pixar’s technique for adding more to good ideas)
  • you want to build an outstandingly good artefact, right? So critique what you’re building, honestly and relentlessly

Things Sweatbox isn’t:

  • this is not the standup meeting for whatever agile methods you’re using (standup is not a place for critique)
  • not testing with end users against their actual needs
  • not a planning meeting
  • not tea and biscuits meetings
  • not a beasting session for individuals on the team

How are we doing it?

  • big TV – not the real environment an app is used in, but big = easier to see (grouping around a single laptop is terrible, and is even less like using the real app)
  • standing up, creates freedom to move and think, to enter into or withdraw from confrontation, and to move to point at things
  • done on the floor where the rest of the team (account managers, sales consultants etc) work, so they can be drawn in quickly for testing + opinion

Do these or you’re doing Sweatbox wrong:

  • no holds barred – total honesty
  • BUT critique the artefact not the person
  • “did you consider [xyz]?”: good
  • “this is going to cause support issues”: good
  • “you should have done [xyz]“: bad
  • “that flow sucks because [xyz]“: good
  • “you have completely screwed this up”: bad
  • “would [xyz] work better?”: good
  • “you are a dumbass”: bad

Wot no picture?
Nah, it’s just us standing round a TV. Imagine it if you must.

Citizen Space online consultation software helps NHS practitioners give their views

Quick Consult consultation for the NHS

The Health & Social Care Act requires all general practices to become members of a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). CCGs will manage the commissioning of NHS healthcare from April 2013, when Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities become defunct. The Department of Health has published a model constitution and recommends that CCGs incorporate its guidelines into their aligned practices.

As a part of this incorporation, NHS Swindon Shadow Clinical Commissioning Group used Delib’s Citizen Space online consultation software. The consultation was aimed at getting feedback and insights from practitioners and stakeholders about the proposed structure and constitution of the Shadow CCG.

The survey ran from 21 May to 10 June 2012, and had 50 responses. The survey was created by the Delib team in collaboration with the Chair of the Shadow CCG, Dr Peter Crouch. The questions included:

  • How happy are you with our proposals for the new Clinical Commissioning Group?
  • How well do you think the proposals reflect the views of local people?
  • Do you think this plan is enough of a shift towards GP-led commissioning?
  • How happy are you with the balance of different clinicians on the Board?
  • Do you think the proposed CCG is sufficiently transparent?
  • Are you happy with the arrangements for handling conflicts of interest?
  • Do you have any suggestions for improving our plans?

 

The engagement exercise revealed that approximately 80% of respondents were either ‘very happy’ or ‘happy’ with the proposed changes. Around 78% of people felt the proposal reflected the views of local people. The results will help Swindon CCG move forward with confidence in their plans.

Dr Crouch says, ‘we would like to thank Delib for the highly professional way that they handled the creation of the consultation with Citizen Space. They delivered precisely what we wanted, comfortably and within the challenging timescale we were operating within. We would highly recommend their services.’

(Encore Jukesie) – or “three thoughts about Betagov and the wider public sector”

Yesterday Matt Jukes put out a “Betagov blues..” post on his Digital by Default blog. Matt reflected on a frustrating gap between what the Betagov team are doing (it’s pretty awesome), and what life is like for public sector digital people outside Whitehall (pretty frustrating a lot of the time).

The post got a few interesting comments from people such as Simon Dickson (Puffbox), and Tom Loosemore (Betagov). Last week I had a chance to see more closely what the Betagov team are doing. I found that inspiring, but I get where Jukesie is coming from, so I stuck my thoughts on the comments too.

I had a few more thoughts that I wanted to put here. I came up with them while watching the toddler drinking the bathwater, so they’re not sophisticated, not finished, they may contradict each other, and I’m not even sure they’re true. But here we go. Call BS on them if I’m wrong. They’re free, and low fat, but I’ve sprinkled cliches liberally.

Digression – just do less
The money ain’t coming back. So the mantra is ‘do more with less’.

You can’t do more with less. Well you can. If you’ve got massive waste built into the system you can do more with less. But you do it by cutting out the waste. So you do less. Do less with less. Achieve more relative to the amount put in. But do less. ‘Do more with less’ is nice political speak, but it’s crappy engineering, crappy physics, crappy maths, not even good management. Just do less. But get more from it.

