Podcasts about Iron Triangle

The Nobel Prize-winning economist says the Iron Triangle of Politics must be defeated to cut down the government for good.

"Be the iron fist that keeps your water flowing clean and clear." - Trace Blackmore Welcome back to another insightful Pinks & Blues episode of Scaling UP! H2O! In this episode, host Trace Blackmore dives into the fascinating world of iron in water treatment systems. While iron is essential for life, it can be a major problem in industrial water systems, leading to corrosion, equipment damage, and inefficiencies. This episode unpacks the science behind iron, testing methods, and practical strategies for managing its impact.  Understanding the Iron Triangle  To effectively manage iron in water systems, it's important to understand its different forms. Trace explains the Iron Triangle, breaking down the differences between elemental iron (Fe), ferrous iron (Fe2+), and ferric iron (Fe3+). He discusses how iron moves through water systems and why recognizing these distinctions is critical for water treatment professionals.  How to Test for Iron Accurately  Proper testing is key to managing iron levels. Trace details the phenanthroline method, a common technique used to measure iron concentrations in water. He provides best practices for accurate testing, discusses common interferences like molybdates and nitrites, and explains how to adjust testing methods to ensure reliable results. Corrosion and Iron's Impact on System Longevity  Iron is a major contributor to corrosion in water systems, and Trace explains why steel corrodes so easily. He covers the role of corrosion inhibitors and the importance of filtration systems in preventing excessive iron buildup. By managing iron effectively, professionals can protect equipment, reduce maintenance costs, and improve system efficiency.  Math in Action: Calculating Total Iron in a System  For those who love applying real-world math, Trace walks through the process of calculating total iron in pounds within a system. He explains how this calculation can help justify maintenance decisions and provide a compelling reason for clients to invest in proper water treatment solutions. Takeaways: Why Iron Management Matters  This episode is packed with valuable insights for water professionals looking to improve their approach to iron management. From understanding the science behind iron to implementing better testing and corrosion prevention strategies, this discussion is designed to help you stay ahead in your field.  Have a water treatment question? Want to hear a topic covered in a future Pinks & Blues episode? Submit your ideas at ScalingUpH2O.com/showideas  —your input helps shape future episodes! And remember, iron might be essential for our bodies, but in water systems, it's a force to be reckoned with. Mastering iron control is key to maintaining system efficiency and preventing costly damage. Be the iron fist that keeps your water flowing clean and clear!    Stay engaged, keep learning, and continue scaling up your knowledge!  Timestamps    03:20 – Upcoming Events for Water Treatment Professionals 06:44– Water You Know with James McDonald  09:35 – Trace talks about Iron Historical Figure  15:28 – Iron that's in Water Systems 17:39 – Understanding Corrosion & How It Impacts Your System  18:24 – The Iron Triangle  19:58 – The Phenanthroline Method   Quotes  “Steel is the most recycled material on this planet.”   “If you're treating your tests like a task, you're missing the magic of this industry.” “Iron might be essential for our bodies, but it can be a real troublemaker when it's dissolved in the water in our systems, so don't let iron catch you off guard.”  Connect with Scaling UP! H2O  Submit a show idea: Submit a Show Idea  LinkedIn: in/traceblackmore/  YouTube: @ScalingUpH2O    Click HERE to Download Episode's Discussion Guide     Scaling UP! H2O Resources Mentioned  AWT (Association of Water Technologies)  Scaling UP! H2O Academy video courses  Submit a Show Idea  The Rising Tide Mastermind   How its Made Steel by How it's Made Show   400 Celebrating 2024 and 400 Episodes!  399 Pinks and Blues: The Science of Serial Dilution  397 Pinks and Blues: How to look at your tests    Water You Know with James McDonald  Question: What is a plastic or rubber device that seals the outside of a reverse osmosis membrane against the inside wall of the pressure vessel to prevent feedwater from bypassing around the membrane element? 2025 Events for Water Professionals  Check out our Scaling UP! H2O Events Calendar where we've listed every event Water Treaters should be aware of by clicking HERE. 

Anuj Ojha: Beyond the Iron Triangle, A Path to True Agility Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. Anuj shares his journey of understanding the complexities behind Scrum implementation, particularly when faced with fixed time and scope demands. He emphasizes the importance of learning to communicate effectively with different stakeholders in their own language. Through experience, he discovered that the traditional iron triangle (fixed time, scope, and resources) is a fiction in agile environments. His key insight is that while you can fix two sides of the triangle, attempting to fix all three undermines agility. He suggests building cases for critical needs like technical debt and ensuring all voices are heard when determining what's possible. Self-reflection Question: How do you handle situations where stakeholders demand certainty in all three aspects of the iron triangle? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]

The Vince Everett Ellison Show! Today, we confront the hard-hitting truth about the real enemies of Black America. Vince dives deep into the destructive legacy of white liberals, the Democratic Party, and their agenda to dismantle traditional values and communities. We'll explore the myths surrounding the Civil Rights Movement, the Iron Triangle of corruption, and how the Democratic Party has manipulated Black America for decades. Discover why the radical left's policies—abortion, LGBTQ ideology, and economic dependency—continue to devastate families and communities, and how conservative principles can offer a path to restoration. Join Vince as he exposes the lies, confronts the hypocrisy, and calls for a return to self-respect, independence, and truth.

A legal fight is brewing in Eastern Oregon where a coalition of timber interests is trying to block the sale of the only sawmill still operating in Grant County to Iron Triangle, a logging company in John Day. The Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition filed a federal lawsuit last year against Iron Triangle and the sawmill, Malheur Lumber, alleging that the two companies were conspiring to stifle competition. Although the suit was dismissed in September, it is currently being appealed, with the coalition threatening further legal action if the sale is pursued.    As first reported in The Blue Mountain Eagle, Malheur Lumber, announced in July it was shutting down after more than 40 years. It cited a range of factors that led to the decision, including difficulty hiring reliable workers and a lack of housing to recruit them. The company’s financial woes are emblematic of the state of the timber industry in Oregon where seven mills announced their closures this year. Bennett Hall is the editor of the Blue Mountain Eagle. He joins us to share his reporting on this issue and how federal assistance could once again offer a lifeline to timber operations in Grant County and the region.  

Challenging the iron triangle in software development - balancing quality, time and scope. In this episode, Squirrel and Jeffrey discuss Andy Giese's recent provocative article 'How to Make Product Give a Shit About Your Architecture Proposal.' Join us to learn how you can use ‘feature thinning' and joint design to promote collaborative approaches in situations like this. Links: - Andy G's article: https://gieseanw.wordpress.com/2024/10/09/how-to-make-product-give-a-shit-about-your-architecture-proposal/ - Getting To Yes, on interests and positions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_to_Yes -------------------------------------------------- You'll find free videos and practice material, plus our book Agile Conversations, at agileconversations.com And we'd love to hear any thoughts, ideas, or feedback you have about the show: email us at info@agileconversations.com -------------------------------------------------- About Your Hosts Douglas Squirrel and Jeffrey Fredrick joined forces at TIM Group in 2013, where they studied and practised the art of management through difficult conversations. Over a decade later, they remain united in their passion for growing profitable organisations through better communication. Squirrel is an advisor, author, keynote speaker, coach, and consultant, and he's helped over 300 companies of all sizes make huge, profitable improvements in their culture, skills, and processes. You can find out more about his work here: douglassquirrel.com/index.html Jeffrey is Vice President of Engineering at ION Analytics, Organiser at CITCON, the Continuous Integration and Testing Conference, and is an accomplished author and speaker. You can connect with him here: www.linkedin.com/in/jfredrick/

Send us a Text Message.Massachusetts has often found itself at the forefront of healthcare accessibility.In this episode of HealthBiz Briefs, Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts CEO, Sarah Iselin reveals how they're innovating healthcare for the Commonwealth State through initiatives from women's health to quality, access, and affordability.  This episode is brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://betterhelp.com/caretalk and get on your way to being your best self.As a BetterHelp affiliate, we may receive compensation from BetterHelp if you purchase products or services through the links provided.

Just eat more food and you'll lose the weight!This advice has been floating around the fitness industry for years and it still persists. Today, we are going to use an engineering concept called the Iron Triangle to show why this idea doesn't hold up.What looks like "eating more" might actually be your first step toward effective fat loss, but not for the reasons you might expect.To learn more about losing fat sustainably, join my FREE mailing list at https://witsandweights.com/emailMain Takeaways:The Fat Loss Iron Triangle (Energy, Sustainability, Speed) reveals why "eat more to lose weight" advice often fails. You can't optimize all three factors at once.Accurate calorie tracking is crucial. Many who think they're undereating are actually consuming more than they realize, leading to stalled progress.Sustainable fat loss requires finding your personal balance within the Iron Triangle, prioritizing consistent, moderate progress over extreme measures.Episode Mentioned:Your Very First Cut (Lose 10-30 Pounds of Fat) | Ep 197

In this episode of "From the Crow's Nest," host Ken Miller sits down with Brian Clark, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute. Together, they delve into the heart of the Pentagon's latest debates and innovative reforms. Clark unveils his compelling "Iron Triangle" proposal—a strategic framework highlighting relevant capability, operational concepts, and scalable impact—as a beacon to guide the Department of Defense through a labyrinth of challenges. This episode doesn't shy away from the gritty reality of transforming isolated case studies into sweeping institutional change. Clark also shares insights from a riveting conversation on how groundbreaking technologies are reshaping defense strategies, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.To learn more about today's topics or to stay updated on EMSO and EW developments, visit our homepage.

Vince Everett Ellison is an author and documentarian. He hosts the Vince Everett Ellison Show on X, Rumble and YouTube. He also produced the documentary “Will You To Hell For Me?” and wrote the #1 best seller “The Iron Triangle.” VinceEllison.com (00:00) Are Civil Rights Movements Always About Liberation?  (09:05) Turning from God to Government  (28:08) Government Programs Hurting instead of Helping (01:15:05) The Lies Told about Police Shootings (01:40:17) Why Does the Left Glorify Criminals Like George Floyd? (02:18:14) Is The Black Voters Leaving the Democratic Party? Paid partnership with PureTalk Wireless Get 50% off your first month https://PureTalk.com/Tucker Paid partnership with Black Rifle Coffee Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this month's innovation conversation to highlight key topics in the countdown to the Apex technology and innovation conference next January in Washington, sponsored by Clarion Defence, Bryan Clark, the director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute think tank, discusses his June 12 Apex event — The New Iron Triangle: Achieving Adaptability and Scale in Defense Acquisition — highlighting a new report on how to better deliver needed capabilities at scale, challenges with the venture capital approach to funding a new crop of innovative defense companies and the government's role in shepherding the worthiest ones to success, role of profit policies and prospect that government contractors can make commercial returns, lessons from the US Air Force's recent Collaborative Combat Aircraft awards, role of  modularity, open architectures and rejecting nationality requirements in crafting a truly allied industry capability to address equipment needs and more with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian. To learn more about the Apex conference, sponsorship and attendance opportunities please visit apexevents.org

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with fellow Oxford's Saïd Business School alumnus, Shawn Modar, to discuss why mega projects go wrong and what can be done contractually to avoid failure. The pair delve into the role psychological contracts play in the Iron Triangle. Plus, Shawn shares his Oxford dissertation findings, including a prenuptial agreement analogy you don't want to miss. “One of the interesting realizations that I had during this process is: Why would somebody intentionally not comply with their contract, knowing all those legal risks that are out there? And what I realized is when they're not complying with that written contract, they're actually complying with their psychological contract.” –  Shawn ModarShawn Modar has more than 23 years of experience in the engineering and construction industry, with the majority of that time being focused on construction claim analysis and dispute resolution. His primary focus is assisting clients in their efforts to substantiate or defend against claims for the recovery of time and additional costs, to avoid formal disputes, and to make informed decisions that result in equitable resolutions.  Key Takeaways:The risk of acting like something you're not: Relational contracts versus traditional contractsThe truth behind intentional noncompliance in megaprojectsThe benefits and downfalls of psychological contracts If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.The conversation doesn't stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:Follow Shawn Modar on LinkedInFollow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedInFollow Riccardo Cosentino on LinkedInRead Riccardo's latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.com Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the hosts and guests on this podcast do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy, opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of Disenyo.co LLC and its employees.

Mike Richards: Rethinking Project Priorities As a Way to Overcome The Project Iron Triangle Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. Mike describes a story of managing a challenging project within the constraints of the iron triangle of project management. How did a shift in focus help his team avoid the pitfalls of gold plating and get back on track? Mike shares practical tips on asking the right questions, presenting data effectively, and the importance of prioritizing mandatory functionality over bells and whistles wishes and features. Discover how to tackle project deadlines with minimum viable solutions and the value of communicating issues promptly to prevent the need for miracles.   [IMAGE HERE] Recovering from failure, or difficult moments is a critical skill for Scrum Masters. Not only because of us, but also because the teams, and stakeholders we work with will also face these moments! We need inspiring stories to help them, and ourselves! The Bungsu Story, is an inspiring story by Marcus Hammarberg which shows how a Coach can help organizations recover even from the most disastrous situations! Learn how Marcus helped The Bungsu, a hospital in Indonesia, recover from near-bankruptcy, twice! Using Lean and Agile methods to rebuild an organization and a team! An inspiring story you need to know about! Buy the book on Amazon: The Bungsu Story - How Lean and Kanban Saved a Small Hospital in Indonesia. Twice. and Can Help You Reshape Work in Your Company.   About Mike Richards Mike Richards, with over a decade in tech, goes beyond managing projects. He's passionate about transforming organizations, coaching on cloud migration, leading digital shifts, and empowering agile teams. More than a consultant, Mike is a catalyst for growth and change. You can link with Mike Richards on LinkedIn here.

