Methodology in Outdoor Research: Approaches from an alternative discourse

The research article is here. The author, Tony Rea, is a lecturer at the University of Plymouth, UK and University College Jarna, Sweden.

The author states that there is too much emphasis placed on 'outcome-based' methods of research and evaluation, or "the objectivisation of outcomes and the essentialising of participant responses." It mentions the English school 'league tables' as an example of this; we have a similar version of this in our Singapore school ranking survey.

This is the first time I have come across the word 'essentialisation'. A cursory online search for the meaning of the word revealed that this word is not that easily defined. My own take on its use in this context is how outdoor adventure education has been ‘essentialised’ such that it is commonly (or popularly) seen to be effective at helping to achieve certain learning or behavioural outcomes in participants e.g. working with others, building up self-esteem, leadership etc.

The author suggests that "much literature on outdoor learning programmes focuses on programme outcomes and that such research may value programme outcomes, such that can be observed and measured in some way, over participant experience."

He goes on to say:

...'impact' is viewed very broadly, to the extent that ‘impact on what?’ is rarely questioned. Rather, it is based upon the assumption that there exists a causal link between educational aims, objectives and pedagogy; and learning outcomes or benefits. Impact became a mantra of late twentieth century state schooling in Britain.

The author mentions that 'character' has been similarly essentialised, arguing that an individual’s behaviour in one situation may give little indication about their behaviour in different situations. For example:

If somebody backs out of a climbing activity because they are nervous or lack confidence, the implication is that this is a transitory state contextualised through the activity. If they are termed to be of 'weak character', or suffer low self-esteem the implication is of a personality trait in need of remedy or therapy.

Rea cites another author, Allison who proposes the use of alternative questions such as “what processes are at work in this situation, or what is the nature of the participant‟s experiences?”

Rea then suggests that storytelling or a participant’s narrative allows for a more nuanced, broader analysis of outcomes. He then describes his research conducted at a British residential outdoor adventure education centre.

The article concludes that a narrative approach to gathering data could (or should?) be considered along with the other ‘traditional’ or conventional forms of data collection and analyses.

Rea admits the limitations of this approach e.g. reader biases, but he did not address other practical considerations e.g. group size, time and participant profile. He did not suggest possible other applications of this method of evaluation, apart from his own research at the residential outdoor adventure education centre, involving presumably young children (curiously, he doesn’t disclose the children’s age).


Further reading
Essentialism (Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

Delusions of objectivity

For anyone who finds themselves on different sides of an issue or topic.

Article here.

Declining Student Resilience: A Serious Problem for Colleges

For our precious Strawberry Generation...

Article here.

20 Corporate Phrases That Make You Sound Really Boring

From this article.

Minimum Wage in Singapore

[Originally posted on Facebook, 2 Sep 2015]

Prompted by the article: "Does paying workers more hurt business? A complete guide to the minimum wage." by Jeff Spross

These are my simplistic views on a minimum wage (MW):

1. I'm not even sure if it should be called that.
2. "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys". I am not in the business of selling peanuts, nor do I wish to call myself or my employees 'monkeys'.
3. The MW at least gives me some kind of threshold at which I can peg (realistic? reasonable?) expectations of my employees' performance.
4. If my clients are not happy with the quality of work we provide, it's got absolutely nothing to do with how much I pay (or don't pay) my employees.
5. If other companies in my industry don't wish to follow the MW, they may be free to do so. Chances are they will be stuck in the cycle of catering to the lowest common denominator of clientele. Some of their staff may be attracted to my offer of a better wage and I will be justified in seeking to max out their potential to contribute to the company. Chances are my staff retention rate may improve.
6. I would most probably pass on the added manpower costs (some, not all) to clients. This will make me correspondingly more accountable for the work I deliver. And hopefully, they will have a truer sense of the value of the work we performed.
7. We are dealing with people, not toaster ovens. I'm pretty sure the employees building Rolls-Royce cars are earning far more than MW. Many of them have been with that company for years, if not decades. They have a real sense of pride and ownership in what they do. If I want to position my company along these lines, then my employees (and I) need a starting point, so that we can start working together towards 'fair payment for fair service'. [You can also replace the word 'fair' with 'poor' and 'good'.]
8. Without profit, I can't hire the people I want. The MW can allow me to price my service accordingly so that I can get a decent profit and channel it towards developing my employees, amongst other things.

Facilitation: 27 Simple Ways To Check For Understanding

Article is here.

What's the point of adventure?

[Originally posted on Facebook, 17 Jan 2015]

Passion and the definition of adventure revisited...so now if participants ask: "What happens if it rains or if there are mosquitoes?" Maybe we can respond with: "What's the point of adventure?"

Excerpts from "On Myanmar's Mystery Peak, Drama and a Challenge Like No Other"
National Geographic
Published 16 Jan 2015:

Over five arduous weeks, the team members had been pushed to their limits physically, mentally, and emotionally. Finally, high on the mountain and within striking distance of their objective, the strain nearly broke them when a disagreement over which of the five climbing members would try to reach the summit turned into angry shouting.

The conflict revolved around issues that are familiar to expert mountain climbers who push their limits on some of the world's highest peaks: how to balance their own pride and desire for achievement against the need to keep everyone in the group as safe as possible.

For each member of the group, Hkakabo Razi represented a rare chance to do something no one had done before, and the argument that boiled to the surface in some of the team's most desperate hours was partly a reflection of the team's passion for its mission.

"It was ugly," Jenkins said of the argument, "and in many ways heartbreaking."

A Brooding, Mysterious Peak
In an era that has seen the widespread commercialization of mountaineering, one in which a trip to the summit of Mount Everest is considered almost passé, serious climbers are hungry to find mountains that offer a rawer, some would say truer, spirit of adventure.

Few places fit the bill as squarely as the little-known Dandalika range, east of the Himalaya in northern Myanmar. And Hkakabo Razi (pronounced Kaka-bo Rah-zee), believed to be the tallest of these isolated peaks, has long stood as the biggest mountaineering prize of them all.

Experienced in High-Altitude Adversity
The team expected to face physical and mental hardships during the expedition.

"This was more than just a mountaineering expedition, with a lot more logistical complexities," Jenkins said. "We knew some things would go wrong. They always do. But without hardship there would be no adventure. And then, what's the point?"

Don’t follow your passion, but always bring it with you.

[Article by Cliff Sims, on the site Yellowhammer, published 2014.]

Mike Rowe of “Dirty Jobs” has made a habit of going viral on the Internet by responding to fan questions, like the time a fan told him to prove he was the real-deal and wasn’t living a posh celebrity lifestyle and Rowe responded by giving a photo-tour of his apartment.

On Tuesday it was Stephen Adams of Auburn, Alabama who wrote in questioning a now famous speech in which Rowe said “follow your passion” was the worst advice he’d ever received.

