Director, Innovation and Program Design job at AARP

Description of the business unit

AARP’s Older Adults Technology Services (OATS) advocates for the inclusion of technology for those 50 and older, offering digital literacy training and programs to seniors. OATS, with nearly two decades of experience and knowledge of how older people interact with technology, uses that knowledge to create world-class programs that form the basis for systems change.
Summary

The primary focus of this role is to brainstorm and design customer experience frameworks for two very different Senior Planet clients: individual seniors (60 years and over) who participate in Senior Planet program offerings; and professional or volunteer staff who work with seniors in a variety of organizational settings to deliver the in-person component of Senior Planet programs.

This leadership position is unique because the person who owns it will be at the heart of the design of customer journeys inspired by the vision, ethics and theory of change in which Senior Planet is anchored, and will imagine how to populate these journeys. intentionally and consistently. at every touchpoint, through different in-person settings and virtual delivery channels with Senior Planet elements, including editorial and educational content, technology, events and ongoing opportunities to achieve world-class experiences and transformative results.
Responsibilities

• Demonstrate credible and inspiring leadership that combines boundless creativity and a design flair that keeps pragmatic execution in mind.

• Represent clients through an ideation process with cross-functional leaders in knowledge management and program implementation to identify client needs and preferences, generate new ideas, and design potential solutions for testing. This will involve transforming our Senior Planet Centers in Denver, New York and Palo Alto into “test kitchens” in which to imagine, prototype and pilot new program experiences that can then be scaled up nationwide;

• Use a design approach and best practices to “imagine” the overall Senior Planet experience, including conceptualizing a results-based framework for the customer experience, developing customer profiles, mapping the journey client to guide product development across multiple channels, developing and aligning low-mid and high touchpoints along the way, integrating new experiential opportunities into existing program structures, and utilizing user testing and program data to validate, learn and continually improve the experience.

• Supervise one or more key assistants who will ensure the management of teams within the ideation group that contribute to the program experience, including researching emerging consumer technologies and assessing their suitability for incorporation into the program. program, and a content creation group producing online and social media editorials, written instructional material, live streaming, recorded video segments, podcasts, and participant communications, such as email newsletters and periodic reports to clients.

• Develop an inspired annual program plan that aligns with the organization’s core strategies and priority areas.

• Confer and collaborate with the Director of Implementation and the Director of Impact Measurement to ensure that the vision embedded in programs through ideation and design is preserved with a high degree of fidelity when it is actually implemented, and the mechanisms for measuring program performance are designed into the program during the ideation phase.
Terms & Conditions

• Bachelor’s degree and 8 years or more of equivalent experience in a related field

• Strong understanding of design and orientation towards social impact;

• More than 5 years of experience in program development, ideally in a leadership role within a rapidly changing non-profit or client-oriented corporate environment;

• Demonstrated success in creating a program or vision, strategy, experience and business solutions and services – from ideation to launch;

• In-depth knowledge of the end-to-end iterative UX product design process, including how to develop and use personas, work stories, journey mapping, content modeling and other tools to implement a vision ;

• Extensive experience driving and applying user-centric design processes while working with cross-functional teams;

• A deep empathy for the user, with a strong passion for working with the elderly, an asset;

• Excellent communication and storytelling skills; you have the ability to help your team and your stakeholders understand the “why” behind your design logic;

• Personal qualities include high energy, maturity, creativity and leadership with the ability to serve as a unifying force and position program discussions at the strategic and tactical levels;

• A sincere commitment to working collaboratively with various staff, program partners and Senior Planet participants.
Benefits and compensation

AARP offers competitive advantages with a 401 (k); Pension plan funded 100% by the company; health, dental and vision plans; life insurance paid time off to include company and individual vacation, vacation, sick leave, care and parental leave; performance-based and peer recognition; tuition reimbursement; among others. Visit careers.aarp.org/benefits for more information.