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo sits down with Daniel Armanios, BT Professor of Major Programme Management and Chair of Major Programme Management at University of Oxford, Saïd Business School. The pair discuss the importance of research, the type of valuable research and the post evaluation of major programmes."And so a second very cool question would be where do we want resilience in a major programme? I mean, obviously you want it within the program but do you want it in the selection process? Maybe not? Do you want it in the post validation where we don't do as well? Maybe not so maybe resilience is not great everywhere. And maybe it's really important in certain places.  I've been really thinking about this a lot because it's a really visceral fundamental point. What is it we're actually doing and trying to achieve?" – Daniel ArmaniosDaniel's research and teaching integrates civil engineering and organizational sociology to better understand how organizations coordinate to build, manage, and maintain infrastructure systems. His findings inform efforts to advance sustainable development, entrepreneurship, and innovation, while also alleviating systemic and persistent inequities within such systems.Key Takeaways:The distinction of megaprojects and major programmesThe importance of transparent assumptions and data research in major programmesStudying major programmes at a component levelWhere do we want resilience in major programmes?If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.The conversation doesn't stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedInFollow Riccardo on LinkedInFollow Daniel Armanios on LinkedInDaniel Armanios' published workRead Riccardo's latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.comTranscript:Riccardo Cosentino 0:53Hello, everyone. Today here with Daniel Armanios. How are you doing Daniel?Daniel Armanios 1:01Hey, how are you, Riccardo? Pleasure to be here.Riccardo 1:03Daniel joins us today from Oxford. Could you introduce yourself a little bit for the listeners that might not be familiar with yourself?Daniel 1:12I'm the BT Professor and Chair of Major Programme Management at the Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. I was formerly in a school of engineering, which I'm sure will be a fun discussion later on. I was an assistant and associate professor in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. I guess the best way very symmetrically, to understand myself and my research, I'm really an organizational theorist that studies how organizations coordinate to roll out to develop to maintain very large-scale initiatives, what some call major programmes, some call major projects, some called mega projects, I'm sure we can get to discussion of the nuances and differences. But essentially, I'm an organizational studies theorist that studies large-scale initiatives in engineering social programs and the like, and kind of published widely as a result.Riccardo  2:14I've come across you, as I was finishing my master's in Major Programme Management at Oxford, you were starting, your chair. And I've been very keen to be talking to you because obviously, we represent is such a big institution with so much gravitas in the major programme space, I was really looking forward to talking to you. So today, I think the overarching topic that I would like to cover today, I think is the importance of research in major programme and the importance of research in creating better outcomes for four major programmes. That's just the general theme, but I'm sure we can get into a more detailed conversation. From your perspective, why is research important to achieve better outcomes in major programme? Why can't the private sector and practitioners just get on with it? And then it's a bit of a leading question.Daniel 3:09There is attention always with major programmes, right? All of us, I mean, all of us who research it or those who put it in practice, especially since we don't often find ourselves in a position, practitioners, to manage large-scale major programmes, the temptation as we've seen from a lot of prior work is that this is such a unique thing and this is so it's so important and of you know, call it an n-of-one. And I think there is some aspects of every major programme that have nuance. But often, you know, when you're trying to start something, it's nice to know, where what we know systematically from prior things, and that just simply requires data analysis, right? How do you how can you empirically as best as you can, with data, collecting it, being transparent about your assumptions, transparent of what you found? Could that at least get us at a starting point, with a major programme we take on in the future? And so I think, empirically, it's quite important. That said, and maybe why there's difficulties is that there's also challenges with trying to do that data. I don't know if that's where we're gonna go next. But essentially, you know, a lot of this requires post evaluation of major programmes. And often, once you've delivered a major programme, you kind of want to be done and move on to the next one, but often that post hoc evaluation really matters. So if we take an empirically driven approach, it also fundamentally changes how we think of the entire major programme lifecycle, we're not just thinking about the planning, delivery, and then kind of the handover to the sponsor, whoever is going to operate the system, but also thinking post evaluation. What did it move? Did the needle move in certain ways? How can we learn from past? So it does require data. And then also the other challenge is as we build consensus for certain models and frameworks, there is a danger that we go flip the pendulum the complete other way, which is certain kinds of tools, techniques become the way to do things. And I think, at the same time, you want to balance between what were the conditions that allow those things to happen. So kind of long story short, we need an empirical basis by which to inform our decisions so that we truly know what is unique about the program we're managing versus what we know about the past, ideally, with comparative groups. But that means that we make sure that in our own major programme lifecycle we build in faculties and facilities and capacity to contribute existing data. And that requires a little different thinking about when the major programme, let's say, quote-unquote "ends". And at the same time, you know, to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, you also want to be able to say, really not just the data you gather on the programme itself, but the conditions around it so we can see what kinds of tools, what kind of approaches work for what kind of conditions so that you can be both empirically informed, but also nuances to where those empirical data and insights match with the kind of context you're in. And that's a I think a wider conversation happening.Riccardo  6:44I want to dive into a couple of things that you mentioned. First of all, obviously, the uniqueness of program management, of major programmes are, obviously, they're so big that it's difficult to have two running in parallel or being able to test in practice these major programmes. However, what's your view on the fact that yeah, maybe the major programme is unique, and because it's big and complex, and it's very dependent on the region, and other factors, but the sub-elements of the programme are actually repeating across multiple programmes. So you know, you have stakeholders on every single programme, you have a project sponsor on every single programme, you have group of people, subcontractor, supply chain, I mean, those things are not unique. And so I think you talk about the conditions, I think that's part of that. So is there a way of studying major programmes at the component level, which I think is that what we tend to do in the MMPM is really break it down and applying knowledge to the single components. What's your view?Daniel 8:05I think, an emerging trend, which is typically up to this point, my read is when we think of large-scale initiatives or big things, let's say, there's we usually treat major programmes and let's say mega projects or major projects as synonymous terms and I think if you see where major programmes is going, they're increasingly more distributed. So if you look at major initiatives around cryptocurrency, blockchain, it's not like there's a central convener that can move things, right? If you think of modular infrastructure construction, you're literally fabricating skews one place, putting it another place. Right? And so you're dealing with a more distributed, more decentralized system. And I think that's now creating some interesting divergence between mega projects and major programmes because when you think of mega projects, you're thinking of it as a unitary, kind of whole, because at some point, even though there's multiple organizations, you'll convene at some centralized sites. That's at least the assumption. With major programmes, if you think of it, it's more of a portfolio, which precisely gets to your point, then it becomes interesting to think of two things. One is, let's break up the bit of components and see is there something we can learn repeatable within the components? But also, is there some nuance we can understand of how things link together in appropriate ways? Should we modularize as one argument is or should we think of it more holistically as a system? Now how do I land on what we can learn is I think the research to date of that resources available, it's often focused on the intended plan or outcome for the project. And usually it's the Iron Triangle- time, cost, scope or quality, if you will, and did it achieve that or not why or why not? Let's account for these overruns. So it's more about the ends, right? So I've said this was gonna be my end, let's check at the end of the project. Did we achieve it? Now, empirically, that has some really useful facets, which is, you kind of comparing a project to itself, which is really nice. You can do comparisons, you get a sense of maybe how to help with the planning, how to avoid some of what to build in. But the process of learning by which we could have reconciled some of these overruns is a bit more difficult. So I think there's a set of resources focusing on the ends, right, in learning, I think, where you're coming from, to understand what is repeatable, repeatable is a process. So I think where some other research is going and where I've been interested in is just chronically what people are doing over time. Can we find patterns? Is there a way to go about effective stakeholder engagement? Not did we get stakeholders' approval in the audit, and it's more of the outcome? It's more how did we go through it? Was it, you know, were there certain things you did at certain times bring in certain organizations? Was that effective as opposed to not because then at that point, you can give something really useful to the manager that they can actually act as opposed to? Here's outcomes you want to worry about, we know that there's going to be this potential slippage, let's account for it in the planning. But that doesn't get much information in the process. So I think there's a lot of potential empirical research to be done on can we come up with replicable methods, means, while also being mindful of, you know, some of the risks calamities that have happened from the ends. And then that way, you really understanding what's repeatable, and not just, you got something that was effective and here's the practice. But how did that unfold over time and change? So you can still be quite repeatable. But recognizing repeatability is a process, right? And so maybe there's process models we can do, looking at projects at different slices of the timeframe. And then we can think about what it is they're doing over time? And is there some sequences that we can learn that are repeatable, that go well, or when you start hitting a fall, and then that way, as a kind of final point, if we can do that, then perhaps we can even develop early warning signs, you know, always at this step two of the process, there is something where things derail, avoid them, and you can start seeing the early warning signs. And that way, I think you can still come up with something repeatable, but more in the means of something you can action, as opposed to just be aware that these things go there's slippage overall in the project plan for it, which is important. Don't get me wrong. But then we could develop a process by which are early warning signs to develop. And that gray area is a different kind of empirical approach. But in that sense, you could then sort of see what is repeatable? What's even automatable? If we talk about future trends and what are things you need to be like spinning time on the critical path to be careful on? So research on the means, I think would be where things I think should be going and are starting to go as opposed to just the outcomes.Riccardo  13:23I think you mentioned a couple of times is historically we always focus on the postmortem. And typically a postmortem on things that went badly. And so you have this back, back catalogue of project that went bad, but there's very few post mortem on project that went well, because ultimately if you went well, you don't have to, you don't have to worry about it. I think that has been the approach. And as you said, with this, I think the problem with major project or large, large ventures is that they're so time-consuming and so draining that when you're done, you're done. You just want to move on.Daniel 14:03I would say on this point, actually, this is where it gets really interesting in the research, to compare the trends and major programme research, mega project research of again, I see a distinct what's you know, it's in a class versus how entrepreneurship research is. So entrepreneurship research suffers almost from the exact opposite issue, which is, they always focus on the big successful ones. And the failures are kind of not known because they're kind of censored out of the population before you can really study them. Right? And so you have a kind of a success bias there. In major programmes, because the ones that keep going on they keep taking more cost of you get these kinds of epic failures that are doing. And I think it's really important to be mindful is why it could be that there's some very successful projects that did the same exact thing as some of the failures and didn't have that result. The same thing with success with ventures, maybe someone really failed trying everything and didn't work out. So, again, this gets back to the first problem we were talking about, which is, if we can compare success with failure and really address that kind of empirical bias, then we can really see what is common across all projects? And where are they really different? Where is it really unique this one, but we can't do that if we're not grounded on a similar project for which had a different outcome, but had a, you know, set of similar and different processes. That's why I think, again, focusing on the means and methods and conditioning, and hopefully with comparative cases that address, you know, the proclivities of what data we have, can really help us understand what's common across all of these, and what's really different. And then that way, we can be much more circumspect of that. So I absolutely agree.Riccardo  14:51You touched I think you, earlier you touched on you said the word conditions, right, the condition within the range of the major programme and I don't know if it's equivalent, but I refer often to it as a complexity, you know, we're dealing with a complex system. So sometimes we don't even fully understand the relations between, with between the conditions, because it's a complex system, by definition, which is, to me to be fair was a key concept in understanding an industry that had been part of for over 20 years, but couldn't quite understand why it couldn't, wasn't working the way it was supposed to. And yeah, the condition, the complexity, and really diving into those in order to understand and I really like your example where, you know, you might have the same condition but different outcomes. Because of and I think that's inherent with complexity, or complex system is just you don't fully understand the interrelations.Daniel 16:57This is why I think, in our programme and just in major programmes in general, there's an increasing consensus to treat this like a system. Right now, I think one of my colleagues at Oxford, Harvey Mahler, has been focusing on different forms of complexity. And what he basically says is there's complexity within the project as well, literally, what are the tasks and work to be done, the harder systems kind of structure, what is the routine that has to be done to do this thing. But then he says, the project, though, is in a wider environment, right? So you have regulations, politicians turning over at all points, you have socio-political what you would call I think, socio-political complexity. And then by the way, it's not like, if I look at it at times zero, the same form of complex emerges at time one, because when you run the system and loop it, all of sudden things emerge and change. And so there's, he would, argue emergent complexity. Now, what's interesting about what he's saying, If we tie it to the earlier part of our conversation, we're talking about means and outcomes, we still empirically largely focus on those within the project paths, right? So when we typically measure performance outcomes, we measure even means we're thinking, I'm delivering this project, how do I measure it? And how do I benchmark that? I think we're, empirically my research has been doing too, and speaking to the points that Harvey Mahler, complex and others have said, I've been thinking about how do I understand all the stakeholders, not just within the project orbit to get it done but intersected? And that's what's driven a lot of my research on understanding, take bridge infrastructure, how does that affect not just the users or the people that have to deliver the project, like the construction companies, etc? But how does it impact the communities that are intersected, right? A lot of them are displaced. A lot of them, you know, for us to have this road go through, I benefited being in the car, but some community had to be displaced to change the right of way for that path. And that's why I think of infrastructure as one subset of major programmes. We often write in our papers that it's an arena for both intended and unintended connectivity. Me using the infrastructure, me using major programme, that's an intended use. Me delivering on the major programme is an intended use. The community that's not having this system come for them may not be welcome, right? And what that means is we need to start thinking about how do we measure outcomes, not just cost, scheduling, scope, quality of project, how that changes over time, very important, but also thinking about equity concerns, thinking about what did the project do? Does it help me employ; does it help in employment? Does it help in innovation? Things that often you measure after the project is transplanted but there are things you could do in the middle. How many? What percentage of small businesses are you bringing into the project? Is it just the big conglomerates or small businesses, I mean, this you could do even within the project. And so we're and by the way, this is this is not just because the research is intrinsically interesting, which I find, but increasingly what we're finding even in our program, sponsoring agencies are saying we've sent executives to come learn, and train. And this is not just in the Master of Science in Major Programmes, but also Major Project Leadership Academy. The sponsors are increasingly saying, we need to demonstrate the benefits of these programs, the social value, and we don't have a language to do that we really need your help in developing it. And so now, it's not us just because we're excited about the research. But this is becoming increasingly mandated, especially from sponsoring agency, the agencies sponsor the projects, especially government. And so that's opening a really exciting terrain, I think, for research, but a very empirically challenging one, because there's not a really clear set of standards. Right? So how far away from the project do you need to look at it? How many? What kind of outcomes? Is it employment, is it innovation, is it entrepreneurship? What forms of social demography should we be looking at? Let's just take disadvantage as an example. Is it by income? Is it by gender identification? Is it by ethnicity? Is it by a combination? Maybe it's, maybe that's not, maybe it's not about disadvantage. Maybe it's about a critical occupation. Where are the certain craftsmen of a certain kind of background or expertise? Is that what we should be measuring? There's not really a standard. And so until we develop that, it's going to be very hard for us to find a way to our point, what's common across these or what's not if we can't even agree on the outcome. And kind of go back to the beginning part of this question. Essentially, what I'm saying is, when we think of complexity, and if we take Harvey Mahler and other people's work seriously, Andrew Davies, others, we have to think about not just complexity inside the project itself as a system, but in the wider environment, especially the connection point being sociopolitical emergent complexity, some of that comes out of nowhere, and usually, it's outside of the project where you didn't have your lens placed. And so, you know, that kind of, kind of approach, it's early days, it's early days. I've been one of the people trying to advance and pioneers himself, even how to use your existing major programmes to sense where these disadvantage gaps are, we have a paper just came out, I think, in December actually, just starting to think, how do we even try to solve this problem? We know it's a problem, how do we try to come up with early stages to solve it?Riccardo  22:46What you just enunciated and from my learning, if we can see the major programmes, as you said, it's a system of systems. And ultimately, it's a system of systems goes through several phases, right? You got the planning, you got implementation, you got operation. And I think considering major programmes as systems or system of systems allows you to provide resilience to the major programme, right? Because ultimately, that's what, you know, these are very fragile things in the sense that, you know, you got all these external forces, that trying to influence, you know, the system, the political system changes every four years, right? And the major programme is supposed to be set up to survive the political system. So how do you go about creating that resiliency, and then you got, you know, you move from design, sort of a planning phase to design to construction, and, again, that I'm just taking one item, which is the political system, you know, it probably changes three times. And the budget program is supposed to be designed, at least that's what I've learned that it's supposed to be designed to survive that, because the cost is so high, that you can't have those influences and, you know, I might be controversial, but like, you know, it just two in my mind, it's, you know, there was lacking some of that resilience, because it didn't survive the political the various political cycles, and maybe that was not the only reason but certainly was one of the reasons you know, you have a changing government changing priorities and, and you if you haven't laid the groundwork, you know, the major problem might suffer.Daniel 24:37This provides a couple of interesting provocations one, which ties into our discussion of what we can learn empirically. I mean, it'd be really interesting to see so if you have system's systems, they intersect with each other, undoubtedly, what ends up happening is sometimes your cognitive focus is on one layer of the system, and you take for granted others which could come to your both your benefit in terms of focus, but also your detriment. And so there's kind of two questions that come from that. One is, is our cognitive awareness or salience of different parts of the system? Is there a way to do that, which kind of balances, I can't do everything, I can't pay attention to everything. And at the same time, I need to be mindful of interdependencies, and maybe a way to dynamically understand that maybe at a certain phase of the program, I focus on this layer. And another one, I focus on another one. That's one aspect. Another aspect that can be interesting is just treating the natural seeing if we can, instead of using the gates that you have to usually typically pass on a project (inaudible) formal. Is there something we learned about if we look at the systems or interlinkages? Is there a certain way in which the systems ebb and flow that there's some kind of clear phase changes just from the data? Oh, at this phase change, we shifted this way this was effective versus that way. Now, what that means, though, and I'm hoping from this podcast, what comes out of it is major programme managers willing to let researchers from the beginning, just be with them in the project and follow along. Right? And there's some opportunities, I think some are enterprising and doing this. Now, on the other hand, how do you then balance as a researcher delivering insights and findings that are both beneficial, but also say there's some detrimental issues in a way that your point acknowledges the political context? Because the problem is I think major programme managers want to know when things are going wrong and when things are improving. But if it becomes clear publicly something has gone wrong, then they're worried about the pressure they're going to get from constituents, policymakers saying, how did you, how come yet again, you're wasting money on x? But then what that does is it creates on the other side, a chilling effect that no one really wants to know when things are going, right. I mean, privately they do. Publicly, they don't. So even to do that kind of work, we're gonna have to think of a new platform, almost like I've been playing with this idea, kind of taking this model from Kiva, which is, you know, you want to bring people that needs support with people that match. I'm wondering if you could do the same thing with research, say, either policymakers or major programme managers have data. It's anonymized enough where it doesn't go back then. But enough where the research has enough detail and the researchers need data to do projects, they get to track them. And there's some way to anonymously reveal the results. Maybe there's some kind of mechanism or matching that would be for quantitative data. But for process models, you need usually qualitative data. So to answer the question (inaudible) is there some way to cognitively pay attention to different systems layers is there some natural phase changes would need access from the beginning of the project all the way to the end so you can actually match, chronicle these sequences. And also, there's some risks to it, you don't know as you're doing it, whether this project will succeed or not. Maybe you're doing it and it fails and you have a bunch of failures. And then you're learning different forms of failures, that's fine, too. But it requires also some mechanism by which practitioners feel comfortable and psychologically safe enough that they can allow researchers to come through who would still want to publish these general best practice insights, but in a way that separates them from kind of unintended consequences or pressures from that. The second point I'll make, which I think is really interesting, your use of the word resilience because I remember, I'm also you want to build kind of systems or major programmes to be resilient to these ebbs and flows. At the same time, if we take the whole kind of ecosystem or institutional perspective of in which the major programme is situated, you start having to ask yourself, what is the major programme really delivering? Is it entrenching existing interests or not? And why do I say this? I remember I was on a panel or as moderating a panel with Shalanda Baker, who is the, was advancing a lot of the energy justice initiatives at the DOE, really well-regarded developing the policies for the U.S. especially around energy. And I remember asking the president, how do you make, how do we make it more resilient? And she said something I think was so profound, I've been thinking about it daily, almost. She said, “I actually don't want these to be resilient. And I said why? She said because inequity, structural inequity is one of the most resilient things. And I thought that was so interesting because then you start asking yourself, yes, you want the programme itself to be resilient to deliver things. But if you start asking yourself, what is it we're asking these programmes to deliver? Is it really creating the kind of change we want or not? You then start asking, do you want the whole system of even selecting these projects to be resilient? I think that's quite interesting because if you think about it, structural inequities last over time. I mean, to give an example, very common example. We build infrastructure, understandably so to last as much as possible. So take a typical bridge. You know a bridge, the life cycle's what, 50 to 70 years, let's say? Imagine who was in the room in 19- let's say -50s, 1970s making those decisions, right? At best, you're using engineers who are looking at the best state of the practice, urban planners, the most well-intentioned, are looking at the best practice of the time usually thinking about the project itself. So obviously, communities are not in the room, even if it's well attended to because they don't think this is what matters at the time.Daniel 30:21At worst, you're intentionally putting people in the room that are going to do something with an agenda. Now, fast forward seventy years later, that bridge has housing next to it, has gas lines next to it, has electricity next to it, is completely locked in, and you as an engineer, you as a community worker, you as even as an anthropologist know certain people should have been in the room and we should change the practices, etc. It's really hard to revert because you would have to unravel all of those connections. I mean, to give a very simple, less controversial example. There was a bridge in Kentucky that they wanted to unravel the spaghetti junctions that led to it right. And the reason was that we now know from traffic planning that spaghetti junctions are not always the best way to deal with traffic, and they want to unravel it. To do that they would have had to remove all the houses, gasoline, such it would have added $2 billion to the project. You're dealing with a financial crisis; you're dealing with increased pressure from government to reduce costs. That's one of the first things to go. So they just worked within the existing footprint. And with that very rational decision, you've essentially kept an outdated process, outdated project in further perpetuity. Right? And so I think people when they argue these social challenges, I think, if they were so overt, in a program, those are the easier to deal with I think the fact that makes it so pernicious is it's absolutely rationalizable, you know, I'm focusing on one of the most famous studies actually of discrimination racism to get into it is by Thomas Schelling was a Nobel Prize winner in economics. And basically, argued was that most people argue the reason you have these things is that one group hates the other group, very reasonable conclusion. But he shows if I even have a preference, let's say he created like some cells and he said, I have a house and I just want half of the people around me to be like me, and think of yourself at a party right you go you want to build rapport, there's a real attraction for what we call homophily, finding similarity. And he shows if you run a similar simulation, just I want to be near people I like, you will get segregation. So it can, it doesn't have to be over perniciousness, it's you're doing the best things you can at the time. Right? And it perpetuates. Take another product, this is why it gets so fundamental visceral at this point, take a call for proposals, just to make this thing. So you have a call for proposals for contractors, let's say for a project, right, typical practice. And what are you going to typically do, you're going to go to people that have prior experience in doing this work. I mean, you need to trust that you don't want to be the one taking risk. Well, obviously that's going to already predispose the project to people with a lot of background. So anyone trying to get into the door, we've already just from the process, a very rational process, by the way, there's nothing wrong with this, you're already excluding certain groups, right? And then, you know, let's say another one, even innovation, let's say I'm a group that's doing A and I want to bring in B, well, a natural process, even as a reviewer as a project manager, well I know A, I can't say anything about B, so you refuse to review the proposal, anything else because you don't know anything about B. If everyone does that in a profession, then B will never see the light of day not because B has no merits, but no one feels equipped to do anything about it. And so then you can start seeing how innovations can get stifled. So to kind of make a long story short, I mean, we talked about the need for discussing resilience at the project level, different phase changes, maybe linkages across this and what to do, and then what that does, and also potentially, how to work practitioners working with researchers to make access possible in a way that kind of allows the findings to be unfiltered at the same time reconciles these programs in a system and then falling from that point. I think we need to be reflective of what is it we're trying to really deliver. I mean, it's not just the program, it's towards some outcome, and is that outcome, something that needs to be revised and changed? And so a second very cool question would be where do we want resilience in a major programme? I mean, obviously, you want it within the program, but do you want it in the selection process? Maybe not? Do you want it in the post validation where we don't do as well? Maybe not so maybe resilience is not great everywhere. And maybe it's really important in certain places. I think this is a really (inaudible) kind of push has been really I've been really thinking about this a lot, because it's a really visceral fundamental point. What is it we're actually doing and trying to achieve?Riccardo  35:12As a major programme practitioner, the major programme is at the center, right? That's where I put it. And that's a very centric view of, you know, building resilience, because the major programme for me or for practitioners, and even academic to a certain degree is the core. But you're right, societally, from a societal standpoint, it might not be, you know, the lack of resilience might actually be a positive thing because it afforded the conversation, the changes on something that, you know, is gonna last for 50, 70, 100 years and so you do want those conversations to be fluid and not to be stuck. No, I love it. I think you just gave me a new perspective that I probably gonna be thinking about every day, like you, now.Daniel 36:02It's also thinking that it's a conduit, right? It could be central but it's a conduit to some end. And then you have to ask yourself, is that the end we want to achieve? Right? So a lot of our grand challenges need to be achieved at scale. It's a conduit, and I guess we're thinking we focus so much on making the conduit good and resilient. The question is, is the end where we want to go? It's interesting.Riccardo  36:24It'd be interesting for some of the listeners to understand what the new trends in major programme are research? What does Oxford see as the new trends?Daniel 36:41I don't want to speak necessarily, for Oxford, but what I've seen is as an N of 1 faculty member there is I think, there is a real interest of and I think it's because of sponsors asking for it. I think also the research and we've discussed a lot of it is major programmes in the societal context. So major programmes in society, what is it we're doing? To ensure kind of social mobility? What is it we're doing to ensure outcomes for communities? I think it's a big area, not much research on. And I kind of think of it as, you know, fundamentally, you're doing major programs to uplift communities to better something. So in some sense, by definition, a lot of major programmes are to help the trailing edge. For those that are already at the at the leading edge, they often already have the research and other things, I mean, the means to do some. So often, a lot of big major programmes, infrastructure, social programs, are sometimes at the trailing edge. How do we understand that? How do we do that? I think the other one is now we're going to the leading edge is how are we going to deal with a lot of new technologies? I mean, one of the historical issues in a lot of our industries is that they've been in transient to change or innovation. And I guess the age-old question, it's kind of a timeless question is, is this new technology, whatever it is, AI, you know, and specific forms of AI like ChatGPT, or generative learning, generative models, additive manufacturing, modular infrastructure construction or modern methods of construction in general? Are these just the fact of the week? And they're not really changing how we do things? Or are they fundamentally changing things? And I think we have that kind of existential question all the time. I think another area is, personally, tools that address what I call the collapse time cycle of major programmes. There's an interesting tension in major programming the following: major programmes last, you know, take, five plus, six plus, 10 plus years. So you have to plan and you can't end they're big. So you can't just go off the hip, you have to have a plan. I mean, you can't, like I know we've been talking about process, but that can't have, that can't be rudderless because you're dealing with very big projects. So you have to have some kind of plan some anchor. At the same time, and this is where I think the grand challenges come not just as an end, but also as an input is the climate changing, right? So 5, 10 years from now, the climate is going to be so different. And by the way, the projects I'm building now, if we want to hit even half emissions by 2030, netzero 2050, basically, the projects I'm planning today, when they roll out, have to hit half emissions, at least, right? And they have to do it in a climate that's changing. I mean, that's if you think it's an insane proposition. But that's the task, right? So now I'm thinking, how can we develop tools? How can we use these technologies not just as how they're going to disrupt an industry but can we use them fundamentally, to help kind of build anticipatory heuristics to manage that? And this is where I think things like the trends that are happening on digital twins, augmented reality could be quite interesting. Because if I can help people see a digital twin and see what it could look like if flooding happens, or if I can show how the fluid dynamics in terms of heat of a server changes with temperature change, even if it's not perfect if I can get people in that mindset, my view is that can allow them to anticipate problems that wouldn't have happened before. So I think there's a really nice frontier of what are the tools and techniques, not just to coordinate like, you know, Arup, Acom, Jacobs, Matt McDonnell, Acadia, all of these groups have these like really nice digital twin systems to kind of help coordinate to great scaffolding, I like to call it but also thinking, how do I use that to kind of help people anticipate where things are happening, not that it's going to be perfect, but at least be aware so that when this happens, they're kind of mindful of it? And so I think that's another kind of really interesting trend. And to double click on the program society, one, I think, like we discussed, how are we going to have standards by which to assess for different infrastructure systems, how we're going to incorporate these kinds of community factors, outcomes, processes, how we're going to track them? Because right now, I mean, it's such a pressing issue, at least in the context I look at, I mean, look at leveling up in the UK, they're asking for quantifiable metrics to do it. The Department of Transportation in the U.S. has now made it as part of an executive order actually writ large across the U.S. government, the department (inaudible) are asking, can you come up with equity-based frameworks, etc., because they're asked to do it. And it's coming to a head because district attorneys, county attorneys are putting in Civil Rights Act claims against infrastructure, if they feel it's disadvantaging certain groups, there's literally cases right now going on. And because there's not a standard, what I find usually, I'm not saying it's always the case, but my opinion, when you don't have a standard for something, it usually settles out of court, because no one's sure where the courts gonna land. And so then you never get to, there's no way to build precedents to address the issue. And they always get settled out of court for kind of esoteric means for which we can't understand. And so we need to find ways to build that in. And ideally, I mean, my dream would be that this is directly incorporated in certifications for different groups, like associates or project management certifications, engineering, have, you know, they have chartered engineering in U.K. Professional Engineering licenses in the U.S. that this is actually part of their exams, like you have to have a kind of a social modular equity module where you think through this, but we don't have the research body yet. And then I think the last point, in terms of even just understanding trends, the way I think of me as a researcher, I try to ask myself, what's going to matter three to five years from now, the reason I say that is because when a practitioner comes now with a problem, by the time I can find the empirical base, the database to do it, I could come up with an answer, but I just worry, it's too late. Right? The thing is, the train has already passed, right? But if I could think of what's going to matter five years from now, and take that bet, as a researcher, then I can build the basis by which all of a sudden a lot of people come. And that's how my infrastructure and equity work started. I think equity is going to matter hugely. But it started five years ago, when I started seeing the murmurings of it in certain governments. And people thought it was crazy at the time. I mean, engineers were saying, Why is engineers care about this? And I understand why because it's like, they're focusing on the delivery of the brick-and-mortar project. This is not the not an indictment on the profession. It's their focus, right. And so when I finally built it, all of a sudden, then you had some high profile cases coming in, you have administrations focusing on equity. And all of a sudden, we're one of the few games in town because we spent time doing it. But it's a bet. I mean, there's other bets I've taken where people didn't care, right? So I think with these trends, just take them with, these are best of what's going to matter, five, three to five years from now, so that we're ready to come up with answers. So to kind of summarize major programmes in society, what are the standards we're going to use by which to do that? I think understanding various disruptive technologies, are they really changing things are not in terms of the industry, or even the major programme as a whole? And then we're flipping it? Can we use technologies to help us reassess fundamental, timeless questions about this time collapse timescale? Perhaps even upskilling for the new workforce we're going to need? Could we combine augmented reality with cognitive science understand what's activated in someone's brain when they're doing certain tasks? Could that help us build a whole new workforce, especially those transitioning from one form of energy to another? So these are the kinds of things that excite me, besides often, the age old questions of how do we understand successful projects? How do we understand to deliver things on budget, on time with benefits? I think those are always going to be there. But these are kind of new trends. I see.Riccardo  44:55  Yeah. I, certainly as a practitioner, not the things I think about it regularly so that's very stimulating. So we're coming to an end but before we conclude, we, you know, we can have you on the podcast and now talk about a little bit about the MMMPM programme, the Major Programme Leadership Academy, especially because, especially with a Major Project Leadership Academy, Major Programme Leadership Academy is in no, in Canada, we started to talk more and more about the need for having capable owners and having counterparts to the private sector, they're able to engage, engage in major programmes. And so, you know, anything you can share with the listeners about, you know, the MMPM, also the MMPLA and the benefits that brings to major programmes. Daniel 46:02I think, and I say this in the context of there's some really other fascinating programs coming along, that are really pushing this, I think, in general, there should be more of these in general, because there's such a demand for people that can do this stuff, that I think the pie is only going to get bigger of need. And so I don't, you know, I want to also preface that I don't think you know, our way is the only way, I tend to be very excited about it, but at the same time, there's others, I think most of the programmes, just to put it this in the context, I think of two things that are really important about the masters of major programme management philosophically. One is it's major programmes as a social science, really, from an organizational systems perspective, but other frameworks. Now, why do I say this is because there's quite a few other programmes, very important, very crucial in advancement, but are more from a civil engineering construction side, typically. So they either focus on the construction industry, and they get into the more technical details of how do you schedule in a certain way? How do you deal with contracting in this way, etc. And we cover some of that. But I think where we come into, is looking at it from a social science perspective, and maybe give you a new nuance about not just the hard side of things, but the softer side. And why do I say that is because it then influences the second philosophical point is that the kind of the kind of students, the kind of people we attract, are really what I call reflective practitioners. They're getting practical insights from this program, but it's through taking a step back from their experience, and thinking, oh, wow, this is a new insight, how could I have rethought this point. And that reflection brings a lot of practical value, new tools of oh my gosh, if I did this in this project, it's sometimes even they're doing it at the time. And so what that means is the kind of students we usually attract. To do that, well, you need people with a wide body of experience to leverage from so our students are actually the most experienced in Oxford. The average levels of experience is usually 15 years, that doesn't mean everybody has 15 years. But to give you a sense of experienced, average age is usually 40 plus, and we get a wide set of people, because when you think of major programmes as a social science, you're thinking about the organizations and systems underlying it. The major programme for which that could apply could be everything from infrastructure to social programmes, welfare programmes, even programmes designed in areas of extreme complexity and conflict, right? And so that's what I think the MSc in general, and you know, the kinds of things we discuss and look up and there's things on the website, but we focus on design, how do you design these fundamentally, they're temporary, but they have to fit with a sponsoring organization or set of organization that are permanent? And how do you balance that? How do you find the right people to fit with that? So on? The second one is around risk, like how do you think about risk? from a project perspective? How do you come up with ways to inform how you think of risk, and then even does the values that you place on a project that change how you kind of calculate things for risk? The next one systems, right? If you think of major programmes as entirely components, how do you think through that, etc. The fourth one's around stakeholder management, how do you manage stakeholders deliver things, which leads into the commercial leadership aspect, because usually, when you're kind of linking with stakeholders, once you've kind of reached some sets of agreements, the idea is you want to formalize, have a mechanism some way to do that. Then we have a research methods class, because you do a dissertation part of the reflection process is take something you're really passionate about for three to four months, and really think even more deeply of the literature and how it helps inform practical insights. And we have performance leadership, how do you lead these kinds of complex unwielding projects that steer them towards the outcomes you're interested in? And then we think of them in a globalized context. I think there's going to be some interesting changes coming up in the horizon that are exciting and happy to talk about it at a certain point but I think this is the general architecture to date. The major project leadership academy, similar orientation, but the kind of the kind of leaders we're dealing with is a bit different, right? This is, this is a programme that's been mandated by the infrastructure projects authority in the U.K. and essentially a few years back, there was concern of all the overage in major projects, and he said, can we develop some kind of training that can help us stop that. And so the idea there is, my understanding is virtual because I, Paul Chapman leads that programme, so I don't want to speak fully on this but my sense of the program is that the idea is that you have this major project portfolio from the government that has a certain any project of a certain level is part of that portfolio. And the leaders from that programme have to go through MPLA. And it's very focused on kind of leadership of yourself. What are the things you're strong at? Where do you need help that kind of notion of incomplete leader? How do you think about again, Matt, leading this in a temporary organization? How do you build the fits together? Commercial leadership, right? How do you contract correctly? How do you establish boundaries for which this programme was going to operate? And then technical leadership, what are the kinds of competencies, specialties you need to deliver. And there's different modules for that, at the end, there's an assessment of every leader, they present an oral presentation, and there's an assessment of whether they can meet the challenges of managing a project in that portfolio. So there's a much more there's these are leaders that are either managing these kinds of major projects now looking to the next one. And, and it's very much with the U.K. government's lens in mind, I think there's real ability, if of interest, to expand this to a variety of other country contexts. I think there could be other versions of MPLA, for all sorts of countries. And so I know, there's keen interest on that we've done that in the past. So if there are leaders in Canada, leaders in other places that want to do this, this is very possible, in fact I think we're very excited by this possibility because we know the U.K. is not the only one with these challenges. And at the same time, we know that these kinds of programmes, while it has a very clear core that's very effective. Also, by the way, they do 360s at the beginning and at the end of the project with both their superior subordinates, lateral peers to kind of and we try to see how did they change over time? Do they get a better sense of who they are? What did they learn? And so it's a very individual journey through a major project that you are managing, usually, in the U.K. Government at a certain level band, that's why it's this programme. And I would, I would love to see, where does this transport? I mean, could you do it in the U.S.? Could you do it in Canada? Could you do it in Germany? Could you do it in France, could you do it in New Zealand, Nigeria, Ghana, right? I mean, this is I think this is a real, it's a really effective model. It seems to have made a dent in these overruns. I mean, surely we still have overruns, this happens. But I think it's really reduced that. And so and in fact, a lot of now government officials that moved up in the organization. I've come out of that program. And I think, in terms of future, what I'm hoping with the program, personally, is I'm trying that the pitch I'm giving to corporations, especially is often when they're looking for sea level promotions, or, you know, chief level promotions, they're often looking for kind of a really amazing functional champion, one of the functions to bring them above. Now, the challenge is you hit this conundrum, right? The stuff that's made them really effective in their function is not what's going to make them strong as an executive, they all of a sudden go from this to like broadening out, and they and so you get this chasm that always happens, where you jump them up to that level and everything they did well, which is deliver really important specialist competencies. Now they have to manage things they don't are not experts in. So the pitch I've been trying to make sure if corporation understands is if you want to find the grooming ground for where you're going to find some really promising C-level appointments, look at those who are managing major programmes. They usally are getting to manage those programmes that are more mid-level earlier stage in career. They have a talent they've come in, that's why they're there. But all of a sudden, they're foisted with I gotta manage this billion-pound billion Canadian dollar billion dollar plus programme or even just really highly complex programme, and I gotta manage all sorts of different parts, all sorts of multiple disciplines. And if they're good at that, why can't they be a CTO, a COO, a CEO, that's what they're doing daily. And so I've been the pitch I've been trying to make for these programmes is you should be looking to bring your major programme leaders that you're thinking you want to groom for C-level, they should come to our programme because we will get we will take what they're already doing, give them a new kind of more generalized perspective with a bit of reflection on their own experience, and they'll come back they're ready to go. And I think this is something because you know, this takes some translation for people to understand what major programme is but that's the way to tell them is you're getting people who are already proficient in having a really deep expertise, and how to manage that expertise with a bunch of other functions, which is very unique. And so why not invest in those kinds of people because they could be your next C-level talents. And that's a pitch I use for this MMPM. I think MMPLA you could say the same thing. I mean, people are going back and forth in and out of private public sector. Yeah, so that's kind of how I see it. The slight, slight differences, but the same kind of orientation and motivation in mind.  Riccardo  55:37Yeah, if I can just had I mean, we, it was a few years back when it kind of dawned on me, this is before I did MMPM, but, you know, somebody, we were talking about $5 billion project, and somebody said, well, you know, it's a billion over five years, that's a billion a year, that's, that's a medium sized business, right? I mean, you're running a medium-sized business with that type of turnover. So yeah, I mean, the skills, the skills are there. If you're a project director or something like that, you probably have the traits or you're getting the experience that a CEO will get.Daniel 56:15There's an interesting problem in entrepreneurship. To your point, you're managing a small business, it's quite fleeting, if you think of it, it's almost like a small venture, right? I mean, not a small venture, but it's, let's say, a venture that's hit, you know, at least in terms of valuation, maybe a later stage Series C, private equity, maybe Series B, depending on whether it's a unicorn or not. And so essentially, that's what you're doing. And if you think of a startup, it's kind of temporary. I mean, most of them don't last beyond five years. And so, you know, there's a big challenge in entrepreneurship to your point, which is you found this amazing product. And now you want to grow a business out of it. And there's a massive chasm, so they even call they have a word for it's called valley of death. Yes. And I was thinking, the way we think about major programmes, we're thinking about how do you professionalize and scale something big quickly? To me, instead of thinking of startup canvas, lean startup, etcetera, those are valid ideas and insights, but they're really predicated on certain sectors. I mean, who else better to kind of solve that gap than major programme thinking? And I feel there's a really interesting gap to not just have major programmes in advancing its own right, but start speaking to other very prominent practical challenges. How do you scale a startup? That's about professionalizing your supply chain, professionalizing the structure of your organization, building coordination fast. I mean, who else would be prepared for that? In major programmes, I mean. That's a huge opportunity because it's a notoriously difficult problem. And what's nice about it, is even if you improve it, 2%, 3% that's all of a sudden, hundreds, maybe even thousands, tens of thousands of businesses that are now scaling, delivering jobs, the impact, even with just a small change in the needle is huge. And I think it's been too much thought about from an entrepreneurial perspective, which is, you know, product development driving this doing hypothesis tests, and they're not problematizing, that scaling approach. And I think that's where major programmes could have some really interesting impact and things we're actually discussing in the classroom as well, like, how do you then take that issue? Really nice translational opportunities as well, if you want.Riccardo  58:27I like it. It's really, really interesting concept. I might be thinking about that everyday too, also. Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the hosts and guests on this podcast do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy, opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of Disenyo.co LLC and its employees.

