Podcasts about cpk

Dużo takiej pustej retoryki – mówi Szymon Huptyś ze stowarzyszenia Tak dla CPK, komentując zapowiedzi rządu o wspieraniu polskich firm m.in. przy realizacji Centralnego Portu Komunikacyjnego. Ogłoszony z opóźnieniem przetarg na terminal pasażerski Centralnego Portu Komunikacyjnego oraz formuła dialogu konkurencyjnego budzą wątpliwości co do realnego wsparcia dla polskich firm– ocenia Szymon Huptyś ze stowarzyszenia Tak dla CPK. W ten sposób odpowiedział na pytanie o ogłaszaną przez Donalda Tuska repolonizację i to, że ten rząd będzie wspierał polskie firmy.Zgodnie z pierwotnymi założeniami CPK miał być już dawno budowany, ale niestety teraz mamy do czynienia z bardzo dużymi opóźnieniami.Spodziewamy się, że wybór wykonawcy nastąpi raczej dopiero w przyszłym roku, być może nawet w jego drugiej połowie. To by oznaczało, że budowa terminala ruszy dopiero w 2027 r. A przecież jeszcze trzy lata temu zakładano, że cały port zostanie oddany do użytku w 2028 albo 2029 roku– mówi.Odnosząc się do rządowej narracji o repolonizacji, Huptyś ocenił, że jest w niej „dużo pustej retoryki”.Rząd dostrzegł, że nastroje społeczne sprzyjają wspieraniu polskich przedsiębiorstw, więc wszedł w tę narrację, ale za słowami nie poszły czyny– zaznaczył.Brak refleksji i wsparciaW jego opinii „komponent kolejowy CPK pokazuje, że nie nastąpiła żadna refleksja. Ten gospodarczy impuls, który miał iść z CPK, raczej nie zostanie wykorzystany na rzecz polskich firm w większym stopniu, niż planowano od początku”.Ekspert wskazuje też na problemy z dostępem polskich wykonawców do przetargu: „Na początku postawiono bardzo rygorystyczne warunki dla firm chcących wziąć udział w dialogu konkurencyjnym. Później je nieco złagodzono, ale zdaniem firm, które składały protesty, te zmiany były niewystarczające”.Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza kilka dni temu oddaliła zażalenia tych firm. Inwestor oczywiście wyraził zadowolenie z takiego rozstrzygnięcia. Pytanie, czy firmy zdecydują się teraz na ścieżkę sądową – mają do tego prawo, ale to może ponownie opóźnić cały proces inwestycyjny– powiedział Huptyś.Podkreślił też potrzebę modyfikacji warunków przetargowych.Tzw. SIWZ-y, czyli szczegółowe warunki zamówienia, powinny być konstruowane w taki sposób, aby polskie firmy miały realną możliwość startu w tych postępowaniach– zaznaczył.

Cła na UE mają kosztować Polskę ok. 8 mld zł. UOKiK postawił zarzuty Allegro Polska, DHL eCommerce Poland, DPD Polska oraz InPostowi za stosowanie greenwashingu. Lazard i Pekao obsłużą proces pozyskania długu przez CPK za 45 mln zł. DL Invest Group pozyskał 350 mln EUR przy popycie przekraczającym 60% oferty. Ministra funduszy skierowała pismo do UOKiK, domagając się działań przeciwko praktykom deweloperów, którzy doliczają do ceny mieszkań tzw. „pseudometry”.Zasubskrybuj prasówkę na www.businessupdate.pl.Podcast powstał przy pomocy ElevenLabs.

In this excellent conversation (originally released Apr 14, 2023), we talk with Comrade Booker Omole of the Communist Party of Kenya about their book release - The Building of the Communist Party of Kenya!  A great conversation about building a Communist Party, the book is a tremendous resource, and all proceeds of it go towards supporting the CPK! Booker Omole is the National Vice Chairperson and National Organizing Secretary of the Communist Party of Kenya.  He can be found on Twitter @BookerBiro. Support the Communist Party of Kenya!  You can contribute to their fundraising drive on PayPal.  You can follow them on Twitter @CommunistsKe, on Facebook, YouTube, or on Instagram.  You can also support them by buying something from their Propaganda Shop or getting the book we talked about today!  You can also check out their website at https://www.communistpartyofkenya.org/. Help support the show by signing up to our patreon, where you also will get bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/guerrillahistory  We also have a (free!) newsletter you can sign up for, and please note that Guerrilla History now is uploading on YouTube as well, so do us a favor, subscribe to the show and share some links from there so we can get helped out in the algorithms!

Naprawione „Czyste Powietrze” nie działa. CPK rozpoczął przetarg na Głównego Inżyniera Kontraktu. Unimot wchodzi w sektor obronny. SALESmanago przejęła od Spire Capital krakowską firmę Thulium. Projekt rozporządzenia w sprawie tzw. kilometrówek uwzględnia auta elektryczne, hybrydowe i wodorowe. Wzrosną też stawki. Od nowego roku będzie pobierana opłata reprograficzna od zakupu smartfonów, tabletów, komputerów i nowoczesnych telewizorówZasubskrybuj prasówkę na ⁠⁠⁠⁠www.businessupdate.pl⁠⁠⁠.⁠Podcast powstał przy pomocy ElevenLabs.

In this episode, we discuss the evidence, safety, and place in therapy of Journavx® (suzetrigine), a newly approved analgesic with a unique non-opioid mechanism of action and additional considerations for its use. Key Concepts Suzetrigine is a first in its class NaV1.8 sodium channel blocker approved for short-term (14 days or less) pain relief in adults with moderate-to-severe pain. Unlike opioids, suzetrigine is non-sedating and non-dependence forming. Suzetrigine is taken as a whole pill without cutting, crushing, or chewing following a particular dosing schedule where the first dose is taken on an empty-stomach.  The most common side effects of suzetrigine include pruritus, muscle spasms, increased CPK, rash, and transient (reversible) eGFR decrease. Suzetrigine goes through CYP3A metabolism and therefore has significant interactions with CYP3A inducers and inhibitors. Use with strong inhibitors and moderate to strong inducers is not recommended. Dose reduction of suzetrigine is required if used with moderate inhibitors of CYP3A.  Although not formally adopted in a guideline recommendation, suzetrigine's current place in therapy can be moderate-to-severe acute pain relief in adult patients after NSAIDs/APAP options are exhausted, but before or in place of opioid therapy.  References Bertoch T, D'Aunno D, McCoun J, et al. Suzetrigine, a Nonopioid Na V 1.8 Inhibitor for Treatment of Moderate-to-severe Acute Pain: Two Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials. Anesthesiology. 2025;142(6):1085-1099. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000005460

Turystyka w Polsce będzie w nadchodzących latach dynamicznie się rozwijać — jako naród lubimy podróżować, choć robimy to znacznie rzadziej niż Niemcy, Brytyjczycy czy Francuzi. Te różnice, wraz ze wzrostem zamożności Polaków, będą się systematycznie zmniejszać. Możemy nawet stać się jednym z najchętniej podróżujących narodów w Europie — mówi Grzegorz Polaniecki, dyrektor generalny i współzałożyciel Enter Air.Od debiutu giełdowego akcje Enter Air wzrosły o kilkaset procent, a firma stała się drugą największą czarterową linią lotniczą w Europie. W najnowszym odcinku podcastu Procent Składany, Grzegorz Polaniecki odsłania kulisy prowadzenia linii lotniczej — mówi o specyfice branży, ryzykach, rachunkowości, zarządzaniu efektywnością i tym, jak dba o rentowność spółki, dzięki czemu inwestorzy mogą liczyć na dywidendy.Dlaczego ceny biletów lotniczych są takie, jakie są? Kto naprawdę ponosi koszty CO₂ i dlaczego obecny system opłat jest jego zdaniem nieefektywny? Czy budowa Centralnego Portu Komunikacyjnego ma sens i jak należałoby ją zrealizować, by była opłacalna? Rozmawiamy o tym wszystkim w środku sezonu turystycznego.Minuty:01:25 – Jak Polakom i inwestorom kojarzy się Enter Air03:20 – Skąd wziął się pomysł na czarterowe linie lotnicze04:50 – Geopolityka i kryzysy polityczne a biznes lotniczy06:30 – Różnice między liniami czarterowymi a rejsowymi09:30 – Niuanse księgowości linii lotniczych12:20 – Rozwój Enter Air od debiutu na GPW16:45 – Przejęcia w branży lotniczej20:45 – Perspektywy dla turystyki w Polsce25:30 – Czy budowa CPK ma sens?30:30 – Najlepsze strategie rozwoju w branży turystycznej32:00 – Co najmocniej wpływa na cenę biletu35:30 – Koszty CO₂ a biznes lotniczy37:40 – Niuanse i pułapki kupowania biletów43:00 – Przyszłość Enter Air

Après le rachat du géant des céréales WK Kellogg, Ferrero continue son expansion dans l'agroalimentaire. Le groupe italien serait en discussions avec CPK, propriétaire de marques emblématiques comme Carambar, Lutti ou Poulain. Mention légales : Vos données de connexion, dont votre adresse IP, sont traités par Radio Classique, responsable de traitement, sur la base de son intérêt légitime, par l'intermédiaire de son sous-traitant Ausha, à des fins de réalisation de statistiques agréées et de lutte contre la fraude. Ces données sont supprimées en temps réel pour la finalité statistique et sous cinq mois à compter de la collecte à des fins de lutte contre la fraude. Pour plus d'informations sur les traitements réalisés par Radio Classique et exercer vos droits, consultez notre Politique de confidentialité.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Opóźnienia w CPK. Orlen wdroży AI z Microsoftem. BCG ostrzega o słabnącej kondycji firm we Włoszech i w krajach nordyckich. W.Kruk przejmuje Lilou. Brytyjscy wydawcy oskarżają Google o nadużywanie dominującej pozycji rynkowej poprzez usługę AI Overviews.Zasubskrybuj prasówkę na www.businessupdate.pl.Podcast powstał przy pomocy ElevenLabs.

W dzisiejszym odcinku PB Brief mówimy, co oznaczają nowe przepisy BHP dla pracodawców, czy działania rządu zakłócą łańcuchy dostaw i jak realnie zmieni się koszt pieniądza po decyzji NBP. Sprawdzamy też, czy zielona energia naprawdę wypiera węgiel i jak CPK próbuje pogodzić oczekiwania lokalnych firm z globalną konkurencją.

CPK utknął w miejscu, a rząd mówi o sukcesach, których nie widać – twierdzi w Poranku Radia Wnet Paweł Milczarski. Były szef LOT ostrzega przed kosztownym opóźnieniem strategicznej inwestycji.Centralny Port Komunikacyjny jest opóźniony o co najmniej dwa lata, projekt kolejowy praktycznie zatrzymany, a prywatni inwestorzy wycofali się z planów współpracy – alarmuje w Radiu Wnet Paweł Milczarski, były prezes LOT i przedstawiciel Stowarzyszenia Tak dla CPK.Były szef LOT podkreśla, że inwestorzy prywatni, którzy byli wcześniej zainteresowani udziałem w budowie CPK, zrezygnowali i zainwestowali w gdzie indziej.Straciliśmy inwestorów do naszego projektu, którzy się ostatecznie wycofali, a teraz inwestują w lotnisko w Budapeszcie– tłumaczy Milczarski.Inwestowanie projektuWedług niego, zastąpienie prywatnych inwestorów spółką PPL to jedynie PR-owy zabieg, który nie zmieni realiów finansowych inwestycji.To nie powoduje, że projekt jest „bankowalny”– podkreśla były prezes LOT. Wytłumaczył, że „banowalny” oznacza nic innego, jak uwiarygodnienie inwestycji, ponieważ w momencie, „kiedy w istotnym projekcie państwowym jest obecny prywatny inwestor, to jakby z dorozumienia ten projekt przechodzi test prywatnego inwestora”.Czytaj więcej:Raport na temat CPKWczoraj Stowarzyszeni Tak dla CPK opublikowało w czwartek raport na temat inwestycji. Dokument jest dostępny na stronie takdlacpk.org.To nie jest długi dokument – ma 110 stron – i warto go przeczytać, bo jest merytoryczny i opisuje fakty– zachęca Milczarski.

Rząd zredukował program kolejowy Centralnego Portu Komunikacyjnego o 75 proc. – przypomina Szymon Huptyś ze Stowarzyszenia Tak dla CPK.  W jego ocenie decyzje podjęte pod koniec 2024 roku prowadzą do infrastrukturalnego i społecznego wykluczenia wielu regionów kraju. Przypomnę, że w 2023 roku program wieloletni Centralnego Portu Komunikacyjnego zakładał budowę 2000 km nowych linii kolejowych. Ostatniego dnia ubiegłego roku przyjęto nowelizację tego programu, która ścięła ten zakres o 75 proc. [… ]Uważamy jako stowarzyszenie, że obcięcie o 75 proc. programu kolejowego Centralnego Portu Komunikacyjnego jest niedopuszczalne i szkodliwe, a przede wszystkim wykluczające. Wiele miast i miasteczek mogło zyskać połączenia kolejowe albo je odzyskać dzięki poprzedniej wersji tego programu– mówił w Poranku Radia Wnet Szymon Huptyś, ze Stowarzyszenia Tak dla CPK. Dodatkowo – jak zaznacza – zagrożony może być także aspekt bezpieczeństwa państwa.Po pierwsze wyklucza pasażerów, bo obejmuje mniej miast. Po drugie wyklucza polskich producentów taboru – przyspieszenie pociągów do 320 km/h wymusi zakupy za granicą. Po trzecie wyklucza średnie miasta – jak Łomża, Giżycko, Busko-Zdrój – które tracą szansę na rozwój– wylicza.Wskazał też na opóźnienie dialogu konkurencyjnego dla wykonawcy terminala oraz na brak decyzji środowiskowej dla linii kolejowej Ostrołęka–Łomża–Giżycko, mimo gotowego wariantu inwestorskiego. W jego ocenie realizacja inwestycji kolejowych w Polsce Wschodniej ma znaczenie strategiczne.Linia rokadowa wzdłuż wschodniej granicy NATO oraz linie dowozowe w kierunku Giżycka i przesmyku suwalskiego są istotne z punktu widzenia bezpieczeństwa państwa. Tak jak dziś działa Via Carpatia, tak samo mogłyby działać nowe linie kolejowe– powiedział.Huptyś odniósł się również do politycznego nadzoru nad projektem.Dziś za CPK odpowiada politycznie człowiek, który wcześniej był jednym z najbardziej aktywnych przeciwników tego projektu. Maciej Lasek był aktywistą akcji „Nie dla CPK”. Ci, którzy razem z nim ją prowadzili, czują się dziś oszukani– stwierdził.Raport Tak dla CPKPrezentacja raportu stowarzyszenia „Tak dla CPK” odbędzie się w środę w Sejmie.O godz. 12 przedstawimy pełną treść raportu podczas posiedzenia zespołu parlamentarnego. O 10:30 odbędzie się konferencja prasowa– zapowiedział Huptyś.

Ed Center and I begin this podcast with a toast. I'm proud to call Ed my friend. I met him a couple years at The Social Study, where we recorded this episode and where my wife, Erin Lim, bartends. From the first time I spoke with Ed, I knew I liked him. His energy and humor and intellect and heart are all boundless. I'm hella drawn to people like Ed. His story begins in Cebu in the Philippines, with his maternal grandmother. Her family was poor and her parents died in the Spanish Flu of the 1910s. That loss plunged the surviving family members into what Ed describes as destitute poverty. Following that tragedy, her older brother signed up to work for the Dole company in Hawaii. Ed's grandmother was 13 at this time, but still, it was decided that she would accompany her brother to the islands to help care for him while he worked the pineapple fields and earned a wage. Ed points out that the Dole Food Company (as it was known at the time) intended these migrant workers to honor their contracts and then go back to their home countries. To that end, the company only hired young men. But Ed's family paid a stranger on their boat $20 to marry his grandmother so that she could join her brother in Hawaii. Ed goes on a sidebar here about the tendency in his family to exaggerate their own history. “Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story,” or so the family saying goes. He returns to the story of his maternal grandmother to share the tale of her younger sister being so distraught about the departure, she hugged her so hard that her flip-flop broke. It was her only pair of shoes. In the Filipino community on Oahu at the time, there was an outsize number of men in relation to women. When Ed's grandfather first set eyes on his grandma, he began to court her. A year later, they asked her older brother if they could get married, and he said no, that she was too young (14 at the time). But they got married anyway, with the understanding that they would wait two more years to live together. They moved in and Ed's grandmother had a new baby, including his mom, every other year for the next 20 years. Like her brother, his grandmother's new husband worked in the pineapple fields for Dole, doing incredibly hard labor. His grandma washed clothes for bachelor workers. The two saved their money and bought plantation property from Dole. The property was affordable enough that they were able to build multiple shacks for the kids to eventually live in. At this point, Ed launches into what he calls “the shadow story” of his family. He learned that shadow story when he was a kid and his mom and aunties were cooking in the kitchen. He'd sit just outside the room pretending to read a book, eavesdropping. There, he learned things like which family members were smoking pot or getting into trouble. But there are more serious elements, which prompts Ed to issue a trigger warning to readers and listeners. His grandmother didn't quite agree to go to Hawaii. When she told her brother no to the idea, he beat her. He did this repeatedly until she acquiesced. But it was in one of these violent melees that his grandmother's flip-flop broke. All this to say that Ed's grandmother didn't have much agency in her life decisions. The last two of her 10 children almost killed her. After number 10, the doctor gave Ed's grandfather an involuntary vasectomy. Ed shares the story of how, on plantation payday, the women and children would hide in the fields with the men guarding them. It was a way to try to protect them from workers in the next village getting drunk and coming in to cause trouble. He summarizes the family history to this point by pointing out the incredible amount of resilience his ancestors carried. Also strength and love. But also, violence. All of those qualities manifested in their and their children's parenting practices. Ed's mom raised her kids in this way. The severity of the abuse waned over generations, but it was there nonetheless. Ed says he was ultimately responsible for his mother's emotions. For many of these reasons, in his adult life, Ed founded The Village Well Parenting. We'll get more into that in Part 2. We back up for Ed to tell the story of how his mom and dad met each other. His dad was in the Army during the war in Vietnam. On a voyage to Asia, his boat took a detour and ended up in Hawaii, where he remained for the next five years. His parents got together and had Ed and his younger brother. They grew up among a much larger Filipino extended family, but Ed didn't really know his dad's Caucasian family, who lived on the East Coast. He's gotten to know them more in his adult life. Ed grew up on Oahu in the Seventies and Eighties. His family was between working class and middle class, and there was always stress about money. But in hindsight, they lived well. We share versions of a similar story—that of parents telling kids that Christmas would be lean, that they didn't have a lot of money (probably true), but that never ended up actually being the case. Both of our recollections was mountains of gifts on December 25. Growing up, Ed was always feminine. He was also athletic. It was a time before Ellen, before Will and Grace, when “athletic” also meant “not gay.” Ed says he wanted to be “not gay,” but he couldn't help who he was. That led to his getting bullied. Moving to the mainland for college meant escape—from his own torment and from that of his peers back on the island. Ed went to UC Davis. He had played competitive soccer in middle school and high school, and because his teams were good, they came to the mainland a couple times. But Davis was a whole other world by the time he arrived to go to college. It was the early Nineties. He took what we call a gap year before coming to California. For him, that meant working. In one of his jobs, he served tables at CPK in Hawaii, where Carol Burnett was one of his regulars. We end Part 1 with Ed's story of his time at UC Davis and not yet accepting his queerness. This Thursday on the podcast, I talk with Megan Rohrer about their new book on the Transgender District in San Francisco. And check back next week for Part 2 with Ed Center. We recorded this podcast at The Social Study in June 2025. Photography by Jeff Hunt

