Podcasts about desirability

Struggling to sort through a mountain of ideas? In this episode of the Honeypot Podcast, Alexander Wennerberg and Fredrik Heghammar dive deep into the crucial step of prioritization in idea management. Learn how to effectively evaluate and rank your team's suggestions using powerful frameworks like the "Three Lenses of Innovation" (viability, feasibility, desirability) and the "Action Board" (impact vs. effort).We discuss practical strategies for involving the right stakeholders, avoiding common pitfalls, and ensuring that your organization focuses on the most impactful initiatives. Discover how to move beyond consensus and implement data-driven decision-making to turn your best ideas into reality.Chapters:00:00 Introduction01:07 Design Thinking and Prioritization02:03 The Four Pillars of Idea Management03:21 The Three Lenses of Innovation (Viability, Feasibility, Desirability)05:47 The Magic Number Three and Google's Criteria06:38 The Action Board: Impact vs. Effort07:40 Eisenhower Matrix and Simplification09:32 Overcoming Complex Processes11:38 The Importance of Data and Information13:17 Risk Minimization and Prioritization15:32 Involving the Right People in Prioritization17:50 Business Model Canvas and Stress Testing Ideas20:13 Scaling Ideas and Finding Solutions22:16 Using Hives for Tailored Workflows23:57 Comparing Management and Employee Perspectives26:46 The Importance of Daily Idea Evaluation27:06 Final Recommendations: Estimation and Simplicity#IdeaManagement #Innovation #Prioritization #DesignThinking #BusinessStrategy #ProductManagement #ProjectManagement #HivesCo #Entrepreneurship #StartupTips #EmployeeIdeas #EmployeeSuggestions #ContinuousImprovementCheck out more on idea management at Hives.co!

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. 

In this excerpt from Hobby Hotline, Dr. Beckett delves into the impact of AI on the industry, exploring potential AI-generated errors, collectors' response, and the implications for future card designs. We discuss the balance between innovation and maintaining the value of collectible items, as well as how AI's integration could influence production costs and design efficiency. Additionally, we compare the strategies of major card companies like Topps and Panini, analyzing the economic and market effects of holding back rookies.   00:00 Dual Downtowns and AI Art in Donruss Football 01:26 The Value and Desirability of AI Art Cards 04:40 The Economics of Card Production and AI 09:36 The Impact of Production Numbers on Collecting 12:21 The Future of Flagship Products in the Card Industry  

