Data, Facts and Evidence
What makes a ‘fact’ a fact? What makes evidence, evidence?
The fictional detective Joe Friday is famous for something that he actually did not say – “Just the facts, Ma’am”. Many a CEO used to request the same. But is it possible to lift ‘facts’ out of context and for them still to be meaningful? Take Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BC. Many others crossed the Rubicon both before and after but their crossings are not recorded as ‘facts’. So why Caesar? Caesar’s crossing with his army became a historical ‘fact’ worthy of remembering only because it is considered to have led to the Roman Civil War, which ultimately resulted in Caesar becoming dictator for life and the rise of the imperial era of Rome. In other words, it is the ‘context’ that makes this particular crossing of the Rubicon a ‘fact’.
Data is meaningless, until…
Data, by itself, is without meaning. It is mere blibs – on paper or on screen. It only yields meaning when interrogated. Ask the wrong questions and we get wrong answers. In his presentation to the IPWEA Congress in July, Jeff Roorda observed that when Copernicus proposed that the earth moved around the sun, the data that had been collected about the movement of the stars and the sun did not change. It was just that it was interrogated through a different question.
Not all data is created equal
While natural data may remain constant (although perhaps not well understood), the same is not true of data that we use today in our management systems. That data has been selected, chosen and shaped by the questions that we have asked of it in the past. For example, if the focus of our questions has been on the current value of our asset portfolios, we may have calculated, and recorded as data, the depreciated value but have failed to record the age distribution without which we have no way of knowing what that value means in terms of renewal timing. If we recorded our assets in historical cost terms, we may be able to account for their accuracy by referral to the invoices of the time, but it yields no management information. If we recorded our maintenance expenditures by site but not by what was done on that site, we may know where it has gone, but we won’t know what was done and so what we may have to do later.
Today, our ability to access and analyse data enables us to answer old questions with more precision. This is exciting. The easy thing to do is to collect more of what we have collected in the past and to address the same questions. In other words we can use new data to answer our old questions, questions that were themselves shaped by the data limitations at the time.
So, an even more important question might be – are we prepared to ask new questions that cannot be answered simply by inserting more data in our current current data frameworks?
Are we prepared to rethink our data frameworks? Our thinking models?
With new technology we can now create an abundance of data very cheaply, not only historical but real time data. In fact, we may well argue that anything we can think of we can now collect data on. To take advantage of this, we cannot let ourselves be hamstrung by the assumptions that have ruled in the past and the questions that these assumptions have generated. But having – at great expense – assembled the data we now possess – how do we ask questions that move beyond the models we have already developed?
This is one of the areas that we will be examining in our future podcast – “Talking Infrastructure: creating better questions”
A reoccurring theme in our questions is the discussion of the unknowns, how do we go about making the right infrastructure decisions, what are questions we need to ask and find answers to.
We can use as an example the recent and exciting debates over the efficacy of tearing down and rebuilding various stadia in NSW. Setting aside the significant politicking associated with announcements, defending decisions, backflips and the like; the following is clear:
The policy(1) of the NSW government state:
“[W]orld class facilities and ensure Sydney remains the major events capital of Australia.”
“[C]ritical to attracting big-ticket events and visitors, maintaining a strong NSW brand and generating social and economic benefits.” The cost-benefit ratio for the projects hover around 0.6, meaning there is a net cost to the community for generating the benefits.
“[E]nables NSW to bid for and host a wider range of events.” Also at net cost to the community.
The residents of NSW did not believe these are worthy goals, certainly not at the anticipated cost. A petition for reviewing the decision gathered over 200,000 supporters including the Lord Mayor of Sydney (2).
It is certainly not clear how these projects “support liveability for the people of NSW.”, another stated benefit of the projects.
An additional interesting item is reported that “When cabinet first approved the government’s policy of building two stadiums at a cost of more than $2 billion last November, ministers were told the BCR for Allianz was 0.6; potentially up to 0.8 if the value of the asset when it was not being used was counted.” (3) From an Infrastructure Decision Making perspective this is troubling as it indicates that the asset is significantly idle, but more importantly, that ministers may be encouraged to think of cost benefit analysis as flexible, that an idle asset returns value to the community.
Sydney’s Lord Mayor is also reported as stating “she still had not seen a comprehensive business case for rebuilding or remodelling the stadiums.” (4)
From the reaction to the announcements and the public response it is clear:
- The decision-making process for replacing the stadia was not sufficiently robust to withstand the weight of cursory public scrutiny.
