Ideal Team Structure — Forming Teams

New problems require us to develop new modes of working together.

Startups and innovators of all kinds attempt to solve problems that span disciplines and require teammates to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries.

The big problems startups endeavor to solve today span field. You want to solve a problem today? Great, just hop into business / design / technology / psychology / sociology / brand / marketing / management science. No big deal, right?! Many of today’s projects even grow to include elements of the broader social implications beyond the stakeholders of “company” and “customer,” things like the ethical implications of your invention, adversarial users, and  product end-of-life.

But how should we handle the rise of multidisciplinary teams solving today’s complex problems?

What’s the right way to structure teams to collaborate better and solve these problems more fully?

Quickly, let’s define some terms around disciplines, the depth skills that team members study and hone. A project can be:

  • Disciplinary — A project that is directed inside of a single discipline. If two disciplines are needed, they’re added as components (making a project multidisciplinary).

  • Interdisciplinary — A project that blends perspectives and methods from two or more fields. The back and forth creates learning about each discipline’s underlying assumptions. The project team’s work starts to develop concepts that cross boundaries.

  • Transdisciplinary — A project which strongly overlaps each contributor’s perspectives to create a new discipline (or at least explore creating one). Transdisciplinary teams also often consider the impact of the project on broad stakeholders and “the public.”

I’ve been searching the space, and I wanted to look beyond the usual teamwork and team design bookshelf — Creativity, Inc., Designing Together, Redesigning Leadership (and this new one which is coming out at the end of October, Turning People into Teams).

But then I found something super interesting buried in a student’s unattributed presentation. Scarlet Atkins (a student of some sort - ?) created a guide to ‘mechatronic product development’. What?! Uh, okay. Mechatronics concerns the design of household or industry-specific electronics, such as computers, phones, appliances, and hospital systems like MRI machines and heart-rate monitors.

In this kind of a project, the team will create a product. But doing so requires deep engineering skills to make the product work, UX design for the controls, industrial design for the enclosure, and mechanical perspectives for manufacturing the item. So companies in this space have spent a lot of time designing — and managing and evaluating — teams. And using each team member’s unique perspectives to harmoniously collaborate, navigate constraints and not just your discipline’s constraints), and ultimately delivering amazing solutions.

Here are three models for interactive product development.

  • Cooperative Specialists
    Each person on a team works as a trained specialist, with deep but narrow knowledge. The team members desire to cooperate and collaborate and so they establish a zone of cooperation between their areas. The project at hand is in the middle, between the designers and so it will include a bit of each disciplinary specialty, but with limited interdisciplinary work to blend the team’s perspectives.

  • ‘T-type’ Generalists - Japanese Model
    The Japanese model is quite different. Teammates are selected for their “T” shapes. They are all a team of generalists. While each team member has her own skills, disciplinary background, and department affiliation “developer,” she at the very least possesses passing knowledge of the vocabulary and methods from other domains. Others might have relatively deep skills in other domains, and their titles can be built to match —  companies sometimes explicitly name a “creative technologist” Other companies use the “slash,” where a single team member might be the “ux-slash-dev” or “ux-slash-designer” player on a team.

    Because of the influence of IDEO in design thinking — and perhaps the 1990s management buzzword for cross-training — the T-type generalist model is popular at many companies and agencies today.

  • Generalist Facilitator - The Finnish Model
    This hybrid teaming model was popularized by Finnish companies, especially Nokia, during heyday in the 1990s, but might be less popular in U.S. companies. The model anoints an interdisciplinary facilitator, who usually also serves as the team leader, as the single team member with the broadest and most overlapping skills. This facilitator servers as the orchestrator of the collaborative project, having deep skills and knowledge in many domains. He or she works with specialists who don’t have as much interdisciplinary knowledge.

    Pushing leaders to have a firm grasp of all of the domains used in the project might be somewhat simpler than hiring a full team of generalists. The idea that one person owns the “magic moment” — the insightful moment of synthesis where it all comes together — could appear undemocratic. But in some of the best product design work we’ve been a part of, this accurately captures how the team functions.

What model do you use? Is it explicitly designed did it implicitly evolve from the team dynamics? Who leads your product team — and what perspective does she have?

Podcast Interview on AI and Human Intelligence - Tech Done Right

What does AI mean for the future of design, development? Can I be replaced by an AI algorithm?