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Oomar Paurobally, a fellow Oxford alumnus and leader in hospitality megaprojects in South East Asia and Korea, to discuss his dissertation and his unique perspective on the Iron Triangle. The pair cover everything from stakeholder management and the universal complexity of major programmes to the interesting outcomes that can arise from a megaproject's royal flush. “What we found is that the more you look at an aggregate level, when you're looking at an aggregated industry level, you find that the root causes tend to be the same. So, the same root causes we learned during our programme as areas affecting major infrastructure projects were the same that were impacting our industry, which were stakeholder management processes, product management skills in itself across portfolios; the root causes were similar. But what was really interesting insight was, so what? Now what? So we know, that's a core issue. But what does it really mean to us?” – Oomar Paurobally  After a degree in law, Oomar went to Dubai with a major project constructing a multi-billion dollar resort and waterpark. He has opened hotels, resorts and restaurants across Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Now, he has pivoted his career into real estate in the tech industry.  Key Takeaways:Is the hospitality industry immune to the iron law of major programmes?  The similarity of Iron Triangle root causes in civil infrastructure major programmes and luxury commercial megaprojects: Infrastructure stakeholder management and leadership management  Delays as strategy in private sector of hospitality major programmes; the sharp contrast from civil major programmes  Oomar's dissertation research methodology; the successes and failures of thematic analysis and quantitative survey researchThe importance of pivoting to manage research bias  The royal flush in hospitality megaprojects and the interesting outcomes they can bring  If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox. The conversation doesn't stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community: Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedInFollow Riccardo Cosentino on LinkedInFollow Oomar Paurobally on LinkedInRead Riccardo's latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.com Transcript:Riccardo Cosentino  00:05You're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, a podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of Major Programme Management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University Saïd Business School, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major programmes. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as I press the industry experts about the complexity of Major Programme Management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. Riccardo Cosentino  00:51Hello everyone and welcome back to another episode of Navigating Major Programmes. We're here today with Oomar Paurobally. How are you doing, Oomar? Oomar Paurobally  01:02I'm doing great Riccardo, it's great to be here. Riccardo Cosentino  01:04Thank you for joining me today. Really, really excited to have you on. I believe today you are calling from Singapore. Am I correct? Oomar Paurobally  01:13That's right. Beautiful island of Singapore. Riccardo Cosentino  01:15There you go. And I'm in Toronto so I think we are covering most of the time zone around the globe today. We're here today to talk about, I mean, you attended the Master in Major Program Management with me, we were in the same cohort. And today I invited you to the podcast to talk about your research, your dissertation. But maybe before we do that, that you might introduce yourself a little bit. Tell us a little bit about your background and what did you do before Oxford, what are you doing now, and things like that. Oomar Paurobally  01:46Thank you so much, Riccardo. Well, pleasure to be on the podcast and invest. Here I'm standing on shoulders of giants who came before me and we're on the fourth podcast. So if you ask myself, I actually did not start in life thinking I was going into major programmes. I read law and management in my very first degree. But I was tapped on the shoulder for a very interesting project, my first major programme in Dubai, which was to join the project management team building the Atlantis in Dubai. So that was approximately 15 years ago now. And that's how I joined this world in this realm. After that. I've been plodding along in the world of construction, building hotels and resorts across Asia, Middle East and Africa. The programme was a seminal point in my life and my career because I did pivot into a different industry, into the technology industry, right after looking still looking after spaces, but in a very different way. Riccardo Cosentino  02:42Very interesting, your background is very different from mine, I mean, you do construction, but you did a different type of construction. So I was very intrigued by your dissertation because it looks a case study that is very different from what I used to know. What I found from the dissertation for your research even though the case study is a different day, the issues are similar because upon the the level of complexity of the problems that you were looking at, is as high as any other major programmes that I looked at. So that was why I was interested in that, I was very keen to have you on because when we think of major programmes, in my circle, we always think of the major civil project is very complex and like well, tunneling, big dams and power plants. But you'll be looking at major programme from a different perspective. And so I was very, very keen to have a different perspective on the podcast. Oomar Paurobally  03:38Thank you so much, Riccardo. I guess first, let me start by saying obviously, the views I'll be sharing today are mine and mine alone and do not reflect any of the views and perspectives of my previous or current employers. So now that that's out of the way, let's talk about perspective. So it's very interesting, actually, I joined the programme itself, I was asking myself that question, major programme is programmes that are currently focused on major infrastructure projects (inaudible) start, whereas I was coming from a commercial lens at this project philosophy commercializing it from day one. And the added element to this was the complexity of the programmes I was managing was due to scale. So they had already scaled. So, if you looked at each individual project I was working on, they would not make up a programme. They would fall very clearly within the realms of what we define as project management, that when you start multiplying, and you start building in different countries with different stakeholders, at the same time, then the complexities became the same complexities you would face at a major programme level. So for me, that's where the similarities were, as we started engaging into the programme. Riccardo Cosentino  05:00And maybe we can have a bit of a debate as I've had this debate in the past with other people. So obviously, you're saying one building is probably not a major project but when you are combining a portfolio of building projects, then that's when it becomes a major programme. So a portfolio does reach a level of complexity that brings something to the level of major programme with some (inaudible). And I don't like I never like to measure major programmes by the size, you know, either financial size or like, even one bedroom size. I always look at, it's a major programme when the complexity is high. And so I think when you have a portfolio, by their nature becomes very complex because you're now dealing with multiple stakeholdesr, multiple jurisdictions. So yeah, I, you know, to me, and I would like to get your view, is like, is it appropriate to define major programme by the level of complexity or should we have a discussion about the financial size? Well, what would be your experience during your research? Oomar Paurobally  06:08Well, I think just financial size of your portfolio matters, because it will determine the level of interest that there is from different stakeholders on managing a portfolio of let's say, you have 50 assets, but which are worth 10 million versus 20 assets that are worth $100 million each, it's very different. So I think the financial element plays a part, plays a role because the bigger the financial elements that you're working with, the higher the level of pressure. In my context, and it is about assets that are owned, mostly by conglomerates or high-net-worth individuals. So the pressure to perform can can be quite different, versus assets that are owned, or heavily subsidized by banks, for example, where timing becomes very important and staying within limits of initial plan execution. It's more critical. Riccardo Cosentino  07:11Interesting. Okay, switching gears a little bit, shall we talk about your dissertation? Well, what was your word? What was your area of research? What did you research when you were at Oxford? Oomar Paurobally  07:21I was looking in the hospitality industry and whether the iron law of major programme was also relevant there, which is, you know, programmes are delayed and produce under benefits over and over again. Across the industry and across different brands, we found that to be true and that as an industry, it was not immune to the iron law of major programmes. Riccardo Cosentino  07:49And did you find that, you know, I think we all are aware, people who listen to the podcast are aware (inaudible) of what is analysis of the root causes of the iron triangle? Did you find that it's very similar root causes of your currents of the iron triangle or you've done with different root causes in your industry? Oomar Paurobally  08:16Oh, that's a really interesting question, Riccardo, because what we found is that the more you look at an aggregate level, when you're looking at an aggregated industry level, you find that the root causes tend to be the same. So the same root causes we learned during our programme as areas affecting major infrastructure projects were the same that were impacting our industry, which is your stakeholder management processes. You're talking about project management skills in itself across portfolios. The root causes were similar but what was really interesting insight was, so what? Now what? So we know that's a core issue. But what does it really mean to us? And the answer, and what added to the complexity or the beauty of portfolios is it really depends. It depends on the organization you're working with. What are the different stakeholders we're working with? And for some organizations, being delayed was a good strategy. Well, it was a strategic decision to do so because unlike infrastructure projects, where you're using, again, Epic Funds to build something and you have an imperative all the time of making sure that every dollar counts when you're going into the private sector, there might be an erosion framework, and yet, you might have invested a bit too early, but it makes more sense for conglomerate to wait, better headwinds, better travel industry patterns. COVID was a fantastic example of that. It might have been the middle of construction, while opening you better wait buddy. Let that thing pass before you can even (inaudible) means having to keep certain fixed expenses. Riccardo Cosentino  10:02That's very, yeah, for sure. That's not something that we see in my project, you know, we build, like, right, like rapid transit system that you can never open there soon enough also, because the idea is these projects, these mega projects in the public realm, and I know I'm not subjected to the economic ups and downs, right? I mean, and then they're typically long overdue. Yeah. So I can see, I can see how the government capital plays a part in the strategic decision of the major programmes that you look at. What are the interesting findings? And finally, the deal, I mean, you always see, maybe you want to talk a little bit about your methodology for the research is something that we always talk about, but you know, Oxford has a very rigorous research methods. And we as a Master's student, we are asked to form a very, very specific research guidelines. So do you want to maybe talk a little bit about your process? Oomar Paurobally  11:02Sure, I guess, rigorous is a bit of an understatement. It was like it was very interesting. I took an approach over here because I was looking at an industry in general, of doing a whole literature review first. And then I went into interviews. The reason I started with a literature review approach, which is, you know, scour the web and websites like Web of Science, Scopus, where we really have, you know, the majority of academic articles are listed. It is really scour websites to find out how much information, how much literature had been written on these aspects of major programming. But the performance of major programmes in the hospitality industry there wasn't a lot I mean, when individual it's a lot, it's a lot to go through, I went to thousand plus abstracts to be read and filtered down to get to the core articles that we wanted to analyze where the approach was a literature review approach to really understand what was the status of knowledge with regards to major programmes in that industry. What was interesting is that 5000 as a number can sound like a lot, it is not when you look at it in other industries, you're talking about hundreds of thousands. So the first insight was it was an interesting dissertation because not a lot was written on the subject. And when you look at the conclusion of 90 odd articles in the selected foreword station and to really analyze it was a handful of offers. So there, the interest, the academic interest in the industry was not very high, which for me was really interesting because it really open up more opportunities for study. Riccardo Cosentino  13:09So you went for a qualitative versus quantitative research so you qualitatively assessed the issue, rather than quantitatively which means you basically interview, how did you select your participants in the research and you know, how big was the pool? Oomar Paurobally  13:26The pool was leaders in the sector, across major hotel organizations in Southeast Asia. (Inaudible) basic geographic delineation around the dissertation, which is it studies the industry from an Asian perspective, which is also where most hurdles have been built in recent years. Riccardo Cosentino  13:54Okay, so you interview your participant, you gather the data? And then what do you, and then I'm assuming you analyze the data using a specific model that you probably had built? Sorry, I'm going for this because I, I just realized that I'm not over, you know, I invite a lot of guests and we talk about their dissertation and give it, I always assume that people know what the process of a dissertation and I realize that they don't So, I'm not, I'm putting you for this just to give a sense of why it's important to have guests like you on the podcast to talk about your research and to actually explain the rigor and what we do. So yeah, but I was asking you, you know, once you have all the data, you actually you know, I think we all do it, we actually create a model to analyze and assess the data, right? Oomar Paurobally  14:46Correct. And the methodology I used was a methodology from have Mahler and key platinum book, which explains the different methodologies available when doing interviews and more specifically when writing dissertations. And the approach I took was a thematic approach, meaning you would run the interview and you would give full, obviously, full freedom, full length for the interviewees to give their point of view. But after the fact, you will look at how many times a fear would come up during the conversation without being prompted. Right. So he got really hard because you really don't want to influence the interviewee to keep on one subject, but you would let it naturally flow during the conversation. And what would happen is after a little while up to two or three questions, and as we go into our root causes, of performance or underperformance, each stakeholder start developing a fear as to why they shake (inaudible) I will then note the number of times that fear is coming up. So I would do that for all the interviewees. And at the end of the interview, I would highly tally shall be able to look at how many times project management skills or lack of knowledge of project management skills was coming up, the number of times stakeholder management was coming up. And that was the approach and the tricky part of the approach is, there's an inherent bias when you're selecting interviewees, because the higher up the corporate ladder you're going, the more the leaders would be guarding up stakeholder management, because that's where a bigger portion of their time is spent. While you're going to get the teams and within the teams then project management skills is really coming up soon. You're going to manage those different biases and try to find finely balance the interviewees you're looking for in the first place to make sure that the data doesn't go in one direction versus the other purely because of the set of interviewees that are on the pool. Riccardo Cosentino  17:05Thank you for explaining that. Because I think it's yeah, I think it's interesting and worth mentioning, as you said, these are experienced individuals, experienced participant, people who are, been working in the industry for a long time. So their views are very, very valid. And looking at patterns and models view of practitioners who have similar experiences, is what the research is about. And I found that a very, very interesting process because you do get a cross section of the industry or you do get a cross section of what's happening. So you talked about biases. And so did you try to balance off some of the biases by the type of participants? So you mentioned you had experienced project manager? Did you also try to balance so we'd, like, less experienced project manager to see if the (inaudible) a different views? Oomar Paurobally  18:02That's correct. You know, sometimes we talk about the things that work. But let me share something that did not work. My first approach was not an interviewing approach. My first approach was a survey approach. And it feels to be reserved, because I hadn't read the room correctly. You know, for context, while I was writing the dissertation, we were coming out of COVID years, and COVID had had a tremendous impact on, you see, with hospitality industry. So you can imagine how it would feel when you receive a survey telling you about, you know, what project is going wrong, the type of answers you would get shared good quality bias or influence, but there was certainly COVID looming behind the surveys, and I was trying to go for quantity and pushed it out to as many folks as possible are creating a wide region, the data that came in was just unworkable, because, you know, you get to read the room correctly for the balance correctly. So I had to pivot on the approach to get a better quality of data and to be able to get stock hurdles. So when you talk about biases, it was easier during an interview, to have a different conversation of COVID. But also, let's get COVID aside, you have X years of experience in the industry. Let's talk about those and what they taught you. It also covered of course, but you know, let's talk about your overall experience. So one way to reduce the bias was when looking at length of experience within various industries. So if somebody had joined the industry right before COVID or during COVID, I would not be interviewing them because of experience without being bothered by that (inaudible). Riccardo Cosentino  19:47Thank you for clarifying and thank you for your vulnerability. You're telling us that went down the wrong path that led to, but that's part of the research, right? That's exactly part of the research. It's you know, you try things and you try something different and the ending worked. Okay, so you did the literature review, you select your participant, you tailored questionnaire, you interview the participant, you gather the data, you analyze the data. And then I'm assuming you roleplay the discussion and then a conclusion. And maybe you can walk us through if you can on what were the main themes of your of your recent work. What came out as the main themes from interviewing a participant then what conclusions did you draw from the data that you collected. Oomar Paurobally  20:35Sure. The first elements, I guess, in a nutshell, we're very similar again to the infrastructure programs before project management came up, stakeholder management, lack or lack of stakeholder management came out. Those were the first set of answers that were coming out from the interviews, we hadn't gone to the level and we talked about biases a bit earlier, we hadn't gone to a level of, of bias yet, which I purposely bought into a question in the interviews to say, well, is poor project management a symptom? Is lack of stakeholder management a symptom of the bigger issue of the bias? And for me, this is where it became interesting, because when we looked, not only was the symptom similar, the biases are similar, I believe that's at major programme, so it's, it was an insight, which was interesting for me because there was also what when it came to the bias, first if we talk about biased strategic misrepresentation, right, so they could happen on many different levels, they could happen on the stakeholder level, not necessarily from the leaders of the programme, strategically misrepresenting this amount of time is going to build and get commitment to build. But there was a very (inaudible). So what? We knew that. You simply look at the past to know that it's going to take time and we see something we can live with. So what was interesting is our conversation of how much can, how much of the performance can we leave with before we decide to call it quits? So that was an interesting conversation, which I didn't find when talking to fellow colleagues or looking at the infrastructure. There are some fact in there. And so yeah, we know plus minus six months, that you plus two years, nobody's doing that. Versus in the commercial world yeah, it's two years, no problem as long as the conglomerate is still healthy and still working very well and the economy is right and ripe for the picking when you open. So I think that was interesting and that was different from infrastructure programmes. So, yeah, there is this strategic misrepresentation. Riccardo Cosentino  23:08So I think we touched upon why it's different, at the beginning you mentioned that there are, because I think it's important to dwell on the thought that yeah, when you delivered public infrastructure, it was always long overdue when the confession starts, because you know, thing takes a long time to get this project approved. And so the need for the infrastructure is already there, even before it gets built. And so then, therefore, a delay, all it creates is even more, you're already late when you start because you probably should have built that transit system 20 years ago, and so the further delays are not going to be acceptable. But in my field, we call that revenue transactions, where the asset is actually going to generate monetary revenues on the back end. And it could be yeah, I mean, there could be other reasons why a project, it could be delayed, or it's acceptable for a project to be delayed, because there are revenue consideration and cost consideration on the back end, something that doesn't really exist when you're building a public transit. I mean, it should exist, because ultimately, these are assets that generate benefits for the community. So your financial benefit should always be taken into consideration, but because the reason that exchange of money from the user or not a commensurate exchanging money for the user, that aspect, is that forgotten. And so sometimes being able to trade off delays with revenues or considering other reasons, it could be advantageous, but really, and we don't see that in the public realm. Oomar Paurobally  24:51Correct. I think the second element to your question of the findings were first, the first finding was a reaction of, sure what? Right? Set it to a bar set. So we've got it, it's an economic reality, which we live with. And because we were running a P&L, we manage a P&L, and as long as we're doing well, it's okay, let's live with it and move forward. So we don't dwell on it. But the second limit, which was not immediately coming across, but you would see, as we, you know, I was reading for the interviews was a collection of organizational inertia. So, for the inertia of a or I call it a (inaudible) company, that's managing the portfolio can slow down to a portfolio of projects itself. So if you're looking at a project, by definition, it's, it has a, an end date, it gets delayed, but there's an end date. If your teams are very nimble or if they're working like little organizations themselves. What's different in the hospitality industry is you, you have big organizations behind them. And what we saw is that to that nimbleness, sometimes we get lost at an individual project level, because you need to wait for the bigger organization for decision making. So organizational inertia, of bigger organization impacting individual project was also something that came up, which wouldn't exist in infrastructure programs, because we have one organization and designed for that speed and pace. Riccardo Cosentino  26:37Interesting, interesting. And so in your research in your conclusion, the way you're able to look at, okay, you look at so what and where you will also be able to look at now what? So what is supposed the solution or that was beyond the scope of research? Oomar Paurobally  26:57Yeah, look, we started to look at opportunities, right? I think I'll start with organization inertia first. I wonder who said that there was a code, that snow melts at the periphery. I won't be quoting him wrong, but it was Andy Grove of Microsoft, talking about this. And his point was that organizations can get too big before snow melts at the center and the center knows about it, it already melted everywhere else. And it sure felt that way. When I was studying the industry for a nation that where COVID had a major impact was redefining the industry. But it was also creating opportunities within the industry. So for example, Foodie Kiwi business was never hired while during COVID. And organizations that were nimble were able to take advantage of it so the term Goose Kitchens became popular. They werew opening up all over the place. Delivery services became massive and even after COVID they're still around and having taken with food for delivery services is now a thing. So what this created was a reckoning in the world of hospitality around the business opportunity that existed in that food and beverage area versus what was traditionally a very rooms focused, focused business. So a recommendation was to keep an eye on the periphery and what offers businesses coming up to adapt. Otherwise, if you look up the hotel today, it seem very different when I (inaudible) in the 1960s as it wounds through reception, and there is a (inaudible) on the right hand side. So it did give a moment of reckoning for the industry, which was quite interesting. Riccardo Cosentino  29:11Thank you for that perspective. Yeah. Very, very interesting. Yeah, I think we all anecdotally understand that but to hear it from professional from the hotel industry is very interesting. Okay, I think we come in towards the end of the podcast. And I have one final question before I let you go. But before I get to the final question at any other particular discovery from your research or you think you have you presented all your findings or what was there something else in your research that you want to share with the audience? Oomar Paurobally  29:45So the (inaudible) was interesting from the research was the importance of the country in which you're operating. So we discussed a bit earlier about complexity will be coming from jurisdiction in which you're operate and when you look at this part of the world in specific, we tend to put acronyms to things we'll say this is Southeast Asia, there's tens of countries, and the laws are very, very different. So when you are operating across them, having those acronyms in mind and thinking, oh, it's just one project under that acronym, how hard can it be? I think you can never discount the jurisdiction element. And again, that's a point of difference in I think, big infrastructure projects. But we know the country in which it's happening, if it's something that's being built between the countries, we're also very specific about those two, whereas when it's the portfolio, and it's across different countries, and different stakeholders we have in those countries being able to navigate, those jurisdictions become very, very important skill. Riccardo Cosentino  30:55Thank you for sharing that. Yeah. Very interesting point. It's very peculiar to your industry. Also because you have an ongoing like with mega projects, either they get handed over to somebody else, but the operation politics is well entrenched into the business, right? So it's not just about the power, it's all of the facility. It's about running afterward. Okay, before I go, and hopefully you can you can answer these questions. I don't think this triggers any confidentiality. But I think you while we were in Oxford, you were telling us almost very specific commissioning process that the hotels, group of hotels, have to go through. Can you tell us what the royal flush is? Oomar Paurobally  31:44Well, one very, one very specific project that (inaudible) when you're you're commissioning a property, and you want to make sure all the mechanical and engineering systems and the pipings are working well. You test all the products and amenities in a room that includes turning on all your TVs, etc. And when it comes to the flush, it's about opening every faucet there is, from the bathtub to the shower to the water closet and picking and choosing the big button and flushing and doing it all at the same time to check your equipment. There have been some interesting outcomes of (inaudible). Riccardo Cosentino  32:32(Inaudible) as a civil engineer that as commissioned projects, you know, that part of the commissioning (inaudible), so thank you for sharing that. And now, on that line note, I want to thank you for joining me today. It was a fascinating conversation. Thank you for sharing with us your dissertation, your process, your findings, and I wish you all the best for your new endeavor. And thank you for joining me. Oomar Paurobally  32:55Thank you, Riccardo, always a pleasure. Riccardo Cosentino  32:59That's it for this episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I hope you found today's conversation as informative or provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major programme management. Our next in-depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going.  Transcribed by https://otter.ai Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the hosts and guests on this podcast do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy, opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of Disenyo.co LLC and its employees.