Due to the COVID pandemic, all interviews will take place virtually and all non-essential employees will continue to work remotely until further notice.
Equal employment opportunities

AARP is an Equal Opportunity Employer committed to hiring a diverse workforce and maintaining an inclusive culture. AARP does not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, color, national origin, age, sexual orientation, ‘gender identity or expression, mental or physical disability, genetic information, veteran status or any other basis prohibited by law.


Source link

Path to Gigabit Found in Pole Access and Government Design, WISPA CEO Says: Broadband Breakfast

Over the past years, states have put in place preventative laws that make it more difficult, if not impossible, for communities to build their own Internet networks.

These state barriers have often been enacted at the behest of major telecommunications monopolies to limit competition, and include everything from outright bans on municipal broadband networks to oppressive restrictions and demands that create legal uncertainty for communities attempting to ” offer telecommunications and Internet services, including through partnerships.

When the Covid-19 pandemic hit the United States in March 2020, 19 states maintained significant restrictions on municipal networks. Today, the number of states respecting these barriers has been reduced to 17. The pandemic marked a turning point in the struggle for local authority, and last year, Arkansas and Washington passed legislation significantly removing legislative barriers to public broadband networks.

In February 2021, both houses of the Republican-dominated Arkansas state legislature unanimously voted to send Senate Bill 74 to the governor of the state Asa hutchinson, who signed the bill. The legislation grants government entities the power to provide broadband services and extends the funding options available to municipalities to fund municipal broadband projects.

In May 2021, the Governor and Democrat of Washington State Jay inslee signed two bills expanding municipal authority to provide retail internet services to end users, Bill 1336 and Senate Bill 5383. Both bills reduce barriers to municipal networks, but Bill 1336, which completely removes all previously held restrictions on public broadband in Washington state, is should take legal precedence.

The recent progress made by Arkansas and Washington is extremely welcome as more federal, state and local funding is available to improve broadband infrastructure than ever before. Momentum for municipal broadband is building, but there is still a long way to go to break down remaining legal barriers in 17 states.

Go forward, stall and almost go back

Every year, bills to expand the authority of local governments and municipal power cooperatives to build broadband networks are introduced in state legislatures. And every year these bills stagnate, are withdrawn and die because of the immense lobbying power of private monopolies. In 2021, state legislators Idaho, Montana, Missouri, Tennessee, Nebraska, and North Carolina, all have introduced legislation to reduce state-owned barriers against municipal broadband. Many of these bills died in committee after action on the legislation was postponed indefinitely.

To give an example, the legislation (HB 422) introduced at the start of Montana’s legislative session in 2021 – which would have allowed state local governments to own and operate broadband community networks – suffered a dramatic twist when dozens of lawmakers who supported previously the proposal suddenly opposed it, prompting the passage of the bill. die in a final vote in the House.

The sponsor of the bill, Democratic State Rep. Kelly kortum, told the Daily Montanan that he attributes his failure to Lobbying efforts at the 11th hour of incumbent telecommunications companies in Montana, which he said were caught off guard by the broad support the bill initially received. “I expected him to fail upstairs in the House. It doesn’t, and then the lobbying really started, ”Kortum said.

Next door in Idaho, it is a monopoly of cable and local telephone companies that have pushed hard against municipal open access approaches that would create stiff competition. In the largely rural states, some local telephone companies are deeply concerned about competing in a real market.

Many states preserved previously established barriers throughout 2021, but one state, Ohio, almost became the first state in a decade to erect new barriers to the establishment and expansion of municipal networks in broadband.

In June, the Ohio Senate included an amendment which effectively banned the creation of municipal broadband networks in its two-year, $ 75 billion budget bill. Fortunately, after local authorities, community broadband advocates, and angry residents and businesses across the state spoke out against, the amendment added anonymously was withdrawn from the budget. The governor and lieutenant governor, both Republicans, have spoken out against these limits on municipal broadband.