In this episode of Misunderstanding Quality, host Andrew Stotz and Bill Bellows discuss what not to measure when it comes to quality. Bill offers some great examples to show how organizations get it wrong, and how to get it right. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.4 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, we're gonna have a lot of fun, who has spent 31 plus years now that it's 2025, helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities in the episode, today is episode 11, and the title is "To Improve Quality, Don't Measure Quality". Bill, take it away.   0:00:35.6 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew. And, so the title of episode 10, came from chapter 10... Chapter 1 of The New Economics, and I used a quote from Dr. Deming, which was, "Are you in favor of the improvement of quality?" Which Dr. Deming says, "Are you in favor of the improvement of quality? We can have a national referendum, yes or no?" Everyone says yes. Then he says... Then he say, "We could have a secret ballot." And... But I... At the beginning of the podcast, I had said, "Are you in favor of quality?" And it's... No, it's, "Are you in favor of the improvement of quality?" And so today I wanna, in episode 11, share it with our listeners and viewers, more of the profound insights from Genichi Taguchi. But I think, what I was just thinking is saying, "Are you in favor of quality?" And I've used that quote, which now I now realize it's a misquote. It's not, "Are you in favor of quality?" It's "Are you in favor of improvement of quality?" But in seminars, what I've done is used the quote, the misquote, I would say Dr. Deming would ask, "Are you in favor of quality?" And he would say, "We're gonna have a secret ballot. Is everyone in favor of ballot?" In quality, everyone says yes. So I would go through that.   0:02:16.3 Bill Bellows: And then I would go to the next question, and I would say to the audience, I'd say, "Okay. Dr. Deming made reference to secret ballot. So I wanna do a secret ballot. I want you to close your eyes, and I'm gonna ask you a question, and if your answer is yes, raise your hand. But I want you to close your eyes when you raise your hand, 'cause I don't want you to raise your hand 'cause everybody else does. Okay, so close your eyes." And I say, "Are you in favor of teamwork?" And all the hands go up. [laughter] And it's not so much "Are you in favor of improvement of teamwork?" But it's the idea that, acceptability saying this part is acceptable, as we've shared in prior episodes, is the essence of looking at that part, my task, my effort in isolation. And what that has to do with teamwork, I question. Now, with a few of us at Rocketdyne years ago used to talk about, we would say, you give out a term paper assignment, the term paper must be between 10 and 20 pages long. And what happens? They're close to 10 pages. Then I would share, we'd tell Allison, our daughter, I'd say when she was in high school, "Be home by between 8:00 and 10 o'clock," and she shows up around 10 o'clock.   0:03:51.6 Bill Bellows: And I would show a distribution over there. Then I would say, "What about a machinist? The machinist is given a hole to machine. And what does machinist do is machine the hole on the low side, and then a machinist is machining the outer diameter of a shaft or a tube. And what does machinist do? Machines to the high side." And so I would show those four distributions either on the low side or the high side, and say, "What do they all have in common?" And people would say, "Each of those people's looking out for themself. They're focusing on their work in isolation." Then I would say, "So what do you call that in a non-Deming company or in a... " In the first podcast there is a, called it a Red Pen Company or a ME organization, or a Last Straw companies... What do you call that behavior where people look at the requirements and say, "What's best for me?" What do you call that? What do you call, people scratch their head? We say... You ready? "Teamwork."   [laughter]   0:05:00.6 Bill Bellows: And everybody laughs. And then I turn to somebody in class and I say, "So Andrew, are you a team player?" And Andrew says, "Yes." And I say, "Andrew, if you machine the holes to the low side, are you a team player?" And you might say, "I'm not sure." And I would say, "Say yes." And you'd say, "Okay. I say yes." And I say, "Okay, Andrew, who's on your team?" And you say, "Me." "So, oh, you are a team player, man."   0:05:24.2 Andrew Stotz: I'm a team player. Team Andrew always wins.   0:05:28.2 Bill Bellows: Yeah. And I would say, so I say, "In a non-Deming company, everyone's a team player. All right. But who's on the team?" So I would say to people, "You'd be a fool not to be on your own team. The only question is, who else is on your team?" All right. Back to Dr. Taguchi to improve quality, don't measure quality. And I was, got into this in an explanation with some others recently, and somebody was showing me a bunch of defect rate data involving some process. And the question was, how to apply this occurrence of defect rate data to Dr. Taguchi's loss function. And so, again, reminder to our listeners, acceptability is everything that meets requirements is okay. Either I am unaware of differences or the differences don't matter, any parking spot, any professor any Thermo 2, any doctor and desirability is "I want this doctor, this parking spot, this, this, this, this, this." And so not just anything that meets requirements.   0:06:50.3 Bill Bellows: And Dr. Taguchi's work has a lot to do with that thinking. And Andrew, yeah, I'm on a month, on a regular basis, meeting more and more people that are listening to the podcast and reaching out to me on LinkedIn. And one shared with me recently then, and he started to listen to this series, and he said, he never thought about desirability. He says everything he knows, everything he sees every day, is acceptability. And he's like, "You mean, there's more than that?" And it's like, "Hello. That's what our series is trying to do." So...   0:07:26.6 Andrew Stotz: And let me introduce you to door number three, which opens you up into this whole 'nother world of...   0:07:35.6 Bill Bellows: Yes.   0:07:35.7 Andrew Stotz: The interconnectedness and understanding quality from the impact on all the different parts of the organization, not just the one thing and the one area. Yep.   0:07:46.6 Bill Bellows: Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly.   0:07:48.9 Andrew Stotz: But that's door number three. Now, we don't wanna go through that right off the bat, but when you go through it, unfortunately door number three disappears as you walk through it, and it's a wall...   [laughter]   0:08:00.4 Andrew Stotz: And you can't go back because now you understand that what is a system, what is the interconnectedness of everything, and once you see that, you can't unsee it.   0:08:09.6 Bill Bellows: That's right. Now, it's like, it's a holistic view in which... And a from a holistic perspective, parts don't exist, parts of exist, but everything is connected.   0:08:27.4 Andrew Stotz: Right.   0:08:28.2 Bill Bellows: And what does that mean? So anyway...   0:08:30.1 Andrew Stotz: And just to put that into context, let's just take a car. A customer never buys a part. And they don't buy a jumble of parts, they buy the car. So to the customer's perspective, it's even more meaningless, the independent parts of that.   0:08:50.3 Bill Bellows: When I would go to Seattle and do training when Rocketdyne was owned by Boeing, and I'd be doing training for people working on commercial airplanes or 737s, 47s and whatnot. And one of the jokes I would use is that, "Hey, 747... " People went, "What's a 747?" How about 787? If I was today, I'd say "a 787 is not a bunch of parts that fly in close formation." But that is, the mindset is that... But anyway, so acceptability is looking at the parts in isolation, looking at things in isolation, it's assigning a grade to a student, it's performance appraisals, that's all about isolation, it's thinking, "I won the game, I get an award. I lost the game." All of that thinking, from engineering to, how we look at human resources, the idea that the savings add additional only works when the activities are independent. So that's all acceptability, looking at things in isolation. Desirability in this idea of a preferred value, I don't know that anyone contributed to that, besides Dr. Taguchi. In fact, this morning, I was talking with some friends overseas about Joseph Juran's work. And, do you remember last time you and I worked, I was sharing with them that our last podcast followed the last meeting I had with these friends in Europe. And I said that conversation led to our podcast conversation about Quality 4.0, and it's all acceptability, acceptability, acceptability, meet, meet, meet requirements.   0:10:35.6 Bill Bellows: This very conversation. And I said, I went back and did some research on what Joseph Juran... How Juran defined quality. 'Cause I looked at the ASQs definition of quality and it gave two definitions of quality, one attributed to Juran talking about quality as fitness for use, and then Philip Crosby's definition is, meeting requirements. But you may recall, I said, there is no explanation of how Dr. Deming defined quality. Yeah, maybe that will come. But, so I was sharing that with them, and also shared with them a model I've used. And it might have come up in our first series, but I think the classic model within organizations is, I work, I follow a bunch of steps to make a part, a thing, a module, something. And if all the requirements are met, I hand off to you, you're downstream. And then likewise, there's others in parallel with me that hand off good parts, good things to you. Because they're good, we can hand off to you. And then the model is you take the parts that are good and put them together, and because they are good, they fit. And then you pass that integrated component downstream where other integrated components come together. And we progressively go from, it could be that we're putting together the fuselage, somebody else is putting together the wings, and it's all coming together. And at the other end, it's an airplane.   0:12:22.5 Bill Bellows: And on every handoff we hand off what is, so the parts that are good fit, the components that are good fit together with other, then we turn the whole thing on, it works. And I show this flow to people and I say, "So what do you see going on in there?" And what eventually they start to see is that all the thinking is black and white, because they're good, they fit, because they fit, they fit, and when you turn it on, it works. There's nothing relative about that. And so I was sharing that with these folks this morning, and I said, after you and I spoke last time, went back and looked, and Juran talks about fitness for use, and the question was, is Juran's definition of fitness, absolute fitness or relative fitness? Meaning that there's a degree of good in the parts associated with desirability thinking, and if we've got degrees of good in the parts, then there's degrees of fit. And, well, it turns out there's plenty of reason to believe that Juran had a model of acceptability that the parts are good, then they fit. All to come back to what Dr. Taguchi is talking about in terms of improving quality, is improving quality from a variable perspective that there's degrees of good. And so now we go back to, to improve quality, don't measure quality. And I remember when he said that and we were dumbfounded, "Well, what do you mean by that?"   0:13:52.5 Bill Bellows: And then he would go on to explain, that traditionally, we look at the quality... The lack of quality of something. An inspector says, "There's a scratch on the door. There's a ding here. There's a crack there. There's a, the weld has a drop in it. The weld has porosity." You know what that means is that's not a... The quality inspector is looking for the absence of a crack, the absence of porosity and things like that. And it also parallels with what I learned from Ackoff, Russ would say, [chuckle] "Getting less of what you want doesn't get you what you want." So you could say, "I want less waste, less defects." Well, what is it you want? Again, the clarification is, Russ would say, "Getting less of what you don't want doesn't get you what you want." And likewise, Dr. Taguchi talked about, what is the function of the process? So if you're talking about, imagine on a washing machine, when you have a... Or a dryer, and you have a motor that's spinning, and around the motor is a belt that's spinning the drum. Well, the quality problem, classic quality problem could be that the belt slips, or the belt cracks, or the belt is vibrating.   0:15:28.3 Bill Bellows: Well, then you say, "Well, okay, what's the function of the belt?" Well, it's not about cracking. The function of the belt is to transmit energy from the motor to the drum. And if it does that really well over sustained periods of time, then that suggests there's probably less cracking going on and less slipping going on. But if you don't look at it from a function perspective and ask, "What's the function of the belt?" And move away from, "Well, I don't want it to crack and I don't want it to slip." Well, then tell me what you want it to do. What is it you want it to do? Now, let's get into more of what we do want. And then, and this is what's neat listening to Dr. Taguchi as an engineer, you say, "Well, okay, so what is the belt trying to do? It's trying to transmit energy." So if I can design the belt, and by changing the materials of the belt to transmit energy, under wide-ranging temperatures, wide-ranging usage conditions, if I do a good job of that, then I should see less cracking problems. Absent that, if I try to reduce the number of cracks, I may end up with a belt slipping more often. So then what happens is you end up trading one problem for another, which is not uncommon.   0:16:57.7 Bill Bellows: You go from, the cookies being undercooked to overcooked as opposed to saying, "What's the role of the baking process?" And he would say, "To transmit energy to the cookie in the precise amount. And if we have the precise amount and distribution, then that should work out." Now, relative to welding. Welding, there is, there may be a dozen different weld anomalies that inspectors are looking for, with X-rays, they see porosity, they see, what's called drop-through with the material and the weld, drops a little bit, which could result in a fatigue problem leading to cracking. Well, here Dr. Taguchi would say, "Well, what's the function of a weld?" Say, well, to join two pieces of material together with a given strength. And so you join them together. And then once they're joined together, now you run tests and you say, "I wanna... " It could be, "I wanna heat and cool the weld to see how it does with that. I wanna introduce vibration to the weld." And if you can show that under vibration, under wide-ranging changes in the environment, that the strength holds up, then by focusing on the strength, which is what you want, you end up with fewer quality problems. But it's turning things around and saying, "Not what I don't want, what do I want?"   0:18:35.3 Andrew Stotz: And...   0:18:36.4 Bill Bellows: And that's what... Go ahead. Go ahead. Andrew.   0:18:37.6 Andrew Stotz: There's two things. The more I think about this quote that you're talking about, to improve quality, don't measure quality, sometimes I think I got it, but sometimes I don't. I just wanna think about a couple of parallels. One of them is sometimes we say in the field of sales and marketing, we may say, "Fill your pipeline and your sales will happen." So focus on the beginning of the process. If you don't have a pipeline of people coming in to your company, into your sales team, there's nobody to sell. So that's an example. We also say sometimes, focus on the inputs and the outputs will take care of themselves. That's another way that we would use something similar. But I'm just curious, what does it mean by "Don't measure quality"?   0:19:25.0 Bill Bellows: Yeah. And that's a good question. I'd say, Taguchi's used to quality being the absence of defects. And quality is what the customer's complaining about. So he's saying, quality problems in terms of don't measure quality, he's saying, "So what are the quality problems?" "Oh, let me tell you, we've got porosity, we've got cracks, we've got drop-through, we've got cracking, cracking of the belt and slipping and the... " This is what people are complaining about. And what he's saying is, the customer's not articulating, "Hey, Andrew, improve the function." They're complaining about the... You just have to interpret that what they're saying is, you have to take where they are. They don't want it to crack. They want it to last longer. They want all these things and say... And the idea is, don't get sucked into what they don't want. Turn it around to, well then, I'm the engineer, and this is what Dr. Taguchi would say, "As an engineer, don't be dumbed down into the complaint world. Turn it around and say, what could you improve? What is the function of that thing you're selling?" And if you improve the function, because again, the beauty of talking about function, if you focus on problems, you eliminate one problem, create another problem, then another problem. Now you're just... And what...   0:21:00.8 Andrew Stotz: So it's whack-a-mole...   0:21:02.3 Bill Bellows: Exactly.   0:21:03.6 Andrew Stotz: It's whack-a-mole in the back end of the process without the awareness of, "What are the customer's needs and how do we understand whether we're hitting the mark?" And...   0:21:12.7 Bill Bellows: Oh, and this is what Dr. Taguchi used to call as whack-a-mole engineering. It's what Ackoff would say, "Today's problems come from yesterday's solutions."   0:21:24.6 Andrew Stotz: So just just to visualize that, can imagine going into a factory and saying, "Look at all these charts and how we reduce the defects of this and that. And this is... " We've reduced all these defects, but in fact, that could be out of touch with what the customer really needs at the end of that production.   0:21:44.1 Bill Bellows: Yes, it is... The beauty is, it is saying... And he would get really angry with people who got sucked into the rabbit hole of eliminating defects, scrap and rework and things like that. And just say... What he's trying to say is, "I want you to be smarter than that. I want you to start to think about what is the function of the machining process? What is the function of the welding process? What is the... " And what was neat was, I spent... On three different occasions, I spent a week with him, watching him engage every day with four teams. A team would come in for two hours, and he would discuss with them whatever the hardware was. I'm not at liberty to say what company it was. [laughter] But it was a really cool company.   0:22:56.9 Bill Bellows: And the people there invited me in because I learned at Dr. Deming's... I attended Dr. Deming's very last four-day seminar, and there met some people that were very close to him. And one of them shared that, there were people for many years, traveled with Dr. Deming. They found out where he was gonna be a given week, maybe called up his secretary Ceilia Kilian and, once he became, bonded when... And somehow Dr. Deming liked you. And then you would say, "Dr. Deming, I'm gonna take a week's vacation next summer. Where are you gonna be in June?" And he'd say, "Well, I'm gonna be at GM corporate headquarters." And what these people told me is that, they would be with him that week, whether he is doing a four-day seminar in Ohio. Now, I don't know who paid for it.   0:23:50.8 Andrew Stotz: No.   0:23:50.9 Bill Bellows: But he gave them access to be with him wherever he was. And one guy told me he was at some high-level GM meetings that week, and he said, "Dr. Deming is there and he and some others." And I think they may have been called "Deming Scholars". I know that term was used. But anyway, this guy was telling me they were there, and this GM executive comes over to him and it says to him, "So, who are you again?" And you say, "Andrew Stotz." And he says something like, "So what might I ask are your qualifications for being here?" And he says, "If Deming overheard that, Deming would turn to the executive, snap at him and say, 'These are my people. What are your qualifications?'" So anyway, inspired by that, I walked out of Dr. Deming's four-day seminar, called up a friend of mine who worked for Dr. Taguchi's company and said, "Deming had people travel with him. I wanna travel with Dr. Taguchi. I don't wanna go to a seminar. I wanna see him in action."   0:24:56.1 Andrew Stotz: Yep.   0:24:56.4 Bill Bellows: And I said, "Can we make that happen?" And it happened, and I got to go inside a company. The lawyers didn't know I was there. And I asked him, I said, to the lawyer, "Do I have to sign anything?" He said, "No. If we let the lawyers know you were here, you wouldn't be here. So, here are the rules. You can't tell anybody what happened, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." So I get to be a fly on the wall watching him. So, a team would come in and say, "Here's this stuff we're working on." And he would... And they had an approach, which would be, reducing defects or scrap rework. And then he would turn it around for the next hour and a half and get them thinking about function. And after the first week of doing this four times a day for five days, I walked out of there thinking, "There's five basic functions." I started to notice the patterns. And then the second time I did this, a team would come in and I'm thinking, "I know what he's gonna do. He's gonna... He has in mind a function model. And all these things relative to how things come together." And so I did that three times. But, it was neat to get my brain adapted to, "Okay, what's the function? Where's he gonna come? Where's he gonna come?"   0:26:16.0 Bill Bellows: And then I would... The people would present it, and I'm thinking, "I think it's gonna go for function five. Yep. Bingo." So that's what I just wanted to share with the audience tonight. Again, there's a lot of depth. I taught two 40-hour courses at Rocketdyne in Taguchi Methods. So, a 40-hour intro and a 40-hour more advanced. So all I wanted to cover tonight, is that wisdom of not being defect-focused, but for our audience to start thinking about, start to think about the function. In fact, when I was having this conversation with a colleague recently and, 'cause he's talking about turning defect rate, he was thinking turning defect rate data into a loss function. I said, "No, defect rate thinking is acceptability thinking, the loss function is desirability thinking. They don't go together." I said, "What I wanna know is what's causing the defects." And we start diving into what's causing the defects, we can turn it into a variable data as opposed to a discontinuous data. Anyway. And I just wanted to throw out... Go ahead, Andrew.   0:27:34.4 Andrew Stotz: To wrap this up, I'm thinking about, I like what you just said, "Stop being defect-focused." Replace that with...   0:27:44.5 Bill Bellows: What is it we're trying to accomplish?   0:27:47.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:27:48.2 Bill Bellows: If you say, "Well, we don't want defects." I know we don't want defects. But what do we want?   0:27:52.9 Andrew Stotz: Do we say replace it with outcome focus, customer focus? What would you say?   0:27:58.1 Bill Bellows: Yeah, well, absolutely it's customer focus. The idea is that, now you start to think in terms of, is what is the greater system in which this is used.   0:28:11.0 Andrew Stotz: Okay. So...   0:28:11.1 Bill Bellows: The defect thinking is just saying it doesn't fit, it doesn't meet requirements. But that doesn't tell me what you're trying to do.   0:28:17.0 Andrew Stotz: Okay. So I think I know what you're saying. Stop being defect-focused, and please walk through door number three.   0:28:25.3 Bill Bellows: Yes! Stop...   0:28:27.7 Andrew Stotz: And in door number three, you're gonna be aware of the customer, the next process, the next flow, the customer of your area and the ultimate customer, and start focusing on the needs and the desires of them, and bring that back in the chain of your process. And you'll be improving, you'll stop being focused on "Fix this, stop this. Don't do that." Let's not have any more of that, and you'll be more into, "Let's do this because this is going to drive a much better outcome, or the exact outcome that our customer wants."   0:29:05.2 Bill Bellows: Yeah, it is, which changes the hat. That may not be the purview of people in the quality organization. So, they're out there counting defects. This is not to say it's their job. Not that they're not in the loop, but it's turning to the people that are more aware... That are more in tune with functionality, which is likely gonna be that people designing the thing, thinking about what's the role of the windshield wiper? Is it to skip across the windshield? Is it to, which is, that chatter. No, we don't want the chatter. So what is it we do want? We want the windshield wiper to move smoothly. And what does that mean? It means at a given second, we want it to be... And this is where the smoothness functionality comes in that I saw Dr. Taguchi many times is, is saying at a given interval of seconds, it should be here, here, here, here, here. And if it does match those positions, then what have we done? We have improved the smoothness of the flow of the wiper blade, or whatever it is that thing.   0:30:21.5 Bill Bellows: And that's the type of thing I'm trying to introduce, in this short episode, people thinking about function, not the lack of quality, but what is it we're trying to achieve? Now, otherwise, we can also say, Ackoff would say, and Dr. Deming would agree with him, is that organizations aren't in business to make a profit. They're in business to do something really well. That's the function of the organization. And then profit is the result of that. As opposed to being profit focus, in which case you start to... You run it as a finance company and misunderstand the focus and you start believing in addition and you end up with a mess.   0:31:04.2 Andrew Stotz: So, let's end it with a cartoon that I saw in The Wall Street Journal. And in that cartoon, it was a couple of guys, young guys wearing suits, and they were talking to each other, and they were either, it was either in an MBA class or they were in a factory or something, and it said, "Things? I don't wanna make things. I wanna make money." [laughter] And the whole point is, money is the result of making great things.   0:31:38.3 Bill Bellows: Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. And that's why... And this is why I so enjoyed about listening to Ackoff, conversations with Russ... Conversations with Dr. Taguchi. And then reading Deming. I don't have any conversation with Dr. Deming and thinking of that there. They, each were astute enough to see the process, the means leading to the result. Tom Johnson would say, "The means are the ends in the making." So you have organizations that are either means-focused, which is process focus, versus, "Did you deliver the report? Did you deliver the thing?" And Dr. Deming's big thing is, by what method? Tom would say, "By what means?" So...   0:32:25.2 Andrew Stotz: All right. Well...   0:32:25.2 Bill Bellows: Anyway, that's what I wanted to expose our audience to tonight.   0:32:29.4 Andrew Stotz: There it is. They've been exposed. Ladies and gentlemen, the exposure has happened. 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. And 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. And you know this one, you can say it along with me 'cause I say it all the time. People are entitled to joy in work.

