Podcast appearances and mentions of Mark Schwartz

We had the pleasure of interviewing Highly Suspect over Zoom video! Never content to follow, Highly Suspect push rock music forward by trusting their instincts and raising a middle finger to everything else. The multi-GRAMMY® Award-nominated and gold-certified band - Johnny Stevens [vocals, guitar], Ryan Meyer [drums, vocals], Rich Meyer [bass, vocals], Matt Kofos [guitar] and Mark Schwartz [keyboards/guitars] - don't just talk about burning the rules and breaking the mold; they actually do so.The band's chemically imbalanced mix of gritty guitars, haunting piano, off-kilter synths, hip-hop production, cinematic vision, and beautifully possessed vocals transformed them into a phenomenon beloved by a diehard global fanbase known as “MCID” [My Crew Is Dope]. After grinding it out as an underground curiosity, they scraped a path to mainstream infamousness with their 2015 full-length debut, Mister Asylum. It earned a GRAMMY® Award nomination in the category of “Best Rock Album” as the single “Lydia” received a nomination for “Best Rock Song” was certified gold by the RIAA.The 2016 follow-up The Boy Who Died Wolf roared to life with the gold-selling “My Name Is Human,” which catapulted to #1 on the Billboard Mainstream Rock Chart and garnered a GRAMMY® Nomination for “Best Rock Song.” 2019's MCID affirmed them as the rare outfit who could collaborate with Young Thug and Gojira on the same album. Loudwire hailed the latter among the “50 Best Rock Albums of 2019.”  With hundreds of millions of streams and sold out shows on multiple continents, Highly Suspect charged ahead of the pack again on 2022's The Midnight Demon Club with no compromises and no apologies as they challenged rock to be dangerous and maybe even life-changing again. This past summer the band  shared their latest opus, As Above, So Below, is out now via Roadrunner/300/ElektraWe want to hear from you! Please email Hello@BringinitBackwards.comwww.BringinitBackwards.com#podcast #interview #bringinbackpod #HighlySuspect #NewMusic #ZoomListen & Subscribe to BiBhttps://www.bringinitbackwards.com/followFollow our podcast on Instagram and Twitter! https://www.facebook.com/groups/bringinbackpodBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/bringin-it-backwards--4972373/support.

Podcast 273 - Local Event Raising $800k - Mark Schwartz - Crohn's & Colitis Foundation Torch Gala The Crohn's & Colitis Foundation's 34th annual Torch Gala, hosted by Dunwoody's Mark Schwartz, aims to raise $800K for groundbreaking research. With Mark and his daughter personally affected, this event is more than just a fundraiser. Join him on February 8th at the Intercontinental Hotel in Buckhead in supporting a cause that touches many lives. https://torchgala.org/

Nachum Segal interviews the new Mayor of Teaneck, NJ, the Honorable Mayor Mendy (Mark) Schwartz and he presents great Jewish music, the latest news from Israel and Morning Chizuk with Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser.

In Episode 393 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Herman Mark Schwartz, a professor in the Politics department of the University of Virginia and the author of three books on economic development, globalization, and the geopolitics of the subprime mortgage crisis. Demetri and Mark discuss an article that he recently co-authored in American Affairs about AI's potential to create a new growth wave of creative destruction that could rival or surpass those of previous innovation cycles, with enormous implications for business, society, and the role of government in the economy. They discuss what these so-called “Schumpeterian” growth waves typically look like, how they create complex interactions across all facets of the economy, and how they ultimately exhaust themselves, making room for the birth of a new innovation cycle. In the second hour, Mark and Demetri apply this framework to the growth wave that we have been living through for more or less the last 50 years and which now appears to be in the late stages of endogenous decay. They examine three scenarios for what might come next. The first is an extension of the current wave, the second is a new paradigm driven by AI as the key general-purpose technology, and the third is neither an extension of the current wave nor a transition to a new paradigm, but rather a series of crises characterized by commodity shortages, energy insecurity, political polarization, and global conflict. You can subscribe to our premium content and access our premium feed, episode transcripts, and Intelligence Reports at HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you want to join in on the conversation and become a member of the Hidden Forces Genius community, which includes Q&A calls with guests, access to special research and analysis, in-person events, and dinners, you can also do that on our subscriber page at HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you enjoyed listening to today's episode of Hidden Forces, you can help support the show by doing the following: Subscribe on Apple Podcasts | YouTube | Spotify | Stitcher | SoundCloud | CastBox | RSS Feed Write us a review on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Subscribe to our mailing list at https://hiddenforces.io/newsletter/ Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou Subscribe and Support the Podcast at https://hiddenforces.io Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod Follow Demetri on Twitter at @Kofinas Episode Recorded on 12/02/2024

Over the past year of war in Gaza, several diplomatic and humanitarian organisations, including the UN, have repeatedly accused Israel of breaching rules of military conduct. These breaches have provoked regular condemnation by governments and high-ranking officials worldwide. But amid all the words, what has been missing is concrete action against Israel. If any authority has the power to influence Israel's actions, it is the US – its strongest ally and main source of military aid. The death toll in Gaza has passed 42,400, with thousands more bodies thought to be buried under rubble and tens of thousands dying from indirect causes. In Lebanon, where densely populated neighbourhoods are being hit by air strikes, at least 2,300 have been killed and 1.2 million displaced. Earlier this year, the International Court of Justice determined that it was plausible that Israel may be committing genocide. Investigators and human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have warned the US that it may be complicit in war crimes because of Israel's unlawful use of American weapons. In a rare development this week, a leaked document revealed US officials warning the Israeli government that future weapons shipments could be affected if the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not addressed within 30 days. But with little having changed in the past year, and as Israel appears to defy any limits imposed on it, the question remains: will the US truly enforce any red lines? On this episode of Beyond the Headlines, host Nada AlTaher speaks to Hala Rharrit, a former US diplomat who resigned in protest against Washington's handling of the war. She also speaks to Mark Schwartz, a defence researcher at the RAND Corporation, to examine the White House's support for Israel. And we hear from Alex Vatanka, the founding director of the Iran programme at the Middle East Institute, on the prospects of an Israeli retaliation against Tehran.

Kate Schwartz (formerly known as Mark Schwartz) is a central Illinois musician who has recorded over 40 albums under her own name and with bands End Times Trio, Forest Saints, Tin Ghost, Demons on Wheels, and collaborations like Petulant Clark. Kate shares how she recently transitoned and how she facillitates a trans support group at the Phoenix Center.

Full show: Monday, September 30, 2024: The Morning team and callers debate if Jalen Hurts is a good NFL QB. Joe DeCamara has seen Jalen steadily decline over the past year and a half. Also, how much blame does Nick Sirianni deserve? Should Eagles consider firing him? NovaCare Injury Report with Dr. Mark Schwartz. Bad to the Bone Awards, Ray Didinger' s takeaways, and Seth Joyner joins us for the final hour of the show.

Dr. Mark Schwartz, M.D. is an orthopedic surgeon with Burlington County Orthopedic Specialist in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. Dr. Schwartz specializes in sports medicine, arthroscopic surgery and is the Co-Director of Virtua Health Sports Medicine Program. For more information on Dr. Mark Schwartz, please go to burlingtoncountyortho.com.

Hour 2: Rueben Amaro joins the Morning team talking pride in the Phillies fans for the London series. Dr. Mark Schwartz of NovaCare discusses Realmuto's injury. Joe Conklin delivers a hilarious depiction of the Jalen Hurts and Nick Sirianni relationship at the cafeteria.

Dr. Mark Schwartz, M.D. is an orthopedic surgeon with Burlington County Orthopedic Specialist in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. Dr. Schwartz specializes in sports medicine, arthroscopic surgery and is the Co-Director of Virtua Health Sports Medicine Program.  For more information on Dr. Mark Schwartz, please go to burlingtoncountyortho.com

Guest Bio: Mark Schwartz joined AWS as an Enterprise Strategist and Evangelist in July 2017. In this role, Mark works with enterprise technology executives to share experiences and strategies for how the cloud can help them increase speed and agility while devoting more of their resources to their customers. Mark has extensive experience as an IT leader in the government, private sector, and the nonprofit world, and with organizations ranging from startup to large. Prior to joining AWS, he was CIO of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (in the Department of Homeland Security), where he led a large digital transformation effort, moving the agency to the cloud, introducing and refining DevOps and Agile techniques, and adopting user-centric design approaches. From his work at USCIS, he developed a reputation for leading transformation in organizations that are resistant to change, obsessed with security, subject to considerable regulation and oversight, and deeply bureaucratic. Before USCIS, Mark was CIO of Intrax Cultural Exchange, a leader in global youth exchange programs, and CEO of a software company. Mark is the author of The Art of Business Value , A Seat at the Table: IT Leadership in the Age of Agility, War, Peace and IT and The Delicate Art of Bureaucracy. Mark speaks at conferences internationally on such subjects as DevOps, Leading Change, Driving Innovation in IT, and Managing Agility in Bureaucratic Organizations. He has been recognized as a Computerworld Premier IT Leader and received awards for Leadership in Technology Innovation, the Federal 100 IT Leaders, and a CIO Magazine 100 award. Mark has both a BS and MA degree from Yale University, and an MBA from Wharton.   Social Media/ Website: Mark's LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/innovativecio Mark's AWS Executive Insights page with links to all his blogs posts and books https://aws.amazon.com/ar/executive-insights/enterprise-strategists/mark-schwartz/  Books/ Resources: The Delicate Art of Bureaucracy: Digital Transformation with the Monkey, the Razor and the Sumo Wrestler by Mark Schwartz https://www.amazon.co.uk/Delicate-Art-Bureaucracy-Transformation-Wrestler-ebook/dp/B086XM4WCK/ The Art of Business Value by Mark Schwartz https://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Business-Value-Mark-Schwartz/dp/1942788045 A Seat at the Table: IT Leadership in the Age of Agility by Mark Schwartz https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seat-Table-Leadership-Age-Agility/dp/1942788118/ War, Peace and IT: Business Leadership, Technology, and Success in the Digital Age by Mark Schwartz https://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Peace-Business-Leadership-Technology/dp/1942788711 Reaching Cloud Velocity: A Leader's Guide to Success in the AWS Cloud by Jonathan Allen et al https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reaching-Cloud-Velocity-Leaders-Success/dp/B086PTDP51 Ahead in the Cloud: Best Practices for Navigating the Future of Enterprise IT by Stephen Orban https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ahead-Cloud-Practices-Navigating-Enterprise-ebook/dp/B07BYQTGJ7 Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers Who Turned the Tide in the Second World War by Paul Kennedy https://www.amazon.co.uk/Engineers-Victory-Problem-Solvers-Turned-ebook/dp/B00ADNPCC0 The Phoenix Project: A Novel About IT, DevOps, and Helping Your Business Win by Gene Kim https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Project-Devops-Helping-Business/dp/1942788290/ The Unicorn Project: A Novel about Developers, Digital Disruption, and Thriving in the Age of Data by Gene Kim https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unicorn-Project-Disruption-Redshirts-Overthrowing/dp/1942788762   Interview Transcript Ula Ojiaku:  Mark, thank you so much for making the time for this conversation. Mark Schwartz: Thank you, my pleasure. Ula Ojiaku: Great. Now let's start with you know, the question I usually ask my guests: who's Mark? What makes him tick? Mark Schwartz:  And they can answer that question. It's not a hard one. where to start? Um, you know, I always enjoy my work. That's a thing about me. I like to think that people have fun working with me because I tend to laugh a lot. And even you know, when the work is boring, I find ways to make it interesting. I just enjoy doing things and accomplishing things. I think if we're going to talk about my books, and some of the things I've done later, an important thing to realize is that, I started out, you know, when I went, when I was in high school, when I went to college, I was pretty sure I wanted to study computer science and get involved with these computer things. But when I was actually studying, I realized there were all these other interesting areas, I'm just, you know, endlessly curious. And so, I wound up studying all kinds of other things, in addition. And the result was that when I finished college, I decided to go to graduate school in philosophy. And I spent a few years getting a master's degree in philosophy. And the fact that I'm curious about so many things and read so many different things, I think it enters into a lot of what I do. I like to pull analogies from non-IT related fields and, and, and I'll call upon all the things I've learned in all sorts of different areas, as I'm writing and speaking and working. Ula Ojiaku:  It shines through in your book, definitely. Mark Schwartz:  Yes, I think it does. That's partly an explanation for what you see in my books. I think, um, you know, I sometimes say that I have trouble reading business books generally. Because I kind of find them boring. They tend to make the same point over and over again, and to be very just so one directional, you know, just on the same subject, and it's a little bit odd because in every other subject, the books tend to refer to other books in other fields and there's this extra dimension and that helps you understand what the author is getting at. But in business books, they, you know, aside from having a quote now and then from a famous leader or something, they don't tend to do that, they don't, they don't sort of call upon the whole history of literature and writing. And so, I have a little bit of fun in writing my books in trying to see if I can add an extra dimension just by reference and by bringing in other things that are a little bit orthogonal to the subject matter. Ula Ojiaku:  And that kind of, you know, brings home the point that life isn't black and white. It's actually a complex or a complex kind of, you know, maze and of different disciplines, different ideologies and different viewpoints that make it what it is really. Mark Schwartz:  Yeah well, of course, that was part of the fun of my recent book on Bureaucracy. You know, because I know we all, we want to throw up when we encounter bureaucracy, you know, it disturbs us in so many ways. And one of the things I wanted to say in the book is, well, actually bureaucracy is all around you all the time in unexpected places and it usually doesn't drive you crazy, actually. Yeah... Ula Ojiaku:  Well, I have a lot of questions for you on your book, The Delicate Art of Bureaucracy, which is a catchy, catchy title on its own, very clever. But before we get to that, what do you do when you're not working? I know, you said you love work and you've also said that you're curious about so many things, which means that you read broadly - that's my interpretation. So, what do you do when you're not ‘working'? Mark Schwartz:  Yes, I read broadly, is one thing. In the past, I played the guitar a lot. And I don't quite as much lately. I don't know why, you know, I'll start doing it again. I'm sure at some point. But while I was living in San Francisco, I was actually playing in bars and coffee shops, I have a singer, who I performed with. Ula Ojiaku: Really? Wow! Mark Schwartz: And that was really fun. And then the other thing I do is travel, I've really traveled a lot. And, yeah, there was one period in my life where for about five years, I was bumming around the world with a backpack with you know, occasional returns to the States to work a little bit and make some money and then go traveling again. So, one of the joys of my current job is that, I get to do a lot of traveling to interesting places. Ula Ojiaku:  So, where would you say is your ideal getaway destination? Mark Schwartz:  Oh, let's see. I'm a big fan of Brazil. That, I have good friends there and it's really nice to see them and the atmosphere is always kind of fun there. Ula Ojiaku: Okay. Mark Schwartz: I don't know what I've discovered so many places around the world that I've really loved being. I lived in Japan for a year and that is a place that I love to go to, especially for the food. Yeah, I like good food. But I don't know I've found so many places that made me feel like I'd like to spend more time there. And of course, you can't really spend more time everywhere. Ula Ojiaku:  Interesting. So, let's, let's go to your book, “The Art of Delicate Bureaucracy”. What was the inspiration behind that book? Mark Schwartz:  Well, for all of my books, before I wrote, before I wrote them, I was thinking, ‘why hasn't anybody else written a book on this topic?' People don't write books on bureaucracy, at least not, you know, popular books, there are academic books on bureaucracy. And the same thing happened to me with my first book, “The Art of Business Value”, where I said to myself, we keep talking about business value in the IT world, like, is it obvious what it means? You know, what, why isn't anybody writing a book about what business value means? So, bureaucracy is one of those things. I have a lot of experience with it first of all, I was a CIO in a government agency. But it turns out, it's not just the government, whenever I tell people about my government experience, when I speak at a conference, people come up to me afterwards and say, ‘Oh, my company's just like that. I work for a financial services company; we have lots of bureaucracy'. And I work with a lot of people who are trying to pull off some sort of digital transformation, which is change on a big scale, that's changing traditional organizations on a big scale. And bureaucracy is always in their way because bureaucracy tends to resist change; it strongly tends to resist change. So, if you're doing a big change, then you're probably going to come up against it. So, I thought maybe with my experience as a bureaucrat, or at least experience in the big bureaucracy, I could give some pointers to people who are trying to cause big change, and yet are facing bureaucratic obstacles. And I can't imagine that there's any organization, at least any large organization that does not have bureaucratic obstacles to digital transformation. So, that got me started on it. And then as I started to think about bureaucracy and research it, I realized this is actually a really interesting topic. Ula Ojiaku:  You had an interesting introduction to the book. You said, “we are bureaucrats all.” Why that claim, you actually were saying, everyone is a bureaucrat, and I know you made a statement that's similar to that earlier on in this conversation - why? Mark Schwartz:  Well, of course, I have to define in the book, what I mean by bureaucracy and all that. And I follow the generally what's accepted as the academic definition. It mostly comes from the sociologist Max Vabre, who is writing around 1920. And, and he talks a lot about bureaucracy, and it's fairly complicated, but I simplify it in the book. Basically, what it comes down to is a bureaucracy is a way of organizing socially, that has rigid formal roles for people and rigid formal rules. And that's the essence of it. You know, bureaucracy, there are rules and they have to be applied uniformly to everybody. And there's a division of labor and you know, a hierarchy. So, it has rigid roles of people who have to sign off on things and approve things. So, with that is the definition. I think it, it connects with the very human tendency to try to structure things and constantly improve them and optimize them. So, if you find a good way of doing something, you tend to turn it into a rule, you know, this is the way it should be done from now on. Ula Ojiaku: Best practice! Mark Schwartz: It's the best practice. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And also, we, in, social organization, we'd like people to be accountable or responsible for things. And we know that you can't hold somebody accountable unless they have authority to perform their role. So, when you put those things together, it's very natural for us to set up these organizational systems, where we assign roles to people, and give them authority, and we make rules that encapsulate the best way to do things. And, essentially, that's bureaucracy. So, bureaucracy, I find, is everywhere around us in one form or another. But it doesn't drive us crazy most of the time, so we don't notice it. Ula Ojiaku:  Maybe if it's serving us, then we wouldn't notice it. But… Mark Schwartz:  It does serve. And if you look at the cases where it does drive us crazy, they have certain things in common. And in the book, I say there are three characteristics that bureaucracies often take on which they don't need to, it's not part of the definition of bureaucracy, but they often take on these characteristics. And it's those three characteristics that are what drive us crazy. And so, the goal, ultimately is to eliminate those three characteristics or turn them into something else. Ula Ojiaku: I know that the listeners would be curious to know what the three characteristics of bureaucracy that drive us crazy are? Is that so or should I just tell them go buy the book? Mark Schwartz: Yeah, go buy the book! Well, let me tell you the three characteristics, and also their opposite, which is what we really want. So, the first characteristic that drives us crazy, I think, is that bureaucracies tend to be bloated instead of lean, that would be the opposite in my view. There's no reason why a bureaucracy has to be bloated and wasteful. It could be lean, but it's one of those things that bureaucracy tends to become. So that's the first one. The second one is that bureaucracies tend to petrify, as opposed to learning. So, when I say petrifies, I mean that the rules and the bureaucracy don't change, or don't change as often as they should, or don't change continuously, which is really what rules should do. Now, that's not necessarily a characteristic of bureaucracy, but the definition, the definition says the rules have to be applied rigorously. You know, once you have a rule, everybody has to follow it. But it doesn't say that the rules have to stay the same forever, they can change. The opposite of a petrified bureaucracy is a learning bureaucracy, where the rules are constantly adjusted, based on what the people in the organization learn. And there are plenty of good examples of learning bureaucracies out there. And your goal is to transform the one into the other, the petrified into the learning. The third is, bureaucracies tend to be coercive, rather than enabling. Coercive, meaning that they're there to control employee behavior, to force employees to behave in ways that otherwise they wouldn't want to. They tend to be ‘no' saying, they say ‘no', a lot. Your bureaucracy for your expense reporting policy in your company probably says, ‘no that expense is no good because X Y and Z.' There are plenty of examples of enabling bureaucracies, where the point is not to stop you from doing things or force you to do something you don't want to. But the bureaucracy provides a support structure, provide best practices, as you said, that help you do your job well. And there's no reason why bureaucracies can't do that. So, the three bad characteristics are bloat, coercion, and petrify. Ula Ojiaku: Okay, nice. So, it sounds like the way you've described bureaucracy, when you look at it from a positive slant, would it be the same thing as guardrails, putting guardrails in place, or giving people the right degree of freedom? Mark Schwartz: Yeah, that's exactly the idea. What I find is that guardrails and automation are ways of implementing bureaucracy, that lead to those three good characteristics rather than the bad ones. Let's say in software development, in DevOps, for example, it's a good idea to put guardrails, security guardrails, for example, around what people can do, and automated security tests and things like that. Because then the developers or the DevOps teams, they can go charging ahead full speed, knowing that they can't do anything wrong, you know, because the guardrails are there. And they get immediate feedback, if they do something that's going to put them outside the guardrails and they can just immediately fix it. So, it's very empowering for them, lets them move fast. And it also gets rid of that coercive element of you know, I write some code and then somebody comes in afterwards and says, ‘no, you can't deploy that'. That's annoying. Instead, I can run the security tests myself, as a developer, see if there's anything that's problematic, fix it right away if I want to, so it's all under my control. But the end result is still the same. The bureaucracy is still there. It's just automated and implemented as guardrails. Ula Ojiaku:  It's enabling, like you said before, instead of hindering. Mark Schwartz:  And it's lean, because it's very inefficient and wasteful, if you write some code, and then at the very end of the development process, somebody finds a security flaw. And now you have to remember what you were doing. And, you know, go back and relearn your code and make changes then, so that's wasteful, as opposed to lean. It's coercive, as opposed to enabling. And if you're good at doing these things, then you keep updating your guardrails and your security tests based on new security threats you learn about or new policies or whatever. So, you make a learning bureaucracy as well. Ula Ojiaku:  Interesting. In the book as well, you said you want us to be calm, chaos monkeys, knights of Ockham, lean sumo wrestlers, very interesting oxymoron there. And you know, black belt experts, could you tell us more about those terms? Why did you use those terms? Mark Schwartz:  Because they made me laugh of course. Ula Ojiaku: Well, they made me laugh too. Mark Schwartz: So, I thought about what I learned about coping with bureaucracy, especially in my government job, but also from reading and from talking to other people. And I realized I had about, you know, 30 techniques for coping with bureaucracy, I call them plays. And I just grabbed those 30 techniques, but I thought about it, and I realized they divided into three. And the three, I could sort of associate with a personality, almost. You know, that these 10 plays are associated with this personality, these 10 plays are associated with this one. And I came up with these three personalities that I thought describe those plays. And the three personalities are the monkey, and the razor, and the sumo wrestler. And, you know, I think, I could stop right there, because it's probably obvious why I associate those with these plays, but I will go a little further. Ula Ojiaku: Please… Mark Schwartz: So, I realized that some of the things we did, the ones that I call the plays of the monkey, the way of the monkey, those things had to do with provoking. You know, monkeys are mischievous, provocative, and sometimes annoying. And a bunch of the techniques had to do with trying to be provocative. And the razor and I'll give you some examples in a minute. The razor, to me is all about being lean. It's about trimming away waste. And it also refers to the philosophical principle of Ockham's razor. Ockham was a medieval philosopher, right, William of Ockham. And he's generally credited with an idea that something like if you have a choice between a simple explanation, and a complicated explanation, you should prefer the simple one. That's not really what he said. But that's, that's what most people associated with him. That's the principle of Ockham's razor. And, and so it's called a principle of ontological parsimony, meaning, you shouldn't presuppose the existence of more things than you need to, in order to explain something. So, you know, don't make up nymphs. And you know, I don't know, water dryads and whatever's to explain something that you can equally just explain through simple physical laws. Ula Ojiaku:  Just saying, 'keep it simple...' Mark Schwartz:  Yeah, keep it simple, in a way, right? So that's called the principle of ontological parsimony. And I said, there's a similar principle of bureaucratic parsimony, which says that if you're trying to implement a control, and you can do it in a simple way, or you could do it in a really complicated way, do it a simple way. And so, it's a principle of leanness because I find that bureaucracies, when they get bloated, they have these really complicated wasteful ways of doing something that they could they could accomplish exactly the same thing, but in a simpler way. So that's the razor. And then a sumo wrestler. Well, Sumo is the sport where, you know, two massive people sort of bang into each other, right? And the goal is you want to push your opponent out of the ring, or you want to make them fall and touch the ground with something other than their feet. And if you can do either of those things, you win. So, if you're a big massive person and you're trying to accomplish those things, you might think that the best thing to do is charge your opponent and push really hard. But if your opponent then just either dodges or just is soft and lets you push, well, you're probably going to go flying out of the ring, right? So, one of the principles in Sumo is you want to use your opponent's strength against them. And if they push hard, now, go ahead, give them a little pull. And, you know, let them push even harder. And I realized that some of these techniques for overcoming bureaucracy have to do with using bureaucracy actually, on your side, you know, the using the strength of bureaucracy against it. So that's why the sumo wrestler. So, I'll give you examples now on each one, now that I've described my three personalities. So, the monkey does what is sometimes referred to as provoking and inspecting or provoking and observing, in parallel with the Agile principle of inspect and adapt. So, provoke and observe, what the monkey does is try something that's probably outside the rules, or at least is, you know, a borderline and watches what happens. So, an example where we use this is that we have these rules in Homeland Security that essentially said, if you were going to do an IT project, you have to produce 87 documents. And each document had a template, and you have to fill in each section of the template. And these documents would run to hundreds of pages. And so, using the persona of the monkey, let's say, we started to turn in these documents. But in each section of the template, we just wrote a one sentence, one sentence answer, you know, we're very short answer instead of writing pages and pages. And we wanted to see what would happen if we did that, because there was no rule that said, it had to be a really long answer. And eventually, we started to provoke even more, we just left out sections that we thought didn't make any sense for what we were doing. And all of this was unprecedented, you know, it caused a lot of fear. It turned out, and this sometimes happens, that the enforcers of this policy, they were happy when they said, “We've never wanted anybody to write these really long answers to these things, we have to read them. And you know, the intention wasn't to slow people down. As long as you're giving us the right information. That's all we need.” So, in this case, provoking just it turned out that we could defeat a bunch of bureaucracy there, we could, we could make things a lot leaner because nobody objected. But sometimes people do object. And if they do, then you learn exactly what the resistance is, who it is, is resisting, and that gives you valuable information, when you're trying to figure out how to overcome it. So that's the monkey. You know, let's try something a little playful and mischievous, and see what happens. The razor, well, that one follows also on my 87 documents, because we then set up an alternative way of doing things that had only 15 documents. And where there had been 13 gate reviews required for each project. We reduced it to two. And so, all we did, you know, we just used our little razor to trim away all the excess stuff that was in the bureaucratic requirements. And then we showed people that those 15 documents and those two gate reviews accomplished exactly the same thing as the 87 documents and the 13 gate reviews. That's the principle of the razor, that's how the razor works. The sumo wrestler, also a favorite of mine. So, we were trying to convince the bureaucracy to let us do DevOps and to be agile, and it was resisting. And people kept pointing to a policy that said, you can't do these things. And so, we wrote our own policy. And it was a very good bureaucratic policy looked exactly like every bureaucratic document out there. But it essentially said you must use DevOps and you must be agile on it, you know, it set up a perfect bureaucracy around that it's set up ways of checking to make sure everybody was using DevOps. And the theory behind it was the auditors when they came to audit us and said we were being naughty because we were doing DevOps. Their argument was we looked at the policy and we looked at what you're doing, and they were different. And that's the way auditing works. That was the, you know, GAO, the Government Accountability Office, and the Inspector General and all that. So, we figured if we had a policy that said you must do DevOps, and they audited us, well, they would actually be enforcing the policy, you know, they'd be criticizing any part of the organization that was not using DevOps and I thought that's great. So, this is how you use the strength of the bureaucracy against the bureaucracy or not really, against even, you know, it's perfectly good, perfect… Ula Ojiaku:  To help the bureaucracy yeah, to help them to improve, improve the organization. But thinking about the monkey though, being provocative and mischievous, do you think that there has to be an element of you know, relationship and trust in place first, before… you can't just you know… you're new, and you've just gotten through the door and you start being a monkey… you probably will be taken back to wherever you came from! What do you think? Mark Schwartz:  Well, it helps if you're giggling while you do it. But you know, I think the goal here is to figure out the right levers that are going to move things. And sometimes you do have to push a little bit hard, you know, you do need to take people out of their comfort zone. Usually, you want to do these things in a way that takes into account people's feelings, and you know, is likely to move them in the right direction, rather than making them dig in their heels. But I'll give you a couple of examples of Monkey tactics that are less comfortable for people. One is simply, you know, there's a status quo bias. It's a known, well-known cognitive bias; people tend to prefer the status quo or look the other way about it's failings and stuff. So often, when you're trying to make a change, people say, we're fine the way we are, you know, everything's okay. So, one of the things the monkey tries to do is, is to make it clear that the status quo is not acceptable, you know, to show people that it actually if they think about it, it's no good. And so, for example, when we decided to move to the cloud, instead of working in our DHS data center, people said - of course at the time it was a big concern, ‘was the cloud secure enough?' And in the persona of the monkey, the right response is, ‘are we secure enough now?' You know, ‘don't you realize that we're not happy with our security posture today?' ‘It's not like, the cloud has proved itself. I mean, we have to compare our security in the cloud versus our security in the data center. And yes, I'm very sure it'll be better in the cloud and here's why…' But you can't start from the assumption that you are fine right now. In general, when we're talking about the cloud, that's the situation. Companies are using their own data centers. And it's like, you know, we have to teach them that they can do better in the cloud. But the truth is that they're not happy in their own data centers, if they think about it, right? There are security issues, there are performance issues, there are cost issues. And they're aware of those issues, right, they just look the other way. And because they're comfortable with the status quo, so the monkey has to sort of shake people up and say, ‘It's not okay, what you're doing now!' Another example, and this is really harsh, and I wouldn't use it in most cases. But let's say that this was in Homeland Security. Let's say that Homeland Security is enforcing a very bureaucratic process that results in IT projects, taking five years instead of six months. And let's say, you know, the process is there on paper, the rules say, ‘Do this', the people are interpreting the rules in a way that makes things take five years. Sometimes, the monkey has to go to somebody who's in their way and say, ‘We are in the Department of Homeland Security, this IT project is going to make people more secure in the homeland. Are you comfortable with the fact that you are preventing people from being more secure for the next four and a half years, when we could…' You know, it's a matter of personalizing it. And that sometimes is what's necessary to get people to start thinking creatively about how they can change the bureaucracy. You know, ‘I hate to say it, but you're a murderer', you know, essentially is the message. It's a monkey message. And like I said, you know, it's not the preferred way to go about doing things. But if you have to, I mean, the lives of people are at stake, and you've got to find a way to get there. Ula Ojiaku:  So how can leaders because your book, The Art of Business Value, in your book, you said that “leaders create the language of the organization, and they set up incentives and define value in a way that elicits desired outcomes.” So, in essence, I understand that statement to mean that leaders set the tone, and you know, kind of create the environment for things to happen. So, how can leaders implement or apply bureaucracy in a way that enables an organization where, before it was seen as a hindrance, how can they do this? Mark Schwartz:  My thought process was, if we all agree, we're gonna try to maximize business value? How do we know what we mean by it? And I realized, a lot of Agile people, you know, people in our Agile and DevOps community, were being a little bit lazy. You know, they were thinking, ‘Oh, business value, you know, it's returns on investment, or, you know, it's up to the business (to define) what's business value.' The tech people just, you know, do the work of providing a solution. And to me, that's too lazy. If you're going to be agile, be it you have to be more proactive about making sure you're delivering business value. So, you have to understand what it means. You have to actually do the work of, you know, figuring out what it means. And what it means is not at all obvious. And, you know, you might think it has something to do with return on investment or shareholder value or something like that. But when you really closely examine it, that is not the right way to define it, when it comes to deciding what its efforts to prioritize and all that that's, you know, the case that the book makes, and I explain why that's true. Instead, I say you have to think of business value within the context of the business's strategy and its objectives as a business. There's no like, abstract, this has more business value than this because we calculated an ROI or something like that, that doesn't work reprioritizing. It's always asked within the context of a particular business strategy. And the business strategy is a direction from leadership. There might be input from everybody else, but ultimately, you have leaders in the organization who are deciding what the strategic objectives are. So, for example, if you are a traditional bank, or traditional financial services company, and you look around you and you see there are all these new FinTech companies that are disrupting the industry, and you're worried, well there are a lot of different ways you can respond to those disruptive FinTechs. And how you're going to choose to respond depends on your preferences, it depends on the situation of your company, in the industry, the history of your company, all of those things. But of the many ways you can respond to that disruption, you're going to choose one as the leader of your enterprise. Well, what adds business value is whatever supports that direction you choose to go. You can't think of business value outside of that direction, you know. That's the case that I make. So, leaders don't just set the tone and the culture there, they're actually setting strategic direction that determines what has business value. And then the people who are executing the agile teams have to take it upon themselves to make sure that whatever they're doing is going to add business value in that sense.   So, the role of leadership then becomes direction setting and visioning for the future and communicating the vision to the people who are working and providing feedback, you know, on whether things are actually adding business value or not . And that's the key responsibility. Now, in order to do that, in order to motivate people to deliver according to that idea of business value, there are certain techniques as a leader that you have to keep in mind, there are ways that you get people, you get a big organization to sort of follow you. And one of the ones that's become most important to me to think about after talking to a lot of leaders about how they're running their organizations, and what's working, is using middle management as a lever for accomplishing those things. So often, I'll talk to leaders of a business, and they'll say, our problem is the frozen middle, middle management is, you know, they're just not changing the way we want, we want to, we want to cause a big transformation, but middle management is getting in the way. And I tell them, ‘that's pretty much a myth.' You know, ‘that's not actually what's happening, let's look more closely at your organization.' Almost always, middle management is still trying to do the best they can, given the situation that they're in. And the way that you get them to align themselves behind the change is, you change their incentives or their role definition, or how you tell them what you're expecting from them, you don't say “change”, you know, and start doing X and Y, you change what success looks like for their position. And then they adapt to it by becoming engaged and finding ways to get there. So, there's almost always a leadership problem when you have that frozen middle effect. And, and I've seen it work really well that, you know, all of a sudden, you get this big leverage, because you just do a little bit of tweaking of role definitions, and bring everybody into solving the problem. And actually, there's an example, I love to talk about a history book, like I said before, I like to bring in other things, right? It's called the Engineers of Victory. And it's about World War Two, the Allies realized that they had to solve a set of problems, I think there was six or so problems. One of them was how do you land troops on a beach that's heavily defended? They realize they were just not going to be able to win the war until they could do that. But nobody knew how to do it. Because, you know, obviously, the bad guys are there on the beach, they're dug in, they put barbed wire everywhere, and mines, and you know, all this stuff. And it's just going to be a slaughter if you try to land on the beach. So, this book, Engineers of Victory, makes the case that what really won the war, was figuring out those solutions. And who was responsible for figuring out those solutions? It was middle management, basically. It was the, you know, within the structure of the army, it was the people not at the top who had big authority, you know, the generals, and it was not the troops themselves, because they weren't in a position to figure out these things. It was middle management that could see across different parts of the organization that could try things and see whether they worked or not, that, you know, essentially could run their own mini skunkworks projects. And eventually, they came up with the solutions to these problems. So, I think that's very encouraging for the role of middle management, you know, that a lot of problems have to be solved at that layer in order to pull off a transformation. And it really can be done. And this is a beautiful example of it. Ula Ojiaku:  It reminds me of, you know, my experience in a few transformation initiatives. So, the middle, the people who are termed to be in the frozen middle, are, like you said, they want to do what's best for the company, and they show up wanting to do their best work, but it's really about finding out, ‘Where do I fit in, (with) all this change that's happening?' You know, ‘if my role is going away, if the teams are going to be more empowered, that means I'm not telling them what to do, but then what do I do now?' So, the clarity of what the ‘New World' means for them, and what's in it for them, would help, you know, make them more effective. Mark Schwartz: And the mistake that's often made is to say to them, ‘start doing DevOps' or, you know, ‘start doing agile or something.' Because if you don't change the definition of success, or you don't change the incentives that, you know, then it's just, make work and they're going to resist it. You know, if you say your incentive is to get really fast feedback or you know, one of the other goals of DevOps, because of the following reasons, it helps the business this way, so let's try to reduce cycle time as much as possible for producing software. Okay, that's a change in the incentive, or the, you know, the definition of success, rather than just telling somebody you have to do DevOps, you know, read a book and figure it out. Ula Ojiaku:  So, what other books because you mentioned the Engineers of Victory, are there any other books you would recommend for the listener to go check out if they wanted to learn more about what we've talked about today? Mark Schwartz:  Well, I think, you know, obviously, my books referred to War and Peace by Tolstoy, Moby Dick, another great one. You know, you probably need to read my books to figure out why those are the right books to read and Engineers of Victory. As I said, I think that one's a great one. Within the field, there are some DevOps books that that I like a lot, of course, Gene Kim's books, The Phoenix Project, and now The Unicorn Project, the sequel to that. Because those are books that give you a feel for the motivation behind all the things that we do. The Mechanics of Things, there are plenty of books out there that help you learn the mechanics of how to do continuous integration and continuous delivery. And then the cloud is I think it's really transformative. You know, it's the cloud itself is a tremendous enabler. I work at AWS, of course but I'm not saying this because I work at AWS, it's more than I work at AWS because I believe these things. And my teammates have written some good books on the cloud. Reaching Cloud Velocity, for example, by Jonathan Allen and Thomas Blood is a great one for reading up on how the cloud can be transformative. But my other teammates, Gregor Hope, has written a number of books that are really good, Stephen Orban did A Head in the Cloud. So, I think those are all… should be at the top of people's reading lists. And then, of course, I recommend my books, because they make me laugh, and they might make you laugh, too. Ula Ojiaku:  Definitely made me laugh, but they've also given me things to think about from a new perspective. So, I totally agree. And so, where can people find you if they want to reach out to you? Mark Schwartz:  Yeah, LinkedIn is a great place to find me. If you're with a company that is an AWS customer, feel free to talk to your account manager, the sales team from AWS and ask them to put you in touch with me, is another easy way. LinkedIn is kind of where I organize my world from so find me there. Ula Ojiaku:  Okay. Sounds great. And any final words for the audience or for the listeners. Mark Schwartz:  Um, I, I have found that these things that you want to do to take advantage of the digital world, and I think we're all sort of pointing ourselves in that direction, there are these amazing things you can do in the digital world. They're sometimes challenging to get there, but it's very possible to get there. And one thing I've learned a lot at Amazon is the idea of working backwards, you know, you get that picture in your head for where you want to be and then you say to yourself, ‘I can get there. Let me work backwards and figure out what I have to do in order to get there.' And you might be wrong, you know, you should test hypotheses, you start moving in the right direction, and of course, correct as you need to. But you can do it with confidence that others are doing it and you can too no matter what your organization is, no matter how much you think you're a snowflake and you know different from every other organization. You can still do it. And with just some good intention and good thinking you can figure out how to how to get there. Ula Ojiaku:  Thank you so much, Mark. That was a great close for this conversation and again, I really appreciate your making the time for this interview. Thank you. Mark Schwartz: Thanks for having me. Ula Ojiaku: You're welcome.  