What can you cut out? What nonsense is sucking down time and resources to no good end?

Yeah, easy for me to ask – in my happy supplier world where I have few masters and lots of autonomy (although money is not raining from the ceiling here either) 🙂 But really, what can you cut out?

Meanwhile – no one big solution
My naive impression is that Betagov team have enough to do in the centre. To get the platform built for the core departments, and get successful adoption of it is a big enough task, and a thoroughly worthwhile goal. Betagov is one big solution, but it’s not the one big solution.

Not sure what I mean by that, but it’s something like ‘big problems may benefit from big solutions, but not everything is shaped like that big problem’. Also, really enormous national megaprojects can SUCK 😛 (so keeping Betagov focussed == win)

But that much might be obvious and not helpful. Meanwhile I’ve been trying to figure out how the relationship will play out between GDS, the rest of government, and the rest of UK public sector. And I guess that’s what’s on Jukesie’s mind too. And I’ve concluded that I have simply no idea, and that it will be interesting to see. Meanwhile I plan for sun, rain, and most things in between.

Still, it feels like right now, there is a chance to make the weather. Except that there’s also a really tiresome and distracting tension about central/devolved procurement, which is a mix of terrifying (because the implications of absolute centralisation are horrible) and stupifyingly boring (because it just is). Ultimately boring trumps terrifying, so I’ll park the procurement horror there. Let’s think about making the weather instead.

“Keep calm and carry on” keep talking
Let’s figure it out. There are good people at Betagov or nearby (in alphabetical order): @MarxCulture, @NeillyNeil, @NickJonesCOI @tomskitomski and others I haven’t met yet, or that my shocking memory has mislaid.

And there are good people not in GDS who want to make connections and make this stuff work better – @davebriggs, @dominiccampbell, @jukesie, @Lesteph, @simond, @stephenhilton @timjhughes and many more (blame my memory if I forgot you, it’s getting late).

Meeting is easy (and out of London sometimes please, it’s lovely in Bristol for example); talking online is even easier. Keep writing, keep talking. Let’s share examples of what’s great, and let’s renew each other’s enthusiasm when times are difficult.

Yeah, not my best ever post, maybe someone else will put it better. But enough, now I must go make pngs and do svn and other nonsense 😀

(I nicked part of the title from Steph, sorry)

8 useful links for consultation, engagement + comms people working in UK local gov, police or NHS

We Love Local Government
I ran across the We Love Local Government blog this week. It’s mixes practical tips for getting stuff done with fun insight into what it’s like to work in local government right now. Couple of links:

Participation; Reservists
One straightforward ‘how to’ piece about micro-participation. Sales pitch: we can help you with that if you’re interested (end of sales pitch). The other piece from Podnosh was intended to be thought-provoking, and is.

Place shaping
Place-shaping – another buzzword, or the future of local government? Controversial to some but gaining acceptance, here are a couple of pieces on place shaping

“The Dave Briggs corner”
The ever-helpful and prolific Dave Briggs does a great job of delivering straightforward, practical advice for local government, police + NHS staff who just need to get on with communication, consultation and engagement.

And finally…
Can’t keep up with blogs? Forgetful? Prefer email? Our digital democracy digest goes out by email about once a month. It’s free (obviously), and we won’t spam you (obviously). Features tips & tricks, useful links, plus digital democracy news & thinking from us & around the web.

Here’s a recent example (with a signup form, in case you fancy it).

#ukriots – not a soapbox, but some insights + some interesting positives

So, any insights from riot coverage and conversations on Twitter and mainstream media?

I followed #ukriots and #bristolriots for a couple of days more or less continuously (except when I was asleep) :P. Here’s some observations:

  • Some idiocy – far, far too many people posting reports of riots with ‘apparently’.
  • Many people anxiously tweeting every siren they hear – an example of something that’s routine suddenly seeming to be significant. How often can’t you hear a siren in any major British city? (One of the strange things about Mumbai – possibly the world’s largest city, and frequent venue for riots and mobs – is that you rarely hear a siren. More on that another time).
  • Lots of outpourings of fear, and concern and anger – wholly understandable.
  • Some very funny satire and commentary. Some people are particularly adept at getting ‘lol’ moments into 140 characters. Once again, brevity is the soul of wit. Should riots be mocked? The stupid aspects of them should, yes. When there’s no longer anything funny…well it’s no longer funny. And at that point, that’s where we should start really worrying.
  • And then some really interesting stuff, which might be useful for those engaged anywhere in civic society – public sector or voluntary.