   Unlock the secrets of magnetic attraction. Discover the 3 proven strategies to becoming irresistibly desirable and alluring. If you're looking lasting success in relationships, these factors make you stand out and captivate effortlessly. True interest in others. Ask questions about them. Warm personality – opposite of cold/aloof (which equals fear/protection) Conversational skills – knowledge of various topics Work with Me: Consultation: Books: Breakup Triage; The Cure for Heartache Audible Allowing Magnificence; Living the Expanded Version of Your Life - Book and Audiobook: Connect with Me! Website: susanwinter.net YouTube: YouTube Channel Instagram: Instagram Profile Twitter: Twitter Profile Facebook: Facebook Page LinkedIn: LinkedIn Profile TikTok: TikTok Profile

“Love is a dangerous topic.” Vincenzo Latronico is here to talk about his first novel translated into English - PERFECTION, published by Fitzcarraldo editions and translated from the Italian by Sophie Hughes. Vincenzo is one of the most distinguished novelists writing in Italian today. He has also translated many books into Italian, by authors such as George Orwell, Oscar Wilde, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Hanif Kureishi. In PERFECTION, there's something missing from Anna and Tom's life, and they can't quite put their finger on what it is that is missing. It drives them to impatience and to the point of leaving their apartment in Berlin. But is it merely an itch they cannot scratch, or does it relate to a deeper lack of authenticity that strikes their core? You can buy PERFECTION from the Rippling Pages bookshop: https://uk.bookshop.org/shop/ripplingpagespod Buying from this link supports the podcast (I receive a 10% commission) and indie bookshops! Rippling Points  2.18 - Desirability and Familiarity  4.27 - Driving the characters to dissatisfaction  7.05 - Does Vincenzo want us to ‘care' about the characters? 10.20 - Any city or Berlin 12.50 - The loss of authenticity  16.20 - Are Anna and Tom in love? 21.30 - Is there another side to Berlin? 23.45 - The migrant crisis and activism  29.15 - On being translated into English   Reference Points Hand Magnus Enzensberger  Michel Houellebecq  George Perec

In der aktuellen Folge unterhalten Noir und Finn sich über Sympathie. Sie sprechen darüber, was das eigentlich ist und was dazu führt, dass sie manche Menschen sympathisch finden. In diesem Zusammenhang sprechen sie auch über Desirability und Respectability Politics, erzählen von ihren eigenen Erfahrungen mit Sympathie und hören auch Stimmen aus der Community. Es kommt… 73 – Sympathie weiterlesen

In this episode, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz dive further into acceptability versus desirability in the quality world. Is it enough that something is "good" - meets requirements - or do you need to focus on degrees of "good"? How can you tell the difference? TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 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. Episode, today is episode eight, Beyond Looking Good. Bill, take it away.   0:00:25.4 Bill Bellows: Hi, Andrew. How are you doing?   0:00:29.1 AS: Beyond looking good. So beyond my good looks, that's what you're saying. Okay.   0:00:33.6 BB: No, but it's funny, this beyond looking good and so I could say, Andrew, how you feeling? Oh, I'm feeling good. Right? I'm feeling good. So we have this, and that's part of why I think is funny is how are things? Things are good, things are good.   0:00:49.3 AS: Looking good.   0:00:51.0 BB: And that's what I find is, I mean, and it's not that people are necessarily honest, but when somebody says how was your day? Good. Or it could be the extreme other, and we won't use any foul language, but it's like, but I find it's just a very common, how are you feeling? Oh, I'm feeling good. Or I could say, great, which is better than good. So anyway, so I'm gonna pick up on, well first say that a heavy focus of this series, Misunderstanding Quality, is for you, quality professionals out there around the world that are excited by Deming's work, learning about Deming's work, trying to bring Dr. Deming's ideas to your organization in your quality function.   0:01:41.6 BB: Or it could be, you're elsewhere in the organization and you believe that...you're inspired to realize that there's something about how quality is managed in your organization, whether you're in design or manufacturing, which is inhibiting what you might want otherwise to do. And what I'm hoping is that the examples and concepts presented here can help you, one, absorb the ideas yourself, begin to absorb them, eventually explain them to people at work. At least once a month I'm contacted by someone listening to the podcast who says, hey, they wanna connect with me on LinkedIn, and then quite often I reach out to them and ideally end up in a conversation with them to find out more about what they're trying to do.   0:02:38.7 BB: But what I'm hoping is that this fundamental information, knowledge, wisdom is useful to you and personally learning, but then depending on what you wanna do with it, you have to engage others. And that's why I've been encouraging, and this is what I do with people I mentor, is you have to develop the ability to explain it to others. 'Cause you can't be the only one talking about these differences. You're gonna drive your coworkers nuts. You might get in a jam where somebody's confused by what you're trying to do, and you need help, or you need help in implementation, help in explaining.   0:03:17.6 BB: So I'm gonna go back to acceptability and desirability. And I was in the Finland, the Netherlands and the Sweden about a month ago with friends in each of those countries. And what came up was, again, this acceptability/desirability and that contrast. So acceptability again, as a reminder is, there's no need to know where we are within the requirements. It is absolutely good. All we know is that it meets requirements for whatever the requirements are. It is you're comfortable with good versus bad. I was talking with somebody, some clients today and we were talking about, pass versus fail. And I said, 'cause it's really a pass. Acceptability is a pass-fail system. And what does passing mean?   0:04:17.5 BB: Passing means not failing. It's like, years ago when I was a summer student working for this jet engine company in Connecticut and got together for beers one Friday night with a couple of the executives, and there were a couple of us summer interns there with these directors. Yeah. Senior directors. And one of the senior directors says to us, says, so what's the difference between business and crime? And we're like, this and this and this and this. And I don't know what our answers were, but we. And finally one of them said, no, no, no, no, no, no. He said, the basic difference is crime's illegal.   0:05:03.0 BB: So you end up with what is bad, what is bad is what's not good. And what is good, good is what's not bad. And so what is passing? Passing is not failing. And so when I was explaining to somebody today I was asking him, what's the letter grade? What letter grade? In fact, I asked a very senior NASA executive this question once. What letter grade do they expect for everything they buy that put into their missions? And he said, A plus. And I said, A plus is not the requirement. He said, what's the requirement? I said, D minus. And he is like, nah, it's not D minus. I said, your procurement system is based on things being good or things being bad. He said, yep.   0:05:45.7 BB: I said, well, what is good but passing? Right. Good is not... Good is... To be good is to not be bad, to pass is to not fail. What is crime? What is crime is what's illegal versus legal. It's one or the other. We talked once on the previous podcast about Kepner-Tregoe problem solving, decision making. And part of decision making I mentioned is you come up with a bunch of characteristics of a decision. You're buying a house and you want it to be one story, three bedrooms, two bathrooms, whatever it is. And you put down all the requirements and then you ask for each of those requirements. Is it a must or a want? And a must is yes or no. It has it or it doesn't. So it must have three bedrooms, must be one story. The must could be must be under a million dollars or whatever the number is.   0:06:53.5 BB: And then you get into, well, is that really a must or is that a high weighted want? For our daughter, Allison, I remember taking her out to buy a bike for her birthday one year and she said, well, how much can we spend? And I said, $200. So, what did she say, Andrew? "What if it's 201?" Well, then you get into, well, is that a must or a high weighted want? You know what I say? Depends on how much money's in your wallet. If you don't have $201, it is a must if you're...   0:07:34.7 AS: I thought she was gonna say, if I can get it for 150, can I keep the 50 bucks?   0:07:41.3 BB: But that's it. So acceptability is like treating it as a must. It is absolute. It has to be three bedrooms. And then what is desirability? Desirability is the lower the cost, the better, the higher the performance, the better. And so acceptability is absolute, it is good versus bad. Desirability there's relativeness. And the next thing I wanna say is why should we be interested in desirability? Which also based on what we've talked about before, is to be appreciative of desirability in regard to the Dr. Deming's Red Bead Experiment. Deming Red Bead Experiment, we had red beads and white beads the customer wanted white beads. And then one of the things we looked at was, if all the red beads are gone, can we still improve?   0:08:46.1 BB: And then people would say, well, we can make the white beads faster, we can make them cheaper, but can we make the white beads better? And the huge blind spot and asking that question to audiences on a regular basis is, they get stuck. Well, then we got into, well, what if there's variation in the white beads? So part of desirability is that there's variation in good. And that allows us to go beyond just being good to better. But what is better than? Well, better than is, I mean, what would be better for the organization would be a better appreciation of the white bead variation. One, could prevent red beads from happening in the first place. And so why do we have a gas gauge that goes anywhere from E to full? It allows us to watch the gauge go down and go down and go down.   0:09:39.7 BB: What does that? It's watching variation in good and then getting gas before it runs out. So if we use a run chart and monitor vacuum level in a braze oven if we're monitoring something on a variable way, not just saying it's good or it's bad, that allows us to see trouble coming before it happens. We could use that information to create a control chart and go one step further. And so relative to a given characteristic, what we're doing is trying to prevent non-conformances, trying to prevent bad from happening by monitoring what is good. What we can also do and what I shared is with appreciation of Dr. Taguchi's insights, the idea that the closer we are to that ideal value so when we're at home cutting the piece of wood really close to that line, why do we do that?   0:10:33.7 BB: Because at home we have to get those pieces of wood together and they're not quite square or straight, then that's extra work over there. So those are two aspects of the value proposition for desirability. And then I wanted to mention is, our son is a handyman and a pet sitter. And he is self-employed in both. And the handyman stuff involves and sometimes it involves woodworking. And recently he's doing some work in our house and some really cool stuff. So he experiments in our house, which is great for us. He also experiments in our daughter's condo. So there's great opportunities for him to practice doing something. So he was cutting some long pieces of wood and they weren't, he was very frustrated. They weren't coming out straight. So we called a friend who's a master craftsman over, and he gave us both a lesson on how to, how desirability, how to get a really straight cut, not just anywhere within spec, but you need a really straight cut so they fit together well.   0:11:38.6 BB: Well, this carpenter friend, Alex, shared with me a while ago, years ago, what it's like in the construction industry. 'Cause I explained to him acceptability, desirability, focusing on the target. And in the world of construction, he gets involved, he'll be involved on a team building a multimillion dollar home for six months to a year. And it's not uncommon he's called in to have to deal with everybody else barely meeting requirements. And his job is to go in there and straighten things up because they're not quite right. And that's all this compensation stuff. And that's what with his insights trying to help our son get around that. All right, so, I do wanna share a couple anecdotes from Rocketdyne the world of acceptability and so it was a fun story.   0:12:41.2 BB: I was meeting with a small team and one of them was a senior quality manager and in the quality organization. And he says, you know what the problem is Bill? He says, what's, you know what the problem is? He said, "the problem is the executives VP of quality and as directors are not getting the quality data fast enough." So I said, "well, what data?" And he says, "scrap and rework data. He said, "they're just not getting it fast enough." So I said, "I don't care how fast they get it it's already happened."   [laughter]   0:13:18.9 BB: And I kept saying to him, the speed doesn't matter. And so how many red beads did we have today? Well, we gotta instantly report the number of red beads on a cell phone. No. If you monitor the white bead variation, then that's a means to do that. Also say, when I joined Rocketdyne in 1990, there was a big movement on the space shuttle main engine program. And I don't know what instigated this, but Rocketdyne developed, designed and developed and then produced for many years the space shuttle main engine. I mean the world's first reusable rocket engine. And there was a movement before I got there to change the drawings. And so a set of manufacturing drawings will have a nominal value, let's say 10. And then it might be something must be 10 plus or minus one.   0:14:19.4 BB: And what does that mean in terms of acceptability? It means anything between nine and 11. And then what I learned was they'll say that the number 10, that's the nominal value. And then we have 10 plus or minus one. Well, what matters to the person downstream is not the 10 plus or minus one. What matters to the person downstream is it's gotta be between nine and 11. So no matter what that nominal is, the nominal goes out the window. So there was a movement to get rid of the nominal value. 'Cause now the machinist has to do the math, 10 plus or minus one. Okay? Anything between nine and 11. So we're gonna save you all that trouble and just give you two numbers. The min and the max. And so what is that system? That is a system based on acceptability.   0:15:07.0 BB: And so that was the starting point when I joined. And so what I wanted to add for our listeners, if you're in an organization, this came up recently with one of my clients, and they're talking about the nominal value of that 10. The 10 plus or minus one, or it could be the nominal value is 11 and they'll say 11 plus nothing minus two. And so what does that mean? 11 plus nothing means eleven's the max minus two means nine and 11. So when I saw it doesn't really matter what the nominal value is, 'cause all that's gonna happen is gonna get translated to a minimum and max. And so in this client, they're talking about nominal values, nominal values. And I said, my recommendation is when it comes to desirability, don't say nominal.   0:16:00.3 BB: 'Cause I'm not convinced we use that term the same way. What I would suggest, again, this is for those listening to the podcast on a regular basis, is don't use the word nominal. It's confusing. Use the word target. Say that is the ideal. And the idea, by using the word target, which may not be part of the vocabulary, you can differentiate from nominal, which I find to be confusing and just say that's what we want. I'm gonna give you another fun story relative to acceptability. I was at a supplier conference, so in the room are a couple hundred Rocketdyne suppliers. And the person speaking before me says, and there was some very heavy duty brow beating.   0:16:48.0 BB: And the person ahead of me says, when we give a Rocketdyne employee a job and they sign that it's good, that's their personal warranty, Andrew. That's their personal warranty. So for you suppliers, when you tell us something is good, that's your personal warranty to us. And so that has to be transmitted to your organization. That's personal warranties. We take it seriously. This is the space business, Andrew. So that was going on and there was some heavy duty browbeating. And on the one hand I'm thinking, I wonder what happened recently where somebody said, Andrew, get up there on stage and go browbeat 'em, go browbeat 'em. And so this guy's up there, browbeating, browbeating.   0:17:42.7 AS: We need people to take this serious.   0:17:44.0 BB: Well, this is personal warranty, Andrew. When you say it's good, that's your warranty. So I got up and I told the story of the bowling ball being left in the doorway of the bedroom. And I said, the fact of the matter is, Wilson gave us his personal warranty that the bowling ball was in the bedroom. And just trying to say, 'cause the personal warranty is not a personal warranty of an A plus Andrew. It's not a personal warranty. It's a personal warranty that it's good and what is good, Andrew? Not bad. And so when I hear this talk of personal warranty, it's like it's not all that it's cracked up to be. When you start to look at what is good is what's not bad.   0:18:36.4 AS: By the way, I have a funny one to share in this one. And that is, every time I start my ethics in finance class with a new batch of fourth year finance students here in Thailand, class starts at 9:00 AM and the students think that the time to arrive is somewhere a little bit before or a little bit after nine. And when they arrive at the class at 9:01 or actually just after 9:00, they find the door is locked.   0:19:12.3 BB: Yeah.   0:19:13.3 AS: And then I leave them outside. And then after about five minutes, I go out after they've built up a group of people out there and I come out and I talk to them. I said just so you know I want you to be on time for my class. Don't tell me about traffic. Don't tell me you're busy. I got a full-time job and I'm working like crazy and I'm here for you. I'm not making much money out of this. So show me the respect and be here on time. They come in, they walk in shame, past all their classmates, and then they sit down and then I lock the door again, and of course another batch comes at about 9:05 or 9:10.   0:19:46.0 AS: And then I do the same. And then I bring them in, and then next week they come and they're all there at 8:58, let's say 8:59, but nobody arrives past 9:00. And then in the following weeks, I never locked a door anymore. Curious how things change. And of course, things start to shift back to that range around it, but it just made me think about what I do in trying to communicate that, whether it's right or wrong or whatever. But I like doing it because I want the students, I wanna set the parameters from the beginning. Like, take it seriously.   0:20:26.4 BB: Oh yeah. I go to a daily meeting and it starts exactly on the hour and it's done exactly. And everybody knows that. And the degree to which things are accomplished and 'cause the whole strategy was to develop a cadence that, yeah, no, that's...   0:20:56.8 AS: And I have a hard time. I want to, with my valuation masterclass bootcamp, which I do have classes at 6:00 PM. I'm generally pretty lenient letting students come in, but there's a part of me that has... I've started locking the room after 6:03 or so, and then I'll unlock it five minutes, 10 minutes later and let a few people that are... But I've had some questions in my mind as to whether I should just be hard line and say, it starts at 6:00, if you don't make it, see you next time. Now we also record it so they can watch it. But I don't know, I haven't really figured out whether I should be that tough or not.   0:21:35.0 BB: Yeah. And that's what it comes down to. I think depending on the environment, there could be, I mean, it's about synchronizing watches, right?   0:21:48.9 AS: Well, yeah. And the other thing that you could say is that, well, Andrew, come on if you understand variation, then you understand that there's gonna be some people that are gonna be late, and there's gonna be some people that are gonna be early. You set the target at 6:00 PM what else would you expect? But I guess what I'm thinking is, if for a student they should be thinking, I need to shift my target to be 8:00, sorry, 5:55 if the meeting's at 6:00, that way I could be a little bit late, you know?   0:22:16.2 BB: Exactly.   0:22:16.7 AS: And it's same concept, it's just that shifting that target. So maybe I need to start working on that one.   0:22:25.3 BB: No and it's respect for the other 15 people in the meeting that... you know, and this idea that we are... This meeting is designed for this reason, but it has to fit the work. And, yeah, I mean, so is that necessary for a college class? Again, I mean, if it depends on how much you wanna squeeze in. And five minutes if you're trying to get a whole bunch in and develop a cadence, then, yeah.   0:23:07.6 AS: Well, it also depends. What are you teaching.   0:23:11.4 BB: Exactly.   0:23:12.5 AS: In my Valuation Masterclass about valuing companies, I've decided I'm not teaching Excel. You can go somewhere else and get that, and people ask me for it, and I let them use my Excel model that I've created, but I've just decided that's not what I'm gonna teach. And so in this case, with being an ethics class, I think it is probably important to teach about the importance of time and understanding that. And so for that, but for the bootcamp, Valuation Masterclass Bootcamp, I am trying to teach discipline and helping young people realize you gotta deliver. And so that's it. By the way you're looking good, Bill. So let us summarize beyond looking good. How would you like people to... What would you like them to take away from our discussion on this topic?   0:24:07.3 BB: It goes, this is...I mean, we started off this whole series talking about quality and the eight dimensions of quality and the book and the article by David Garvin of the Harvard Business School. So to first introduce in this series called Misunderstanding Quality, that there are dimensions of quality. And amongst those dimensions were capacity and reliability and repairability. And one was aesthetics, and one was a sense of a reputation that through everything else, you're developing a reputation. Well, one of them was acceptability, and that then was the inspiration to get into the contrast between acceptability and desirability.   0:25:05.6 BB: And there's a lot to that. And so what I found in the beginning I had a little bit in mind based on some things I've seen. And then the more I researched it, the more I saw and what I wanna get into next time is, and these are questions I was asking people in the trip to Europe is, first is, can acceptability - a focus on acceptability explain the incredible reliability of Toyota products? At least that I have experienced. Can you explain that with acceptability? And I don't think so. Next, okay, I'll go back to my notes here.   0:25:57.7 BB: Next is, does your organization, again, for those calling in, the better you understand this distinction between acceptability and desirability. Does your organization distinguish those? Does your quality system... Is your quality system based on acceptability? Does it have acceptability and desirability? That is a question for our audience. What I want to get into next time is, and I think I've mentioned this before, I've read much a great deal about Lean. I've gone to Lean conferences. I've written plenty of articles for the Lean Management Journal involving reading articles and commenting on them. Everything I see within Lean is acceptability. I don't see any mention of desirability. Six Sigma quality is that we wanna have 3.4 defects per million. There's no mention in acceptability, either explicitly or implicitly to this difference between acceptability and desirability nor in Lean.   0:27:04.9 AS: Sorry, can you clarify that for just a second? Okay. So you said Lean was one and Six Sigma was the other, which was focused on which?   0:27:13.4 BB: Well, what I'm saying is that I don't see explicitly... I don't see a call out in the Lean literature a conversation about acceptability and desirability. What I see is plenty of evidence of an acceptability-based quality mindset in Lean, in Six Sigma quality, in Lean Six Sigma, in Operational Excellence, in the Toyota Production System is what I see is a heavy emphasis directly about things being good versus bad. I don't see any inference to desirability that there's something beyond good in that system.   0:28:06.4 BB: And that's what I've been wanting to point out, is I think Dr. Deming's work is unique in its appreciation of that distinction in explaining the difference and the value of understanding when acceptability makes sense, when desirability makes sense. And that's what this whole Misunderstanding Quality series, a big part that I'm trying to introduce through my experiences is, if you're interested in moving your organization or just your personal awareness beyond a good mindset into continual improvement, that's what I'm trying to bring about in this series.   0:28:50.5 AS: Fantastic.   0:28:50.9 BB: That's my story, Andrew, and I'm sticking to it.   0:28:53.7 AS: Yeah. Exciting. Exciting. Well, Bill on behalf...   0:28:58.9 BB: It'll be on my tombstone, acceptability is not desirability.   0:29:01.7 AS: Yeah, exactly. We have accepted the death. It is acceptable. It's not desirable, but... On behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you, Bill, for this discussion. Again, it's a fun one to hear what you're thinking about. And for listeners, remember to go to Deming.org to continue your journey. Any final thoughts Bill?   0:29:31.4 BB: Keep looking good Andrew, keep looking good.   0:29:34.0 AS: I wanna go beyond looking good. 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.