Zalane domy, zniszczone drogi, brak perspektyw i ludzi dobrej woli więcej niż państwa. Taki obraz Lądka-Zdroju wyłania się z relacji tych, którzy zostali na miejscu i próbują podnieść się po żywiole.Mijają dziewięć miesięcy od katastrofalnej powodzi, która zniszczyła Lądek-Zdrój i okoliczne miejscowości. Choć woda dawno opadła, wiele domów wciąż nie nadaje się do zamieszkania, a część mieszkańców żyje w hotelach lub u rodziny. Odbudowa postępuje powoli, a systemowej pomocy wciąż nie ma.To były bardzo długie dziewięć miesięcy – dla nas i przede wszystkim dla mieszkańców– mówi Maksymilian Włodarczyk z Fundacji Kordon.Z jednej strony coś się zmieniło, z drugiej – można odnieść wrażenie, że czas się zatrzymał. Staramy się odbudować Lądek-Zdrój, ale to wciąż długi proces. Myślę, że nadal warto tu przyjeżdżać, bo to piękne miasteczko, ale jego mieszkańcy nie mają łatwo– dodaje.Ludzie nie mają gdzie mieszkaćWłodarczyk szacuje, że jeśli chodzi o odbudowę infrastruktury publicznej – dróg, mostów – udało się zrealizować może połowę potrzeb. Dużo gorzej jest w przypadku prywatnych domów.Trudno to ocenić, bo nie mamy pełnych danych. Wspólnie z innymi organizacjami próbujemy to monitorować, ale nie wszyscy zgłaszają swoje potrzeby. Wielu ludzi żyje dziś w ciszy, bez wsparcia– zaznacza.Z kolei Mirosław Sadkowski, właściciel sklepu zoologicznego, w rozmowie Radia Wnet poinformował, że sam musiał odbudować swój biznes. Pomoc państwa? Symboliczna.Dostałem 16 tysięcy złotych z ZUS-u. Całą resztę zrobiłem sam. Pomogli mi wolontariusze, Caritas, Wojsko. Skuli tynki, odkażali sklep, pomagali wynosić muł– wspomina i podkreślił, że  „do dziś niektórzy nie mają gdzie mieszkać”.Kolega, który odwiedził mnie przedwczoraj, nadal mieszka w hotelu. Po prostu nie ma dokąd wrócić– słyszymy w relacji.Państwo zawiodło i udaje, że nie ma problemuZdaniem Sadkowskiego państwo ograniczyło się do „pokazówek i popisówek”.Jeżeli uznajemy, że wojsko i ludzie dobrej woli to państwo – to okej. Ale jeśli nie, to nie wiem, co powiedzieć. Pomoc systemowa? Nie widziałem– mówi.Aleksandra Majcher ze Stowarzyszenia TRATWA działa niedaleko przerwanej tamy. Budynek organizacji, choć oddalony o zaledwie 50 metrów od niej, nie został zniszczony.Byłam wtedy przy rondzie w Stroniu Śląskim. Widziałam, jak przez centrum przepływa ściana wody. Woda niosła drzewa, elementy budynków, latarnie – wszystko. To był żywioł– mówi.Nikt nie ostrzegł przed katastrofąMimo krążących ostrzeżeń, oficjalnego komunikatu o zagrożeniu Majcher nie otrzymała.O pęknięciu tamy dowiedziałam się z ulicy. Straże jeździły, była syrena, ale to wszystko. Dla wielu osób to był szok– podkreśla.TRATWA stara się wspierać lokalną społeczność. Na wiosnę zrealizowali projekt Photo Voice – młodzież opowiadała o rzeczywistości po powodzi za pomocą zdjęć.Droga do szkoły przez zniszczone osiedla, wyburzone domy… W tych fotografiach było dużo dramatyzmu. Ale młodzi ludzie chcą się uczyć, bawić, mieć normalność. Dlatego ważne, by mieli bezpieczną przestrzeń– mówi Majcher.Pomoc od słuchaczy Radia Wnet i Tak dla CPKRadio Wnet i Stowarzyszenie Tak dla CPK wspólnie zaangażowały się w pomoc powodzianom po tragicznej powodzi w 2024 roku. Dzięki hojności darczyńców zebrano ponad 200 tys. złotych, które trafiły do najbardziej potrzebujących. Dziewięć miesięcy po kataklizmie Krzysztof Skowroński, Małgorzata Kleszcz i Hanna Tracz wybrali się do Lądka-Zdroju, by sprawdzić, w jakim stanie znajduje się miasto, czego nadal brakuje mieszkańcom i w jakim stopniu państwo polskie odpowiedziało na potrzeby poszkodowanych.

Wiceprezes Stowarzyszenia TAK dla CPK Patryk Wild uważa, że wpadka nowego rzecznika rządu Adama Szłapki z tweetem informującym o oddaniu inwestycji w 2035 r. zawierała realną datę dotyczącą CPK.

Posłanka Razem po raz kolejny w audycji Milo Kurtisa i Jana Śpiewaka! Po wyborach prezydenckich, w programie omówienie fali nowych zgłoszeń do Partii Razem i przyszłości projektu CPK. 

Zdaniem Pawła Sviniarskiego, twórcy kanału „Dla Pieniędzy” – „mielona propaganda” podawana w łagodny, ale skuteczny sposób dociera do nas codziennie z mediów głównego nurtu. W rozmowie na antenie Radia Wnet Sviniarski wskazał, że wielu odbiorców nie zdaje sobie sprawy z manipulacji, której są poddawani. Jak mówił, sam studiował propagandę na psychologii biznesu i rozpoznaje mechanizmy psychologiczne stosowane w mediach.Wszystkie te techniki obserwuję dziś w realnym życiu– dodał.Jego zdaniem przekaz dominujący w mediach głównego nurtu „zatrważa i zatruwa umysł”. Choć w polskich mediach nie widać głębokiej penetracji kapitału zagranicznego na poziomie formalnym, to według Sviniarskiego przekaz jest głęboko ukształtowany przez zewnętrzne wpływy kulturowe i polityczne.Ja sam, jako młody człowiek, byłem zachwycony nowoczesnością TVN-u. W porównaniu do TVP wyglądał światowo, lepiej niż BBC. Tylko dziś wiemy, czym to było okupione– komentował.Według Sviniarskiego w ostatnich latach pojawił się realny popyt na media alternatywne, takie jak Radio Wnet czy Telewizja Republika.Nie chodzi o to, że głosimy herezje. Po prostu pokazujemy inną perspektywę tych samych zjawisk– zaznaczył.Jako przykład podał Centralny Port Komunikacyjny i energetykę jądrową.Można mówić, że CPK to centralizacja, powrót do socjalizmu. Ale jakoś ta sama centralizacja u Niemca nikomu nie przeszkadza. Tam takie projekty przynoszą państwu miliardowe zyski– mówił.Skrytykował też politykę gospodarczą obecnych władz.Mamy deficyt na poziomie 289 miliardów złotych za jeden tylko rok, a tymczasem odrzucamy kury znoszące złote jajka, uwalamy atom. To znaczy – ktoś go uwala. Nie my– podkreślił.

Poseł Jarosław Sachajko w Poranku Wnet wylicza szereg działań rządu, które stoją w sprzeczności z twierdzeniami premiera Donalda Tuska. Mówi m.in. o CPK, żegludze na Odrze i PKP Cargo.

Poseł Wolnych Republikanów krytykuje politykę gospodarczą rządu Donalda Tuska: zarzuca zadłużanie kraju, sabotaż inwestycji i oddawanie polskiego przemysłu w ręce zagranicznych podmiotów.Niemiecka koncepcja Mitteleuropy znów aktualna?Jarosław Sachajko wskazuje na decyzje, które — jego zdaniem — szkodzą polskiej gospodarce i bezpieczeństwu państwa.Poseł uważa, że rząd Tuska realizuje niemiecką koncepcję Mitteleuropy z 1915 roku, w której Polska pełni rolę dostarczyciela taniej siły roboczej i odbiorcy niemieckich produktów. Jako przykład podaje przetargi na składy kolejowe dla CPK, gdzie — jak zaznacza — warunki zamówienia są tak skonstruowane, że nie spełniają ich polskie firmy, mimo iż w kraju działają trzy przedsiębiorstwa zdolne do produkcji taboru.Lawinowe zadłużenie państwaGość "Poranka Wnet" zwraca uwagę na pogłębiające się zadłużenie Polski.Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia ma zadłużenie na poziomie 30 miliardów złotych, a 80% środków zostaje wydane do końca lipca. Obsługa długu w 2024 roku już pochłania ponad 100 miliardów złotych— podkreśla, dodając, że kolejne rządy będą musiały mierzyć się z ogromnym ciężarem finansowym.Sabotowane inwestycje strategiczneJarosław Sachajko ostro krytykuje także politykę inwestycyjną rządu. Jako przykład wskazuje na blokowanie projektu Centralnego Portu Komunikacyjnego oraz Suchego Portu w Małaszewiczach, które mogłyby stać się istotnymi źródłami dochodów dla budżetu państwa.Inwestycja w Małaszewiczach za 4 miliardy złotych przynosiłaby rocznie nawet 5 miliardów złotych z ceł— wylicza.Manipulacje wokół wydatków na zbrojeniaOdnosząc się do deklaracji premiera o inwestycjach w przemysł zbrojeniowy, Jarosław Sachajko zarzuca rządowi manipulowanie danymi.Padają wielkie liczby, ale budżet na obronność na 2024 rok nie zostaje zrealizowany — zamiast planowanych 4,2% PKB, wydajemy jedynie 3,7%— zaznacza.Upadek PKP Cargo i osłabianie polskiego tranzytuPoseł zwraca także uwagę na sytuację PKP Cargo, gdzie dochodzi do masowych zwolnień i wprowadzania na rynek zagranicznych przewoźników kolejowych. W jego ocenie to element szerszej polityki wyhamowywania potencjału gospodarczego Polski, w tym osłabiania strategicznego sektora tranzytu towarów.Rafako i spekulacyjne gry na giełdzieJarosław Sachajko odnosi się również do sytuacji spółki Rafako. Przypomina, że po nieprecyzyjnych zapowiedziach premiera o rzekomej pomocy państwa kurs akcji spółki błyskawicznie rośnie, by wkrótce gwałtownie spaść.Wracają masowe bankructwa i wyprowadzanie pieniędzy z Polski— ocenia.Wezwanie do zmiany rząduNa koniec poseł apeluje o konieczność zmiany rządu, podkreślając, że w Polsce nie brakuje specjalistów, którzy są gotowi prowadzić skuteczną politykę prorozwojową i gospodarczo odpowiedzialną.

My uruchomiliśmy po raz pierwszy, przy tak dużej inwestycji, program dobrowolnych nabyć, gdzie były oferowane określone ceny za nieruchomości. Jak komuś nie odpowiadała, to mógł nie zawierać umowyprzypomina Marcin Horała w rozmowie z Magdaleną Uchaniuk.Donald Tusk nie słynie z pracowitości i wiemy, że taka techniczna materia rządzenia państwem go nuży, on się wyżywa w takich gierkach politycznych, żeby tam kogoś upokorzyć, kogoś wyciąć, a to go zajmuje, więc to niewykluczone, że on tej wiedzy po prostu nie ma, bo go to nudzi. w ten sposób gość Radia Wnet snuje pesymistyczną wizję dalszego tempa realizacji CPK. 

In this can't-miss episode of Hospitality Hangout, we sit down with Michael Beachman, President of California Pizza Kitchen, for an entertaining and insightful conversation packed with hospitality stories, expert insights, and insider knowledge.Beachman shares how CPK is embracing restaurant transformation, navigating today's biggest hospitality trends, and staying ahead in the ever-evolving food industry. From innovation strategies to growth mindset, get a behind-the-scenes look at what it takes to lead a beloved brand into the future.Whether you're a seasoned hospitality insider or simply hungry for restaurant growth strategies, this episode serves up a flavorful mix of inspiration and actionable takeaways. Episode Credits:Produced by: Branded Hospitality MediaHosted by: Michael Schatzberg, JImmy FrischlingProducer: Julie ZuckerCreative Director: Adam LevineShow Runner: Drewe RaimiPost Production: Three Cheers Creativewww.thehospitalityhangout.com

W najnowszym odcinku omawiamy bieżącą sytuację polityczną po wyborze prezydenta Nawrockiego. Goście dyskutują o jego zapowiedziach, takich jak obniżenie cen prądu dla wszystkich obywateli, utrzymanie CPK oraz podniesienie kwoty wolnej od podatku do 60 tysięcy złotych. W rozmowie pojawiają się prognozy dotyczące możliwej rekonstrukcji rządu oraz roli premiera w decyzjach personalnych. Analizujemy również stabilność koalicji rządzącej i potencjalne konsekwencje dla opozycji oraz przyszłych wyborów. Poruszamy temat ochrony polityków PiS przez prezydenta Nawrockiego i wyzwań związanych z rozliczeniami afer, które nadal budzą emocje w społeczeństwie. Gośćmi odcinka są: Michał Szczerba (Platforma Obywatelska) Waldemar Buda (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) Sebastian Gajewski (Lewica) Michał Wawer (Konfederacja) Bartosz Romowicz (Polska 2050) Zapraszamy do wysłuchania rozmowy, w której nasi eksperci dzielą się swoimi opiniami na temat aktualnej sytuacji politycznej oraz perspektyw na kolejne lata.

Inflacja w maju obniżyła się co może sugerować przyspieszenie cięć stóp. ARP ma się uaktywnić na rynku kapitałowym. CPK rozważa oferty 5-ciu doradców finansowych. Maspex przejmuje czołowego producenta wina i brandy w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej. Banki i BIK nie mogą przetwarzać danych osób, które nie zawarły umowy.Zasubskrybuj prasówkę na ⁠⁠⁠www.businessupdate.pl⁠⁠⁠.Podcast powstał przy pomocy ElevenLabs.

W I kw. 2025 r. łączny zysk netto 19 spółek Skarbu Państwa wzrósł o 45% r/r. Środki na budowę CPK i elektrowni jądrowej mają trafić głównie do polskich firm. Booksy rozwija biznes głównie przez rozszerzanie funkcjonalności. Velobank kupuje działalność detaliczną City Banku Handlowego. UOKiK nałożył na spółkę Azagroup karę w wysokości prawie 15 mln zł.Zasubskrybuj prasówkę na www.businessupdate.pl.Podcast powstał przy pomocy ElevenLabs.

Aż łezka się w oku kręci – mówi Maciej Wilk o skandujących tłumach „CPK, CPK” na Placu Zamkowym. W rozmowie z Radiem Wnet krytykuje rząd za opóźnienia i rozmontowanie projektu.

Te wybory są ważniejsze niż w 1989 roku – powiedział Piotr Wójcik w Radiu Wnet. Apelował o zmianę rządu i powrót do projektu CPK. Spotkanie środowisk niepodległościowych odbyło się w SDP.

To będzie spokojny dzień na rynkach – zamknięta Wall Street i londyńskie City studzą emocje inwestorów, ale uwaga skupia się na danych GUS, wypowiedzi Christine Lagarde i wynikach polskich spółek. Świętuje Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Krakowie – 100 lat kształcenia liderów polskiej gospodarki. W tle – polityczny napięty kalendarz wyborczy, zaogniony konflikt w Aforti Holding i niepewność wokół hiszpańskiego Talgo, ważnego dla projektów PKP i CPK. Rozmawiamy też o tym, co nowego słychać na konferencji WallStreet 29 i które spółki warto śledzić w kontekście rozwoju AI

CPK nawiązuje współpracę z Koreańczykami w zakresie kolei duży prędkości. UE przyspiesza prace nad cyfrową walutą. W Rumunii wybory prezydenckie przegrywa wcześniej faworyzowany, prawicowy kandydat. Asbis przejmuje sklepy Samsunga w Polsce. Prezes UOKiK wszczął postępowanie antymonopolowe przeciwko spółce Decora.Zasubskrybuj prasówkę na www.businessupdate.pl.Podcast powstał przy pomocy ElevenLabs.

"CPK powstaje na podstawie specustawy ,zmiany ustawowe muszą być zatwierdzane przez prezydenta kraju i bez zgody prezydenta żadne duże zmiany w projekcie nie dojdą do skutku"

MF obniża oprocentowanie obligacji detalicznych. Konsorcjum Mirbudu podpisało z CPK umowę na projekt i budowę układu drogowego CPK. Banco BPM odrzucił ofertę przejęcia przez UniCredit za 13 mld EUR. Sejm uchwalił pierwszą tzw. ustawę deregulacyjną.Zasubskrybuj prasówkę na ⁠⁠⁠www.businessupdate.pl⁠⁠⁠.Podcast powstał przy pomocy ElevenLabs.