Recently on Tech Done Right, I got a chance to talk with Noel Rappin about what's coming and what it means.

From the description: "Zach thinks a lot about artificial intelligence and how it might impact the future of different knowledge work. It's impossible to talk about AI without talking about the ethics of AI projects and how AI might affect society and culture.

We'll talk about why AI started with chess and moved to facial recognition, what AI might and might not be able to do in the future, how we might deal with it, and how that will change the way you work.

Embed episode and download links below.

Perspectives on Dig South 2018

A couple times a year, Helpfully offers scholarships to deserving young professionals who want to attend industry events like DIG SOUTH. This spring, a panel of esteemed women judges reviewed several dozen applications and selected Farah Rohman and Megan Landau for the DIG SOUTH scholarship. Here’s a peek into their experience.

FARAH ROHMAN

Farah hails from Birmingham, Alabama where she works in web strategy and implementation at Influence Health. Her work involves building intuitive digital experiences for the healthcare world. Farah tells us that she was inspired by sessions from DIG SOUTH that were about this critical intersection between technology and humans. Specifically, the Anthrotech presentation by Kit Hughes really spoke to her.

Like many DIG SOUTH attendees, Farah took away the feeling that anything is possible in our future.

“I have met an abundance of incredible people with flourishing ideas and motivation who I hope to constantly stay in touch with. I hope to also do a talk someday that will encourage dreamers to push their ideas to the limits of what we know,” she says. 

Farah also told Helpfully that DIG SOUTH definitely sharpened her awareness of the need for ethical boundaries around data collection in the digital age. A very astute observation in this season of GDPR, of course, and this recent news about Amazon’s Echo sharing a couple’s private conversation.

“Throughout the DIG SOUTH conference, lots of diverse ideas were brought up and a wide array of topics were explored ... DIG SOUTH encouraged me to be proactive about pursuing ideas, the importance of keeping updated on innovation, and to strive to continually improve your skills or learning something every day.

Farah Rohman, Helpfully Scholarship Winner

 Lisa Wang of SheWorx presents at Dig South on Enoughness.

Lisa Wang of SheWorx presents at Dig South on Enoughness.

MEGAN LANDAU

Megan Landau recently graduated from the College of Charleston with a B.S. in Computer Science. Over the last few years in school, Megan was very active in computer science clubs, as well as an internship with Blackbaud. She is passionate about her field and has gained a great amount of experience in a short time. After DIG SOUTH, she jetted straight to Los Angeles to start her new role as a software engineer for Disney ABC Television Group. (Congrats, Megan!)

Megan was especially inspired by the Dig South session called “Cracking the Gender Code: How to Stack the Odds in Your Favor”. She recognized the importance of having discussions where women talk about their struggles as an underrepresented group in their workplace, regardless of industry. Megan also felt a strong emotional connection to Lisa Wang’s talk on Enoughness – focusing on how leaders must practice ‘antifragility’ or the ability to bounce back after hardships. For Megan, conferences like Dig South are a perfect opportunity to challenge both personal and societal limitations so that we can reach our best potential.

Both ladies also shared with Helpfully that Jason Feifer’s keynote on Think Like A Journalist was both fascinating and relevant to them. This message about putting yourself into the shoes of the media (and the reader consuming the media) was something they’d carry with them in their respective career paths. 

 Scholarship winner Megan Landau with Helpfully's Zach Pousman

Scholarship winner Megan Landau with Helpfully's Zach Pousman

Understanding People

understanding-people-helpfully-series-blue.png

Series: Understanding Human Behavior

People are complex.

People are the puzzle that you need to solve in order to make a dent in the universe. You need to seek out and collect insights about people and their behaviors if you want to build stuff that people need and want.

Humans aren’t entirely predictable. But they’re not entirely unpredictable either.

Let me give you an example.

In your (western) kitchen, you likely have a lot of disposable and semi-disposable plastic tubs and bins for storing food. You might keep them in a drawer or a cabinet and reach for them to put away leftovers or pack your lunch or a kid’s lunch.

And I’m going to guess that the bins and lids are a mess.

It probably looks something like this…

messy-tupperware-drawer.png

 

It’s hard to keep this drawer organized, much less tidy. And this was causing the manufacturers some pain. Because people found this frustrating. As a result, they didn’t buy as many of the bins.