In this episode of Marketing vs The World, host Abbie Dando chats with Gareth Dunlop, a seasoned UX expert and entrepreneur, about the critical balance between desirability and usability in user experience design. Gareth shares practical insights on designing digital products that create desire while ensuring ease of use, alongside his experience of building and selling two successful marketing agencies.In this episode, Abbie and Gareth discuss:Gareth Dunlop's BackgroundTransition from a computer programmer at a major Irish bank to a UX pioneer.Growing and selling two marketing agencies, including the challenges and rewards of these ventures.His shift from leading teams to working independently as a consultant.What Is User Experience (UX)?Definition: How a user feels when interacting with a product or service.The holistic approach to creating digital experiences that influence user behaviour.Examples of good and bad UX in everyday apps and websites.Why UX Matters More Than EverThe evolution of UX as a discipline since the early 2000s.COVID-19's role in accelerating businesses' focus on digital experiences.Why organisations need to shift from monologue-style marketing to user-driven dialogues.Designing Great UX: Desirability vs UsabilityDesirability: Creating want through emotional connection and brand perception.Usability: Making it easy for users to achieve their goals.Examples of high-desirability brands like Taylor Swift and Apple, and their strategies for balancing desirability with convenience.Why focusing solely on usability can limit the emotional pull of your product.Measuring UX and Building a Business CaseHow to benchmark your current website or app performance using tools like Google Analytics and Hotjar.The importance of qualitative research to complement data insights.Building a case for UX investment by showing potential business gains and the cost of poor user experiences.Lessons in Growing and Selling AgenciesPreparing for Sale: Gareth's focus on running his businesses professionally, keeping operations clean, and being ready for acquisition opportunities.Navigating a Sale: Insights from selling his first agency and proactively seeking buyers for his second.Post-Acquisition Challenges: The importance of integrating cultures, processes, and tech stacks after a sale.Key Takeaways From This EpisodeFor UX Success:Desirability and Usability Work Together: Create desire while ensuring simplicity to achieve the best user outcomes.Start Small: Use affordable tools like Hotjar and surveys to gather insights, even on a tight budget.Put Users First: Focus on solving user needs and behaviours, not just achieving business objectives.For Entrepreneurs:Run Clean Operations: Keep your business professional and transparent to attract potential buyers.Stay Ready: Treat every day as preparation for a possible acquisition, even if you're not actively seeking one.Take Your Time: Wait for the right opportunity to sell, but ensure your business is always in great shape.What You'll Get From This EpisodeThis episode offers valuable insights into the psychology of user experience, tips for improving digital products, and actionable advice for entrepreneurs considering...