“Bureaucracy in itself is neither good nor bad. However, it often gets in the way and prevents important things you need to do. A good bureaucracy is lean, learning, and enabling." Mark Schwartz is an Enterprise Strategist at AWS and the author of multiple books from IT Revolution. In this episode, we discuss his two latest books on the topics of bureaucracy and ethics. Mark begins by sharing his perspective on the impact of bureaucracy on digital transformation. He explains the definition of bureaucracy and why it tends to have a negative connotation. Mark describes the characteristics of a good bureaucracy and how leaders can play an important role in managing bureaucracy. Next, Mark shares his reasons for writing about ethics in his latest book, why it is becoming more relevant in the digital world, and how leaders can make better ethical decisions in the current fast-paced business world.   Listen out for: Career Journey - [00:01:22] State of Digital Transformation - [00:04:33] Bureaucracy - [00:08:31] Bureaucracy and Process Improvement - [00:13:14] IT as the Biggest Bureaucrats - [00:15:30] Bureaucracy Creates Business Value - [00:18:09] Characteristics of Good Bureaucracy - [00:20:40] Leaders' Roles Towards Bureaucracy - [00:26:05] Writing About Ethics - [00:34:10] How to Make Ethical Decisions - [00:41:12] 3 Tech Lead Wisdom - [00:54:21] _____ Mark Schwartz's BioMark Schwartz is an iconoclastic CIO and a playful crafter of ideas, an inveterate purveyor of lucubratory prose. He has been an IT leader in organizations small and large, public, private, and nonprofit. As an Enterprise Strategist for Amazon Web Services, he uses his CIO experience to bring strategies to enterprises or enterprises to strategies, and bring both to the cloud. As the CIO of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, he provoked the federal government into adopting Agile and DevOps practices. Mark speaks frequently on innovation, bureaucratic implications of DevOps, and using Agile processes in low-trust environments. With a BS in computer science from Yale, a master's in philosophy from Yale, and an MBA from Wharton, Mark is either an expert on the business value of IT or else he just thinks about it a lot. Follow Mark: LinkedIn – linkedin.com/in/innovativecio _____ Our Sponsors Manning Publications is a premier publisher of technical books on computer and software development topics for both experienced developers and new learners alike. Manning prides itself on being independently owned and operated, and for paving the way for innovative initiatives, such as early access book content and protection-free PDF formats that are now industry standard.Get a 45% discount for Tech Lead Journal listeners by using the code techlead45 for all products in all formats. Like this episode? Show notes & transcript: techleadjournal.dev/episodes/171. Follow @techleadjournal on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Instagram. Buy me a coffee or become a patron.

Orthopedic Surgeon with Burlington County Orthopedic Specialists Dr. Mark Schwartz discusses Eagles injuries to DeVonta Smith and Avonte Maddox. Presented by NovaCare Rehabilitation. 

The Morning Crew discusses the abysmal Eagles defense, and bring in Dr. Mark Schwartz for The NovaCare Injury Report.

Dr. Mark Schwartz is an Orthopedic Surgeon with Burlington County Orthopedic Specialists located in Mt Laurel, NJ. Dr Schwartz is Co-Director of Virtua Health's Sports Medicine Program. He is also Chief of Orthopedics and Chairman of the Department of Surgery at Virtua Memorial Hospital.

Eagles/Commanders reaction hour 2: The Morning team is joined by Dr. Mark Schwartz with the NovaCare injury report. The team continue to get reactions of the Eagles/Commanders game. AJ Brown's taunting penalty almost cost the Eagles the victory. Plus the Merrill Montage.

Join Mark Schwartz, Enterprise Strategist, AWS, author of Adaptive Ethics for Digital Transformation, as he dives into discussing the book and how to navigate ethics and business in the digital age.

L.D. Salmanson is a repeat entrepreneur who has been through spinoffs, acquisitions, and is now building his biggest company yet. His new venture, Cherre, has attracted funding from top-tier investors like Mark Schwartz, Glilot Capital Partners, Trustbridge Partners, and Navitas Capital.

Hello Interactors,I've been absent the last few weeks. First our kids were back for spring break and then I was off to the American Association of Geographers (AAG) national conference in Denver, Colorado. Both were fun, exhilarating, and inspiring and I'm bursting with things to write about!We're officially in spring here in the northern hemisphere. I now turn to cartography and the role mapmaking plays in shaping how we interact with people and place. There will be themes of cartography in this initial spring post, but first I'm offering my impressions of the conference.As interactors, you're special individuals self-selected to be a part of an evolutionary journey. You're also members of an attentive community so I welcome your participation.Please leave your comments below or email me directly.Now let's go…BURRITO BOYS“It's got a nice kick to it”, he said, as I sat down to join him for breakfast. He introduced himself as Mark. He lifted his attendee badge that hung around his neck. It read, Mark Schwartz. We broke the awkwardness by talking men's basketball. The Kansas Jayhawks, my mom's beloved team, had recently been eliminated from the NCAA tournament. He informed me he got his PhD from Kansas in 1985 and is now teaching and researching at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee in the geography department.Mark is a climatologist. More specifically, he's one of the foremost experts in phenoclimatology which looks at the effects of climate change on seasonal variability. We humans look to the calendar to tell us when spring arrives, but what if you're an ant or a plant? They already know, so phenologists look for the biological responses to seasonal changes. Phenology comes from two Greek words that roughly combine to mean ‘the study of bringing to light'.Mark co-founded the National Phenology Network (NPN). This is where the world turns to see when spring is officially arriving across the United States. Including journalists. Here's a story in the Washington Post on this spring's arrival and the NPN website. It features quotes from Mark.“‘What I like to tell folks is that you still need to be prepared for considerable variation from year to year. You won't simply be able to start planting your garden earlier each year…”Before long, another gray-haired man joined us. I observed older attendees at this conference naturally congregated. Gerontology...from geron and logia (the study of old men). Our new guest introduced himself as Ron. I could tell he was older than Mark and myself and I was right. When I was three years old, in 1968, Ron Abler was getting his PhD in Geography from the University of Minnesota. Soon after, in 1971, he was the lead author on an influential geography textbook on spatial organization. He went on to teach and conduct research at Pennsylvania State University and was the President of the AAG from 1985-86. There's an AAG award named after Ron, the Ronald F. Abler Distinguished Service Honors. Mark was a recipient in 2005.We were soon joined by another older gentleman, but closer to my age. He introduced himself as Joseph and I read his badge as Joseph Oppong. He was the recipient of the Abler award in 2021 and studies medical geography at North Texas State University. He received his masters in 1986 and PhD in 1992 from the University of Alberta in Canada and his bachelor's at the University of Ghana in 1982. Joseph was one of a few at the conference of African descent, but like the rest of America the geographic, cultural, and biological diversity of this academic community is increasing. This was apparent in my first session of the first day of the conference.JUST GEOGRAPHYThe morning before my breakfast with the burrito boys, I attended a panel consisting of four young academic women of Indigenous, Hispanic, Black, and mixed heritage. It included Fantasia Painter, an Assistant Professor of Global and International Studies at UC Irvine, Elyse Hatch-Rivera, a student seeking a law degree at Macalester in Minnesota, Gabriella Subia Smith, a PhD candidate in geography at the University of Colorado, and Dr. Danielle Purifoy, a geography professor at the University of North Carolina with a law degree from Harvard.Fantasia's paper: Our Lands, Your Lines: How Inter and Intra National Borders Try and Fail to Contain Indigenous Land. She argues “that inherent in the idea of “the desert” is the undoing of the settler colonial bordering project. This is not a desert. This is O'odham land.” Elyse's paper: The Right to Secure: The 100 Mile Border and the Making of a Carceral Geography. She “explores the emergence of the 100-mile border zone (HMBZ) in order to argue that the U.S. has expanded its borders inward and redefined notions of national security and our modern understanding of human rights.”Gabriella's paper: The Evolution of Colorado's Third District. She argues “Looking at the evolution of congressional districts can help us to better understand both the possibilities for equitable political representation and the limits of borders for fixing politics in place.”Danielle's paper: Setting [Futile] Boundaries: Black Municipalities in the White Settler State. She uses two case studies showing how decades work of “scholars of law, geography, and political science have taken up the social, political, and environmental impacts of this largely white municipal practice of geopolitical exclusion on Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities.”Here's a video of Fantasia introducing herself and her work at UC IrvineThe conference theme was Toward More Just Geographies and this session was a fitting kick-off. It was titled Futile Borders: Why Borders Fail and How Borders Function in the Incomplete Project of Settler Colonialism. These scholars, all of whom have a legal focus to their work, challenged the popular and simplified notion of borders as articulated in both popular culture and the legal text of the United States. They drew attention to the violence these words perpetuate through legal acts of interdiction, deterrence, and deportation.The panel description cites research pointing to “[s]ettler state violence and legal-spatial violence” that “permeate borders through border enforcement practices of surveillance and detention and also through attempts to map over Indigenous lands and nations by creating colonial certainty over jurisdiction and national membership.”While these laws exists to protect the rights of some “it is through law, legal decision-making, and formal processes, policies, and practices that legal-spatial border violence is enacted and sustained.” It is the law, as currently written, that “help to form, manage, and control borders and mobility [that] weaponize state violence and operate to assert settler legal authority.”During the discussion, one of the presenters positioned legal text as a form of fiction that feature fantasy borders on maps that ignore the non-fiction realities of plant and animal existence, persistence, and relationships – including with humans. These fictions provide the “legal reach of the state [to] extend externally and outwards in order to preserve imperial power while regulating and restricting immigration and mobility through racialized strategies.”This panel was a powerful introduction to the conference. It featured perspectives of bright, ambitious academic women of color who are bringing miles and piles of fresh knowledge to the academy and students. Many similar sessions were offered by women and BIPOC scholars who seek to challenge traditional institutional geographic histories, knowledge, and perspectives pervasive in the field of geography. I attended at least one a day for five days straight, but there were so many I couldn't attend them all.The field of geography, and cartography in particular, was invented in large part to discern and delineate the natural world for the purpose of dispossession and ownership of land and people for and by private and government actors. As one attendee told me, “Cartography barely has a just leg to stand on.” Consequently, these forums and platforms act as a mirror to the discipline of geography. They offer opportunities for scholars and practitioners to become more self-aware, reflective, and critical of geography's past and future. If sustained, this focus, attention, and prioritization of pluralized perspectives has the power to transform the discipline – to tilt the world toward more just geographies.It's a tilting earth that brings about seasonal change. Mark Shwartz and his team of geographers maintain a map that chronicles the bringing of light to the natural world. It offers no human bias, no imperial agenda, and reveals just how fictional borders really are. Phenoclimatology reveals human-induced climate change is causing spring's arrival to become increasingly meteorologically erratic and extreme.Many scholars at this conference pointed to how settler-state induced human and environmental violence have contributed to these climatic changes. They also showed how these forms of legal, economic, and spatial geographies are causing increasingly erratic and extreme societal injustices and imbalances. They're chronicling and remapping a discipline by bringing light to the world of geography. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Dr. Mark Schwartz, Chief of Orthopedics and Surgery joins the show to talk about Hurts' injury and a few updates another players including RT Lane Johnson

Hour 2 of today's show. We go through some week 18 NFL action. Eliot Shorr-Parks and Orthopedic Specialist Dr. Mark Schwartz join the show!