The take-no-prisoners author/filmmaker raises consciousness on victimhood negatively affected grooming/achievement; Democrats' anti-Christian/pro-public school LGBT mandates are driving away black voters; dealing with the black “Iron Triangle's” vice-grip control; devastation caused by the civil rights movement; blacks must embrace true Christianity, reject black liberation theology; Democrats' business model elevates ruthless, cruel, psychotic people; the left needs […] The post Will Blacks Finally Ditch The Democratic Party In Droves in 2024? Vince Everett Ellison Declares A Resounding Yes! appeared first on Radio Influence.

The take-no-prisoners author/filmmaker raises consciousness on victimhood negatively affecting grooming/achievement; Democrats' anti-Christian/pro-public school LGBT mandates are driving away black voters; dealing with the black “Iron Triangle's” vice-grip control; devastation caused by the civil rights movement; blacks must embrace true Christianity, reject black liberation theology; Democrats' business model elevates ruthless, cruel, psychotic people; the left needs […] The post Will Blacks Finally Ditch The Democratic Party In Droves In 2024? Vince Everett Ellison Declares A Resounding Yes! appeared first on Radio Influence.

 Hal Shurtleff, host of Camp Constitution Radio, discuss how the Left takes the black community for granted and how they are losing support.    This show originates on WBCQ The Planet.  Please visit our website www.campconstitution.net  

Carlo Chen-Delantar, Founding Partner of Gobi-Core Philippine Fund & Head of ESG at Gobi Partners, and Jeremy Au talked about three main themes: 1. Career Journey from Social Impact to VC: Carlo shared his journey from a family of entrepreneurs in the Philippines to his work in the nonprofit sector, focusing on social impact and clean water access. His transition to venture capital was unplanned, influenced by the realization of the potential impact through technology and capital allocation. 2. Gobi & Alibaba Philippines Startup Report: Carlo discussed the burgeoning startup landscape, the importance of understanding the local ecosystem, the role of technology in economic and social progress, and the challenges and opportunities for startups. He emphasized the structural and policy need to improve the ease of doing business and the attraction, retention, and training of talent across the country. 3. Emerging Markets Iron Triangle: Carlo explained the concept of the "Iron Triangle" in emerging markets (fintech, e-commerce & logistics). He shared specific FinTech opportunities and emphasized the significance of national ID systems and growth opportunities (in sectors like health tech and gaming) fueled by the young and digitally savvy. Jeremy and Carlo also discussed the challenges of doing business, the cost of brain drain, government policies affecting startups, and the importance of inclusive development across different regions of the Philippines. Watch, listen or read the full insight at https://www.bravesea.com/blog/carlo-chen-delantar Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://chat.whatsapp.com/CeL3ywi7yOWFd8HTo6yzde TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea English: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Bahasa Indonesia: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Learn more about Hive Health here: https://www.ourhivehealth.com

