The Cost of Not.

We often think about how things cost, perhaps not that accurately but there is also a cost of not doing. If we say the actions that lead to the desired results are doing the right thing and things that get the wrong results as doing the wrong thing. Doing nothing is a decision and an action even if it is a passive, unconscious or in ignorance. You have to look for the right thing to do, not just hope or guess. Here I want to look at the cost of not doing some actions with some real world examples.

A common decision is to not pay for something as it costs too much. It is not common to analyse the cost of not paying. I will list some examples of where the results were catastrophic.

A historic decision made in 1966 by a Labour government (UK) was to stop development of a large aircraft carrier and to go for a small through deck carrier/cruiser with Harrier aircraft and helicopters. The through deck carriers proved quite capable and useful in action even beyond the specific designed roles. The Royal Navy is soon to receive a large carrier ordered by another Labour government suggesting that the benefits of a larger more capable ship is the right choice (all along). I would suggest it was the right decision in 1966 as well. Cost was the biggest factor although there were others. So HMS Invincible cost more than £175 (1980s) and operated small Harrier aircraft. Cheaper to buy and operate than a convention carrier with at the time larger Phantom and Buccaneer aircraft. These aircraft were though more capable in range, speed and payload. At the same time the larger carrier like previous carriers and as quickly brought to service AEW (Airborne Early Warning) aircraft just out of time for the conflict. Allowing earlier detection and ships to be kept further from danger. But the cost of not may well have been a war and 30 years of garrisoning the Falklands. So the first suggestion is that a large, capable aircraft is more likely to deter a war like the Falklands conflict where a decision was made to invade the islands by Argentina (Her Junta). Since the conflict there has been a presence of a garrison, navy ships and fighter jets. This garrison alone is more costly than the difference of cost between the through deck carrier and a larger carrier. Also if the carrier(s) could prevent the war where the UK alone lost 6 major vessels many helicopters and 255 dead. There were obviously many other costs not just equipment and financial, and of course Argentina paid a tremendous price. So the cost of not getting the more capable system may have lead to the cost and risks of a war and more military garrison costs for many years after (currently 30 years). Even if the large carrier did not deter the war it would of enabled a longer range operation against the Falklands with more capabilities while being out of reach of the Argentinian forces. Reducing the risk to ships and people. Soon a new full size aircraft carrier will enter service possibly pointing to the previous decision being ill thought out, but I do not want to suggest any one has learned any lessons!.

A commercial example was the Exxon Valdez oil spill (1999) where rather than employing a second person (or organising sensibly) the second in command of the vessel worked 36 hours straight. I am sure they could not afford the extra staff lets say $20,000 a year, but when in spite of receiving all the required information the ship was put straight into rocks causing the then biggest environmental disaster. One of the costs for the company (insurance?) was $3,000,000,000. I would suggest the cost of not employing or organising was slightly higher. The cost of not.

Many decisions are made daily on staffing levels on ground of cost. In the U.S. one stadium paid $100 million in costs for an unsafe stadium (security staff) when a customer was injured on the premises.

These are easily pointed out costs others will not be seen unless they are looked for. ‘Right first time’ philosophies of quality management are based on the higher cost of repairing faults and consequences of mistakes later rather than smaller costs earlier (especially systematic prevention).

Another situation is the panic response to events where ignorance of the law and other consequences effect reactions. A school teacher was escorted of the premises and sacked after physically restraining an unruly child who had vandalised and shouted abuse at people, and that was just that day. The law allows for adults to use force under certain circumstances, it also suggest training and procedures for this. As the Head did not know the law (I suggest they should have as part of their job) the reaction was expensive starting with the £70,000 awarded to the wrongly sacked member of staff. Of course the disruption of a sudden loss of a member of staff and the chaos after also has costs just less obvious.

Here the reaction was a common response where the head (and whole industry) feared the consequences of use of force. It is not related to the actual law but a fear perpetuated from above and other stakeholders (group think) of perceived consequences and practices not the actual law. The lack of understanding of not just the law which promotes professional actions for this kind of situation, but also the real world and scientific research and even common sense.

Day to day we do not calculate the cost of not exercising, eating well and sleeping, or the consequences of short term thinking (not delaying gratification). This also leads to acting without the consideration of cost because someone else pays and the attention gained while you have someone to blame (not yourself of course). These are a wide range of examples where uncertainty and fear of consequences have not been balanced by professional management and critical thought and analysis. These are common patterns that are met by professional actions where real and actual facts and information is used for decisions not emotion and pleasing others. Many social factors need to be addressed including the culture and group think of organisations that lead to costly decisions when they try to do things cheap.

Not Just Education.