The people who develop and sell these products hired some anthropologists to go into the field, into people’s houses, and got families to open the drawer or cabinet in their home and show and talk about this small, but very real, problem.

You see, humans are somewhat predictable.

And sure enough, the manufacturer could use what they found from the field work. They used the parameters about how many products they have, in what sizes, whether and how they attempted to organize the drawer, who uses the bins and how, and they came up with this…

gladware.png

This is nifty solution to the problem people faced. The team created a stackable lid, which connects the lids together. It’s a partial solution, but it helped grow the category from $900m in 2000 to $5.5 billion in 2015.

Improving how products are stored matters. Products aren't just instrumental — they're also meaningful. A messy drawer means something to a mom's or dad's identity.

The fact that humans are ‘somewhat predictable’ is the source of many frustrating moments, but also the source of great opportunity to build new stuff.

If people were fundamentally predictable, advertising and marketing could be perfected. The world would look different. Businesses would succeed forever. There would only be one religion, and one governmental system to cover all human needs and desires. If humans were predictable, Helpfully wouldn’t need to exist — you don’t need assistance if you can follow what others have tried and proven in the past (and it’ll work again tomorrow).

On the other hand, if people were ultimately unpredictable, advertising wouldn’t work, and businesses wouldn’t last. Institutions like countries, cities, companies and churches wouldn’t survive over time. Conversation would be unsatisfying. Nothing would be funny, since humor is about a shared experience.

You’ll agree that neither of these extremes is correct.

The challenge — and opportunity — of innovation is to create (or improve) your product inside of the messy 'unpredictable predictability' of real life.

Your job as an innovator, a creator, a startup founder or change-agent is to understand people. You need to figure them out — what drives them and what inspires them and what they need in a given moment.

And then you give it to them. And then you win.

Well, that’s probably too simple. But we’ll come back to that in a later discussion.

But understanding people is a tall order, isn’t it.

Yes, yes it is.

It’s only been the entire project of all sciences since the beginning of time. Explaining why people do what they do is hard.

How can we know about people? Here are few of the fields of study we might use...

  • Psychology
  • Anthropology
  • Behavioral Economics
  • Religion/Spirituality
  • Web Analytics

Over the next few weeks, I’ll show you key lessons from each field  and how you can better understand people so you can build the tools and experiences they want.

Without recreating an entire college course or text book, I’ll give you clear ’how to’ guidance on what the field says about people. We'll present key frameworks and methods, and sketch out how to use these methods in your design research.

Get ready, it’s going to be fun!

Artificial intelligence and models of the mind

 “A hospital bed is a parked taxi with the meter running.” — Groucho Marx

Metaphors help us compare a concept from one domain by placing it into another context. They help us explain the essential character of an object or a relationship that is a bit outside of our mental grasp by tying it something more familiar.

We use metaphors automatically in our everyday language. Metaphors are not merely for poetry or to capture the subtle, obscure, or humorous parts of human life.

In fact, we use them so frequently, we often don’t even realize we’re doing it. I didn’t consciously decide to compare myself to an animal, yet I recently called myself an ‘early bird’ and a colleague a ‘night owl.'

We use physical or structural metaphors in our conversations too. We have metaphors in English/Western thought that higher is better and the opposite down is worse. We use natural metaphors like the metaphor ideas are plants (for example, “we need to let this idea germinate”).  We use cultural metaphors like common metaphor to associate arguments with battles. Arguments are war and our language examples include “pick your battles” and “why are you so defensive?". For more on this fascinating exploration, I recommend Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By, which has hundreds of these metaphors and the implications of our metaphorical thinking.

One area that’s been of interest to me lately: all the historical analogies that scientists, doctors and scholars have used to describe the brain and the mind.

Let me give you four examples.

Metaphors for the mind date back to the ancient Greeks, who believed that our life essence was centered around fluids. Any imbalance in the brain or the body was a result of improper bodily fluid levels. So, understandably, we find the Greek literature comparing the mind to a hydraulic system of pumps and tubes.

IMG_0014.jpg

Fast forward to the 1600’s.  This era was focused on mechanics, tools and inventions like the clock. We find writings from this era comparing our brain’s inner workings to gears.  Interesting that we still find the phrase “what makes her tick” common in modern conversation.