Trump szykuje nowe cła, Creotech wysyła satelity, a CPK rozpoczyna przetargową ofensywę na 30 miliardów złotych. W dodatku wraca sprawa WGI – jednej z największych afer finansowych ostatnich dekad. Co łączy te wszystkie tematy? To wszystko dziś w PB BRIEF. Zapraszam, Marcin Dobrowolski!

Szymon Hołownia jest Marszałkiem Sejmu, liderem Polski 2050 i kandydatem w wyborach prezydenckich. Rozmawiamy o postulatach Hołowni, jego obietnicach wyborczych, sondażach, konkurencji ze Sławomirem Mentzenem, czy Rafałem Trzaskowskim. Rozmawiamy o CPK, obniżonej składce zdrowotnej i konsekwencjach udziału Hołowni w obecnym rządzie. Serdecznie zapraszam.Fackcheck przygotował http://demagog.org.pl/

How does "quality" apply in all areas of an organization? In this final episode of the Misunderstanding Quality series, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz discuss lessons from the first twelve episodes, and the big ah-ha moments that happen when we stop limiting our thinking. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.6 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today is episode 13 and the title is Quality Management: Don't be limited. Bill, take it away. 0:00:30.5 Bill Bellows: Hey, Andrew. So this is episode. What number did you say it was? 0:00:36.2 Andrew Stotz: 13. Lucky 13. 0:00:38.1 Bill Bellows: Lucky 13. So then for those who are concerned about the use of the number 13, this is episode 14. 0:00:51.0 Andrew Stotz: I thought you're gonna say episode 12A. 0:00:54.7 Bill Bellows: And for those who don't mind the number 13, this is episode 13. And as we talked earlier, if Dr. Deming was to title the episode it would be... It would not be "don't." It would be "do not", do not be limited. So at the start I wanted to go back to review the path we're on. We've been on episode one back in end of May, Quality, Back to the Start. All part of the Misunderstanding Quality series for The Deming Institute. Episode two, we got into the Eight Dimensions of Quality with David Garvin. One of those dimensions was acceptability. 0:01:49.8 Bill Bellows: Another was reliability. Another was I say dependability performance. Okay. And I think it's important in a series about misunderstanding quality to look at the work of David Garvin. Just realize I think it's fascinating to... You move out of the world of the American Society Quality and control charts and whatnot. And that's why I think Garvin's work paints a nice... Gives a nice perspective to not be limited.  And then we got into in the third episode Acceptability and Desirability. Episode four, Pay Attention to Choices and the choice of differentiating acceptability which is I'll take anything which meets requirements, and desirability. 0:02:42.3 Bill Bellows: I want that little doggy in the window. Not any doggy in the window. And then we followed that with episode five, the Red Bead Experiment which for many is their first exposure to Dr. Deming's work. I know when I worked for the Deming Institute for a few years the Red Bead Experiment website was one of one of the most popular pages. I believe another one was the 14 Points for Management. And, personally, I've presented the Red Bead Experiment think just once, just once. And I'm going to be doing it at the 2025 at, let me back up, the Bryce Canyon Deming... The Bryce Canyon...Bryce Canyon Forum. I can't remember the name. It's a partnership between Southern Utah University and The Deming Institute, and we're doing it at Southern Utah University. And on one of those days, I'll be doing the Red Bead Experiment, which takes a lot of time and then studying to present it a few years ago I was getting all the videos that I could find of it, many of them on The Deming Institute web page and none of them have the entire data collection. 0:04:18.5 Bill Bellows: They kind of fast forward through six people putting the... drawing the beads each four times and when you're up on stage trying to do that, I had four people that's, you gotta do a lot of work to make it that exciting. But the reason I present it, I say I present it for a number of reasons. One is to do the classic "The red beads are not caused by the workers are taken separately. They're caused by the system which includes the workers. It's an understanding of variation and introduction to control charts" and all of that is as exposed by Dr. Deming is classic. 0:05:00.7 Bill Bellows: But, I'd like to take it one step further, which is to go back into that desirability thinking and look at the concept that we've talked about of going through the doorway and going past the achievement of zero defects, zero red beads, and realize that there's further opportunities for improvement when you start to look at variation in the white beads. And, that then takes into account how the beads are used. And that gets us into the realm of looking at quality as a system.   Looking at quality with a systems view as opposed... That's good, that's good, that's good. With or without an appreciation on how the bead is used. So anyway, that was episode five. We explored that. Next we got into the differentiation of Category Thinking and Continuum Thinking. 0:05:55.5 Bill Bellows: And for those who haven't listened to it, maybe not in a while, the differentiation is category thinking. Putting things in categories such as red beads and white beads are the... It could be any categories, categories of fruit, categories of religion, categories of political systems. We have categories and then within a category we have variation. We have different. We have apples and oranges and then we have a given type of orange. And then there's variation in the juiciness, ripeness. That's called continuum thinking, which goes back to, if we go back to the red beads and the white beads is notion that the white beads are not uniformly white, not uniform in diameter or weight. 0:06:44.5 Bill Bellows: And, what are the implications there? Well, if we think in terms of categories, red beads and white beads, if all the beads are white have we stopped improving? And Dr. Deming and I believe it was Point 5 of the 14 Points stressed the need for continual improvement. And yes, you can continuously improve and reduce cost, you can continuously reduce cycle time, but can you continuously improve quality? Well, not if you're stuck in a category of good, then the role of that is to just to remind people that there's opportunities to go further when you begin to look at variation in white, which is the essence of looking at how what you're looking at is part of a system, which Dr. Deming was well, well aware of. 0:07:33.7 Bill Bellows: Next we got into the Paradigms of Variation and a big part there was differentiating acceptability. Well, going beyond acceptability was differentiating accuracy from precision. Precision is getting the same result shrinking the variation, otherwise known as getting achieving great piece-to-piece consistency. Metrics that begin with the letter C and sub P could be Cp, Cpk, are the two most popular. Those are measures of precision that we're getting small standard deviations that they are very, very close to each other. But in the paradigms of variation that was what I referred to as Paradigm B thinking we're looking for uniformity. Paradigm A thinking being acceptance, we'll take anything that meets requirements... Or academically called paradigm A. Paradigm C is what Dr. Taguchi was talking about with the desirability, where we're saying I want this value, I want uniformity around this specific value. 0:08:43.9 Bill Bellows: Here what we're looking at is uniformity around the target, around an ideal, otherwise known as piece-to-target variability. And, the idea there is that the closer we are to that ideal, the easier it is for others downstream to integrate what we're passing forward. Whether that's putting something into a hole or does this person we want to hire best integrate into our system. So, integration is not just a mechanical thing. In episode eight we then got into Beyond Looking Good which then shatters the Paradigm A acceptability thinking, going more deeply into the opportunities for continual improvement of quality. 0:09:29.1 Bill Bellows: If you shift to continuum thinking. Next, Worse than a thief coming from Dr. Taguchi. And that's the issue of achieving uniform. Part of what we looked at is the downside of looking at things in isolation and not looking at the greater system. Then episode 10 we look at Are you in favor of improvement of quality? 0:09:53.6 Andrew Stotz: I'm in favor. 0:09:55.7 Bill Bellows: To which he would always say, but of course. That was a reference back to chapter one of The New Economics. And he said everyone's got an answer. Improving quality computers and gadgets. And what we spoke about is Quality 4.0, which is gadgets of the 21st century, tools and techniques. And again, what we said is, there's nothing wrong with tools and techniques. Tools and techniques are about efficiency, doing things well, but they lack what Russ Ackoff would say in asking, are we doing the right things well. And then episode 11 delved into what I've...amongst the things I've learned from Dr. Taguchi, To improve quality, don't measure quality. 0:10:42.5 Bill Bellows: If we have a problem with, we want to reduce scrap, we want to reduce rework, we want to eliminate the problems that the customer has experienced or that someone downstream is experiencing. And what Dr. Taguchi emphasized was start asking, what is the function of the thing we're trying to do? And the idea is that if you improve the function, then you're likely to improve the quality as measured by what the customer is looking for. If you focus on what the... If you focus your efforts on reducing what the customer is complaining about, you're likely to get something else the customer is complaining about. And for more on that, go to episode 11. 0:11:19.0 Bill Bellows: And then episode 12, Do specification limits limit improvement? Which again goes back to what I experienced on a regular basis is in my university courses with people I interact with and consulting is a very heavy emphasis on meeting requirements and moving on. And not a lot of thought of going beyond that or even that there's anything more to do, that's alive and well. And that's reinforced by Six Sigma Quality is filled with that mindset. If you pay attention closely to Lean Manufacturing, you'll see that mindset again, alive and well. So, what I wanted to get to tonight in episode 13, Quality. 0:12:04.3 Andrew Stotz: That was quite a review, by the way. 0:12:06.7 Bill Bellows: Yeah, Quality Management: don't be limited, as and I'm teaching for the sixth time a class in quality management at Cal State Northridge. The title used to be Seminar in Quality Management. The title this year is Engineering Quality Management and Analytics. One of the assignments I give them, essays, the quizzes, attending the lectures. 0:12:34.9 Bill Bellows: Learning Capacity Matrix that I learned about from David Langford. But what I was sharing with you earlier, Andrew, is one of the first things I thought about and designed in this course, back in 2019 was I could just imagine students going through the course. And, what I'm going to hear is, what I've heard before is professor, these are very, very interesting ideas, but I'm not sure how I would apply them where I work. Because where I work is different. It's different. And to avoid that question, I came up with an assignment I called the Application Proposal. And there's four parts to it. But part one is: imagine upon completion of this course. And I let them know about this in the first lecture and I say, imagine upon completion of the course, your boss, someone you work with, challenges you to find three things you can do within three to six months of the of the completion of the course. 0:13:34.6 Bill Bellows: And it must include something you learned in this course. I don't say what thing, I don't say two things, I don't say three things. I leave it to them. But all it comes down to is I'd like you to contemplate and within three to six months of the completion of the course, what could you do? And I call that the near-term application. Well, subtask one is come up with three. They have to meet your job, your role, not your boss's role, not another department's role. They have to fit your role because only you know then the method by which you would go about that. And, so for that near-term, I ask them to let me know what is the present state of that near term, the before, the current condition and what is the after. What is the future state of that near-term? So I assign that before the course begins, I give them until week five to submit and give me those three things. The reason I asked for three is if one, if the first one they give me, if they only asked for one and one didn't quite fit, then I say, well, okay, Andrew, go back and give me another one that same time. 0:14:49.7 Bill Bellows: So I said, give me three. And most often all three are fantastic. In which case I say they're all great. Which one would you like to do? But again, it has to fit their role because in Sub-Task 2, the next thing I want them to do is not so much tell me about the present state, tell me more about the future state. And again, the future state is how much can you accomplish within that three-to-six month period? And that's subtask two. Then they come back to me and tell me the plan. What is the plan by which you go from the near-term present state to the near-term future state, tell me about the plan. Tell me what some of the obstacles might be and how you plan to deal with the obstacles. And then I say now what I want you to do is imagine that is wildly successful, jump ahead a year and a half to two years and tell me what you would do next. How would you build upon this? And in that mid-term time frame, what is the present? What is the future of the mid-term? And then go a few years out and tell me how you're going to further expand on what you've learned. 0:16:03.4 Bill Bellows: I call that the far-term. And for the far-term, what's the present, what's the future? So when they submit that to me, then I come back with - it could be questions about some of the terminology.  It could be a suggestion that they look at something with the use of Production Viewed as a System. Or, I ask them to think about operational definitions or perhaps suggest a control chart and, or a book. So, part of the reason I wanted to bring that up is few of the title, few of the topics we are looking at are specifically quality related. They're all about improving how the organization operates. Which goes back to what Dr. Deming stressed is the importance of continual improvement. 0:16:50.9 Andrew Stotz: Can you explain that just for a second? Because that was interesting about quality versus improving the organization. What did you mean by that? 0:17:00.4 Bill Bellows: Well, I, they didn't come to me with this process I have, has lots, has a very high defect rate and I thought that's where I need to focus. Or this process has a lot of scrap and rework. That's where I want to focus. What I was excited by is that they were looking at how to take a bunch of things they already do and better integrate them. Just fundamentally what I found them thinking about is how can I spend time to organize these activities as a system and as a result spend a whole lot less time on this and move on to the next thing. And, what I found fascinating about that is if we keep our thinking to quality and quality's about good parts and bad parts, good things and bad things, and having less bad things and more good things, that could be a really narrow view of what Dr. Deming was proposing. Now another aspect of the assignment was not only do I want them to give me three ideas, we down-select to one. It could be they're writing a new piece of software. One of the applications has to do with a really fascinating use of artificial intelligence. 0:18:27.0 Bill Bellows: And what's that got to do with quality? Well, what's interesting is it has a lot to do with improving the functionality of a product or a service, having it be more reliable, more consistent, easier to integrate. But, the other thing I want to point out is not only do I ask them to come up with three things and then assuming all three things fit well with their job, their responsibilities, their experience.  What I'm also interested in is what from the course are you going to use in this application? And, two things came up that fit again and again.  One is the value proposition of a feedback loop. 0:19:12.9 Bill Bellows: And they would ask me, what do you mean by feedback? I said, well, you're going to come along and you're going to tie these things together based on a theory that's going to work better. Yes. Well, how will you know it's doing that? How will you know how well this is performing? And, I said when I see this is what people refer to as Plan-Do, but there's no Study. It's just... And, I saw that Rocketdyne, then people would come along and say, oh, I know what to do, I'm just gonna go off and change the requirements and do this. 0:19:44.6 Bill Bellows: But, there was no feedback loop. In fact, it was even hard to say that I saw it implemented. It just saw the planning and the doing. But, no study, no acting. 0:19:57.3 Andrew Stotz: Is that the Do-Do style? 0:20:01.3 Bill Bellows: Yes. But what was really exciting to share with them is I said in a non-Deming company, which we have referred to as a Red Pen Company or, or a Me Organization or a Last Straw. And I don't think we covered those terms all that much in this episode, in this series, we definitely covered it in our first series. But what I found is in a Deming or in a non -Deming company, there's not a lot of feedback. And even if I deliver to you something which barely meets requirements and we spoke about this, that in the world of acceptability, a D- letter grade is acceptable. Why is it acceptable? Because it's not enough. It's good parts and bad parts. And so even if I deliver to you, Andrew, something which barely met requirements, and you said to me, Bill, this barely meets requirements. And I say, Andrew, did you say barely meets requirements? And you say, yes. So, Andrew, it did meet requirements and you say, yes. So I say, "Why are you calling me Andrew?" 0:21:12.1 Andrew Stotz: By the way that just made me think about the difference between a pass fail course structure and a gradient course structure. 0:21:20.7 Bill Bellows: Exactly. 0:21:21.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Okay. 0:21:22.5 Bill Bellows: Yeah. So even if you give me that feedback. I reject it. I'm just going to say, Andrew, move on. But I said, in a Deming organization, feedback is everything. The students were giving me feedback on the quizzes and some things that caused me to go off and modify some things I'm doing. And I told them, if I don't have that feedback, I cannot improve the course. So, I met with each of them last week for an hour, and the feedback I was getting is instrumental in improving the course for the remainder of the semester as well as for next year. And, so that's what I found is what really differentiates a Deming approach to improving a process or a service or a product is feedback, which goes then to watching how it's used. It is, I think I mentioned to you Gipsie Ranney, who was the first president of The Deming Institute, a Professor of Statistics at University of Tennessee, when she met Dr. Deming and later became a senior consultant, maybe advisor to General Motors Powertrain. And once she told me, she said to Dr. Deming "You know, Dr. Deming, what do people get out of your seminars?" And. he said, "I know what I told them. 0:22:42.0 Bill Bellows: I don't know what they heard." And, the challenge is without knowing what they heard, because we would also say, and I'm pretty sure we brought this up in one of our this series or the prior series, Deming would say the questions are more important than the answers because the questions provide them with feedback as to what is going on. So anyway, part of what I wanted to bring out today in this quality management, don't be limited, is whether or not you're focusing on quality per se, minimizing scrap, minimizing work. If you're trying to improve a process, again, you're not improving it necessarily because there's more I want to have less scrap. But if your improvement is, I want it to take less time, I want it to be easier to do. I want it to be cheaper to do. Well, while you're at it, think about a feedback loop.  And the role of the feedback is to give you a sense of is it achieving what you're hoping it would achieve? It would allow you over time to maybe find out it's getting better.  Maybe there's a special cause you want to take advantage of or a special cause you want to avoid.  But, without that feedback, how do you know how it's working and then beyond that? 0:23:55.7 Andrew Stotz: And where is the origin of the information coming from for the feedback loop? Is it a feedback loop within your area or is it feedback loop from the next process or what do you. 0:24:08.3 Bill Bellows: All of that. That's what I told her. I said one is, I said, when you're developing the process. I told them, I said, when you're. If in Sub-Ttask 1, your idea is to flowchart a process, come up with a template, a prototype. Part of the feedback is showing that to people. And part of the feedback is, does it make sense to them?  Do they have suggestions for improvement? Do they... Is there an issue with operational definitions?  There would be better clarity based on the words you're using.  You may say in there clean this thing, or early in the semester, one of the assignments I gave the students was to explain some aspect of the course within their organization. And then I thought, well, then now it will explain to who. And I thought, well, unless I say if I felt that without giving clarity to who they're explaining it to, they're going to get lost in the assignment. Am I explaining it to a co-worker? Am I explaining it to someone in management? Am I explaining it to the CEO? And, finally I just thought, well, that's kind of crazy. 0:25:18.3 Bill Bellows: I just said, well, as if you're explaining it to a classmate. But, my concern was if I didn't provide clarity on who they're explaining it to, then they're going to be all over the place in terms of what I'm looking for versus what they're trying to do. And that being feedback and that also being what I told them is part of collecting, part of feedback is looking for how can I improve the operation, how can I improve? Or, what are the opportunities for paying closer attention to operational definitions, which means the words or the processes that we're asking people to follow. 0:25:58.3 Bill Bellows: But, I found in in joining Rocketdyne, I was in the TQM Office and then I began to see what engineering does. Oh, I had a sense of that when I worked in Connecticut, paid more attention to what manufacturing does. Well, then when I moved into a project management office. Well, project management is just like quality management. It's breaking things into parts, managing the parts in isolation. And, so when I talk about quality management, don't be limited. There's a lot Dr. Deming's offering that could be applied to project management, which is again, looking at how the efforts integrate, not looking at the actions taken separately. 0:26:45.4 Andrew Stotz: And, so how would you wrap up what you want to take away. What you want people to take away from this discussion? You went over a very great review of what we talked about, which was kind of the first half of this discussion. And what did you want people to get from that review? 0:27:05.2 Bill Bellows: The big thing, the big aha has been: this is so much more than quality. And, I've always felt that way, that when people look at Dr. Deming's work and talk about Dr. Deming is improving quality, and then when I work for The Deming Institute, the inquiries I would get it was part of my job to respond to people. And they want to know I work for a non-profit, do Dr. Deming's ideas apply. And, so for our target audience of people wanting to bring Dr. Deming's ideas to their respective organizations, even though the focus here is quality, we call this series Misunderstanding Quality. At this point, I'd like you to think more broadly that this is far more than how to improve quality.  This is improving management of resources, management of our time, management of our energy.  So this is a universal phenomenon. Not again, you can look at it as good parts and bad parts, and that's looking at things in isolation. That's what project managers do. That's what program managers do. That's what organizations do relentlessly. And this is what Ackoff would call the characteristic way of management. Break it into parts and manage the parts as well as possible. 0:28:21.5 Bill Bellows: So, I just wanted to bring that back as a reminder of this quality, quality, quality focuses. There's a lot more to this than improving quality when it comes to applying these ideas. 0:28:34.7 Andrew Stotz: And, I would just reiterate that from my first interactions with Dr. Deming when I was 24, and then I moved to Thailand and I did finance business and all that. So I wasn't, applying statistical tools in my business at the time. That just wasn't where I was at. But the message that I got from him about understanding variation and understanding to not be misled by variation, to see things as part of a system. Also to understand that if we really wanted to improve something, we had to go back to the beginning and think about how have we designed this? 0:29:20.3 Andrew Stotz: How do we reduce the final variability of it? And, so, it was those core principles that really turned me on. Where I could imagine, if I was an engineer or a statistician, that I would have latched on maybe more to the tools, but from where I was at, I was really excited about the message. And, I also really resonated with that message that stop blaming the worker. And, I saw that at Pepsi, that the worker just had very little control. I mean, we're told to take control, but the fact is that if we're not given the resources, we can only get to a certain level. 0:29:58.3 Andrew Stotz: Plus, also the thinking of senior management, you are shaped by their thinking. And, I always tell the story of the accumulation tables in between processes at a Pepsi production facility. And that basically allows two operators of these two different machines to, when one goes down, let's say the latest, the farthest along in the production process, let's say the bottling goes down, the bottle cleaning process behind it can keep cranking and build up that accumulation table until it's absolutely full. And, that gives time for the maintenance guys to go fix the bottling problem that you have and not stop the guy behind. And, that was a very natural thing from management perspective and from my perspective. But, when I came to Thailand, I did learn a lot more about the Japanese and the way they were doing thing at Toyota. 0:30:51.4 Andrew Stotz: I went out and looked at some factories here and I started realizing they don't do that. They have their string on the production line, that they stop the whole thing. But the point is the thing, if a worker can't go beyond that, you know what the senior management believe about it. So, that was another thing that I would say it goes way beyond just some tools and other things. So, I'll wrap it up there. And Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion and for listeners. Remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming and that is people are entitled to joy in work. 