“Hi, Mike. Let me begin by saying that I love what you and your foundation are attempting to do,” Adams wrote. “However, I’m confused by your directive to NOT “follow your passion.” I think it can be safely argued that if no one followed their passion, companies like Apple, Microsoft, Dow, and many more wouldn’t exist. If no one follows their passion, who innovates? Who founds companies that provide jobs for the outstanding workers that your foundation aims to help?”

Rowe’s complete response can be found below:

Hi Stephen

A few years ago, I did a special called “The Dirty Truth.” In it, I challenged the conventional wisdom of popular platitudes by offering “dirtier,” more individualistic alternatives. For my inspiration, I looked to those hackneyed bromides that hang on the walls of corporate America. The ones that extoll passersby to live up to their potential by “dreaming bigger,” “working smarter,” and being a better “team player.” In that context, I first saw “Follow Your Passion” displayed in the conference room of a telemarketing firm that employed me thirty years ago. The words appeared next to an image of a rainbow, arcing gently over a waterfall and disappearing into a field of butterflies. Thinking of it now still makes me throw up in my mouth.

Like all bad advice, “Follow Your Passion” is routinely dispensed as though it’s wisdom were both incontrovertible and equally applicable to all. It’s not. Just because you’re passionate about something doesn’t mean you won’t suck at it. And just because you’re determined to improve doesn’t mean that you will. Does that mean you shouldn’t pursue a thing you’re passionate about?” Of course not. The question is, for how long, and to what end?

When it comes to earning a living and being a productive member of society – I don’t think people should limit their options to those vocations they feel passionate towards. I met a lot of people on Dirty Jobs who really loved their work. But very few of them dreamed of having the career they ultimately chose. I remember a very successful septic tank cleaner who told me his secret of success. “I looked around to see where everyone else was headed, and then I went the opposite way,” he said. “Then I got good at my work. Then I found a way to love it. Then I got rich.”

Every time I watch The Oscars, I cringe when some famous movie star – trophy in hand – starts to deconstruct the secret to happiness. It’s always the same thing, and I can never hit “mute” fast enough to escape the inevitable cliches. “Don’t give up on your dreams kids, no matter what.” “Don’t let anyone tell you that you don’t have what it takes.” And of course, “Always follow your passion!”

Today, we have millions looking for work, and millions of good jobs unfilled because people are simply not passionate about pursuing those particular opportunities. Do we really need Lady GaGa telling our kids that happiness and success can be theirs if only they follow their passion?

There are many examples – including those you mention – of passionate people with big dreams who stayed the course, worked hard, overcame adversity, and changed the world though sheer pluck and determination. We love stories that begin with a dream, and culminate when that dream comes true. And to your question, we would surely be worse off without the likes of Bill Gates and Thomas Edison and all the other innovators and Captains of Industry. But from my perspective, I don’t see a shortage of people who are willing to dream big. I see people struggling because their reach has exceeded their grasp.

I’m fascinated by the beginning of American Idol. Every year, thousands of aspiring pop-stars show up with great expectations, only to learn that they don’t have anything close to the skills they thought they did. What’s amazing to me, isn’t their lack of talent – it’s their lack of awareness, and the resulting shock of being rejected. How is it that so many people are so blind to their own limitations? How did these peope get the impression they could sing in the first place? Then again, is their incredulity really so different than the surprise of a college graduate who learns on his first interview that his double major in Medieval Studies and French Literature doesn’t guarantee him the job he expected? In a world where everyone gets a trophy, encouragement trumps honesty, and realistic expectations go out the window.

When I was 16, I wanted to follow in my grandfathers footsteps. I wanted to be a tradesman. I wanted to build things, and fix things, and make things with my own two hands. This was my passion, and I followed it for years. I took all the shop classes at school, and did all I could to absorb the knowledge and skill that came so easily to my granddad. Unfortunately, the handy gene skipped over me, and I became frustrated. But I remained determined to do whatever it took to become a tradesman.

One day, I brought home a sconce from woodshop that looked like a paramecium, and after a heavy sigh, my grandfather told me the truth. He explained that my life would be a lot more satisfying and productive if I got myself a different kind of toolbox. This was almost certainly the best advice I’ve ever received, but at the time, it was crushing. It felt contradictory to everything I knew about persistence, and the importance of “staying the course.” It felt like quitting. But here’s the “dirty truth,” Stephen. “Staying the course” only makes sense if you’re headed in a sensible direction. Because passion and persistence – while most often associated with success – are also essential ingredients of futility.

That’s why I would never advise anyone to “follow their passion” until I understand who they are, what they want, and why they want it. Even then, I’d be cautious. Passion is too important to be without, but too fickle to be guided by. Which is why I’m more inclined to say, “Don’t Follow Your Passion, But Always Bring it With You.”

Carry On
Mike

Experiential Learning: Hands-On Doesn’t Mean It’s Minds-On

An article by Grant Wiggins, updated 30 Dec 2019.

A tragedy that could have been prevented

[Originally posted on Facebook, 22 Jul 2013]

Straits Times article here.

Raising low wage workers' pay - Straits Times article

[Originally posted on Facebook, 3 July 2013]

Some noteworthy points in this article. Especially about Govt-linked agencies e.g NTUC wanting to be a 'model' service buyer and also about re-examining how service providers are evaluated and selected.

Article is here.

To wear or not to wear: Is that the question?

[Originally posted on Facebook, 19 Jan 2013]

Recently, I had a conversation with a fellow practitioner and the topic of wearing helmets in climbing activities emerged. I am not going to go into the specifics about the whys, whens and wherefores of helmet wearing (or not). Instead, I would like to comment on a disturbing trend that, for all I know, may have started more than 10 years ago by who knows whom.

I’m sure many would agree that when a policy is implemented by an organisation (in the business of providing outdoor or adventure-based activities), it would be on the basis on a what is hopefully a properly conducted risk assessment, and not because other (competing) organisations do it.

One rationale (or excuse, more like) whenever a decision is to be made about implementing certain safety-related policies e.g helmet-wearing is that ‘other organisations do it’ or ‘it’s an industry practice’. I have been guilty of this too.

Another refrain commonly surfaces that a certain ‘leading’ organisation does it, and since it is an opinion leader in the industry and for clients, then other organisations should fall into line. [An aside here: who made a certain organisation the ‘representative’ of our industry? I don’t remember candidates being nominated and I certainly don’t recall that ‘candidates’ having to work hard to convince the rest of us why we should take after them.]

This is not a good sign for the professionalisation of the outdoor education industry. If we as practitioners cannot objectively and confidently perform good risk assessment and make sound safety decisions, then should we even be in the industry in the first place? Just how far can “But it’s industry practice” or “Other provider organisations do it” take us and enable us to be taken seriously? It’s nothing less than a cop-out.

What is also disturbing is the consequent implication that organisations that don’t ‘toe the line’ aren’t safe. This is extremely unprofessional, not to say defamatory, in the absence of context and background information. I have personally heard comparisons made between organisations by people, saying things like: “Oh, but our Company has a helmet-wearing policy, whereas Company X doesn’t, so that leaves some question marks about its attitude to safety.” Gross generalisations and snide jibes are not the hallmarks of professional practitioners like ourselves.

