Nap Policy Proposal

A nap policy for one real institution, costed and defended against the person who would have to approve it

Due: 28 May 2027 · Weight: 40%

A nap policy for one real institution, and its defence. This is the largest piece of work in the course and it has been assembled across four sessions rather than set at the end: the map from week 7, the costings from week 8, the named beneficiary from week 9, and the objections from week 12.

Around 2000 words, plus whatever the costing needs.

What a policy has to contain#

A real institution. One you can describe in specifics — headcount, shift pattern, what is monitored, who can close a door. A proposal for a generic office is the most common way this assessment fails, because every sentence in it has to stay vague enough to be true of all offices, and a policy that vague cannot be evaluated or objected to.

A named beneficiary. Not “staff”. Which staff, on which shift, with what currently available to them. You settled this in week 9.

An actual change. To the schedule, the space, or the rules. Week 12 named the two failure modes and they are both here in force:

• The wish — a statement of institutional support with nothing behind it. No time, no space, no cover, nobody accountable.
• The purchase — equipment bought so the schedule need not change. Week 8 costed this against the alternative, and if you propose a purchase you must say why it beats the schedule change at the same price.

A cost, and what it displaces. Money, hours, floor space, cover. Against at least one alternative use of the same resources. A proposal that argues for the expensive option knowing the price is strong; one that never checked is not.

A measure. How would anyone know whether this worked? Name the instrument. After week 10 you cannot answer “we’ll give everyone a sleep tracker” without addressing what that device can and cannot detect — a 20-minute nap is at or below its resolution, and you now know it.

The defence is the biggest single component#

Weighted at 35%, because a policy nobody has argued against is untested.

Take the objections seriously and in their strongest form. The four from week 12 — cost, fairness, appearances, precedent — are the ones that get raised in practice, and the fairness objection (“if they can, everyone will want to”) is the one that has killed the most real policies. Answer the version an intelligent opponent would make, not the weak version you can dismiss.

Name the objection you could not fully answer. This is worth marks rather than costing them. A proposal that concedes a real limitation is more credible than one that pretends there is none, and every marker on this course can tell the difference between a conceded weakness and an overlooked one.

Grounding#

Use the course. The afternoon trough is scheduled and varies by chronotype, so a single fixed hour serves some people and inconveniences the rest. Permission tracks position rather than need, so a policy that relies on informal discretion will reproduce the hierarchy it is meant to fix. And aviation is the one unambiguous success in the record: evidence, then a regulator, then a requirement. A proposal resting on goodwill has assumed away the hard part, and week 9 is where you learnt why.

Format#

A policy document, not an essay. Headings, a stated scope, the actual provisions, the costing, and the defence. Write it so the person who would have to approve it could read it — which, in week 12, somebody played.