For this episode we talk to Herman Mark Schwartz on a wide range of issues - from biopolitics, industrial policy, and the New Cold War political economy to why "financialization" is a limited analytical frame for recent history. Mark argues that conflict between firms over profits is just as important - if not moreso - than conflict between capital and labor over the consumption share. The shift from midcentury "Fordism" to today's three-tiered economic structure happened as the result of a "Kalecki moment" in the late-1960s and early-1970s: workers, women, and the third world wanted more, and corporate strategy transformed to meet, and rebuff, their challenges.*** LINKS ***You can find his faculty profile here: https://politics.virginia.edu/people/profile/schwartzAnd the articles we discussed today here: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/author/herman-mark-schwartz/and here: https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/manufacturing-stagnation/

We are just back from The Value Flywheel Effect book launch at DevOps Enterprise Summit organised by IT Revolution with Gene Kim and crew. We had a great week doing our book launch. It was great to see the buzz and the content. But getting handed the first copy of The Value Flywheel Effect book made it very real! There was a shelf full of IT Revolution books in chronological order. Like DevOps, Enterprise Handbook, Accelerate, Team Topologies and all the Mark Schwartz and Dominica DeGrandis books. And The Unicorn Project and The Phoenix Project. It was unbelievable to see our book sitting alongside all of those books. Learning Sprint The first thing I did was a learning sprint. I did an hour on creating a cloud strategy with Wardley mapping, which I thought was interesting. I used Ben Mosior's Wardley map canvas from LearnWardleyMapping.com. And it was great taking people through that. Once people start connecting the elements of the value chain, they can start to ask why is that over there and not over here? Then you're into a nice conversation. Once they get beyond the terminology, notation and syntax, they are asking interesting, challenging questions. The canvas is a great way to get people thinking quickly. They start gaining insights and seeing what they may not have before using the canvas or map. And you can give them tips. People deliberate over who is the exact customer. Or the actual customer and their needs. People can get very micro at the start. And you say just pick one and keep moving. Just keep pushing through, because you can always add more later. You are getting people to move quickly. And you are giving people a couple of steers. But the first 20 minutes is complete confusion. What are we doing here? And then once you draw the map out, people go 'Ah right!'. And then when you start to plot movement and inertia, that's when people get really excited. And it becomes crystal clear. Creating the Value Flywheel Effect Talk I deliberated on what to do for my talk because I wanted to do something different. So I decided on 'Creating the Value Flywheel Effect' looking at how came up with this stuff. So I did an intro to the book. And then I told the story through maps, similar to our Map Camp talk. I started with one of the drawings we had done five or six years ago. Which was a scribbled messy drawing of a map. And I contrasted with the map in the book to show the evolution of the map. So it was a nice mechanism to tell the story. Some people think that maps come out fully formed. But they never do. There is lots of variation and challenge. We always challenge each other. And we revisit, rub stuff out and draw it again. When we validate certain things we always go back to the map. It's not the map. It's the communication! And the interactions. The maps are always wrong at the start. People try to go out of their way to create the perfect map. But that's not the point of the exercise. The Value Flywheel Effect Book Signing I did the book signing in the main theatre. There were 4 different book signings. So you hope to see people queue up because you don't want to end up standing on your own. But there was a huge queue and I was there for two hours signing 200 books. People were really nice and they were really excited. And lots of other speakers queued up as well. Propelo sponsored our book signing and they were great. So now the book is in the wild with 200 plus people! So we're starting to get feedback from people who weren't in the early previews. It was fantastic to see Dominica DeGrandis' comments on LinkedIn. She wrote the book: 'Making Work Visible'. It is a brilliant book about visualising flow. She has a couple of posts about our book: 'The Value Flywheel Effect'. And she popped up a maps from her LinkedIn called 'Mapping Psychological Safety'. It was the name of the post on her blog: DDeGrandis.com. And she said that it had never occurred to her to map psychological safety. I thought that was insightful. We would map stuff like that all the time. There's no boundaries to what we map. Psychological safety is usually the base or foundation of the map. Mapping, safety or challenge are things that are quite hard to see. But they are the most important thing for everything that comes above it. The thing at the very top, which is the need, is usually the least important because it is the end product. It's built into the flywheel. You need an environment where it's safe to challenge. And having safety to challenge requires psychological safety. It's cool that it's resonating with people and they're starting to zero in on those sorts of things. DevOps Enterprise Summit was a great event. Look up the slides on GitHub. All the videos are on videos.itrevolution.com. Serverless Craic from The Serverless Edge Check out our book The Value Flywheel Effect  Follow us on Twitter @ServerlessEdge

Dr. Mark Schwartz joins us to go over some of the injuries from week 1.

One 97 Communications, one of India's biggest digital payments companies, which operates under the brand name Paytm, has appointed GS Sundararajan, former group director of Shriram group as an independent director on its board, the company told the stock exchanges on Aug.27. Byju's, after 17-month delay is set to report FY21 financials on Sep. 6. And some details may have emerged about Apple's long-rumoured mixed reality headset. Notes: One 97 Communications, one of India's biggest digital payments companies, which operates under the brand name Paytm, has appointed GS Sundararajan, former group director of Shriram group as an independent director on its board, the company told the stock exchanges on Aug.27. The company also announced the retirement of independent director Mark Schwartz, upon completion of his tenure. Previously, Schwartz had served as chairman of Goldman Sachs Asia Pacific. Paytm is “confident that with continued revenue growth, an increasing mix of higher margin businesses such as loan distribution, and better operating leverage, it is firmly on track to achieve operating EBITDA profitability by the quarter ending September 2023,” the company said in its filing. Byju's, India's biggest ed-tech company and its most valued startup, has informed its debt investors that it is likely to finalise its audited financial results for FY21, approved by auditor Deloitte, by September 6, Economic Times reports, citing people briefed on the matter. India's Ministry of Corporate Affairs has asked Byju's parent Think & Learn to explain the 17-month delay in filing its audited accounts, Bloomberg reported on Aug. 25. Byju's investors include Sequoia Capital, Bond, Tiger Global, BlacRrock, Silver Lake, Naspers, and Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative. It is privately valued at $22 billion, according to the Bloomberg report, which cites market researcher CB Insights. Flipkart will invest more than Rs. 3,600 crores in the next three years to set up three new giant automated fulfilment centres, Economic Times reports. This includes one in Manesar which is under construction and two new ones, which would come up in South and West Bengal respectively, Flipkart Group's senior vice president and head of supply chain Hemant Badri, told ET. Some details may have emerged about Apple's rumoured virtual reality headsets, in trademark filings spotted by Bloomberg, The Verge reports, citing a Bloomberg report that is behind a paywall. The filings suggest Apple might incorporate “Reality” in the name and branding of its long-rumoured mixed reality headset. Three separate filings show trademarks for “Reality One,” “Reality Pro,” and “Reality Processor,” matching the realityOS name that shows up in Apple's code and a trademark application that potentially refers to the headset's operating system, according to The Verge. Theme music courtesy Free Music & Sounds: https://soundcloud.com/freemusicandsounds

In this episode, Herman Mark Schwartz of the University of Virginia discusses why the US Dollar has remained the central world currency despite the fact that the US is persistently running current account deficits

In this episode, we are joined by Mark Schwartz, a Shoe Designer and Artist who began his design career in the early 1980s in his early twenties with a 7-year-long run with a shoe design master - Roger Vivier. Vivier also introduced him to Andy Warhol. Warhol mentored Schwartz for about four years before his death and taught Schwartz to make actual paintings of his shoe designs. Schwartz has designed shoes for the likes of Oprah, Madonna, Katie Couric, Angelica Huston, Sharon Stone, Wendy Williams, Lady Gaga, Ralph Lauren, Balenciaga, Gucci, Jean Claude Jitrois, Calvin Klein, Richard Tyler, Mark Eisen, Balenciaga, Gucci, Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Chanel, Hermes as well as being a ghost designer for more than several of the most famous footwear designers in our time. Tune in to learn more!

You can listen to the radio show every morning on WLS AM 890, and I hope you do! Here are a few of the highlights from this week.Illinois Congressman Mike Quigley is back from Ukraine with details on the war and meeting with President Zelensky. Highly decorated Gen. Mark Schwartz and SOTF CEO, Lt. Tommy Stoner, talked about guiding our best to their post military lives. Then my son Ross Cochran explained how, and why, we need to help fix foster care in Illinois and everywhere SHOW NOTESSupport Let it Be Us however you can, and check out their new podcast!Listen to me on the radio weekday mornings from 5:30-9:00 on WLS AM 890, online, on your smart speaker, or on the TuneIn Radio App! Subscribe to Live From My Office on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.Follow Steve on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn.Win an ABT gift card by emailing me three of your friends emails who you think would like the show, and include your mailing address in the email. Check out the details here.Email the show with any questions, comments, or plugs for your favorite charity.

 Read on for today's agenda below prepared by David (thank you very much). - Retired US Diplomat to 5 different nations  David Hunter shares his knowledge, passion, interest, and experience. 1)Ukraine Missiles Strike Russian City of Belgorad 25 miles from Ukraine's Border: After months of being attacked by Russian missiles and artillery, including strikes on schoolhouses, hospitals, shopping malls and residential buildings, Ukraine seems to have struck back inside Russian territory. Russians seem shocked by such Ukrainian 'ruthless brutality'. Is this justified for what Russia has done?2)Russia Starting 'Show Trial' of US Basketball Star Brittney Griner: Ms. Griner was arrested while arriving back in Russia to play on a Russian women's basketball team. She allegedly carried vape cartridges which had cannibus or hash-oil residue in them. If convicted, she may face 10 yrs in Russian prison. However, a 'prisoner swap' also seems likely. What's going on here--is Ms. Griner being 'framed'?3)Why Does Putin Lie about Who Were His Parents?: The question of Putin's parents is vague. He claims he was raised in Leningrad by a Soviet hero of WWII. But he may have been born the illegitimate son of a Georgian woman, Anna Putina, and later adopted by distant relatives. If so, could this explain his warped, cold, insensitive personality? What do you think?4)US Security Coordinator at US Embassy in Jerusalem Concluded Israeli Army Did Not 'Intentionally' Target American- Palestinian Journalist in Killing: Just released 'investigation' results by Lt. Gen. Mark Schwartz---- who is in charge of the USSC, part of the State Department reporting directly to Secretary of State Blinkin, and was given access to the bullet that killed Shareen,---- concluded the bullet was too badly damaged to determine from what type weapon it was fired, but that the shot likely came from Israeli Army's location. What do you think, is Biden Administration engaged in 'whitewashing' the killing of an American citizen?

Karim Anani, EY Americas Financial Accounting and Advisory Services Transactions Leader, and Mark Schwartz, Head of IPO and SPAC Capital Markets Advisory, join Winna Brown to explore why SPACs remain highly relevant despite market volatility and regulatory headwinds. Contact Karim: karim.anani@ey.com  Contact Mark: mark.schwartz1@ey.com  In 2021, more than 40% of new public companies listed through mergers with SPACs. While SPACs have been around for decades, the boom of the last few years has dominated its narrative in the marketplace. Today, there are hundreds of SPACs seeking “transactable” targets that face potential liquidation in the next year or so if deals aren't made.  Against this backdrop, SPAC sponsors are operating in an extremely choppy market environment for SPACs and other new issues, and recently proposed SEC regulation has increased uncertainty in an already uneasy deal-making environment. Today's episode explores why SPACs remain highly relevant in EY dialogue with operating companies and their backers despite the market and regulatory headwinds. What is in store for SPACs over the next one to two years and beyond? Recent innovation and complexity in SPAC mergers Evolving negotiation dynamics in recent dealmaking processes Ongoing evolution of what makes an attractive operating company for a SPAC merger Transforming and adapting of SPACs in the face of the current challenges

In this episode, Prof. Mark Schwartz of UVA discusses the cause of reductions in US economic growth since 1970, arguing that industrial organization plays a key role.

Continuing our series on managing for ecosystem transformation, we sit down with Dr. Mark Schwartz, a plant ecologist at UC Davis, and Aviv Karasov-Olson, a PhD candidate at UC Davis, to discuss a new tool for assessing the biotic risks associated with a managed relocation project (also referred to as assisted migration). Managed relocation is the act of deliberately relocating, or translocating, a species outside of its historic range to meet conservation goals, especially in response to climate change. Image credit: USFWS Midwest Region.Relevant links:National Park Service: Managed Relocation (Includes links to both the report and the worksheet described in this episode)Karasov‐Olson, Aviv, et al. "Co‐development of a risk assessment strategy for managed relocation." Ecological Solutions and Evidence 2.3 (2021): e12092.If you're enjoying this podcast, please consider rating us and/or leaving us a review on Apple Podcasts, Podcast Addict, or Podchaser Thanks!Follow us on Twitter @RainShinePodNever miss an episode! Sign up to get an email alert whenever a new episode publishes (http://eepurl.com/hRuJ5H)Have a suggestion for a future episode? Please tell us!Come Rain or Shine affiliate links:DOI Southwest CASC: https://www.swcasc.arizona.edu/USDA Southwest Climate Hub: https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/southwestSustainable Southwest Beef Project: https://southwestbeef.org/

Dr. Mark Schwartz helps walk us through the Joel Embiid injury.

In this special Thematic Investing Series episode, we go beyond buzzwords in the media with my guests, Mark Schwartz and Nick Cucci. Mark advises early-stage startups and co-founded PDT, a Chicago-based product development firm. Nick leads business development at PDT and helps clients identify new opportunities for innovation. Mark and Nick were perfect guests to follow up my Thematic Investing Series, diving deeper into common buzzwords like “innovation” or “disruption” and the confusion I see around them lately. Each day, Mark and Nick help companies navigate the complex process from concept to commercialization. They give us a look under the hood of innovation, help us understand what these buzzwords mean, and how innovation actually happens. Mark and Nick will talk about R&D and why it's important for businesses to spend money or risk falling behind competitors. We also discuss emerging technologies such as LiFi, an alternative to WiFi, to securely transmit data at ultra-fast speeds using the light spectrum. Enjoy! --- For more information: - Ryan Hitchcock: www.rhitch.com - PDT, an Astronics Company: www.pdt.com - Nick Cucci: www.cucci.xyz - Mark Schwartz: https://www.markschwartz.rocks    Ryan Hitchcock Financial Planner High Point Capital Group Direct: 414-253-4611 rhitch@hpcg.com   Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.  Securities and investment advisory services offered through SagePoint Financial, Inc. (SPF), member FINRA/SIPC. SPF is separately owned and other entities and/or marketing names, products or services referenced here are independent of SPF.  1200 N. Mayfair Rd., Suite 300, Milwaukee, WI 53226. Phone: 414-253-4600.  