I of course realize that there are instances where policies are meant to reduce or eliminate uncertainty and doubt, thus enabling the staff to perform their primary duties in delivering outdoor education activities. However, it is more of a sin if we don’t help them understand and instead expect blind obedience to a set of rules and regulations. Instilling a culture of fear and apathy does not an effective outdoor educator make. Just imagine what they might tell their participants when asked. And don’t get me started on people who retort with this: “But what if something does happen and your participant isn’t wearing a helmet?” That’s what risk assessment is for, lunkhead!

Arguably, there is no certainty in outdoor or adventure education. The dynamic nature of the environment is impetus for us to never stand still and just rely on a document listing out do’s and don’ts.

The Adventure (Sex)Pedition: Revisiting Kurt Hahn’s Educational Aims

Author: Franklin Vernon

The article can be found here.

This article was a challenging read, because it introduces some aspects of Kurt Hahn that seem at odds with the philosophy and ideals he brought to outdoor and adventure education. It is like learning a beloved relative is not the person you thought you knew.

The author himself recognises this and makes some effort to contextualise and not sensationalise (if this is at all possible in an academic paper?) what some might consider to be salacious or unsavoury information.

I had served in Outward Bound Singapore for eight years, from 1998-2006 and I can’t count the number of times I have shared with my participants the myth or legend of Kurt Hahn and his legacy. It may be fair to say that, amongst Outward Bound practitioners in Singapore and around the world, his persona borders on sainthood. As the author says:

Hahn’s ingenuity, compassion, honor, strength of will and determination to bring forth these same qualities in others are recounted and passed around as educational and personal inspiration… the circumscribed narratives of Hahn that are shared among the OAE programs of the United States are at best partial and even possibly not historical (see also Machtan, 2013; Mann, 1990; Seaman, 2018; Worsley, 1985); they function, understandably, to orient members to the values of the organization and then to provide an ideal, generalized other for members to construe the appropriateness of their own thoughts and behaviors.

However,

The truth is, first and foremost, a story of a tragic typicality, rooted in elite cultural affirmation and promotion and fear of loss of power, masquerading as “character” education (Freeman, 2011).

The author claims that, in pre-war Germany, Kurt Hahn sought political influence to achieve his educational aims:

The extent of Hahn’s interest in gaining political influence among the German ruling class is often downplayed (e.g. James, 2000), but it was this desire that not only shaped, but guided his involvement in both the war and, later, his schools (Mann, 1990).

The author also described Hahn’s desire to influence the educational landscape as more pragmatic rather than idealistic:

…he expected “rule by an elite [was inevitable and] wasn’t necessarily the mark of dictatorship. . . there would always be a ruling elite under any circumstances” (Worsley, 1985, p. 191). Thus, his intent was not to be part of a specific political movement, but instead to identify the current and future ruling elite, and provide – or create the appearance of providing – moral guidance among them.

The author admits that there is a lack of ‘complete’ record or evidence in scholarly studies related to Hahn:

(Educational historian Thomas] James’ description of their (Hahn’s and Max von Baden’s) relationship hints at recognitions of Hahn’s influence but perhaps without access to complexifying evidence, hence resorting to wavering phrases that only guess at Hahn’s role.

The author then goes on to drop quite a bombshell:

It is not a misstatement to say Hahn understood adventure to be his intervention in a pedagogy of controlling sexuality. ..Adventure must be prescribed “on the threshold of puberty” (Hahn, 1949, p. 5), so that this vitality “grows to be the ‘guardian angel’ of the years of adolescence, while the undiscovered and unprotected boy rarely maintains his vitality unbroken and undiluted from eleven to fifteen” (Hahn, 1934, p. 12), as “he is left all too frequently at the mercy of impulses that well up during puberty and which impatiently and insidiously struggle for satisfaction” (Hahn, 1949, p. 5).

In other words, Hahn desired to use adventure as a way for young people to sidestep adolescence and move on towards being active contributing members to society.

At Salem, Hahn believed “the great majority of. . . boys and girls escaped the maladies of puberty” (Hahn, 1948, p. 5), which he believed society was faulty for accepting as an unavoidable stage of life; he “regard[ed] it as [his] mission in life to expose this dogma as the great fallacy” (Hahn, 1948, p. 7) and showcase to the world that puberty or adolescence was optional and avoidable. Or, as Darling put it, Hahn was a “right-wing progressive” (Darling, 1981, p. 23) who oddly “saw rescue as [the] one activity which could stave off adolescent interest in sex”.

Pages 9-11 of the article describe Hahn’s recognition of his own latent (or suppressed) homosexuality and his realisation that, if young boys could be sufficiently distracted from their emerging adolescent sexual identities and urges, they might then ‘skip’ this step and move on to become human beings who would be of value to society. Adventure was “form of therapy” – an intervention “he had first used on himself”. Hahn believed that young boys would experience

…an irretrievable onset of homosexuality or homosexual attractions within them. This was also why his school at Salem was an early adopter of coeducation; female students were there to function as curricula for the boys (he took a similar approach with lower-class students’ involvement in Scotland at Gordonstoun), and any young male students caught engaging in activities that could be interpreted as too intimate among one another, such as sharing a bicycle, walking with arms slung over one another’s shoulders, or lying too close during the afternoon readings, would be shamed with taunts…

The author tells us that Hahn “feared a latent homosexuality existed in all young boys” and that

Hahn appeared to fear puberty would awaken homosexual attractions in young boys, as it had in himself, and that this would preclude them from being able to offer something of value to the society…Adventure-as-pedagogical intervention was borne of a cornerstone fear that homosexuality was ruinous of one’s ability to gain a position of power and contribute to society…

Nevertheless, the author stresses that Hahn was a product of his time:

Interpreting across time and culture, Hahn’s educational aims for adventure appear tragic and repressive, and were at best sad, but for him, logical responses to the societal structures of the time and his experiences with them.

Certainly, to some Outward Bound practitioners, this article might seem blasphemous and question the purpose in writing such an article. However, I choose to believe that it is in the spirit of open-mindedness and constructive questioning that we best serve Kurt Hahn’s legacy, one that I think is no danger of imminent denunciation or collapse.

Indeed, to maintain an overly romanticised version of Kurt Hahn’s history, and attributing semi-allegorical traits to him may prove self-limiting:

…to return to a previous point, raising a complicated and perhaps undesirable historicized narrative of Hahn may appear discomfiting because it, as Ogden (2018) points out, disrupts the social bonds and identity building that come from a common, collaborative story, no matter – in fact, built without serious consideration to—the ‘truth.’ Common stories of Hahn, though truth-adjacent, provided outdoor educators with a historicized sense of progressive lineage.