Zapraszamy do zapisywania się na newsletter "Stanu Wyjątkowego". Co tydzień zwracamy Państwa uwagę na kluczowe wydarzenia oraz polecamy interesujące teksty. Zapisać można się tu: https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/tylko-w-onecie/newsletter-stan-wyjatkowy-zapisz-sie-na-nasz-nowy-newsletter/q7dq8jv   Wiemy, że wielki boks to wielkie pieniądze. Przykłady mistrzów ringu pokazują, że skuteczne obijanie facjat konkurentom to całkiem dobra recepta na życie w luksusie. Karol Nawrocki co prawda wielkiej kariery w boksie nie zrobił, ale luksus zdążył pokochać. Niestety — wszystko wskazuje na to, że najbardziej kocha luksus na nasz koszt. Twórcy słuchowiska politycznego „Stan Wyjątkowy” słyszą legendy o dworskim stylu bycia Nawrockiego w czasie, gdy z nadania PiS kierował Muzeum II Wojny Światowej oraz w ostatnich latach, odkąd — także z nadania PiS, rzecz jasna — kieruje Instytutem Pamięci Narodowej. Podróże po całym świecie i drogie hotele to wszystko oczywiście dla dobra Polski. Także dla dobra Polski Nawrocki przez ponad pół roku korzystał z apartamentu Deluxe w kompleksie Muzeum II Wojny, choć jego prywatne mieszkanie mieściło się zaledwie 5 km dalej. Twierdzi, że z tej kwatery prowadził — padamy na ring ze śmiechu — „bardzo dynamiczną politykę międzynarodową”. Mamy wrażenie graniczące z pewnością, że prześwietlanie bogatej przeszłości ringowej pana Karola dopiero się zaczyna. Nawrocki został niedawno przyłapany na Nowogrodzkiej. Pan Karol przekonywał, że znalazł się tam przypadkiem i wcale nie oznacza to, że wpadł do siedziby PiS, by z oddaniem ucałować sygnet prezesa. Bronimy pana Karola — może rzeczywiście powód był nieco inny. Jak się dowiadujemy, pisowski sztab „obywatelskiego” kandydata intensywnie pracuje nad kampanią haków wymierzonych w Rafała Trzaskowskiego. Podczas spotkania sztabu prezentację w tej sprawie przygotował obywatelski poseł PiS, ziobrysta Sebastian Kaleta, zdeklarowany psychofan Trzaskowskiego. Prezydent stolicy będzie atakowany za poparcie dla LGBT, dotacje dla lewicowych organizacji w stolicy, za swą krytykę CPK w przeszłości, za konkretne głosowania w Sejmie i Europarlamencie — takie, które da się przedstawić elektoratowi prawicowemu jako antypolskie i proniemieckie. Trzaskowski ucieka do przodu i zmienia polityczny wizerunek — z pozycji liberalno-lewicowych przesuwa się na prawo. Dystansuje się od Zielonego Ładu oraz krytykuje wywołującą protesty rolników umowę UE z krajami Ameryki Południowej na import produktów żywnościowych. Do tego wysyła do wyborców antymigracyjne sygnały — ostatnio zaproponował odebranie 800 plus Ukraińcom, którzy nie pracują w Polsce na stałe. Szkopuł w tym, że zbyt radykalna przemiana może być dla wyborców niewiarygodna. Takie obawy słyszymy z otoczenia premiera Donalda Tuska, który sam niejedną przemianę w swym politycznym życiorysie zaliczył.

Maciej Lasek o przeniesieniu ruchu pasażerskiego na CPK, pierwszym samolocie jesienią 2032 roku, zmianach na lotnisku Chopina, odbudowie Ukrainy i sferze dot. lotnictwa, szybkich pociągach w Polsce i Ostatnim Pokoleniu

I love CPK, but not for the pizza! California Pizza Kitchen is such a favorite of mine, I'm surprised it took 70 episodes to get to it! My guest, comedian Holly Brown is just as passionate about this chain as I am, so this was a great time The Good includes my favorite salad ever, Holly & my pasta dishes, & the vibes The Not Good: The BBQ Chicken Pizza, the pasta plate real estate, the complimentary bread portions The Just There: This location didn't smell like a septic tank for once! What we ate: White Corn Guac & Chips, Bread & Oil, Thai Crunch Salad, Fettucine Alfredo, Spaghetti Bolognese, BBQ Chicken Pizza, Butter Cake, Mango Strawberry Lemonade Holly's least favorite restaurant experience ever is every Californian's trauma "Fine" Dining is now on video! Head on over to my YouTube to watch this episode! Music by: James McEnelly (@Ramshackle_Music) Theme Song by: Gabe Alvarez (@spooky.gabe) Segment Transitions Voiced by: Sandy Rose "Fine" Dining is on Patreon! Get an extra episode every month (My November Patreon exclusive episode about Pacific Northwest Seafood institution Ivar's Acres of Clams came out just a few weeks ago! From bomb threats to no working water, my guest, author Temple West and I went through a LOT just to eat here), extended Yelp from Strangers segments every other week, merch discounts, download access to our music including the 7 singles from our Olive Garden musical, and more! Patreon Producers: Joyce Van, & Sue Ornelas   Get the 5 Survival Tips for Casual Dining at www.finediningpodcast.com!   Send in your California Pizza Kitchen stories at finediningpodcast@gmail.com.   Follow the show on TikTok and Instagram @finediningpodcast Follow Holly on Instagram @hollybrowncomedy   Let me know where I should go next by leaving us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, PodcastAddict, Overcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. I read every one!   Next week on "Fine" Dining: Arctic Circle History [Part One]! Yeah, I got him. Santa Claus joins as my guest as we talk about the history of the burger chain named after his homeland. Ever work at Arctic Circle? Send your stories to finediningpodcast@gmail.com.

Pastor Matt Chavez shares insights on how powerful word of mouth marketing can be as illustrated in both consumer experiences and biblical teachings, emphasizing the impact of personal testimonies in bringing transformative stories to life.

Viola Davis' favorite chain? California Pizza Kitchen has some truly fascinating claims - from pizzas innovated in their kitchen to being the first chain to outlaw smoking in their restaurants - I dive into all of it with comedian Holly Brown Holly used to work at CPK, which makes her the first former employee of the restaurant-of-the-week I've had as a guest on the show The Eat Deets will teach you about how CPK was originally a pasta concept A baffling viral mishap regarding mac & cheese The Secret Menu: Legal Eats Not only is CPK Viola Davis' favorite chain restaurant, but Holly served her! A Yelper writes an absolute epic about crossing the highest reward tier threshold at California Pizza Kitchen "Fine" Dining is now on video! Head on over to my YouTube to watch this episode! Music by: James McEnelly (@Ramshackle_Music) Theme Song by: Gabe Alvarez (@spooky.gabe) Segment Transitions Voiced by: Sandy Rose "Fine" Dining is on Patreon! Get an extra episode every month (My November Patreon exclusive episode just dropped on Ivar's Acres of Clams in Seattle, WA and the founder was a MAV-ER-ICK. Author Temple West joins me to chat all about it and how literal bombs on the freeway derailed our plans), extended Yelp from Strangers segments every other week, merch discounts, download access to our music including the 7 singles from our Olive Garden musical, and more! Patreon Producers: Joyce Van, & Sue Ornelas   Get the 5 Survival Tips for Casual Dining at www.finediningpodcast.com!   Send in your California Pizza Kitchen stories at finediningpodcast@gmail.com.   Follow the show on TikTok and Instagram @finediningpodcast Follow Holly on Instagram @hollybrowncomedy   Let me know where I should go next by leaving us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, PodcastAddict, Overcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. I read every one!   Next week on "Fine" Dining: California Pizza Kitchen Review [Part Two]! Holly Brown is back to rave about a chain restaurant we both love as we eat pizza, pasta, apps, dessert...everything to discuss the Good, the Not Good, and the Just There of CPK. Ever work at California Pizza Kitchen? Send your stories to finediningpodcast@gmail.com.

Melissa McCarthy and Ben Falcone (Hildy the Barback and the Lake of Fire) are actors, comedians, and writers. Melissa and Ben join the Armchair Expert to discuss why they showed up in medieval costumes, having sleepovers with Glenn Close, and tickle parties. Melissa, Ben, and Dax talk about their clandestine relationship early on, how they deal with comedy comparison, and getting fired from CPK. Melissa and Ben explain the benefits of working with your spouse, how much they love flipping houses, and how they've maintained their appetites to keep creating.Follow Armchair Expert on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Watch new content on YouTube or listen to Armchair Expert early and ad-free by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Start your free trial by visiting wondery.com/links/armchair-expert-with-dax-shepard/ now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Season 3 is coming next week! Follow along for season 3 as I'm headed to a lot of fun restaurants! 11/6-11/13 Casa Bonita with Ify Nwadiwe 11/20-11/27 Strip Club Food with Ryan Keely & Dana Scarborough 12/4-12/11 California Pizza Kitchen with Holly Brown 12/18-12/25 Arctic Circle with Santa Claus   On top of that, I've got some new music to freshen things up, including a brand new opening theme song! "Fine" Dining is now on video! Head on over to my YouTube to watch this episode! Music by: James McEnelly (@Ramshackle_Music) Segment Transitions Voiced by: Sandy Rose "Fine" Dining is on Patreon! Get an extra episode every month (Tomorrow, I'm dropping the October Patreon episode covering the iconic Mr. Chow restaurant in Beverly Hills), extended Yelp from Strangers segments every other week, merch discounts, download access to our music including the 7 singles from our Olive Garden musical, and more! Patreon Producers: Joyce Van, & Sue Ornelas   Get the 5 Survival Tips for Casual Dining at www.finediningpodcast.com!   Follow the show on TikTok and Instagram @finediningpodcast   Let me know where I should go next by leaving us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, PodcastAddict, Overcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. I read every one!   Next time on "Fine" Dining: Casa Bonita [Part One]! I'm off to Denver for the season 3 premiere, dropping November 6th, and I brought Dropout's Ify Nwadiwe with me! Ever work at Casa Bonita? Send your stories to finediningpodcast@gmail.com.

Next year marks 40 years since the first California Pizza Kitchen opened. CPK predates the casual restaurant movement, social media, online delivery and even the internet. To stay relevant over the years you've got to find the perfect balance between consistency and innovation. Today we sit down with the head of innovation for CPK, Paul Pszybylski, to discuss how this prolific brand continues to attract new customers while honoring the needs of their existing customer base.  For more information on California Pizza Kitchen, visit https://www.cpk.com/.

Zgłoś się do Szkoły Przywództwa Instytutu Wolności: https://szkolaprzywodztwa.pl/ Kongres 60 mln w Chicago: https://60mln.pl/ Współpraca gospodarcza Polski z USA – co możemy zrobić, aby ją rozwinąć? Jak dziś Polska postrzegana jest w Stanach? Czy jesteśmy poważnym partnerem dla Amerykanów? Jak transportowane są towary z Polski do USA? Czy Niemcy blokują rozwój polskich portów? Czy warto budować CPK? Andrzej Bułka, Fracht FWO Polska. Zamów książkę ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Igora Janke⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://patronite-sklep.pl/produkt/sila-polski-igor-⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠janke/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://patronite.pl/igorjanke⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠➡️ Zachęcam do dołączenia do grona patronów Układu Otwartego. Jako patron, otrzymasz dostęp do grupy dyskusyjnej na Discordzie i specjalnych materiałów dla Patronów, a także newslettera z najciekawszymi artykułami z całego tygodnia. Układ Otwarty tworzy społeczność, w której możesz dzielić się swoimi myślami i pomysłami z osobami o podobnych zainteresowaniach. Państwa wsparcie pomoże kanałowi się rozwijać i tworzyć jeszcze lepsze treści. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Układ Otwarty nagrywamy w ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bliskostudio.pl ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Mecenasi programu:      Novoferm: https://www.novoferm.pl/ e2V: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://e2v.pl/⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

On this week's podcast, Pat Cobe, senior menu editor of Restaurant Business, and Bret Thorn, senior food & beverage editor of Nation's Restaurant News and Restaurant Hospitality, start off by chatting about the joys of grazing. Neither editor is in the Gen Z or Millennial age group that popularized the “girl dinner” on TikTok, but both like to try small tastes of a lot of different things—whether they are eating alone or dining with friends. On a recent visit to Boston, Bret went to a dinner party where friends gathered around the counter and nibbled on Middle Eastern dips, sashimi, grilled scallops and more while they caught up with each other. Pat is a fan of happy hours, which encourage sharing and nibbling without breaking the bank. She recently went to Springs Tavern on the East End of Long Island where the group ordered a multi-cultural spread that included mussels and frites, potstickers, chicken nachos and Mediterranean spreads with pita. Everything was under $15, including the $12 well-crafted margaritas. Bret also mentioned how heat levels are escalating, sometimes to the detriment of the dish. During a visit to a Chinese restaurant his table specified “medium” spicing on the food they ordered, but it was too hot for most of the diners.  Which brings us to Eggs in Purgatory, an item that seems to be showing up more often on breakfast menus. Can it be the next Shakshuka? Let us know your thoughts. Pat was down in Atlanta visiting GoTo Foods and the team from Moe's Southwest Kitchen. She learned to roll her own burrito like the pros at Moe's and got a sneak peek at some of the flavors coming on to the menu. Look for birria and chili crisp soon. And we shared clips from an interview with Paul Pszybylski, VP of culinary innovation for California Pizza Kitchen. The chef has been with CPK for 15 years but recently moved into this role.  He talks about how the menu has evolved, the signatures that can never be taken away, labor challenges, and the new direction of CPK's sourcing and limited time offers. Chef Pszybylski is especially proud of the new Nashville hot chicken pizza he developed. Give a listen.