In this episode of "That Other Lifestyle Podcast," host Jason dives deep into the attributes that women find attractive in men within the lifestyle and beyond. Explore the key traits such as healthy masculinity, respect, confidence, and genuine connection that make a man irresistible. Jason addresses common misconceptions about male behavior, emphasizing the importance of leaving behind unattractive qualities from the "vanilla world." Learn about the significance of safety, respect, and authenticity in becoming the best version of yourself. This episode offers valuable insights into how men can navigate social dynamics, both in lifestyle settings and general interactions, fostering inclusivity while maintaining personal integrity. Whether you're already embodying these traits or just beginning your journey, this episode provides a candid look at the positive impact of redefining masculinity. My links: www.thatotherlifestyle.com National Lifestyle Weekend Tickets Naughty in New Orleans 2025 Tickets Single Men's Guide to the Lifestyle Course https://beacons.ai/thatotherlifestyle Risque Lifestyle Parties SDC.com  

In the realm of modern dating, where complexities and anxieties often prevail, a fascinating concept has emerged, offering a unique perspective on relationship dynamics. The "bucket theory" of dating, popularized by TikTok personality Courtney Shields, provides a framework for understanding how individuals navigate the search for a fulfilling partnership. This theory, which divides potential partners into three distinct categories or "buckets," sheds light on why some people may find themselves entangled in toxic relationships despite their best intentions.At the heart of the bucket theory lies the idea that individuals subconsciously categorize potential partners based on their perceived compatibility and desirability. The first bucket, often considered the "no-go" zone, comprises individuals deemed entirely unsuitable for a relationship. The second bucket encompasses those who possess certain attractive qualities but ultimately lack the essential elements for a truly compatible and lasting partnership. Finally, the third bucket, the elusive "unicorn" category, represents the ideal partner, embodying all the desired traits and values.The crux of the bucket theory lies in the recognition that settling for a partner from the second bucket, despite their shortcomings, can lead to a toxic and unfulfilling relationship. This often occurs when individuals prioritize the perceived security and comfort of a readily available partner over the pursuit of a truly compatible match. The allure of a seemingly "good enough" option can blind individuals to the underlying incompatibilities and red flags that may ultimately lead to a toxic dynamic.This phenomenon resonates with the insights of Ester Vilar, an Argentine-German writer known for her controversial views on gender roles and relationships. In her seminal work, "The Manipulated Man," Vilar explores the societal pressures and expectations that often shape women's choices in relationships. She argues that many women are conditioned to seek validation and security through partnership, often leading them to settle for less than they deserve. Vilar's analysis suggests that the fear of independence and the desire to conform to societal norms can drive individuals, particularly women, into relationships that ultimately perpetuate their dependence and stifle their personal growth.While Vilar's work has been met with both praise and criticism, her insights offer a valuable lens through which to examine the dynamics of the bucket theory. The tendency to settle for a partner from the second bucket can be seen as a manifestation of the societal pressures Vilar describes. The fear of being alone, coupled with the desire to fulfill societal expectations, can lead individuals to compromise their own needs and desires in the pursuit of a relationship, even if it means settling for a less-than-ideal partner.The bucket theory, coupled with Vilar's insights, highlights the importance of self-awareness and self-prioritization in the dating process. Recognizing one's own needs, values, and non-negotiables is crucial in avoiding the trap of settling for a partner who ultimately cannot fulfill those needs. It also emphasizes the importance of resisting societal pressures and expectations, choosing instead to pursue a relationship that truly aligns with one's own aspirations and desires.In conclusion, the bucket theory offers a compelling framework for understanding the complexities of modern dating. By recognizing the potential pitfalls of settling for a less-than-ideal partner, individuals can empower themselves to make more conscious and fulfilling choices in their pursuit of a meaningful relationship. The insights of Ester Vilar further enrich this understanding, highlighting the societal pressures and expectations that can often influence these choices. Ultimately, the bucket theory serves as a reminder that prioritizing one's own needs and values is essential in navigating the dating landscape and finding a partner who truly complements and enhances one's life.Recent research suggests a potential link between tattoos and childhood trauma. A 2022 study published in BMC Psychology found that individuals with a history of childhood abuse and neglect were more likely to have tattoos and piercings.   Specifically, the study found:Prevalence: Tattoos and piercings were more common among those who reported childhood adversity.   Severity: The prevalence of tattoos and piercings increased with the severity of the reported abuse and neglect.   Types of abuse: The association was observed across various types of abuse, including emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as emotional and physical neglect.   While the study doesn't definitively prove causation, it highlights a potential correlation that warrants further investigation. Some researchers suggest that individuals who have experienced trauma may use tattoos and piercings as a form of self-expression, coping mechanism, or a way to reclaim control over their bodies.   It's important to note that having tattoos or piercings doesn't necessarily indicate a history of childhood trauma. Many people choose to get tattoos for various reasons, including aesthetic preferences, personal expression, and cultural significance.   I respond to a comment from @EmilyJane888  They have done studies in Germany about the correlation between tattoos and childhood trauma. There is a research article on the internet. If anyone was interested in giving it a read.I am someone who is heavily tattooed. I have been getting them since i was 14, i am now 36. One day I kind of asked myself "why did I start doing this?"I love tattoos and tribal cultures that have body modifications. However, I did find out what happened to me when I was a kid, I was neglected and there was sexual abuse amongst other childhood trauma. But I will say, I feel deeply that I will always enjoy my tattoos, they are symbols of strength and overcoming the painful things that happened in my life. I also think they may even aid in strengthening the vagus nerve. More studies on people with tattoos and childhood trauma would be very interesting. Also the act if being tattooed and what effect it has on the mind and body..Contact KOP for professional podcast production, imaging, and web design services at http://www.kingofpodcasts.comSupport KOP by subscribing to his YouTube channel and search for King Of PodcastsFollow KOP on Twitter or Facebook @kingofpodcastsListen to KOP's other programs, Podcasters Row… and the Wrestling is Real Wrestling Podcast and The Broadcasters Podcast.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/depraved-and-debaucherous--5267208/support.

More content ≠ more clients? Let's talk about it... Ever feel like you're on the content hamster wheel, churning out posts, but not seeing the client flood you were hoping for? Yep, I've been there too!

This week on the Superlative Podcast, host and aBlogtoWatch Founder Ariel Adams is joined by Ryan Torres and Reagan Cook, co-founders of Vaer Watches. To start the show, Ariel has Ryan and Reagan open up about their experiences as exhibitors at watch shows and the challenges and opportunities they have faced so far in the watch industry. They discuss the importance of attending watch shows for networking and building relationships with other brands and customers, and they also chat about the competitiveness and the high quality of microbrands at these shows. The conversation shifts to the topic of bringing watch manufacturing back to the United States and the emotional connection consumers have with American-made products. They also touch on the pricing and profitability of microbrands and the role of desirability in luxury branding. Ryan and Reagan expand on Vaer Watches' focus on treating watches as tools and aim to appeal to a wide range of customers, from enthusiasts to professionals in various fields. Ariel has them dive into why they aspire to create watches that can be passed down through generations, and how the company has found success in offering watches under $500. Ryan and Reagan also talk about how their design philosophy centers around creating watches with classical proportions and timeless aesthetics while prioritizing customer feedback in their product development. Listen in on the conversation as Ariel talks with Ryan and Reagan about their experience running a microbrand that delivers high-quality and desirable watches, and much more, on this week's episode of the Superlative Podcast.- Vaer Watches Website - https://www.vaerwatches.com/ - Vaer on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/vaeradventure/ SUPERLATIVE IS NOW ON YOUTUBE! To check out Superlative on Youtube as well as other ABTW content:- YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@ablogtowatch To check out the ABTW Shop where you can see our products inspired by our love of Horology:- Shop ABTW - https://store.ablogtowatch.com/To keep updated with everything Superlative and aBlogtoWatch, check us out on:- Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/ablogtowatch/- Twitter - https://twitter.com/ABLOGTOWATCH- Website - https://www.ablogtowatch.com/If you enjoy the show please Subscribe, Rate, and Review!

This week on the Superlative Podcast, host and aBlogtoWatch Founder Ariel Adams is joined by Ryan Torres and Reagan Cook, co-founders of Vaer Watches. To start the show, Ariel has Ryan and Reagan open up about their experiences as exhibitors at watch shows and the challenges and opportunities they have faced so far in the watch industry. They discuss the importance of attending watch shows for networking and building relationships with other brands and customers, and they also chat about the competitiveness and the high quality of microbrands at these shows. The conversation shifts to the topic of bringing watch manufacturing back to the United States and the emotional connection consumers have with American-made products. They also touch on the pricing and profitability of microbrands and the role of desirability in luxury branding. Ryan and Reagan expand on Vaer Watches' focus on treating watches as tools and aim to appeal to a wide range of customers, from enthusiasts to professionals in various fields. Ariel has them dive into why they aspire to create watches that can be passed down through generations, and how the company has found success in offering watches under $500. Ryan and Reagan also talk about how their design philosophy centers around creating watches with classical proportions and timeless aesthetics while prioritizing customer feedback in their product development. Listen in on the conversation as Ariel talks with Ryan and Reagan about their experience running a microbrand that delivers high-quality and desirable watches, and much more, on this week's episode of the Superlative Podcast.- Vaer Watches Website - https://www.vaerwatches.com/ - Vaer on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/vaeradventure/ SUPERLATIVE IS NOW ON YOUTUBE! To check out Superlative on Youtube as well as other ABTW content:- YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@ablogtowatch To check out the ABTW Shop where you can see our products inspired by our love of Horology:- Shop ABTW - https://store.ablogtowatch.com/To keep updated with everything Superlative and aBlogtoWatch, check us out on:- Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/ablogtowatch/- Twitter - https://twitter.com/ABLOGTOWATCH- Website - https://www.ablogtowatch.com/If you enjoy the show please Subscribe, Rate, and Review!

Rhayne Coleman & John Salvatore TWO MEN who will not let Black Women down. WE LOVE US FOR REAL. We are here for the Shits & Giggles on this episode where we discuss Aging Out and Desirability. Also Fancast & Blind 5 were a HOOT this episode. On Twitter follow us: @carefreeblerd & @thejohneffect

Rhayne Coleman & John Salvatore TWO MEN who will not let Black Women down. WE LOVE US FOR REAL. We are here for the Shits & Giggles on this episode where we discuss Aging Out and Desirability. Also Fancast & Blind 5 were a HOOT this episode. On Twitter follow us: @carefreeblerd & @thejohneffect

In this week's episode, Sam Gordon is joined back in the studio by fan favourite Jason Titus, APS Economist and Strategist Luke Teeuwsen along with Jimmy "The Silver Dog" Ibrahim for the inaugural episode in the mythbusting series. First up, the boys are discussing “The Property Bubble”, whether this has any merit in the Australian property market and the impacts APRA, infrastructure, migration and market growth have here. If you haven't listened yet, you can find Ella's incredible investor episode here. Strictly limited tickets are available to the Australian Property Scout Summit on Sunday, November 17th at The Star in Sydney. You will leave with actionable steps, expert inspiration and direction to level up your property investing game, along with the opportunity to be surrounded by the APS and SAP community to expand and develop your circle of influence. Tickets are officially available and are selling fast, click here to save your spot!

As a designer, Scott Doorley is interested in how humans create the world around them. It's a conversation, he says, that starts with the question: What kind of world do we want?Doorley is the creative director of the Stanford d.school and co-author of the book, Assembling Tomorrow: A Guide to Designing a Thriving Future. In designing everything from a device to an app to a building, “People get excited about what it can do,” he says, “but what should it do? What do we want? What's the desirable outcome that we want in the world?”In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Doorley and host Matt Abrahams discuss how applying design thinking to communication can help us connect more with each other, better understand the world, and create meaningful change.Episode Reference Links:Stanford d.school Profile: Scott Doorley Stanford d.school Scott's Book: Assembling TomorrowEp.61 Courage, Belonging, Ambiguity and Data: How to Design Your Communication for Success Website / YouTube Ep.70 Keep 'Em Coming: Why Your First Ideas Aren't Always the Best Website / YouTube Connect:Email Questions & Feedback >>> thinkfast@stanford.eduEpisode Transcripts >>> Think Fast Talk Smart WebsiteNewsletter Signup + English Language Learning >>> FasterSmarter.ioThink Fast Talk Smart >>> LinkedIn Page, Instagram, YouTubeMatt Abrahams >>> LinkedInStanford GSB >>> LinkedIn & TwitterChapters:(00:00:00) IntroductionHost Matt Abrahams introduces guest Scott Doorley, creative director of Stanford's d.school.(00:01:07) What is Design?The broad scope of design at Stanford's d.school and the role of intention in bringing ideas to life.(00:02:16) The Design ProcessThe design process, emphasizing desirability and externalizing ideas to understand them better.(00:03:32) Communication in DesignThe vital role of communication in all aspects of design.(00:05:09) Mistakes in Spatial DesignThe biggest mistake people make when arranging spaces for communication and interaction.(00:06:47) Runaway DesignThe concept of runaway design and its implications in the modern world.(00:09:29) Intangibles and ActionablesThe distinction between actionables and intangibles, and how these concepts can be applied beyond design.(00:12:47) Using Stories in DesignHow storytelling helps envision and communicate future impacts of design.(00:16:20) Emotion in InnovationThe role of emotions in driving innovation, communication, and design.(00:19:03) The Final Three QuestionsScott shares what he is currently designing, a communicator he admires, and his ingredients for successful communication.(00:23:17) ConclusionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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."