The really interesting stuff

1. #riotscleanup got the mainstream coverage it deserved. I’ll be surprised if you haven’t seen this already. It’s great. Volunteerism isn’t new. Taking care of where you live isn’t new. But it’s often a quiet, thankless activity by a hardy few. Social media like Twitter can channel people’s desire to help much more effectively. It also validates the activity – participation likely increases when you know other people will be doing it – and also provides validation by making it easy for mass media to discover and feature grassroots activity, which in turn spreads the story wider.

2. the use of Twitter and other channels by police, local authorities and heroic individuals to spread calm. Panic would be too easy – myriad unverified tweets about possible disturbances, combined with of TV footage on-repeat of the most dramatic incidents could easily build the impression armageddon is taking place in the cities of the UK.

Not to downplay serious incidents, but with judicious camera angles, it’s easy to create the impression of an end-of-days scene.

I went and checked out the morning-after evidence in Bristol for myself; yes violence and destruction took place. But the scene in the most affected streets amounted to one torched car and one torched bin, surrounded by other untouched cars, houses, flats, businesses and intact street furniture. In context, it’s easy to see that the real impact wasn’t much. Meanwhile BBC TV coverage of the same scene easily gives the impression that the entire district has been laid to waste.

So it’s refreshing to see police forces and councils spreading calm – some examples below.

This is a simple and obvious way to spread calm. Or at least it seems obvious now; even a couple of years ago it would have been a novelty (kudos to those who have spent years evangelising the benefits of public sector social media use).

Another nice idea that emerged was the simple use of the #noriotshere tag. Alongside that, I also wanted to mention @bristolriots, a 21 year old with a bike and a smart phone who has been gamely cycling around Bristol (steep hills mind), checking out and debunking reports of riots.

And finally, don’t know if this is true, but it’s a good story – Devon and Cornwall Police click ‘attending’ for a riot event on Facebook 🙂

Devon police attending riot

It’s not digital democracy but I like it

I posted over on my personal blog about Bristol City Council encouraging kids to play (safely) in the street.

They’re doing this by cutting red tape, and allowing residents to decide what goes on in their street. It’s truly local. There’s no specific digital angle to the story (although it would be easy to support this with simple online tools), but I like things like this, and I love that Bristol is doing it. It’s awesome.

Delib @ #BurningRubber – and some reflections from seven years of digital democracy

#BurningRubber was an event to celebrate ten years of Team Rubber (Delib’s parent company). It was a lot of fun to take the day out in *deepest North Somerset* at Colliters Brook Farm. There were small amounts of danger, some ball sports and a fire, all to be seen in Burning Rubber – the photo story.

Meanwhile, I just worked out that Delib is seven years old (incorporated June 2004). There have been a lot of changes in digital democracy in that time, here are some reflections from me:

  • We no longer have to spend most of our days creating the case that public consultation and engagement is worth doing at all. Instead we can spend our days making awesome stuff 🙂
  • Nobody says ‘but surely nobody really uses the internet?’. I don’t miss that.
  • We’re still discussing how much it’s ok to say in public. Cluetrain is still (ever more?) relevant, but cluetrain attitudes are by no means ubiquitous (and perhaps shouldn’t be?).
  • We’re still wasting as much time making things work in IE6. The cost of that work shows up in higher costs to our clients, or less time to add useful features to our apps. IE6 stubbornly won’t die in the UK public sector. It should. IE6 must die. Plus, in a wonderfully staged and widely-shared piece of pseudo-science, IE makes you stupid :P.
  • Lower cost, open source and / or web-hosted apps are winning. There has been plenty of coverage about expensive IT consultants ripping off Whitehall. I have no commentary on that story as I don’t know the details (Dave Briggs does have a nice roundup though) – but I do believe that simpler, lower cost, more flexible software and apps will win the day. Stuff has to be good, but it no longer has to be gold-plated and managed to death. (obligatory link to our simpler, lower cost, more flexible software and apps).
  • There are more and more digital democracy heroes: individuals and teams who want to get stuff done, will take responsibility, take (some) risks, and are literate about both digital tech and people. Because keeping stuff human matters. These people inspire us 🙂