What can Dr. Deming's famous Red Bead Experiment teach us about quality? What happens when you only focus on the bad, and ignore the good? In this episode Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz discuss acceptability vs desirability in the context of the Red Beads and a few of the 14 Points for Management. 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussions with Bill Bellows who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. This is episode 5 of the Misunderstanding Quality series and the title is "The Red Bead Experiment." Bill take it away.   0:00:30.4 Bill: Thank you, Andrew, and welcome back. Welcome back to our listeners. One thing I want to say is, one is I listen to every podcast two or three times, listening for, is there a need for clarification, reminding myself, thinking, oh, I should have said this. Or sometimes I say, oh, make sure you make this point, and I do or I don't. And. so one is, nothing comes up from the last one that I thought I missed or mispronounced, but what I do want to clarify is, I'm viewing the target audience as quality professionals in your respective organization or people that want to become a quality professional that are learning, that are trying to apply these ideas in their organization, are fascinated with it. Could be quality professionals who are consultants looking for new awareness of the Deming perspective. So, that's...   0:01:35.8 Bill: And so, some of what I have in mind is, and the examples is, things you can try at home. In fact one thing I encourage... What I encourage my students to do, undergraduate and graduate students, even the clients I consult with, companies I consult with, is develop the ability to explain these ideas, any of them, to people outside of work. So, that could be a spouse, a brother, a sister, a mother, father, son, daughter. And, why outside of work? 'Cause I view that as a safe audience. You say, hey, I just listened to this podcast. Somebody at work may not be as safe. And why are we having this conversation? So, I would say, it could be a college classmate, but one is, try explaining these things to people outside of work and then when whoever that is looks at you and says, I have no idea what you're talking about, or this makes sense, then as you develop that confidence then you're refining your explanations. And that puts you in a better position to apply, to explain it at work.   0:02:54.9 Bill: And why is that important? I'd say there's a lot you can do on your own. I mentioned that a month or so ago, my wife and I were in New England, and I met my doctoral dissertation advisor, who's 86 years old and lives in the middle of nowhere. And one of the things is the wisdom he gave us way back when it was so profound. One of the things he said, we were poor starving college students making seven bucks an hour, working 20 hours during the semester as Research Assistants or 40 hours during the summer. And what a life. Living in... This is poor starving college students. And he would say to us... We'd get together now and then, there'd be a keg on campus and we'd be... Which it wasn't all that often, but anyway, he'd say to us, "These are the best years of your life." [laughter] And we'd look at him like... Now again, I mean, we were... I wouldn't say we were poor starving college students, but I mean, we made ends meet. Now our classmates had gone, undergraduate, gone off to work and they were making real money, and we just stayed in the slum housing and doing... Just living cheap.   0:04:20.3 Bill: Then he says, "These are the best years of your life." We're looking at him like what are you saying? And what he said was, you're working on your research projects either undergrad, masters or PhDs. He said, "You will never have the time you have now to focus on one thing and not be distracted." Now a few of the classmates were married. Most were not married, but he just said this is... I mean, what a dream situation. You're in the laboratory every day. That's all of your focus. Your tuition is covered, blah, blah, blah. But it was just like, yeah, okay. So, when our daughter was in graduate school I shared that with her and she laughed at me. I said, "Allison, these are the best years of your life."   0:05:14.4 AS: If only we listened.   0:05:15.5 Bill: Right. So, that's... And well, I wanted to bring up... But the other thing I want to bring up aside from that story is, he'd say to us, when you go to work, he said trust me. He said "there will be more than enough time to get your job done. You'll have a lot of... You will have time to..." And he said, 'cause he used to brag about he'd be given a task and he can get it done in a fraction of the time that was allocated. And why I mention that is that every job has latitude. And so, to our listeners I would say, think about how to use the latitude you have to practice, to do a small scale Plan-Do-Study-Act thing. Now I really think that's what it's going to come down to is, either experiment at home or whatever, but just practice. And then as Andrew always reminds us at the end of each podcast, you can reach out to me on LinkedIn. And that's led to a number of people I'm meeting with once or twice a month.   0:06:31.8 Bill: And they are exactly who I hope to meet, is young quality professionals wanting to know more, to know more, to know more, and they're either in the States or they're living in Europe. All right. So, before we get into the Red Bead Experiment I wanna go back and talk more about acceptability, desirability which will be a focus of the Red Bead Experiment as well. But in the first series we did, there were 23 episodes before we got into the Misunderstanding Quality, and somewhere in there we discussed, you may recall the paradigms of variation. And the paradigms are labeled letters A, B, C, D and E. And we will look at them in this series. So, for those who don't know what I just said, don't worry we'll cover you. And for those who heard it before, okay, we're going to review it. And I mentioned that because paradigm A, the only one I want to talk about tonight, is paradigm A, is does it meet requirements? That's what acceptability is. Is it good? 'Cause we have this binary world in quality. Part of paradigm A is a binary world. It is good or it's bad. We talked about last time is, if it's bad can we salvage it? Which means we can rework it.   0:07:52.3 Bill: Now some of the rework means it could be we can rework it and use it. And in the aerospace industry what happens is, maybe we can't put it in a flight engine. When I was at Rocketdyne maybe it doesn't end up in a Space Shuttle Main Engine, but maybe it ends up in a test engine and a test stand, so it doesn't fly, but we're still going to use it, or it's scrapped. We have to throw it away. But paradigm A is acceptability. Another thing I want to mention is, I was commenting on LinkedIn the last couple of days over process capability metrics. And there's Cp which stands for capability of the process. And, then there's Cpk which is a little bit different. And I don't want to get into those equations tonight, maybe in a future episode. But what I want to say is, if you're looking at a metric such as yield, people say the yield is 100%. What does that mean? It means everything is good. What if the yield is 50%? That means we have to... 50% is good, 50% is bad.   0:09:06.2 Bill: So, yield is an acceptability metric. Why do I say that? Because the measure is percent good. What is a good versus bad? Also say that indices that involve the requirements. And we've talked in the past about a lower requirement and an upper requirement, the idea because we expect variation we give a min and a max. And so, if the equation for the metric you're using includes the tolerance limits, then that's a clue that that's an acceptability-based metric. Now, I don't care whatever else is in the equation, but if those two numbers are in the equation, then the inference is, what you're talking about is a measure, some type of measure of acceptability.   0:10:00.5 AS: Right.   0:10:02.6 Bill: But even if people talk about... If the metric includes the middle of the requirements, well, as soon as you say middle of the requirements, as soon as you say requirements we're back to acceptability. So, these are things to pay attention to is what we're talking about acceptability and desirability, 'cause what we talked about last time was I was trying to give everyday examples of both. And so, acceptability is when people talk about... In fact I listened to about an hour long podcast today on quality management. And one of the comments was, if you follow the steps correctly you get the right result. Well, that's acceptability. Right? If things are right as opposed to wrong. So, again, when you're in this world of good, bad, right versus wrong, that's acceptability.   0:10:58.7 Bill: Again, the reminder is this is not to say acceptability is bad, but it's not desirability. Which one is it? And then what we talked about in the last podcast number four was choose. Do we wanna to focus on acceptability or do we wanna focus on desirability? Where desirability is saying, of all the things that are acceptable, I want this one. I want that orange. I want that parking spot. I wanna date that person of all the ones that meet requirements in my search... You know, in the dating app. And so, that's acceptability. What got me excited by Deming's work in the early '90s was, I was spending a whole lot of time at Rocketdyne focusing on things that were broken. I'm trying to apply Dr. Taguchi's ideas to go, to take something that used to be good but then slipped into bad, and now we're focusing on the bad stuff to make it good. And now the good news is it kept me busy.   0:12:06.5 Bill: I was having a lot of fun. These are high visibility things and the solutions. We got the solutions working with some really wonderful people. But that led me to start asking questions. And I was once at an all-day meeting in Seattle at Boeing. Rocketdyne had been sold to Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. I got invited to a meeting up there. And it was a monthly all-day production meeting. I don't know 50, 60 people in the room. And they asked me to come up. So, I went up. And what time does the meeting start? You know 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock, whatever. And I said you know put me on a few hours into the meeting. Well, why then? Well, I want to listen to the first couple of hours of the meeting. Because in listening, now we're going back to what we talked about with Edgar Schein. And I've developed the ability... You know, I can hear are we focusing on acceptability, desirability, I can hear things you know with a Deming lens. People think of a lens as seeing, well, there's a Deming ear set as well.   0:13:10.7 Bill: And so, I listened for the first two hours and exactly what I expected. So, when I get up to speak at last I said before I got to the slides, I said, "How much time do you spend every day discussing parts that are good, that arrive on time?" And a couple of people in the front row made a circle with their fingers, zero. And I said, so why is that the case? And one of them says, if it's not broken don't fix it. And wherever I go that's what people say. I went to a big Boeing customer doing... Because they were a customer we sold them rocket engines of some size. And I was briefing that slide, had 110 people in the room for a lunchtime presentation. Before I could read the slide, the room erupted in laughter. And so, I share that because if we're spending all this time focusing on the bad but not the good, what is that? That's acceptability. That's what happens, is the economics of acceptability says, only focus on the bad to make it good. But we don't focus on the good because... And that's what we're gonna look at towards the end of tonight is, why don't we focus on the good? And so, next, I had a co-worker at Rocketdyne got a job in Chicago at a toy factory. They bottled soap bubbles. And as a kid's toy with a little wand inside and blowing bubbles and all that.   0:14:56.0 Bill: And she dramatically turned the place around, did some amazing, amazing work. She went from being the senior manufacturing engineer to the, I think plant manager. So, she called me up as she'd been promoted to plant manager. And the question was now that I'm plant manager what should I focus on? So, I said... I had known her for four or five years at that time. I had been mentoring her and the mentoring continued in that capacity. So, I said well, what do you think you should focus on? And the comment was, I think I should focus on all the things that are broken. Well, that's acceptability once again. And I said, so you're focusing on being 100% reactive. And she said, well, yeah. And I said, what you're doing then by focusing on acceptability, you're saying the things that are good I ship, the things that are bad I got to work on. But without understanding that there's actually variation in good... I mean, go back to the Boeing folks when the guy says to me if it's not broken don't fix it. My response to that was, if you use that thinking to drive your car when would you put gas in it? When it runs out. If you use that thinking relative to your plumbing system, your water system at home when would you call the plumber? When it breaks.   0:16:25.5 Bill: When would you go see the doctor? When... So, the downside of not working on things that are good and not paying attention to things that are good is that they may bite you. So, part of the value proposition of acknowledging from a desirability perspective that there's variation in good. If you pay attention to the variation in good there's two upsides. One is, you can prevent bad from happening if that's all you want to do. And two, the focus of a future episode is by focusing on things that are good and paying attention to desirability in the way that Yoshida, Professor Yoshida was talking about. That offers opportunities to do things that you can't do with an acceptability focus, which is improve how things work together as a system. And the idea being when you move from acceptability which is a part focus to desirability, which is a system focus, you can improve the system. Okay, more to follow on that. All right. So, I got some questions for you Andrew, are you ready?   0:17:37.4 AS: Uh-oh. Uh-oh.   0:17:39.8 Bill: So, Dr. Deming had how many points for management?   0:17:42.9 AS: Fourteen.   0:17:46.3 Bill: All right. Okay.   0:17:48.3 AS: I'm being set up here. I just feel it. You start with the easy ones.   0:17:52.8 Bill: All right. And...   0:17:54.3 AS: Listeners, viewers help me out.   0:17:56.9 Bill: All right. And which point, Andrew, was cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality? What number was that?   0:18:09.6 AS: I'm gonna say four or five, or six. I can't remember.   0:18:14.2 Bill: Three. Three.   0:18:14.6 AS: Really? Three. Okay. That was close.   0:18:16.1 Bill: I would not have known. That was number three.   0:18:19.1 AS: Yeah.   0:18:20.1 Bill: And it's followed by Dr. Deming saying, "Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality to the product." So, the first question is what point was it? And again, I had to look it up. I know it's one of the 14. Second question, Andrew, is, if Dr. Deming is saying cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality, would you think of that as an acceptability focus or a desirability focus?   0:18:55.1 AS: I don't know if I can answer that. I mean, I can only think about what he was saying, which was design quality in from the beginning and get everybody involved in quality, not just having an inspector at the end, but I'm not sure.   0:19:11.4 Bill: Yeah. No. And even as I asked the other question, I'm thinking... Well, this is great because if in the audience you think of quality from an acceptability perspective, right?   0:19:24.2 AS: Mm-hmm.   0:19:24.9 Bill: So, if you're working for Boeing, which is all about acceptability or most companies, and you hear step three, then you're thinking, cease dependence on the inspection to achieve..., you're thinking acceptability. If that's what you're used to, if you're used to quality being doesn't meet requirements...   0:19:42.9 AS: Okay.   0:19:43.2 Bill: Then what you're hearing is Deming talking about acceptability. But if you've been exposed to Yoshida's work and Dr. Taguchi's work and you're understanding that within requirements there's variation of things that are good, so it's kind of a trick question. The idea is it depends. Alright.   0:20:02.4 AS: Yep.   0:20:05.5 Bill: I got two other of 14 points to ask you about. Alright. Which of the 14 points is in the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag alone? Instead, minimize total cost. So,  first which point is that?   0:20:26.9 AS: I think it was also... I would say then four.   0:20:32.1 Bill: Yes.   [laughter]   0:20:33.6 AS: Yeah.   0:20:34.1 Bill: Yeah.   [laughter]   0:20:34.5 AS: You'd think I know. I wrote a book about it.   [laughter]   0:20:39.3 Bill: Alright. So, that's point four and...   0:20:42.1 AS: Okay. So, I got... I don't wanna be rated and ranked, but I got one right at least. Okay. Let's keep going.   0:20:49.1 Bill: Okay. And, so, is that acceptability or desirability? Let's say this. Is awarding business on price tag acceptability or desirability?   0:21:02.1 AS: Probably acceptability.   0:21:04.6 Bill: Yeah. 'Cause then you're saying...   0:21:06.5 AS: Can you hit this number? It's okay.   0:21:11.2 Bill: Yeah. Or you contact your insurance company and you say, I'm looking for a heart surgeon, and you say, and I found one, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they call you up and say, yes, that person is a heart surgeon, but we prefer you use this one. [chuckle] What's the chance they're thinking about a cheaper option? Right? Alright? So, you're looking at from desirability perspective...   0:21:38.5 AS: This guy's really cheap on kidneys.   0:21:40.7 Bill: Right? And so you're thinking you've done a bunch of references. You've asked your friends. And why are you asking? Because all the doctors out there that meet requirements, you're blindly saying, I'll take any one. That's acceptability. And you're saying, I want this one. That's desirability. But the insurance company says, no. We consider them all to be the same in our policy. That's acceptability. Alright. Okay. And here's the last point we're gonna look at tonight. Which of the 14 points is "improve constantly and forever the system of production and service to improve quality and productivity and thus constantly decrease cost"?   0:22:23.5 AS: Isn't that number one? Constancy of... That's...   0:22:28.0 Bill: That's constancy of purpose. That's number one.   0:22:28.8 AS: Okay. Constancy of purpose. So, improve... Don't know. No. No.   0:22:39.4 Bill: That's number 5.   0:22:40.5 AS: Okay. Five.   0:22:44.5 Bill: And I was looking at, so I know those are three and one, and I thought, oh, that's three, four, and five. Alright. So, what I wanna do there is, we're gonna look at that a little bit later. So, I don't wanna ask you about acceptability, desirability, but I just wanna lay that on on the table. Alright. So, now we're gonna look at what Dr. Deming referred to as his chain reaction. The Deming Chain Reaction. Alright. So, what do you remember about the Deming chain reaction? It wasn't a motorcycle chain or a bicycle chain, right? What did Dr. Deming call his chain reaction?   0:23:31.3 AS: I can't... I mean, I'm thinking of the flowchart.   0:23:34.9 Bill: Yeah. We'll get to that. We'll get to that. The chain reaction...   0:23:36.5 AS: But that I can't remember.   0:23:39.6 Bill: And this is likely Out of the Crisis. The Deming chain reaction is, "if you improve quality, you will reduce scrap and rework, thereby reduce costs." And then he goes on to, by reducing costs, you can increase sales and expand the market. That's the chain reaction.   0:24:01.9 AS: Yeah.   0:24:02.2 Bill: So, when I ask students, again, in my either graduate, undergraduate classes is, talk about the Deming Chain Reaction, then I say, is the Deming Chain Reaction... Within the Deming Chain Reaction, Deming says, if you improve quality, reduce scrap and rework, lower cost, is that explanation of quality, acceptability, or desirability?   0:24:31.9 AS: I don't know. I'm fearful to answer nowadays because I'm not getting these right.   0:24:37.4 Bill: No. You are. You're on a roll. [chuckle] Again, the Deming Chain Reaction, if we improve quality, we reduce scrap and rework, thereby lower the cost thereby sell more and expand the market.   0:24:52.2 AS: I would say that's desirability.   0:24:56.1 Bill: Okay. One more time. If we improve quality, we reduce scrap and rework.   0:25:03.2 AS: Yep.   0:25:04.3 Bill: So, the clue is scrap. Is scrap something we talk about with acceptability or desirability?   0:25:12.1 AS: That's acceptability.   0:25:14.1 Bill: And rework.   0:25:18.2 AS: Well, we're trying to make it acceptable.   0:25:20.1 Bill: Exactly. And the reason I point that out is, I'm not sure... And I think we talked last time about things we agree with Deming or disagree with Deming. I'm not a big fan of the Deming Chain Reaction because I think... Again, if I'm in the audience and I'm working for a company that defines quality and in terms of acceptability, and he says to me, if you improve quality, reduce scrap and rework, that's what I'm used to. And my concern is, in other ways he's explaining quality in terms of constantly improving. Well, how can you constantly improve quality once you get to 100% yield? So. if all the product is good, which is acceptability, if there's no scrap and no rework, can you improve quality? Not if you're focusing on acceptability. And so, what I'm saying there is, that if Dr. Deming is in one hand defining the chain reaction and using the term quality in reference to scrap and rework, then he's projecting quality as acceptability. But if he's talking about improving constantly and forever, and then we get into, can you improve the quality forever? That's what he's saying.   0:26:49.1 Bill: What if you get to 100% yield, which is the maximum value of acceptability? Well, only if you shift to desirability can you improve forever quality, if you think it's worthwhile to do. So, that's why I wanted to go back and look at those things. One is revisit acceptability, desirability, and point out what I think are some opportunities for confusion in trying to explain Deming's work. Alright. Now we'll talk about the Red Bead experiment, which is, the very first time... I remember reading about it in the earliest books I read. I think, who is it that wrote the first books on Deming management, Deming management? She's a...   0:27:42.8 AS: Killian?   0:27:44.3 Bill: No, no, no. Cecilia Killian was Deming's admin.   0:27:48.9 AS: Mary?   0:27:50.5 Bill: Yeah. Mary Walton.   0:27:51.6 AS: Mary Walton.   0:27:52.5 Bill: Mary Walton. I remember reading a Mary Walton's book, that's when I first got exposed to this Red Bead experiment. So, The Deming Institute has a dedicated webpage, so, if you go to deming.org, or just do a Google search for deming.org Red Bead experiment, it's one of the most popular pages. I think that might be the second most popular, most visited page past the 14 Points. In there you can find short videos. There are longer videos, but there's enough on there to follow along with what I want to explain. So, Dr. Deming and the Red Bead experiment would take from the audience, and it could be four willing workers, six willing workers. He'd be the manager of the White Bead Company, and he would explain to them, he would share with them. He had a bowl, and in the bowl were 5,000 beads, maybe an eighth of an inch in diameter, small plastic beads, and there'd be 5,000 in the bowl, 4,000 white, 1,000 red.   0:29:00.6 Bill: And then there was a paddle, and the paddle could be roughly two inches by four inches, and the paddle had a little handle, and it had holes in it. So, the instructions he would provide to the willing workers, the production workers, is to take this paddle at a given angle, slide it in flat into the bowl, even the back of the beads. The beads are in one container, they get poured into another container.   0:29:27.7 AS: In a pan.   0:29:28.1 Bill: It's a mixing process, and then he pours them back in. So, just pour them from one to the other, and he would be very persnickety on pour at 45 degrees, tip from the corner. You pour back and forth, put the paddle in, and you'd end up with 50 of the beads would fill the paddle, and then you'd go to the inspector number one. And the inspector number one would count how many red beads, which is not what the customer wants. What the customer wants is white beads, but the raw material includes both. So, you go to inspector one, and they may count five beads. You go to inspector number two, and they quietly see five. The numbers get written down. Ideally, they're the same. And then you go to the, I think, the master inspector, and they say, five beads, and then "dismissed." And then write the five on a flip chart, and then the next person comes and does it, and the next person comes and does it. So, all six come up and draw beads, and then we count the number of red ones. The number of red ones go into this big table. Next thing you know we've done this over four different days. I've done this. This could take an hour. And even when you watch the videos, there's a fast forwarding.   0:31:00.1 Bill: I've done the Red Bead experiment, I think, just once, and I did it with a former student, which worked out really well, 'cause there was a lot of dead time, and the audience was watching, and so I was able to get conversation going with her. So, for those wanting to do this, boy, you've got to be pretty good on your feet to keep the audience entertained. To get to the point where you've got a table on the whiteboard, or on the flip chart, and on the table are the six willing workers on the left-hand side, and then day by day the red beads... Looking at the number of red beads. So, what are the red beads? Well, the red beads are not what the customer wants. What the customer wants are white beads, but in the production process, because the raw material includes red, well, then the red ends up in the output. So, I ask people, so, if the white beads are what the customer wants, what are the red beads? And typically, people say those are the defective, defects, scrap.   0:32:03.2 Bill: And, so now you get into this model is based on acceptability. The beads are either good, white, or bad, red. And so I would ask the students in class, in a work setting, what might the red beads be? I, in fact, asked our daughter. She said, is just moving from being a junior high school English teacher to a senior high school English teacher. Her undergraduate degree is from Cal State Long Beach.   0:32:34.3 AS: There you go.   0:32:34.3 Bill: So, her first day of school was today. She's also the varsity swim coach, which is way, way cool. Mom and dad are proud of her. So, I remember asking her a few years ago. So, I said, Allison, what are the red beads in the classroom? She said, well, the stapler doesn't work. The door doesn't close. The projector screen doesn't come down. The computer doesn't work. These are red beads in the classroom. So, I said, okay, Allison. What are the white beads?   0:33:01.1 Bill: Geez. So, we get so used to talking about the red beads are the defects or things that... Well, the white beads, by comparison, are the things that are good. So, I said, Allison, if the computer works, that's a white bead. If the door closes, that's a white bead. If you can close the window, that's a white bead. If you can pull down the screen, that's a white bead. So, the red beads are the things around us that are defects, broken, and the white beads are the others. And so, I wanna throw that out to do some stage setting. And ideally, this is a review for our listeners, and if not, you've gotta go watch as many videos as you can in The Deming Institute website. There's a lot of great content there. Watching Dr. Deming do this is pretty cool.   0:33:49.0 AS: He's a funny guy.   0:33:51.6 Bill: And I was very fortunate to be in Dr. Deming's very last four-day seminar. I did not participate in The Red Bead Experiment. I let somebody else do that, but it was classic. Well, the next thing I wanna get into is, and I would say to audiences many times, so we know... Well, a couple things. It's so easy to look at that data on a spreadsheet and say, Jill's the best performer. She has the minimum number of red beads. So, on the one hand, we can look day by day, and it could be Jill's number started off low. And we gave her an award, and then it went high, and then we started blaming her. So, there's variation in the number of beads, worker to worker and day to day. So, a given worker, their scores go up and down. So, that's called variation.   0:34:43.4 Bill: And so one of the aspects of the System of Profound Knowledge, which we haven't talked about too much, but ideally our listeners know Dr. Deming was really big about the value proposition of understanding variation. So, what Dr. Deming would talk about in his four-day seminars, and ideally anybody presenting this, is you take the data, you draw the usual conclusions. We're looking at data from an acceptability perspective. We look at the spreadsheet, and then voila, we turn it into a run chart and look at that data over time, calculate control limits, and then find that all the data is within the control limits and draw the conclusion that the process is in control. And then you move from in a non-Deming environment, looking at this data point versus this data point and drawing these conclusions that the white... The number of red beads is due to the workers.   0:35:33.7 Bill: So, the punch lines you'll find at Deming Institute webpage is that the workers are trying as best they can, that the red beads are caused not by the workers taken separately, but by the system, which includes the workers. A lot of great learning there. And a very significant piece is, in a Deming environment, where Deming's coming from is, again, this is before we go further in this in future sessions is, he's proposing that the majority of what goes on in the system relative to the performance of anything you measure is coming from the system. And if that is really, really understood, then you're hard pressed to blame people in sales for lousy sales or dips in sales or you look at grades of students in a classroom. So, for people looking at Dr. Deming's ideas, perhaps for the first time, realize that what he's talking about is coming from The Red Bead Experiment is a great eye opener for this is that, let's stop blaming the workers for the production issues and step back and look at our procurement system.   0:36:39.6 Bill: Do we have a procurement system where we're buying on price tag? If you buy on price tag, you end up with buying a lot of red beads. So, one aspect I wanna leave our listeners with today is, as you're studying this, realize there's a psychology aspect to The Red Bead Experiment. Not only the idea that there's variation up and down, but what are the implications of realizing that we can't be blaming the workers for the behavior of the system. The system includes the workers, but it also includes things that are well beyond their control. Well, where I wanna go next with this and then we'll next time get in and go further is, in appreciation of point five, "improve constantly forever the system," what I would ask audience is, so we know the red beads are caused by the system. We know the number of white beads goes up and down. But if we were to improve the system by not buying red beads or pre-sorting them out and get fewer and fewer red beads in there, then we get to the point that all the beads are white, perhaps. We have continuous improvement.   0:37:47.2 Bill: We end up with a 100% yield. Well, then we get into, again, and I've kind of set the stage in prior comments, what I would ask people is, what Dr. Deming's talking about trying to achieve zero red beads everywhere in the organization? Is that what we're striving for with the Deming philosophy, is to go around the organization, I want every single process to produce no red beads to make it to a 100% white beads? And if that's what Dr. Deming is talking about, then what does point five mean about continuously improving? Now we get into what I mentioned earlier is, you can improve the speed of operation to produce more white beads, so, we can do them faster, we can do them cheaper, but can we improve the quality of the white beads under that model? And the answer is no, because acceptability stops at a 100%. So, what we'll look at next time is, if you look at the beads and look closely, you'll see they have different diameters, different weights. They're not exactly the same color white. So, what is that Andrew? That's called variation.   0:39:00.9 Bill: And now it brings us back to desirability. So, what I encourage people to do, most of the times I see people presenting The Red Bead Experiment, they present it from an acceptability perspective. That's the starting point. But what I encourage our listeners to do is go through all that, and this becomes a great opportunity to move your audiences from acceptability focus to desirability by talking about the inherent variation in those beads. Again, we'll talk about the value proposition economically in future sessions, as well as the other paradigms of variation before we get there. So, that's what I wanna cover.   0:39:43.2 AS: Wow. Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. If you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn, and this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. It never gets old. "People are entitled to joy in work."