Randal O'Toole, an American policy analyst, discusses his maverick career, non consensus views on urban planning, transportation, and housing in this interview. O'Toole runs the Thoreau Institute as well as the popular policy blog, The Antiplanner. He has written several books and hundreds of policy papers from a free market perspective on urban planning, government policy, housing, rail and other related land use topics. We explore his belief that urban planners often impose their preferences on the public, such as imposing restrictive land use planning codes to “force” people to live in apartments and use public transit, even though most people prefer single-family homes and driving. O'Toole also shares the impact of the pandemic on urban planning, reinforcing existing trends such as people moving to the suburbs and working from home. We discuss the potential of autonomous vehicles in replacing public transit in the future as well as his views on cycling. In this interview, O'Toole critiques the idea of planning itself and promotes the repeal of federal and state planning laws and the closure of state and local planning departments. He explores in detail why planning fails, through documentation of planning disasters, while giving context of his perspective on land use issues in Hawaii such as cycling, light rail, affording housing, and agricultural lands as well as providing solutions for environmental protection and stewardship.Topics / Time Stamps* (2:08) On Biking in Oahu* (12:33) Educational Background and Current Work* (16:05) Economics vs Planning* (20:31) The Iconoclastic Mindset* (24:25) Buses vs Light Rail* (26:55) Criticism of the Honolulu Light Rail System* (33:47) On New Urbanism* (43:45) Urban Planning and the Pandemic* (46:16) Solutions to non utilized urban cores / skyscrapers * (49:06) The Iron Triangle* (51:30) Autonomous vehicles as an alternative* (54:07) Houston as Model* (59:18) Incentive-based conservation* (1:04) The Grassroot Institute* (1:06) Hawaii Land Use Reforms Recommendations* (1:12) Vacancy Taxes as Symptom * (1:15) On Optimism* (1:17) Policy Briefs The Antiplanner: https://ti.org/antiplanner/Policy Briefs: https://ti.org/antiplanner/?page_id=16274The Education of an Iconoclast: https://ti.org/antiplanner/?page_id=16272Leafbox:Today I had the pleasure of speaking and learning from Randal O'Toole. He's an American policy analyst. He's written several books, hundreds of policy papers, and he provides solutions from a free market perspective to various problems. He runs a popular blog called The Antiplanner, and he's featured in several debates on urbanism, environmentalism, government policy. But today I was curious about exploring his biography and discussing his memoir, the Education of an Iconoclast. We discussed his shift from forestry to economics, his 50 year career, his thoughts on light rail and other transportation, housing solutions, bus, Hawaii, top down urban planning, Houston as a model for development and other topics. I hope you enjoy. Thanks for listening.Leafbox:Hi, good afternoon, Randal.Randal O'Toole:Can you hear me?Leafbox:Now I can. Perfect. Thank you for your punctuality and for rearranging the meeting. I know you're a busy man.Randal O'Toole:Great.Leafbox:Well, Randal, I just thank you so much for your time. I've been reading your blog on and off for years and this morning I was biking. I live in Oahu, so I think that's important visual wise.Randal O'Toole:Oh, I hate biking in Oahu. It is so awful.Leafbox:I bike every day about 10, 12 miles to drop off my daughter back and forth. I was listening to some of your debates you've had with people, mainly James Kunstler and obviously I love biking. I wanted to start with biking. There are many debates you have online about the pros and cons of government planning and light rail, but I really wanted to start with your relationship with cycling and how that influenced your political evolution because I read most of your excellent biography and memoirs and I just wanted to understand how that cycling framework has influenced your analysis of cities and urban planning and design and everything.Randal O'Toole:Well, it's funny. One of the very first transportation issues I got involved in, it wasn't the first, but it was early. It was about 1975. I was invited to attend meetings of the bicycle advisory committee for the city of Portland. And I was an ardent cyclist. I didn't even have a driver's license at the time and I worked in downtown Portland and I lived in the east side, which if you know Portland means you have to cross the river. And Portland has, I think 11 bridges now. Only nine of them are open to vehicles and only seven of them are open to bicycles. And the lanes tended to be pretty narrow and there was a lot of on and off ramps on some of those bridges. So I went to the advisory committee and I said, you need to put some curb cuts to make it easy for bicycles to use the sidewalks so that they aren't blocking your narrow lanes.A couple of the bridges, the lanes were only like 12 feet wide and there was no ability to pass because there were structures on both sides of the lanes. And so if you were bicycling, it was kind of scary to have cars pass you in this narrow lane if you were in the lane. Now there was a sidewalk, but you couldn't get up to the sidewalk without stopping and getting off your bike and lifting the bike onto the sidewalk and so on. So I said, put in curb cuts. And the city said, oh, we can't do that. It would be too dangerous when the bicycles come off, the cars wouldn't expect it. And they'd hit the bicyclists and two years later they put in all the curb cuts and all the places I recommended. So I stopped going to those advisory committee meetings, but they ended up doing what I recommended.Now it wasn't because I had recommended it, it was because that was the logical place to put it. Since then, I occasionally participated in bicycle proposals, but today what I'm seeing is that the bicycle community has been captured by the anti automobile community. Even though at the time I didn't have a driver's license, I wasn't anti automobile, I was a follower of John Forrester. John Forrester wrote a book called, what was it called? Anyway, he argued that bicycles were vehicles by law, they were treated as vehicles and so they should act like vehicles. They should assert themselves when they were in very narrow lanes and make sure that cars knew they were there, occupy the whole lane if necessary, but usually they should try to be a part of the flow of traffic and not expect any special lanes or anything like that. In fact, he argued that bicycle lanes actually made traffic more dangerous.What's happened since then is that we've had movements, pro bicycle movements that have made bicycle list feel like they are superior to other vehicles in traffic. There was a movement called critical mass where hundreds or thousands of bicyclists would go at rush hour one day a week and occupy some entire streets that were vital streets for people getting home and disrupt traffic as much as possible. And the bicyclists who were attending these critical mass events were told You were superior, cars are inferior, you should have the right of way over cars at all times. And what we saw happen was bicyclists then would go away from these critical mass meetings and be convinced that they were superior and they would insist on occupying right away and asserting right away when they didn't actually have it and they would get hit more frequently. And we've seen an increase in bicycle fatalities in recent years.And I think that's partly because critical mass has warped the perspective of bicyclists. And so we've had cities adopt plans that they claim are to make streets safer. They call them vision zero plan. And these vision zero plans often call for taking a four lane street, in other words, a major collector street that's moving a lot of traffic and take away one of the lanes from the automobiles and make it into bike lanes. So you'd have a 12 foot lane turned into two six foot lanes, one for bicyclists going one way and one for bicyclists going the other way. That leaves three lanes. One of the lanes would be used for left turns and the other two lanes would be for traffic in two different directions. Now that kind of project is designed to safeguard bicyclists from being hit from behind by cars. Well, on average, about 3% of bicycle fatalities consist of people being hit from behind by cars.Now I'm a cyclist. I know you're always nervous about getting hit from behind, but the cars see you, they know you're there, and so they watch out. They don't want to hit you any more than you want to be hit by them. So only 3% of fatalities are being hit by cars from behind. Half of all fatalities take place at intersections where the bike lanes disappear. So we're safeguarding against a very rare event and not doing anything about the kind of event that is responsible for half of all bicycle fatalities by putting in the bike lanes, we're sending a message to bicyclists that it's safe to ride on this busy street. So we get an increase in bicyclists riding on these busy streets, which means you're get an increase in bicyclists crossing busy intersections and getting hit. So we're making bicycling more dangerous by creating an illusion of bicycle safety that isn't real.I would've done something completely different. I would've taken local streets that are parallel to those busy streets and turned them into bicycle boulevards, which means you remove as many stop signs as you can so that you can have through bicycle traffic with minimal stops, but put in a few little concrete barriers to discourage cars from using those streets as through street. So you now have streets that are open to cars for local traffic and open to bicycles for through traffic. And I've used bicycle boulevards in Berkeley and Portland and other streets and they feel a lot safer. They are a lot safer and they don't cause the imposition on cars. It happens when you take lanes away from cars. So that's my attitudes towards cycling, which is that bicycles are vehicles, cars are vehicles. One should not be superior to the other. In certain situations, cars have the right of way and other situations, bicycles have the right of way. The safest thing we can do is separate them when we can by putting bicycles on bicycle boulevards instead of by asserting that bicycles are safe, by putting them into bike lanes when actually we're making it more dangerous.Leafbox:So Randal, you mentioned that you don't like biking in Oahu. What specifically do you not like about biking here?Randal O'Toole:Well, you've got a lot of busy streets. Their lanes are narrow. There's often not bike lanes where you do have bike lanes. They have strangely put two-way traffic in one bike lane. And so you have a risk of hitting other bicyclists, but you also have the risk that not only do you have bicyclists going with the flow of traffic, you have bicyclists going in the opposite flow from traffic. And so you're compounding the risk of not just having the risk of getting hit from behind, but having the risk of a head on collision. And I don't see that as particularly safe. I've bicycled, the last time I got hit by a truck was when I was bicycling in Maui on a bike lane and the truck was turning left into a driveway. I was bicycling at about 20 miles an hour. There was a lot of traffic and the truck didn't see me before it turned and I didn't see it until the last second and got hit by this truck. So again, it's another situation where bike lanes do not increase safety. It would've been better if there had been a local bicycle boulevard and I think you could probably put some bicycle boulevards in Oahu, but they haven't done that. Instead. Mostly bicycles are then for themselves and there are those few bike lanes downtown, which I didn't find particularly well designed.Leafbox:Randal, I should have asked first, but for people who aren't familiar with your work, I'm a fan of Antiplanner, but how do you describe yourself? What's a quick summary of your actual work and education and framework?Randal O'Toole:Well, the funny thing is my training is as a forester and I spent the first 20 years of my career as a forest policy analyst. I was analyzing government plans, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management plans for mainly public lands, but also in some cases for private lands. That analysis carried over. I discovered that, well, what happened was is I was challenging the federal timber sale levels. They were selling a lot of timber, losing money at most of it, doing a lot of environmental damage. And in a nutshell:, we won federal timber sale levels declined by 85% between 1990 and 2000, and it was a great deal of that was due to my work. Part of it was due to the spotted owl, which I didn't really work on, but most of it was due to my work, which persuaded the forest service, that they were cutting too much timber and that they shouldn't be doing so much.And so now having won that battle, I looked around for other battles to fight and came across battles that were going on with land use and transportation in the city I lived in, which was the Portland urban area. And extended that to found out that I was dealing with a movement that was a national movement that was trying to force people to stop driving, trying to force more people to live in apartments instead of single family homes. And since 98% of the travel we do in cities is driving, and since 80% of Americans want to live in single family homes, it seems to me that even though I was a bicyclist, I have to realize that most people don't bicycle. Most people drive. And even though I have lived in apartments, I have to realize that most people want to live in single family homes.So I shouldn't be imposing my preferences on other people through some kind of planning process. So I began to challenge city plans, urban area plans, state plans, transportation plans, land use plans, and I discovered that there's a lot of similarities between forest planning and urban planning. Basically, forest planners think that there's these inanimate objects out in forest that they can make, do whatever they want. I actually found a forest plan that proposed they were going to grow trees to be 650 feet tall when the tallest trees in the world are less than 400 feet tall. Forest planners just thought they could imagine anything they want and it would happen. And urban planners think that there's these inanimate objects in cities that they can make, do whatever they want. And those inanimate objects are people and they think that, well, they can just force more people to live in apartments. They can just force more people to take transit or to bicycle instead of drive. And to me, those are very unappealing ideas and whether you're libertarian or not, you don't really like to think that somebody is trying to manipulate you to force you to use a much more expensive way of transportation or to live in a much less desirable home. That also happens to be more expensive than the single family home you might be living in. Now,Leafbox:When did that shift, I think in your memoirs, you started taking economics classes or was it when you were learning first computer modeling, when did that shift come in understanding reality versus imposed reality?Randal O'Toole:The funny thing was that when I was working on forest issues, I was making quite a name for myself. One Forest Service official told a reporter that Randal O'Toole has had more impact on the forest service than all the environmental groups combined. And so I would get speaking invitations and a professor at the University of Oregon Department of Urban Planning asked me to come and speak to his class, and I did at the time, I had a bachelor's degree in forestry and he said, you should go to graduate school, you should go to graduate school in our urban and regional planning department. And I said, well, I'm not really interested in urban planning. I'm interested in forest issues. He said, well, we also do regional planning, so they offered me funding support and things like that. So I said, okay, so I took the first terms worth of courses in urban planning and I looked around and I said, I shouldn't just take courses in one field.I should also learn some other fields. And there was a course in urban economics, it was also a graduate course, and what I discovered was the urban economists didn't make any assumptions about cities. Instead, they looked at the data and then they tried to build for how the city works, they compared the model against the data and if the model didn't produce the data that they knew was real, they modified the model and then they compared that against the data and they kept modifying it until they got a model that came out pretty close to how the cities actually were working. So then they were able to ask questions of the model like what happens if you draw an urban growth boundary around the city and force the density of the city to get higher force higher densities, force more people to live in apartments instead of single family homes?Will that result in more congestion or less? Well, the model clearly showed that although some people would respond to density by taking transit, most people would keep driving and the congestion would just get worse. Because you have more people driving per square mile of land because you'd have higher population densities? Well, in the urban planning courses, they asked the same question, and instead of building a model or looking at any data at all, they just said, well, I think if they were higher density people would ride transit more and so there'd be less congestion. And everybody in the class agreed. There were two urban planning professors in this class and they agreed and I said, no, the actual economic data show that the congestion would get worse. We went back and forth and finally one of the professors said, well, everybody's entitled to their opinion.And that was the day I knew I wasn't going to become a planner, I was going to become an economist. So I stopped taking urban planning courses and I started taking economics courses and took a whole slew of those courses and still spent most of my time working on forest issues. And so I ended up not earning any degrees, but I think more like an economist than a planner. In fact, I think more like an economist than a forester. Foresters have a way of thinking. Geographers have a way of thinking. Landscape architects have a way of thinking. Economists and planners have ways of thinking, and I think like an economist. And so sometimes I'll call myself an economist even though I don't have a degree in economics. Sometimes I call myself a policy analyst even though I don't have a degree in policy analysis. My degree is in forestry. All of these things are alike in the sense that these planners and basically what I've spent my career doing is critiquing government plans. These planners think that they can impose things on the land or impose things on people that people don't want to have imposed on them.Leafbox:Going back to where does that iconoclastic mindset emerge from? I'm curious and how do you keep defending it? Why don't you go with the flow of the consensus?Randal O'Toole:Well, it's funny, I've always been an iconoclast. I grew my hair down well below my shoulders when I was in high school, which made the high schools vice principals hate me. I would leave school to go to anti-Vietnam protest marches or civil rights protest marches. I would skip school to go to environmental events and eventually started an environmental group in my high school when Earth Day came along that persuaded me that I should work on environmental issues. So I went to a forestry school where they taught people how to grow trees so they could cut them down and cut them up into forest products. And here I was not being real obvious about it, but being somewhat obvious because I was spending my summers doing internships, working on how to stop the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and other agencies from cutting down trees.And so I was always out of step and that seems to have continued throughout my career. One interesting example lately has been bus rapid transit. I spent a lot of the last 30 years of my career critiquing urban transit systems and we'd see cities like Portland and Seattle spending billions of dollars on rail transit and Honolulu now spending billions of dollars on rail transit and I'd say, wait a minute, bus rapid transit can move more people faster, faster to more destinations than rail transit. So instead of rail transit, we should be looking at bus rapid transit, and now we're seeing cities say, okay, we'll do bus rapid transit, but we won't do the kind of bus rapid transit Randal O'Toole was talking about, which was running buses on ordinary city streets. But the buses only stop once per mile like a rail line, and so they're faster.They don't have to stop as frequently and they'll be more attractive to passengers both because they're faster and they're more frequent. Instead of just doing that, we're going to build special lanes for the buses. We're going to build fancy stops for all the buses, fancy stations for all the buses to stop at. And so instead of spending a million dollars a mile on bus rapid transit, we're going to spend $50 million a mile or a hundred million dollars a mile on bus rapid transit. We're going to make bus rapid transit as expensive as building rail transit. Well, I've lost interest in that, and so I'm now no longer enthusiastic behind bus rapid transit. Instead, the kind of transit I've been advocating is express buses, nonstop buses throughout urban areas that will take people from lots of origins to lots of different destinations with intervening 20 miles an hour, which is the average speed for bus rapid transit or 11 miles an hour, which is the average speed for local buses. They'll go at 50 miles or 55 miles an hour because they'll be going on freeways for most of their routes. Nobody else in the transit industry is thinking about this. So I guess I'm ahead of my time. I was talking about bus rapid transit before they were, and now I'm talking about express buses before anybody else. We'll see if they follow.Leafbox:Randal. These are like the buses, the Bolt bus in Los Angeles or San Francisco or the Chinatown buses in New York to Boston or DC or those type of private industry buses.Randal O'Toole:Those are intercity buses. And the interesting thing about the intercity bus industry is it used to be tied down by bus stations. You'd have these expensive bus stations in every city and they'd have baggage clerks and they'd have ticket salesmen and stuff like that. And the kind of buses you're mentioning, they've abandoned all that. They go from curbside to curbside, which means they don't have to pay for a station. They let the passengers load their own luggage, which means they don't have to pay for baggage handlers. You buy your tickets on the internet, which means they don't have to pay for ticket agents.And that led to a huge resurgence in inter city buses. intercity buses buses were on the decline for about 1960 to 2005, and you started seeing these infrastructure light buses, megabus and bolt bus and so on, and suddenly bus ridership, intercity buses bus ridership is increasing. So we look at the transit industry and instead of saying, let's see, we've got this great infrastructure out there, it's called roads and streets. Let's run our transit on roads and streets. Instead of saying that, they're saying, let's build a lot of infrastructure that's dedicated solely to urban transit, and it's going to be really expensive infrastructure. We can build a lane mile of road for half a million dollars, but we're going to spend a hundred million dollars building a mile of rail or $200 million. There are some rail projects now that are costing $500 million per mile of rail.That's a billion dollars a route mile because we have a mile of rail going in each direction. So we're spending phenomenal amounts of money for something that's only going to be used by a few transit riders because transit only carries half a percent of all passenger travel in this country. Before the pandemic, it was 1%, but now it's down to about a half a percent. Maybe it'll get us way back up to three-fourths of a percent. We're spending billions and billions of dollars on this tiny percentage of travelers with buses. We could attract the same number of people, move the same number of people, probably more people for a lot less money because the buses can go faster. Even New York City subways average less than 30 miles an hour, and buses on freeways can average 60 miles an hour.Leafbox:So Randal here in Hawaii about the new HART (Light Rail), I'd love to just a quick summary of your critiques of that system and why you think it was built.Randal O'Toole:Well, of course, when they first planned it, they said it was going to cost less than 3 billion. And in fact, the original proponents said that fares were going to pay not only all the operating costs, but they were going to pay part if not all of the capital costs. Well, the costs have exploded to well over $9 billion. The Federal Transit Administration thinks that by the time they're done, it's going to be $12 billion and they've run out of money. So they're saying we're not going to be able to finish it all the way immediately. Eventually we might get enough money to be able to finish it, but not right away. And the ridership numbers they were projecting were probably way too high. Certainly they're not getting anything close to what they were expecting with the part that's opened. That's partly because it's not finished and you look at it and all it really is a bus route.They could have done exactly the same thing with buses. They could have gone just as fast if not faster with buses. They persuaded people to go for it. They said it's going to relieve congestion. Well, it's not going to relieve congestion. In fact, their own data show the congestion is going to increase near the transit stops because people were going to be slowing down and stopping there to pick up and drop off rail riders instead of people walking to the rail stations that were going to drive to the rail stations and have somebody drive them and drop them off. So their own data showed it was going to increase congestion, but they convinced people it was going to reduce congestion. And the onion had a great story many years ago saying 98% of American commuters want other people to ride transit so that they can drive in less congested traffic.So transit agencies in Honolulu, in Los Angeles and San Diego and cities all over the country had convinced people to go for these extremely expensive transit projects by claiming that it was going to reduce congestion when in fact, on almost every case, it made congestion worse. And we made these critiques of the Honolulu Rail project before they began, before it began, the city council ignored us. They were heavily pressured by the unions that wanted jobs for constructing it. When the construction is done, there aren't going to be any jobs. The transit is automated, there aren't going to be jobs for drivers, there's going to be some maintenance jobs. There's going to be a tiny fraction, the jobs that they're getting for building. And so it was just basically unions and contractors wanted to build it. They threw money into the right campaign funds, and so politicians supported it.So we end up seeing, and we're seeing us all over the country, we're seeing it for high speed rail, we're seeing it for Amtrak. We're seeing this what's called the iron triangle, which is people who make money from tax dollars in one corner of the triangle, the bureaucracy that another corner of the triangle and the politicians at a third corner of the triangle, the politicians appropriate money to the bureaucracy, which then give it out to the contractors who spend it and then who then take some of that money and use it for campaign contributions to the politicians. Very hard to break that triangle. We have found that if a measure goes on the ballot and we can spend 10% as much money as a proponent spend, we can usually reach enough voters to convince 'em to vote it down. But if we only reach five, only spend 5% as much as the proponent spend, it usually passes because they drown us out with their claims that it's going to relieve congestion and is education.It's convincing people to be skeptical of government. We've got this huge movement now that's skeptical of capitalism and they don't realize that a lot of government is really crony capitalism where people take money from government to build up their companies. You've got companies that exclusively live off of government spending, and you see this in transportation. We've got all these engineering and consulting firms like Parsons Brinkerhoff, which has now got a new name WSR and HDR and a bunch of other companies, and they overtly lie. HDR has made a specialty of going to cities and saying, if you build rail transit, you're going to get billions of dollars of economic development. Look what happened in Portland. They built a light rail line and they got a billion dollars of economic development. They don't mention the fact that Portland got zero economic development after it built the light rail.So 10 years after it opened the line, it threw a billion dollars in subsidies to developers along the light rail line, and those developers then put in new developments and they said, look, we built the light rail line. We've got all this new development. Well, you didn't mention the billion dollars in subsidies: where you didn't put in the subsidies, you got no new development, or you did put in the subsidies and you didn't have light rail, you got new development. It was the subsidies, not the light rail that got new development. HDR lies to people and claims it's the rail transit that got the new development. They even hired a city counselor in Portland, the person who had originally proposed these subsidies, and he traveled around the country telling cities that they put in the rail lines and they got all this development. He never mentioned the subsidies that he himself had initiated on the Portland City Council.So you need to educate people and we need a skeptical public. We need people in the public who aren't going to automatically assume that government is good and that private operations, private companies are automatically bad. Private corporations aren't necessarily purely good, but given a choice between a public agency and a private corporation, I would rather have the private corporation because I can at least decide not to patronize that company if I don't like their products or what they do. Whereas when the government does something, I'm stuck with having to pay taxes for it whether I like it or not.Leafbox:What are your thoughts on New Urbanism? I think you've had debates with James Kunstler and have any of your thoughts changed or evolved orRandal O'Toole:Yes, they've evolved. I originally didn't like it and now I hate it. I originally thought new urbanism was a little misguided. Now I think they're delusional. Totally delusional. New urbanism is the idea that people will be happier if they live within walking distance of shops, of coffee shops, of stores of transit stops, maybe even within walking distance of work that people will be healthier if they're within walking distance. The way to do that is to build a lot more apartments because that's the way to get the density you need to get people living within walking distance. And so new urbanism effectively supported the urban planners who are trying to have urban growth boundaries around cities and densify the cities and increase the apartments. And if you look at the history of new urbanism, it basically came in the 1990s from a group of architects and planners who read a book that was published in about 1960 called The Death and Life of Great American Cities.The book was written by an architecture critic at the time named Jane Jacobs. She lived in Greenwich Village, New York City at the time, the urban planning profession believed that high density apartments were bad. Most of the big cities like New York and Chicago and Boston had a bunch of apartments that had been built before the turn of the 20th century. They were like four and five and six stories