After a turbulent 2010 (and a lot of turmoil for our public sector friends and clients), I’m seeing more and more great stuff in the UK, and abroad (hello Australia and New Zealand). I’m bullish about the potential of digital democracy to build a more inclusive, more responsive, more rewarding society. Times are interesting – and in a good way.

cheers,

Andy

Group photo. Some of these people work for Delib.  They like apples.  I am not in this picture

Some of these people work for Delib. They like apples. I am not in this picture.

Edge of darkness – patterns, anti-patterns and dark patterns

Some of you will be familiar with the idea of design patterns. For those who aren’t, design patterns are just the simple idea of identifying general, reusable solutions to common problems. Patterns originated in architecture, but are widely used in software, both for user interface (UI) design and for programming.

Patterns are great because they’re efficient; there’s no need for a bunch of people to waste time, money and resources reinventing the wheel (the wheel is probably a pattern 🙂 ). Alongside patterns are the idea of anti-patterns: these are designs which are known to embody flaws, failures or fallacies.

So we have patterns and anti-patterns, but Sam Menter recently sent me an interesting link about another form of pattern: dark patterns.

“Dark Patterns are interface design patterns that have been designed to trick users into doing things they wouldn’t otherwise have done.”

Dark patterns can deliver great conversion rates – but for all the wrong reasons. They’re basically low-level evil, they destroy trust between you and your users, and are Generally a Bad Idea. They have no place in digital democracy, and should be recognised and avoided 😀

This got me thinking about patterns in digital democracy. Different types of consultation and participation are basically patterns, and so is the way we work.

Facetiously, those who work in central government might recognise a certain ‘everything-changes-due-to-ministerial-request-the-day-before-we-go-live’ pattern 😀

More seriously we might be able to identify patterns, anti-patterns, and dark patterns.
What patterns have you seen?

Showers, humanity, and consultation. How do I link those? Read on to find out…

It’s a cliche that many good ideas come in the shower. We were talking about this recently: Alan (one of our developers) has a faulty shower that cuts out after ten minutes. This is about half the time he needs to solve a difficult problem, so his productivity is way down. Delib customers fear not: Alan is currently Working On Other Things, and the usual level of technical brilliance will be kept up by Jess, Rich, Stan and Tom.

This is a long introduction to a short problem that I was thinking about in the shower: how to humanise the way that people interact with government on policy issues. Prompted by Steph’s post on Alpha Gov’s engagement and participation strategy, I was thinking that the level of interaction remains sub-human.

It’s probably too simple to suggest that civil servants and local government employees include their pictures online (although that might be an interesting move). I think that might miss the issue, in that the process is in need of tweaking, and just sticking a face on it won’t improve matters much. But changing the entire bureaucratic process and attitude might be a step too far this early in the morning, so I wondered if there were any immediate steps that might add some humanity.

I was interested in what Steph thought about this, so I asked him:

Andy: can you think of three things that could add humanity to engagement, participation and consultation? They have to be possible to do soon, and better than my lame idea of sticking civil servants’ faces online.

Steph: Fun post! My thoughts:

  • a blog for each policy team: blogs humanise organisations like nothing else, just look at Matthew Taylor’s RSA blog, or the government example of the BIS Science and Society team (and guests) sharing their process for delivering a major pieces of research
  • forget the corporate Twitter accounts (well, stick your Press Release RSS feed into them if you must), and spend that time setting up professional Twitter accounts for individuals like Amy at DH – where individuals actively and personally listen and engage, and it’s about the network rather than the numbers
  • meetups: people work better online if they know each other offline: it’s much easier to draft things together, discuss ideas, get moral support if you know the people you chat to online from physical meetings too – that’s why events like UKGovcamp have such a buzz. It’s not enough to make consultations have ‘an offline component’ – why not encourage the online contributors to meet up too?