If we as Outward Bound practitioners profess to be fervent ‘believers’ in the – dare I say – ‘cult’ of Kurt Hahn, then we have the responsibility to be open to views or facts that are seemingly out of phase with the knowledge we can comfortably handle. At the very least, let us use this new or other knowledge to inform and guide us as we continue To Serve, To Strive and Not To Yield.

POSTSCRIPT

It Is an interesting coincidence that I decided to read Franklin Vernon’s article about Kurt Hahn at a time when the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement in the USA is causing Americans to question their cultural heritage, particularly the time of the Confederacy and the slave trade. As these questions reverberated around the world, one other historical figure fell under similar scrutiny in the UK:

Statue of Scouts founder to be removed. Who is Robert Baden-Powell and why is he controversial?
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/11/uk/robert-baden-powell-statue-scli-intl-gbr/index.html

Here is the response from the Chief Scout (Bear Grylls!) of the UK’s Scout Association:
https://www.scouts.org.uk/news/2020/june/a-statement-from-chief-scout-bear-grylls/

Minimum wage (Again)

[Originally posted on Facebook, 17 Jun 2020]

Article 1: Garbage collector is 3rd most essential job but also top job S'poreans do not want to do: Sunday Times survey https://mothership.sg/2020/06/sunday-times-survey-garbage-collector/ Mothership, 14 June 2020

Article 2: The perennial debate in Singapore on minimum wage https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/perennial-debate-singapore-minimum-wage TODAYOnline, 15 June 2020

Article 3: The Big Read: Undervalued and underpaid, Singapore’s essential services workers deserve better https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-singapores-under-valued-essential-services-workers-how-pay-them-what-they-deserve TODAYOnline, 15 June 2020

The Covid-20 pandemic has, amongst other things, helped to re-ignite the discussion/debate about how some job sectors are ‘essential’ to society and if workers in these sectors are adequately recompensed. The discussion then morphed into the wider issue of whether a minimum wage should be implemented. Sadly, this issue is doomed to remain in the discussion stage, as long as the current government is unwilling or unable to exercise the political will to take it further.

For the record, I am personally in favour of a minimum wage.

From Article 3, Nominated MP Assoc Professor Walter Theseira said: ‘If we recognise that all work, especially socially essential work, has value, then we need to agree that there is no shame in having Singaporeans take up manual and service jobs.”

Noting that these roles are often filled by migrant workers, he added: “The only shame is if we, who have power and influence, fail to ensure that the conditions of work and wages in these service jobs are such that Singaporeans find no dignity in taking them up.”

Putting aside how Covid is putting the brakes on the Outdoor Education industry here in Singapore, would we consider that our work in this industry is ‘essential’, given that we support the broad education aims? A ‘profession’ is, among other things, defined as a skill or service that society recognises as being of benefit or value (see Annex).

While there are many strong, reasoned, logical, pragmatic and practical arguments for and against minimum wage, I find it troubling that many of the reasons laid out in Article 2 are mainly pragmatic in nature, and doesn’t really address how Prof Tommy Koh has described the income distribution of Singapore as a “moral disgrace”.

For all that the Singapore government frequently likes to justify its policies on the basis that other countries do as well, the lack of a minimum wage is a curious outlier - even former labour Minister Lim Swee Say admitted as much: “Minimum wage is highly attractive. In fact, more than 90 per cent of countries in the world have already adopted minimum wage. Singapore, we belong to the minority...”

He also said that a minimum wage policy can be a “zero-sum game” between employers’ cost pressures and low-wage workers’ pay cheques. Moreover, Minister of State for Manpower Zaqy Mohamad said: “In times like these, no minimum wage or living wage system can help low-wage workers. When there is no work, there is no salary, there is no minimum wage to talk about when firms are unable to pay their low-wage workers.”

Such responses are reductive and discourage further meaningful discussion about the issue as a whole. No one imagines that minimum wage can be considered in simple terms, but it is disappointing that our governing leaders don’t appear to be interested in leading the citizens to have a constructive debate about it.

A faint glimmer of hope occurs when current Manpower Minister Josephine Teo said the Government is "not ideologically opposed" to a minimum wage and that in certain areas where the labour market is tight, "there is room for us to do something". I can only hope that this is not a mere platitude and something she has little intention on pursuing, especially when the general elections are imminent.

Article 3 talks about Singapore’s economic model, the way business is conducted and the enormity of the challenge in any attempt to even contemplate any kind of meaningful change.

DBS bank senior economist Irvin Seah believes that decades of education and economic development has caused such a perception (of lowly-paid jobs being undesirable) to be too deeply entrenched in Singapore, where it would be too difficult for society to make a U-turn.

The article looks at the government tender process as an example. As a former business owner, I have fair amount of experience dealing with this process and I would argue that, while the principles are sound, the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

During the Budget debate in 2012, MP Zainal Sapri said the (government tender process) had encouraged service providers to lower their prices in order to win the tender. This resulted in the salaries of the low-wage workers being cut, and such “gross injustice and slavery of the poor must stop”, he had added, perhaps a little melodramatically and also somewhat out of character for a People’s Action Party politician. The article then describes the personal experience Mr Andy Seah, owner of a construction company, in dealing with the tender process.

While Article 3 focuses on low-paying or ‘manual’ jobs and workers of a certain age group, it is worth asking ourselves if the pay or wage practitioners in our industry receive is commensurate with the demands of the job; being a ‘parental’ figure, taking on physical (and even mental) risk and assuming the onerous responsibility for the care and wellbeing of our participants, among others?

To be clear, Singapore has a version of a minimum wage policy called the Progressive Wage Model. I am not against it at all, but I believe it should be expanded to cover more job sectors. As it is, by limiting this wage model to certain (low-paying or manual) industries, it only serves to unwittingly reinforce negative perceptions of such jobs.

I hold the romantic view that we need to look at the principles or values our society is based upon. Then the institutions and practices that are required to uphold these principles or values will follow. For example, any functioning society requires law and order, therefore the justice system is established to ensure this. Thomas Carlyle (1775-1881) said: “A fair day’s-wage for a fair day’s-work: it is as just a demand as governed men ever made of governing. It is the everlasting right of man.” [https://www.forbes.com/quotes/9100/] If we agree with this principle, then we need to set about creating the systems and institutions to demonstrate and uphold it.

Article 3 ends with on a note I find cautiously encouraging: “Economics theories aside, Mr Zainal argued that a higher cost of living would be a moral necessity if Singapore were to move forward to become a more equitable society. “If you want everything to be cheap, what you are practically doing is asking (these low-wage essential workers) to shoulder the burden. If you want good service, you pay for it.”


ANNEX

Wickenden (1949) listed these characteristics that make up a ‘profession’:

• Renders a specialised service based upon advanced specialised knowledge and skill, and dealing with its problems primarily on an intellectual plane rather than on a physical or a manual labor plane.
• Involves a confidential relationship between a practitioner and a client or an employer.
• Is charged with a substantial degree of public obligation by virtue of its profession of specialised knowledge.
• Enjoys a common heritage of knowledge, skill, and status to the cumulative store of which professional men are bound to contribute through their individual and collective efforts.
• Performs its services to a substantial degree in the general public interest , receiving its compensation through limited fees rather than through direct profit from the improvement in goods, services, or knowledge, which it accomplishes.
• Is bound by a distinctive ethical code in its relationships with clients, colleagues, and the public.