The Viral CEOJoseph Stinziano, President and CEO of First Orion, recounts the daunting moment in his career that transformed a crisis into a monumental success for both him and his organization.It involves Mark Cuban, legendary filmmaker Michael Bay, and a disastrous viral video. However, what emerged from this chaos was extraordinary.This demonstrates that even in the face of catastrophe, there can be a silver lining. It takes a visionary leader like Joe to step up, take charge, and seize the greater opportunity.Joe's had an incredible career including senior leadership roles with Samsung Electronics American, D&M Holdings, Sony Electronics, and AT&T.---Joe's organization, First Orion, provides "branded phone calls". Now this may not see that interesting at first glance, BUT consider 87% of people don't answer calls from unknown numbers. Branded calling can place your brand name on every outbound call. You get full control of your outbound call displays, no matter your business size.So their company's real focus is restoring trust between you and your customers by delivering customized call displays and eliminating unknown numbers. There getting significant business results by generating more revenue, boosting efficiency, and improving customer loyalty---Connect with Joe on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joestinziano/Learn more about First Orion: https://firstorion.com/ ---You'll also discover:Optimizing Team Performance with “Desirability vs. Capability”How to Boost the Effectiveness of a Phone Call.Why a Phone Can Become a "Billboard".The Mantra He Leads By.What His First Job Taught Him about Leadership.Powerful New Tech Coming Soon.-----Connect with the Host, #1 bestselling author Ben FanningSpeaking and Training inquiresSubscribe to my Youtube channelLinkedInInstagramTwitter

Fredrik paid a visit to Hogia and got the opportunity to talk to Woody Zuill and Martin Lassbo about mob programming, innovation, and keeping an open and curious mind. Mob programming is still new. Every time you say “that can't work”, you tend to be proven wrong eventually. Try it, for a year or two. You can't evaluate things after trying it for just an hour or two, some things take much longer. But do steer and adjust often. How frequently do you want to steer? Short iterations are valuable in that they give us more opportunities to steer work in a good direction. Standardization stifles innovation. Sometimes you do want it, but it depends on which space you're in. We had a process, but we still succeeded! Where did the thought I have originate? All your thoughts started somewhere else. The things we most believe can hide our biggest mistakes. Thank you Cloudnet for sponsoring our VPS! Comments, questions or tips? We a re @kodsnack, @tobiashieta, @oferlund and @bjoreman on Twitter, have a page on Facebook and can be emailed at info@kodsnack.se if you want to write longer. We read everything we receive. If you enjoy Kodsnack we would love a review in iTunes! You can also support the podcast by buying us a coffee (or two!) through Ko-fi. Links Hogia Woody Zuill Martin Lassbo Mob programming Episode 218 (in Swedish) covers working in a mob in depth Other episodes with Woody Support us on Ko-fi! Øredev Woody's Øredev talk 2018, Beginner's mind Pair programming Turn up the good Cynefin - the decision framework you can never spell after hearing the word spoken Systems thinking - looking at systems as a whole, rather than in parts Kahnemann Thinking, fast and slow The drunkard's walk by Leonard Mlodinow Rational irrationality Survivorship bias Confirmation bias * Desirability bias Max Planck Russell Ackoff Deming Chaos theory Feynman - you are the easiest person to fool Dave Farley Titles There's always a lot to talk about The continuation My best thinking time The beginner's mind We just work together Maintain curiosity Steer towards better Turn up the good Getting a thing we thought we wanted How frequently could we steer? We think we know what we want Not a systems thinker Talent plus luck A higher level than the work itself A little more talent and a lot more luck I'll misquote it but I'm close Re-think the things we already believe Stay open-minded Something else could eat us A student of the biases Walk down a different path

Megan and Michelle ponder flirting, taking up space, contagious infidelity, just-right smiles, banter, info dumping, and virtual bartenders.Sources:- Men and Women Are Programmed Differently When It Comes to Reacting to Temptation, According to Study- How to be a good flirt, according to science- The Science of Flirting- 3 Steps to More Successful FlirtingWant to support Prosecco Theory?Become a Patreon subscriber and earn swag!Check out our merch, available on teepublic.com!Follow/Subscribe wherever you listen!Rate, review, and tell your friends!Follow us on Instagram!****************Ever thought about starting your own podcast? From day one, Buzzsprout gave us all the tools we needed get Prosecco Theory off the ground. What are you waiting for? Follow this link to get started. Cheers!!

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."

Episode 276 features Carla Santamaria of First Gen Coaching and Consulting. This episode is for all the 9-5ers out there. We're talking about how to double your salary. Listen now!Carla Santamaria is a Honduran immigrant who more than doubled her salary in 10 months by job hopping from higher ed to healthcare to tech. She is now a career coach on a mission to help first gen women of color job hop to six figures while protecting their peace and actually enjoying their salary and lives outside of work.Since 2021, she's helped her clients collectively increase their salaries by more than half a million dollars. Carla is also the host of The First Gen Coach Podcast, where first generation professionals learn to advance their careers, unlearn limiting beliefs, and build wealth. You can follow Carla on Instagram.For full episode show notes, visit here.Chapters00:00 - Introduction and the Benefits of Job Hopping02:49 - Taboos and Beliefs in Traditional Households06:29 - The Myth of Education as the Key to Success09:18 - The Struggle of Being Underpaid in Low-Paying Jobs15:54 - Strategic Career Moves: Transitioning to a Higher-Paying Role21:23 - Knowing Your Worth: Advocating for Higher Pay23:46 - The Desirability of Remote Work25:40 - Authenticity in Job Interviews: Being Honest About Career Goals24:13 - Strategies for Successful Salary Negotiation32:48 - Optimizing Resumes for Job Applications39:31 - Overcoming Imposter Syndrome and Owning Your ExcellenceMy new book is officially available to buy! Order Financially Lit! Today!Want our merch? Get yours here!Check out this YQD™ Sponsor:BetterHelp—Professional support when you need it, at a fraction of the cost of in-person therapy. Get 10% off your first month with our sponsor: https://betterhelp.com/dinero Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/YoQuieroDinero. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this weeks' Scale Your Sales Podcast episode, my guest is Pete Crosby. Pete is the CEO & Co-founder of Revelesco. He is behind the strategies and frameworks of countless successful startups & scaleups. He is a 4x CRO with an IPO Under his belt and currently coaches more than 40 SaaS CEOs around the world. In today's episode of Scale Your Sales podcast, Pete Crosby talks about the heart of good revenue strategy. The discussion explored a four-part framework for understanding the concept we were previously examining. This framework prioritizes desirability at the outset. Desirability is measured using a two-dimensional matrix, with criticality on the vertical axis and rarity on the horizontal axis. Connected this concept to a previously discussed framework element, priority, by demonstrating how it aligns with the criticality dimension within the desirability matrix. Welcome to Scale Your Sales Podcast, Pete Crosby.   Timestamps: 00:00 – Desirability and rarity customer-centric approaches 04:55 – Team of 12 highly skilled individuals aiding organizations. 07:38 – 4 key elements of successful revenue strategy. 13:45 – Risk is deeper than pain, it's terrifying. 15:32 – Identifying criticality and rarity for product desirability. 18:58 – Prioritizing data influences consumer decisions and understanding. 21:10 – Creating and selling unique product innovations, transformative. 24:27 – Understanding customer urgency and value through pain. 28:45 – Reprieve co-founder freed 69, fought injustice. 31:21 – Listen, watch, subscribe, leave a positive review.   https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterdcrosby/   Janice B Gordon is the award-winning Customer Growth Expert and Scale Your Sales Framework founder. She is by LinkedIn Sales 15 Innovating Sales Influencers to Follow 2021, the Top 50 Global Thought Leaders and Influencers on Customer Experience Nov 2020 and 150 Women B2B Thought Leaders You Should Follow in 2021. Janice helps companies worldwide to reimagine revenue growth thought customer experience and sales. Book Janice to speak virtually at your next event: https://janicebgordon.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/janice-b-gordon/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JaniceBGordon Scale Your Sales Podcast: https://scaleyoursales.co.uk/podcast More on the blog: https://scaleyoursales.co.uk/blog Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/janicebgordon Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ScaleYourSales   And more! Visit our podcast website to watch or listen.    

Have you ever felt like your art could soar if only you could break through that creative barrier? I'm Matt Tommey, and in the latest episode of The Thriving Christian Artist, we explore the transformative power of expert critiques within our mentoring program and how they can lift your art from good to extraordinary. We're peeling back the layers on what makes art truly resonate, focusing on the trifecta of mastery, uniqueness, and desirability. It's not just about creating; it's about making art that connects and endures, art that speaks volumes in God's kingdom.As we venture through the nuances of what makes art masterful, we discuss the importance of honing your skills to express yourself freely in your chosen medium. It's not about dabbling in endless techniques but rather achieving such a proficiency that your tools become an extension of your vision. Discover how cultivating a unique artistic voice sets you apart in the marketplace, and why creating art that forges a deep relationship with your audience is key. This episode is a treasure trove of insights, whether you're just picking up a paintbrush or you're a seasoned artist looking to elevate your craft. Join me, and let's journey together towards art that doesn't just exist but thrives.Join us at http://www.matttommeymentoring.com/artmentor 

Today I invite 3 women from the UN-ASSOCIATED team on to talk about what it means to be women who are "set apart" in today's society. Danielle Clayton (Editor-in-Chief), Dena Williams (Live Events Director) and Maddy Owusu (Social Engagement Director) open up about their adolescent years as Believers, their ideas on purpose, marriage, and desirability politics.   You are invited to RSVP for Girl Chat, a panel and discussion event for women of our community happening tonight at 5:30pm: https://forms.gle/ZwvpchNhvcTG6yVn7  

Support the show!! - https://www.patreon.com/chasedavisThank God for Bitcoin - https://tgfb.com/SummaryIn this episode, Chase Davis interviews Jordan Bush about the topic of Bitcoin. They discuss the background of money production, the role of central banks and fiat currency, and the introduction of Bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency. They also explore the concept of Bitcoin mining and how it relates to the creation of new Bitcoin. This conversation explores various aspects of Bitcoin, including its open-source nature, governing rules, and differentiation from other cryptocurrencies. It also discusses the durability of Bitcoin in crisis situations and its potential as a tool for mitigating threat models. The conversation delves into the cost of mining Bitcoin, finding cheap energy sources, and the role of Bitcoin in fixing the energy industry. It emphasizes Bitcoin as a long-term savings strategy and provides insights into where to buy Bitcoin. The conversation concludes with a discussion on Bitcoin and taxes.TakeawaysThe ethics of money production have a significant impact on individuals and societies.Central banks and fiat currency allow governments to manipulate the dynamics of sowing and reaping in the economy.Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that operates outside the control of central banks.Bitcoin mining involves the use of dedicated computers to solve complex mathematical problems and earn new Bitcoin. Bitcoin is an open-source project that operates on a set of governing rules and parameters.Bitcoin differentiates itself from other cryptocurrencies by its decentralized nature and resistance to large-scale changes.Bitcoin can serve as a durable resource in crisis situations, but its usability depends on the availability of the internet and power supply.Bitcoin can be a tool for mitigating threat models, such as debanking and censorship.Mining Bitcoin requires finding cheap energy sources, and the cost of entry varies depending on the type of mining equipment.Bitcoin can be purchased as a long-term savings strategy, and it is advisable to buy small amounts regularly rather than attempting to swing trade.Bitcoin can be bought from platforms that specialize in Bitcoin transactions.Bitcoin is taxed when it is sold, and accepting Bitcoin as payment can be a way to accumulate it without triggering immediate tax liabilities.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Background09:37 The Ethics of Money Production32:12 Central Banks and Fiat Currency35:58 Introduction to Bitcoin40:39 Bitcoin Mining42:44 Introduction to Bitcoin and its Open Source Nature44:09 Bitcoin's Governing Rules and Parameters46:19 Differentiating Bitcoin from Other Cryptocurrencies47:40 Currencies vs. Stocks and the Desirability of Bitcoin50:09 The Durability of Bitcoin in Crisis Situations51:08 Bitcoin as a Tool for Mitigating Threat Models52:39 Bitcoin and the Control of Central Banks56:06 Bitcoin as a Solution for Debanking57:19 Mining Bitcoin and the Cost of Entry59:03 Different Types of Bitcoin Miners01:00:01 Bitcoin's Role in Fixing the Energy Industry01:03:15 The Cost of Mining Bitcoin and Finding Cheap Energy Sources01:06:18 Bitcoin as a Long-Term Savings Strategy01:07:00 Where to Buy BitcoinSupport the showSign up for the Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/chasedavisFollow Full Proof Theology on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/fullprooftheology/Follow Full Proof Theology on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fullprooftheology/