Guest Bio: Mark Schwartz joined AWS as an Enterprise Strategist and Evangelist in July 2017. In this role, Mark works with enterprise technology executives to share experiences and strategies for how the cloud can help them increase speed and agility while devoting more of their resources to their customers. Mark has extensive experience as an IT leader in the government, private sector, and the nonprofit world, and with organizations ranging from startup to large. Prior to joining AWS, he was CIO of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (in the Department of Homeland Security), where he led a large digital transformation effort, moving the agency to the cloud, introducing and refining DevOps and Agile techniques, and adopting user-centric design approaches. From his work at USCIS, he developed a reputation for leading transformation in organizations that are resistant to change, obsessed with security, subject to considerable regulation and oversight, and deeply bureaucratic. Before USCIS, Mark was CIO of Intrax Cultural Exchange, a leader in global youth exchange programs, and CEO of a software company. Mark is the author of The Art of Business Value , A Seat at the Table: IT Leadership in the Age of Agility, War, Peace and IT and The Delicate Art of Bureaucracy. Mark speaks at conferences internationally on such subjects as DevOps, Leading Change, Driving Innovation in IT, and Managing Agility in Bureaucratic Organizations. He has been recognized as a Computerworld Premier IT Leader and received awards for Leadership in Technology Innovation, the Federal 100 IT Leaders, and a CIO Magazine 100 award. Mark has both a BS and MA degree from Yale University, and an MBA from Wharton.   Social Media/ Website: Mark's LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/innovativecio Mark's AWS Executive Insights page with links to all his blogs posts and books https://aws.amazon.com/ar/executive-insights/enterprise-strategists/mark-schwartz/  Books/ Resources: The Delicate Art of Bureaucracy: Digital Transformation with the Monkey, the Razor and the Sumo Wrestler by Mark Schwartz https://www.amazon.co.uk/Delicate-Art-Bureaucracy-Transformation-Wrestler-ebook/dp/B086XM4WCK/ The Art of Business Value by Mark Schwartz https://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Business-Value-Mark-Schwartz/dp/1942788045 A Seat at the Table: IT Leadership in the Age of Agility by Mark Schwartz https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seat-Table-Leadership-Age-Agility/dp/1942788118/ War, Peace and IT: Business Leadership, Technology, and Success in the Digital Age by Mark Schwartz https://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Peace-Business-Leadership-Technology/dp/1942788711 Reaching Cloud Velocity: A Leader's Guide to Success in the AWS Cloud by Jonathan Allen et al https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reaching-Cloud-Velocity-Leaders-Success/dp/B086PTDP51 Ahead in the Cloud: Best Practices for Navigating the Future of Enterprise IT by Stephen Orban https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ahead-Cloud-Practices-Navigating-Enterprise-ebook/dp/B07BYQTGJ7 Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers Who Turned the Tide in the Second World War by Paul Kennedy https://www.amazon.co.uk/Engineers-Victory-Problem-Solvers-Turned-ebook/dp/B00ADNPCC0 The Phoenix Project: A Novel About IT, DevOps, and Helping Your Business Win by Gene Kim https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Project-Devops-Helping-Business/dp/1942788290/ The Unicorn Project: A Novel about Developers, Digital Disruption, and Thriving in the Age of Data by Gene Kim https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unicorn-Project-Disruption-Redshirts-Overthrowing/dp/1942788762   Interview Transcript Ula Ojiaku:  Mark, thank you so much for making the time for this conversation. Mark Schwartz: Thank you, my pleasure. Ula Ojiaku: Great. Now let's start with you know, the question I usually ask my guests: who's Mark? What makes him tick? Mark Schwartz:  And they can answer that question. It's not a hard one. where to start? Um, you know, I always enjoy my work. That's a thing about me. I like to think that people have fun working with me because I tend to laugh a lot. And even you know, when the work is boring, I find ways to make it interesting. I just enjoy doing things and accomplishing things. I think if we're going to talk about my books, and some of the things I've done later, an important thing to realize is that, I started out, you know, when I went, when I was in high school, when I went to college, I was pretty sure I wanted to study computer science and get involved with these computer things. But when I was actually studying, I realized there were all these other interesting areas, I'm just, you know, endlessly curious. And so, I wound up studying all kinds of other things, in addition. And the result was that when I finished college, I decided to go to graduate school in philosophy. And I spent a few years getting a master's degree in philosophy. And the fact that I'm curious about so many things and read so many different things, I think it enters into a lot of what I do. I like to pull analogies from non-IT related fields and, and, and I'll call upon all the things I've learned in all sorts of different areas, as I'm writing and speaking and working. Ula Ojiaku:  It shines through in your book, definitely. Mark Schwartz:  Yes, I think it does. That's partly an explanation for what you see in my books. I think, um, you know, I sometimes say that I have trouble reading business books generally. Because I kind of find them boring. They tend to make the same point over and over again, and to be very just so one directional, you know, just on the same subject, and it's a little bit odd because in every other subject, the books tend to refer to other books in other fields and there's this extra dimension and that helps you understand what the author is getting at. But in business books, they, you know, aside from having a quote now and then from a famous leader or something, they don't tend to do that, they don't, they don't sort of call upon the whole history of literature and writing. And so, I have a little bit of fun in writing my books in trying to see if I can add an extra dimension just by reference and by bringing in other things that are a little bit orthogonal to the subject matter. Ula Ojiaku:  And that kind of, you know, brings home the point that life isn't black and white. It's actually a complex or a complex kind of, you know, maze and of different disciplines, different ideologies and different viewpoints that make it what it is really. Mark Schwartz:  Yeah well, of course, that was part of the fun of my recent book on Bureaucracy. You know, because I know we all, we want to throw up when we encounter bureaucracy, you know, it disturbs us in so many ways. And one of the things I wanted to say in the book is, well, actually bureaucracy is all around you all the time in unexpected places and it usually doesn't drive you crazy, actually. Yeah... Ula Ojiaku:  Well, I have a lot of questions for you on your book, The Delicate Art of Bureaucracy, which is a catchy, catchy title on its own, very clever. But before we get to that, what do you do when you're not working? I know, you said you love work and you've also said that you're curious about so many things, which means that you read broadly - that's my interpretation. So, what do you do when you're not ‘working'? Mark Schwartz:  Yes, I read broadly, is one thing. In the past, I played the guitar a lot. And I don't quite as much lately. I don't know why, you know, I'll start doing it again. I'm sure at some point. But while I was living in San Francisco, I was actually playing in bars and coffee shops, I have a singer, who I performed with. Ula Ojiaku: Really? Wow! Mark Schwartz: And that was really fun. And then the other thing I do is travel, I've really traveled a lot. And, yeah, there was one period in my life where for about five years, I was bumming around the world with a backpack with you know, occasional returns to the States to work a little bit and make some money and then go traveling again. So, one of the joys of my current job is that, I get to do a lot of traveling to interesting places. Ula Ojiaku:  So, where would you say is your ideal getaway destination? Mark Schwartz:  Oh, let's see. I'm a big fan of Brazil. That, I have good friends there and it's really nice to see them and the atmosphere is always kind of fun there. Ula Ojiaku: Okay. Mark Schwartz: I don't know what I've discovered so many places around the world that I've really loved being. I lived in Japan for a year and that is a place that I love to go to, especially for the food. Yeah, I like good food. But I don't know I've found so many places that made me feel like I'd like to spend more time there. And of course, you can't really spend more time everywhere. Ula Ojiaku:  Interesting. So, let's, let's go to your book, “The Art of Delicate Bureaucracy”. What was the inspiration behind that book? Mark Schwartz:  Well, for all of my books, before I wrote, before I wrote them, I was thinking, ‘why hasn't anybody else written a book on this topic?' People don't write books on bureaucracy, at least not, you know, popular books, there are academic books on bureaucracy. And the same thing happened to me with my first book, “The Art of Business Value”, where I said to myself, we keep talking about business value in the IT world, like, is it obvious what it means? You know, what, why isn't anybody writing a book about what business value means? So, bureaucracy is one of those things. I have a lot of experience with it first of all, I was a CIO in a government agency. But it turns out, it's not just the government, whenever I tell people about my government experience, when I speak at a conference, people come up to me afterwards and say, ‘Oh, my company's just like that. I work for a financial services company; we have lots of bureaucracy'. And I work with a lot of people who are trying to pull off some sort of digital transformation, which is change on a big scale, that's changing traditional organizations on a big scale. And bureaucracy is always in their way because bureaucracy tends to resist change; it strongly tends to resist change. So, if you're doing a big change, then you're probably going to come up against it. So, I thought maybe with my experience as a bureaucrat, or at least experience in the big bureaucracy, I could give some pointers to people who are trying to cause big change, and yet are facing bureaucratic obstacles. And I can't imagine that there's any organization, at least any large organization that does not have bureaucratic obstacles to digital transformation. So, that got me started on it. And then as I started to think about bureaucracy and research it, I realized this is actually a really interesting topic. Ula Ojiaku:  You had an interesting introduction to the book. You said, “we are bureaucrats all.” Why that claim, you actually were saying, everyone is a bureaucrat, and I know you made a statement that's similar to that earlier on in this conversation - why? Mark Schwartz:  Well, of course, I have to define in the book, what I mean by bureaucracy and all that. And I follow the generally what's accepted as the academic definition. It mostly comes from the sociologist Max Vabre, who is writing around 1920. And, and he talks a lot about bureaucracy, and it's fairly complicated, but I simplify it in the book. Basically, what it comes down to is a bureaucracy is a way of organizing socially, that has rigid formal roles for people and rigid formal rules. And that's the essence of it. You know, bureaucracy, there are rules and they have to be applied uniformly to everybody. And there's a division of labor and you know, a hierarchy. So, it has rigid roles of people who have to sign off on things and approve things. So, with that is the definition. I think it, it connects with the very human tendency to try to structure things and constantly improve them and optimize them. So, if you find a good way of doing something, you tend to turn it into a rule, you know, this is the way it should be done from now on. Ula Ojiaku: Best practice! Mark Schwartz: It's the best practice. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And also, we, in, social organization, we'd like people to be accountable or responsible for things. And we know that you can't hold somebody accountable unless they have authority to perform their role. So, when you put those things together, it's very natural for us to set up these organizational systems, where we assign roles to people, and give them authority, and we make rules that encapsulate the best way to do things. And, essentially, that's bureaucracy. So, bureaucracy, I find, is everywhere around us in one form or another. But it doesn't drive us crazy most of the time, so we don't notice it. Ula Ojiaku:  Maybe if it's serving us, then we wouldn't notice it. But… Mark Schwartz:  It does serve. And if you look at the cases where it does drive us crazy, they have certain things in common. And in the book, I say there are three characteristics that bureaucracies often take on which they don't need to, it's not part of the definition of bureaucracy, but they often take on these characteristics. And it's those three characteristics that are what drive us crazy. And so, the goal, ultimately is to eliminate those three characteristics or turn them into something else. Ula Ojiaku: I know that the listeners would be curious to know what the three characteristics of bureaucracy that drive us crazy are? Is that so or should I just tell them go buy the book? Mark Schwartz: Yeah, go buy the book! Well, let me tell you the three characteristics, and also their opposite, which is what we really want. So, the first characteristic that drives us crazy, I think, is that bureaucracies tend to be bloated instead of lean, that would be the opposite in my view. There's no reason why a bureaucracy has to be bloated and wasteful. It could be lean, but it's one of those things that bureaucracy tends to become. So that's the first one. The second one is that bureaucracies tend to petrify, as opposed to learning. So, when I say petrifies, I mean that the rules and the bureaucracy don't change, or don't change as often as they should, or don't change continuously, which is really what rules should do. Now, that's not necessarily a characteristic of bureaucracy, but the definition, the definition says the rules have to be applied rigorously. You know, once you have a rule, everybody has to follow it. But it doesn't say that the rules have to stay the same forever, they can change. The opposite of a petrified bureaucracy is a learning bureaucracy, where the rules are constantly adjusted, based on what the people in the organization learn. And there are plenty of good examples of learning bureaucracies out there. And your goal is to transform the one into the other, the petrified into the learning. The third is, bureaucracies tend to be coercive, rather than enabling. Coercive, meaning that they're there to control employee behavior, to force employees to behave in ways that otherwise they wouldn't want to. They tend to be ‘no' saying, they say ‘no', a lot. Your bureaucracy for your expense reporting policy in your company probably says, ‘no that expense is no good because X Y and Z.' There are plenty of examples of enabling bureaucracies, where the point is not to stop you from doing things or force you to do something you don't want to. But the bureaucracy provides a support structure, provide best practices, as you said, that help you do your job well. And there's no reason why bureaucracies can't do that. So, the three bad characteristics are bloat, coercion, and petrify. Ula Ojiaku: Okay, nice. So, it sounds like the way you've described bureaucracy, when you look at it from a positive slant, would it be the same thing as guardrails, putting guardrails in place, or giving people the right degree of freedom? Mark Schwartz: Yeah, that's exactly the idea. What I find is that guardrails and automation are ways of implementing bureaucracy, that lead to those three good characteristics rather than the bad ones. Let's say in software development, in DevOps, for example, it's a good idea to put guardrails, security guardrails, for example, around what people can do, and automated security tests and things like that. Because then the developers or the DevOps teams, they can go charging ahead full speed, knowing that they can't do anything wrong, you know, because the guardrails are there. And they get immediate feedback, if they do something that's going to put them outside the guardrails and they can just immediately fix it. So, it's very empowering for them, lets them move fast. And it also gets rid of that coercive element of you know, I write some code and then somebody comes in afterwards and says, ‘no, you can't deploy that'. That's annoying. Instead, I can run the security tests myself, as a developer, see if there's anything that's problematic, fix it right away if I want to, so it's all under my control. But the end result is still the same. The bureaucracy is still there. It's just automated and implemented as guardrails. Ula Ojiaku:  It's enabling, like you said before, instead of hindering. Mark Schwartz:  And it's lean, because it's very inefficient and wasteful, if you write some code, and then at the very end of the development process, somebody finds a security flaw. And now you have to remember what you were doing. And, you know, go back and relearn your code and make changes then, so that's wasteful, as opposed to lean. It's coercive, as opposed to enabling. And if you're good at doing these things, then you keep updating your guardrails and your security tests based on new security threats you learn about or new policies or whatever. So, you make a learning bureaucracy as well. Ula Ojiaku:  Interesting. In the book as well, you said you want us to be calm, chaos monkeys, knights of Ockham, lean sumo wrestlers, very interesting oxymoron there. And you know, black belt experts, could you tell us more about those terms? Why did you use those terms? Mark Schwartz:  Because they made me laugh of course. Ula Ojiaku: Well, they made me laugh too. Mark Schwartz: So, I thought about what I learned about coping with bureaucracy, especially in my government job, but also from reading and from talking to other people. And I realized I had about, you know, 30 techniques for coping with bureaucracy, I call them plays. And I just grabbed those 30 techniques, but I thought about it, and I realized they divided into three. And the three, I could sort of associate with a personality, almost. You know, that these 10 plays are associated with this personality, these 10 plays are associated with this one. And I came up with these three personalities that I thought describe those plays. And the three personalities are the monkey, and the razor, and the sumo wrestler. And, you know, I think, I could stop right there, because it's probably obvious why I associate those with these plays, but I will go a little further. Ula Ojiaku: Please… Mark Schwartz: So, I realized that some of the things we did, the ones that I call the plays of the monkey, the way of the monkey, those things had to do with provoking. You know, monkeys are mischievous, provocative, and sometimes annoying. And a bunch of the techniques had to do with trying to be provocative. And the razor and I'll give you some examples in a minute. The razor, to me is all about being lean. It's about trimming away waste. And it also refers to the philosophical principle of Ockham's razor. Ockham was a medieval philosopher, right, William of Ockham. And he's generally credited with an idea that something like if you have a choice between a simple explanation, and a complicated explanation, you should prefer the simple one. That's not really what he said. But that's, that's what most people associated with him. That's the principle of Ockham's razor. And, and so it's called a principle of ontological parsimony, meaning, you shouldn't presuppose the existence of more things than you need to, in order to explain something. So, you know, don't make up nymphs. And you know, I don't know, water dryads and whatever's to explain something that you can equally just explain through simple physical laws. Ula Ojiaku:  Just saying, 'keep it simple...' Mark Schwartz:  Yeah, keep it simple, in a way, right? So that's called the principle of ontological parsimony. And I said, there's a similar principle of bureaucratic parsimony, which says that if you're trying to implement a control, and you can do it in a simple way, or you could do it in a really complicated way, do it a simple way. And so, it's a principle of leanness because I find that bureaucracies, when they get bloated, they have these really complicated wasteful ways of doing something that they could they could accomplish exactly the same thing, but in a simpler way. So that's the razor. And then a sumo wrestler. Well, Sumo is the sport where, you know, two massive people sort of bang into each other, right? And the goal is you want to push your opponent out of the ring, or you want to make them fall and touch the ground with something other than their feet. And if you can do either of those things, you win. So, if you're a big massive person and you're trying to accomplish those things, you might think that the best thing to do is charge your opponent and push really hard. But if your opponent then just either dodges or just is soft and lets you push, well, you're probably going to go flying out of the ring, right? So, one of the principles in Sumo is you want to use your opponent's strength against them. And if they push hard, now, go ahead, give them a little pull. And, you know, let them push even harder. And I realized that some of these techniques for overcoming bureaucracy have to do with using bureaucracy actually, on your side, you know, the using the strength of bureaucracy against it. So that's why the sumo wrestler. So, I'll give you examples now on each one, now that I've described my three personalities. So, the monkey does what is sometimes referred to as provoking and inspecting or provoking and observing, in parallel with the Agile principle of inspect and adapt. So, provoke and observe, what the monkey does is try something that's probably outside the rules, or at least is, you know, a borderline and watches what happens. So, an example where we use this is that we have these rules in Homeland Security that essentially said, if you were going to do an IT project, you have to produce 87 documents. And each document had a template, and you have to fill in each section of the template. And these documents would run to hundreds of pages. And so, using the persona of the monkey, let's say, we started to turn in these documents. But in each section of the template, we just wrote a one sentence, one sentence answer, you know, we're very short answer instead of writing pages and pages. And we wanted to see what would happen if we did that, because there was no rule that said, it had to be a really long answer. And eventually, we started to provoke even more, we just left out sections that we thought didn't make any sense for what we were doing. And all of this was unprecedented, you know, it caused a lot of fear. It turned out, and this sometimes happens, that the enforcers of this policy, they were happy when they said, “We've never wanted anybody to write these really long answers to these things, we have to read them. And you know, the intention wasn't to slow people down. As long as you're giving us the right information. That's all we need.” So, in this case, provoking just it turned out that we could defeat a bunch of bureaucracy there, we could, we could make things a lot leaner because nobody objected. But sometimes people do object. And if they do, then you learn exactly what the resistance is, who it is, is resisting, and that gives you valuable information, when you're trying to figure out how to overcome it. So that's the monkey. You know, let's try something a little playful and mischievous, and see what happens. The razor, well, that one follows also on my 87 documents, because we then set up an alternative way of doing things that had only 15 documents. And where there had been 13 gate reviews required for each project. We reduced it to two. And so, all we did, you know, we just used our little razor to trim away all the excess stuff that was in the bureaucratic requirements. And then we showed people that those 15 documents and those two gate reviews accomplished exactly the same thing as the 87 documents and the 13 gate reviews. That's the principle of the razor, that's how the razor works. The sumo wrestler, also a favorite of mine. So, we were trying to convince the bureaucracy to let us do DevOps and to be agile, and it was resisting. And people kept pointing to a policy that said, you can't do these things. And so, we wrote our own policy. And it was a very good bureaucratic policy looked exactly like every bureaucratic document out there. But it essentially said you must use DevOps and you must be agile on it, you know, it set up a perfect bureaucracy around that it's set up ways of checking to make sure everybody was using DevOps. And the theory behind it was the auditors when they came to audit us and said we were being naughty because we were doing DevOps. Their argument was we looked at the policy and we looked at what you're doing, and they were different. And that's the way auditing works. That was the, you know, GAO, the Government Accountability Office, and the Inspector General and all that. So, we figured if we had a policy that said you must do DevOps, and they audited us, well, they would actually be enforcing the policy, you know, they'd be criticizing any part of the organization that was not using DevOps and I thought that's great. So, this is how you use the strength of the bureaucracy against the bureaucracy or not really, against even, you know, it's perfectly good, perfect… Ula Ojiaku:  To help the bureaucracy yeah, to help them to improve, improve the organization. But thinking about the monkey though, being provocative and mischievous, do you think that there has to be an element of you know, relationship and trust in place first, before… you can't just you know… you're new, and you've just gotten through the door and you start being a monkey… you probably will be taken back to wherever you came from! What do you think? Mark Schwartz:  Well, it helps if you're giggling while you do it. But you know, I think the goal here is to figure out the right levers that are going to move things. And sometimes you do have to push a little bit hard, you know, you do need to take people out of their comfort zone. Usually, you want to do these things in a way that takes into account people's feelings, and you know, is likely to move them in the right direction, rather than making them dig in their heels. But I'll give you a couple of examples of Monkey tactics that are less comfortable for people. One is simply, you know, there's a status quo bias. It's a known, well-known cognitive bias; people tend to prefer the status quo or look the other way about it's failings and stuff. So often, when you're trying to make a change, people say, we're fine the way we are, you know, everything's okay. So, one of the things the monkey tries to do is, is to make it clear that the status quo is not acceptable, you know, to show people that it actually if they think about it, it's no good. And so, for example, when we decided to move to the cloud, instead of working in our DHS data center, people said - of course at the time it was a big concern, ‘was the cloud secure enough?' And in the persona of the monkey, the right response is, ‘are we secure enough now?' You know, ‘don't you realize that we're not happy with our security posture today?' ‘It's not like, the cloud has proved itself. I mean, we have to compare our security in the cloud versus our security in the data center. And yes, I'm very sure it'll be better in the cloud and here's why…' But you can't start from the assumption that you are fine right now. In general, when we're talking about the cloud, that's the situation. Companies are using their own data centers. And it's like, you know, we have to teach them that they can do better in the cloud. But the truth is that they're not happy in their own data centers, if they think about it, right? There are security issues, there are performance issues, there are cost issues. And they're aware of those issues, right, they just look the other way. And because they're comfortable with the status quo, so the monkey has to sort of shake people up and say, ‘It's not okay, what you're doing now!' Another example, and this is really harsh, and I wouldn't use it in most cases. But let's say that this was in Homeland Security. Let's say that Homeland Security is enforcing a very bureaucratic process that results in IT projects, taking five years instead of six months. And let's say, you know, the process is there on paper, the rules say, ‘Do this', the people are interpreting the rules in a way that makes things take five years. Sometimes, the monkey has to go to somebody who's in their way and say, ‘We are in the Department of Homeland Security, this IT project is going to make people more secure in the homeland. Are you comfortable with the fact that you are preventing people from being more secure for the next four and a half years, when we could…' You know, it's a matter of personalizing it. And that sometimes is what's necessary to get people to start thinking creatively about how they can change the bureaucracy. You know, ‘I hate to say it, but you're a murderer', you know, essentially is the message. It's a monkey message. And like I said, you know, it's not the preferred way to go about doing things. But if you have to, I mean, the lives of people are at stake, and you've got to find a way to get there. Ula Ojiaku:  So how can leaders because your book, The Art of Business Value, in your book, you said that “leaders create the language of the organization, and they set up incentives and define value in a way that elicits desired outcomes.” So, in essence, I understand that statement to mean that leaders set the tone, and you know, kind of create the environment for things to happen. So, how can leaders implement or apply bureaucracy in a way that enables an organization where, before it was seen as a hindrance, how can they do this? Mark Schwartz:  My thought process was, if we all agree, we're gonna try to maximize business value? How do we know what we mean by it? And I realized, a lot of Agile people, you know, people in our Agile and DevOps community, were being a little bit lazy. You know, they were thinking, ‘Oh, business value, you know, it's returns on investment, or, you know, it's up to the business (to define) what's business value.' The tech people just, you know, do the work of providing a solution. And to me, that's too lazy. If you're going to be agile, be it you have to be more proactive about making sure you're delivering business value. So, you have to understand what it means. You have to actually do the work of, you know, figuring out what it means. And what it means is not at all obvious. And, you know, you might think it has something to do with return on investment or shareholder value or something like that. But when you really closely examine it, that is not the right way to define it, when it comes to deciding what its efforts to prioritize and all that that's, you know, the case that the book makes, and I explain why that's true. Instead, I say you have to think of business value within the context of the business's strategy and its objectives as a business. There's no like, abstract, this has more business value than this because we calculated an ROI or something like that, that doesn't work reprioritizing. It's always asked within the context of a particular business strategy. And the business strategy is a direction from leadership. There might be input from everybody else, but ultimately, you have leaders in the organization who are deciding what the strategic objectives are. So, for example, if you are a traditional bank, or traditional financial services company, and you look around you and you see there are all these new FinTech companies that are disrupting the industry, and you're worried, well there are a lot of different ways you can respond to those disruptive FinTechs. And how you're going to choose to respond depends on your preferences, it depends on the situation of your company, in the industry, the history of your company, all of those things. But of the many ways you can respond to that disruption, you're going to choose one as the leader of your enterprise. Well, what adds business value is whatever supports that direction you choose to go. You can't think of business value outside of that direction, you know. That's the case that I make. So, leaders don't just set the tone and the culture there, they're actually setting strategic direction that determines what has business value. And then the people who are executing the agile teams have to take it upon themselves to make sure that whatever they're doing is going to add business value in that sense.   So, the role of leadership then becomes direction setting and visioning for the future and communicating the vision to the people who are working and providing feedback, you know, on whether things are actually adding business value or not . And that's the key responsibility. Now, in order to do that, in order to motivate people to deliver according to that idea of business value, there are certain techniques as a leader that you have to keep in mind, there are ways that you get people, you get a big organization to sort of follow you. And one of the ones that's become most important to me to think about after talking to a lot of leaders about how they're running their organizations, and what's working, is using middle management as a lever for accomplishing those things. So often, I'll talk to leaders of a business, and they'll say, our problem is the frozen middle, middle management is, you know, they're just not changing the way we want, we want to, we want to cause a big transformation, but middle management is getting in the way. And I tell them, ‘that's pretty much a myth.' You know, ‘that's not actually what's happening, let's look more closely at your organization.' Almost always, middle management is still trying to do the best they can, given the situation that they're in. And the way that you get them to align themselves behind the change is, you change their incentives or their role definition, or how you tell them what you're expecting from them, you don't say “change”, you know, and start doing X and Y, you change what success looks like for their position. And then they adapt to it by becoming engaged and finding ways to get there. So, there's almost always a leadership problem when you have that frozen middle effect. And, and I've seen it work really well that, you know, all of a sudden, you get this big leverage, because you just do a little bit of tweaking of role definitions, and bring everybody into solving the problem. And actually, there's an example, I love to talk about a history book, like I said before, I like to bring in other things, right? It's called the Engineers of Victory. And it's about World War Two, the Allies realized that they had to solve a set of problems, I think there was six or so problems. One of them was how do you land troops on a beach that's heavily defended? They realize they were just not going to be able to win the war until they could do that. But nobody knew how to do it. Because, you know, obviously, the bad guys are there on the beach, they're dug in, they put barbed wire everywhere, and mines, and you know, all this stuff. And it's just going to be a slaughter if you try to land on the beach. So, this book, Engineers of Victory, makes the case that what really won the war, was figuring out those solutions. And who was responsible for figuring out those solutions? It was middle management, basically. It was the, you know, within the structure of the army, it was the people not at the top who had big authority, you know, the generals, and it was not the troops themselves, because they weren't in a position to figure out these things. It was middle management that could see across different parts of the organization that could try things and see whether they worked or not, that, you know, essentially could run their own mini skunkworks projects. And eventually, they came up with the solutions to these problems. So, I think that's very encouraging for the role of middle management, you know, that a lot of problems have to be solved at that layer in order to pull off a transformation. And it really can be done. And this is a beautiful example of it. Ula Ojiaku:  It reminds me of, you know, my experience in a few transformation initiatives. So, the middle, the people who are termed to be in the frozen middle, are, like you said, they want to do what's best for the company, and they show up wanting to do their best work, but it's really about finding out, ‘Where do I fit in, (with) all this change that's happening?' You know, ‘if my role is going away, if the teams are going to be more empowered, that means I'm not telling them what to do, but then what do I do now?' So, the clarity of what the ‘New World' means for them, and what's in it for them, would help, you know, make them more effective. Mark Schwartz: And the mistake that's often made is to say to them, ‘start doing DevOps' or, you know, ‘start doing agile or something.' Because if you don't change the definition of success, or you don't change the incentives that, you know, then it's just, make work and they're going to resist it. You know, if you say your incentive is to get really fast feedback or you know, one of the other goals of DevOps, because of the following reasons, it helps the business this way, so let's try to reduce cycle time as much as possible for producing software. Okay, that's a change in the incentive, or the, you know, the definition of success, rather than just telling somebody you have to do DevOps, you know, read a book and figure it out. Ula Ojiaku:  So, what other books because you mentioned the Engineers of Victory, are there any other books you would recommend for the listener to go check out if they wanted to learn more about what we've talked about today? Mark Schwartz:  Well, I think, you know, obviously, my books referred to War and Peace by Tolstoy, Moby Dick, another great one. You know, you probably need to read my books to figure out why those are the right books to read and Engineers of Victory. As I said, I think that one's a great one. Within the field, there are some DevOps books that that I like a lot, of course, Gene Kim's books, The Phoenix Project, and now The Unicorn Project, the sequel to that. Because those are books that give you a feel for the motivation behind all the things that we do. The Mechanics of Things, there are plenty of books out there that help you learn the mechanics of how to do continuous integration and continuous delivery. And then the cloud is I think it's really transformative. You know, it's the cloud itself is a tremendous enabler. I work at AWS, of course but I'm not saying this because I work at AWS, it's more than I work at AWS because I believe these things. And my teammates have written some good books on the cloud. Reaching Cloud Velocity, for example, by Jonathan Allen and Thomas Blood is a great one for reading up on how the cloud can be transformative. But my other teammates, Gregor Hope, has written a number of books that are really good, Stephen Orban did A Head in the Cloud. So, I think those are all… should be at the top of people's reading lists. And then, of course, I recommend my books, because they make me laugh, and they might make you laugh, too. Ula Ojiaku:  Definitely made me laugh, but they've also given me things to think about from a new perspective. So, I totally agree. And so, where can people find you if they want to reach out to you? Mark Schwartz:  Yeah, LinkedIn is a great place to find me. If you're with a company that is an AWS customer, feel free to talk to your account manager, the sales team from AWS and ask them to put you in touch with me, is another easy way. LinkedIn is kind of where I organize my world from so find me there. Ula Ojiaku:  Okay. Sounds great. And any final words for the audience or for the listeners. Mark Schwartz:  Um, I, I have found that these things that you want to do to take advantage of the digital world, and I think we're all sort of pointing ourselves in that direction, there are these amazing things you can do in the digital world. They're sometimes challenging to get there, but it's very possible to get there. And one thing I've learned a lot at Amazon is the idea of working backwards, you know, you get that picture in your head for where you want to be and then you say to yourself, ‘I can get there. Let me work backwards and figure out what I have to do in order to get there.' And you might be wrong, you know, you should test hypotheses, you start moving in the right direction, and of course, correct as you need to. But you can do it with confidence that others are doing it and you can too no matter what your organization is, no matter how much you think you're a snowflake and you know different from every other organization. You can still do it. And with just some good intention and good thinking you can figure out how to how to get there. Ula Ojiaku:  Thank you so much, Mark. That was a great close for this conversation and again, I really appreciate your making the time for this interview. Thank you. Mark Schwartz: Thanks for having me. Ula Ojiaku: You're welcome.

In today's 7:00 hour, Angelo is joined by NovaCare's Dr. Mark Schwartz, Eagles head coach Nick Sirianni, and continues to take day-after Eagles victory reaction. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Mark Schwartz from NovaCare joins the show to discuss the latest in Eagles injuries. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark Schwartz, CEO of Blue Ridge Orthopaedic & Spine Center, joined the podcast to talk about how policy changes affect ASCs and outlook for future growth.

Mark Schwartz, CEO of Blue Ridge Orthopaedic & Spine Center, joined the podcast to talk about how policy changes affect ASCs and outlook for future growth.

NovaCare's Dr. Mark Schwartz, talks about some of the Eagles' injuries that were suffered in last night's loss to the Cowboys. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to the 100th episode of the Better ROI from Software Development podcast. In this episode, I introduce the second book that I would recommend to any non-technical CxO. Project to Product by Mik Kersten joins War and Peace and IT by Mark Schwartz on the mandatory reading list for any business leader navigating the modern digital age. ----- Find this episodes show notes at: https://red-folder.com/podcasts/100 Have an idea for an episode topic, or want to see what is coming up: https://red-folder.com/podcasts/roadmap

Everyone hates bureaucracy. What can we do to use its benefits and fight its demons? We talk to Mark Schwartz, CIO and Enterprise Strategist at Amazon Web Services about tackling bureaucracy.Author page: https://aws.amazon.com/executive-insights/enterprise-strategists/mark-schwartz/Get the book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1950508153/The Wicked Podcast:Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thewickedpodcastThe Wicked Podcast website: http://www.thewickedcompany.com/podcast/'The Wicked Company' book on Amazon.co.uk: https://www.amazon.co.uk/WICKED-COMPANY-When-Growth-Enough-ebook/dp/B07Y8VTFGY/The Wicked Company website: https:www.thewickedcompany.comMusic:'Inspired' by Kevin MacLeodSong: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3918-inspiredLicense: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

I recently finished reading The Art of Business Value by Mark Schwartz. Get the book: https://businessvalue.parkingthought.com Episode notes: https://parkingthought.com/podcast/s1e19-where-have-you-been Subscribe: https://subscribe.parkingthought.com/ ApplePodcasts: https://apple.parkingthought.com Spotify: https://spotify.parkinghtought.com Podbean: https://podbean.parkingthought.com Music by Dyalla: https://music.apple.com/us/album/happy/1392240784?i=1392241212 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/parking-thought/support

NovaCare Dr. Mark Schwartz walks us through Joel Embiid's injury and how it could affect the Sixers in their second series against the Atlanta Hawks. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I denne #LØRN episoden snakker Silvija Seres med teknologidirektør i NRK, Heidrun Reisæter. De snakker blant annet om lysten på å være nysgjerrig og om det å tørre og ta nye utfordringer. I tjue år har Reisæter jobbet med endring og utvikling i mediebransjen, og stadig mer rettet mot digitalisering og teknologiutvikling. Vi får et innblikk i hennes arbeid med akkurat dette i NRK. – Min store motivasjon er å bidra til den endringsevnen som gjør at folk fortsatt har et rikt og godt medietilbud uavhengig av teknologisk utvikling – det er viktig for demokrati og samfunn, sier hun.Dette LØRNER du:NRKMedieutviklingTeknologi i mediabransjenDigitaliseringAnbefalt litteratur:En forfatter jeg har hatt glede av på det feltet er Mark Schwartz med feks War and Peace and IT. The Phoenix Project av Gene Kim er også en morsom inngang til temaet. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Orthopedic Surgeon, Dr. Mark Schwartz, shares his opinions on load management in sports. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It never occurred to me that Archeology could be a lot like radio. That is, a lot of people think that all they need is a microphone in front of them & they'd be brilliant. More often than not....not. Over the decades it seems that a lot of people have thought that to be an archeologist all they needed was a shovel. In these episodes from '19 we talk with Prof. Mark Schwartz about people who thought the were making big discoveries (often in fields related to religion) that in reality were pretty fraudulent. Trust me, this is entertainment of a high order. Mark received his PhD in Anthropology from Northwestern University. His research focused on trade between the early city-states of Mesopotamia and the emerging complex societies of Anatolia in the fourth millennium B.C. He has worked on various excavations in the Middle East. He is currently involved in inter-departmental collaborative work using ROVs to study shipwrecks in the Great Lakes. He teaches courses on the archaeology of the Near East as well as general courses concerning anthropology and archaeology.

SwineCast 1145 Show Notes: 'At The Meeting' Honoring Dr. Bob Morrison looks into preliminary data revealing that wean-to-finish operations are perhaps at greatest risk from the PRRS 144 virus that emerged last fall in the Upper Midwest. The ATM hosts (Dr. Montserrat Torremorell - College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Dr. Gordon Spronk - Pipestone Veterinary Services, and Dr. Tom Wetzell - Swine Veterinary Consultant), along with guests Mark Schwartz (Schwartz Farms) and Dr. Cesar Corzo (College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota), discuss the latest field observations and data, including that mortality rates appear to be highly variable. 'At the Meeting', Honoring Dr. Bob Morrison is a podcast sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc. and is focused on the the most recent topics in swine health and production.