Sounds straightforward – thanks to Steph for sharing 🙂

I’ve become a big fan of Eventbrite, and think that it has an obvious benefit for organising real-world meetings, but also has a nice network-building element to it as well – even if you can’t make the meeting, Eventbrite can help build connections between people. It’s another piece of the puzzle – for free – and I’m hoping to write more on it soon.

Any other similar good examples out there?

I can’t spell bureaucracy – can you?

I can never remember how ‘bureaucracy’ is spelt. I usually get it so wrong that my spell-checker refuses to make a guess. This is embarrassing, because Correct Spelling Is Not Dead, and because I have to write the word often.

Are there any acceptable synonyms for ‘bureaucracy’? My thesaurus is suggesting ‘establishment’ and ‘powers-that-be’, neither of which quite work for me 😛

First do less…. #2 – carefully simplify procurement

‘Simplify procurement’ is easy to say and hard to do.

It wouldn’t take long to make a list of things wrong with procurement processes. If you work in the public sector you’ll run across these often, and they probably frustrate you as much as the next person. Procurement could perhaps be the definition of that cliche ‘hidebound bureaucracy’. But this post isn’t about griping or repeating tired cliches 🙂

Procurement and tendering processes seem to require a lot of work to be done – by staff, by suppliers, by legal teams. Lengthy processes to establish requirements, large tender documents to be written, returned, evaluated, and then when a decision is made, complex legal processes to finalise contracts.

So procurement looks like an obvious place to try and do more with less, by first doing less.

But knowing something is wrong doesn’t give us the prescription for a fix.

Why procurement?
Procurement processes aren’t pointless, yet seem to cause a great deal of pointless work to be done. Procurement has real and serious purposes:
– offer a fair and transparent way to compare bids between suppliers
– prevent corruption of any kind
– ensure purchased goods and services are fit for purpose
– obtain best value for money
Of course, none of these are any less important when budgets are constrained.

What’s wrong with procurement?
Procurement should safeguard democracy and value for the public purse. I’ve worked with many different public sector procurement process (over the last ten years or so), and I’ve observed one key opportunity to do less.

Quite simply, I think the most complex and lengthy procurement processes typically offer bad value. They cost significantly more to operate for public sector organisations and increase costs for suppliers (inevitably passed on to customers). Meanwhile the final price or quality of the product or service is no cheaper or better than that which could have been had with a less costly procurement process. So the outcome is the same, but the effort to achieve it is wasteful. A perfect chance to do more with less by first doing less.

I’ll look at different aspects of this over several posts. Obviously Delib is a supplier of apps and services to public sector, so we’re not 100% objective in this, but I hope the ideas I’ll be sharing are useful inspiration for you when it comes to getting better value from the effort you put in.

This is #2 in a series of tips and ideas for doing more with less – not by working ever harder, but by first doing less and cutting out unnecessary work or cost that doesn’t add value.

First do less…. #1 – relax corporate identity guidelines

Here’s a practical tip for cutting out unnecessary work: relax corporate identity guidelines, especially when applied to web software. Stop paying expensive fees for software to be customised to exactly match the rest of your website. It’s not necessary, and it’s expensive because it’s skilled work and has to comply with extensive code and accessibility standards.

Yes customise, but allow a little sway in the guidelines.

This is #1 in a series of tips and ideas for doing more with less – not by working ever harder, but by first doing less and cutting out unnecessary work or cost that doesn’t add value.

Doing more with less? First do less….

We hear a lot about doing more with less. This is for people who know it’s not that simple but want to try anyway. I’m one of those people, I’ll be sharing a series of tips for simple things we could do. Come back often if that grabs you 🙂

“Doing more with less”. Sounds a bit headmaster-ish. Easy to hear it as “you people are lazy, work harder”. Probably doesn’t go down well with some of you. Others probably don’t believe it. Maybe some of you know it needs to be faced. Maybe the challenge of it excites some of you.

So can we do more with less?

Engineers do more with less.
I trained as an engineer (I also trained again in politics, philosophy and social policy).

Doing more with less is hugely important in engineering. Making things faster, better, cheaper, easier to use and more reliable is what a lot of engineering is about. Look no further than Apple for examples – the new Macbook Air is thinner, lighter, and performs better than the previous model – at the same price. Engineering in action.

Simple rules. Design out waste, design in results.