IMG_0012.JPG

Let's keep moving!

Have you ever thought about that stereotypical cartoon where the light bulb appears over someone’s head when they have a great idea? That started in the 1910s. The analogy of comparing the brain to a network of electric signals and impulses was used in the 1900s because it reflected the technology of they day. The electrical metaphor is still popular in phrases like, “well, he’s just wired that way.”

IMG_0013.JPG

These mind metaphors aren’t just flat words on a page. They shape our contextual understanding of the thing we’re comparing. They impact our beliefs and can even shape our behaviors. Through this combination of technological understanding and helpful linguistic comparisons, we construct the way that we move about this world.

So here we are today, deeply entrenched in the age of computers. Many of us carry powerful supercomputers in our pockets and on our wrists … with computers surrounding us at work and at home (up to and including the ol’ “internet enabled refrigerator” which comes out every year!).

And the metaphor describing the mind and brain as a computer is completely pervasive.

The first metaphorical reference connecting a computer’s operations and the mind’s operations dates back to 1943 but is especially popular today.

The metaphor shapes how technologists and designers explore the concept of artificial intelligence. Pop culture has latched onto this metaphorical concept of the human mind as a computer.

But, given the history of metaphors of mental phenomena, I think it’s probably short-sighted to assume that the human mind IS a computer. Based on today’s knowledge of neurology, the human mind doesn’t work like a digital computer in basically any way. They don’t work the same way, they do not use the same inputs to produce similar outputs, nor do the two domains actually talk the same way about concepts like “understanding,” “recognizing,” “reasoning,” and “planning.” 

When people confuse the mind-as-computer metaphor for the reality of happens in the human mind, they can become very worried that computers are going start acting like people, that AI systems might “take over” a lot of work and life. They start to fear we might end up in a world like Sci-fi films like Ex Machina, Her, or Terminator II.

IMG_0050.png

Do you think that the mind-as-computer metaphor is accurate?  

What does thinking about our brains as a computer do to our experience in the world?  

Do you think there might be anything limiting to comparing ourselves, or at least our minds, to microchips and lines of code?

I think humans are talented in ways computers aren’t, and that the metaphors about computers make rational thought, precise calculation, and speed primary. But humans have mental talents which are not highlighted by the metaphor, including intention, creativity, empathy, and collaboration.

Let me know your thoughts and reactions to this idea. I’m curious if this argument resonates with you. And your deeply and uniquely human mind. 

So, How Was Your Year? (Taking Stock of 2017)

It doesn’t seem like we’re in the habit of asking each other this question around the holidays.  We ask things like “what are your plans for the holiday?” and even get so bold sometimes as to ask our friends about their new year’s resolutions.  But rarely “How was your year?”

Perhaps this question seems too sweeping, or too intrusive. Perhaps we don’t ask others… because we aren’t sure how we would answer it ourselves.

Before we rush into 2018 with fresh goals, I’d like to offer a framework for looking back, to determine what kind of year you actually had. I built this framework as I was scanning through end-of-year emails, sending out some final invoices (and payments to partners) and reflecting on the totality of 2017.

There are the three lenses I’m using to determine my success and the success of Helpfully this year: Financial (return on investment), Memories (fulfilling moments) and Impact (leaving a dent in the universe).

Financial - This lens isn’t exciting or new.  But it is as important as it is straightforward. Did you meet your financial goals? Are you reviewing your Quickbooks statements now, instead of waiting until tax season?

However you measure the financial health of your business and your personal financial situation — whether by monthly recurring revenue, users, clients, revenue, profit, or portfolio gains — you need a hard number as the foundation of the business. I’m inspired by Profit First, a book by Mike Michalowicz. His view of why and how to measure profits is helping me get clear on what I mean when I say our business is "doing well".

This is also the place where you’ll need to assess your partners and vendors. And the oodles of software subscriptions you have (okay, that’s me projecting... maybe your 2017 wasn’t filled with productivity and operations software. I have a ton of software systems that I use to run Helpfully, so I’m carefully weighing each one this week). Are they working for you from a financial perspective?

Take a moment to figure out if the same things that worked (or didn’t work) for your business in 2017 will continue to work in 2018.  This is an opportunity to challenge your own past assumptions, and enter 2018 better prepared.

