What's in it for me? The Space Junk Version

In case you are really unlucky, this is what might be coming for you

So have you heard about the large piece of space junk that is soon to come crashing down to earth?

It's actually an old, out-of-service satellite that is expected to fall to earth, in pieces, starting as soon as September 23rd. Ack! That's today!

Here's the essential information from Space.com:

NASA space junk experts have refined the forecast for the anticipated death plunge of a giant satellite, the U.S. space agency now predicting the 6 1/2 ton climate probe will plummet to earth around September 23rd, a day earlier than previously reported.

So what are the chances that a piece of this 'bus-sized' debris will actually strike a person? Well estimates vary some, but the figure is generally thought to be about 3,200/1. One in only thirty-two hundred? That doesn't sound good. In fact that sounds downright troubling. That doesn't really seem like that many people and when we see the descriptor 'bus-sized' along with it, well somehow it doesn't feel all that abstract and unlikely that a piece of debris might hit you or someone you care about and the entire issue might be something you need to think about.

Because we can quickly read those odds and interpret it quite differently, like 1 in every 3,200 people is likely to be hit, or in a town of 10,000 inhabitants chances are pretty good at least 3 people are going to have a rude introduction to a piece of space junk.

But of course if you interpreted the odds in that fashion you'd be seriously overstating your real chances of actually having your own version of a close encounter of the most unwelcome kind. Because while the chances of any person on earth getting hit with space junk might be only 3,200/1, the chances of you getting hit with a piece yourself are quite a bit higher, something on the order of 2 trillion to 1.

We (mostly), see and interpret the world around us via the prism of our own self-interest. And why not? It's actually really hard to let go or at least loosen our grip on the 'What's in it for me?' mindset.

Whether we are selling products, services, or even just advocating and recommending relatively minor changes in simple business practices or processes we are trained and encouraged to speak very clearly to the 'What's in it for me?' proposition for our audiences and constituents. If you don't have a good answer for that question, we are told, then you are quite likely to have a hard time making the sale, winning converts to your cause, or making any progess on your desired behavioral changes. No 'What's in it for me', then no joy my friend.

What's any of that have to do with giant out of service satellites plunging out of the sky? Not much I suppose. Besides we've just figured out that the likelihood of you getting plunked on the bean with a piece of mini-Skylab are really low, ridiculously low in fact. 

But the chances of a piece of debris hitting someone, while still pretty unlikely, are not at all out of the question. But if we all just focus on our own odds, all of us thinking about the 2 trillion to 1, the 'What's in it for me?' version of the space junk plummeting to earth scenario, then there's nothing to worry about.

Someone else can worry about the 3,200/1. 

Have a great weekend! And watch out for falling space junk!

Putting Performance in Context - Not Every Three-Yard Pass Means the Same

For fans of American football, with the start of the new season just two weeks away, a rush of frenzied activity is underway by millions to rate, select, and position their 'fantasy' teams for the upcoming year.

American football, and the evaluation of its players, has traditionally been much less focused on statistical measurements and quantitative analysis of performance than say other sports like baseball and basketball. There are many reasons for this historical de-emphasis on statistics. For one, there are many, many roles on a football team that don't register simple, easy to grasp numbers like touchdowns scored or yards gained. Second, the nature of the game itself, eleven players to a side, highly structured and orchestrated roles and actions on most every play, make considering 'team' success more straightforward and easily understood than individual performance. And lastly, for many of the most important positions like Quarterback, past attempts to develop statistical-based measures or performance have been considered lacking, as many experienced football analysts claim that simply doing calculations on yards gained, passing completions, and even passing touchdowns registered can only offer partial insight into what defines and demonstrates superior performance for that critical position.

The primary metric that has been commonly used to assess and compare quarterbacks has been the Quarterback rating, a measure that takes into account the raw data surrounding the player's actions (passing yards, touchdowns, pass completion rates, etc.), applies some weighting factors to to the data, and produces a combined score or rating for the player, usually falling between about 85 and 100. But the main problem with the Quarterback rating (apart from no one really understanding how it is calculated), is that it is a statistical measurement only, i.e. it applies no situational context to performance. A three-yard pass completion in the early stages of the game gets weighted exactly the same as a three-yard pass completion at the end of the game, perhaps by converting the play, the quarterback's team was able to secure possession of the ball at a critical stage, and cement an important victory.

Some clever statisticians at ESPN are attempting to improves on the statistical evaluation of quarterbacks by introducing a new metric they all 'Total Quarterback Rating', or QBR. QBR will factor in many of the contextual indicators that play an important role in assessing player performance. Game situation, personnel on the field, formations used and more will all play a role in the metric. This will, hopefully, shine a more complete light on the evaluation of NFL quarterbacks. But it is much, much harder to create and calculate than simple math applied to the game box score.The Sanchize.

In football, and I suppose even in most organizations, the context in which performance is captured is often far more important, and more difficult to account for, than simply tracking the 'raw scores' or activities themselves. Was the quarterback under extreme duress when he passed for the touchdown? Was your sales manager under extreme duress when she successfully navigated through a complex contract negotiation to win that important account? Are you adequately considering the relative experience levels of your key player's support teams in your evaluations? How about the differences in competitive context across markets, lines of business, or geographies?

The first, and necessary step is chronicling performance - i.e. What happened?

The harder part, and even more important part, is understanding the conditions present when it happened, and what that means for the future.

Aside - J-E-T-S - JETS, JETS, JETS!!!!!