tall. They didn't have any elevators. You had to climb up all these staircases if you lived on an upper floor to get to your apartment. At the time they were built, elevators had just been invented or they hadn't even been invented yet. High speed electric elevators dated to 1891. So a lot of these were built before the elevators. They were built for people who couldn't afford to ride a street car to work. And so you had blocks of apartments that had like 5,000 people living per block, and they were within walking distance of blocks of factories that had like 3000, 4,000 people per block of factories.So people would walk, from the apartment for the factory. Well, after the turn of the 20th century, we got Henry Ford developed the moving assembly line for automobiles, and he made automobiles so cheap that everybody who was living in those apartments could afford to buy them. And the moving assembly line required so much land that all the factories moved out of downtowns into the suburbs. So the jobs moved to the suburbs, the people who bought cars that a lot of them moved to the suburbs, they could live in single family home instead of apartments. And after World War ii, we could see those apartments were not very desirable. And so in 1949, Congress passed a law that gave the cities money for urban renewal that was to be used to clear these apartments out and replaced them with something else. Well, the cities didn't want to replace 'em with single family homes because they didn't think they'd get as much tax revenue for the single family homes.So for the most part, the cities were replacing them with high rise apartments with elevators. In the 1930s, there was a crazy architect from Switzerland who called himself Le Corbusier , which I think means the crow, and he thought that everybody should live in high rise apartment. I don't know why he thought that, because he himself never lived in a high rise apartment. He lived in low-rise, but he thought cities should build highrise apartments. So the urban planning fad of the 1950s was to build high-rise apartments, not just in American cities, but all over the world. You go to South Korea and the cities, all of them have high rise apartments. You go to Japan, you go to China, you go to Russia, you go to Paris, you go to cities everywhere you find all these high-rise apartments. They were all inspired by this kooky architect named Lake Buer who thought people should live in a way that he himself didn't want to live.So here comes Jane Jacobs. They want to tear down her apartment building and put in a high-rise, and she says, urban planners don't understand how cities work. Well, she was right about that. Urban planners don't understand how cities, but then she went on to say something that was totally wrong, which was that she, Jane Jacobs understood how cities work, and the way she described an ideal city was you had five story apartment building and with all this density, the ground floor would be shops and people would entertain their guests out on the street. She didn't say this apartments were so small, there was no room for entertaining guests. So you'd entertain the guests out on the streets, so you'd have people playing out on the streets, they'd be barbecuing out on the streets, they'd be shopping out on the streets because the shops are out on the streets, so there wouldn't be any crime because everybody would be able to see everything that was going on because they'd all be down on the streets all the time.You'd have these lively streets, it'd be so exciting to live in them. It'd be a wonderful place to live. And that's what a real city was like. She didn't understand that what she was describing was an artifact from the 1880s that people were moving out of as rapidly as they could and that, despite her claims, they did have high crime rate. The people didn't want to live in buildings, so they had to climb up to five stories, four, four or five stories on stairs to get to their apartments that they're moving out. She herself didn't live in a five story building. She lived in a three story building. I don't know if she lived on the second floor or the third floor. I suspect her apartment was probably on both floors because she was welted due. Her husband had a good job, she got a good job.They lived in this three story building. There was a shop on the ground floor and they had to walk up, I think one floor to get to the main part of their apartment. So she didn't understand what it was like having to walk up three, four, and five flights of stairs to get to apartments on the fourth, fifth, and sixth floors. Doubly ironic, in 1968, her son decides to dodge the draft because he didn't believe in the war in Vietnam. So he moved to Canada. She decided to move to Canada with him, and she made so much money selling her book, the Death and Life of Great American Cities that she bought a single family home in Canada. She didn't live in a mid-rise apartment, and she moved to a single family home. And yet the urban planners who were young in the 1960s and becoming dominant in the 1990s who had read her book said, yes, we were wrong to try to force people to live in high rise apartments.We should instead try to force people to live in five story apartments like the apartments that she described in the Death and Life of Great American Cities, like the apartments in Greenwich Village. So instead of saying, alright, let's build some of these five story apartments in the inner cities in Portland and Denver and Seattle, they said, let's build these five story apartments everywhere. Let's build them in the suburbs. Let's build them in rural areas. Let's build 'em everywhere. All urbanites should live in these five story apartment buildings. And so we're seeing them spring up all over the place. Most of them are subsidized because as I say, 80% of Americans want to live in single family homes, not in apartments. We even had an urban planner write a paper that was very popular in the urban planning profession that said by the year 2025, and he wrote this in about 2002 or something. By the year 2025, people aren't going to want to live in single family homes anymore, and we're going to have a surplus of 22 million single family homes in the suburbs. The suburbs are going to turn into slums because everybody living in those suburbs are going to have moved into apartments in downtown. And so what urban planners should do today is get ahead of the situation by getting their cities to build more apartments, building more apartments in the suburbs, replace these icky single family homes that people won't want to live in so that we won't have a shortage of apartments when people want them. Well, of course, we're two years away from 2025. We have people moving away from cities as fast as they can before the pandemic where there were polls that showed that 40% of people who were living in dense cities wanted to move to suburbs or rural areas. And we had the same polls showed that more people wanted to live in suburbs that actually lived in them, and that was in 2018. And then the pandemic comes along and people just flee these dense cities, the populations of San Francisco and New York and others, Portland and Seattle, they're all declining and the populations of their suburbs, some cases are growing the populations of small towns. Boise, Idaho is the fastest growing city in the country.The guy was just totally wrong. And yet we have suffered for two decades under urban planners who have tried to force these ideas on cities by subsidizing, by taxing people, and then subsidizing these high density apartments that people don't really want to live in.Leafbox:Randal, talking about the pandemic, how has that changed or affected your outlook on urban planning or on where people want to live? Or do you have the same critiques of the subsidies of suburban living orRandal O'Toole:All the pandemic has done is reinforced the ideas I already had. A pandemic doesn't really change things. What it does is it reinforces trends that are already happening. We already had a trend where people were buying cars and stopping the use of transit. Transit ridership declined every year from 2014 to 2018. It recovered slightly in 2019, but not much. Most cities still declined. About 45% of our transit takes place in New York City. And what happened was it grew in New York City in 2019. It's still declined almost everywhere else, but the growth in New York City overcame the decline everywhere else, but basically people were still buying cars. Gas prices dropped in 2014 and that just killed transit everywhere except New York City.And then we have the trend to living in suburbs. We have the trend of wanting to live in single family homes as soon as people could afford to do so. They would buy a car and then they could live out in the suburbs where they didn't have to be in a lot of congestion or they didn't have to deal with crime or they didn't have to deal with pollution and things like that. And all the pandemic did is it reinforced all those things before the pandemic. You might've thought everybody who wanted to move to the suburbs had already done, but no, it turns out a lot more people wanted to move to the suburbs, but by the pandemic allowed more people to work at home and that led more people to say, okay, now I can move to the suburbs. Or before I couldn't because I was required to work in an office that was too far away from the place I wanted to live in the suburbs. So we now have people who maybe work in an office one day a week, but live a hundred miles away from that office and instead of driving 20 miles five days a week, they're driving a hundred miles one day a week each way and living far, far away from the density that urban planners had made for them.The pandemic didn't change my views, it just reinforced them.Leafbox:What is your solution for the urban cores that are the skyscrapers of New York and the developers that built up that infrastructure? What are they supposed to do with these remote work is a challenge for 'em?Randal O'Toole:I think the government shouldn't do anything. I think the developers are going to have to figure it out for themselves. The owners are going to have to figure out for themselves what to do with those offices. Solution number one is to find lower valued tenants. They have what they call Class A offices and class B offices and class A offices attract companies like Chase Manhattan and Wells Fargo and Class B attracts lower rung companies. Then you have Class C that attracts nonprofit groups and flea markets and antique stores and things like that. So the owners of these office buildings are going to have to accept a lower class of tenants. Now you hear proposals to convert office buildings to apartments, and I think the Biden administration just approved a bill that's going to offer money to developers to convert office buildings to apartments. The problem is you look at the way plumbing is set up in an apartment building, every single apartment has to have plumbing for kitchen and bathrooms.And you look at the way plumbing is set up in an office building, they put the plumbing in this core of the building where the restrooms are and the outer reach of the building have no plumbing at all. So it's going to be very expensive to change office buildings into apartment buildings. And really it's cheaper to build single family homes than it is to build apartments, and it's probably cheaper to build single family homes than it is to convert offices to apartment buildings. If you didn't have urban growth boundaries around cities, you're not going to convert offices to apartments because people aren't going to be willing to pay that extra cost of living in an apartment. If you live in a place that does have urban growth boundaries, you've driven up the cost of single family homes to be two to five times greater than it ought to be, then maybe you'll be able to justify converting offices to apartments economically justify. But that's only because you've distorted the housing market totally rid of those distortions.Leafbox:Like you said, it's still the triangle, the iron triangle, because the developers are getting subsidies for their losses instead of just taking the loss and finding Class C tenants.Randal O'Toole:Well, that's going to happen in some places, but even with the subsidies, I don't think you're going to see a lot of apartment conversions in Houston or Dallas or Atlanta or Omaha or Raleigh, places where you don't have urban growth boundaries. And so housing is still pretty affordable. Single family housing is still pretty affordable. The new urbanists like to ask people, would you rather live in an apartment where you're within walking distance of coffee shops and grocery stores and your work? Or would you rather live in a single family home or you have to drive everywhere you go? Everywhere you go. And a lot of people will say the apartment, but if you ask a question honestly, you'd say, would you rather live in a 1000 square foot apartment that costs $400,000 that's within walking distance of a limited selection, high priced grocery store and a coffee shop?Or would you rather live in a 2000 square foot single family home on a large lot that's with an easy driving distance of multiple grocery stores that are competing hard for your business, both on and on having a wide selection of goods to sell you. And there's not much congestion because you live in a low density area. Well, you asked a question that way. You mentioned that your 2000 square foot house only costs $200,000, whereas to 1000 square foot apartment costs $400,000, even without the cost, you're going to find a lot more people saying they want the single family home. And when you add in the cost, the preference for single family homes just zoomed upward. So in Houston, you're not going to see a lot of conversions. You'll probably see a bunch of conversions in San Francisco, but do people really want to live that way? I think people are being forced to live that way, and I don't like the fact that planners are getting away with forcing people to live in ways they don't want to live. WhatLeafbox:Are your thoughts? I think you're a proponent of autonomous vehicles as an alternative to public infrastructure and public transport. Could you expand on that?Randal O'Toole:Well, I'm not so much a proponent, as I see that's the wave of the future. So we see cities like Seattle spending gobs of money. I mean, Seattle's got spending like 90 billion on light rail when autonomous vehicles, once they're applied to Seattle are going to be just destroy light rail as a mode of transportation. Who's going to want to ride light rail when you're going to be susceptible to diseases that you can catch from other people on the train? There's going to be crime on the train, and it only goes when the rail is scheduled, not when you want to go, and it only goes where that we've spent billions of dollars building the rail lines and not where you want to go. Whereas you could call up an autonomous vehicle, have it come to your door, take you to your door, and it's going to cost you probably not much more, maybe even less than when you count all the subsidies.It's certainly going to cost less than the light rail. So it's going to happen. I mean, it's happened in San Francisco. Waymo has just announced that they're serving the entire Phoenix metropolitan area now just 550 square miles. Cruise is shut down in San Francisco temporarily in response to calls because there was one accident. But the data show that even as primitive as it is today, we've the autonomous vehicles that have traveled millions and millions of miles have only had about one fifth as many accidents per million miles. They travel as human-driven vehicles. The pressure is coming from the taxi drivers, the truck drivers, the people whose jobs are going to be lost when they're replaced by autonomous vehicle, and they're the ones who are putting pressure in California to try kill autonomous vehicles in San Francisco. But it's going to happen. And since it is going to happen, we shouldn't be spending money on these 19th century forms of rail transportation that are slow and expensive and don't go where people want to go.Leafbox:Talking about international frameworks, you travel, you went to Switzerland and you're going to Canada and you're a fan of rail. Where can Americans learn? Who's doing planning, right? Who's letting, is it Singapore, is it Tokyo? Where's the most ideal framework for development in your opinion, meeting the needs of this civilian, the government, and just where do you find that balance?Randal O'Toole:Houston. Houston is the closest I can come to the ideal. Houston has no zoning. Texas counties are not allowed to zone. And so Houston is surrounded by lots, some suburban cities that are incorporated. The biggest one is Pasadena. They don't have any zoning. Other Incorporated cities around Houston do have zoning, but what happens is the developments take place in unincorporated areas. The developers build houses that people want. They build homes for the market. They do build some multifamily, but they build mostly single family. And then these developed areas then get annexed into the suburbs and the suburbs then sometimes apply zoning. Sugar land is one example of that. Almost all of sugar land was built in unincorporated areas and then annexed into the city. Even the city hall was built when it was unincorporated, and then they annexed it into the incorporated area. So the zoning only came after it was built.And so the developers were able to build the kind of houses that people wanted. And one of the things that developers found is that if you're going to buy a single family home, you want to have some assurance that nobody's going to put in a gravel pit or a meat packing factory or a brick factory or something like that right next door to you. And so the developers did something that was like zoning. They put protective covenants on the properties. They said All the homes in this neighborhood have to be a certain size. All the homes in this neighborhood have to be a certain size or whatever, and the lots have to be a certain size and so on. And what happens is when you do that, if you're a developer, you don't get more money from your lots, but they sell a lot faster.It doesn't increase the cost. There's no cost of putting these covenants on, but they sell a lot faster. These covenants are actually developed decades before zoning, and they were so successful that zoning was invented by cities to apply to existing single family neighborhoods to increase home ownership. Home ownership rates went from about 15% in cities in 1890 to over 50% by 1960, because people had the assurance that if they bought a home, it wasn't going to be degraded in use because the next door neighbor decided to put in something that was incompatible, whether it was zoning or protective covenants. So Houston has protective covenants in all these suburban developments, and these covenants are flexible. If a developer says, look, your neighborhood has these covenants in and they're incompatible with the development I want to put in, but I think my development will sell really well, I'll pay you to change your covenants.And some neighborhoods have agreed to do that so that the developers can put in something that they think is more marketable than the kind of housing that's in that neighborhood and people's taste change. So these kinds of things do happen over time. Now, another thing that's happened is that some of the suburban counties around Houston have toll road authorities, and they are funded exclusively out of their tolls. They build roads rather economically. They build freeways that are cost about $5 million a lane mile, and they build these freeways to get from the suburban communities that are being built by developers who are using protective covenants to get from these suburban neighborhoods to downtown Houston. So Fort Bend County, for example, has several freeways that is built exclusively with toll roads that are paid for solely out of tolls. They don't get any gas taxes, they don't get any tax dollars, and I consider these to be very successful.Now nobody is perfect. Houston. After voting down light rail a couple of times, they managed to persuade them that voters that if they built light rail, it would relieve congestion. And so they ended up building some light rail lines That to me, have been total disasters. Transit ridership in Houston was growing before they started building a light rail is now lower than it was in the last couple of years before light rail opened. Because they spent so much money on the light rail, they ended up cutting back on their bus service and you lost more bus riders than you gained rail riders. That's a pattern we've seen in Los Angeles and St. Louis and Sacramento and cities all over the country that you build rail and you lose riders because you end up having fewer bus riders than you gain rail riders. But overall, despite that quirk, the light rail problem in Houston, I say Houston is the place you should go to if you want to find out how cities could work without a lot of government plansLeafbox:As an environmentalist, you have a model called Incentive-based conservation. Could you just summarize that for people and how you think market reactions can help secure environmental rights and whatnot?Randal O'Toole:Well, I developed those ideas back when I was working on forest issues and the Forest Service and other agencies were doing a lot of clearcutting that clear cutting damaged wildlife habitat. It reduced recreation values because recreationists to the most valuable recreation was recreation in areas that were wild and where you had some solitude from other people and from big cities and from roads and things like that. And so the forest service is eagerly building roads, cutting down trees, damaging watersheds, damaging fisheries, damaging wildlife habitats. The best fisheries in Oregon, for example, are an area that have no roads, that have had no logging, the best salmon fisheries. So I looked at after years of looking at Forest service data, something hit me one day, and that was that the reason why the Forest Service was doing this is because Congress had inadvertently designed their budget to reward the Forest Service for losing money on environmentally destructive activities and to literally penalize the forest Service for either making money or doing environmentally benign activities, activities that were not bad for the environment.And certainly they didn't reward them for doing environmentally good activities. And so the Forest Service was merely following its incentive. I wrote a whole book about this. It was called Reforming the Forest Service. It came out in 1988. In 1989, the Forest Service sold 11 billion Ford feet of timber started declining in 1990. By 2001, it had fallen to one and a half billion board feet of timber. It had fallen by 85%. And people in the Forest Service came to me and said, we read your book and we thought you were accusing us of being corrupt. And then this guy said, the guy told me, I suddenly realized last week I had signed off on a timber sale so I could get a bigger budget. And they stopped doing that. They stopped saying, they said, we don't want to be motivated by our budget to do these bad things anymore.And so they stop these environmentally destructive timber sale. I didn't think that was going to happen. I thought we would have to change their incentives. So I talked about incentive-based conservation. I said, we should charge recreation fees. We should charge fees, bigger fees for fishing and hunting. Right now, when you fish and hunt, technically under federal law or under US law, the animals you fish and hunt are owned by the states. But if you, on national forest, the land you're hunting on is owned by the federal government. So right now you pay a hunting fee to the state, but you don't pay anything to the federal government. I said, you should also have to pay a fee to the federal government to hunt on federal land or fish on federal land. If you did that, I pointed out then private landowners would also be able to charge fees, and you'd see both federal and private landowners modifying their activities so that they would enhance wildlife habitat, enhance fisheries, and enhance recreation opportunities.We'd have more recreation, not less if we were willing to pay fees. And so my solution to the forest problems was to charge recreation fees to balance the fees from timber cutting and grazing and mining. And the forest services own numbers showed that recreation was worth more than all the other activities combined. So they would make a pretty good balance. I got quite a few environmentalists supporting this. But then in the mid 1990s, the environmental movement kind of got taken over by people who believed in top down planning, they believed that the president should make all the decisions for every single timber sale. And if a timber sale didn't meet their approval, they literally went to the president of the United States and got him to call up the district, not him, but one of his age, to call up the district ranger and say, don't do that timber sale. It drove the Forest Service bureaucracy nuts because these people in the administration in the White House were overruling 'em. And so incentive-based conservation didn't get very far. Now we're seeing some people in the environmental movement going back and recognizing that this top down planning doesn't work very well, and they're beginning to look at these ideas again.Leafbox:Randal, as you had that interview with the Grassroots Initiative here in Hawaii discussing housing policy, what's your relationship with them? And my other question is, do you have an opinion on vacancy taxes for Hawaii or other places?Randal O'Toole:Alright, well, you're talking about the Grassroot Institute, not plural, but Grassroot Institute, and they're a state-based think tank in Hawaii. And I work with state-based think tanks all over the country. Recently, I've done work for state-based think tanks in North Carolina, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, a lot of different states and Hawaii. And some of them have hired me to do some work. Some of them just asked me to comment in Zoom meetings or in podcasts or radio interviews or whatever. But the Grassroots Institute is one of a great network state-based think tanks that I'm happy to be working with and for as much as I can. Even when I worked for the Cato Institute, which is a national think tank in Washington dc, I really saw my job as being a liaison from Cato to these state-based think tanks because most people in Cato working on national or international issues, I was one of the few in Cato who was working on local issues like housing or transportation issues. And so I've always had a good relationship with the Grassroot Institute. The director and their staff are great people and they do good work on housing and a lot of other issues in Hawaii.Leafbox:And then what are your thoughts? I mean, you advocated for a voucher model, just to summarize that for meeting affordable housing and then if you have any thoughts on vacancy taxes. Many people want to apply vacancy tax in Hawaii for empty units or empty second homes or I'm just curious if you've studied that at all.Randal O'Toole:Well, Hawaii was the first state in the country to try to restrict the development of single family homes. And it's such an irony because in the 1950s, most of the land in Hawaii was owned by the five companies, Dole and so on, and the bishop estate. And if you wanted to own your own home in Hawaii, often you couldn't find land to own it on something like 99% of the land was owned by one of these six entities. So you would have to lease land from one of these entities and build your home on it. And the five companies were agricultural companies and they weren't interested in leasing land for homes. They wanted to grow pineapple and sugarcane and other crops on their land. And so you had this huge housing crisis in Hawaii in the late 1950s. And at the time, in the early 1950s, Hawaii's legislature, territorial legislature was run by Republicans and they were very sympathetic to the five companies, and they weren't sympathetic to the people who needed housing.Well, the late 1950s, the Democrats took over and they took over on a promise of land reform. They promised that they would force the five companies and the bishop estate perhaps to sell some of their land to use for housing so that people could find affordable housing. Well, the Democrats won and in 1961 they passed their land reform cap package and it did exactly the opposite of what they promised. Instead of requiring the companies to sell the land, they declared all the rural land in the state, most of which was owned by these five companies. They declared that land off limits to developments. They said the only land you could develop was urban land. This story is told by a great book called Land and Power in Hawaii. I recommended to all your listeners if they're from Hawaii. And what the Democrats discovered was that as legislators, they could make exceptions for themselves.And so if you're a developer and you wanted to develop some land, you went to a state legislator and you made that legislator a partner in your development, the partner would then get the state to override the rules that had been passed by the state in response to the law you passed so that you could have your land developed or your developer partners land development developed and you'd make all this money. And so it became quite a corrupt system, and that's a system that governs Hawaii. To this day, only about 14% of the land in Hawaii has been developed. There's lots of land even in Oahu. Most of the land is still undeveloped. It's rural land that could be developed. And the real irony is supposedly the 1961 law that reserved all these rural areas where supposed to protect the agricultural industry, and yet the farm industry has practically died in Hawaii.Why? Because the farmers can't afford to hire farm laborers and pay them enough money for those laborers to find housing and still produce pineapple and sugarcane and other produce that's competitive with farms in Costa Rica and Fuji and other places that haven't restricted housing. And so we've destroyed more than 80% of the farm industry in Hawaii just since 1982. It's been 80%. So since 1961, it's been more than 80%. In order to preserve the farmlands, we had to destroy the farms. That to me is a very sad commentary on what's happened in housing. Now, since housing has gotten expensive, we've come up with all these wacko ideas to make housing that's affordable. One wacko idea is build high density housing, build more apartments. Well, it turns out apartments cost twice as much per square foot to build as single family homes, maybe more than twice as much if it's really tall, partly because you have to put in elevators.If you're building taller than two or three stores, you have to put in elevators. They're really expensive, more steel, more concrete. It just makes housing a lot more expensive. So you're not building affordable housing when you build apartments. And yet we have all these subsidies that we're throwing at developers that are inefficiently building expensive housing, but it's subsidized housing. And so then they can rent it at lower rates. Then we come up with crazy ideas like, oh, Airbnb is using up all the housing. Well, if we didn't have these restrictions on housing, we could build more housing. There'd be enough housing for Airbnb, there'd be enough housing for vacation homes, and there'd be enough housing for year-round residents. It's only because of the land use law that restrict housing, restrict new development that's made housing expensive. So the number one priority of anybody who cares about affordable housing should be to abolish the state land use laws, not just modify them to increase the amount of urban land, but totally abolish them. We'd see a lot more development on Oahu. We'd see a tiny bit more development on the other islands. Not much. Most of the land that's rural and the other islands would stay rural. At least half the land on Oahu that's rural would stay rural. Probably half of Oahu would stay rural, but there'd be a lot more development and housing would get to be a lot more important.Leafbox:A