 

Memory - By nature, people reflect on their year through what memories they made, and the personal and/or familial side of their lives. I was reflecting on all of the fun memories I made this year that are invisible in Quickbooks (or Cushion, another planning app I like). It’s easier to measure the dollars and cents of your year, but there’s not an app that shows the emotional ‘bank account.’ When it hit me. There is an app for that. It's your camera.

One of my favorite ways to really gauge my relative level of fulfillment is by opening the photo app on my phone and scroll through it.  Start in January and just roll through the year. When you do this, choose the photos that make you recall truly “epic” days. This year I got to go to Epicurrence and join an amazing community. I got some wonderful surfing days in. I got a lot of time with my family.  I have great photos of all of these.

A sense of meaningful contentment is key to a good year!  Take note of the high-quality events or days when you really felt like you were living your best life and expressing or sharing that best self over the last year.  How many photos did you choose?  If you only notched a few… Does that mean you need to adjust where you’re spending your time? Or, it could just mean you need to take more pictures?

A word of caution: It might be tempting to run through Instagram and build your personal ‘top nine.’ But remember, this activity is taking stock, not the “highlight reel.” Just as you need to review financial losses in addition to profits, you need to view the whole year, not just the very best parts. The leaky pipe or a fender-bender (or worse), the photos of the mundane, those are important too. Sometimes the blurry photos are the best at capturing real life, even if they’ll never be shared on social media.

 

Impact - This is a separate lens to analyze our time together on this planet and it’s one of my favorite aspects of running Helpfully. We can get overly introspective about ourselves, our goals, our failures, and our feelings. Even financial impacts are, in some real way, internal to your business or job. But to really determine the success of a year, we must consider our outward influence as well.

Through Helpfully, I get to have impact in the world. Alongside a great team and great clients, Helpfully gets to bring new things that should exist into the world.

I asked myself, who did we positively impact this year?  Was there anyone we negatively impacted?  Family members, coworkers, young people who may look up to us, even strangers?  When using this lens, consider what wisdom were you able to share with the world.  Did you spend most of your time fishing, or teaching others to fish?  Personally, this year my impact-meter felt quite high because of this one moment pictured below - feedback from a young student after a classroom presentation I made:

camera.jpg
IMG_1161.jpeg

So even though you usually can’t answer the question “How was your year” with a satisfactorily simple “good” or “bad”, it’s my experience that if you had a generally positive year you probably nailed two of the three lenses above.  If you made a lot of money and had positive impact on many people around you, that’s probably a pretty good year, and in 2018 you’ll focus on ways to be more intrinsically fulfilled.  On the other hand, if you ONLY felt fulfilled about your work (for example the paintings that you created in your studio, but never shared them with anyone, or sold any of them), you probably wouldn’t feel like it was a very successful year either.

So that’s my framework. What’s yours? How was your 2017?

 

 

 

Elements of Inspiration - Perspectives on TEDx Peachtree 2017

IMG_2880.jpg

This fall, Helpfully asked our friends & followers to nominate women in technology who could benefit from attending the TedX Peachtree conference in Atlanta, Georgia.

We had dozens of wonderful nominations, and it was hard to narrow it down to just two winners - but we’re so glad we chose Samantha Maida (GE Digital) and Natalie Gauvin (Home Depot) - two very deserving bright stars in the technology world.

This was the inaugural TED event for both Gauvin and Maida.  We asked them to share a little bit about themselves and their individual experiences at TED.

Natalie Gauvin

Gauvin is new to the Atlanta area this year - her interesting journey brings her to the South, from Canada, by way of Hawaii!  (We have to admit, we’re anticipating the day when we get to hear her utter a sentence that starts with “y’all” and ends with “eh”.)  She’s an experienced consultant and lecturer on Design & Research, and is currently working on her PhD in Learning Design and Technology (LTEC) remotely, until returning to Honolulu for graduation ceremonies in 2018.

Gauvin’s PhD work focuses on how personas impact perceptions of empathy for users in the UX and instructional design communities.  So it’s no surprise that her most positive impressions of the TEDx event were around the connections she made with other attendees.  (We’re thrilled to give you a taste of that Southern Hospitality, Natalie!)