Drs. Jim Rhodes and Molly Steed join host Jeannette Bouchard to discuss all things related to optimal dosing of daptomycin. This podcast episode provides insight on why dosing matters with this antibiotic, especially with certain organisms (looking at you, E. faecium), why weight matters with dosing, and what that pesky CPK means. Listen to Breakpoints on iTunes, Overcast, Spotify, Listen Notes, Player FM, Pocket Casts, TuneIn, Blubrry, RadioPublic, or by using our RSS feed: https://sidp.pinecast.co/  References: Fixed-dose daptomycin in Staphylococcus aureus: doi 10.1002/phar.4602 High dose daptomycin for VRE: doi 10.1093/cid/ciw815 This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Continuing their discussion from part 3 of this series, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz talk more about acceptability versus desirability. In this episode, the discussion focuses on how you might choose between the two. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:00.0 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today is Episode 4 of the Misunderstanding Quality Series, and the title is Quality, Mind the Choices. Bill, take it away.   0:00:31.3 Bill Bellows: All right, Andrew, welcome. So podcast three, I think the title was Acceptability and Desirability. And one correction there, when I went back and looked at the transcript the concept of... At least the first person I heard tie together acceptability, desirability, at least in the Deming community, was a professor, Yoshida, Y-O-S-H-I-D-A. He was a PhD student of Dr. Deming, I believe at NYU but I mispronounced or misspelled his first name. I thought I've heard people refer to him as Kauro, perhaps spelled K-A-U-R-O, maybe that's his nickname, and maybe I just didn't remember properly but his proper first name is Kosaku, K-O-S-A-K-U and he at one point in time was in Greater Los Angeles at Cal State Dominguez Hills. And then I think sometime in the mid '90s, early '90s, last I heard he moved to Japan.   0:01:51.1 BB: I've never met him. I've watched videos of him, there's a classic presentation. I don't know if it's got, it might be online someplace of he did a guest lecture. There was a... Dr. Deming was speaking in Southern California and needed an emergency surgery, had a pacemaker put in, so this would've been '92 timeframe. And Professor Yoshida was called in to give a guest lecture. And that ended up being something that I think was sold eventually. The video, the lecture was sold by Claire Crawford Mason and so he is... I don't know how much of that is online, but anyways.   0:02:38.4 AS: Is Kauro, Kauro wasn't that the name of Kauro Ishikawa?   0:02:43.7 BB: That may be where I... Yes that was a Kauro. There's two Ishikawas. There's a father and the son and I... So I'm not sure if Kauro was the father or the son, but anyway correction there. In the first series we did, going back to '23, 2023, I mentioned the name Edgar Schein, but I don't believe I've mentioned his name in this series. So I wanted to throw that, introduce that in this series today and give some background on him for those who have not heard his name or not aware, did not listen to the first series and Edgar Schein, who passed away January of this year. He was an organizational theorist, organizational psychologist, spent the greater part of his career at MIT. And one of the concepts I really like about what he talked about is looking at an organization in terms of its artifacts. So if you walk around an organization, what do you see? What are the artifacts? That could be the colors, it could be the artwork on the wall, but the physical aspect of the organization Schein referred to as the artifacts. And what he also talked about is if you dig beneath the artifacts, they come from a set of beliefs, and then the beliefs come from a set of values.   0:04:23.9 BB: And again, the first series we did, I talked about Red Pen and Blue Pen Companies, and Me and We Organizations, and Last Straw and All Straw organizations. And those titles should make it easy for our listeners who are not aware to go back and find those. And what I talked about is, this imaginary trip report, if you visited a Deming organization, if we could think in terms of two simple organizations, a Deming organization, and a non-Deming organization in this very simple black and white model. And I had people think about the physical aspects of both, if they were to go visit both. What I then followed up on in our conversation is what you see physically comes from a set of beliefs. Now, they may not be articulated beliefs, what Schein would call espoused beliefs. And then you have what they really believe and I forget the term, I use this for that, but it comes from a set... But anyway, the physical comes from the beliefs, the beliefs come from the values.   0:05:39.0 BB: And part of the reason I bring that up for our listeners, and I'm thinking in terms of the people that have a responsibility in their respective organizations. They could be consultants, internal consultants, working in quality likely, given the focus of this series. First of all, you have to start where you are. But even added on, included in start where you are, is you have to start where your management is. So, if your management is tasking you with an improving scrap and rework, then that's what you better be talking about. Now, you don't have to be guiding your actions based on acceptability because the other aspect is scrap and rework are typically associated... Well, not typically, they are associated with acceptability. The lack of acceptability, acceptability is the idea that this is good, it is acceptable, it meets the requirements, defines...the quality requirements that are defined.   0:06:52.0 BB: If it's good, it is acceptable, if it's bad. There's two categories of bad, bad could be I have to throw it away, that's scrap, which means I can't recover it or rework, which means I can do something with it and perhaps salvage it. And so if your management is tasking you with improving scrap and rework, then first of all, where they're coming from, quite naturally, is acceptability. And why do I say that? Because everywhere I've gone, that is the deepest foundation of quality in every organization I've ever met, worked with, I have met people that work from whether it could be... Whether it's clients that I've worked with, whether it's students, my university classes. Acceptability, scrap, and rework, all go together. And, so if that's where your management is, then they're asking you to focus on improving acceptability.   0:08:05.6 BB: But, you may find it invaluable to shift your focus to desirability to improve acceptability. And that will be a focus, well I get into some of that tonight and others or today, and then on a future podcast later. But, I remember once upon a time at Rocketdyne, the executives were, the VP of Quality was task master asking for improvements to scrap and rework and also things called process capability indices, Cp's and Cpk's. And if you've heard of a Cp or a Cpk, great, if you haven't all I could say is I find them dangerous. I find them, well I say they're all about acceptability. And what makes it, reason I would encourage people to stay away from them because they appear to be desirability, but they're really acceptability.   0:09:15.7 BB: We'll save that for later. But anyway you have to start where they are. So if people are asking for improvements in scrap and rework, then, instead of fighting them, you go with it. And then what we'll be talking about tonight is, is it worthwhile to shift? Well, what does it mean to improve acceptability and the difference between acceptability and desirability? And relative to the title tonight, Mind the Choices is being aware that there's a place for acceptability and there's a place for desirability. And going back to Yoshida in episode three, what I was referring to is, in presentations he was doing from the early '90s, maybe even going back to the '80s, he talked about Japanese companies are about desirability. So, he presented this model of acceptability and desirability. And then, his explanation of what makes Japanese companies, again, back in the '80s, Japanese companies were viewed as those setting the quality standards.   0:10:20.5 BB: And, he was trying to say that the way they're doing that is that they don't rely on acceptability as other companies in other countries do. They have a higher standard. And that's what I wanted to introduce in our last episode, Episode 3. And, what I wanted to do tonight in this Episode 4, is to put some, add some more to that. But, also reinforce I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with acceptability, it's a question of what does the organization need at that point of time? And, really it has to do with... Really, it has to do with how big a system you wanna look at. So if you're looking at something in isolation, which is, I mean, when you look at something and saying it's good or bad, that is the epitome of looking at something in isolation.   0:11:17.5 BB: You're looking at a pen and saying it's good. You're looking at the diameter of a hole and saying it's good. That is not looking at what goes in the hole, that is not looking at how the pen is being used. So by definition, that's what Ackoff would call analysis, which is looking inward. It's not what Ackoff would call synthesis, which is looking outward. And how far outward you look is all according... I mean you could look, it comes down to how big is the system. And I wanna introduce the name Shel Rovin, Sheldon was his full name. Shel was his nickname. I met Shel through Russ Ackoff in 2006. Shel was, he was in charge of the Chief Nursing Officer program, which was a two-week immersion program at the University of Pennsylvania.   0:12:14.5 BB: And he was doing that in the, 2003, 4, 5, timeframe when I met him. And Shel was a dentist by background. He was Dean of the School of Dentistry at University of Kentucky and University of Washington. And I met him through Russ and invited him to Rocketdyne on numerous occasions. And Shel spoke about relative to looking at a system, 'cause people talk about, well "Andrew, we've gotta look at the whole system," but how big is the system? And, so people say, well, systems thinkers look at the whole system. Well, how big is that? Is that 1,000 foot view? And people say, oh no, Bill, it's bigger than that. Is it a 10,000 foot view? Is it... How big is the system? Well, Shel's perspective, and the word I wanna introduce from Shel is relative to systems is boundarylessness.   0:13:12.7 BB: Say that a few times fast. 'Cause systems have no boundaries. So I'm sure our listeners... I'm sure you have heard, I don't if our listeners have all heard, Dr. Deming would say to executives, does your system include the future? He used to ask questions such as what business are you in? What business will you be in five years from now, 10 years from now? Well, why not 15 years from now? Why not 25 years from now? Native American Indians, associated with Native American Indians is the idea of looking at the seventh generation after you when you're making choices. And so what I would ask people is, well, why seven? Why not eight? Why not nine? Why not 10? I mean, within an organization, we could be working with our supplier to try to get across these quality ideas to our suppliers.   0:14:05.5 BB: Well, that's looking at the system. Well, wait a minute. Do our suppliers have suppliers? Yes. Do their suppliers have suppliers? And so relative to boundarylessness is this idea is when people start talking about the whole system, I don't know what "whole" means. What I'd rather look at is what size system are we looking at? That's a choice. That's a choice. So we could decide to look at our suppliers. We're gonna go one step, we're gonna look at procurement. Who do we buy from? Now, we may educate them and give them the responsibility of looking at their suppliers on... But that would be a way of managing quality. Likewise, we can look at the impact of our work on our customer and give them heads up as to how to look at the impact of their work on their customers. But that's looking at the system in an X, Y, Z, physical coordinate, add onto that, the time dimension. And so, again, all I wanna throw out there is that when it comes to making choices on acceptability, desirability, a lot of it has to do with how big is the system that we're looking at. Some everyday examples of acceptability.   0:15:23.5 BB: Again and what I wanna get across is, in part the difference to help people make choices. And so when we were on a vacation in Europe recently, I took a number of photos of people making choices. And,` when I travel, anywhere I travel, especially out of the country, I love walking into supermarkets just to see what they sell that perhaps is not sold in the States or in California. I know there are things you can't find in California that you can find on the East Coast. That's one thing. But I like going into supermarkets just to see what products are there. I mean, you can go to England and find in the refrigerator section, hard cider, apple cider, you know, alcoholic cider that I got exposed to going to a Deming conference in 2000. I've become a fan of it ever since. Well, in the States it's pretty hard to find hard cider, period. You go to England and you'll find, a dozen different brands and each brand may have a number of different types.   0:16:44.9 BB: And so that's, but anyway, relative to that when you walk into a supermarket, if you're looking at canned goods, or just look, well, looking at cider, we can look at this cider versus that cider. We treat a can as a can, whether it's buying tomato soup or cider, we treat all those cans as interchangeable, interchangeable parts. But when we go to into the bakery section, that's where I was taking photos in Amsterdam and I was watching people sort through the pastries. And yet what was laid out were a bunch of pastries of the same style. And yet people were, I want this one, I want that one.   0:17:26.0 BB: Well, part of acceptability is treating all those pastries as the same as we would treat all those cans of tomato soup as the same. Now relative to tomato soup I know you live with your mother, and I'm willing to bet your mom, early, early on when she took you to the supermarket, taught you how to buy canned goods, right? And she says "Andrew when you buy a can of something you pick it up, you're looking for dents," right?   0:17:55.1 AS: Mm.   0:17:56.0 BB: Because if it's dented, that's bad. And if it's not dented, that's good. I know my mother taught me that. So I know when it comes to buying canned good we look for dents. If dented, that's bad. If it's not dented, it's acceptable. But I don't see people sorting between cans of tomato soup made by the same manufacturer. They're just, we treat it as they're acceptable. Acceptable implies either one, the differences don't matter or I don't see differences.   0:18:33.0 BB: Desirability is, you wanna see a great example of desirability, go to the produce section and again, either watch people sort through pastries that are all acceptable, and yet they're looking for the biggest one, or... And when it comes to fruit, we're looking for the ripest banana, or maybe we're looking for bananas that are green because we're not gonna use them for a while. So acceptability, again, I'm trying to give everyday examples of acceptability is going in and saying, looking at all the fruit there, and just taking five peppers, whatever it is, and throwing them in the bag and saying, I need five 'cause my spouse said, go get five. And I throw them in the bag. And it could be time-wise, I don't have time to sort through them, or I quite frankly don't care that they're different. That's acceptability. So acceptability is either acknowledging they're different and saying, I don't care. Or...   0:19:29.6 AS: Seeing them as the same.   0:19:32.4 BB: Or pretending they're all the same. And I had a guy in class years ago, and I was asking about buying fruit and I was trying to use the example of we go into the supermarket. We sort through the oranges looking for the ripest one, and this guy says, well, I don't sort through the oranges. I said, well, how do you buy the oranges? I buy them by the bag. I said, do you sort between the bags? He says, no, I don't sort and his arms were crossed. I don't sort, I don't sort. So then I noticed that he had a ring on his left hand, a wedding ring on his left hand. So I said, I see you're wearing a wedding ring. And he said, yep. I said, did you sort?   0:20:15.2 AS: I don't sort.   0:20:15.3 BB: Meaning... I don't sort. And so when you're looking at things that meet all the requirements and saying there is no variation or the variation doesn't matter, that's acceptability, Andrew. When you look at all the things that meet requirements and you see them as being different and saying, I want this one, that's desirability. And so that could be, when it comes to selecting a spouse, when it comes to selecting an orange, when it comes to selecting a parking spot, in a university, you're looking for the, an ideal, the best professor for Thermodynamics II, and there's 10 professors the university says are acceptable. And you talk to classmates and you find out, oh, no, no, no, stay away from that one. What are you doing? You're sorting amongst things that meet requirements, that are acceptable and saying, that's not good enough for me in that situation.   0:21:17.2 BB: Well, what I wanna say then added to that is, this is not to say desirability is better than acceptability. It really comes down to is desirability worth the effort? Because when it comes to desirability, I am looking beyond, I'm looking at a bigger system. So I'm looking at the fruit in terms of how I'm using it. If I'm aware of that, I'm looking at the parking spots in terms of: I'm gonna be in the store for an hour and I want the most shade, or these parking spots have a little bit different distances between cars, and I want a spot with a little bit more width so somebody doesn't ding my car. So what I'm hoping is with these examples, people can appreciate that every day we make choices between acceptability and desirability.   0:22:11.3 BB: Every day we're making a decision based on saying, this is okay, code word for acceptable, or I'll take that one, that's desirability.   0:22:27.6 AS: That's quite a breakdown.   0:22:28.1 BB: Well, and the idea being... The other aspect of it is when you're choosing to say, I want... When you decide that acceptability is not worthwhile, my proposal it's because you're looking at a bigger system. You've got a bigger system in mind. You're not looking at that fruit in isolation. You are somehow saying, there's something about how I plan to use that, which is the reason for this decision. And then it gets into how big is the system that you're looking at? Are you looking at the person downstream of you at work, which that could be an internal customer. People used to use those terms. Are you looking at the person after them, two down from them, three down from them? And that gets into a choice. So what I would tell the folks I was mentoring at Rocketdyne is that they were designing things or going to see how they were used. And I'd say, first of all, nothing requires you to go see how that's used. Your job as a designer, whatever it is in engineering you design it, you give it to manufacturing. But you don't have to go downstairs and see how they're using it.   0:23:47.5 BB: I said, but if you do, you might learn a lot. And then they might say, "well, so I should go talk to the person who's first using it." Well that might be helpful. And then what about the person after that? Well, that might be helpful. And then what about the person after that? Well, that might be helpful. And I was trying to get across to them, we hire really bright people and if we just turn you down to don't look beyond, just deliver the thing, complete those drawings, do whatever it is, pass it to the next person. I said, the system may not require you to go look to see how it's used.   0:24:31.9 BB: But what Dr. Deming is proposing is, the better you understand how it's used, the better you can serve the system. But then you get into the question of how big is the system that you want to be thinking about? And there I would tell them that there's no right answer. I mean, you wanna be and this is what I would tell them is we hire really bright people and then we condition you to believe that it doesn't matter. What I'm proposing guided by Dr. Deming is that there's a possibility that it matters anywhere from a little to a lot, but you won't know unless you go look.   0:25:12.2 AS: Yeah. It's funny.   0:25:12.3 BB: And so what I wanna get... Go ahead Andrew.   0:25:14.4 AS: When I was a supervisor at Pepsi in Los Angeles at our Torrance factory, they asked me to help... Could I figure out how to quicken the pace with which we got 80 trucks or 100 trucks out the gate every morning because it mattered. If you got trucks out an hour late on the LA freeways, now you have overtime and all kinds of trouble. So, what I did is I climbed up... At 4:00 AM I climbed up on top of a building, one of our buildings.   0:25:54.1 BB: Wow.   0:25:54.9 AS: And I had a clipboard, which I always have. I have extra clipboards always with me, here's one right here. And I had paper and then I just observed, and I took a lot of notes. And what I was seeing was all these drivers were, they were checking their trucks and they were spending a lot of time with their trucks. So, after I observed it that morning, the next morning I went down and went around and I asked them, what are you doing? And they said, well I'm checking that the quantity that's on the paper is the quantity that's on the truck. And I said, how could that not be? And they said, the loaders at night don't fill it up right. So, the next night I went and talked to the loaders and I said, drivers are saying that you guys are making errors.   0:26:40.4 AS: No, we're not making any errors. Okay. So, now I gotta dig deeper into the loaders. And then I start to see, okay, the loaders are making errors. So, I went and talked to one loader and said, why are you making this error? He said, well, the production are supposed to put this particular Pepsi item in this spot. But they didn't, they put it in another and I got confused, but it's just 'cause it's normally always there. So, I go to talk to the manufacturer, hey guys come on, why did you put that stuff in the wrong spot? He said, well, sales told us to produce so much that we were overloaded. We didn't have any place to put all of this products. So, we had to basically put it anywhere we could as it's racing off the line and on and on.   0:27:27.9 AS: And then you start to realize like, okay, the system is bigger. Now I went and focused on the loaders and said, how do we make sure that when the loaders load that we can lock the truck and then tell the drivers, you must not open this truck. How do we build the trust between the loaders and the drivers that they're loaded correctly and that they can go, because the drivers don't want to get to San Bernardino or wherever they're going and find out, oh, I don't have what this particular customer wanted and it's supposed to be on here. So that's just a little bit of a picture of kind of a very narrow start that starts to bring in more of the system.   0:28:06.8 BB: Oh, yeah. Oh, that's a brilliant example. And also what you're talking about is a term we used the first series, which is the value of synchronicity. That those handoffs are smooth. And they disrupt...   0:28:26.7 AS: I love that word handoffs, by the way. I was just talking with a client of mine. We were talking about the core processes of the business. And I just now realize that what I was missing and what we were missing in our discussion was how do we make sure that the handoffs work.   0:28:43.6 BB: Well, then the other thing, again a concept you may recall from the first series is, I liken it... I think in terms of two types of handoffs. And, actually, I think in one of the first, maybe in the second episode we talked about this, is associated with acceptability. When I hand off to you something, my report, whatever it is I'm assigned to delivered to Andrew by 5 o'clock tomorrow, you look at it, you inspect it, and you're making sure before you accept it that it is acceptable, that it has all the content. And, if anything's missing a figure, a graph, a label, you send it back to me and then I go through and massage it and then send it off to you. And, part of acceptability is when you say, that's good, then the handoff we're talking about is physical.   0:29:51.6 BB: Right. I mean, there's nothing wrong with a physical handoff. I give it to you physically. And what you may recall me mentioning, I think, again likely episode 2, podcast 2 of this series is I would demonstrate this with people in the class. And I would say, if, if what I give you is not acceptable, what do you do? You give it back to me and you say it's incomplete. And then I go through, massage it. If I now give it to you and all the requirements have been met, it's acceptable. Now what happens? What do you say? And I would kid them and so now you say, thank you. But what I'd also point out is that part of acceptability in a non-Deming organization is the handoff is physical and mental. I mean, physical is: It is yours, not mine.   0:30:38.5 BB: Mental is that if you have trouble with how that fits into what you are doing with it, because that report does not exist in isolation, you're doing something with it. Right. So you're doing your things with it. Now we're looking at the system. And if in the system of you're using it, you have an issue and you come back to me, in non-Deming environment, acceptability is my way of saying "Andrew I'm not sure why we're having this conversation because what I gave you is acceptable." But in a Deming organization, the handoff is physical, but not mental. What does that mean? It means, I'm willing to learn from what you just said and the issues you're having. And now I'm beginning to wonder, there's two possibilities. Either one, what I gave you is not acceptable. There's something wrong with the inspection.   0:31:34.3 BB: Or two, what's missing is desirability, that there's some... What I give you is acceptable, but there's something about how it's, it's um, there's a degree of acceptability, and so instead of viewing it as it's good or it's bad, black and white. Now we're saying there's degrees of good. Desirability is degrees of good. And, so in a Deming environment, when I hand off to you and you have an issue with it, you come back the next day and say, "Bill, somehow this didn't get caught in the control chart." And I said, "well, let me take a look at it," and I may find there was something wrong with the inspection, or I may find that there's a degree of good I'm not giving you that I need to be giving you. So, that can either be an acceptability issue or a desirability issue. I'm willing to have that conversation with you in a Deming environment. So, in a Deming environment, the handoff is physical but not mental. And the learning, as you're demonstrating, the learning that comes from the ability to have those conversations, improves the system. That's a lot more work.   0:32:53.8 AS: So, if you were to sum it up, was that the sum up or would you add anything else to your summation of what you want people to take away from this discussion?   0:33:05.6 BB: Yeah, that's it. I'd like to say one is that there's, acceptability is fine. Choose acceptability, if that's all the situation demands then you've chosen that. But pay attention to how it's used, pay attention to the ramifications of that decision, which may show up an hour from now, may not show up until a year from now. And, the possibility that hiccup a year from now could be either it wasn't acceptable, in which case there's an inspection issue or it was acceptable, which means there's a degree of good, which means it's a desirability issue. And, that gets us into future conversations, talking about degrees of good and the whole idea of variation in things that are good. That's desirability, variation in things that are good.   0:33:57.6 AS: All right. Bill, on behalf of everyone at T      he Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. He responds. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."

