I talk to a lot of people about diversity in the workplace, schools, and in teams more generally. I believe (and the research supports this) that diverse teams are more successful, so this is something that we need to embrace, not resist. Yet a common objection I hear is along the lines of 'I have nothing against diversity, but (there's always a but...) I just want the best person for the job!'

My question in response is 'how do you define 'the best person'?

The term 'the best' suggests that there will only ever be one person who fits that criteria. And of course we all want the best. But what if my version of the best is different from yours? Let me use an analogy of a netball team as this is something I'm very familiar with.

My netball team needs a new GS. One version of 'the best' person might be person A who has a 100% shooting average. You can't win a game if the goals don't go in, right? But what about person B who shoots at 90%, but also brings great leadership skills and can also play GK. Is person B lowering the teams' standards, or are they bringing an offering that may in fact be more valuable?

To have a look from a different point of view, I wrote the following little number inspired by a real life true story. Exaggerated and characters changed of course :)

Venus was one of the biggest and most well known chocolate companies in the galaxy. Their chocolate bars were extremely popular, and the time came to bring a new chocolate into their team.

The big boss team from Venus were excited to conduct interviews with suitable candidates. They were looking for a chocolate with high quality cocoa and the right balance of sugar. But they also wanted something a bit different and special to bring a new flavor to their team.

As the first chocolate candidate waltzed through the door, the team was impressed. Silky had exemplary cocoa references and was sweet to perfection. But the team felt that she was too similar to the rest of their chocolates. She certainly met their high standards, but would she add anything new?

The second candidate Zappy was equally well qualified. His cocoa levels exceeded requirements and his sweetness was in the Goldilocks zone. He was hard to fault and already looked very similar to the other chocolates, so the team was sure he would fit in well. But again, was he just a little too similar?

When the third candidate rustled into the room, the team was taken aback. Knobbly certainly looked very different to the rest of the chocolates. Their cocoa levels were lower than required, and the team wasn’t sure about the sugar balance either. Clearly Knobbly would drop their standards.

But Knobbly wasn’t going to be discarded so easily. They knew that the team was looking for something different, and they had a trick in their packet. For Knobbly wasn’t even a chocolate – she was pet food!

Knobbly convinced the team to diversify their ideas. To think outside the box. And to realise that embracing diversity wasn’t about lowering standards, but about reaching new heights in different areas.
​
Venus became one of the largest and most successful manufacturing companies in the galaxy. 

I have to say that I love testing new scientific toys. My latest acquisition is a set of Propeller Aeropoints. This is a set of ten foam targets with embedded GNSS that we place out in an area of interest before conducting a drone mapping mission. Why? Although my drones have onboard GNSS units, they are not always very accurate. This can make it difficult to know the exact location of a feature, and particularly challenging when trying to line up images to investigate changes over time. The aeropoints log their X,Y,Z location, and this can be used to correctly align a drone image mosaic.

Each Aeropoint is 0.5 x 0.5 m in size and despite being foam, it is a little heavier than expected, especially when impersonating a packhorse (does this make it ‘imanimalating’?) and carrying all ten. However, the weight is important as well so that they don’t blow away. Which they certainly don’t. Their low profile also ensures that they don’t move once set in place. Unless maybe in major winds, but in that case I wouldn’t be flying anyway. As for the size – well they need to be clearly visible in the imagery so they couldn’t be too much smaller either.

Pretty much all you need to do is spread out the targets around the survey area, turning them on as you go. They need to log for at least 45 minutes to get a good position fix, so it’s important to do this before having a cup of tea and setting up the drone. Simply fly the mission when ready, and collect the targets when done! As you collect each one, it will attempt to upload its data via your mobile device. If you’re not within internet range it will continue to try to connect until it’s successful. It can then take supposedly up to 24hrs to process the location data, but in the trials I have run, they were completed and available almost immediately.

Perhaps my favourite design feature about the Aeropoints is that they are solar powered. It’s a thumbs up for the environment and just one less set of batteries that I need to charge – I have enough of that to do with all of my drone equipment and other field sensors! So this is a really nice touch.

All in all, I'm pretty impressed with the Aeropoints and their ease of use. Given that my favourite field locations are out on the Great Barrier Reef, they will have limited immediate use for me as the correction network doesn't cover my sites, and of course the GNSS doesn't work underwater. Wouldn't that be awesome if it did!

Thanks to Tom Watson from Droner for collecting the data to support this.