The range and diversity of speaking topics at the event also dazzled Gauvin.  She told Helpfully that she felt each speaker brought a unique and much-needed voice to the stage.  However, Dr. Krzysztof Czaja’s talk on sugar’s impact to our diets and bodies was a particularly memorable part of the day, because that message is relevant each time we make food and drink choices throughout the day.  (Learn more about Czaja’s research HERE).

“A huge thank you to Zach Pousman and the team at Helpfully for making my attendance at TEDxPeachtree possible, also for my friend Havana Nguyen, who nominated me for this great opportunity in the first place.  I have found that people in the UX community in Atlanta to be very helpful, and it’s people like Zach and Havana who help to promote and uplift others so that we can all share resources, and networks to reach our goals together.” - Natalie Gauvin

Samantha Maida

Contrary to Gauvin, Samantha Maida is not new to the South.  She’s a (rare) Atlanta native and (not-so-rare) passionate Georgia Tech alumna and fan.  Maida has spent several years in product development and management in several industries, and is currently focused on security initiatives at GE Digital.  Because of that current role, Maida was excited to hear from Justin Daniels at this event; she recapped his talk on Cybersecurity with us:  “He talks about how businesses are so motivated by bringing new products to market to increase revenue, but security is an afterthought. Innovation is happening so quickly, that security can’t keep up. He challenges society to slow down, and re-focus – as a group. With proactive collaboration, we can limit the threat.”  Well said, Samantha!

As Maida continues to grow in her career, she shared that she’ll also be applying a critical skill presented by Dana Kanze in her talk about gender bias in venture financing.  Kanze shared her research findings that ideas are more readily supported when a presenter or requestor utilizes “promotional” speech (proactive/positive focus) versus “prevention” speech (defensive/what if focus).

Common Inspiration

“I just wish we could take the positive energy and enthusiasm for change from TEDxPeachtree and live it daily outside the walls of the auditorium.” - Natalie Gauvin

Although our TEDx winners attended the event separately, we found some commonalities when comparing feedback on their respective experiences.

Both were astounded by the first speech of the day from Tejas Athni, a high school student who made a discovery about plant extracts’ ability to shrink brain tumors.

And both women love calling Atlanta their home, but each is headed out west in 2018 for some exciting adventures - Gauvin for her PhD graduation celebration, and Maida hopes to return to her new favorite part of the US, Sedona Arizona, for more hiking.

Here at Helpfully, we loved giving these driven, accomplished, impressive women in technology a chance to hear from others who are passionate about having a positive impact on the world.  If you’re interested in more from TED, check out their site HERE.  And we’d love to discuss your favorite talks at our next Helpfully lunch in Atlanta - if interested, fill out our form HERE.

 

2016 Election Aftermath - Information Visualization (and uncertainty)

 From the New York Times. November 8, 2016.

One chart is burned into my mind from election night.

The chart above — from the New York Times election night coverage — is a gauge chart, a display that information visualization practitioners rail against frequently. This is partly because they waste a lot of space (and more at the Tableau Blog too) If designers choose to represent data with a gauge, they spend a considerable amount of screen real estate to represent a single datapoint. Infovis practitioners and researchers love economy. Edward Tufte calls this the 'chart to junk ratio'... and gauges have a lot of junk.

But the design team at the NYT also chose to "wiggle" the data, using a jitter algorithm that randomly repositioned the needle. Or at least semi-randomly repositions it.

There went all of my finger nails.

But now, in the aftermath of the election, I just got to read the rationale for choosing jitter, which I hadn't considered too deeply, thinking it a cruel trick and not a considered choice. Gregor Aisch wrote up a nice little piece that outlines their thinking. Some highlights:

  • Jitter is good for showing visitors the data is "live" and that any changes would not require a page refresh
  • The jitter had a purpose - it captured the uncertainty of the forecast. As the confidence in the forecast went up, the jitter went down. I recall that the jitter was very pronounced at 8 and 9 PM and shrunk to almost no wiggle by 11 or 11:30 PM. I noticed this on the night of the election, I think. Though it's really subtle and now I'm not sure if I did remember it on election night or I'm just projecting some rationality of my reading of the gauge.
  • The designers added noise to the jitter. Which I'd argue makes it more "fun" and dynamic. You could imagine jitter that just monotonously and smoothly swung between the two end points of the forecast. This part seems more contentious to me, but if your goal is eyeballs glued to the site, then this was a good choice.