Is reaching A+ quality always the right answer? What happens when you consider factors that are part of the system, and not just the product in isolation? In this episode, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz discuss acceptability versus desirability in the quality realm. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today's episode, episode three, is Acceptability and Desirability. Bill, take it away.   0:00:28.1 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew, and welcome back to our listeners.   0:00:30.7 AS: Oh, yeah.   0:00:31.4 BB: Hey, do you know how long we've been doing these podcasts?   0:00:36.6 AS: No.   0:00:40.8 BB: We started... Our very first podcast was Valentine's Day 2023. I was gonna say 2013. 2023, so roughly 17 months of podcast, Andrew.   0:00:53.4 AS: That was our first date, huh?   0:00:55.0 BB: Our first date was Valentine's Day 2023.   0:00:58.9 AS: All right. Don't tell your wife.   [laughter]   0:01:03.1 BB: All right. And so along the way, I've shared reflections from my first exposures to Dr. Deming, as well as my first exposures to Genichi Taguchi. Talked about Edward de Bono, Tom Johnson, others, mentors, Bill Cooper, Phil Monroe, Gipsie Ranney was a great mentor. Last week, Andrew, while on vacation in New England with my wife, I visited for a day my 85-year-old graduate school advisor who I worked with for ten years, Bob Mayle, who lives in, I would say, the farthest reaches of Maine, a place called Roque Bluffs. Roque Bluffs. How's that for... That could be North Dakota. Roque Bluffs. He's in what they call Down East Maine. He's recently got a flip phone. He's very proud. He's got like a Motorola 1985 vintage flip phone. Anyway, he's cool, he's cool. He's...   0:02:15.9 AS: I'm just looking at that place on the map, and looks incredible.   0:02:19.0 BB: Oh, yeah. He's uh, until he got the phone, he was off the grid. We correspond by letters. He's no internet, no email. And he has electricity, lives in about an 800 square-foot, one-floor bungalow with his wife. This is the third time we've visited him. Every time we go up, we spend one day getting there, one day driving home from where my in-laws live in New York. And then one day with him, and the day ends with going to the nearby fisherman's place. He buys us fresh lobster and we take care of them. [chuckle]   0:03:01.3 AS: Yeah, my sister lives in Kennebunk, so when I go back to the US, I'm...   0:03:08.8 BB: Yeah, Kennebunk is maybe 4 hours away on that same coast.   0:03:15.3 AS: I'm just looking at the guide and map book for Roque Bluffs' State Park, and it says, "a beautiful setting with oceanfront beach, freshwater pond, and hiking trails."   0:03:25.9 BB: Yeah, he's got 10 acres... No, he's got, I think, 20, 25 acres of property. Sadly, he's slowly going blind. He has macular degeneration. But, boy, for a guy who's slowly going blind, he and I went for a walk around his property for a couple hours, and it's around and around... He's holding branches from hitting me, I'm holding branches from hitting him and there's... Let alone the terrain going up and down, you gotta step up and over around the rocks and the pine needles and all. And it was great. It was great. The week before, we were close to Lake George, which is a 32-mile lake in Upstate New York. And what was neat was we went on a three-hour tour, boat ride. And on that lake, there are 30 some islands of various sizes, many of them owned by the state, a number of them owned privately. Within the first hour, we're going by and he points to the island on the left and he says it was purchased in the late '30s by Irving Langmuir. Yeah, so he says, "Irving Langmuir," and I thought, I know that name from Dr. Deming. That name is referenced in The New Economics.   0:04:49.1 BB: In fact, at the opening of Chapter Five of The New Economics, the title is 'Leadership.' Every chapter begins with a quote, right? Chapter Five quote is, "You cannot plan to make a discovery," so says Irving Langmuir. So what is... The guy's describing this island purchased back in the late '30s by Langmuir for like $5,000. I think it's... I don't know if he still owns it, if it's owned by a nonprofit. It's not developed. It's privately held. I'm trying, I wrote to Langmuir's grandson who did a documentary about him. He was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from GE's R&D center in Schenectady, New York, which is a couple hours south of there. But I'm certain, and I was looking for it earlier, I know I heard of him, of Irving Langmuir through Dr. Deming. And I believe in his lectures, Deming talked about Langmuir's emphasis on having fun at work, having fun. And so I gotta go back and check on that, but I did some research after the day, and sure enough came across some old videos, black and white videos that Langmuir produced for a local television station, talking about his... There's like show and tell with him in the laboratory. And in there, he talks about joy and work and all that.   0:06:33.5 BB: So I'm thinking, that's pretty cool. So I'm waiting to hear from his grandson. And ideally, I can have a conversation with his grandson, introduce him to Kevin and talk about Deming's work and the connection. Who knows what comes out of that? Who knows? Maybe an interview opportunity with you and Irving Langmuir's grandson. So, anyway.   0:06:52.7 AS: Fantastic.   0:06:54.7 BB: But going back to what I mentioned earlier in my background in association with Deming and whatnot, and Taguchi, and I offer these comments to reinforce that while my interests in quality were initially all things Taguchi, and then largely Deming, and it wasn't long before I stopped, stepped back and an old friend from Rocketdyne 20 some years ago started focusing on thinking about thinking, which he later called InThinking. And it's what others would call awareness of our... Well, we called it... Rudy called it, better awareness of our thinking patterns, otherwise known as paradigms, mental models.  We just like the way of explaining it in terms of becoming more aware of our thinking patterns. And I say that because... And what I'm presenting relative to quality in this series, a whole lot of what I'm focusing on is thinking about thinking relative to quality.   0:07:58.8 BB: And so last time, we talked about the eight dimensions of quality from David Garvin, and one of them was acceptability. And that is this notion in quality, alive and well today, Phil Crosby has created this focus on achieving zero defects. Everything meets the requirements, that gets us into the realm, everything is good. Dr. Deming and his red bead experiments talked about red beads and white beads. The white beads is what we're striving for. All the beads are good. The red beads represent defects, things we don't want. And that's this... Thinking wise, that's a thinking pattern of "things are good or bad." Well, then we can have high quality, low quality and quality. But at Rocketdyne, when I started referring to that as category thinking, putting things into categories, but in the world of quality, there's only two categories, Andrew: good and bad. This either meets requirements or it doesn't. And if it's good, then we're allowed to pass it on to the next person. If we pass it on and it's not good, then they're going to send it back to us and say, "Uh-uh, you didn't meet all the requirements." And what I used to do in class, I would take something, a pen or something, and I would go to someone in the seminar and I'd say, "If I hand this to you and it doesn't meet requirements, what are you going to say?" You're gonna say, "I'm not going to take it. It hasn't met the requirements."   0:09:36.4 BB: And I would say you're right. All the I's are not dotted, all the T's are not crossed, I'm not taking it. Then I would take it back and I'd say, "Okay, now what if I go off and dot all those I's and cross all those T's?" Then I would hand them the pen or whatever the thing was, and I'd say, "If all those things have been met," now we're talking acceptability. "Now, what do you say?" I said, "Can you reject it?" "No." I say, "So what do you say now that all those things... If you're aware that all those requirements have been met, in the world of quality, it is as good, now what do you say?" And they look at me and they're like, "What do I say?" I say, "Now you say, thank you." But what I also do is one more time... And I would play this out to people, I'd say, "Okay, Andrew, one more time. I hand you the pen, Andrew, all the requirements are met. And what do you say?" And you say, "Thank you." And I say, "What else just happened when you took it?"   0:10:45.4 AS: You accepted it.   0:10:47.3 BB: Yes. And I say, "And what does that mean?" "I don't know. What does that mean?" I said, "It means if you call me the next day and say, I've got a problem with this, you know what I'm going to say, Andrew?"   0:10:58.5 AS: "You accepted it."   0:11:01.5 BB: Right. And so, what acceptability means is don't call me later and complain. [laughter] So, I get a photo of you accepting it, you're smiling. So if you call me back the next day and say, "I've got a problem with this," I'd say, "No, no, no." So acceptability as a mental model is this idea that once you accept it, there's no coming back. If you reveal to me issues with it later, I deny all that. I'd say, I don't know what your problem with Andrew... It must be a problem on your end, because what I delivered to you is good. And if it is good, then there can't be any problems associated with it. So, if there are problems, have to be on your end, because defect-free, everything good, implies, ain't no problems, ain't no issues with it. I'm thinking of that Disney song, trouble-free mentality, Hakuna Matata.   [chuckle]   0:12:04.5 BB: But now I go back to the title, Acceptability and Desirability. One of Dr. Deming's Ph.D. students, Kauro [actually, Kosaku] Yoshida, he used to teach at Cal State Dominguez Hills back in the '80s, and I think sometime in the '90s, he went to Japan. I don't know if he was born and raised in Japan, but he was one of Dr. Deming's Ph.D. students, I believe, at NYU. Anyway, I know he's a Ph.D. student of Dr. Deming, he would do guest lectures in Dr. Deming's four-day seminars in and around Los Angeles. And, Yoshida is known for this saying that Americans are all about acceptability meets requirements, and the Japanese are about desirability. And what is that? Well, it's more than meeting requirements. And, I wanna get into more detail on that in future episodes. But for now, we could say acceptability is meeting requirements. In a binary world, it can be really hard to think of, if everything's met requirements, how do I do better than that? How do I continue to improve if everything meets requirements?  Well, one clue, and I'll give a clue, is what I shared with the senior most ranking NASA executive responsible for quality.   0:13:46.4 BB: And this goes back to 2002 timeframe. And we had done some amazing things with desirability at Rocketdyne, which. is more than meeting requirements. And the Vice President of Quality at Rocketdyne knew this guy at NASA headquarters, and he says, "You should go show him what we're doing." So I called him up a week in advance of going out there. I had made the date, but I figured if I'm going to go all the way out there, a week in advance, I called him up just to make sure he knew I was coming. And he said something like, "What are we going to talk about?" He said something like, "We're going to talk about that Lean or Six Sigma stuff?" And I said, "No, more than that." And I think I described it as, we're going to challenge the model of interchangeable parts. And he's like, "Okay, so what does that mean?" So the explanation I gave him is I said, "What letter grade is required for everything that NASA purchases from any contractor? What letter grade is ostensibly in the contract? What letter grade? A, B, C, D. What letter grade is in the contract?" And he says, "Well, A+."   [laughter]   0:15:01.2 BB: And I said, "A+ is not the requirement." And he's like, "Well, what do you mean?" I said, "It's a pass-fail system." That's what acceptability is, Andrew. Acceptability is something is either good or bad, and if it's bad, you won't accept it. But if it's good, if I dot all the I's and cross all the T's, you will take it. It has met all the requirements. And that gets into what I talked about in the first podcast series of what I used to call the first question of quality management. Does this quality characteristic, does the thrust of this engine, does the roughness of this surface, does the diameter of this hole, does the pH of this bath meet requirements? And there's only two answers to that question, yes or no. And if yes is acceptable, and if no, that's unacceptable. And so I pointed out to him, much to his chagrin, is that the letter grade requirement is not A+, it's D- or better. [chuckle] And so as a preview of we'll get into in a future podcast, acceptability could be, acceptability is passing. And this guy was really shocked. I said, "Procurement at NASA is a pass-fail system."   0:16:21.9 BB: Every element of anything which is in that system purchased by NASA, everything in there today meets a set of requirements, is subject to a set of requirements which are met on a pass-fail basis. They're either, yes, it either meets requirements, acceptable, or not. That's NASA's, the quality system used by every NASA contractor I'm aware of. Boeing's advanced quality system is good parts and bad parts. Balls and strikes. And so again, for our viewers, acceptability is a pass-fail system. And what Yoshida... You can be thinking about what Yoshida's talked about, is Japanese companies. And again, I think it's foolish to think of all Japanese companies, but back in the '80s, that's really the way it came across, is all Japanese companies really have this figured out, and all American companies don't. I think that's naive. But nonetheless, what he's talking about is shifting from a pass-fail system, that's acceptability, to, let's say, letter grades of A's or B's. That would be more like desirability, is that it's not just passing, but an A grade or a B grade or a C grade. So that's, in round terms, a preview of Yoshida... A sense of, for this episode, of what I mean by acceptability and desirability.   0:17:54.7 BB: In the first podcast which was posted the other day, I made reference to, instead of achieving acceptability, now I can use that term, instead of achieving zero defects as the goal, in the world of acceptability, once we continuously improve and achieve acceptability, now everything is passing, not failing. This is in a world of what I refer to as category thinking, putting things in categories. In the world of black and white, black is one category, white is a category. You got two categories, good and bad. If everything meets requirements, how do you continuously improve if everything is good? Well, part of the challenge is realize that everything is good has variation in terms... Now we could talk about the not all letter grade A, and so we could focus on the things that are not A's and ask the question, is an A worthwhile or not? But what I was saying in the first podcast is my admiration for Dr. Deming's work uniquely... And Dr. Deming was inspired towards this end by Dr. Taguchi, and he gave great credit to that in Chapter Ten of The New Economics. And what I don't see in Lean nor Six Sigma, nor Lean/Six Sigma, nor Operational Excellence, what I don't see anywhere outside of Dr. Deming's work or Dr. Taguchi's work is anything in quality which is more than acceptability.   0:19:32.0 BB: It's all black and white. Again, Boeing's Advanced Quality System is good parts and bad parts. Now, again, I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with that. And I would also suggest in a Deming-based organization there may be characteristics for which all we need is that they're good. We don't need to know how good they are, we don't need to know the letter grade. And why is that? Because maybe it's not worth the trouble to discern more than that. And this is where I use the analogy of balls and strikes or kicking the ball into the net.  If you've got an open net... That's Euro Cup soccer. There's no reason to be precisely placing the ball. All you want to do is get it into the net. And that's an area of zero defects, maybe all that is worthwhile, but there could be other situations where I want the ball in a very particular location in the strike zone. That's more of this desirability sense. So I want to clarify for those who listened to the first podcast, is what I'm inferring is I'm not aware of any quality management system, any management system in which, inspired by Dr. Deming and Taguchi, we have the ability to ask the question, is acceptability all that is required?   0:20:55.7 BB: And it could be for a lot of what we do, acceptability is not a bad place to be. But I'm proposing that as a choice, that we've thought about it and said, "You know what? In this situation, it's not worth, economically, the extra effort. And so let's put the extra effort into the things where it really matters." And if it doesn't... So use desirability where it makes sense, use acceptability elsewhere. Right now, what I see going on in organizations unaware of Dr. Deming's work, again, Dr. Taguchi's work, is that they're really blindly focusing on acceptability. And I think what we're going to get into is, I think there's confusion in desirability. But again, I want to keep that for a later episode. Now, people will say, "Well, Bill, the Six Sigma people are about desirability." No, the Six Sigma people have found a new way to define acceptability. And I'll give you one other fun story. When I taught at Northwestern's Kellogg Business School back in the late '90s, and I would start these seminars off by saying, "We're going to look at quality management practices, past, present, future." And so one year, I said, "So what quality management practices are you aware of?" And again, these are students that have worked in industry for five or six years.   0:22:17.6 BB: They've worked at GM, they worked at General Electric, they worked for Coca Cola, banking. These are sharp, sharp people. But you got into the program having worked somewhere in the world, in industry, so they came in with experience. And so they would say, zero defect quality is a quality management practice. And I'd say, "Okay, so where'd that come from?" And again, this is the late '90s. They were aware of the term, zero defects. They didn't know it was Philip Crosby, who I learned yesterday was... His undergraduate degree is from a school of podiatry. I don't know if he was a podiatrist, but he had an undergraduate... A degree in podiatry, somebody pointed out to me. Okay, fine. But Philip Crosby, his big thing was pushing for zero defects. And you can go to the American Society for Quality website to learn more about him. Philip Crosby is the acceptability paradigm. So, students would bring him up and I'd say, "Okay, so what about present? What about present?" And somebody said, "Six Sigma Quality." So I said, "So what do you know about Six Sigma Quality?" And somebody said," Cpk's of 2.00." And I said, "So what's... " again, in a future episode, we could talk about Cpk's."   0:23:48.5 AS: But I said to the guy, "Well, what's the defect rate for Six Sigma... For Cpk's or Six Sigma Quality or Cpk's of 2?" And very matter of factly, he says, "3.4 defects per million." So I said, "How does that compare to Phil Crosby's quality goal from 1962? Here we are, 1997, and he's talking about Motorola and Six Sigma Quality, a defect goal of 3.4 defects per million. And I said, "How does that compare to Phil Crosby's quality goal of zero defects in 1962?" And the guy says... [chuckle] So cool, he says, "Well, maybe zero is not worth achieving." 'Cause again, zero was the goal in 1962. Six Sigma sets the goal for 3.4 per million. Not zero, 3.4, to which this guy says... And I thought it was so cool, he says, "Well, maybe zero is not worth achieving." So, there. Well, my response was, "Well, what makes 3.4 the magic number for every process in every company around the world? So, what about that?" To which the response was crickets. But what I want to point out is we're still talking about zero... I mean 3.4 is like striving towards zero and admitting some. It is another way of looking at acceptability. It is... And again, and people claim it's really about desirability. I think, well, there's some confusion in desirability and my hope in this episode is to clear up some of that misunderstanding in acceptability as well as in desirability. And they... Let me just throw that out.   0:25:58.1 AS: Yeah, there's two things that I want to say, and the first one is what he should have replied is, for those older people listening or viewing that can remember the movie, Mr. Mom with Michael Keaton, I think it was. And he should have replied, "220, 221, whatever it takes." And he should have said, "Well, yeah, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6. It's could be around there."   0:26:27.5 BB: Well, the other thing is, why we're on that is... And I think this is... I'm really glad you brought that up, is, what I would push back on the Lean and the Six Sigma, those striving for zero defects or Cpk's of 2 or whatever they are is, how much money are we going to spend to achieve a Cpk of 2, a zero defects? And again, what I said and... Well, actually, when I posted on LinkedIn yesterday, "I'm okay with a quality goal of 3.4 defects per million." What I'm proposing is, instead of blindly saying zero defects is the goal and stop, or I want Cpk's of 1.33 or whatever they are everywhere in the organization, in terms of the economics of variation or the new economics, is how much money are we going to spend to achieve zero or 3.4 or whatever it is? And, is it worth the return on the investment? And this is where Dr. Taguchi's loss function comes in.   0:27:49.2 BB: And so what I'm proposing, inspired by Genichi Taguchi and W. Edwards Deming is, let's be thinking more about what is... Let's not blindly stop at zero, but if we choose to stop at zero, it's an economic choice that it's not worth the money at this time in comparison to other things we could be working on to improve this quality characteristic and that we've chosen to be here... Because what I don't want people to think is what Dr. Deming and Taguchi are talking about is we can spend any amount of money to achieve any quality goal without thinking of the consequences, nor thinking about, how does this goal on this thing in isolation, not make things bad elsewhere. So we have to be thinking about a quality goal, whether it's worth achieving and will that achievement be in concert with other goals and what we're doing there? That's what I'd like people thinking about as a result of this podcast tonight.   0:28:56.0 AS: And I think I have a good way of wrapping this up, and that is going back to Dr. Deming's first of his 14 Points, which is, create constancy of purpose towards improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive, to stay in business, and to provide jobs. And I think that what that... I link that to what you're saying with the idea that we're trying to improve our products and services constantly. We're not trying to improve one process. And also, to become competitive in the market means we're improving the right things because we will become more competitive if we are hitting what the client wants and appreciates. And so... Yeah.   0:29:46.3 BB: But with regard to... Absolutely with regard to our customers, absolutely with regard to how it affects different aspects of our company, that we don't get head over heels in one aspect of our company and lose elsewhere, that we don't deliver A+ products to the customer in a losing way, meaning that the A+ is great for you, but financially, we can't afford currently... Now, again, there may be a moment where it's worthwhile to achieve the A... We know we can achieve the A+, but we may not know how to do it financially. We may have the technology to achieve that number. Now, we have to figure out, is, how can we do it in an economically advantaged way, not just for you, the customer, but for us. Otherwise, we're losing money by delivering desirability. So it's gotta work for us, for you, but it's also understanding how that improvement... That improvement of that product within your overall system might not be worthwhile to your customer, in which case we're providing a... The classic...   0:31:18.8 AS: You're not becoming competitive then.   0:31:21.8 BB: The better buggy whip. But that gets into looking at things as a system. And this is... What's invaluable is, all of this is covered with a grasp of the System of Profound Knowledge. The challenge is not to look at goals in isolation. And even I've seen people at Lean conferences quote Dr. Deming and his constancy of purpose and I thought, well, you can have a... A non-Deming company has a constancy of purpose. [chuckle]  The only question is, what is the purpose? [laughter] And that's when I thought, a constancy of purpose on a focus on acceptability is good provided all of your competitors are likewise focusing on acceptability. So I just be... I just am fascinated to find people taking Deming's 14 Points one at a time, out of context, and just saying, "Well, Dr. Deming said this." Well, there we go again. [laughter]   0:32:29.9 AS: Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. If you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."

