Bad Design - Bathroom Layout

I don't make a habit of taking photos in bathrooms - honest! But here we are for two days in a row... don't worry, this is the last one, I promise.

This shot is part of the continuing "Bad Design" theme. Anyone want to take a guess what's wrong with the design of the comfort station pictured to the left? Here's a hint - it has something to do with shoulders.

For those who haven't figured it out yet, holy cow those urinals are close to each other! I don't have remarkably large shoulders, but it is downright uncomfortable to make use of these facilities when the other one is occupied. It's not easy to avoid brushing shoulders with the dude next door.

Even an inch or two between facilities would have been much better. There's not a ton of space on the wall, but enough to have done it better. I'm sure there's a lesson here for any design students out there...

Don't Do This

As a general rule, I'm not a big fan of rules. And this set of "Restroom Guidelines" posted on the stall door of the men's room at my office is pretty much a perfect example of how not do do it.

First of all, these aren't guidelines. They're rules. And don't give me this about my assistance being requested and appreciated. This sign is asking for compliance. The attempt to put some humanity into this rule set falls quite flat.

Can anyone tell me why the men's room needs a "Guideline" to not dispose of feminine products? And what about pinecones? The Guidelines doesn't say I can't discard pinecones, which is just about as likely as discarding my "clothing undergarments."

I just have to wonder about the mindset of the person who conceived, wrote and posted these rules. What did they think they accomplished? Maybe one of these things happened once, and now there's a big rule set outlawing things that never happened and never would have, rules or no rules. It's just one more example of universal solutions to isolated problems.

I only mention this because organizations do the exact same thing in all sorts of other contexts. My request? Please don't...

The Discipline of Affordability

On a similar note to yesterday's post, Dr. Ashton Carter (Under-Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) recently said the Pentagon needs to "relearn the discipline of affordability" and "relentlessly pursue affordability."

It sounds to me like he and the SECDEF are both saying it's important and good for programs to be inexpensive. That's the I in FIST, the Inexpensive value. It's a nice change of pace from previous years, when large price tags were seen as both a sign of sophistication and an inevitable attribute of military technology systems.

That's some pretty clear direction from the top leaders. I just hope the DoD's rank and file will read and heed.

Keep going, Mr Secretary!

I've admired Secretary of Defense Gates for quite a while. He's got guts and vision, and I like the way he leads. In recent days, he's been quite blunt about the need for fiscal constraint, a move I heartily applaud. Based on his statements, it looks like the DoD is going to do some belt-tightening in the relatively near future, on everything from weapon system development to organizational structures. That sounds good to me.

In fact, way back in Nov 2004, I said the DoD "has too much money," and that being overfunded is limiting our ability to innovate. But enough about me - let's see what Mr. Gates has been saying:

From NY Times article:
“Military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time." And this: "“How many of our headquarters and secretariats are primarily in the business of reporting to or supervising other headquarters and secretariats, as opposed to overseeing activity related to real-world needs and missions?” Mr. Gates asked."

An excerpt from the Wall Street Journal article:
We have to accept some hard fiscal realities," Mr. Gates told an audience of naval officers and defense contractors in National Harbor, Md. "We have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 billion to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers."

No doubt he's going to get some heat for this, but I for one am completely behind him. It's about time for a little restraint.

Policy for Policy's Sake?

I'm taking an online class from Defense Acquisition University, and came across this line:

“As a Business Advisor you should take the lead to ensure that the final requirement documents implement as many government policies as possible.”

Um, I don't think that's quite right. I think I understand what the writer was trying to say, but let me gently suggest that the point isn't to implement as many policies as possible. Maybe something more along the lines of implementing the appropriate policies, or maintaining compliance with all relevant policies...

But as many as possible? I sure hope not.

We don't...

I kinda dig these ads that have popped up in several metro stops around DC. They say things like "We don't build UAV's" or "We don't build ships." It's for a company that provides translation services for the military, and I really appreciate the simplicity and focus of their ads, both in terms of the message and the structure.

Very simple - big letters, white background, and a brief description of what they actually do. The big negative statements ("We don't do X") got my attention and made me curious to find out what they DO do...

Sure, I don't need any translation services myself, but if I did, this ad would definitely get my attention.

Thrift Supervision?

Walking through downtown DC the other day, I came across the Office of Thrift Supervision. I thought this office sounded like a pretty good idea, and I'd like to get one for the DoD.

The DoD office of Thrift Supervision could focus on making sure people exercise some restraint when it comes to spending. It could encourage and reward underruns on development programs. It could provide education on why a tight budget is good for programs, why it's good to not spend all your money by the end of the year, and help program managers understand that constraints foster creativity. Naturally, this new office would work closely with the Office of Speed Supervision, which would encourage programs to establish short timelines. And we could probably use an Office of Simplicity Supervision... heck, let's just put them all together into the Office of FIST Supervision.

Speaking of speed, did you know that in 1943, the XP-80 development team was given 150 days to deliver their aircraft? They did it in 143 days... one week early! Did you know we could do that today if we wanted to? Or we can keep on making 10-year plans that turn into 20-year projects...

Hey, a guy can dream, right?