A more recent version:

A profession is an occupation whose members share the following 10 common characteristics [Friedson, 1970; Argyris and Schon, 1974]:

1. Prolonged specialized training in a body of abstract knowledge.
2. A service orientation.
3. An ideology based on the original faith professed by members.
4. An ethic that is binding on the practitioners.
5. A body of knowledge unique to the members.
6. A set of skills that forms the technique of the profession.
7. A guild of those entitled to practice the profession.
8. Authority granted by society in the form of licensure or certification.
9. A recognized setting where the profession is practiced.
10. A theory of societal benefits derived from the ideology.

A professional is a member of a profession who displays the following 10 traits:

1. Knowledge and skills of a profession
2. Commitment to self-improvement of skills and knowledge
3. Service orientation
4. Pride in the profession
5. Covenantal relationship with the client
6. Creativity and innovation
7. Conscience and trustworthiness
8. Accountability for his/her work
9. Ethically sound decision making
10. Leadership

In sum, professionalism is the active demonstration of the traits of a “professional.” [Rice, et al. (2006) - What does it mean to be a “professional” ... and what does it mean to be an ergonomics professional? https://www.ergofoundation.org/images/professional.pdf]

Finally, perhaps the simplest version describing characteristics of a profession:

1. Requires strong intellectual skills
2. Provides an essential service
3. Requires extensive specialised training
4. Allows autonomy in decision making
5. Emphasises service to its clients
6. Identifies professional standards of behaviour
7. Assumes individuals are responsible for their own actions and decisions
8. Engages in self-governance

[Henniger, M (2003) - The Teaching Experience: An Introduction to Reflective Practice]

Documentary: A Class Divided

[Originally posted on Facebook, 6 Jun 2020]



On PBS (53 mins) - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/class-divided/?fbclid=IwAR3bPLE4oPWnexPru_3uHZz_o6mWpXEbs1Fgg0--xNydar-NACQy61_zhE4

My impressions on a daring social experiment conducted on a class of American third-grade students, and some thoughts on the facilitation challenges arising from such an experiment.

I came across this documentary when a friend mentioned it on one of her Facebook posts. I was curious about it – more from a facilitation point of view because I am always interested to learn more about putting participants out of their comfort zones while in a learning experience and to see how the facilitator proceeds to help participants arrive at effective learning.

What I came away with was not just insights into effective facilitation, but also a sobering reminder about my own place and role while living in a multiracial society.

To summarise the social experiment: It is 1968, a few days after Martin Luther King’s assassination, and schoolteacher Jane Elliott decides to conduct a social experiment (lasting one school week) on her class of third-grade students, age 8-9 years. Her objective is to help them have a better understanding of discrimination. The camera offers us a fly-on-the-wall look at how this experiment progresses.

Jane divides the class into those with blue eyes (calling this group the ‘Blue-Eyes’) and those with brown eyes (you guessed it, ‘Brown-Eyes’). She then tells the class that “blue-eyed people are better than brown-eyed people” and it is a ‘fact’, because she is a teacher and also has blue eyes. Jane puts down the Brown-Eyes at every opportunity – if a Brown-Eye is slow in taking her notes out, Jane tells the class that “this is what Brown-Eyes do”. They are also made to wear a scarf to denote their status and have certain privileges (previously available to all students) revoked or curtailed. For example, Blue-Eyes may leave for break time five minutes earlier than the Brown-Eyes, while the Brown-Eyes are not allowed to ask for second helpings at the school canteen.

The camera pans amongst the students as Jane briefs her class on the new social order, and we see the students’ expressions of conflicted bewilderment as they find their pre-existing beliefs challenged or overturned.

What follows is a fascinating look at how the students adapt to their pre-determined place in the new social order. Students who were once best friends become awkward classmates at best – a Blue-Eye suggests to Jane that she keep a ruler ready in case “the Brown-Eyed people get out of hand” and one Brown-Eye punches a Blue-Eye during lunch because the latter called him “Brown-Eyes”. A girl complains that this new social order was “taking our best friends away from us”.

On the third day, she gathers the class and says that she had lied to the students, and that it is actually Brown-Eyes who are better than the Blue-Eyes. Thus the roles are reversed, and with predictable results. The Brown-Eyes’ relief as they quickly and gleefully removed their scarves to place them on a Blue-Eye was palpable.

At the end of the week, Jane debriefs her class and the results are thankfully but not unexpectedly positive.

As a side experiment, Jane plays a ‘card pack’ game (I think it’s a word recognition game) with the Brown-Eyes to see how quickly they responded – their times were recorded when they were the ‘oppressed’ and compared to the times recorded after the Blue-Brown divide was stopped. The latter times were consistently better than the earlier attempts. This showed how we limit ourselves when we start to believe in external limitations that have been placed upon us. The scarves were literally the limiting factor.

The twist in this documentary is that Jane’s students (now adults in 1985) were invited back to the school for a screening of the 1968 experiment and it is truly enthralling to see the adults’ reactions as they watched their younger selves. The segment ends with Jane facilitating a discussion and the former students share how this experiment had impacted their lives.

The second half of the documentary shows how Jane was commissioned by the Iowa Department of Corrections to train its corrections officers, using the technique similar to that used on the third-grade students.

This made for engrossing viewing as well, not least because the experiment had to deal with the added complexity of the adult mind. I will not delve into the interactions that occurred in the training workshop. Suffice to say, it is well worth one’s time and attention to watch the documentary.

After such a long preamble, I come to my personal reflections on this social experiment and how Jane handled and facilitated the session for both participant profiles:

1. In the classroom experiment, it must have required a huge amount of inner resolve to maintain the persona required to effectively sustain the experiment. It must have been absolutely heart-wrenching for Jane to see her “wonderful, thoughtful children turn into nasty, vicious, discriminating little third-graders”. Yet, even as the students must certainly deal with their inner conflict and confusion, it is clear that Jane has their complete trust. She is still able to insert valuable moments of process debriefs, even as she continues to maintain the ‘charade’. When the whole experiment was completed, Jane undoubtedly would have felt exhausted – physically, mentally and emotionally.
2. During the group discussions (for both schoolchildren and the adults), she keeps her questions simple and effective. This is a skill I can work on.
3. In her interactions with the corrections officers, Jane behaves pretty much in the same way with the adults as she did with her students. But I am sure the mental pressure would have been more intense at the workshop, because she had to be both professional and be discriminatory without ‘appearing to be’ discriminatory. I was utterly impressed with how she countered the participants’ counter-arguments. I believe this boils down to impeccable preparation, to anticipate possible participant responses and to plan strategies to deal with them.
4. This social experiment is a testament to the power of the Experiential Learning Cycle. It is a reminder to facilitators of the critical importance of a well-crafted AND well-facilitated learning experience towards achieving the desired learning outcomes. David Stokesbury, a corrections officer who attended Jane’s training workshop said: “…Most of the trainings you go to, people give you information, and you learn that way…” I am sure he came away from that workshop with a lot more than he expected.