Nikt się nie spodziewał, wielu po cichu marzyło, każdy dostał. Dzisiejszy odcinek dzień wcześniej, ale mamy nadzieję, że zostanie to wybaczone. W środku pociągi, porody, VR, CPK oraz solidna porcja newsów i ploteczek. W co graliśmy Edge of Sanity - Demo Warhammer 40 000 Speed Freeks Open Beta Baldur's Gate 3 XDefiant The Quarry Marvel's Midnight Suns Fallen Aces Still Wakes the Deep Selaco Forumogadka to podcast poświęcony szeroko pojętej elektronicznej rozrywce w ujęciu odrobinę mniej poważnym i zdecydowanie mniej profesjonalnym. Od graczy dla graczy. Regularnie, bo co dwa tygodnie, w każdą sobotę późnym popołudniem możesz posłuchać nowego odcinka poświęconego nowinkom branżowym, recenzjom gier i wszystkim innym tematom, o które potkniemy się w naszych rozmowach. Więcej Forumogadki na: Stronie WWW: https://forumogadka.pl iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/pl/podcast/forumogadka/id328575115?mt=2 YouTube: https://youtube.com/Forumogadka Facebooku: https://facebook.com/Forumogadka Twitterze: https://twitter.com/forumogadka Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0WJl8GgTBW4PxavSzykiOz?si=_s2hSy9vQ6W6lBhC8nsc8A Discord: https://discord.gg/tmxNSf8BYS RSS: https://forumogadka.pl/rss Pytania, uwagi i groźby należy kierować pod adres: kontakt@forumogadka.pl Fri, 28 Jun 2024 21:09:49 GMT Edge of Sanity - Demo, Warhammer 40 000 Speed Freeks Open Beta, Baldur's Gate 3, XDefiant, The Quarry

Gościem audycji jest Michał Fedorowicz, przewodniczący europejskiego kolektywu analitycznego Res Futura, z który tradycyjnie już podsumowujemy mijający miesiąc w polskich mediach społecznościowych. analizujemy jak politycznie wyglądał czerwiec w polskim Internecie. Mówimy jak nasze krajowe wydarzenia rezonują w światowych mediach społecznościowych i w jakich krajach można przeczytać o sytuacji na granicy polsko-białoruskiej. Pytamy, kto obecnie najlepiej radzi sobie na cyfrowej arenie. Co Polki i Polacy myślą o CPK?

AST, ALT, CPK, BUN, what do all of these mean and what should you expect as a bodybuilder? PLUS NPP in a cut? Testing GH with Lab work TIME STAMPS BELOW Muscle Minds - Dr Scott Stevenson & Scott McNally ✅ Get Private Lab Work Done Here : https://www.privatemdlabs.com/?refid=ddh4nap7 ✅ Amino Asylum code THINK for 20% off research chems, peptides, l-carnitine and more https://aminoasylum.shop/ref/122/ 0:00 intro 1:30 Lab work as a bodybuilder 3:00 AST & ALT 8:40 CPK 11:30 BUN 12:35 Creatinine 17:00 Cystatin C 18:50 High Protein diet & Kidneys 26:00 What causes kidney problems in bodybuilding? 36:30 NPP in a Cut? 44:30 Using blood work to check GH quality 53:00 SubQ shots for cycles 1:03:40 Not growing on current diet

On this podcast episode, I discuss fenofibrate pharmacology, adverse effects, kinetics, drug interactions, and much more! Fenofibrate is typically only used for hypertriglyceridemia. The primary risk of hypertriglyceridemia is pancreatitis so we treat these levels because of this risk. LFTs elevation has been associated with fenofibrate use as well as myopathy. In the presence of myopathy, checking CPK may be considered. Fenofibrate is a weak CYP2C9 inhibitor. Warfarin and phenytoin are two important medications that may be affected by the use of fenofibrate.