SwineCast 1145 Show Notes: 'At The Meeting' Honoring Dr. Bob Morrison looks into preliminary data revealing that wean-to-finish operations are perhaps at greatest risk from the PRRS 144 virus that emerged last fall in the Upper Midwest. The ATM hosts (Dr. Montserrat Torremorell - College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Dr. Gordon Spronk - Pipestone Veterinary Services, and Dr. Tom Wetzell - Swine Veterinary Consultant), along with guests Mark Schwartz (Schwartz Farms) and Dr. Cesar Corzo (College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota), discuss the latest field observations and data, including that mortality rates appear to be highly variable. 'At the Meeting', Honoring Dr. Bob Morrison is a podcast sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc. and is focused on the the most recent topics in swine health and production.

In this episode of Texthelp Talks, our host Mark Schwartz  sits down to chat to some leading experts on the art of writing. Amy Mayer, founder and CEO of friEdTechnology, is a nationally known speaker and trainer as well as a veteran public school educator. Chris Bugaj  is a founding member of the assistive technology team for Loudoun County Public Schools in Virginia. Chris co-hosts the Talking with Tech podcast featuring interviews and conversations about augmentative and alternative communication, and has hosted award-winning podcast featuring strategies to design educational experiences. They explore effective writing strategies for students, and share some tips for inspiring students to write more. 

Service Business Mastery Podcast

Service Business Mastery Podcast

Mark Schwartz is an Enterprise Strategist at Amazon Web Services. He works with senior executives from the world's largest enterprises to formulate strategies and overcome impediments to moving into the digital age.He is also a published author of the books called The (Delicate) Art of Bureaucracy and War and Peace and IT.For more information, feel free to get in touch directly with Kevin Castle here at https://humanitypodcast.com/.

Digital transformation is often hobbled by bureaucracy. According to AWS's Mark Schwartz, the quickest way to break through the bureaucracy is to wade straight into the quagmire using monkeys, razors, and sumo wrestlers.

Is there a part of your business that is a dumping ground?

Both Ends Believing Mark Schwartz Today on the GIVE podcast we are thrilled to welcome Mark Schwartz, the president of Both Ends Believing.  Both Ends Believing is a nonprofit that uses technology to create a digital identity for children around the globe- so they have a better chance at adoption, instead of aging out of the foster care system.  Millions of children are hidden behind the walls of institutions and orphanages. The primary reason is simply that countries lack the digital infrastructure that creates visibility into who and where they are. Without a digital identity, institutionalized children face a bleak future. The best place for a child is always with a loving family unit and Both Ends Believing uses technology to help them find those family units. Both Ends Believing works to capture comprehensive digital profiles of children through Children First Sofware, a technology-driven advocate designed to identify a child’s best opportunity for family-based care. Partnering with countries around the world, we transform the process to move children to their best future, a chance to grow and flourish in a loving family. How can you get involved with Both Ends Believing: Donate Spread the word through social media Raise awareness Be inspired. GIVE. Find Both Ends Believing here: Website | Facebook | Instagram Read the full transcript of this episode here.

A common complaint, both in and out of the government, is the complicated labyrinth of bureaucracy. Red tape frustrates citizens and feds, while the mountains of paperwork can stifle innovation. All of this makes navigating the bureaucracy a valuable skill. Mark Schwartz is an Enterprise Strategist at Amazon Web Services, a former federal CIO and the author of the book The (Delicate) Art of Bureaucracy. He’s joined the program to talk about the book and how to remake bureaucracy for the better.

NovaCare Dr. Mark Schwartz, calls in to help us analyze some of the key injuries that occurred in the Eagles' loss to the Ravens on Sunday. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark has 28 years of experience as a CEO, CFO, investment banker and board member of public and private companies. He was on the board of Starbucks Coffee and assisted the company in raising its first round of institutional financing. Mark also co-founded the largest U.S. Hispanic Supermarket company, Bodega Latina Corporation (El Super), and is on the board of Bartell Drug Stores.

Mark Schwartz, a Director of Enterprise Strategy for AWS, is the author of a new book, War and Peace in IT. Listen in as he sits down with fellow AWS Enterprise Strategist, Jake Burns, to answer questions submitted by customers about the book.

Mark Schwartz shared his personal journey and how he started in the world of fashion. Mark began his design career in the early 1980's in his early twenties and has designed shoes for the likes of, Oprah , Madonna , Katie Couric, Angelica Huston, Sharon Stone , Lady Gaga , Ralph Lauren among other amazing names. Learn his story.

Wednesday on Lake Effect : We hear how COVID-19 has changed Milwaukee Public Schools spending plan. Then, we learn how climate change is impacting how the seasons change and how you can see evidence of it right in your own backyard. Plus, gardening expert Melinda Myers gives tips on how to manage flooding by reshaping the landscape. Guests: Rob Henken and Anne Chapman, Wisconsin Policy Forum Paul Roebber and Mark Schwartz, UW-Milwaukee Melinda Myers, Lake Effect gardening contributor Jan Wilberg, essayist

We review our holiday reading and watching plans for listeners who might want to join us in exploring lean and agile ideas over the break. We also list our top 5 episodes from 2019 and preview a few events planned for 2020. SHOW LINKS: - Ed Catmull on conversations and other challenges at Pixar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2h2lvhzMDc - Kent Beck on throughput vs latency: https://medium.com/@kentbeck_7670/inefficient-efficiency-5b3ab5294791 - Mark Schwartz, War and Peace and IT: https://itrevolution.com/war-and-peace-and-it/ https://twitter.com/schwartz_cio - Subscribed by Tien Tzuo and Gabe Weisert.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subscribed_(book) - The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Lencioni : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21343.The_Five_Dysfunctions_of_a_Team - Lean Thinking by Womack and Jones: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/289467.Lean_Thinking - The Phoenix Project by Gene Kim : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17255186-the-phoenix-project - The Unicorn Project by Gene Kim : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44333183-the-unicorn-project - Four Steps to the Epiphany by Steve Blank: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/762542.The_Four_Steps_to_the_Epiphany - The Reflective Practitioner by Donald Schön : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29916803-the-reflective-practitioner - The Lean Startup by Eric Ries : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10127019-the-lean-startup - The Principles of Product Development Flow by Donald Reinertsen : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6278270-the-principles-of-product-development-flow - Team Topologies by Skelton and Pais: https://itrevolution.com/team-topologies/ Top 5 episodes in 2019: 5. How to Detect Agile BS - Part 1 : https://soundcloud.com/troubleshootingagile/how-to-detect-agile-bs-part-1 4. Values of the Give Up Control Model : https://soundcloud.com/troubleshootingagile/values-of-the-give-up-control-model 3. Mutual Learning Model: Accountability and Compassion : https://soundcloud.com/troubleshootingagile/mutual-learning-model-accountability-and-compassion 2. Agile is Dead, Long Live Agile : https://soundcloud.com/troubleshootingagile/agile-is-dead-long-live-agile 1. Ryan Singer on Basecamp and Shape Up, Part I : https://soundcloud.com/troubleshootingagile/ryan-singer-on-basecamp-and-shape-up-part-i *** 
 Our new book, Agile Conversations, will be out in May 2020! See https://conversationaltransformation.com where you can pre-order! New video of us at the Las Vegas Devops Enterprise Summit 2019 is now available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMT_Tqzf_vc 
 We'd love to hear any thoughts, ideas, or feedback you have about the show. 
 Email us: see link on troubleshootingagile.com 
 Tweet us: twitter.com/TShootingAgile 
 Also, if you'd like to leave us a review on iTunes (or just like and subscribe), you'll find us here: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/troubleshooting-agile/id1327456890?mt=2

Mark Schwartz, author of War and Peace and IT, describes his experience in the CIO trenches, where low trust between "the business" and IT bogs the organisation down in lengthy acquisition processes and contract negotiations rather than delivering business objectives. We touch on value stream mapping, how to use devops and its relatives devsecops and finops, briefing and back briefing, and what we see as the root of the disconnect between business and tech, a lack of trust. SHOW LINKS: - Mark Schwartz, War and Peace and IT: https://itrevolution.com/war-and-peace-and-it/ https://twitter.com/schwartz_cio - Value Stream Map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-stream_mapping - Briefing and Back Briefing: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Action-Leaders-between-Actions/dp/1857885597 *** 
 Our new book, Agile Conversations, will be out in May 2020! See https://conversationaltransformation.com where you can pre-order! New video of us at the Las Vegas Devops Enterprise Summit 2019 is now available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMT_Tqzf_vc 
 We'd love to hear any thoughts, ideas, or feedback you have about the show. 
 Email us: see link on troubleshootingagile.com 
 Tweet us: twitter.com/TShootingAgile 
 Also, if you'd like to leave us a review on iTunes (or just like and subscribe), you'll find us here: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/troubleshooting-agile/id1327456890?mt=2

When it comes to digital transformation, every enterprise is different. There is often a person or group with a vision, knowledge of good practices, a sense of urgency, and the energy to break through impediments. They may be anywhere in the organizational structure: high, low, or-in a typical scenario-somewhere in middle management. Mark Schwartz, an enterprise strategist at AWS and the author of 'The Art of Business Value' and 'A Seat at the Table: IT Leadership in the Age of Agility,' shares some of his research into building a high-performance culture by driving change from every level of the organization.

On International Podcast Day, we bring you yet another interview from across the Atlantic. In our fourth episode Aidan Regan, the director of University College Dublin's Jean Monnet Centre on the New Political Economy of Europe, talks with economic historian and University of Virginia professor Herman Mark Schwartz. Aidan and Mark discuss housing finance on either side of the Atlantic, the origins of the 2008 crisis, and how the dollar's dominance affects Europe's economic development.You can find additional information on Herman Mark Schwartz's work at https://politics.virginia.edu/herman-schwartz/More about the New Political Economy of Europe project at www.newpoliticaleconomyeurope.eu/

In this episode of BioScience Talks, Mark Schwartz, of the University of California, Davis, joins us to talk about the National Park Service, and in particular, the challenges facing its oversight of over 400 individual units and 85 million acres of land. Park Service lands are faced with the same ecological difficulties that other wildlands are, and cultural and procedural shifts will be needed to face them, particularly in light of the rising specter of climate change. Read the article. Subscribe on iTunes. Subscribe on Stitcher. Catch up with us on Twitter.   

Simon speaks with Mark Shwartz (Enterprise Strategist - AWS) about his latest book, and how the relationship between IT and non-IT leaders is changing. n the war for business supremacy, Schwartz shows we must throw out the old management models and stereotypes that pit suits against nerds. Instead, business leaders of today can foster a space of collaboration and shared mission, a space that puts technologists and business people on the same team. Get Mark's latest book here: https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Business-Leadership-Technology/dp/B07QVB1ZRG

Mark Schwartz is one of the rare individuals who is not only a great IT exec but can also analyze what works and doesn't work and write it up in a way that helps others. His "A Seat at the Table" is still one of my favorite DevOps books. Mark's new book is called War, Peace & IT. You can download an excerpt of it here: https://dl.orangedox.com/WarPeaceITExcerpt We speak with Mark about the book and some of the lessons behind it. Have a listen and check out the book ASAP

Dennis Stepp is prioritizing tests based on risk. This episode is not sponsored! Want to be a sponsor? You can contact me or check out my sponsorship gig on Fiverr Show Notes: Mind Mapping The four factors of risk based analytis: Domain, risks, impact, likelihood I threw out the term systemic risk Books: Clean Code by Robert C. Martin The Phoenix Project by Jean Kim A Seat at the Table by Mark Schwartz Making Work Visible by Dominica Degrandis Working Effectively with Legacy Code by Michael Feathers Dennis-Stepp.com Dennis is on Twitter Want to be on the next episode? You can! All you need is the willingness to talk about something technical.

4-30-19 Tonight we are joined by Lance Shaner, co-owner of Omega Yeast, and Carvin Wilson, mead aficionado and speaker on fermenting mead at high temperatures. Lance is a long time yeast handler, and has been homebrewing since he was an undergraduate days at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He got to play with many yeasts, since the food science department there had a wide selection of yeasts to choose from. He made duplicates of almost every strain and took them to the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, where he earned his Ph.D. in microbiology and molecular genetics, with a focus on Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or brewer’s yeast. He has 9 years of laboratory experience, including 5 years of original research on the stress response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (a.k.a. brewer’s yeast). The Norwegian kveik strains are his favorites, and he spends his free time watching his “buds” (Genevieve, 6 and Annelise, 3) grow up! Lance worked with friends to develop a method to propagate yeast strains, and he and his partner Mark Schwartz were keen to start a yeast company. They took this task on despite the dominance of large yeast companies in brewing, and with the acquisition of a rare German yeast from a small family brewery, picking up some unusual yeasts like Norwegian kveik (kwike), a Norwegian farmhouse ale yeast that loves high temperatures, and the support of some astute early adopters, they were off and running. Omega has grown quickly, because they create unique yeast strains and aren't afraid to experiment. They are always crossing and blending strains to create unique attributes. For example, Saisonstein’s Monster is a genetic hybrid of several saison strains; it provides high attenuation and yields spicy aromatics that suggest fruit and bubblegum. You can read an in depth article and Q&A on Lance and Mark and Omega Yeast on Seven Fifty. Carvin Wilson is a home mead maker who is an avid experimenter, and has made nearly every style of mead and won many medals in competitions all over the country. Carvin is owner of a software company, and when he's not slinging code, he's making mead and spending time with his lovely wife Robyn, and their kids and grandkids. Carvin has spent quite a bit of time over the last few years researching and experimenting with meads. Judging by the amount of awards he's gotten, including the 2018 AMMA Ken Schramm Award for Lifetime Achievement in Mead, he's doing it right. Lately, Carvin has been experimenting with high temp (over 70 degrees F) fermentations, going even into the 90's or 100's. This is a temperature that most mead makers will rear back and hiss at, like Dracula facing a cross. But the results are in, as he proved in his results at his talk at the 2019 AMMA MeadCon on Life about 70 degrees, which was heavily attended. Click the chat link to join us  in the live conversation during the show. This player will show the most recent show, and when we're live, will play the live feed. If you are calling in, please turn off the player sound, so we don't get feedback. Click here to see a playable list of all our episodes! If you want to ask your mead making questions, you can call us at 803-443-MEAD (6323) or send us a question via email, or via Twitter @GotmeadNow and we'll tackle it online! 9PM EDT/6PM PDT Join us on live chat during the show Bring your questions and your mead, and let's talk mead! You can call us at 803-443-MEAD (6323), or Skype us at meadwench (please friend me first and say you're a listener, I get tons of Skype spam), or tweet to @gotmeadnow. Show links and notes Lars Blog - Norwegian yeast Beersmith software Designing Great Beers by Ray Daniels Let There Be Melomels by Rob Ratliff The Big Book of Mead Recipes by Rob Ratliff Upcoming Events   May 4 - Leaky Roof Meadery - May Day at the Meadery May 9 - The Royce Detroit - The Compleat Introduction to Mead with Ken Schramm

CWR Patron Hotline: 412-206-6208 Join Me!

CEO of Tasktop Technologies Mik Kersten discusses his session "Project to Product: How Value Stream Networks Will Transform IT and Business" at the DevOps Enterprise Summit 2018. Connect with Mik and Bob on Twitter.   Learn more about AgileToolkit Sponsor LitheSpeed at lithespeed.com.   Transcript:  Mik Kersten ‑ DevOps Enterprise Summit 2018   Bob Payne:  "The Agile Toolkit." [music] Bob:  Hi, I'm your host, Bob Payne, here at the DevOps Enterprise Summit 2018 with Mik Kersten. Mik, you gave a really great talk, one of the keynotes, and I really love the message that you were pulling in, bringing some of the Lean Manufacturing ideas. I know you've been working with BMW, so it's a pretty close call. This idea of looking at data visualization, flow metrics versus compartmentalized, "We've gotten 20 tickets done, but what sort of value have you captured?" I love the fact that you were mixing four different types of work so that you can visualize ‑‑ How are your investment strategies paying off? Are you investing in paying down debt? How does that, in the future, affect your ability to deliver feature flow? I just want to talk a little bit about your flow framework and some of the work that you've been doing. Mik Kersten:  Excellent. Thanks, Bob. Yeah, I think that's a great summary. Bob:  Great. [laughter] Bob:  Why don't you just give a little recap of the things that you were saying and some of the clients you're at? Mik:  I realized, like you, like a lot of us, having to live now through basically, a decade of large organizations trying to go Agile and seeing some repeated failures, knowing that the core practices make sense, yet these transformations tend to go sideways. I just kept asking myself, "Why do they go sideways?" I've witnessed some of the longest running ones, as closely...It's one of the things that I relayed in the book that we launched here, "Project to Product," which will actually be available on November 20th. That's still on pre‑order. Bob:  I don't yet have a copy of that. I went out to dinner at Lotus of Siam. [laughs] I didn't make the sign‑in. [laughter] Bob:  I wish I had. Mik:  There's a story in there of Nokia, who were a poster child of Agile transformation. They were, at a business level, incredibly motivated by this thing called the iPhone to succeed in that Agile transformation, and, yet, something failed. Stephen Elop, in, I think, 2013, sent that burning platform memo when he was CEO of Nokia, realizing they had not done the right things to allow them to become a software innovator, which when, screens get that large, you'd better be if you're going to compete with Apple. Somehow the business, the leadership at Nokia at that time, was doing the wrong things. I was speaking to technologists there who actually knew what the problem was. They knew that the Symbian Operating System ‑‑ they were in transition, going from Series 40 to Series 60 ‑‑ it was not going to be able to support the kind of features that you needed, things like building on an App Store, on top of the platform that was there. Yet those investments were not being made in replatforming. They were being pushed to go Agile and they were being tested, basically. The measurement for the transformation was the Nokia test, how agile these teams were. Whether they were trained on Scrum, that had nothing to do with how much more quickly, if you look at the end‑to‑end value stream of what Nokia was doing of delivering software, how they were actually optimizing or improving their ability to deliver the kind of platform features that you needed to survive and be a phone. Bob:  A local optimization problem rather than a system's. Mik:  I got this term from Carmen DeArdo. I think of it as 100 percent as a local optimization of the value stream. They were completely doing a local optimization of the value stream. Then you have to ask yourself, "Well, was it really the architecture that was a problem? Were their deployments that's still there?" She had some impressive security checking deployment automation. They had some reasonable automation in place. I actually thought they were doing quite well for a company at that time on their delivery pipeline. The bottom line is the business was not giving the technologists the chance to replatform and give them a shot of surviving. Of course, then they end up switching operating systems and the whole mess happened. They lost the market as a result. You look at all these other companies who have done that. Amazon completely replatformed. Probably spent over a billion dollars doing that. Bezos realized that they could not scale on the old platform. We've seen LinkedIn do this. Many of the tech giants know, at a business level, when to shift and, rather than incrementally building features, recreate a platform so that you can get through the next generation of technological change. Those companies who have replatformed, they tend to have CEOs who came from software development, who actually were programmers at one time. I realized that we need a new language to help these Agile, these DevOps transformations succeed so that business leaders and technologists can work together to determine they need to do something like a feature stand down, when they need to do something like a replatforming. When security risks or other kinds of risks, like the privacy risks, need to become a focus, and what that means across the different product value streams. In doing that and trying to create this framework, I realized that the main thing getting in the way of people having the right conversations ‑‑ leaders on the business side and finance side with the people on the technology side ‑‑ was that there was this completely messed up layer separating the two. That layer was project management. [laughter] Mik:  The fact that rather than measuring ‑‑ and this is where the car man and production line, manufacturing line analogies do help. There are places where they don't help, but [laughs] one of the places that they do help... Bob:  Time and motion set us free example. [laughs] Mik:  One of the places where they do help is that there is no separation between the business and production at a company like BMW. Everyone knows how much is flowing through those value streams. When they need to increase production of a car, like in '93, they increase production and there's more market demand. The concept of pull goes all the way through production, right to the business. The business understands the concept of pull and of product value streams. I realized we need to replace that product management layer that manages things to costs, budgets, and timeframes, and assumes time frames are certain. Which, of course, goes completely against agilities to bake in two years of uncertainty into a software project. It sounds as crazy as it is, right? Yet, everyone is saying... Bob:  Also, you were unable to exploit opportunities that come because your plan doesn't include those opportunity. Mik:  Exactly. The only thing is to get away from what Mary [indecipherable 7:12] had called the cost in a trap in this great blog post that she wrote. Which is, again, if you're measuring to cost, chances are you're going to succeed at reducing costs. There's an even better chance you're going to succeed at reducing how much value you deliver in the process. Whereas cost reductions can be very important, but you need to focus on value delivery. We need to measure value delivery in software. I realized, for me, as someone who has come out of...worked a lot in Agile, who spent basically two decades doing Agile development, or overseeing Agile development, that the way that I was communicating about it was not working for people on the finance side. When I first told my CFO about story points, he looked at me like I had a unicorn horn on my head or something of that sort. That we needed a language that was higher‑level and more compatible with the way that business leaders think to allow them to basically participate in understanding what flows through software delivery and have these teams work together. That's really the goal of the flow framework. Bob:  Great. I know that the flow framework, it looks at feature flow, which is a proxy for value. It's not a direct measure of value. You certainly have quality metrics built in. I notice that you also looked at team engagement as part of that part of the Tasktop tool. Are you also doing anything integrating ‑‑ and I'm sure you probably are with some of the tools that you're able to integrate ‑‑ pulling in customer MPS, referrals, or any other pirate metrics or other indicators of possible...that are a little closer to real value? As Microsoft showed, one third of their things added value, one third were neutral, and one third were negative. You could run like hell and stay exactly where you were, producing equal numbers of negative drivers and positive drivers. I'm just curious because I haven't drilled down enough on that. Mik:  No, I think that's a really important question. The flow framework at the highest level has two components. It has these flow items, like features. Let's just talk about features. There are features, defects, risks, and debts are the four flow items. It has those, and so you basically measure the flow of those. At that point, all you're really doing, as you're saying, Bob, is focusing on the efficiency of flow, the productivity flow and so on. That's not telling you at all whether you've done something useful to a customer Bob:  There is a huge advantage because you're tracking across business, IT, and operations, which is different than tracking work inside of an Agile team. Mik:  Yes, there is. It's different, yeah. What you're doing ‑‑ and we can do the car analogy at this point, the plant analogy ‑‑ is you're seeing if value can flow without interruptions through this value stream or where the long waits are. It's because there's a dependency on another product value stream who's not made that API for you that there were supposed to, and so on. All you're getting there is making sure that things flow. You're not necessarily delivering any value. The flow is based on pull. What you do is you correlate the four flow metrics. In the flow framework, you have this section of business results. Those do define value, cost, and so on. You basically are looking at a dynamic system. The business results, the whole goal of the framework, both the flows and the business results need to be defined for each product value stream whether that's an external product, whether that's an internal billing system, whether that's a developer API that you're building or a piece of the developer platform. When I'm looking at the full framework internally at Tasktop, what I see is, "OK, we've delivered all these features. We increased our feature velocity. Did that produce more value?" For me, as a software vendor, the value is going to be revenue. Bob:  Revenue, retention, referral. Mik:  Exactly. Retention rate, upsell rate, so on. That's the value component. The key thing is the flow framework forces, A, the measurement of flow across the entire organization, and, B, specifying value, cost, quality, and happiness for each value stream. Now, for an internal product, you might just specify value as adoption. The key thing is you're specifying it. Otherwise, you have no business investing in it if you don't know what the value is. It's a correlation. We don't see exactly how this feature...It's not taking the approach of putting a business case in every single feature and measuring the outcome of that business case. It's actually allowing you see this much...You can do that if you're that sophisticated, but you're seeing this much higher correlation then. "OK, we invested a lot in feature delivery. Did that produce a business result?" The other key thing is to measure cost. You measure cost per product value stream. Keep in mind that the whole point of making these product value streams first class is because I notice that Agile teams or feature teams, they're great, but they're not coarse enough, they're not big enough. One product can involve up to, I think 10 is probably the most reasonable number. When I see project investments go over 10, things start getting worrying. Having a couple hundred people contributing to one thing gets tricky. It's the false Scrum of Scrum size that you can go. You're measuring cost and employee engagement through something like the NPS across the product value stream. As an example, in the case of Nokia that we talked about, you would have seen a horrendously bad employee NPS on the product value stream of the people who were working on the core platform because they could not do enough features. They had this technical depth. I've seen this at Tasktop as well, where, if you put too much flow load, Web work in progress on a team, and through giving them too big of a backlog of features that they can't complete, I have seen repeatedly that team's employment or promo score go down because everyone's miserable. We hire people who want to deliver value, and when we get in their way of doing that, they're not happy. [laughs] Bob:  That's back to classic work that Deming did. He looked at upscaling employees. The assumption that he went in with is everyone is trying to do their best. If you want different results, you've got to change the system. What you're talking about from pull rate or the backlog, the focus between features and not paying down technical debt, all of those are part of what he would consider the system ‑‑ How is demand flowing into the team? The same way that Toyota never takes more orders than they can fulfill. They never do. They do lots and lots of work to even the flow. It has turned them into an amazing industrial giant, but they don't have the "Glengarry Glen Ross" salespeople out there selling things they can't deliver. They know exactly what that'll do in the long term. Mik:  Exactly. One thing I want to build on with your point around Deming is that my approach with the full framework assumes ‑‑ I've seen the opposite be assumed too frequently ‑‑ is that the business people are also doing their best. Given their understanding and their frame of reference, which might be a financial background, might be a sales, go‑to‑market background... Bob:  Might be a traditional project control background. Mik:  Absolutely. They are doing their best. They have these extremely large budgets. They want this transformation to succeed, but, because the languages are different...Again, talking in terms of releases and deploys per day, those are not value metrics for someone on the business side who's trying to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars. Bob:  When somebody across the table is speaking a language you don't speak, you see risk. Mik:  Absolutely. You assume the worst and you see risk. For someone who's responsible for financial controls, that's your job. That's really my hope here, is that by creating this higher level, this less granular language, on top of what we've learned with Agile and with DevOps because, of course, those metrics down below are very important if that's where your bottleneck is. At least it allows people to spot the bottleneck from this higher level to figure out how to invest, and to move the conversation away from projects, timeframes, and budgets, to project value streams. Bob:  I don't know whether you happened to see Mark Schwartz's talk. He talked about three possible models that you can use when you move away from a classic project. One is the product that you talked about. These are obviously hybridizable. I'm not even sure if that's a reasonable... [crosstalk] Mik:  It sounds like a word to me. [laughter] Bob:  It does sound like a word, we we'll give it that. These are concepts that could work together. He says there's a product view. There's a product model that can work. There's a budget and investment model that can work. Then there's also the outcome model that can work. When he was at Citizenship and Immigration Service, he said, "Look, we need to reduce the wait times for people applying for benefits, the backlog that's holding up adjudicators. We need to improve the adjudicator's ability to do their work," and some other objectives, depending on which portion of the business or the mission that he was looking at. He just simply laid out objectives. He says, "If you do it with adding IT features, great. If you do it with eliminating IT features, great. If you do it changing a business process and not doing anything with IT, great." I'm curious. My gut reaction is I can see how we might be able to instrument that flow framework to look at those outcomes. What is your thought on those three models that he posited in his book? It was released at the same time yours was. [laughs] Mik:  Yep, Mark's doing some great work. Just because I've seen too much, I would just call it flailing between different terminologies and so on, I've just decided to try to create again a common and as simple language as possible. I did iterate a lot with a lot of very smart people on what those words should be. You can do everything in terms of customer experience. In the end, this is all about having a customer‑centered perspective. That's why it's easy and good to go back to those Lean principles from Lomack, from Lean thinking ‑‑ product value streams, customer pull. It's very compatible. The approach that I've taken is that everything's a product. The reason I've done that is because I've seen that work. I've seen some very forward‑thinking companies like the BMWs, the Nationwides, the Targets of the world who, when they start thinking of everything as a product ‑‑ because if you think of things as a product, you have to specify the customer ‑‑ it's not a product if you haven't specified the customer. It forces people, especially on the business side, to think in terms of the customer ‑‑ internal customer or external customer, technical customer or paying customer. There is this discipline that we can now just continue evolving. We've got product owners. We've got product managers. Product management is a discipline that's actually getting established. We can apply those things. Once that's in place, wherever the organization ends up in terms of the hybrids that they would take from Mark Schwartz's models, in my view, they're on the right track. Maybe they will call it the customer experiences or engagements, whatever it is. In the end, to me, consumers love products. They love consuming products. You might call them services sometimes. You might get with their online and so on, but, in the end, we want those products to work better for us. We want more features sooner and so on. I've tried to distill it to give people a very concrete starting point. If they want to evolve the terminology, they certainly can. Bob:  Is there something that you've learned or are going to take away from this particular conference? Mik:  Yeah, there have been some fascinating learnings. The program's been just amazing. The amount of work that Gene puts into the program, it blows my mind every year, and seems to get better every year. Interestingly, not only because of his effort, but because of this collective scenius, basically, where you've got people working together, starting to use similar terms, evolve those terms, have these great conversations. I've been amazed at how much actual consistency of message there's been at this conference as everyone...The different angles that the different speakers and other contributors are looking at, taking a great set of practices from DevOps. I really think DevOps had a, by virtue of being so focused on automation, flow, and feedback, it really has accelerated some of the things that I do think stalled out in Agile. Bob:  The one thing that I fear is that we may stall out. Certainly, the folks here get it, but we may stall out when those mainline organizations think, "Oh, DevOps, that's an IT thing." Mik:  Oh, yeah. That's happening. That is the way everything will get derailed and DevOps in these organizations will fail in similar ways to how we've seen that in transformation failures. If you push it off to IT, that then...That is one of the stories that I recount in the book, which is, you think it's that part of the transformation's IT. You're wrong. That was really my goal. The biggest goal of the flow framework is to say you have to do this and then you have to do this at an organizational level. If you just allow our teachers to transform on their own, you will fail. In the end, it's about creating, again, these product value streams. The really interesting thing in the program now is actually that, which is taking something that's a good set of technical practices and tools that we've learned out of DevOps, the components of Lean that have gone into this community, making them bigger, and bringing them to the rest of the organization, bringing them to the business. The fact that there was a talk with...Who was it? From Nike. I believe her name was Anna. She's a lawyer. She's one of their top lawyers. The fact that she's on stage with Courtney Kissler, that's pretty amazing that the learnings from this community are actually reaching to that part of the business. I would personally love more conversations with people like CFOs who care profoundly what's happening with value and spend. [laughs] Bob:  Oh my God. [laughter] Bob:  Yeah, especially as they look at the disruption and the people falling off S&P 500 or whatever index of being a great company you look at. CFOs have to be keenly interested in, I believe, survival. You can't grow unless you survive. Mik:  Exactly, and in this, because one of the things I point out is that we are at this turning point, this point where the rate of disruption then creative destruction will probably accelerate, I don't think you can survive if you don't grow, and you can't grow without mastering software. Bob:  I often use the other Deming quote, which he was talking about, continuous improvement, "Learning is not compulsory. Neither is survival." [laughs] Mik:  Yeah, exactly. Back to Deming, everyone has the best of intentions. The budgets are there. It's just a question of having the right model and framework to make sure that things are tracking the way that you expect them to rather than to be disappointed two years down the road, that you've saved some costs, but now things are moving even slower than when you started. Bob:  Yep. Excellent. Thank you very much for coming on the podcast. I hope your book is a smash success. We're looking forward to working with customers that are using Tasktop. I don't usually do any tool plugs, [laughs] but yours looks very interesting because it focuses on an area that we think is crucial in the work that we do. We're mostly tool agnostic. We often joke that our biggest tools are your executives. [laughter] Bob:  We do a lot of work with executive teams and organizational transformation. I never actually make that joke. [laughter] [crosstalk] Mik:  Yeah, exactly. There's rooms where that joke'll fall flat. Bob:  Yeah, that might fall flat. Mik:  [laughs] That's great. Thank you, Bob. It's been a great conversation. Thank you. Bob:  Great. Thank you. The Agile Toolkit Podcast is brought to you by LitheSpeed. Thanks for tuning in. I hope you enjoyed today's show. If you'd like to give feedback or be on the show, you can ping me on Twitter. I am @agiletoolkit. You can also reach me bob.payne@lithespeed.com. For more free resources, transcripts of the show, and information about our services, head over to lithespeed.com. Thanks for listening. [music] Transcription by CastingWords