What amazes me is that this novel exercise was done in the small town called Riceville, in Iowa. According to the documentary, the town’s population in 1985 was slightly fewer than 1,000 and almost exclusively all-white, while in 2010, the US Census determined the population to be 785 (Wikipedia). A search on Google Maps shows Riceville to be about 200km from Minneapolis, the site of the recent tragic death of George Floyd as a result of alleged police brutality, which then ignited a storm of protest across America. I could not imagine how this seemingly innocuous social experiment in a tiny school in a small town in the middle of White America would have such far-reaching impact.

This documentary brings up in my memory the time I was with Outward Bound Singapore (OBS), when in 2004 my ex-colleagues Abdul Kahlid, Abdul Shukor and I ‘dabbled’ in such programmes that aimed to increase social awareness and develop personal skills like empathy and compassion. We were fortunate that we could tap on the considerable resources available at OBS and we came up with a 7-day programme called ‘SingaTouch’. It was loosely based on Outward Bound Czech Republic’s ‘InterTouch’ programme that Kahlid had attended.

The first run was conducted in 2004 and the participants were teachers. A highlight was a role-play scenario that lasted almost five hours and was set in Singapore, just prior to the start of the Japanese Occupation. Some of the participants played foreign colonial expatriates, while others acted as members of the local populace. Costumes were hired so that the participants could also look the part. The setting was a dinner in a ‘restaurant’ and the actual meals served to the foreigners and the locals were deliberately of different quality i.e. the foreigners enjoyed the better food. (This was not made known to the participants at the time the scenario was announced to them.) About halfway through the dinner, an ‘air-raid warning’ (actually a loudhailer siren) rang out, and some of the OBS facilitators (who were part of the scenario) immediately rushed everyone out of the restaurant and into the dark jungles surrounding OBS on Pulau Ubin. As the participants hid, other OBS staff acted as Japanese soldiers searching the jungle for them, using bright torchlights and uttering the occasional Japanese phrase. After about half an hour since the ‘escape’, we would call the scenario to an end.

For the debrief, two reflections from the participants stood out:

1. Those who played the locals in the restaurant were a bit surprised at the standard of food they received compared to the foreigners and yes, there was even mild resentment.
2. Whilst in the jungle, there were many who came close to feeling the fear their grandparents or parents must have experienced when they were hiding from the Japanese soldiers.

SingaTouch had impressed upon me the value and importance of solid preparation, of trying our very best as facilitators to immerse our participants in the learning experience as much as practically possible, so that their learning can be more real and meaningful.

And yes, I slept pretty much through the whole weekend immediately after the programme ended.

POSTCRIPT

• I was pleasantly surprised to re-discover a blog we had set up for participants to share their reflections and experiences from the 2005 run of SingaTouch here: http://stix05.blogspot.com/
• There is an excerpt describing SingaTouch from the book Outdoor and Experiential Learning: An Holistic and Creative Approach to Programme Design here: https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=NAskDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT61&ots=gbYR4B7g-i&dq=singatouch&pg=PT60#v=onepage&q=singatouch&f=false
• I also discovered the "A Class Divided" is actually a follow-up to "The Eye of the Storm" (1970) which shows in greater detail the social experiment that Jane Elliott conducted.

‘Unteachable’ (Documentary): Impressions

[Originally posted on Facebook, 15 May 2020]



[The following is my impression of the documentary Unteachable. The opinions and views expressed here are my own.]

Unteachable (77 mins) is a documentary about a young teacher’s attempt to introduce a new teaching pedagogy to Normal (Technical) students in a secondary school. Directed by Yong Shu Ling, it premiered at the 2019 Singapore International Film Festival.

The documentary focuses on two protagonists – Damian, a Secondary Two student at Shuqun Secondary School and Ng Meixi, who received her Bachelor’s degree in Education at a foreign university. Damian is a personable boy who speaks with a halting shyness, but comes across as all the more eloquent for it. In the latter part of the film, he is disappointed with his final examination results, but he concludes sagely that "results don't tell your future". Meixi is the fresh-faced and passionate key driver of the new teaching pedagogy called Tutoría (from the Spanish), or ‘Tutoring Relationship’, something she came away with from a study trip to Mexico. [Whenever she mentions the term, she makes it a point to pronounce it with a Spanish inflection.]

It is revealed that this new pedagogy is being trialled at Shuqun Secondary School for the subject of Mathematics. While the film is not clear, I infer that the trial lasted some two years. The school’s Principal has a short appearance describing his hopes and expectations for the trial.

When the film accompanies Damian and Meixi to the school, nostalgia washes over me. The film offers snippets of the daily school routine: students in uniform, singing the National Anthem at morning assembly, the class attendance written in a corner of the classroom whiteboard (no longer the black of my schoolgoing days – a stark symbol of the inexorable evolution of the classroom), students standing at their desks receiving a scolding by the teacher, the feeling of anticipation when sitting for exams and receiving results, the banter between students and teacher.

We see Meixi having jitters as she prepares feverishly for the trial; she opines that Singapore’s education system favours the accomplished by saying something along the lines of “If you do well, doors open. If you don’t, the doors are closed.”

The film follows Damian as he tries to navigate his way through this trial – it seems evident that he is a willing subject, and he tries his best to absorb what is given to him.

I can only guess at the reasons why we don’t hear or see much of other characters revolving around Damian and Meixi. For instance, Damian’s parents are conspicuous by their absence (only snippets of his mother appear, while both parents attend a class to be ‘tutored’ by Damian) – it would have been enlightening to hear how they might have influenced Damian’s worldview. There is a particularly poignant scene where Damian prepares and consumes breakfast alone and the clock says 5.50am as he leaves home for school.

In contrast, Meixi’s mother is vocal (compared to Damian’s parents) and we get a far more detailed picture about Meixi’s motivations and ambition. This scene also takes place in the family kitchen where mother and daughter are preparing a meal together.

Damian’s classmates also appear in the film; but again, we only get a superficial acquaintance with them. This is probably due to family reticence (although one of the girls has quite a bubbly character). This is a shame because one of the other girls is described as a leader, but we don't get to see anywhere in the film how she manifests this quality. There’s Jamie, also part of the girl gang, who professes a wish to sing, but I feel my heart go out to her when she says “but in Singapore this is impossible.”