- The achievement of benefits that exceed the cost of the project is not a significant motivator for decision makers.
- Claimed financial benefits from policy could not be substantiated.
My question, posed by Rob Didcoe, is “What information can we provide that will allow politicians to make the best possible decisions on behalf of the community?”
1. https://sport.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/OOS/SIG/nsw-stadia-network
2. https://www.change.org/p/premier-berejiklian-stop-nsw-government-wasting-2b-rebuilding-sfs-olympic-stadiums
3. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/gladys-berejiklian-crunching-the-numbers-for-stadiums-rebuild-funding/news-story/4c830abd5b2087047c0a3d28d956c972
4. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-29/nsw-government-backs-down-on-stadiums-backdown/9600654
Yesterday I posted IDM in Pictures 3/12. IDM stands for Infrastructure Decision Making. You can think of IDM either as the next stage after strategic asset management or as an intermediary stage between 20th century physical infrastructure and a 21st century that will be increasingly cyber or cyber augmented, but the shape of which we do not yet know. Infrastructure decision making is about asking those questions that will help us make the adjustments we will need to make.
For example, consider the rise of e-sports, a.k.a competitive video gaming. What impact might this have – on physical sports and on our sports infrastructure? Already a $1.5 billion business, it is increasing at 30% p.a. and projected to continue this rate of growth for at least the next five years. How many of our recent stadiums and those now being built have factored in this rate of growth for e-sports – and the possible concommitant impact on physical sports? So far it has mainly affected Asia and North America. However Australia joined the excitement early this year with major tournaments in Melbourne and Sydney. Do our current sports stadiums lend themselves to housing these events? The physical requirements of e-sports in Sydney (pictured) required the design and construction of a purpose-built elevated stage housed in a movie theatre complex. E-sports require high speed internet access and present high intensity light shows, music, dancing along with the video gaming competition. In Asia and North America they can attract crowds of 100,000.
In times of uncertainty we often seek comfort in resorting to what we have always done and are therefore confident that we know how to do. This may give temporary relief from the stress of the unknown but it only pushes the decision making further out whilst making the decisions harder when they come due again, and this is likely to be much sooner than we think. The consequence of doing this in the recent past may be why we are now hearing the term ‘playing catch up’ from our political pundits like Jeff Kennett. I don’t like this term, or the idea it implies. Why catch up when by the time that we do, what we are catching up with will already have passed?
The earlier we pay attention to future issues and start thinking – and talking- about the changes needed – in mindset, technology, principles and practices – the easier our adjustment task will become.
Big data is a route to Abundance, but let us take care, data makes a great servant but a dangerous master.
If we respond to data outputs uncritically we make data our master. Yes, algorithms are becoming ever more complex and difficult to understand – and therein lies the problem. Unless we are able to understand HOW a decision was made, algorithms are just dead dangerous. There are really serious problems of people being denied access to medical or social assistance or being jailed because an algorithm deemed it so. Less serious – but funny! – is the story of two booksellers on Amazon using pricing algorithms that resulted in a 1992 out of print book on the evolution of flies rising to over $28m. A post graduate student interested to buy the book first noticed that where second hand copies were listed at $35, new copies were then over $2,000. When he went back the next day, the price had risen even more, and so it continued. Studying the prices, the student realised that one seller had set his pricing algorithm to be fractionally less than his main competitor in order to attract sales. the other bookseller had set his algorithm to price this book at slightly more than his main competitor. Why? We don’t know but the student suggests (in his blog where he writes it all up) it might have been because the seller didn’t actually have a copy of the book and would have to source it should anyone order. Since the premium of the one seller exceeded the discount of the other, the price kept rising. It took this research student to notice what was happening – not the booksellers, who were, of course, on autopilot. What damage could occur in your work if you are on autopilot?
The ability of big data to deal with increasing complexity is nevertheless a great advantage. Consider how we have moved since the first industrial revolution.
Our data culture is shaped by the first 3 revolutions. This has given rise to two attitudes or mindsets that are no longer acting to our advantage.
- A perception of scarcity and the idea that adversarial competition is good. But we are about to embark on a new world of abundance – as well described in Jeremy Rifkin’s “Zero Marginal Cost Society”. This is requiring businesses to change their business models. We know it as ‘disruption’ but it is more than that, it is opportunity.