Bob chats with Microsoft Azure DevOps Product Owner and author of Agile Software Engineering with Visual Studio, Sam Guckenheimer, at the DevOps Enterprise Summit 2018. Connect with Sam and Bob on Twitter.   Transcript Sam Guckenheimer ‑ DevOps Enterprise Summit 2018 Bob Payne:  "The Agile Toolkit." [music] Bob:  Hi, I'm your host Bob Payne. I'm here at the DevOps Enterprise Summit 2018 with Sam Guckenheimer. Welcome, Sam. Sam Guckenheimer:  Thank you, Bob. It's great to be here. Bob:  It's the first time we're really chatting. We chatted a tiny bit last night. My colleague Sanjiv Augustine said you were instrumental in hosting The Agile leadership network when it formed and came up with the declaration of Interdependence. How did that end up coming about? Sam:  Well, that was no what 14 years ago or something like that. [laughter] Sam:  What we saw was at that time that this was of course way pre‑DevOps. The Agile community had fractured into many groups saying "More agile than thou." That seemed stupid. Bob:  That fracturing has continued and remains as stupid today or... [laughs] Sam:  Yes. Unfortunately, the fracturing has continued and it hasn't gotten less stupid. That was the reason for trying to get the interdependence declaration together to get these leading lights from what was then the Agile community working together. In the meantime, the pure Agile has largely been eclipsed by DevOps. As you see something like this DevOps Enterprise Summit going on its fifth year roughly doubling every year in scale. I'm here now. Still there. [laughter] Bob:  There are a number of things that I found at this conference that I haven't been able to make a ton of sessions because we have a booth. I've found that I haven't really learned, maybe this is my own fault, anything at the Agile conferences for probably about 10 years. It wasn't any substantially interesting information. Sam:  That's correct. I last keynoted at the Agile conference in 2014. That's probably the last time I've been there. It got kind of stale. The energy in innovation, in practice I think has really shifted to DevOps. That's come about, because the DevOps' definition of Dunn is not potentially shippable and promotes... [crosstalk] Bob:  It's captured a value, enlargement value. Sam:  It's live in production with Telemetry that is demonstrating the value delivered. Going from a world where you were effectively stopping at an intermediate activity that didn't reach the customer or end‑user to go to one where you have to reach the end‑customer and you have to measure the value delivered, is much, much more powerful for all the stakeholders, for the business, for the people involved. It's much more satisfying. You disintermediate the development to customer relationship. You think of things as one engineering discipline, not as silos post the Scrums, so to speak. Bob:  Certainly there were a number of great Agile teams and organizations that fully believed that Dunn meant in the hands of customers and delivering whatever goal, that... [crosstalk] Sam:  I do not mean to bash anyone. I certainly think there great Agile teams. A lot of what we do today has its roots in extreme programming, but things like XP at the time, had this notion of, for example, pair programming. We have largely, as a community, moved to the notion of a pull request as a virtual pair programming. We have moved from the idea of onsite customer to measuring customer impact, which isn't to say onsite customer is a bad idea, it's a great idea, it's a rarely achievable one. All of these seeds that were planted back then in the late '80s by the early Agilists were important seeds. The garden where I think they're really bearing fruit now is in this DevOps community. Bob:  The other thing that I think is probably the next wave that we will see in organizations that are not already there, certainly, many organizations have already integrated business into this flow. Without that DevOps is necessary but not sufficient to actually change the outcomes that businesses are seeing. That's the next frontier for those companies that we're not sort of born in the world of IT as the fundamental driver of business outcomes. Sam:  That's correct. DevOps is the flip side of the coin from digital transformation. Digital transformation is the business term for taking your business model and turning it into one that can improve continuously in an Internet‑powered age. DevOps is the shorthand for the technical practices that enable that. Bob:  I see way too many organizations mistaking a DevOps transformation for digital transformation. They're fundamentally doing the DevOps practices, but they're not backing up into the initial value proposition to begin with. That will sort itself out. Sam:  This is a common thing of confusing means and ends. The ends are things around growing the business customer, acquisition customer, engagement customer, employee delight, all of these measures of happiness and success. The practices are ways of getting there. The goal is to focus however on those end results. The clear sign of dysfunction is when you see people measuring the inputs, not the outputs. Bob:  If Deming or [inaudible 7:33] came back and saw that Toyota was doing the same practices it was doing 75 years ago they would drop dead after having just come back to life. [laughs] In real systems the practices and the processes are never the ends. They are all in service of maximizing flow... [crosstalk] Sam:  Exactly. If you think about the evolution, the practices today are different because the constraints are different. One of the overriding constraints was for example infrastructure availability. You get all of the stuff around how to manage and schedule the infra. Today with the public cloud that constraint is gone. It's a classic example of, in Eliyahu Goldratt terms, elevating the constraint or removing the bottleneck. Then you see the constraint shifting. As you're adopting these practices what happens is you have a continual shift of the constraint, and you have the next one to attack the next bowling pin to knock down. [crosstalk] Sam:  Right. What DevOps says has basically taught us as well. You can remove infrastructure a constraint by using the cloud. You can focus on the value delivered to the customer and measure it so you can have both qualitative and quantitative view of that. You can take the quality game and shift it left and right so that quality does not become this big testing bottleneck in the middle. It can become part of the pull request flow. It can happen before code merges. Then you can in production gradually expose value to more and more of users so that the blast radius is something that's flexible, so you don't have the constraint of saying, "I need to master my MTBF in order to release." You can say, "I need to maximize my ability to recover and may have the shortest time to recover, so that by controlling the blast radius and being able to recover quickly I can experimentally by increasing the rate of experimentation I can deliver and measure value delivered on a cycle that was never possible in the old days." It wasn't possible before we had the Internet, it wasn't possible before it hit the public cloud, it wasn't possible before we had these practices of high‑quality, highly‑rugged automation that we do today. Bob:  Yeah it has been a sea change since I did Fortran on punch cards [laughs] . Sam:  There have been many sea changes yes. Mike Pearson gave a great talk yesterday, borrowing from Carlota Perez on the structure of industrial revolutions, and postulates that we're at the point of disruption from the period of adoption to the period of dispersion. That would account for a lot of the changes that we're seeing, and it would account for a lot of the anxiety that you see among people who are saying, "How do I learn fast enough? How do I catch up fast enough? How do I get ahead?" At the same time, what you see very clearly reflected in company success, company's market gap, and company's ability to innovate and pivot, is that the ones who have mastered the go‑fast‑without‑breaking‑things‑and‑adjust‑course‑as‑you‑go, are the ones that are winning in pretty much every sector. Bob:  I love Mark Schwartz's analogy of the battle of the Russians with Napoleon, and the speed of decision‑making being fundamentally out of sync with the reality of the battle. Sam:  Exactly, that was also true on Omaha beach in Normandy, that was true in Vietnam, that's been true in pretty much every military conflict, that the degree of autonomy and speed of innovation has determined the outcome in the end, and people who are great at enabling the next war instead of fighting the last ones, are the victors. The latest example decide or...I don't know if that's politically correct to go there, but you see it now in... Bob:  [laughs] That have been substantially politically correct on this podcast [laughs] . Sam:  You see this in cyber. The Russian budget for cyber is less than the cost of an F‑35. Bob:  No one could argue that the F‑35 is more costly than it needs to be but it's... [laughs] . [crosstalk] Sam:  Who cares? The point is, they're not trying to win the manned aerial dogfight. They are extending the notion of total war to a new battlefield and they've been very successful, but finding the place where there are no defenses and where it's possible to innovate quickly and it's proven to work. You could also argue that as David Sanger does in "The Perfect Weapon", that the US started this cyber‑war arms race. In any event, we've not follow through on the consequences of what we started. The military analogies, they turn some people off, but they have their value. We are, and the rest of society also, in a place where we need to be winning the future, not the past. Bob:  It's actually one of the analogies I quite often use when I'm talking to people that are OK with the military analogies. The OODA loop, the Boyd loop of observe‑orient‑decide‑act. The team that can turn that loop the fastest, whether it's Amazon, Netflix, or a manned‑aerial dogfight, or a cyber‑attack, is going to win. Sam:  Exactly. In our world, the OODA loop results in some kind of software or service delivered. One of the things we know from measuring it is that about a third of the time, we get the results we'd want, a third of the time, we get opposite result from what we hypothesized, and about a third of the time, it makes no difference. The implication of that is that you want to be able as quickly as possible, to double down on the successful third and fail fast or pivot away from the other two thirds, which means that you need to make the OODA loop as short as possible, which is what Boyd talked about in his idea of aircraft design and aerial battle. That's exactly true in how we develop and that means not just using small batches which Agile taught us. That means not just breaking down the silos, but it means really focusing on time to remediate and focusing on quality to the left so that you have clean delivery and you have the mechanism in production to control exposure and to go faster and wider as you need to. Bob:  You mentioned the one‑third, one‑third, one‑third, I know that was a study that came out in Microsoft. Actually... [crosstalk] Sam:  Ronick O' Harvey was behind that. Ronny is now a technical fellow, he wasn't back then. He basically took a very large sample of "improvements" that were delivered. Let's measure, are these really improving, what we wanted? The result was a third of the time, in other words, I've confirmed the others' change is bad, unless is great. That was quantitative demonstration of that. I don't know if he published that before he did a stand for PhD or after, but it was a famous study and it holds up. Bob:  I also very much like this idea of very small batches, because without the small batches, it's hard to get attribution of what improved the customer experience and what was neutral or negative, because you're conflating way too many changes if the batch is large. Sam:  That's why the pull request flows becomes successful, because you can make the pull request a batch that is a few lines of change, it's possible to have a human‑code review on it, and it's possible to have extensive automation on it. Again, an example of a practice that wouldn't have been possible pre‑cloud is when we do pull requests, we run the build‑in automation on them with typically 80‑some thousand tests before asking for the human‑code review. Human eyes are only focused on those things that automation has said looked good already. As opposed to the way things were done, pre‑cloud in the XP pair programming model, where human eyes were first defense. That was very appropriate given the constraints at the time. The constraints of today are different. Bob:  That was certainly one aspect of pairing. The other is just as the design discipline getting the collaborative design quite often yields better results, but... [crosstalk] Sam:  I totally think that people should collaborate on design. I'm totally for that. I'm not trying to.. Bob:  I totally get the point about the quality. Is automation...we want lazy engineers [laughs] . We want engineers focusing on creative thought, rather than repetitive action. Sam:  Exactly. Another example of that that's possible these days, is you want a very high reuse, an open source. If you can solve a problem with 30 lines of code and reuse thousands, that's much better than creating 3000 lines of codes that need to be maintained. In effect, we want to reward people for writing less code, which again turns on it's head, one of those classic input matrix and myths of, "Well, how much code did you write? How busy were you? How many hours did you put in?" As opposed to, "What result did you achieve?" Bob:  What are some DevOps practices that have really changed Microsoft fundamentally? I know you've got a couple of talks related to that here at the conference. Sam:  I bucket our lessons learned, usually in five groups. One is how we focus on value delivered to the customer, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and let that drive the way we think about what we're delivering and how we measure that. Two is how we apply production‑first mindset. Our CEO tends to call this a live‑site culture, in other words, you build it, you test it, you run it, you secure it, you troubleshoot it, you improve it with responsibility residing in you, the creating team, not getting fragmented across these Silos. Three is the idea of team autonomy and enterprise alignment that you want to let teams at the level of the feature crew Scrum, cream squad, whatever your favorite term is, you want to let these small feature crews work autonomously on their stuff, and control what they are taking into the next sprint or what items they're doing next. You want them to support their stuff in production and you want the mechanisms to align their work up to the common business results, so that they know which needles they need to move by the work that they do and they know how to view those gauges. The fourth is shifting quality left and right so that you can get a signal in the pipeline of green meaning green and red meaning red, and in production, you can see continually what is happening with every changes, you expand its exposure. Fifth finally is using cloud to make infrastructure‑flexible resource. That's how I bucket it. I did one talk yesterday with my friend Ellen Smith about how we moved our DevOps' ass. It's really a story about eight years of taking what's started as a non‑premise product and turning it into a cloud service and on‑premise product. That was an attempt to myth‑bust the idea that if you're going to the cloud, you need to start in the cloud and throw everything away. It was an attempt to say, "Here's a proof instance where we had a business, pre‑cloud, with on‑prem product. We preserve that and made it better, and use the same codebase to go the cloud where the cloud is making the on‑prem better." Of course the cloud's the majority of usage and the fastest growing now, but it wasn't a throwaway, which of that story. The other one which is similar, which I'm doing tomorrow, is a talk about Windows' journey to DevOps. Windows division is the extreme case of scale and legacy, and they have successfully moved to DevOps. There were a bunch of bumps along the way. For example, to get Windows to be able to use Git at their scale, we needed to fix the Git, and that took three attempts. Bob:  Really? Sam:  Yes. When we started doing something like a Git clone of the main Windows repo, took 12 hours. That was if the network didn't burp, or your laptop didn't go to sleep, or nothing else wrong happened. If any of those things did happen, then the whole operation needed to start over. Bob:  Need to start again, yeah. Sam:  That now takes a couple minutes. We did a series of 300x or better improvements in Git performance with what is now open‑sourced as the virtual file system for Git. Windows motivated all of that to be able to support their scale of codebase, which was hundreds of times larger than anything else anyone was using. Bob:  That's interesting. I did not know that you guys were major contributors to the Git. Sam:  We're one of the top two. We're the largest open‑source contributor of any company, have been for about two years now. Git is a project where we have been very heavily in, and virtual file system is one of the latest aspects of that. Come to the talk tomorrow. Bob:  OK, I may. What time is it? Sam:  11:25, I think? 11 something. The times here are weird. All these weird five‑minute increments. Bob:  [laughs] . It is five‑minute increments and three hours off, because I'm an East Coast person. Are you out of... [crosstalk] Sam:  Along Seattle. Bob:  Thank you so much, Sam. This has been great. Is there any one thing you'd like to close off with that you're interested in? Sam:  Yeah. There's something that I'd like to make our listener aware of, and that is I curate a website. The short link to it is aka.ms/DevOps. It's, DevOps and Microsoft. What I try to do is to put up our experience reports there, not the high‑level marketing level stuff, but like, "How did you actually do the change in testing? How did you go to no downtime deployments? How did you start using service reliability engineering? Etc." There're about 50 articles up there, but half of them with good video. They're just stories about how we work. I love people to use that as a... Bob:  As a resource? Sam:  ...open resource. Bob:  Thank you very much. It was very nice meeting you and chatting. Sam:  Thanks a lot, Bob. Bob:  Thanks. The Agile Toolkit Podcast is brought to you by LightSpeed. Thanks for tuning in. I hope you enjoyed today's show. If you'd like to give feedback or be on the show, you can ping me on Twitter. I am @AgileToolkit. You can also reach me at Bob.Payne@lithespeed.com. For more free resources, transcripts to the show, and information about our services, head over to LightSpeed.com. Thanks for listening. [music]  

President Reagan's purpose. Defining the "Southern Democrat." Guests Gil Bindelglas and Mark Schwartz on cryptocurrency. Arizona Democrats are experiencing buyers' remorse regarding David Garcia. Callers check in on their way to the President Trump event in Mesa. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

President Reagan's purpose. Defining the "Southern Democrat." Guests Gil Bindelglas and Mark Schwartz on cryptocurrency. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode follows Amber and Ryan over the course of 5 days; during and after getting the Halo Hybrid Fractional Laser.  Our two hosts ventured to the tony Upper East Side of Manhattan, to try this procedure and see if the hype was worth the hurt. This resurfacing laser tackles those pesky fine lines and wrinkles, and also targets unwanted pigmentation...at a cost.  Laugh along as the hosts recount everything from sleeping upright to discovering their true skin age. If you want to ask Amber, Ryan or even Dr. Schwartz any questions, email us at ArtBeautyPodcast@gmail.com. Special thanks to the team at Dr. Mark Schwartz for putting up with our nonsense and playing along.