Jessica Thompson discusses how project management can be a game-changer in clinical research.  We talk about how poor project management can lead to delays, cost overruns, and regulatory violations, and that lawyers can play a role in ensuring that clinical research projects are managed effectively. Thompson emphasized the need for early planning and communication between all stakeholders involved in a clinical research project.Points discussed:Do clinical research project management tools differ from those used in other industries?-  1:58- 4:25What does the term 'critical path' mean?- 4:25- 6:34How to companies respond to the concept of critical path?- 6:53- 8:46How is Association of Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) connected to Association of Clinical Research Project Managers (ACRPM)?- 9:54- 12:01How should sponsors involve project managers in their projects?- 12:04- 18:47Is a project manager different from a manager?- 19:07- 21:00How do Kaizen and Lean Six Sigma fir into clinical research project management?- 21:02- 22:47What is the significance of the Iron Triangle in clinical research project management?- 22:49- 28:08What is the advantage of being a part of ACRPM?- 28:34- 30:48 Sign up for our newsletter- https://darshantalks.com/ 

Affordability, access, and quality are often referred to as the Iron Triangle of healthcare. There are tradeoffs among them and you can improve one or two, but not all three. Seth Rainford (Co-Founder & President, Digital Diagnostics) joins us to discuss how artificial intelligence can break that tradeoff and lead to a new and golden era of medical diagnosis and treatment.ABOUT CARETALK EXECUTIVE FEATURESCaretalk Executive Features is a series where we spotlight innovative companies and leaders working to advance the healthcare field. ABOUT SETH RAINFORDSeth Rainford is the Co-Founder and President at Digital Diagnostics where he focuses on expanding market opportunities and driving operational excellence within the company.Rainford brings more than a decade of executive experience to Digital Diagnostics including the successful management of large-scale P&L's, strong organic & inorganic business development expertise, as well as complex multi-site operations leadership within the healthcare industry.Rainford most recently served as Regional Vice President & General Manager of LabCorp in the Greater Chicago Area, leading a strategic transformation of the Midwest business unit. Previously, he served as Vice President at Northwestern Medicine, where he drove the commercialization and scaling of their outreach diagnostics business.Rainford received his MBA in business administration from Purdue University.ABOUT DIGITAL DIAGNOSTICSDigital Diagnostics Inc. is a pioneering AI diagnostics company on a mission to benefit patients by transforming the accessibility, affordability, equity, and quality of global healthcare through the application of technology in the medical diagnosis and treatment process.Learn more about Digital DiagnosticsGET IN TOUCHBecome a CareTalk sponsorGuest appearance requestsVisit us on the webSubscribe to the CareTalk NewsletterShop official CareTalk merchFOLLOW CARETALKSpotifyApple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsFollow us on LinkedIn#healthcare #medicine #artificialintelligence #healthcareinnovation #healthcaretechnology #healthcarebusiness #healthcareindustry #healthCareTalk: Healthcare. Unfiltered. is produced by Grippi MediaCareTalk: Healthcare. Unfiltered. is produced by Grippi Media

Today's opening tale of terror is ‘1971: The Vietnam Experience', a brilliantly original work by Sanjoaquincounty58, shared with me via the Creepypasta Wiki and read to you all with the author's express permission via the CC-BY-SA license: https://creepypasta.fandom.com/wiki/User:Sanjoaquincounty58 https://creepypasta.fandom.com/wiki/1971_-_The_Vietnam_Experience This is followed by all six parts of ‘Tales from The Iron Triangle', an epic work by Taxi Dancer, kindly shared directly with me via my subreddit and narrated here for you all with the author's express permission.  https://www.reddit.com/user/Taxi_Dancer/

Dr. Stephen Klasko is a transformative leader and advocate for a revolution in our systems of health care and higher education. He has been a university president, a dean, a CEO, and an obstetrician, and now pursues his vision for the creative reconstruction of American healthcare by bridging traditional academic centers with entrepreneurs and innovators. His passion is using technology to eliminate health disparities and offers everyone the promise of health assurance. Dr. Klasko is also a lifelong DJ who believes that the message in the music can give us the courage to tackle a broken, fragmented, unfriendly, expensive, and inequitable healthcare system. In this episode, Dr. Klasko merges with his alter ego “Stevie K the DJ” to discuss his new book, “Feeling Alright: How the Message in the Music can Save Healthcare” published by ACHE.  Feelin' Alright leverages the emotional power of song lyrics to inspire healthcare executives to envision and build a more accessible, high-quality, and equitable healthcare system. Using music as a metaphor,  Dr. Klasko encourages us to examine what is problematic in the existing healthcare model and to take tangible steps toward a more consumer-centered healthcare experience. Infused with the passion inherent in music, this interview motivate healthcare leaders to take the lead in building a better healthcare system! Episode Bookmarks: 01:20     DJ Eric “The Dream” Weaver introduces Dr. Stephen Klasko (aka Stevie K the DJ)! 03:30 Support Race to  Value by subscribing to our weekly newsletter and leaving a review/rating on Apple Podcasts. 04:30 Using the power of music to inspire a more optimistic world. 05:30 Dr. Klasko discusses his prior career as a DJ and how getting fired started him on the path to medicine. 06:30 Using music at Jefferson to inspire his others to find hope in overcoming the pandemic, financial tsunami, and systemic racism. 07:00 “Choice of Colors” by Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions (healing during the George Floyd protests) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr0SLv9WFr4 07:45 “Courage to Change” by Sia become a theme song for frontline workers and their heroic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWQACEqf4QY 10:00 Health care delivery during the pandemic was a war and how music helped to see a brighter day. 10:45 “We have to stop saying we are the best healthcare system in the world.” 11:00 “Medicine's Dilemmas: Infinite Needs Versus Finite Resources” and the “Iron Triangle” of Healthcare 11:30 The performance of stocks as evidence for flawed thinking around healthcare disruption. 12:30 Kaiser Permanente and Geisinger come together to launch Risant Health and expand access to value-based care. 13:00     Payer-Provider Alignment in Medicare Advantage 13:45 Cityblock Health leveraging capital investment to build a Community Health Worker model for population health. 14:30     Taking population health, social determinants, predictive analytics, and health equity to the mainstream of healthcare. 14:45 “Keep the Customer Satisfied” by Simon & Garfunkel as inspiration for health assurance to rebuild trust and equity in a broken system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx6_0Do0qGQ 17:00 In healthcare, do we really view the people as the customer? 18:00 The healthcare system is setup to enrich the people in control. 18:30 “The concept behind health assurance is that costly sick care will give away to affordable, personalized, and preemptive care, partly through genomic sensors and AI-based digital therapies.” 19:00 The future of Jefferson as a health system without a location. 20:00 Livongo and Jefferson Health -- a strong, sustainable partnership between technology and providers to remake medicine. 21:00 Poor consumer segmentation in American healthcare (viewing patients monolithically). 22:45 Radical change needed! (collaboration,

Vince Everett Ellison is a member of Project 21; author of The Iron Triangle; a noted public speaker; and producer of the new documentary, Will You Go to Hell for Me?   In this exclusive Schilling Show Unleashed Podcast interview, Ellison discusses the Democrat Party as a purveyor of evil, their complicity in child sacrifice and child genital mutilation, and the Democrat Party's worship at the altar of abortion.

Episode 2484 of the Vietnam Veteran News Podcast will feature a report about the Cu Chi Soil and Iron Triangle Soil Tunnels by Professor Kenneth R. Olson of the University of Illinois, Urbana. This episode is dedicated to the Memory … Continue reading →

While flipping is one of the most popularized and commonly discussed real estate investing strategies, it's one that we actively avoid.  In this episode, we share our experiences with past flips and some of the challenges and complications that make them one of our least preferred strategies.  We'll discuss the flipping variables to be aware of and if you are pursuing this strategy, what you can do to help ensure your success.What you'll learn: Why the unexpected or expected variables in flipping are not worth your trouble; Where can I earn a better return on my investment than real estate flipping? Why you should consider the Iron Triangle when making decisions; and,Why we think rental real estate is OUR bread and butter investment strategy.Resources: Property Analyzer SpreadsheetRetirement Planning SpreadsheetDownload our Wealth Building BlueprintThe Invested Teacher Wealth Building BooklistInterested in Partnership Opportunities?For those interested in potential Joint Venture (JV) Partnerships, reach out to us here. Analysis Paralysis is REAL! You're real estate portfolio will stay empty until you take action.Grab our free training on how to analyze deals and also grab our analyze spreadsheet that does the dirty work for you. Canadian Wealth Secrets is an informative podcast that digs into the intricacies of building a robust portfolio, maximizing dividend returns, the nuances of real estate investment, and the complexities of business finance, while offering expert advice on wealth management, navigating capital gains tax, and understanding the role of financial institutions in personal finance.