I guess it’s my problem but I learned early that the logical way to approach things is to be prepared first. It also turns out it’s what all the best advice, experience and tradition says too. So my frustration is caused in several ways number one is people not letting me prepare. There may be many reasons why this happens their lack of understanding generally or of me, or it is to their advantage to not let me prepare? Second, most people start at the end not in thought as in having the end in mind they jump to later stages with out acknowledging (noticing) everything that has or could happen before. This is my third avenue of frustration where I notice and acknowledge the majority that happens before the obvious action bit at the end. Whether it was adults when I was a child or bosses at work the same pattern of unprepared people ignorant of methods or the situations imposing on me their choices. Now if you trust the other person by experience or giving them a chance you can be rewarded with a workable compromise and a better situation than you could on your own. But you get experience and unwariness of another’s preparedness and knowledge. Sure they have experience, but of what: fire-fighting, buck passing, guessing and of doing it ineffectively, or being lucky (family) or underhand (borderline illegal (which side of border?)). The truth is lots of people keep jobs by not rocking the boat or playing ‘the game’, not through job performance of their actual job (unless that job is actually just keeping it!). I want to encourage setting up and structuring negotiations with people and problems to get success not just turning up (every time) and shouting loud how successful one is, as long as you do not analyse it of course. This is having the knowledge and skills and plan before being chucked in the deep end. My work experiences have been various different deep ends. I have survived, I have coped and sometimes people have thought I have done well and others times badly. These thoughts are rarely measured, usually random silence fillers covering up the errors of the situation occurring in the first place. But the basic pattern is I will never get the job to stop it happening in the first place.

Explaining something to someone who does not understand has an element of art to it where simple words can sometimes enlighten the learner to new levels of thought or understanding. We all though have our limits and are wondrously varied in what and where these limits are. I have worked with children who are supposed to be ignorant and I have enjoyed adding to their knowledge and skills and hopefully their life. I have also worked with adults with similar experiences. The science of teaching is knowing what the learner knows or can do and adding the next piece of the puzzle to take the learner forward. When we move forward we like it, there is little resistance to the process or the teachers (guiders or what ever label chosen) input. Sometimes the input is not noticed by the learners or anyone around. The joy of teaching is in the progress itself. Sometimes of course the teacher and learner are one and the same.

The resistance to the process is my bug bear and constantly a frustration developing force. The resistance comes in many forms. A teacher is often in a formal setting with imposed compromises that reduce the joy of learners progress. Stakeholders is a common phrase where several uninformed parties can interfere with the teacher and the teaching. This is the biggest frustration in teaching; trying to explain or reason with these stakeholders. Humans are biased and without trust or force they will not listen or act to or for another person. Authority or perceived expertise sometimes has a formal structure or appearance whether there is actual expertise or not. Leading learning is leadership. Autocratic leaders deal with dissension in severe ways and do not have the loving trust of the followers but a hating trust of what the autocrat will do.

Resistance and barriers to learning can come from the learners background. They need a foundation to build learning on. As well as the social resistance there is personal resistance and barriers. Einstein is quoted as saying ‘say things as simple as possible but not more simple than that’. This occurs in teaching, the first is where the learner does not yet have the foundation on which to add the next piece of the puzzle. There are many instances I have found where people do not have the skills of learning, or the trust in teachers to proceed. Often they cannot recognise their lack of knowledge or skill or have an ego defence mechanism in place. Creating the conditions to deal with these barriers first is more difficult the older or senior the learner becomes. This lack of foundation of understanding is most difficult when the leaner perceives themselves as competent or in the senior position. I have often been in the position of explaining (mostly tactfully) to a person their job. Frustration is when you realise the second element from Einstein’s quote is insufficient to encourage understanding either at the time or probably ever.

Everyone has their limits. When you see clearly the learner is a long way from being able to do the puzzle (job) they are attempting. They do not have the foundation. Frustration is seeing the person is paid a lot of money for a job they are not equipped for where creating the conditions for progress are insurmountable. When of course the learner is your boss! When there is no realistic path to progress it’s time to accept defeat. They (and others) often do not know their own limits and without some flexibility to change nothing is going to proceed.

The main barrier is incomplete foundation. Many injuries are self inflicted mainly in youth as a skill or programme is attempted without preparation. The resulting injury will help bring the learner to reality or not. I often find with adults they do not have the skills and understanding of how to improve, they do not know what works for them. They train in short term methods wanting long term gains. They are susceptible to marketing and emotion and resistant to planned development. The quick fix is easy to sell, even if it has rarely worked (that may even be the business model). As well as the knowledge and skill deficit there are thinking and approach barriers too. A big restrictive thinking skill set comes under critical thinking. This is not monkey swinging in trees or running on the plains thinking. This is stop and work things out and then use the conclusions of thought. This has to be taught or researched (self teaching?) and practised. It is not within most education. Daily continuing logical fallacies are allowed, unchallenged in all aspects of life. Essentially the maths does not add up. The simple children’s toy illustrates (and must have been a great challenge for some). It is to put different shaped bricks into the right shaped holes. Like with like is simple to understand, a rock is not an elephant. And yet categorical errors are rife, comparing things illogically, changing descriptions by cherry picking certain information to make it fit a chosen view. Many times these errors are displayed by people with more power and rewards then intelligent thought. Often they have passed exams with the elements of critical thinking but fail to practically use the ideas or have destroyed the toy hammering all the pieces in the same hole!