The new Magnum P.I. series is replacing a key male figure with a woman. Mark Schwartz calls in to discuss this with Seth. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Carlos Rojas, Director of Technology and Operations at Fannie Mae, sat down with Bob Payne at Lean+Agile DC 2018 to discuss Business-Driven Agile Engineering.  Carlos shares thoughts on Fannie Mae’s trailblazing Agile transformation – from prioritizing agility-supporting corporate shared services (recruiting, contracts & procurement, and facilities), to machine learning and a mantra of “Automate Everything.”    Transcript Bob Payne: [00:00:01] Start there. Carlos Rojas: [00:00:02] OK. Bob Payne: [00:00:03] Hi I'm your host Bob Payne. I'm here with Carlos Rojas. And Carlos you're talking about transformation. We were chatting you mentioned how to how to use shared services. So tell me a little bit about your your your talk here today at Lean Agile DC. Carlos Rojas: [00:00:24] Absolutely. So couple of things to highlight right. One is you go and change a culture, Most people start with the processes. Most people start with their methodology and then they say we're Agile. And I think that part of making it a transformational for an enterprise you know when you're talking about 10000 people when you're talking about 300 product teams that are developing software you know you have to take into account what we call the corporate shared services as well. You know think about the recruiting recruiting efforts. Think about the procurement. How do you write your contracts. Right. Think about your facilities you know. Do you have an open space that will be a reflection of what your mentality looks like. So you have to account for those things. Otherwise you know you end up with a great process but the culture is not impacted by what you're doing. So that's one of those things that I encourage companies to always think about. Bob Payne: [00:01:16] Yeah. And we just I just recently talked with Jose from from from Fannie. And I know you guys are doing a very large transformation over there lot of DevOps. We do some some training with you guys.  Bob Payne: [00:01:34] And I'm am extraordinarily pleased to see how how big the transformation has been over it over Fannie because I worked there on a couple of early Agile projects in the early 2000s and it was it was bureaucratically painful to do it. Carlos Rojas: [00:01:56] I know exactly wh at you're saying. It was six checkpoints hundred twenty five deliverable is about nine months for a single release just to put a line of code in production. Now we've made a huge progress in terms of you know time time to market an average of about 30 days a month. We've got some project teams that are ready to deliver every two weeks. But again it comes down to Hey we incorporated our corporate shared services into the mix and then we think we we we instigated this concept of automation you know everything so far as he wasn't even called them up so to begin with. How do we automate it. You know if it doesn't make sense if it makes sense. How do we automate it and that's when we come up with this concept of that paved road so far as the pay really was. What tools are we going to use that will help us expedite or automate some of those controls that were holding us back. Right. So great transformation. Tons of work behind the scenes but you get the point here is we haven't finished. We're not done yet. Bob Payne: [00:02:58] And lean, Lean never sleeps. Carlos Rojas: [00:03:03] Exactly exactly. So right now for example one of our key you know tunnel vision eye vision items that we're trying to chase is agile engineering practices right.  [00:03:15] How do we turn code that is maintainable how do we create applications of 19 applications that are going to help us with you know a cloud-ready approach not necessarily how do we go about the methodology what tools that we use now but how do we make that an engineer solution that is like the ultimate driving machine for us. So we're trying to look for that not perfection but that high performing team that will look into those proses areas that we'll tap into the business for example that's not a mission that's going to help us have more quality right provisioning of environments that's going to help us get faster at some point in time I think that we're going to be looking at how do we do infrastructure as code so that we have a fully blown solution where you build your own servers if you deploy your own servers as development team and you're responsible from beginning to end.  Bob Payne: [00:04:11] Hundred percent audible and nobody has the password to production exactly one per cent cut off. It's not the engineer. Carlos Rojas: [00:04:20] Exactly. But at least you can know who what when and you're not having a checklist to do it. It's all part of a creation of the solution right. Software.  Bob Payne: [00:04:30] Yep yep you know I think it is. It's ironic and oddly a common theme and I don't know whether it's me or just the folks that are coming up to talk on the podcast today but almost every one of them we've talked a little bit about governance and how how this drives you to be more governable auditable reduces risk profile you know rather than being a risky play to be able to deploy twice a week or once every two weeks or it actually improves your risk profile considerably makes you much more audibly compliant with the controls. You say you have in place. Carlos Rojas: [00:05:23] Yeah. You know it's interesting you mention that when I started my journey at Fannie Mae I ran a governance organization over SDLC and I was in charge of connecting with at risk partners like legal audit you know Architectural Review Boards change control boards and all of that. And instead of fighting through the system what we did is we partner up with all of the governance groups and we said you know you can do it the way you're doing it. But what if we do it this way and let's just compare let's explore let's figure out if there's a better way and if there is a thought that if it doesn't work on the exploration says that this doesn't make sense then we just go back and keep doing it the way we used to do it. I guess what the answer was always yeah that works better than the way we do it and we get more data. Thank you. So they were actually embracing it and promoting it for us.  Bob Payne: [00:06:12] Yeah. I don't know if you're familiar with Mark Schwartz from Citizenship and Immigration Service. He's sort of a firebrand CIO and he said when he first got there you know coming from Silicon Valley like you don't tell the CIO it can't be done. But what he got to government is people would say well you can't do that because of the far no federal acquisition of election. Bob Payne: [00:06:39] And he said first he was angry and then he said I'm going to become the expert on the far and and what he what he did was that same approach was like ah here's what you wanted. You know here's the safety that you want from this regulation. And here's how we do it better. Right. It's sort of you know  Carlos Rojas: [00:07:02] The approach works. You know where you partner with the groups that are supposed to be the roadblocks or supposed to be the longest pole in the tent. If it works you know. Bob Payne: [00:07:12] Well it's, They're there to keep the organization safe safe. Carlos Rojas: [00:07:19] Yeah you know if you don't do it it goes against what you're trying to accomplish anyway because you're not just trying to produce code faster you want it to be reliable maintainable with quality compliant. Right. So. So it's a matter of just you can argue whether the legislation is right. Bob Payne: [00:07:35] But you still need to comply with it. Carlos Rojas: [00:07:36] Exactly. But sometimes the legislation or the government has the right intent. It's how we approach it. Bob Payne: [00:07:42] Yeah it usually does. Carlos Rojas: [00:07:43] Exactly. So you know hopefully for those teams that are struggling with you know the governance aspect of this I'll also just take one thing at a time. Bob Payne: [00:07:53] Yeah. Carlos Rojas: [00:07:54] Because you know I've seen people trying to cover it all, oh we're going to fix all these problems right now you can use your theory of constraint was the biggest one. I just tried. Bob Payne: [00:08:04] Protects the constraint, concentrate on that one. Carlos Rojas: [00:08:07] Yeah. Did you read the goal. Carlos Rojas: [00:08:10] Absolutely. That's what I got that from. Bob Payne: [00:08:12] Yeah the Hurby or the Brian in the Phoenix project. Yeah. Put water where the fire is and in small increments it pops up. Yeah great. Bob Payne: [00:08:27] So what are you looking forward to over the next couple of years getting accomplished. Carlos Rojas: [00:08:33] So it's a phenomenal question. Bob Payne: [00:08:35] It is also a journey it's not an end point. Carlos Rojas: [00:08:37] It is a journey. It's not done so I'll say maybe three things that we're looking at right. So one is becoming a high performing team in terms of all the agile engineering practices. So really just looking under the hood and figuring out do we have the right automation and we have the right you know called brunching do we have the right techniques that are engineering techniques that will create a great product. That's one. The second thing that we have started working on is the AI machine learning so introducing much learning to our software development lifecycle. Bob Payne: [00:09:09] Okay  Carlos Rojas: [00:09:09] Right so right now we've been using some regression basic algorithms with machine learning to be able to look at the data on the history of releases that we have so that we can do two things one we can predict when a release is going to fail interesting. And then the second thing is if it fails you know we can start looking at the deployment scripts. Figure out hey this might be that two or three things that the reasons behind why that release is failing. Right. So we're piloting some of that solution right now. And I think that aspect is cloud. How do we turn these applications to be called cloud ready right when we know in some cases we have monolithic applications that have been around for 23 years. Carlos Rojas: [00:09:49] How do you take that and move it to the cloud and get the benefit of it not just a lift and shift, but saying Hey lets triangle that application that are more functionalities to micro services I think those are the three components that we're going to be focusing on the next two years. Bob Payne: [00:10:02] Yeah the the predictive analytics side that's very that's very interesting to me and I'm super curious how that sounds complex but it is probably something that I started while I had a sort of field career as computer architecture free I so far as I was doing that and then decided to go to procreate. So it doesn't sound that complex. I think the interesting thing for me is that you need a reasonably large dataset for that to be able to to really start to bear fruit. But I'm excited to hear you guys would have it so.  Carlos Rojas: [00:10:52] So we have a reasonable amount of data on releases that go back you know years okay. But interestingly enough when we started training our morals we use a subset of six months. And when we started with that subset of data we identified about 150 fields that were important and then we had the model train for a few weeks and then we test that we said let's just see that confidence level and we put real data against that model and then our success rate was about 10 percent. It was really bad. It's no surprise right. So instead of saying instead of saying let's get more data more fields more of features we say let's take those hundred and fifty and gotten our way down to 50 and then we have a smaller subset of fields and we have a smaller subset of data for 3 months and then we trend the model again. Carlos Rojas: [00:11:56] And then now we can tell you that we're you know successfully predicting with a 90 percent certainty certainty rate. So we went back to the model with less data less data elements are more precise data set and our success rate went up. Bob Payne: [00:12:12] Well I mean look at you know what we're starting to see genetic markers for you know in biology that have a very large effect. So once you find the targets I think I think that level of that that that is amazing that you were able to how long did it take you to go from 10 to 90. Carlos Rojas: [00:12:36] So it was about a 12 week project. But then thinking about thinking about the project I'm thinking about the data said it took us about 6 weeks. So I would say you know quarter a quarter and a half worth of you know. Bob Payne: [00:12:49] That's amazing, are you using, what are you using back end engine? Carlos Rojas: [00:12:52] So we're using TenserFlow. It's an open source from Google, using Python to write the scripts and to be quite honest with you because we're exploring our capabilities are just basic you know we're not building a beautiful website that people can access. We're just enabling the developers to say hey gone check this page and then you know pick your acid I.D. your application I.D. and some information on the model is going to give you the answers. So it's basic. Right. It's still in the exploratory mode. We've done a couple of good successful use cases and now we're trying to roll it out to the company. Bob Payne: [00:13:28] I am I've been pleasantly surprised at the resurgence of Python. Bob Payne: [00:13:37] I was in some of the early Python conferences Python back when they were here in Northern Virginia and D.C. and now running into it in the large corporations that they also have micro Python which runs on a microcontroller. So you can you can you can do hardware programming. You were always able to buy it you needed a heavy heavy thing. Now they're doing you know arm processors isn't super lightweight. Carlos Rojas: [00:14:12] But the difference is you know the user experience at the end of the day you know when you started developing maybe you know in my case 20 years ago with Cobalt or C++ or even Java. Right. You have to have some sort of computer science background to be able to kind of like and understand that and and do something with it. Nowadays with Python, It's more of a English type of you know development where you don't have to be computer science guru to learn it and apply it so I think that's why it's being so helpful for the adoption of those techniques.  Bob Payne: [00:14:49] I mean it was, there was a certain, well there's a whole philosophy around you know Python and you know people people do argue whether they achieve that but they wanted it to be an easy learnable right. You know part LAMDA part object part you know and be able to drop down to the metal pretty quickly with assembly or see you know the whole idea that you could tie in those when you needed to if you needed to program and see were able to easily tie it in with Python. Carlos Rojas: [00:15:30] Exactly. And to be quite honest with you we're leveraging some of the open source you know libraries to execute on some of the you know projects that we have.  Carlos Rojas: [00:15:43] So it's not like we're building something from scratch anymore right. So that's helpful as well. Bob Payne: [00:15:48] Yeah. Well great Carlos. Thanks for coming in. It's a pleasure chatting with you and I wish you guys all the well you don't need luck all the hard work in the world.  Carlos Rojas: [00:16:02] Thank you for having us here, appreciate the opportunity. Thank you so much. Bob Payne: [00:16:05] Thanks.  