…but engineers don’t have magic. First they do less.
Engineers can’t make 2+2=5. Promise you, they teach us loads of maths about that kind of thing, and engineers don’t like being asked to try. They know it doesn’t work. Some of the rhetoric around spending goes a step further and seems to imply that 2+1=5. Still not going to work 🙂

So if the cost and the amount of work done by public sector has to be less, how can we get better results?

In engineering you do more with less like this:
– look at the system. Identify the goals of the system.
– look at the components in the system. Look at what each component is doing to support the goals.
– make it unnecessary for components to do work that isn’t supporting the goals
– make it easier for components to do work that is supporting the goals

This is basically ‘efficiency’. ‘Efficiency’ has the same image problem as ‘do more with less’ – sounds like management and leaders saying ‘work harder you lazy oiks’. But to engineers efficiency is exciting. No really. And companies like Apple are absolutely focussed on efficiency. That’s how they get 36 hours of battery life out of an iPod.

So we could take inspiration from the approaches used in engineering. But I’m guessing that right now, learning about lean production, operational research or the Demming approach to systems design isn’t top of your list (if it is, I’ve provided handy wikipedia links for you :)).

Practical wins
I think we’re looking for practical ways to cut out unnecessary work, unnecessary cost as soon as possible. Some of these will be easy, others will mean challenging assumptions and habits ingrained in public sector practices – challenging those depends on the brave amongst you. We know you’re out there 😀

Andy’s Rules #1631 – What makes “good”?

Photo 158

This is a rule I’ve been using for a while now. Great for making web apps “good”, but can be used in other places too (product design, customer service, copywriting, advertising). Being “good” is a route to “win”.

80% practicality (“job done”); 10% glamour; 10% character.

So how does it work?

“Job done” practicality is the price of entry for your app (or product etc). You need to to give the user what they want, helping them achieve their goal easily and with minimal fuss. If you can’t deliver on this, the app or product will probably fail. It won’t be good, it won’t sell, it won’t gain users. You need to at least do what it says on the tin. That can be a lot of work, as rule of thumb, probably 80% of your effort.

Being ruthless about delivering practically is a great tactic for many reasons, including:

  • can reduce your overall costs (by removing un-needed stuff that you have to make and support)
  • benefits users (by decreasing the friction of using your app or product)

Practicality also has a couple of serious limitations:

  • doesn’t distinguish you much from your competitors. Being better at “job done” might keep your existing customers, but it probably won’t create passionate advocacy and recommendation. Passionate advocacy and recommendation is great, it’s a route to “win”.
  • practicality alone tends to lack warmth, soul, personality….the stuff that makes us human 🙂

Glamour make people feel smart, make things shiny, make people go ‘ooh’.

Emphasising glamour might sound shallow, but – take a peek – we can take glamour to mean beauty, elegance, chic, style; charisma, charm, magnetism, desirability (worth). The word ‘sprezzatura‘ might be better, but I’d be forgetting how to spell it 😛

In a web app, glamour comes from the appearance of effortlessness. This could be things like outstanding graphic design or providing interactions that feel just great. Using javascript drag-and-drop to make a list much easier to use is glamour. Slideshows and lightboxes can be glamour. One way to increase glamour is by showcasing the user’s stuff and keeping your app out of the way – perfectly crafted background can enhance the glamour of a foreground subject.

Be ruthless with glamour. The goal is to flatter the user, not the designer. Make the user feel smart, make them feel they’ve made great choices. Glamour done wrong = tawdry, cheap, nasty, irritating, and might give you a rash.

Character is who we are. Who we are is a factor in having users come back to us, and in creating passionate advocacy and recommendation. Be ruthless with character – you’ll be judged by it. Be ruthless, but be generous. Character comes out in tone of voice, customer service, and (worthwhile) quirks. I could write more on this, but I couldn’t think of anything useful and I’m running out of time. You probably get it, ‘cos you’re smart people 😉

— postscript —

This rule *is not* an 80-20 law, although it might look like one 🙂 » Learn why. (Or we’re told there’s a more accessibility friendly version of that Wikipedia article explaining why here.)

This rule *is* effectively a variation of “Sell the sizzle, not the steak” 😉

Page 1 of 2