While some state lawmakers work tirelessly to reduce barriers to municipal broadband, the largest ISPs are able to use their outsized influence and cash reserves to block legislation that would undermine their control over the top market. debit. “In the 116th Congress alone, these companies spent $ 234 million on lobbying and federal elections,” Common Cause and the Communications Workers of America report, in a recent study, Broadband Controllers: How ISP Lobbying and Political Influence Shaping the Digital Divide.

A partisan issue at the federal level

The Biden administration American employment plan focused on strengthening non-profit, municipal and cooperative models to develop nationwide broadband broadband infrastructure. Sadly, in sausage-making, the focus on broadband community networks has been dropped, and outspoken federal support for municipal networks largely subsided as monopoly lobbyists swarmed Congress and the House. White.

This is representative of a disconnect that exists between Republicans in Congress and Republican officials at the local and state levels. While expanding local Internet choice is a predominantly bipartisan issue at the local level, it is a highly partisan issue in Congress.

For example, the same month that the Republican-dominated Arkansas state legislature removed restrictions on municipal broadband, Congressional Republicans presented a package of invoices attempt to prohibit communities from building their own networks and engaging in national public-private partnerships.

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats have lobbied to prevent states from enacting or enforcing laws that prohibit municipalities from building and operating broadband networks. In March, Congress Democrats introduced the Community Broadband Act, which would prohibit prohibiting or limiting the ability of any state, regional or local government to build broadband networks and provide Internet services. However, Democrats were ultimately not united in pushing this language into the infrastructure bill.

A network of legal barriers

Common approaches to anticipating municipal broadband networks range from straightforward bans to confusing financial restrictions and complex legal requirements. While some states have established a primary barrier to community broadband, many others have adopted a set of regulations that eliminate any possibility of municipal connectivity, if only because of the legal uncertainty created by complex laws. and waves.

Of the 17 states with restrictions on municipal networks, a few explicitly prohibit local governments from providing communications services to their citizens. In Nevada, only municipalities with less than 25,000 residents and counties with less than 55,000 residents can provide telecommunications services. Tennessee prohibits municipalities without electric utilities from providing Internet access in most situations. The local governments of Missouri and Texas are limited to providing Internet access and no other telecommunications services. Laws in the states of Montana and Pennsylvania allow municipal networks, but only in unserved communities, with vague definitions of what this means.

In states that do not expressly prohibit municipal networks, state legislatures can still establish legal barriers that deter investment in community broadband networks. One of the most striking examples is North Carolina, where an array of restrictions and onerous requirements “collectively have the practical effect of hampering public communications initiatives,” according to the Coalition for Local Internet Choice [pdf].

Other states, including Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina, require municipal networks to charge private sector costs, pay additional taxes, set excessively high prices, and / or refrain from subsidizing affordable services. , in the name of the protection of private “competition”. In other states, lawmakers have established strict procedural requirements, including a prescribed bidding process in Michigan and community referendums in Alabama and Minnesota.

To learn more

To learn more about the legislative prohibitions maintained by states, see this resource [pdf], maintained by the Coalition for Local Internet Choice (CLIC), which summarizes the state obstacles to public broadband in July 2021.

The CLIC list focuses on a more legalistic look at state barriers and still includes Washington and Arkansas, as they see how the law takes hold. The Institute for Local Self Reliance focuses on the 17 states where state boundaries severely restrict municipal broadband networks and partnerships, while agreeing with CLIC that other states have barriers that may also discourage investment. .

Editor’s Note: This article was written by Jericho Casper, reporter for the Community Broadband Network Initiative at the Institute for Local Self Reliance. Initially published on MuniNetworks.org on September 15, 2021, the piece is republished with permission.


Source link

7 important elements for a better training program design

If you always train with a training program that focuses on body parts in isolation, you are probably a dinosaur.

The smarter approach is to train particular movements, not particular muscles. Of course, when you train movements rather than muscles, you need to pay special attention to certain areas of the body, depending on your specific athletic needs.