The film eavesdrops on Maths Dept teacher meetings where they discuss how the trial is progressing. I get the impression that, in spirit, they are willing to participate in this trial and welcome the opportunity to try something new. However, some of their expressions reveal that they are mindful of the constraints they face. Meixi tries to empathise with them, saying that as a ‘non-NIE trained teacher’, she can to some extent understand what they are experiencing. During one meeting, one of the teachers expressed his concerns about the trial, taking care not to pour cold water on the trial completely. Observing this scene, I felt like a facilitator in a personality profiling session. This teacher was the logical, analytical one. His practical, pragmatic approach was representative of the mindset that underpins the Singapore education system. Curiously, the film did not feature interviews with the other teachers involved in this trial.

There were positive moments of course in the film of course. Meixi feels immensely gratified as she looks through the students’ personal reflections after the lesson. She mentions that Tutoría is not only about academic learning, but has a lot to do with personal growth as well. The school Principal also said as much when he reminded the students at a morning assembly address that for the coming term, he wanted them to think not just about what they want to be when they grow up, but what sort of person they can be as well.

The film ends on a mixed yet cautiously upbeat note. Damian does not do as well as he expected for the final examination. Yet, he is clear about the direction he wishes to take after serving National Service, which is to be a chef.

Meixi understandably has mixed feelings at the trial’s end, but I believe this is to be expected. How can a two-year pedagogy trial hope to bring down 40 years of entrenched segregation? But she still carries hope and a fervent ambition – she will go on to Seattle to pursue her doctorate in Education.

This was yet another juxtaposition that brings to light how one’s academic or socioeconomic status may affect one’s access to opportunities. I wonder if these contrasts were deliberate on the part of the director.

The film ends with Meixi’s eloquent hope that the Singapore education landscape would continue to evolve; her last words are: “…no student is unteachable’’.

Singapore International Film Festival webpage:
https://www.sgiff.com/onscreen/unteachable/

About Tutoría:
http://fiftyfold.org/what-is-tutoria/

Article: “Why team-building exercises are useless (and what you should do instead)”

[Originally posted on Facebook, 22 Jul 2019]



Article by Julien Pollack and Peter Matous, Fast Company, 20 Jul 19

Putting aside the clickbait-y nature of the article’s title, one will discover on further reading that the authors are not speaking an entirely different language to those who conduct adventure-based experiential team building (or bonding) programmes or activities. The authors write:

It’s about understanding that teams are social networks built on connections between individuals. It involves deep one-on-one conversations, designed to get people out of their comfort zones.
Adventure-based programme facilitators understand that the outdoors is the great social equaliser - participants are impelled into forging social connections that are in their interest to nurture for the duration of the programme and better yet, after it has ended.

The article also says:

Research suggests psychological safety is crucial in the work environment... Team members need to talk regularly and be comfortable raising difficult issues. Feeling able to make a mistake and express oneself freely improves team performance and the ability to innovate.

Adventure-based programmes by definition offer uncertain outcomes, especially due to factors beyond reasonable human control. However, a well-facilitated programme will encourage emotional, or psychological safety and allow participants the space to shape their destiny as it were, and to take ownership of the consequences, desirable or otherwise. The authors go on to say that “building psychological safety takes time” - again, adventure programme facilitators understand very well the need to provide adequate time and structured programming for participants to form positive and constructive interpersonal relationships.

The authors then propose a method to enhance the forming of ‘social networks’ within a given team, saying that “well-designed team-building should target and strengthen relationships that are for some reason too weak.”

These social networks can be analysed by asking team members this disarmingly simple question: “How often or how comfortable are you talking to each member of your team?” and offering a list of suggested questions, with increasing level of sensitivity or intimacy.

At the risk of oversimplifying the authors’ proposed strategy, their method is something many adventure programme facilitators would have done as part of the ice-breaking process when a new group of participants come together at the beginning of a programme: have the participants ask each other questions. Who has not felt a connection, bond or sense of kinship upon discovering some common ground or interest with another person? This is arguably the most important precondition for communication to take place and a relationship to form.

The article mentions some research done in 1997 that showed “feelings of interpersonal closeness are cultivated by disclosing personal details.” Again, in my personal experience, adventure-based programmes (particularly those of longer duration or which deal with at-risk populations) are effective at helping to achieve this. Consider those times when a participant fails to achieve success at scaling a rock wall; or when participants shows anxiety or even fear in the face of an oncoming storm while out on a sea kayaking expedition. Of course, this is not to say that bonding is solely promoted by negative circumstances.

The article includes some graphs detailing the progress a particular team makes, using the strategy ‘social network analysis’ as proposed by the authors.

The authors acknowledge that “for some, there is a clear line between work life and personal life. Not everyone feels comfortable with talking about personal issues, let alone with colleagues to whom they’re not close. It’s true that rapid personal disclosure can be risky.”

Certainly, the challenge lies in determining the appropriate pace and nature of the questions such that as many team members as possible will feel their comfort zone get larger. For example, if Team Member X had yet to form a bond with Team Member Y, and the former asked a banal question like what Y had for breakfast, Y might still be disinclined to answer (and may even be put on the defensive).

Any adventure-based programme facilitator knows the importance of progressive, intentional and considered activities that encourage participants to form appropriate relationships with others, so that their desired outcomes have the best chance of materialising, with the necessary resilience to weather the inevitable obstacles that will surface along the way.

Thoughts on Hiking Trailers for OBS

[Originally posted on Facebook, 10 May 2019]



An article appeared in the Straits Times on 17 Mar 2019 titled "Teens getting too soft? Student campers at OBS with trolleys spark debate"
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/student-campers-with-trolleys-spark-debate [Sorry, there is a paywall so the full article is inaccessible if you don't subscribe to the Straits Times.]

With regard to the introduction of hiking trailers into some Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) programmes, it was unfortunate that the media coverage left OBS somewhat on the back foot. It was also unfortunate that the journalist incorporated the word 'trolleys' (which brings its own set of connotations) when she could have just simply stuck to the correct term from the outset.

In Singapore’s tiny outdoor education landscape, it is perhaps unavoidable that OBS, as the largest outdoor education provider, is perceived as a leader in programme design and delivery. In this regard, the effects of any decision OBS makes regarding programme safety or quality are far-reaching and opinions that support or detract are to be expected. The introduction of technology such as the hiking trailers also reflects the Singapore government’s consistent drive to seek innovation in pursuit of efficiency and quality.

I think many would agree with me when I say that, where outdoor education is used as a tool to help inculcate positive personal values, the use of technology needs to be sensitively incorporated. A simplistic example might be the use of GPS to aid in navigation in an urban setting. Turn-by-turn instructions issued by the GPS obviates the need for participants to interpret information and make decisions.

OBS has stated that the hiking trailers enable greater inclusivity in participant profile and participation, and also may allow participants to experience greater levels of challenge e.g longer distances can be covered. I have no issue with these aims; I especially support the former.