This episode is also available as a blog post: http://cherrieswriter.com/2023/03/11/operation-cedar-falls-search-and-destroy-in-the-iron-triangle/

Our systems generate fantastic amounts of information, but do we have a complete understanding of how we collect, analyze, manage, store, and retrieve possibly petabytes a day? Gal Shpantzer has been doing InfoSec for over 20 years and has managed some huge data engineering projects, and offers a lot of actionable insights in this CISO Tradecraft episode. Gal's LinkedIn Page - https://www.linkedin.com/in/riskmanagement/ Gal's Twitter Page - https://twitter.com/Shpantzer Full Transcript - https://docs.google.com/document/d/14RXnsVttvKlRi6VL94BTrItCjOAjgGem/ Chapters 00:00 Introduction 02:00 How do you Architect Big Data Data Infrastructure 03:33 Are you taking a look at Ransomware? 06:11 Web Scale Technologies are used mostly in Marketing & Fraud Detection 08:11 Data Engineering - The Mindset Shift 10:51 The Iron Triangle of Data Engineering 13:55 Can I Outsource My Logging Pipeline to a Vendor 15:37 Kafka & Flink - Data Engineering in the Pipeline 18:12 Streaming Analytics & Kafka 22:08 How to Enable Data Science Analytics with Streaming Analytics 26:33 Streaming Analytics 30:25 Data Engineering - Is there a Security Log 32:30 Streaming Analytics is a Weird Thing 35:50 How to Get a Handle on a Big Data Pipeline 39:11 Data Engineering Hacks for Big Data Analytics

Welcome to Episode 68 of the Monday Night MasterDebaters where I am joined by Ryan from Dangerous World Podcast and Jacob & Jonathan from Cult of Conspiracy Podcast. We came out hot talking about all of the distractions, logos/symbols/rituals, Iron Triangle, Nord Stream, UFOs Earthquakes, Train Derailment, Raccoon vs Bear, Buhurt, Love Bugs, Kudamundi, and much more! Please leave a review & share the show! Go support the great guests at: Jonatan & Jacob from Cult of Conspiracy Podcast linktr.ee/cultofconspiracy?utm_source=linktree_profile_share<sid=0c9dd1e9-de87-4435-9ba2-2a8a4845eb44 https://www.instagram.com/cultofconspiracypodcast/ Ryan from Dangerous World Podcast Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/DangerousWorldPodcast/posts IG: @dangerousworldpod linktr.ee/dangerousworldpodcast Mat from The Great Deception Podcast Linktree: https://linktr.ee/thegreatdeceptionpodcast IG: https://www.instagram.com/thegreatdeceptionpodcast/ https://www.instagram.com/thegreatdeceptionpodcast_v2/ YouTube: https://youtube.com/user/Barons44 Email: thegreatdeceptionpodcast@gmail.com To Make Contributions: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thegreatdeceptionpodcast Merch: https://my-store-cb4b4e.creator-spring.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-great-deception-podcast/support

“To save America and the world, Conservatives must first answer this one very important question: Why do the vast majority of Christian African Americans vote for the Atheist/Anti-Christian, Liberal Democrat Party?”–Vince Ellison, author of the book “The Iron Triangle: Inside the Liberal Democrat Plan to Use Race to Divide Christians and America in Their Quest for Power and How We Can Defeat Them” joins Larry Elder Show to discuss how liberals took over the Democrat Party and used the “Iron Triangle” to control black people during and after the Civil Rights Movement. The Larry Elder Show is sponsored by Birch Gold Group. Protect your IRA or 401(k) with precious metals today: http://larryforgold.com/ ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

On January 8th, 1966, at 0930h Indochina Time, salvos of American artillery, napalm, and explosive ordnance from B-52s rained down on an underground Viet Cong base believed to be a political headquarters. The location was the Ho Bo Woods of the Binh Duong Province in South Vietnam, 70 km north of Ho Chi Minh City. It was about to become host to a seven-day joint mission executed by the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. But, these allies soon discovered that the assumed headquarters held a much more surprising secret: a sophisticated, underground logistical tunnel system spanning over 200km. You can find the Hardtack Community on all of our socials via our linktree. If you have any feedback on our episodes or suggestions for future episodes, please send us an email: hardtackpod@gmail.com Don't forget to rate us and subscribe! Make your Own Hardtack! Hardtack Recipe (Survival Bread) - Bread Dad Civil War Recipe: Hardtack (1861) – The American Table Sources: 1965 - Vietnam - 1 RAR Association Incorporated The Dispatch - Google News Archive Search Ho Bo Woods, Vietnam War, 1960s - Film 1017413 - YouTube Ho Chi Minh City 1966 Past Weather (Vietnam) - WeatherSpark Viet Cong Tunnels and Traps - Platoon: The True Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsLE6EtrvhM John M. Carland, Stemming the Tide, May 1965–October 1966, United States Army in Vietnam (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, United States Army, 2000), 169–173, Stemming the Tide, May 1965 to October 1966 (army.mil). Vietnam: A Television History; Operation Crimp, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. Iron Triangle, Cu Chi district. U.S. soldiers exploring Vietcong cave; Hau Nghia Province. (wgbh.org) 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment | Australian War Memorial (awm.gov.au) https://www.historyhit.com/tunnel-warfare-during-world-war-one/ https://www.slq.qld.gov.au/blog/tunnel-rats-and-flame-throwers-joe-cazey-vietnam-war-digital-story-and-oral-history https://www.thenmusa.org/articles/tunnel-rats-of-the-vietnam-war/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hardtackpod/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/hardtackpod/support

Scott speaks with William Hartung from the Quincy Institute about ways the arms industry is ripping off American taxpayers. They take a close look at a few cases such as the F-35 and the Littoral Combat Ship. Both weapons systems don't work, but have made the manufacturers and their friends a lot of money. Scott and Hartung also take a step back and examine the overall dynamics of the military-industrial-congressional complex and how they use threat inflation and bad economic arguments to keep the money flowing into their pockets.   Discussed on the show: “How the Arms Industry Scams the Taxpayer” (Antiwar.com) The Iron Triangle by Gordon Adams Scott's interview with Michael Tracey William Hartung is a Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. Find him on Twitter @WilliamHartung. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State and Why The Vietnam War?, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; and Thc Hemp Spot. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Download Episode. Scott speaks with William Hartung from the Quincy Institute about ways the arms industry is ripping off American taxpayers. They take a close look at a few cases such as the F-35 and the Littoral Combat Ship. Both weapons systems don't work, but have made the manufacturers and their friends a lot of money. Scott and Hartung also take a step back and examine the overall dynamics of the military-industrial-congressional complex and how they use threat inflation and bad economic arguments to keep the money flowing into their pockets.   Discussed on the show: “How the Arms Industry Scams the Taxpayer” (Antiwar.com) The Iron Triangle by Gordon Adams Scott's interview with Michael Tracey William Hartung is a Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. Find him on Twitter @WilliamHartung. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State and Why The Vietnam War?, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; and Thc Hemp Spot. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

"While the technological boom in the health care field is not a circumstance of the pandemic, the accelerated roll-out and adoption of digital features certainly are. And rapid innovation in the health care technology field is not a bad thing in itself. Health care technology discoveries improve health care access, quality of life, patient safety, and even save lives – for example, remote patient monitoring devices and robotic surgery. Although digital health innovations have significantly impacted patient engagement by empowering individuals' autonomy over their own health, these modern health tools could yield a much greater impact if they were not primarily utilized by populations already advantaged in terms of cost, access, and quality of care." Nina Cloven is a health care administrator. She shares her story and discusses her KevinMD article, "Melting the iron triangle: Prioritizing health equity in dynamic, innovative health care landscapes." Did you enjoy today's episode? Rate and review the show so more audiences can find The Podcast by KevinMD. Subscribe on your favorite podcast app to get notified when a new episode comes out. Click here to earn 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 CME for this episode. Also available in Category 1 CME bundles. Powered by CMEfy - a seamless way for busy clinician learners to discover Internet Point-of-Care Learning opportunities that reward AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Learn more at about.cmefy.com/cme-info

Money in politics can't be a good thing, can it? Have you ever wondered why elections cost so much and where that money comes from? Or who is influencing politicians on their decisions? We try and answer those questions In this episode by taking a look at the formation of Political Action Committees and their impact on elections. We'll also take a look at who influences congress once they are elected, hint they use a revolving door and form an Iron Triangle. Hopefully by the end of this episode you'll be able to decide how much money is too much money in politics. Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/theloinsofhistory or https://www.patreon.com/theloinsofhistory Instagram: @loins_of_history Facebook: @loinsofhistory Twitter: @JLoinsofHistory @loinsofhistory Our views are our own and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of our employers. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theloinsofhistory/support

On this episode of the Illumination podcast, host Amrit Ahluwalia is joined by Vernon Smith, Provost and Senior Vice President of the American Public University System. The two discuss scalability, student centricity, and transforming higher ed's iron triangle into a rubber triangle.  

This episode finishes a three part series on improving your business savvy and is about dealing with your iron triangle, the three strongest walls that keep you down This concept is on way business owners can consistently make smart decisions. Topics covered: Benefits of knowing your iron triangle. Dangers of your iron triangle. How to move a side of your iron triangle. Part 1 link:  Gaining Business Savvy: Answer Vs Solution   Part 2 link: Gaining Business Savvy: There are no solutions, only tradeoffs Show notes at Arise2Live.com/podcasts   #Arise2Live #entrepreneur #leadershipskills #constructionbusiness #jobshop

The greatest government cover up of all time - Was there a moon landing hoax conspiracy? Was the moon landing fake? What is NASA hiding? We have the Documentary DVDs that answer these questions. How does the Iron Triangle fit in? What were the motives? Was the space race a military race, and was it real or fabricated? Now, more than ever before, people want answers. But what now? Are we soon to reach a point in history where technology creates 'facts', in an age where life-like Computer Graphics Imagery (CGI) can create reality? Begin now, on your own personal path of research - through the seven most highly acclaimed documentary films dealing with this subject - the Moon Landing Hoax. - www.moonmovie.com

Jason Fisher is a father, a writer, and the proprietor of Armadillo Storage Company in Durango, CO. He roots for the Denver Nuggets and the Boston Red Sox, but really finds pleasure in supporting the Denver Broncos Football Club, and that last part is a painful phrase to type. Jason once held the esteemed position of Editor-in-Chief for Fort Lewis College's The Independent newspaper, and still makes up one-third of The Iron Triangle, a trio of ex-Independent editors that dabbled in the blog world over at House of Georges. He currently spends a little too much on green citrus and occasionally tweets here.In this inaugural episode of “Badass Records,” we lost his video near the 1:00:00, and mine died about 20 minutes later. Learning curve, eh?Anyway, he did not choose any albums that're older than his record-buying habit, and he most certainly did not choose Jason Isbell's Southeastern. He once chose Exile on Main Street, but we both forgot I'd asked him, ‘cause we're awesome like that. He ultimately threw Guns N' Roses's Appetite for Destruction and N.W.A.'s Straight Outta Compton at me, and I think he kinda meant it.

It's an easy assumption to make: improving access must necessarily degrade quality. Enhancing quality always costs more money, increasing the cost of education. These beliefs have been called the Iron Triangle of Higher Education. However, a number of institutions have been demonstrating over recent years that institutional outcomes of quality, access, and even affordability can be improved simultaneously. In this IngenioUs mini, Bay Path University professor of higher education leadership, Dr. Lauren Way speaks with Dr. Stephen Ehrmann about his upcoming Leading Edge Thinking in Higher Education seminar on this very important topic. Listen in to leanr more about what insights Dr. Ehrmann will be sharing in the webinar. Dr. Stephen C. Ehrmann is an independent scholar and the author of Pursuing Quality, Access, and Affordability: A Field Guide to Improving Higher Education (Stylus). His book provides a practical, and long-view guide to implementing transformative educational change across an entire institution and ultimately, US higher education as a whole. Dr. Ehrmann is a former grant-maker, consultant, and vice provost for teaching and learning at George Washington University, and has served as Program Officer for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), and as Director of Educational Research and Assistance. To register for this free event, scheduled for July 21, 2022 at 12:00 noon (ET) see here.

Breaking down "The Iron Triangle" -- the corrupt connection between congressional members, federal bureaucrats, and the special interest groups and lobbyists that, unlike the American voter, shape U.S. policies both here and abroad.   Buy Drinkin' Bros new Hard AF Seltzer Here!   Buy Drinkin' Bros Merch Here!   Go to ghostbed.com/drinkinbros and use code DRINKINBROS for 30% off EVERYTHING (Mattresses, Adjustable Base, and more) -- plus a 101 Night Sleep Trial and Mattresses Made in the USA!   Visit Lucy.co and be sure to use promo code AMERICAN

 Hal Shurtleff, host of Camp Constitution Radio, discusses the impact of "Shurtleff v Boston" in several cities in the U.S., and he reviews two books written by Vince Ellison "25 Lies Exposing Democrats Most Dangerous, Seductive, Damnable, Destructive Lies and How to Refute Them, and "The Iron Triangle:  How Democrats are using race to divide Americans in their quest for power.  And how we can stop them."  This show originates on WBCQ The Planet.  Please visit our website www.campconstitution.net  

The greatest government cover up of all time - Was there a moon landing hoax conspiracy? Was the moon landing fake? What is NASA hiding? We have the Documentary DVDs that answer these questions. How does the Iron Triangle fit in? What were the motives? Was the space race a military race, and was it real or fabricated? Now, more than ever before, people want answers. But what now? Are we soon to reach a point in history where technology creates 'facts', in an age where life-like Computer Graphics Imagery (CGI) can create reality? Begin now, on your own personal path of research - through the seven most highly acclaimed documentary films dealing with this subject - the Moon Landing Hoax. - www.moonmovie.com Now listen to all our XZBN shows, with our compliments go to: https://www.spreaker.com/user/xzoneradiotv or www.xzoneuniverse.com *** AND NOW *** The ‘X' Zone TV Channel on SimulTV - www.simultv.com The ‘X' Zone TV Channel Radio Feed (Free - No Subscription Required) - https://www.spreaker.com/show/xztv-the-x-zone-tv-show-audio The ‘X' Chronicles Newspaper - www.xchroniclesnewspaper.com (Free) To contact Rob McConnell - misterx@xzoneradiotv.com

It's round 3 with Senior Director of Agile Coaching and Kaizen Lead for Pfizer, Matt Philip in this exciting new episode of The Agile Coach. In this episode, Matt will be sharing his views on the Iron Triangle, Fitness for purpose, the significance of experimentation, and many more.  HIGHLIGHTSThe Iron Triangle ModelThe other triangle: ROI, Sentiment, and FitnessImportance of experimentationIntegrating the possibility of failureQUOTESMatt: “I think that the whole Iron Triangle of project management back in the day was it served some, some benefits. There was there's some rigor around managing processes, managing projects, there's a lot of good stuff there.”Matt: “The most important thing is whether someone will actually use this product and how quickly they'll use it. “Matt: “ Only the customer, only the consumer can define if it's fit for their purpose.”Matt: “We see this a lot, whether it's software or otherwise, people are afraid to change stuff because they don't know what they're going to break.”Learn more about Matt in the link below:Linkedin: linkedin.com/in/matthewphilipWebsite: mattphilip.wordpress.com/Twitter: mattphilipIf you enjoy The Agile Coach and interested in learning more, you can check us out in the Link below:Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-agile-coach-llc

Episode 47 of The Far Middle is dedicated to Steelers cornerback Mel Blount, the lynchpin of the Steel Curtain. After reflecting on the four-time Super Bowl champ’s playing career and post-football work supporting and mentoring youth, Nick proposes we deputize the Hall of Famer to straighten things out with criminals looting and vandalizing train cargoes in California. Next, Nick discusses environmental groups and their attorneys stopping the training of America’s Navy SEALs: “Putin and the Chinese Communist Party, their best friends, more often than not, are environmental groups.” Nick then examines the latest from “perhaps Putin’s second-best friend” Pope Francis, who continues to not name Russia as the aggressor in their war on Ukraine. Nick goes on to comment on the federal government awash in tax revenue, the “Iron Triangle” in action, and closes with a must-listen reflection on Led Zeppelin’s Physical Graffiti—the first album to ever go platinum on advance orders alone (add it to your playlist after this podcast, especially if it’s been ten years gone since last listen).

In this episode, the Outsiders delve into the Iron Triangle and discuss dealing with the critical project constraints of cost/resources, time and scope. Is there a silver bullet to address these age-old constraints? Is there a lever a Product Owner can pull to tackle them wisely? Listen in to find out.

$2 Trillion is stolen, there is a well-covered-up network of sexual abuse and tens-of-thousands of people are killed - if those are not crimes, what are? Welcome to NATO's mission in Afghanistan. It was an appalling, cluster-problem.  For those of you who don't know what happened in Afghanistan and why millions of Afghans choose scumbags like the Taliban over our lot - listen to this podcast.  It is deeply shocking.   Our troops were, at times, little better than bodyguards for drug lords. Our officials, at times, helped cover up monumental corruption and the sexual exploitation of hundreds of children.Worst, our politicians and generals knew about it - but received so many political contributions and jobs from defense contractors that nothing was done.Few people have wanted to speak about this issue.   As Westerners, this is our Berlin Wall moment.  Either we reflect and figure out what went wrong or our societies are in real danger. Note - I am neither a Donald Trump or Joe Biden supporter - but an independent journalist and professor.  The scandal in Afghanistan was far bigger than any political party in any country.  It was a monument to deep-rooted corruption and criminal incompetency in America and all of NATO. The presentation was at conference of the International Association of Financial Crime Investigators (IAFCI) in Chicago, September 2021.  I was to speak about sports corruption and gambling but chose to speak about Afghanistan.    It seemed to touch a nerve among the audience.

Negotiating, recruiting, career planning, interviewing... rarely taught, crucial skills that are indispensable to career success. Listen in as Mark Herschberg, author of The Career Toolkit, Essential Skills for Success That No One Taught You, gives valuable career advice about pivoting and about the value of knowing your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) tactic to deliver significant negotiating power.   Table of Contents 01:40 … Meet Mark02:58 … Pivoting Your Career04:56 … Impact Of COVID on Career Progress06:27 … Post Pandemic Work Shift08:19 … Being Intentional with Relationships11:01 … How to be Better at Interviewing15:11 … What are Good Interview Questions?21:17 … Preparation for Negotiations23:48 … The BATNA Approach27:10 … How to Anchor your Negotiations31:37 … How to Contact Mark32:48 … Closing. MARK HERSCHBERG:  So you want to prepare ahead of time, think about what is it that you want to get out of this negotiation.  What's your ideal outcome?  What's your BATNA, your Best Alternative To Negotiate Agreement?  That's the point at which you walk away.  You shouldn't take anything less.  What are some possible scenarios that might come up?  What are some tradeoffs you might want to do?  And what might the other side be doing?  WENDY GROUNDS:  Welcome to Manage This, the podcast by project managers for project managers.  Thank you for joining us today.  I am Wendy Grounds, and joining us on Skype is Bill Yates.  Today we're talking to Mark Herschberg.  Mark was educated at MIT, and he's spent his career launching and fixing new ventures at startups, Fortune 500s, and academia.  Mark helped create the Undergraduate Practice Opportunities Program, MIT's career success accelerator, where he's taught for 20 years.  Bill, you've read Mark's book, and you're going to tell us a little bit about that. BILL YATES:  Yes.  The goal of his book is to be a career success accelerator, just like you mentioned.  And there is so much application to project management.  He's got a chapter on communications, and the leadership chapter talks about how do we motivate team members, different ways to do that.  There's some familiar topics here, things like Tuckman's Ladder, the five different stages for project team development, looking at the 5 Whys technique, the Iron Triangle.  So he goes into some of these things that we'll look at as project managers and go, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, I get that.  And then he goes deeper, and those are the topics that we want to talk to him about today, things like negotiation, interviewing, tips that I think project managers can really benefit from. Meet Mark WENDY GROUNDS:  Mark, welcome to Manage This. MARK HERSCHBERG:  Thanks for having me.  It's a pleasure to be here today. WENDY GROUNDS:  I want to hear a little bit about your book.  You authored “The Career Toolkit:  Essential Skills for Success That No One Taught You.”  What prompted you to write this book? MARK HERSCHBERG:  Years ago, when I first started hiring people, software engineers, project managers, I found when I had asked them a technical question, I'd get a technical answer.  But when I would ask a question like what makes someone a good teammate, what are the communication challenges we face, I would get blank stares.  And I realized we never teach this in our undergraduate curriculum.  So I had to start training up folks that I was trying to hire. At the same time, MIT was getting similar feedback from corporate America and began to put together their own program.  So I heard about this.  I was about a year ahead of them.  I said, “You know, I've been working on this.  Can I help?”  So I then got involved with MIT.  I helped develop this program.  I've been teaching for the past 20 years.  But of course these skills, it's not just for MIT students.  It's not just for students.  They are universal skills.  Again, corporate America said these are the skills we want to see,