Category Archives: Learning

Profession, Professional, Expert, Specialist

I’ve just started reading ‘The future of the professions’ by Richard and Daniel Susskind (2017) and it’s really gripping stuff. Within a few pages I’m already starting to reflect on how some of the terms they’ve introduced to set the foundations for the book might be contextualised to the groundsmanship industry. At first I didn’t give much thought to it, but then stopped and took a second take, so to speak. We all know there are plenty of professional groundstaff

Demerits for pitch defects

Just a quick note on the possible use of demerits, in particular, for determining if a product, in this case a natural turf sports pitch, has defects (most will have some defects to some degree – and it is the degree of defect that is the key here) and more importantly if it is ‘fit for purpose’. The current approach for assessing sports pitches is to use Performance Quality Standards to provide an objective measure of what has been produced. The evaluation

Interactive grass identification

Traditional grass identification keys will typically focus on choosing between two options to gradually filter down options. This helps to quite accurately determine the relevant grass species. Sometimes the features included at certain stages of the keys can be difficult to judge by an inexperienced but keen user who goes down a false path and then has to back track. This can be off putting for some. To help make the process easier to follow and introduce some additional criteria

Competence – what does it mean?

What does it mean to be competent, either as an employee or by carrying out a specific activity? Competence is ‘The ability to do something successfully or efficiently’, (Source: If you are carrying out any task, especially in the workplace, then it’s probably reasonable to expect that this is what the outcome should be; if an employee wasn’t performing to an appropriate standard (i.e. ‘competence’ within the context of that organisational expectations) then I would expect an employer would

Web 1.0, 2.0, ++

A bite sized take on Web numbering Early numbers, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, are generally fairly widely accepted, although anything higher is arguably more made-up and used for envisioning a concept, which may or may not deliver a tangible outcome. Some realistic and not so realistic outcomes…. Let’s start with Web 1.0, which was the original passive web which started it all off and allowed for the display and operation of hypertext links. The WWW was invented by Tim Berners