- With increasing specialisation we have developed a culture of fragmentation and the idea that knowledge means control. Now that we are able to share knowledge so much more freely, we are able to develop better models, a more fruitful culture.
- This means that we can start to explore replacing these old ideas with a better idea, that humility, gratitude and kindness create abundance and by helping each other we can meet the challenges of an uncertain future. These are not really new ideas. During and just after the second world war, Londoners who had survived the blitz, now faced the problem of recovery. Instinctively they knew that, just as they had survived the war through helping each other, this was also the way that they would meet the uncertainty of the future. But as people became richer, they became more selfish and the initial rate of gain slowed. The way of the future is through collaboration. Harvard studies, as reported by Shawn Achor in “Big Potential”, have clearly demonstrated that teams of collaborating individuals have it all over geniuses. In fact a team of average intelligent people who ‘get on with each other’ well exceed the performance of a team of geniuses.
- This is the real message of ‘big data’ – together we can do more than we can do alone.
In the sharing economy (Uber, Airbnb) participants either earn income from assets that would otherwise be lying idle or benefit from access to assets that they only need for a short while. Now, what started with consumer services, is moving to business. Why own your own combine harvester when you can rent? These transactions are more complicated but possible.
‘Where can we go from here?’
New possibilities arise when we combine the benefits of the sharing economy with the new technological possibilities of blockchain. For a really simple explanation of what block chain is and how it may change our future, you might want to start here (Hint: it is more than bitcoin)
Once you have read this (or if you are already au fait with block chain) then you may wish to explore how the NSW Government is putting digital driving licences on a blockchain.
Now let’s move on. In my last post I suggested that the vexed problem of transparency might be solved by a combination of our new technologies.
I can see the technology in use within our cities and rural communities underpinning local energy generation, shared facility use between commercial and community groups and significant opportunity for formal Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) where the use and consumption of the asset is clearly demarcated by micro-transactions, allowing real-time transparency.
While the technologies are being developed, the underlying elements of Blockchain and IoT are now firmly in place, the technology is not new, but finding its niche. Much like the development of laser technology.
The future will be determined by the success of these trials, and the adoption of micro-transactions by our government and institutions. Initial trials in Australia and Internationally show reason for optimism that this may be a solution for sustainable funding for many of our shared resources. Perhaps an opportunity for citizens to become “owners†of assets like bridges and tunnels, with charges being apportioned to use with greater accuracy and equity and transparency.
What do you think the future holds?
Transparency of government is the greatest tool we have for ensuring the best decisions are made by officials and functionaries and reducing corruption and poor decision making.
Legislation, guidelines and reviews surrounding Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) abound as we collectively try to find a way for government to utilise private efficiency and expertise without exposing the public to risks associated with corruption of officials and contracts that serve the private rather than public partner.
The problem with many PPPs and government business, are poorly constructed contracts. Inappropriate measures, guarantees of returns and unclear maintenance and renewal responsibilities.
In the past it has been difficult for us to measure the use of infrastructure by different groups, the consumption / degradation of infrastructure, the degree of maintenance and renewal required and applied to infrastructure.
This has lead to simplistic drafting of contracts based on unsupported estimates.
Enter micro-transactions and Internet of Things.
We now have the unprecedented ability to measure almost everything, and cheaply. We have technology that allows us to make the recording of these measurements publicly available and immutable, and we have people writing clever contracts based on micro-transactions.
By combining these things there is opportunity for us to include all aspects of infrastructure in government contracts for PPPs. Reward can flow to the Private Partner based on utilisation, maintenance, renewal of the infrastructure as well as other measurable impacts, such as improvement of performance of the infrastructure, or lessening of burdens on society and the environment.
The possibilities of big data are impressive but let us not get carried away.
Not only is there the danger of trusting in the results of data manipulation that we do not understand (cf the many studies showing the dangers of ‘private’ algorithms that are not open to analysis), but there is the greater danger that we put our faith in aiming at ‘data’ outcomes (e.g. KPIs) rather than people outcomes.
So let us put our effort into better measurements of what really matters – better (i.e. more relevant) data. This will inevitably mean using non-dollar measures – and judgement.
Discussion today tends to conflate the benefits of greater use of digital data and digitisation itself. Both are valuable, and both impact infrastructure decision making, but they are not the same.
There is currently much discussion of loss of work opportunities through the use of robots. If our decisions are driven purely by data, then robots can do a great job. But if we want our decisions to include values such as kindness, compassion, and fairness, then we need people.