I want to randomly try to express ideas towards finding better ways of explanation to aid progress in learning and application. I will think out loud to find better ways of teaching (self and others) and improving performance. I find perspectives from science but also traditional views from round the world that express ideas and concepts well. Many of the above elements and barriers have been recognised for centuries and yet still ignored to get results, even though they are barriers to achieving results.

Health like Education.

Health and it’s monopoly industry that shares many circumstances with education. It is essentially politically managed by the same group of people, with forces from society and the stakeholders are similar. This leads to similar issues of low performance in absolute terms for a rich economy. The choosing of public issues and operation is for others benefits. It is not in the best interests of the state. It is for those running the state and those working in the industry and others. Of course there is a name and theory for this; The Principle-agent theory. Here the principle is the member of the public but all the decisions and actions are by others the agents. These agents have many wants and desires that are not part of the agents health (or education etc.) they are other and can be opposite to the principles interests. A big problem in both heath and education is that the member of public whether child or adult has many decisions made for them that are of questionable value for the person themselves. As they are both monopolies (I’m sure another label would be preferred but the effect is the same) little choice is available. Also the person who suffers the failure is not the one who makes the decision. It is important to take responsibility for one’s own health (and education) it is too important to leave to others. From the opposite perspective the governance must encourage people to take responsibility for their actions. This must be the individual but also organisations and people who affect others. All together the wrong questions are asked and the wrong solutions attempted so that even amazing results have little value. The main questions for the individual are what is best for my health and education. Then what is best for my dependents and what is best for the country and humanity.

If you ask what’s the best thing for the state? Then one component would be economic. The simple truth is prevention is better than cure. Doctors and their administration are the expensive least effective end of health. They are doctors of medicine not health they have sometimes amazing knowledge and skills with personal genius (if this is not managed out at an early stage – not to standard!). They are well paid and over managed often by people of little understanding. Getting productive people who could and would work or contribute needs to be a priority.

Doctors have their specialisms and even the junior doctors role is full on in technical knowledge, skills and time. The courses are said to be half out of date by the time they finish, as new research is carried out in such quantity world wide. But the problem in the UK is it’s called the NHS; the ‘h’ standing for health not medicine. Yet very little of the budget goes to prevention and results are poor. The irony is of course that large numbers of illness and issues (mental and physical) are preventable. That is not to say there will be no Diabetes (almost 10% of NHS budget) with a little prevention. The numbers are huge just in the NHS bill but also the knock on effects of less work output of the individual and others around them as they deal with the issues created. If they leave work then there are welfare costs. A recent outcry over doctors overtime pay being over £13K a year per consultant, was met with claims of not enough doctors but the obvious problem is too many patients, in too poor health. Could the over £100K pay (plus training and equipment) of a consultant be better spent? How many social workers who work in an emergency capacity all the time could it pay for so that more problems could be identified earlier and cheaper. Or any number of workers whether fitness instructors or activity leaders, could have a better result, admittedly early on in the process not when an operation is needed, that’s still best left to the appropriate consultants

Of course the elephant in the room is the big three lifestyle factors are sleep, diet and exercise. These are health, not medicine, they are cheap, well known and have low performance indicators. The big scandal is the absence of any action. During recent times the health service was kind of protected but leisure was not. Sports and exercise facilities closed but the health service got protected. The Health service has practically no incentives to prevent health problems they are not responsible for leisure and measured on their success (maybe it’s hidden where no one looks!). All the incentives are to headline medical conditions. Health must have a role here. Funding based on health not treatment.

Obviously health has many factors. There must be facilities and provision to make it easy to participate for all ages. This must be nationally backed but also independents should be supported. As they are actually saving medical costs compared to no exercise/activity. Currently they have to pay for facilities, dodge danger, fill out paper work and then tell the tax office. Education must improve standards of participation, learning and support. Work places must pay the costs of preventing workers being active. People of course have to be incentivised to exercise both to encourage participation and reduce the costs for not participating.

Many businesses and industries profit from unhealthy options that they do not pay the bill for. The food industry has to be regulated or pay the obesity costs as the alcohol industry and retailers should pay the price too. As the results of smoking policy have reduced smoking levels to below 20% smoking from over 50%. Similar approaches must be made towards Obesity and Alcohol. As well as affecting the negatives the positives have to be made easier. Then ultimately the wrong doer must be made to take pay the costs, and the right doer must benefit from their decisions and actions.

Unhealthy work patterns that prevent organised activity should pay the premium to cover the cost. Limiting healthy opportunities of their staff must be addressed. Much research shows that poor working conditions and practices reduce the productivity of the workers. Unhealthy staff do less work through slower rates, more breaks and higher absenteeism. Just as badly maintained machines do not function as well and brake down.

There has to be joined up thinking and actions that get results. It is not a moral service to be ineffective as a health service. Working stupidly hard is still stupid when the less stupid way is to prevent. Improving Activity (including exercise), improving diets and improving sleep patterns, will improve productivity and actually be cheaper and less pain, making it more humane and the morally better approach. With the separation of government organisations they often save money in one area which increases the cost in another and overall. Without a holistic approach between government departments and organisations with legislation, results will not happen.