In this compelling episode of the Packernet Podcast, we delve deep into the swirling vortex of NFL draft prospects, quarterback trade rumors, and team strategies that are shaping the offseason. Ryan Schlipp kicks things off with a detailed discussion on the Chicago Bears' considerations for trading Justin Fields, amidst speculation of a potential deal with the Falcons. The debate heats up as we assess the flooded quarterback market's impact on Fields' value, suggesting a strategic move by the Bears could involve drafting Caleb Williams instead. As the conversation shifts, a Packers fan shares their apprehensions about Kirk Cousins potentially signing with the Falcons, while also pondering the Cardinals' draft strategy and its implications for Green Bay. The narrative takes a turn to discuss the New York Jets' game plan leaks, the Vikings' roster moves, and the Packers' significant decisions, including Aaron Jones' contract saga and the future of their running back lineup. Further, the episode provides an in-depth analysis of NFL combine results, highlighting standout athletes like Chris Jenkins and discussing the critical role of agility drills for draft prospects. Discrepancies in player evaluations and the overvaluation of certain physical attributes are debated, emphasizing the need for teams to prioritize on-field performance over combine metrics. Whether you're a die-hard Packers fan or just a fervent follower of the NFL draft, this episode offers insightful commentary on the strategies, performances, and rumors that are dominating the offseason narrative. Timestamps: 0:08 - Chicago Bears' Draft Strategy for Justin Fields 3:03 - Quarterback Market Dynamics and Fields' Trade Value 8:22 - NFL Draft Picks and Quarterback Prospects 11:51 - NFL News, Team Moves, and Draft Prospects Overview 16:05 - Aaron Jones' Contract Negotiations and Packers' Running Back Situation 20:37 - Packers' Running Back Strategy and Draft Prospects 25:47 - Standout Performances at the NFL Combine 28:47 - Importance of Agility Drills in NFL Draft Evaluations 34:29 - Highlighting NFL Draft Prospects' Measurables 36:45 - Analysis of NFL Draft Prospects and Player Evaluation Discrepancies 41:50 - Packers' Linebacker Prospects and Combine Performances 44:03 - Rethinking Combine Performance in Draft Evaluations 49:56 - NFL Draft Prospects with Impressive Combine Results 53:46 - Athletic Abilities and Desirability of NFL Draft Prospects Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this compelling episode of the Packernet Podcast, we delve deep into the swirling vortex of NFL draft prospects, quarterback trade rumors, and team strategies that are shaping the offseason. Ryan Schlipp kicks things off with a detailed discussion on the Chicago Bears' considerations for trading Justin Fields, amidst speculation of a potential deal with the Falcons. The debate heats up as we assess the flooded quarterback market's impact on Fields' value, suggesting a strategic move by the Bears could involve drafting Caleb Williams instead. As the conversation shifts, a Packers fan shares their apprehensions about Kirk Cousins potentially signing with the Falcons, while also pondering the Cardinals' draft strategy and its implications for Green Bay. The narrative takes a turn to discuss the New York Jets' game plan leaks, the Vikings' roster moves, and the Packers' significant decisions, including Aaron Jones' contract saga and the future of their running back lineup. Further, the episode provides an in-depth analysis of NFL combine results, highlighting standout athletes like Chris Jenkins and discussing the critical role of agility drills for draft prospects. Discrepancies in player evaluations and the overvaluation of certain physical attributes are debated, emphasizing the need for teams to prioritize on-field performance over combine metrics. Whether you're a die-hard Packers fan or just a fervent follower of the NFL draft, this episode offers insightful commentary on the strategies, performances, and rumors that are dominating the offseason narrative. Timestamps: 0:08 - Chicago Bears' Draft Strategy for Justin Fields 3:03 - Quarterback Market Dynamics and Fields' Trade Value 8:22 - NFL Draft Picks and Quarterback Prospects 11:51 - NFL News, Team Moves, and Draft Prospects Overview 16:05 - Aaron Jones' Contract Negotiations and Packers' Running Back Situation 20:37 - Packers' Running Back Strategy and Draft Prospects 25:47 - Standout Performances at the NFL Combine 28:47 - Importance of Agility Drills in NFL Draft Evaluations 34:29 - Highlighting NFL Draft Prospects' Measurables 36:45 - Analysis of NFL Draft Prospects and Player Evaluation Discrepancies 41:50 - Packers' Linebacker Prospects and Combine Performances 44:03 - Rethinking Combine Performance in Draft Evaluations 49:56 - NFL Draft Prospects with Impressive Combine Results 53:46 - Athletic Abilities and Desirability of NFL Draft Prospects Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Get ready for Valentine's Day with Celeste Moore, a personal image and dating consultant in the latest pre-Valentine's Day episode of LaidOpen Podcast. In this episode, Celeste offers invaluable guidance for those navigating new beginnings, particularly men who are navigating the complexities of dating post-long-term relationships or marriages. She also explores the importance of communication and authenticity in relationships, strategies for building confidence, and the art of crafting effective digital dating profiles.  Discover how Celeste's experience as a sole parent informs her approach and the invaluable insights she offers for single parents dipping their toes back into the dating pool. From debunking common profile pitfalls to unveiling the top lies men tell online, this episode is packed with wisdom and inspiration for anyone seeking love in the modern world. Charna wraps up the episode with a powerful visualization exercise, enhancing focus and attention skills for a more mindful dating experience by pulling one's energies back from the past or future and directing them towards the present moment. Show Notes 00:00 Introduction and Personal Updates 00:54 Introducing the Guest: Celeste Moore 02:07 Celeste's Journey to Becoming a Dating Coach 04:05 The Challenges of Working with Men and Women 05:13 The Evolution of Celeste's Career 07:08 The Ideal Client for Celeste 08:59 The Challenges of Dating and Image Consulting 09:38 The Importance of Image in Dating 10:30 The Different Types of Clients Celeste Works With 13:44 The Importance of Adventure in Dating 18:35 The Role of Mock Dates in Celeste's Coaching 24:25 The Challenges of Being a Sole Parent 32:51 Parenting and Dating: A Delicate Balance 34:59 The Importance of Timing in Relationships 35:57 Transferable Skills: From Parenting to Dating 37:23 The Power of Collaboration in Personal Growth 38:21 Breaking Communication Barriers 42:21 Building Confidence and Desirability in Dating 53:45 The Art of Online Dating: Profile Dos and Don'ts 59:09 The Journey to Self-Love and Acceptance  

Healthy//Toxic Healthy versus Toxic is a podcast where licensed mental health professionals explore what makes a relationship healthy or unhealthy. Our hosts aim to provide a scientifically informed perspective on what factors go into making healthy relationships, how to build secure attachment, and how to be a better parent, child, partner, or friend.  References: Jänkälä, A., Lehmuskallio, A., & Takala, T. (2019). Photo Use While Dating: From Forecasted Photos in Tinder to Creating Copresence Using Other Media. Human Technology, 15(2), 202–225. Fullwood, C., & Attrill-Smith, A. (2018). Up-Dating: Ratings of Perceived Dating Success Are Better Online than Offline. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 21(1), 11–15. Peters, S., & Salzsieder, H. (2018). What Makes You Swipe Right?:  Gender Similarity in Interpersonal Attraction in a Simulated Online Dating Context. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 23(4), 320–329. Whyte, S., & Torgler, B. (2017). Preference Versus Choice in Online Dating. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 20(3), 150–156 SHARABI, L. L., & CAUGHLIN, J. P. (2017). What predicts first date success? A longitudinal study of modality switching in online dating. Personal Relationships, 24(2), 370–391. Whitty, M. T. (2018). Do You Love Me? Psychological Characteristics of Romance Scam Victims. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 21(2), 105–109. SLATER, D. (2013). A Million First Dates How Online Dating Is Threatening Monogamy. Atlantic, 311(1), 40. Want more mental health content? Check out our other Podcasts: Mental Health // Demystified with Dr. Tracey Marks  True Crime Psychology and Personality Cluster B: A Look At Narcissism, Antisocial, Borderline, and Histrionic Disorders Here, Now, Together with Rou Reynolds   Links for Dr. Grande Dr. Grande on YouTube Produced by Ars Longa Media Learn more at arslonga.media. Produced by: Erin McCue Executive Producer: Patrick C. Beeman, MD Legal Stuff The information presented in this podcast is intended for educational and entertainment purposes only and is not professional advice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 343: In this conversation, Angie Lee discusses her journey as an entrepreneur and emphasizes the importance of joy and openness in relationships. We also discuss the reality of loving older men and the need for personal happiness in order to create fulfilling relationships. Overall, our conversation encourages everyone listening to prioritize their own joy and approach relationships with honesty and vulnerability.Chapters0:00:03 Angie Lee's journey from rebellion to entrepreneurship0:05:07 Angie's unique and humorous brand persona0:12:30 The resilience of the body and the toll of extreme dieting.0:16:04 Finding a healthy, energetic shape and body shape.0:20:26 The Desirability of Embracing Pleasure in Relationships0:35:32 The Illusion of Love on Social Media0:36:14 The Reality of Relationships for Single Women0:40:11 Age Difference and Choosing Love over Logic0:45:59 Surrendering to the reality of having an older partner0:58:17 Parenting, Inner Work, and Breaking Molds1:01:39 Embracing Joy and Focusing on Personal Happiness1:15:00 Embracing the Queen Energy1:20:04 The Power of Holding the Posture of the QueenConnect with Madelyn Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/madelynmoon/Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-madelyn-moon-show-previously-mind-body-musings/id866031519Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1QRkDbXYd5SXZm3b95iT56?si=fe8d4c2968404eebFree quiz: http://maddymoon.com/quizConnect with Angie Lee:Instagram https://www.instagram.com/angieleeshowWebsite: https://www.angielee.com

Taraji Henson Talks About Pay: MoNique Said This Years Ago, Does Colorism & Desirability Play A Role? Subscribe to Paging Dr. Chanda: https://youtu.be/rVm78GCehj Dr. Chanda's Amazon Store: https://www.amazon.com/shop/paging.dr... Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=644057... #TheColorPurple #podcast #mentalhealth #Revolt #foxsoul Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Report on the Desirability of Science Given New Biotech Risks, published by Matt Clancy on January 17, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Should we seek to make our scientific institutions more effective? On the one hand, rising material prosperity has so far been largely attributable to scientific and technological progress. On the other hand, new scientific capabilities also expand our powers to cause harm. Last year I wrote a report on this issue, " The Returns to Science in the Presence of Technological Risks." The report focuses specifically on the net social impact of science when we take into account the potential abuses of new biotechnology capabilities, in addition to benefits to health and income. The main idea of the report is to develop an economic modeling framework that lets us tally up the benefits of science and weigh them against future costs. To model costs, I start with the assumption that, at some future point, a "time of perils" commences, wherein new scientific capabilities can be abused and lead to an increase in human mortality (possibly even human extinction). In this modeling framework, we can ask if we would like to have an extra year of science, with all the benefits it brings, or an extra year's delay to the onset of this time of perils. Delay is good in this model, because there is some chance we won't end up having to go through the time of perils at all. I rely on historical trends to estimate the plausible benefits to science. To calibrate the risks, I use various forecasts made in the Existential Risk Persuasion tournament, which asked a large number of superforecasters and domain experts several questions closely related to the concerns of this report. So you can think of the model as helping assess whether the historical benefits of science outweigh one set of reasonable (in my view) forecasts of risks. What's the upshot? From the report's executive summary: A variety of forecasts about the potential harms from advanced biotechnology suggest the crux of the issue revolves around civilization-ending catastrophes. Forecasts of other kinds of problems arising from advanced biotechnology are too small to outweigh the historic benefits of science. For example, if the expected increase in annual mortality due to new scientific perils is less than 0.2-0.5% per year (and there is no risk of civilization-ending catastrophes from science), then in this report's model, the benefits of science will outweigh the costs. I argue the best available forecasts of this parameter, from a large number of superforecasters and domain experts in dialogue with each other during the recent existential risk persuasion tournament, are much smaller than these break-even levels. I show this result is robust to various assumptions about the future course of population growth and the health effects of science, the timing of the new scientific dangers, and the potential for better science to reduce risks (despite accelerating them). On the other hand, once we consider the more remote but much more serious possibility that faster science could derail advanced civilization, the case for science becomes considerably murkier. In this case, the desirability of accelerating science likely depends on the expected value of the long-run future, as well as whether we think the forecasts of superforecasters or domain experts in the existential risk persuasion tournament are preferred. These forecasts differ substantially: I estimate domain expert forecasts for annual mortality risk are 20x superforecaster estimates, and domain expert forecasts for annual extinction risk are 140x superforecaster estimates. The domain expert forecasts are high enough, for example, that if we think the future is "worth" more than 400 years of current social welfare, in one version of my mode...

Should we seek to make our scientific institutions more effective? On the one hand, rising material prosperity has so far been largely attributable to scientific and technological progress. On the other hand, new scientific capabilities also expand our powers to cause harm. Last year I wrote a report on this issue, “The Returns to Science in the Presence of Technological Risks.” The report focuses specifically on the net social impact of science when we take into account the potential abuses of new biotechnology capabilities, in addition to benefits to health and income. The main idea of the report is to develop an economic modeling framework that lets us tally up the benefits of science and weigh them against future costs. To model costs, I start with the assumption that, at some future point, a “time of perils” commences, wherein new scientific capabilities can be abused and lead to an [...] --- First published: January 17th, 2024 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/PArvxhBaZJrGAuhZp/report-on-the-desirability-of-science-given-new-biotech --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Erica Sosa (she/her) helps fat folks work through the moments in our lives when fatness, desirability, and visibility intersect. Specifically, she works as a bridal consultant and as an erotic movement coach, and in many ways, what her clients feel in both settings is the same– like there's something wrong with their bodies that must be forced to change. Erica shares how she invites people to shift from how they look to how they feel. And she gives us 3 tips we can use to connect to our bodies as they are.Erica Sosa is a body justice educator, stylist for fat femmes, and erotic movement coach for fat femmes. She writes a monthly substack that dives into her personal experiences with the intersections between fatness, desirability, and visibility on social media and in real life. Please connect with Erica on Instagram and Substack.This episode's poem is by Langston Hughes and is called “Freedom.”Sophia Apostol, the host of Fat Joy, has started the Fat Joy newsletter where you'll get behind-the-scenes info on guests, hot takes, and top recommendations for all things fat joy. As a thank you for subscribing to the Fat Joy newsletter, you'll get immediate access, for free, to 55 videos that only paid supporters have been able to see until now. These minisodes were recorded after Sophia & her guest finished the main interview and Sophia asked them 10 unexpected questions for “Some Extra Fat Joy.” Should you want to support the Fat Joy podcast financially, you can become a paid subscriber of the Fat Joy newsletter and receive subscriber-only content from Sophia. You can connect with Fat Joy on the website, Instagram, and YouTube (full video episodes here!). Want to share some fattie love? Please rate this podcast and give it a joyful review. Our thanks to Chris Jones and AR Media for keeping this podcast looking and sounding joyful.