We appreciate the benefits of big data but do we really want to live in a world without kindness, compassion and fairness?
Infrastructure spending is often justified on the grounds that we are ‘building for the future’. If we truly believe this, and if we are concerned to provide a safe and prosperous world for our children to inherit, then we are running out of time. This is the conclusion of “No Time for Games: Climate Change and Children’s Health’ by Doctors for the Environment Australia where they describe the many ways in which periods of excessive heat, disease carrying flood waters, storm events and rising sea levels are seriously impacting the physical and mental well being of our children. This is not a hypothetical. It is happening now. And the recent NEG decision to support coal under the guise of providing ‘reliability’ for renewables is, unfortunately, symptomatic of the hypocrisy of the time.
We can regret the loss of leadership as David Shearman did in his excellent article in the ABC Adelaide news this morning “Climate change is World War III, and we are leaderless” and urge our elected members to do more, and we should do this.
But maybe we need to DO more? Maybe in our leaderless world we need to take leadership into our own hands? In the past we have tended to leave large scale infrastructure decisions to others. Perhaps this now needs to change? No Time for Games has this to say about Infrastructure:-
Infrastructure and risk reduction
‘Protecting children’s health also requires risk reduction in sectors other than health such as housing, agriculture, urban planning and transportation. Improvement in urban and regional planning design such as relocation away from areas at risk from natural disasters or sea-level rise, or better housing design to reduce heat impacts, are examples of reducing the risk of climate health impacts to children.
Reducing socioeconomic disadvantage in children and improving baseline health, food security and education are fundamentally the best form of climate change adaptation due to their role in making children and families more resilient and better prepared for the environmental risks brought by climate change’
We can all have a say in promoting these changes, directly where we are able, and in voting for measures which improve them and against those which don’t.
That the increasing health effects of climate change disproportionally affect children challenges the most fundamental call of humanity, to nurture its young.
Failure to act is a major intergenerational injustice
My thanks to Ian Spangler for drawing my attention to this.
When computerisation first appeared on a large scale, we eagerly adopted it – and used it to carry out the same processes we had used bc (before computerisation). It was many years, in some cases, decades, before we realised that the real value of computerisation was to adopt completely new processes for new outcomes. Today the power of digitisation for connection is still being recognised. We eagerly embrace ‘smart technology’ in our cities – but are slower to recognise that connection can be used to bypass the city. That is we are increasingly able to ‘live, work and play’ in the suburbs, or the country, improving our lifestyle opportunities and reducing environmental costs. But first we have to see it.
INFRASTRUCTURE DECISION MAKING (IDM) IN PICTURES
DON’T MISS ANY OF THIS NEW AND IRREGULAR SERIES, JOIN THE TALKING INFRASTRUCTURE COMMUNITY (it’s free) AND RECEIVE OUR FORTNIGHTLY NEWSLETTER TO KEEP YOU UP TO DATE
There was a time when I would be in and out of an art gallery in 30 minutes, bored. I looked, but did not engage. Then at a Picasso Exhibition, i found paintings that I really liked, but also many that turned me off completely. After viewing all, I went back and studied these two groups and asked Why? Now galleries are no longer boring. I apply the same process to conference talks. I note all the new ideas, the new linkages that really please me and write them down so that I can think more about them later, and I also note those statements that drive me nuts, and I think about these as well. No prizes for guessing what category the ‘heretical questions’ in the last post fell into.
But the IPWEA Congress this week, ‘Communities For the Future, Infrastructure for the Next Generation’ was far richer in yielding good new ideas, thoughtful linkages, and new ways of expressing accepted ideas so that they come to life and are taken out of the realm of platitudes. These deserve a far wider coverage, and so, with the support of our podcast partner, the IPWEA, we will be bringing you these ideas, and many others, in our forthcoming podcast series. Watch for it!
Or better still, join the Talking Infrastructure Community (click here) (its free!) and you will be the first to know when we launch.
A closing note: At an after lunch session in Parliament House many years ago, the talk was so boring I found it a hard job to keep my eyes open. Yet my colleague was riveted! He was listening intently and taking notes. At the end I sighed and said ‘That was a really boring talk’. ‘Absolutely’, he agreed. Surprised I responded ‘But you were riveted, paying great attention, taking notes, how come?’
His reply? ‘To make so boring a presentation, there must be many things he was doing wrong. I just wanted to figure out what they all were!’ Be engaged!
Recent Comments