When designing a training program, follow these seven principles of balance, safety and efficiency.

Element 1

All programs should include dominant squat or knee exercises. Some of my favorite squat patterns are the Zercher squats, front squats, back foot raised lunge squats, and reverse deficit lunges.

RELATED: Front squat 101: A practical guide with pictures and videos

Element 2

For each dominant squat / knee pattern you perform, do an equal number or slightly more hinge or hip patterns. Large articulation models include Kettlebell swings, glute / ham lifts, glute dumbbell bridges, and Romanian one-legged deadlifts.

RELATED: 3 Essential Kettlebell Exercises You Should Do

Element 3

For upper body movements, use the horizontal and vertical pressure options. The horizontal press can include the bench press, push-ups, or the one-arm press. Vertical pressing would include the Push Press, Kettlebell Strict Overhead Press, and Single-Arm Overhead Press starting at half a knee.

Element 4

For each variation of pressing, be sure to make horizontal and vertical pull options equal or slightly more horizontal and vertical. The horizontal pull would include any type of rowing variation, and the vertical pull would include any type of Pull-Up or Chin-Up variation.

Element 5

Abdominal training does not include crunchy variations. Think of training the core as creating spinal stability. Carry something heavy. Great examples of basic training might include Farmer’s Walks, Sandbag Front-Loaded Carry, and Overhead Carry. I also like to use boards.

RELATED: Stop wasting time doing core sit ups Boards

Element 6

Training should take place in all planes of motion. Many people train comfortably only in the sagittal plane, lacking movement in the frontal and transverse planes. Using the squat model as an example, you can do Front Squats in the sagittal plane, Lateral Step-Ups in the frontal plane, and Curtsy Lunge in the transverse plane.

Element 7

It is important to use both bilateral and unilateral variations of exercises for the lower and upper body. A good bilateral joint model, for example, is the Romanian deadlift, while a one-sided option could be a one-leg RDL or a one-leg bridge. An example of an upper body pull would be a Barbell Bent Row for a bilateral option and a Single-Arm Cable Row for a unilateral version.

Example of a 2-day-per-week program

?w=75&resize=75 75w, data:image/svg xml,?w=100&resize=100 100w, data:image/svg xml,?w=150&resize=150 150w, data:image/svg xml,?w=240&resize=240 240w, data:image/svg xml,?w=320&resize=320 320w, data:image/svg xml,?w=500&resize=500 500w, data:image/svg xml,?w=640&resize=640 640w, data:image/svg xml,?w=800&resize=800 800w, data:image/svg xml,?w=1024&resize=1024 1024w, data:image/svg xml,?w=1280&resize=1280 1280w, data:image/svg xml,?w=1600&resize=1600 1600w" data-src="data:image/svg xml," data-orig-src="http://upl.stack.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/7-Important-Elements-to-a-Better-Workout-Program-STACK.jpg" alt="7 important elements for a better training program" width="654" height="368"/>

Tuesday

  • A1) Zercher Squat – 5 X 4
  • A2) Single leg RDL – 5 X 4 each leg
  • B1) One-arm bench press with dumbbells – 3 X 8 per arm
  • B2) Neutral grip traction – 3 X 8 to 10
  • C1) Farmer’s transport – 3 X 40 meters
  • C2) Pallof press – 3 X 10 on each side
  • 10 minute metabolic conditioning

Thursday

  • A1) Romanian Deadlift – 5 X 4
  • A2) Side Step-Up – 5 X 4 each leg
  • B1) Half-knee overhead press – 3 X 8 on each side
  • B2) Bent Row Dumbbell – 3 X 8 on each side
  • C1) Lifting and cutting cable with high knees – 3 X 10 on each side
  • C2) RKC board – 3 X 20 seconds
  • 10 minute metabolic conditioning

[cf]skyword_tracking_tag[/cf]


Source link