Andrew Strauss, Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Dayton School of Law, and a graduate of Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs discusses why setting up a global parliament, perhaps initially by a core group of 20-30 countries, would significantly strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the system that underpins our mechanisms of international cooperation. It could be a powerful antidote to the world-wide spread of ethno-nationalist-authoritarianism and be a catalyst for strengthening a “holistic planetary consciousness, sensitive to the practical urgency of human unity.”Learn more on GlobalGovernanceForum.org

Meet Maton Sonnemans, Partner at EY VODW and CMO at EY Netherlands. Maton has been with VODW, one of Europe's major strategic marketing agencies since 1994 - which became part of EY in July 2018. With over two decades of experience, Maton specializes in aiding large corporations in becoming more customer-focused, agile, and innovative, guiding them from strategy planning to realization. His expertise spans product innovation, new distribution channels, and brand development. On The Menu: 1. Elements for Successful Transformation: Shared vision, urgency, and leadership support 2. Recognizing the organization's season of change to determine the urgency 3. Launching Successful Products: Focus on creating added value for customers and ensuring desirability 4. Data and Analytics in Decision-Making: Data is a starting point; creativity is crucial for marketing success 5. Prioritizing customer value creation to drive shareholder value 6. Changing Consumer Behavior and Marketing Trends: Cultural shifts, sustainability, and inclusiveness Maton highlighted key insights for successful transformation, emphasizing shared vision, urgency, and leadership support as critical elements. Recognizing the organization's season of change helps gauge urgency accurately. When launching new products, the focus should be on creating customer value and desirability. Maton stressed that while data is essential, creativity remains vital for marketing success. Prioritizing customer value creation ultimately drives shareholder value, and Maton discussed the changing consumer behavior and marketing trends, including cultural shifts, sustainability, and inclusiveness. Tune in to discover more about Maton's wealth of knowledge in strategic marketing and transformation.

Sharing insights from Brenda, Louise, and other riders, we explore the intertwining threads of affordable housing and transit access in Greenville. Our first guest, Brenda, elaborates on her personal struggles with bus schedules and stop placements. Next, we listen to the tale of a rider who had to relocate due to the lack of bus service, demonstrating the urgent need for Transit-Oriented Developments. Finally, we hear Louise's struggle with a fragmented transit network, adding weight to our call for more frequent and wider-reaching service. This episode is a profound reminder that an effective transit system is not just a convenience—it's a lifeline that can dramatically improve quality of life. In sharing these real-life experiences, we aim to foster community support for more buses, more routes, and more frequency. Let's build a better Greenville together. Visit GreenvilleConnects.org to join our newsletter. In our newsletter, you'll learn more about Greenville transit and discover how you can contribute to our cause. Resources: Reducing Poverty + Long Term Positive Effects of Various Supports https://www.cbpp.org/research/various-supports-for-low-income-families-reduce-poverty-and-have-long-term-positive  Transit-Adjacent Homes See Increase in Desirability https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/property-values-thrive-near-transit-study-finds/564982/  HUD: Transit Oriented Developments https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-trending-051722.html  Greenville Connects Economic Impact https://greenvilleconnects.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/002-SC-2023-GreenvilleConnects-EconImpRprtV3-press.pdf  Greenlink Expansion Plan 2021 Update https://www.greenvillesc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18857/2021-Transit-Development-Plan-Update-PDF  Traveler's Rest Bus Route Map https://www.greenvillesc.gov/1200/Schedules-and-Routes _ Produced by Podcast Studio X. Bussin' is a project of Greenville Connects.

Melissa Marsh is Founder & Executive Director of PLASTARC where she is a passionate practitioner of Workplace Strategy and a leader in Change Management services. Mike Petrusky asks Melissa about her latest thoughts on the challenges facing leaders as they navigate the new frontier of work and the workplace where creativity may be suffering due to decreased human interaction and engagement. They explore opportunities for innovation by seeking alternative workplace solutions, while pursuing the integration of physical and virtual work practices. Mike and Melissa agree that hybrid work policies and strategies may be hardest to execute successfully, so they offer advice and inspiration to help you be a Workplace Innovator in your organization! Connect with Melissa on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissaemarsh/ Explore the PLASTARC website: https://plastarc.com/ Discover free resources and explore past interviews at: https://www.workplaceinnovator.com/ Learn more about Eptura™: https://eptura.com/ Connect with Mike on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikepetrusky/  

Fat sex! How does society view fat bodies and how do we view our own fat bodies when it comes to sex and desirability? What impact does that have on the way we relate to others sexually? I talk about how sex was one of the final ways anti-fat bias had a hold on me as desirability is key to seld esteem. TW: mention of fatphobic beliefs about fat bodies. This episode was first aired in December 2020.  Episode show notes: http://www.fiercefatty.com/171 Support me on Ko-Fi and get the Size Diversity Resource Guide: https://ko-fi.com/fiercefatty/tiers Fatphobia is not a sexual preference from The Fat Sex Therapist: https://wearyourvoicemag.com/fatphobia-is-not-a-sexual-preference/ Treating My Friends Like Lovers: The Politics of Desirability from Cale Luna: https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/how-to-be-fat-caleb-luna-sub/ 3 Reasons Dating, Attraction, and Desire Are Always Political by Hari Ziyad: https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/04/attraction-desire-political/ Fatphobia Exists – and It's Especially Bad in the Bedroom by Marie Southard Ospina: https://www.vice.com/en/article/8894bx/plus-size-girls-sex-stories-fatphobia

Welcome to another episode of Reimagining with Ayandastood. I am so thrilled to introduce our guest for today: an incredible human being, creator, singer, songwriter and activist– Black, Trans, Queer, Nigerian, UK-based creator Asherah, aka @therealasherah.Asherah is passionate about liberation for all the oppressed and uses her content to educate her audience on feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, desirability politics, Black liberation, and so much more! She regularly amplifies marginalized voices on her TikTok and interacts with other creators in her distinct greenscreen video stitching style, creating the feeling of direct engagement with tons of perspectives and voices. She amplifies mutual aid efforts supporting the needs of Black trans and queer individuals on her TikTok above and LinkTree below. If you have the means please PayPal Asherah @angelsaxis and donate to her mutual aid efforts here: @asherahlovelydaeDon't miss out on this insightful episode as we talk about her experience with dating, desirability, beauty and much more! If this is your first time tuning in, subscribe to avoid misssing out on upcoming episodes!Highlights:(06:18) What do you need to say?(070:6) Perception of self vs. Others' perception of you(07:58) Who is Asherah?(15:38) Love, dating, trust, and fetishization (24:03) The dark side of Desirability(28:01) Asherah's creative use of her Desirability in content creation(37:00) What role does Beauty play in the world?(1:01:35) Solidarity among Black women Asherah's Links:TikTok: @therealasherahLinkTree: @asherahlovelydae | Find mutual aid efforts to support! PayPal: @angelsaxisAyanda's Links:Substack: www.ayandastood.substack.com - Subscribe if you can!Instagram: @reimaginingwithayandastood Tiktok: Watch Ayandastood's Newest TikTok VideosInstagram: @ayandastood • Instagram photos and videosAudre Lorde Essay: The Transformation of Language into Silence and Action --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ayandastood/support

In this episode, we will be discussing how beauty standards impact a woman's self-worth. Beauty standards have been ingrained in society for centuries and can have an impact on how women view themselves, and how we treat others. We are diving into why we place so much weight on being "desirable" and how there is more than enough to go around. Coach Sami's Website: Knowing Up Coach Sami's Podcast: The Teen Life Podcast Coach Sami's IG: @theteenlifecoachYou can watch the full episodes on our Youtube page!Youtube - ConfessionsofawannabeitgirlConfessions of A Wannabe It Girl's TikTok:@wannabeitgirlpodcast Confessions of A Wannabe It Girl's IG:@confessionsofawannabeitgirl

Greg talks about the only two schools he would recommend these days, then he answers a question about the relationship between apologetics and our experience of God.   Topics: Commentary: The only schools Greg recommends (00:00) What is the relationship between apologetics and Christian experience? (10:00) Related Links: Apologetics Aren't Enough to Connect You with a Person by Amy Hall Do You Convey a Sense of the Reality, Centrality, and Desirability of Jesus with Your Apologetics? by Amy Hall

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient philosopher Aristotle's work of moral theory, the Nicomachean Ethics. Specifically it focuses on his discussion about why bodily pleasures are particularly desirable for the majority of human beings. He makes an argument that will later be reappropriated by John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism, namely that bodily pleasures are those which most people are familiar with. He also distinguishes between more noble and more base pleasures, and discusses some "necessary" pleasures. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics - amzn.to/30S00ZT

In this episode Dr. Yazdan is sharing a new sales concept you likely haven't considered before. Because she got so much feedback from her last episode regarding sales and overselling, Dr. Yazdan is coming back to the concept of sales. She's here to help you make sales a more natural part of your practice. Dr. Yazdan is going deep into sales theory in this episode, and she's breaking it down so it's easy for you to apply to your practice. She's bringing together value and desirability with emotions, and it works. Listen for what Dr. Yazdan means by “stumble upon marketing” and how you can leverage that concept to work for you. In the second half of this episode Dr. Yazdan explores the importance of desire and how it plays into our patients saying yes to treatment. She's taking things step-by-step to help you master this concept and apply it in your own practice. Listen to this episode to add a new tool to your collection and let Dr. Yazdan continue helping you reach your career goals. Sign up for Dr. Yazdan's NEW Free Masterclass, Instagram Patients - www.dryazdan.com/newpatients Join Dr. Yazdan's Coaching Waitlist - https://dryazdan.lpages.co/coaching-waitlist Schedule a Free Consult with Dr. Yazdan - https://dryazdan.com/schedule Sign up for Dr. Yazdan's Newsletter - https://dryazdan.com/email Follow Dr. Yazdan on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/dryazdan/ Follow Dr. Yazdan on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/DrDYazdan/

.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Robby, Tim, Jon, and Amy discuss the mistakes we can make as apologists and give advice for how we can stay balanced in our study, treat people with dignity, exhibit the kind of character that reflects Christ when interacting with others, improve our skills, and more.   Topics: Commentary: Advice for apologists (00:00) Related Links: For the Student Who Wants to Be a Christian Apologist by Amy Hall How Should We Interact with the Uncivil? by Amy Hall Eight Lessons on Being an A-Paul-ogist by Tim Barnett Proverbs for Apologists by Amy Hall You Want to Be a Good Apologist? by Amy Hall Apologetics Aren't Enough to Connect You with a Person by Amy Hall Do You Convey a Sense of the Reality, Centrality, and Desirability of Jesus with Your Apologetics? by Amy Hall A Daily Prayer for This Cultural Moment by Amy Hall

In this week's episode, Shanti asks the community to rally around a dear friend in need while Antoinette tires from hearing herself talk after speaking 3 podcasts in 1 week! Together we kiki about Atlanta, GOT and A Different World. For politics we offer support resources for Puerto Rico, discuss the crisis in Iran and beg the question: Is there a such thing as an equitable billionaire? For pop culture we dive into the scandal of Nia Long and the betrayal from her fiance Ime Udoka. Why doesn't being beautiful protect us from betrayal? Join us.Ways to support Shanti's friend in need:Venmo = BkindGZ Cashapp = bkindfamilyservicesPaypal = bkindfamilyservices@gmailResources to support Puerto Rico:@mujersdeislapreldepartamentodelafoodDo you have a question or comment you'd like to share with us? Call in! Leave a message!Hotline: (215) 948-2780 Email: aroundthewaycurls@gmail.com Patreon: www.patreon.com/aroundthewaycurls for exclusive videos & bonus episodes Shop ATWC Merch: https://www.aroundthewaycurls.com/collectionsSong Credit: Jay Z 4:44