As someone who is interested in outdoor education programme design, and given that the trailers will be implemented soon, these thoughts entered my mind:

• Expeditions involve much planning and decision-making - since the trailer can take more items (and concomitantly, weight), will there be fewer opportunities for participants to practice such behaviours?
• Back in the day, a key theme propounded to both OB participants and instructors was ‘back to basics’. How will using the hiking trailer jibe/conflict with this, assuming it is still an important philosophy?
• Practically speaking, any kind of equipment, under heavy use, will malfunction. Will participants be taught how to perform basic repairs? Or are the instructors - burdened as they are with time, participant and activity pressures - expected to perform them? Often, faulty or damaged equipment can overshadow or even negate the learning benefit of the programme or expedition. Conversely, if it were possible to send replacement equipment at short notice with the aim of reducing programme downtime, this may also deprive participants of other potential learning moments e.g dealing with setbacks or making the best out of an undesirable situation. This is especially so in Singapore, where we have been acculturated to expect things to ‘just work’.
• How will this impact the broader outdoor education industry? Will clients demand similar technology from the smaller players? The investment outlay would be considerable. I personally know of one company which received a request from a school to deliver cycling expedition programmes, similar to that which OBS provides. Apart from the cost of acquiring equipment, and ensuring that Land Transport Authority guidelines are adhered to, one can only imagine how the Park Connectors might look like, what with participants on expedition using hiking trailers, bicycles with trailers/panniers, kickbikes with trailers and who knows what other modes of transport... I can well imagine that the response from LTA, PUB and NParks regarding increased usage of their respective domains would be decidedly lukewarm.

Perhaps the next time OBS decides to introduce or pioneer an innovation, it might do well to ensure the desired messaging gets through first.

[The above are just my thoughts - I am not commenting on whether the hiking trailers are a good idea or otherwise.]

GeBiz (unintentionally) hurts clients and service providers

[Originally posted on Facebook, 20 Jul 2017]

‘GeBiz’ is the Singapore Government’s e-procurement portal “where suppliers can conduct electronic commerce with the Singapore Government. All of the public sector's invitations for quotations and tenders (except for security-sensitive contracts) are posted on GeBIZ.

Suppliers can search for government procurement opportunities, retrieve relevant procurement documentations and submit their bids online.”

This system is underpinned by the following fundamental principles:

• Transparency
• Fair and Open Competition
• Value for Money

[Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeBIZ]

I have had more than 10 years’ experience using this portal, as a client in the past and now as a service provider. I will not delve into the user experience of GeBiz; rather, GeBiz has given me lots to think about in terms of how client organisations consider commercial relationships with service providers.

I run a business offering personal and corporate development activities and programmes. I am only too happy to state that GeBiz has indeed helped me find business opportunities efficiently and it works largely as designed.

GeBiz has been a boon for client organisations seeking products. Where services are concerned, GeBiz has arguably been less successful. This is something that many client organisations actually recognised, but this state of affairs will continue until an alternative or revision comes along.

Let’s say I work in a client organisation and was tasked to purchase desk calculators. I would list out the desired specifications (solar-powered, calculates to 10 digits, auto power-off function and so on) and I will wait for responses from potential providers. I study the responses, choose the lowest priced bid and wait for delivery of the calculators. If ever I needed more calculators, I would simply go through the same exercise.

I daresay that leadership development programmes, team-building activities or student enrichment workshops are not as easily reduced to a list of specifications.

Facilitation is a service, not a product - while it is possible to list out the desired learning outcomes, it is not possible to specify ‘how’ the facilitation should be conducted. On second thought, it might actually be possible, but the list of specifications could run to several pages!

It follows that, since it is so difficult to write specifications for a ‘good’ programme, the key arbiter would be price. Sadly, with services such as workshops or training sessions, we all too often get what we pay for.

Client organisations seem to favour ‘one-off’ engagements. This is especially true of schools. It is rare that a service provider is contracted by a school to conduct their annual camps for more than a year. It seems that schools don’t relish the thought of writing extensive documents to justify appointing one provider to run camps for 2-3 years, even if a provider has proved to do a good job. [I realise that this is not related to GeBiz as such, but this is an observable trend in the months leading up to school camp season.]

What happens then is that - particularly for school camps - the service provider resorts to hiring freelance or part-time staff to deliver the programme. The result is usually less than satisfactory, but since this is a one-off, there is no collective ownership between the client organisation and the service provider and hence no collective incentive to strive to improve. Worse, service providers face rising costs year after year, but school budgets don’t er, budge. What happens then? Corners are cut and everyone thanks their preferred deity that no one got hurt.

Another possible scenario is that a client organisation selects the lowest-priced bid, but pressures that provider to adopt some of the ideas or activities proposed by the unsuccessful providers.

Not to encourage this sort of thing, but a (very) small way the unsuccessful provider might get some redress for this is for the client organisation to offer all bidders a flat ‘programme design fee’ for the time and effort providers put in to put together their proposals - akin to what some government agencies (like CPF) do when procuring marketing or advertising services. The higher the ‘programme design fee’, the higher the expectation the client organisation can have when assessing the submitted proposals.

Longer-term contracts encourage service providers to think long-term and make more informed decisions about resource planning and management e.g. staff hiring/retention and training. The client organisation will be secure in the knowledge that the service provider is serious about delivering consistent performance and quality. The client organisation will also give the service provider actionable and constructive feedback with the expectation that the service provider acts upon it and improves delivery for the next event or project. This is something any service provider (airline, restaurant, hair salon etc.) knows and works hard at.

Longer-term engagements enable providers to act as 'consultants' to their clients. They can get to know the school or corporate culture and offer ideas or design programmes that are more closely aligned with the client organisation’s desired learning outcomes. Over the course of the engagement, the results can be tracked and are more valid. With single engagements, a service provider is more likely to just offer ‘off-the-shelf’ services - there is little incentive to offer improvements when there is no guarantee that the client organisation will select the same service provider the next time around.

Nicole Chua, a friend who works in the same industry as I, had this to say:

I feel that (GeBiz) must stay...because the procurement system in itself is not wrong. Rather, it is the mindset of ‘cost savings’ that needs to be changed. If the clients themselves are not well informed to be able to assess proposals, then an assessment mechanism should be in place to perform due diligence.

Transparency is no bad thing - even as it allows competitors to know what is the winning bid, there is public knowledge of what the buyer paid.

I feel that there is a long way to go for civil servants to understand what it means to employ fair procurement practices thus obtaining the best possible combination of quality and value for money.

All too often, client organisations go with what is administratively expedient - not selecting the lowest-priced bid requires a lot of paperwork to justify the decision.

In the service industry, it seems illogical or at least counter-intuitive for clients to prefer the lowest-priced bids - ‘best’ and ‘cheapest’ rarely occur within the same sentence.

But in Singapore at least, we seem happy to settle for ‘cheap and (hopefully) good’.


Further recommended reading

Clarence Chua's post on 15 July 2017: https://www.facebook.com/clarence.chua.18/posts/10155543208117258

Letter to Straits Times, 10 Apr 2014 : http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/shed-light-policies-tender-process

5 Tricks Freelancers Didn’t Know About Government Procurement Via GeBIZ: https://workingwithgrace.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/5-tricks-freelancers-didnt-know-about-government-procurement-via-gebiz/