Puerto Rico is a hub of pharmaceutical manufacturing, but recent hurricanes Maria and Irma have inflicted significant damage to the island and the pharmaceutical supply chain. Host Dan Loney talks with Bill McLaury, Assistant Professor and Co-Director of the Center for Supply Chain Management at Rutgers Business School and Former Executive Director of Pharma Supply Chain at Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Mark Schwartz, Lawyer at Hyman, Phelps, & McNamara, P.C., to discuss what this could mean for the industry as a whole on Knowledge@Wharton. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Speaker 1:                        Hi everyone. As a quick introduction, this is the full length recording of Anwar Chahal's interview with Calum MacRae from August 2017. A portion of this interview was included in episode seven of the Circulation Cardiovascular Genetics podcast "Getting Personal: Omics of the Heart". As we couldn't fit everything into that regular podcast episode, we've released the unedited version as a special, feature-length podcast. Enjoy. Dr Anwar Chahal:            My name is Dr. Anwar Chahal. I'm a Cardiology Fellow in Training from London, U.K., and I'm doing my research fellowship here at the Mayo Clinic, and I'm very honored and delighted to have our guest, Dr. Calum MacRae. I searched for Dr. Calum MacRae's biography online and it came up with a Wikipedia page talking about somebody who's a rugby coach. So, Dr. MacRae, I hope that's not another one of strings to your bow, that's something else that you manage to squeeze in amongst everything else that you do in your busy and punishing schedule. Dr Calum MacRae:          I did play a little rugby in my day, but I haven't coached any, I can assure you. Dr Anwar Chahal:            So, you are the Chief of Cardiovascular Medicine, you are an MD, PhD by training, and you are Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School, and your expertise, amongst many other things, internal medicine, cardiovascular diseases, but in particular, inherited cardiovascular conditions. Is there anything else that you would add to that? Dr Calum MacRae:          No, I'm a big fan of generalism, and I am quite interested in cardiovascular involvement in systemic disease as well, but largely as a means of keeping myself abreast with the biological mechanisms in every system that seems to be relevant to cardiovascular disease. Dr Anwar Chahal:            So, that reminds me. Once I heard you talk, and you mentioned to all those people that were considering cardiovascular genetics the importance of phenotype and actually how people have become increasingly super-super-specialized, becoming the bundle branch block experts or the world's authority on the right coronary cusp of the aortic valve, and how things were now going full-circle as people actually need better and better, more general understanding so that we can accurately phenotype. And you once joked that you'd actually done residency three times, so you know the importance of having a good generalist base, so could you expand a little bit on that? Dr Calum MacRae:          Well, I have to tell you, it wasn't a joke. I did actually do residency three times. But, I think the most important element of that theme is that biological processes do not, unfortunately, obey the silos in which medical subspecialists operate. So it is increasingly important to have a broad-based vision of how phenotypes might actually impact the whole organism. That's particularly true because it helps us ratify disease, so that there are mechanistic insights that come from the different cell types and tissues and biological processes that are affected.                                            I think, in general, that is something that we've all appreciated, but as time goes by and people become more and more specialized, it's less regularly implemented in day to day clinical practice. And so, particularly as molecular medicine becomes more and more penetrant in clinical disease management, I think you're going to see a return toward some generalism. Obviously, procedural specialties are the exception in many ways in this setting, because you need concentrated procedural skill. But in general, particularly for translational scientists or scientists who are interested in the underlying mechanisms of disease I think, I see a general movement towards a degree of generalism. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Indeed, and in terms of, as you say, trying to understand those disease processes and trying to, let's say for example, make sense of the incredible amounts of information that can now be gathered with genomics and high throughput omics, you believe that it is actually more of a requirement to be able to understand that now that we can gather this high resolution and broad depth of data? Dr Calum MacRae:          Yes, I agree. I think one of the core elements of modern clinical medicine is that the phenotypes have, in the last 50 to 100 years, we've really focused more on improving the resolution of existing phenotypes than expanding the phenotypic space. To be completely frank, I think we've extracted a lot of the information content that we can from the phenotypic space that we've explored, and what we need to begin to do is to find ways to systematically expand that phenotypic space.                                            I think there are a lot of reasonable ways of doing it just by thinking about other subspecialties. So, for example, in cardiovascular disease, we've focused very heavily on anatomy and physiology, but we haven't really done much in the way of cell biology. Whereas, in immunology, partly because there's access to those cell types, it's possible to do much more detailed cellular phenotyping. In neuroscience, we're now doing functional MRI, and looking at individual subsets of cells in the brain, and their function in the context of particular challenges.                                            My general thesis would be that the type of strategy would serve us well and that there's also, I think, an important mismatch between the dimensionality of phenotyping that we currently undertake and the scale of the genome and epigenome, transcriptome, et cetera. So, it's not surprising that we can't be convoluted genome of 10 to the nine variants with a phenome that are present only really has about a 10 to the four phenotypes. And so, I think some systematic right-sizing of that balance will be necessary.                                            There are lots of things that we record that we don't even think of as phenotypes, and there are phenotypes that we record that we don't really think about how to optimize the information of content. And so that's one of the things that we have begun to invest time and energy in. And thanks to the support of the American Heart Association, Verily, and AstraZeneca, as part of the One Brave Idea, we have elected to fully focus on that area in particular in coronary disease. But I think it's a generalizable problem with much of modern medicine that we tend to have focus on phenotypes that, in many instances, date back to the turn of the last century rather than to modern molecular and cellular biology. Dr Anwar Chahal:            So, you beautifully brought us to the first question, which was to ask you about One Brave Idea. Could you just, for our listeners who aren't familiar with that, just give a little bit of a background on One Brave Idea, and you've already thanked the people who have funded that, but how did you actually reach the point where you thought that this is something that really, really needs to be done? What's the process of reaching that point of bringing this idea to fruition? Dr Calum MacRae:          I think we had recognized in many instances that the families that we were seeing in cardiovascular genetics clinics were much smaller, the diseases appeared to be less penetrant than the original families that we studied when we cloned many of the disease genes. This was work that I did as a post-doctoral fellow in John and Christine Simons lab many years ago.                                            One of the things that was pretty obvious was that there were subtle pre-clinically or sub-clinically affected individuals in almost every family. And that made me ... That implies that the average family is so different from the extreme family. Is it something to do with either the resolution with which we were assessing disease or are we actually just measuring the wrong elements of the underlying genetic trait? So that, for example, is a dilated cardiomyopathy family actually a family that is susceptible to dilated cardiomyopathy in the context of some unmeasured conditioning variable, maybe a viral infection or an exposure. And because we're not measuring the exposure, or we're not measuring the underlying diaphysis, we're only measuring the final state, so we only classify people as being affected if they actually have an extreme phenotype. Are we, therefore, missing the core elements of the biology?                                            As part of doing that, we began to look outside the heart for other phenotypes, and one of the things we recognized ... This was in cardiomyopathy ... Was that different cardiac phenotypes were really aggregates of much more granular, multi-system phenotypes. So there would be families who would have dilated cardiomyopathy, but they would also actually have abnormalities, for example, of the distal interruptus muscles, and no other muscle group in their entire body. And in fact, the distal interruptus muscle phenotype was much more obvious than any cardiomyopathic phenotype.                                            So you start to understand that either other extra cardiac or electrical phenotypes, or maybe even sometimes neurofunction phenotypes are more penitent features of some of these disorders, albeit rare disorders. And so that immediately leads you to think are most of the common traits that we look after really aggregates of things that really only share the relative frequency of the core phenotype, which often dates back to decades earlier when phenotyping was at a much more superficial level.                                            So that vicious cycle perpetuates itself if we never look more deeply or look outside the constraints of a particular subspecialty. And so we have begun many, probably almost four years ago, to build a sort of next generation phenotyping clinic where we tried to bring either cell biology or molecular biology from outside the heart into phenotyping patients in a cardiovascular clinic. That idea was in our DNA, that's probably not the right way to say it, but it's something that we had worked on in a cardiomyopathy setting. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Right. Dr Calum MacRae:          And so then when the RFP for One Brave Idea came out, it seemed like a natural expansion of that to try and think about how you could apply new phenotyping in current disease. One of the inferences from that line of thought is to move, essentially, beyond ideally much upstream of the shared final common pathway so that you can begin to identify discreet underlying mechanisms.                                            And then, given the success of cardiologists, and cardiology in general, in prevention, it became obvious that really what we wanted to do was to try and understand not just disease, but also wellness. And to do that in a way where we could potentially detect the transition from wellness to the very first stages of the disease or the diseases that we have labeled as atherosclerosis or coronary artery disease.                                            That was the genesis of the central idea of the application and something that, obviously, we were excited to get the chance to pursue as a result of the generosity of the funders, and the vision of Nancy Brown at AHA and Andy Conrad at Verily, to not only award funding in a different way, but to also really try and drive us to think differently about how we executed on a research product. How we move forward, not with a five-year plan, but with a rapid cycle early hypothesis testing, fail fast and fail early, if you are going to fail, strategy. Rethink not just the focus of the research project, but the mechanisms by which you execute on it.                                            I think one of the core elements of this is, obviously, we want to make sure in doing this that we build on all of the incredible work that's been done in the last 25 or 30 years in coronary disease, whether it's the pharmacologic work, or the genetics work that has emerged in the last few years. Those are all important building blocks, and what can you do that leverages all of that existing data and adds to it? Phenotype is obviously one of the most important areas where you can bring something to the table that add to existing genotypes and also layers in on top of existing pathophysiologic models.                                            From my standpoint, it was an efficient strategy, and one that we hoped would also help us engage the people throughout the community in different ways of using data that might already have been collected or we were going to be able to collect for the first time. Dr Anwar Chahal:            In terms of One Brave Idea, where is that right now in terms of execution, as you mentioned? What's the progress so far, and is anything that's come out already that you can share with us? Dr Calum MacRae:          Yeah, of course. So we have begun a variety of different approaches to thinking through the best way of exploring this phenotypic space. One of the obvious things is you can take a couple of strategies to move into this unknown unknown. One of them is to take an incremental approach to move slowly from the areas where we have already established knowledge, and to move into new areas from that home base. And the other is to take a more agnostic strategy, which is to say are there orthogonal ways of thinking where you could look at a particular type of biology in a very focused way in coronary disease. You can define that in lots of different ways. You can say maybe we do it at an organelle level, or maybe we do it at some orthogonal component. The microbiome might be an obvious one. Another one that has been considered would be nutritional or other common environmental exposures.                                            The nice thing about the flexibility of the funding is that we can afford to test multiple different hypotheses early on, see which of them has the best signal, and then invest more deeply in those that have shown early signal. At the moment, we have multiple active projects that are really testing those initial hypotheses. Is there a way of moving from the known genes that cause coronary artery disease and trying to understand are there novel phenotypes that are associated with those. And then another approach would be to take people with very early or pre-clinical disease and test areas of biology that have never been tested in atherosclerosis or in coronary disease in a systematic way.                                            We could imagine lots of ways of doing it, but you might think about, lets say, looking at endocytosis, a process that we know already is affected by the core genes in familial hypoglycemia, but we've never really found ways to measure that in a rigorous fashion. In large populations of individuals, are there different ... Well, we know already there are different forms endocytosis, but are there discreet port ablations that might affect those.                                            Another way of looking this might be to pick an organelle. Pick the peroxisome, or pick the nucleolus, pick some other element and ask how does the function of this organelle change in individuals who have early coronary disease. Where its boring each of these types of things systematically, and trying to learn not just which are the most important areas to focus on, but also trying to learn are there strategies that are useful that you could use in another disease. In other words, are there generalizable approaches to expanding phenotypic space that makes sense.                                            I think one of the things that perhaps we underestimate about a genome is that it is the only bounded dataset in all of biology at the moment. There are no other bounded datasets. There is an infinite number of potential exposures. There's an infinite number of potential phenotypes that we could record, or at least as far as we know, are there ways of beginning to establish the boundaries of the phenome, the boundaries of the exposure or the exposal and how do we begin to do that in a way that efficiently yields new information. That's where we, as a consortium, have focused in the last few months.                                            We're also, obviously, investing time and energy in thinking how do we begin to remodel the way in which research is evaluated and funded. The strategy that we've taken there is almost like a not-for-profit venture fund where we try and bring in ideas that we think might be able to leverage what's known already and move the field faster towards new pathways or new approaches to prevention, which are the core deliverables of the One Brave Idea award. As part of doing that, we obviously get the chance to interact with lots of exciting and creative scientists and that's something we're looking forward to doing in lots of different venues. We're reaching out to lots of people and lots of people are reaching out to us. We're trying to find ways to evaluate and prioritize science and then bring that science to fruition through novel approaches to funding it, either directly or as a joint venture with a foundation or some other funding source, or even as a joint venture with a commercial partner to try and move the field forward as efficiently as possible. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Thank you very much for that, and I'm sure we all eagerly look forward to the results that are going to be coming out from One Brave Idea over the next few years. I'd like to now move on to genomic medicine training and you were involved in a statement that was put out regarding this. I think training across the world has increasingly recognized the importance of genetics and genomics, but I just want to share one little anecdote.                                            My wife is a primary care physician, and I was visiting the GP practice where she works, and she'd mentioned that I had an interest in genetics and genomics. One of the partners came out with one of these reports that a patient had sent their sample to a private company, got this analyzed, brought it in to the clinic appointment and asked for an interpretation. The GP partner said to me, "I've absolutely no idea what any of these numbers, values, et cetera, mean, and I actually am looking forward to my retirement, because I really don't want to have to cover all this. Can you help me with it?"                                            I sort of remember hearing Dr. Weinshilboum talk here at Mayo Clinic, who's really pushed forward pharmacogenomics, and he's been arguing for quite some time, as I've heard you say as well, that genomics and genetics is just going to be a part of the medical record in the same way that hemoglobin or a chest x-ray is. People better catch on because it's here, it's available commercially. People can send their samples directly, without the doctor's involvement, and then it's trying to make sense of all of that.                                            I think, as a community, research and clinical, we have to take this very seriously. I'd be grateful for your insights on that, and then if you could then tell us what would be the best way for the up and coming generation and for programs to incorporate that into their training? Dr Calum MacRae:          So, I think you're right. There is a general tendency in the public domain to test a variety of different genotypes. And in many instances, I think, the key elements are how do we as a profession, conceive of these tests? I think one of the things that we forget, perhaps at our peril, is that many of these things are problems that we've encountered before. There's a natural cycle of different tests in medicine where they start off in the academic medical centers, they propagate into the periphery, and then eventually they're assimilated as part of internal medicine.                                            I think the scale of genomics is obviously somewhat broader than many individuals have seen in the types of data that they deal with on a day to day basis. But I think that's something that's happening in everybody's life. In every aspect of your life, you have many more channels to deal with. You have many more choices in the supermarket to deal with.                                            So, I don't see this as a sort of existential challenge to medicine. Quite the opposite. In my experience, the core things that we need to remember is that DNA is no different from any other assay except for the fact that it's relatively straightforward to do DNA diagnostics. It's technically not as sensitive a set of biochemical issues, as are many other assays that we use in day to day clinical practice.                                            The other thing that I think is perhaps a key element is it, as I said a few minutes ago, it's a bounded dataset, and it's stable for your whole life. You only need to have it tested once. So, to sort of invert the typical diagnostic paradigms, instead of a primary test being interpreted in the context of an ongoing clinical event, the test may have been present for decades, and the result will evolve over time, in light of the changing phenotype or some new information with respect to that genotype.                                            What I've actually looked on genomics as is almost an organizing principle for the way that you build care. In fact, I see quite frequently, we now probably have an average one or two new patients a month in my clinic who bring their entire whole genome with them, either an axiom or a whole genome. And so, we've begun to really get to know quite well how to manage patients. Obviously, there are a selective of patients. But one of the things that I have found is that patients are really quite astute in understanding that genotype and phenotype are not deterministic relationships. What you have to do is always interpret these things in context of a probabilistic understanding.                                            Most patients, I think, when they're told this, understand that we're going to learn much more about genomics going forward than we will ever imagine we could know at the present. That will involve lots of different things. It will involve new ways of displaying data, new ways of thinking about the data in the clinical context. I actually think one of the most interesting things about genomics, and to be honest, any assay is that they rarely reach any form of maturity until they are used in the clinic, until they are actually used in implementation. For example, many genetic tests at the moment, don't change therapy and they don't change outcomes. But partly, that's because they've never been studied in that context.                                            One of the things that I think Glen [inaudible 00:26:58] has to be really congratulated for is his focus on pharmacogenomics as being one of the early areas in which this will really move forward. I believe that by immersing ourselves in it, by actually trying it in the clinic, we're going to learn much more.                                            Part of that gets back to the original topic that we spoke about, which is phenotype. The only way to really begin to understand collection of phenotype is if you do it in the context of existing genotype, I think. And so, as we move into new phenotypic areas, we're not going to be able to test everything and everybody. I think there, the genome will end up being an important framework, lifelong framework for the management of a patient's diagnosis, prognostication, and then therapy, potentially in that order.                                            I think you need a whole different set of skills. You need a whole different set of technologies. But most importantly, you need information that you can interpret in the context of the person in front of you. Until you can make mechanistically important insights with one person, it's going to be very difficult for genomics to really change medical care. That's something that I think we should be focusing on.                                            I think we've tended to have an associate of strategy for genetics. We haven't driven it into the clinic. As we drive tests into the clinic, whether it's troponin T or whatever, you begin to understand much better how to use them. Although, sometimes, that can also go in quite extreme directions that you may not necessarily anticipate. Troponin originally was a stratification tool for acute coronary syndromes, and now it's virtually a diagnosis in its own right. And I think you'll see that tendency revert over time as people begin to understand the biology of troponin, of isoform switching, and peripheral tissues of the way in which troponin may represent very different disease biologies.                                            At the moment, it seems like it's a very simple and straightforward yes/no type of test. There's no such thing in medicine, and I think that's what we're learning about genomics. Instead of conceiving it as a series of ten to the nine yes/no tests, we're going to end up with a very different vision and view of how it can be implemented in clinical practice. And that can only come from having clinicians and geneticists work together on this. In fact, one of the things that we've been doing in the partners environment with some of our colleagues, and I have NIH funding to do this with Heidi Rehm, with Sandy Aronson, and with Sean Murphy, is to think about how we display data, but also how we collect information in light of that genomic data that helps in an iterative way and a learning fashion, informed genotype/phenotype relationships in a much more probabilistic manner than we have done to date. There are lots of efforts in that space, that just happens to be one that I'm involved in. But I think it's a generalizable approach that you're going to see moving into the clinic in the next few years.                                            From the standpoint of training, I think what you want to do is to get exposure to all types of genetic information so you understand common alleles, rare alleles, genomics, and individual panels. I think the best way of doing that is to have that be part of training programs. In fact, with one of my junior colleagues, Dr. Aaron Aday, we recently wrote a short piece highlighting how important it will be for all of us to come together to think about how do we start to introduce the concepts of genomics into standard clinical training programs. And that's something we're working on fairly avidly at the Brigham, and I'm sure there are ... I know there are efforts at many other institutions to do similar things. Dr Anwar Chahal:            That article was published in Circulation in July of this year, if anybody wants to download that. I think if we talk to clinical trainees and ask them what are their concerns about training, as you know, training can be very long in cardiology, which is a procedurally based specialty, whether or not you become an invasive proceduralist at the end of it, there is that component at the beginning. Do you think a standard, in the U.S. a standard three-year program with two years of clinical and one year of research, can incorporate that at a sound enough level to allow somebody to practice? Do you think we're going to look at increasingly a one-year, or a six-month, sort of add-on fellowship for those interested more on the inherited side or more on the genomic side?                                            I, like yourself, trained in London, and the training programs are longer in the U.K. It was probably six years when you were there, it shortened to five, and now increasingly, it's going to become six and maybe even more with a general fellowship for five years, and then a super-advanced fellowship. Inherited cardiovascular conditions, certainly there, has become a module that is encouraged for people to take and then become somewhat certified in inherited cardiovascular conditions. What do you think there, in terms of incorporating all of that as well as learning basics of echo, and device therapy, and catheterization, what are your thoughts? Dr Calum MacRae:          Again, I look at this as a spectrum. There's a trajectory for all of these types of innovation and knowledge. It starts off being super-specialized, it goes into a more general location, and then eventually, it's an integral part of everybody's clinical practice. I do think that what you're going to see is rather than, and this is already, I think, the case in many elements of medicine. Medicine has already exceeded the knowledge base, even when I was training, by probably a log order in terms of the complexity and extent of content, not that I trained that long ago.                                            One of the core elements that I think that we're seeing is that we need to move medicine from what I believe has become somewhat deprofessionalized state, to one where you're actually focusing not on the actual core knowledge that you bring with you to the table, but actually the way in which you integrate knowledge. So, I think the focus of training is going to change somewhat. It has had to change in other fields. Medicine, I think, for a long time favored that sort of single, comprehensive approach in one mind. And medicine is going to become more of a team sport, and it's also going to become more of a knowledge integrator profession that it has been for some time.                                            It's interesting, when medicine started, there was so little knowledge that you really had to have almost every physician be an experimentalist using [inaudible 00:34:48] of one experiments in front of them. I think the way that I see medicine evolving is that as the knowledge base and the rigor of that knowledge base improves, many of the things that we think of as professional activity today, will actually devolve through primary care and, to be honest, into the community. There are many things where the rigor of the underlying [inaudible 00:35:12] are as such that there's no reason for a licensed provider to be involved. We allow our patients to install their own wireless networks without a technician. I'm sure most of them could look after their own lipids pretty effectively if they were given the right information.                                            So, a lot of stuff will begin to move in that direction. And as that happens, I think the way in which information is displayed, the way in which data are collected, and the workflow around integrating information will change. That doesn't get past the point that you brought up, which is that that will probably take a couple of decades, and in the interim, I think people are going to end up training in modules of subspecialty, but I think one of the things that I sometimes like to ask myself is what's the end game? Where is this going to end up? And can we build systems that train directly for that end game, rather than going through these intermediate steps. I think that's something where I think we tried, in the short piece that we wrote in Circulation, to argue that everybody should have some exposure, and that that exposure can change over time. We should be equipping people, not to know genomics, but to be able to learn how genomics is impacting their patients for the next 50 years.                                            That model of professional training is actually the one that really was the dominant model until maybe 100 years ago. And then, for reasons that don't quite seem obvious to me at least at the moment, we sort of tended to slowly move to more of a learned knowledge base that was then applied. Physicians sort of steadily got to the point where we're now data entry clerks. The actual amount of professional and intellectual engagement has, I think, slowly diminished in many medical subspecialties and medical specialties.                                            The opportunity that genomics and other advancements in technology in medicine bring is the chance to, I think, reprofessionalize ourselves to move from just simply defining ourselves in terms of the knowledge base that we each bring to the table, but defining ourselves rather in terms of how we put the knowledge together around individual problems and individual patients. It's a very much more patient-centered biological approach than perhaps we've had over the last couple of decades.                                            I think these are ... I'm obviously stating a lot of this somewhat in extremes, but I think that these are general trends that you see in medicine. They've happened in other fields as well, and people have overcome them. It's usually a function of changing the workflow itself, of changing the way in which the information ends up in the professional's hands and how you collect the data that you use, then, to interpret the existing knowledge. That, I believe, we haven't really reworked probably since Ozler's time.                                            It is amazing that we still have workflow ... I mean, it's amazing in lots of ways. It's an amazing tradition, but it is quite interesting that we still have workflow that is probably largely dependent on what Ozler liked to do when he was growing up in terms of the times of day that he got up and his workflow. That's sort of instantiated in many ways in everything that we do. Nothing entirely wrong with it, but there's a lot happened since then that we haven't really changed. Medicine is not yet, in many instances, a 24/7 profession, and yet most other things that have much less in the way of impact on society, are already 24/7 professions in many settings.                                            So, I think you're going to see a lot of demographic changes in medicine that come from the advent of technology and other industries. And I think those will all transform the way that we imagine training in medicine, along the same sort of timeline as some of the traditional approaches that you described, building out a training module and then having a subgroup of people do a six-month or a year of extra training. I see that as a short-term solution. I think, ultimately, longer term solutions are changing the whole workflow of medicine. Dr Anwar Chahal:            What have you done in your own program at the Brigham to introduce genomic medicine training for fellows? Dr Calum MacRae:          We are building out ... Obviously we have a fairly large cardiovascular genetics clinic. I think probably the largest in the world. We have now seven, soon to be eight, providers working only and wholly in cardiovascular genetics. We therefore have the ability to have our fellows rotate through our genetics clinic. We have inpatient and outpatient genetics services. And we also, obviously, involve our fellows in a lot of the academic pursuits going on in both our genetics and genomics programs in the cardiovascular clinic.                                            As we do, our colleagues are no longer in training. We have regular, in our clinical conference slot, we have, several times a year, a genetics component. And then, what we have also, is an integrated training program with clinicians and pathologists that is really bringing the individuals who are understanding the technical aspects of the genetic testing with the individuals who are learning and understanding the clinical aspects of that testing. And so, we imagine over time that this will evolve into potentially the type of specialist module that you described. But also, into a fixture that goes all the way through our two-year clinical training program.                                            We've sort of taken the point of view that we probably need to do a bit of both. We need to, given what I've said in the last few minutes, that we need to take a thread that recognizes a short term and intermediate term need for specialization, but also recognizes that we have to equip every one of our trainees, and every one of our physicians with the ability to begin to learn the underlying sides of genomics, and the underlying approaches to using genomics in every aspect of clinical cardiology. And so, we're doing both of those things, and have active efforts in both. Dr Anwar Chahal:            You mentioned integration with pathologists, but for our colleagues who are not clinicians, what about the research angle, and the scientists, when they're in training? Is that integrated so that we are getting this meeting of minds that is essential? Dr Calum MacRae:          Absolutely. In fact we, thanks to a variety of efforts at Brigham Women's, we have now at least three separate venues in which this occurs. I mentioned cardiovascular genetics clinic. We also have a genomic medicine clinic, which I'm one of the clinical co-directors for, where we actually have cases that come through routine clinical care that seem as if they would benefit from whole genome or whole axiom sequencing. And then we have a weekly conference that's actually led by Dick Maas and Shamil Sunyaev, two of our genetics colleagues, and taped in specialists from Althrop Medicine as well as scientists from the entire Harvard Medical School environment. So we bring everybody together around mechanistically solving individual clinical cases.                                            And then the third venue is one that's part of a national network, the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. We are one of the sites on the national NIH-funded UDN network. And there again, one of the themes is identifying individuals or families who would benefit from both rigorous genomic analyses as well as much deeper phenotyping. That's been a program that I think has been very exciting, and one that we, again, have learned a huge amount from in terms of how do you begin to build the infrastructure that brings, not just the fresh clinician to see the patient, but somebody who ... A whole team of people, who understand and can evaluate all the biological aspects that are relevant in that patient.                                            It also brings to bear the scientific expertise that you might need in order to make a mechanistic connection between genotype and phenotype in that one individual. And some of that involves animal remodeling. In cancer, for example, there's a concept that has emerged over the last two to three years of what's called co-clinical modeling. Once you've identified some of the genomic features, it allows you to begin to model in an animal, in parallel with the trajectory of the patient, and individual [crosstalk 00:44:54]- Dr Anwar Chahal:            As some people call them. Dr Calum MacRae:          Exactly. Creating an avatar. And in many instances, that's an avatar that includes multiple different disease models. We have begun to do that in the cardiovascular space. I think, obviously it's early days yet, but I think there are lessons to be learned about how you build the types of infrastructure that allow people to move beyond this state where a patient's outcome is dependent on him seeing the right doctor, on the right day, at the right time.                                            There are actually systems that funnel the patients into the right venue based on objective criteria at every stage. I think that's the type of reorganization, re imagination of the medical system that we need. We sort of duplicate things in lots of different areas, and you're still dependent on hitting the right specialist, on the right day, at the right time. Or not seeing a specialist. Seeing a generalist on the right day, at the right time, who is able to put everything together. Or even hitting somebody who has the time to listen to your story in a way that helps you identify the exposure or the genetic basis of your condition.                                            If we recreate the professional environment that I talked about earlier, I think in ways that are both traditional and novel at the same time, I think we will do ourselves a great service and build a platform that lets all of the technologies, including genomics that we've talked about today, begin to impact patients in a real way on a regular basis. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Thank you for that. One question I think is important to look at from the other side, you've gone from One Brave Idea to one revolution in medicine if I can be so bold. You mentioned so many other services are 24/7. You give an example, you can book your hotel in Shanghai sat in the Midwest, and you can change your booking on an app on a phone, and yet in medicine, it's so difficult to arrange an appointment. We have resisted that 24/7 service, aside from the acutes. But for the sort of chronic workload that we have, the 24/7 model has been resisted. What do you think are some of the challenges? Because I can almost hear members of our profession saying, "Well, who wants a 24/7 service and who wants to provide that 24/7 service?", and is it always necessary to have that 24/7 service?                                            As you say, so many things, such as hypertension treatment, you mentioned lipid management, could actually be done reasonably well by patients who are well trained. And certainly in heart failure, you can teach patients to take their Furosemide or their Lasix by weighing themselves and adjusting it, and can do it relatively well, and relatively safely. What do you think are the challenges to get the profession to realize that this is what's going to happen, and they've got to get on board? Dr Calum MacRae:          Well, I don't think you want to make it somehow mandatory. I think there are elements. Every patient is different. I think that's something we've used as a chivalrous for many decades as a profession. The reality is that we don't do very well. It takes, from the time a medication hits the guidelines, not the trials are finished, but the time that it gets accepted into the guidelines, let's say as a Class I recommendation. The average time to reaching equilibrium in the population is 12 to 15 years in cardiovascular disease. So you'd hate to be the person who got that drug in the 11th year, if you actually end up having your event in year three or four. And yet you can upgrade software for your phone, and hundreds of millions people upgrade it in the first couple of days after a release.                                            So, we have to build systems that allow us to be as efficient as every other element of our lives, and yet don't, in any way, diminish the importance of the personal interaction, the healing interaction that comes from a patient provider encounter. I think we do ourselves a disservice if we just imagine everything in exactly the same way as it's always been. A lot of it just requires us to make relatively modest changes to the types of things that we do, and to cede some control over some elements of it.                                            People are not dependent on making cyclical appointments to have doses of drugs tritrated. But once we've identified that a drug needs to be on board as a result of a primary indication, that we allow the titration to take place in an efficient and cost-effective manner. I think a lot of what we do is driven by how we get paid. A lot of ... And that's not criticism, it's natural in every single profession on the planet. You do things the way that the system is set up to have them be done.                                            And so, I think with relatively little in the way of systems engineering, you can have a 24/7 system without having 24/7 physicians. There are some areas, obviously intensive care units, where you do have 24/7 coverage already, but people are so used to having asynchronous care that being able to literally come home after a night shift and make their reservation for a restaurant the following evening, on their phone, often on another continent, it is a little bit strange that we literally can't book patients into your own clinic without calling up a couple of people.                                            I just think that some of this is resistance for resistance's sake. Some of it is people actually simply restating the things that we all believe are important parts of medical encounters. I think we just have to be creative about how we move from here to there. I think the thing that I find perhaps most interesting is that somehow the creativity of physicians is not fully exploited. We haven't really asked doctors and patients to come up with new approaches to how care is delivered, to how patients are seen. But I think if we allowed venues where that could happen, that would be actually the way in which we would evolve a very different system.                                            I think some of that, as I said, just goes back to the way in which everything is structured. All of the payment models, all of the ... Even the types of places that we see patients, are very much anchored in history. They're legacy items and there are lots of reasons why that's the case. Medicine, you can't show up with a minimally viable product. You need something that works perfectly day one, because of the liability. And so, what we need are just to rethink the way in which we even move medicine forward. What we know we can't do is just keep doing what we're doing, and changing modestly, rearrange the deck chairs.                                            What we need to actually be able to do is find places where we can actually, or venues where we can change things and test new models of care in a relatively low risk situation. I think you already see lots of payers, the federal government, and the NIH all thinking about how you can do that. Some of the [inaudible 00:52:55] efforts, some of the ... Even the NHGRI efforts in genomics. One of the nice things about genomics is because it's a new tool, it allows you to reinvent the way in which medicine is delivered. And so, I believe things as diverse as the precision medicine initiative, and as some of the most fundamental ways in which NIH funding is being restructured, will all potentially impact the way in which creativity and innovation start to evolve within the healthcare system.                                            I don't want to sound revolutionary. We're all doing all of this, all of the time. It's just not structured in a way that seems to very efficiently reach reduction to practice across the entire medical ecosystem. Part of what I think we need to do is, as a profession, build better ways of identifying where the innovation is occurring, and I will tell you I think it's occurring almost evenly across the entire medical universe, it's just that it doesn't propagate. All medicine, at the moment, is quite local. I think the things that you start to see happening in the industry that will change it are the fact that medicine is becoming much more like every other area of endeavor. It's becoming linked by technology. And once information flows more efficiently, I think a lot of the things that sound as if they're revolutionary, will end up actually just seeming like a series of obvious conclusions, based on the information that we've gleaned from early outlets or success stories.                                            Many of the things that I've mentioned today, they're not revolutionary at all. There are entire healthcare systems that use these approaches. But they just haven't become generalized because of the way that medicine works. And so, I think that's one of the reasons that I'm a believer that technology in particular will have a transformative effect, just on the way that doctors talk to other doctors or relate to their patients, and the way in which creativity and innovation propagate through the medical system will change very rapidly as a result of that.                                            And that's one of the great benefits of the electronic health record. I don't think EHR's now are perfect. In fact, in many ways, they're where other industries were 15 or 20 years ago. The supply chain in many large retail organizations was much more sophisticated in the mid-80s than the average EHR is. But what they've done is begin to collect the data in the right place, and in the right way, in a structured format. But as technology begins to cut across different EHR's and across different healthcare network, you'll see things, synergies begin to emerge that will accelerate the pace of change.                                            It's not by chance alone that medicine has attracted different types of people over the last 50 or 100 years. I think they'll just see the types of individuals that come to medicine be more diverse and more distinctive, and that also I think will help. More distinctive in their skillset, and that will help accelerate change in ways that again, will seem far from revolutionary fairly quickly. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Thank you for that. I wanted to come to the last section of the podcast, and sort of back to where I said it was joking, and you said I wasn't joking about doing three residencies. So, could you tell us a little bit about your own training and your own path? Originally from Scotland, through to London, and then over to the U.S.                                            And also, if you could share some of those pearls that you've picked up that aren't obvious to us in books, or sometimes are so obvious that they're elusive and not always apparent to young, up and coming trainees, both on the research side as well as the clinical. Dr Calum MacRae:          Yeah, sure. I trained in [inaudible 00:57:15] which had I think a very healthy attitude to specialism and generalism, and the relationship between them, and instilled in all of the specialists the need to always maintain some general medical capability. To this day, I still intend on general medicine for that reason.                                            I then moved, I did cardiology training in London, and was fortunate to work in a couple of hospitals, one of which had a very interesting, I supposed, quaternary care clinic which had extremely complicated patients. That's where I did my second internship, at the Ross Graduate Medical School in Hammersmith. And everybody who was an intern in that setting had already basically been board certified in internal medicine, so they'd all finished their medical training, come back to do an internship in that setting.                                            And there, I saw some amazing cases. There was an entire service for carcinoids, there was an entire service for many rare and wonderful diseases. At that point, you began to see how super-specialist knowledge can be incredibly helpful. But it can also be restrictive if it's not applied in the right way.                                            And then I did cardiology training at St. George's Hospital in London with some amazing mentors. John Camm, who many people will know from his work in atrial fibrillation and sudden death. David Warr, another very well known electrophysiologist, one of the early pioneers. Bill McKenna was my primary mentor, and he was somebody who had worked on the very earliest descriptions of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy when he had originally been at the Hammersmith, and then moved to St. George's.                                            He taught me a lot about, well many things. First of all, focus in your career, understanding the skillsets that you needed to accumulate in order to a) build a distinctive portfolio and b) to maintain your relevance by accumulating new skillsets as you move forward. And he had actually established a collaboration with Simon's. That was one of the reasons that I ended up moving to the U.S., and had a fantastic time with John and Cricket, at one of the earliest times in genetics moving into cardiovascular disease.                                            I learned a huge amount from colleagues, at that stage, both at the bench. Hugh Watkins is now chair of cardiology and lecturer of medicine now in Oxford, was a bay mate who was there a couple of years ahead of me and I learned a huge amount from him. I realized ... My wife is from New York City, from Long Island rather, and I realized I had to probably stay in the U.S. for those reasons, and I retrained at that stage in internal medicine again at the Brigham where mentors such as Marshall Wolf and, actually cardiology mentors at that stage were people like Punky Mudge and Pat O'Gara, who then helped me to adapt to the U.S. system.                                            The only thing I will tell you is that I don't think I ever learned as much as I did in each of my internships. I think the learning curve is incredibly steep. I'd been out of clinical medicine for four or five years, focusing on the lab, before I went back to my third internship. But I still think it was one of the most amazing experiences, largely because of the fact that you learn from every colleague, and you learn from every patient. I think if you go through most of your life thinking like that, I think you can end up doing very well.                                            Actually, one of the other things that's really important is actually emphasizing those personal connections. The first fellow I had at Brigham and Women's when I was an intern was Joe Hill, who's now the editor of Circulation, the chair of cardiology at UT Southwestern. Almost everybody that I know in cardiovascular medicine, I've encountered in those types of settings. Either in training settings, or in research collaborations, or at research meetings. You just begin to see a whole list of people that have worked together in different ways, and have learned from each other. I think that's one of the most powerful things to take away from research or clinical training.                                            I then was fortunate enough to get the chance to do a second cardiology fellowship at Mass General. There, I went to Mass General actually because of the focus on zebra fish genetics. I realized at that stage to really be able to study things at the scale that I thought was going to be necessary, I needed a high [inaudible 01:02:40] system, and Mark Schwartz, before he went to Novardis, on the zebra fish and the cardiovascular system, was very inspiring and I had a great time there. And then, ended up spending some fantastic years at Mass General where I eventually became the program director. But again, there I learned an incredible amount from people like Bill Dec, from Roman Desanctis, from Dolph Hutter. All of whom had very strong clinical presence, as well as from the researchers. Mark Fishman, the late Ken Bloch, and many others.                                            And then also, perhaps one of the most important people in my long term training was Peter Yurchak, who had been ... He had actually defined, I think, the training programs in U.S. cardiology about 35 years earlier. He had been the program director since its inception in the 50s until he retired in 2005 I think it was. And then I became the program director and was there until I moved back to the Brigham in 2009, and became chief in 2014.                                            I think the trajectory is really, I outline it only to highlight the fact that it took me a long time to get where I was going, but that I spent most of my life enjoying the journey. And I think that's actually one of the most important lessons I took away from it. You can end up finding situations where you feel like you might become frustrated, but in fact, if you go into them with the right attitude, and not only that, if you do it with the right people, you can take a huge amount out of it.                                            I was incredibly fortunate in the fellowship class that I had at Mass General. Mark Sabatine is now the chair of TIMI, Patrick Ellinor, who is the head of EP and a pioneer in atrial fibrillation genetics. Stan Shaw, who is now the chief scientific officer with me in One Brave Idea. Danita Yoerger, who's the head of ECHO, and an outstanding ECHO researcher at Mass General. Mark Rubenstein, who's a very successful cardiologist, and a fabulous clinician. That group of people actually, I think, together helped me realize how much you could take from training no matter how old you are, and no matter how grumpy you seem when you don't get the full nights sleep.                                            In the research side, I think the other thing that was obvious was that so many people bring so many different things to the table in research that you should never over or underestimate any aspect of the entire profession. I think I still get remarkable insights into research questions from colleagues who are clinicians, who've never done any research, just from astute observation and declaring a problem in a way that encourages investigation. I think that's one of the most important elements of training is how do you work out what you need to do, and how do you make sure that everything that you do between the start and the finish of that journey is used to help and to improve the way in which you end up doing what you ultimately find as your sort of settling point in your career.                                            I think the other thing that I will say from the standpoint of research is it's always best to try and think about blending different fields together. What you don't want to do is end up being a clone of one of your supervisors or your mentors. It's really an important thing, and I encourage this in all of our trainees the importance of being a bridge between different disciplines. I think that's something that requires real emphasis.                                            And then, finally, never ever forget that the single most important thing in all of this, whether it's the reorganization of clinical care or the core research environments, is the biology in the patients in front of you. And so, one of the things that I'm particularly and acutely aware of almost every time I see patients is that the patients often know much more about the condition that they have than you ever will. Listening to them is actually very important piece of everything that you do.                                            In fact, one of the reasons that we began to move outside the heart in our heart failure research was talking to patients about their pre-clinical elements that they found in their families. So, often, when you see a family with inherited heart disease, before the gene is identified, before anybody has a phenotype that you recognize, the patients themselves can assess who's likely to develop the disease from their intrinsic knowledge of their siblings, and their cousins, and their other family members.                                            So, for example, one of the families that I've worked on intensely, there's a anxiety disorder that is a much more stable and much more specific part of the phenotype than any of the cardiac arrhythmias, and it's actually turned out to be quite a difficult anxiety disorder to define using even DFM criteria. But when we asked the family, they were very able to tell the people in the family who just were at the normal edge of neurotic from those who truly had the anxiety disorder that co-segregated eventually with the arrhythmia.                                            The lesson I've learned time and time again is that patients always are a vital and central part of the answer. And it's a pride thing to say, but particularly in genetics and genomics, I think, and particularly with the reemphasis on phenotype, that I believe is necessary, I think we do well to try and make sure our research and our clinical care, our discovery, and our disease management are very tightly aligned. And I think technology is one of the ways that will help that happen. That actually is part of what being a professional really is. If you go back to the early professional guilds, that's exactly how they were formed. It was groups of experimentalists who were interested in particular problems that formed the original professions in European cities during the Renaissance. I think that's something that we would do well to think about as we continue to remodel medicine in the 21st century. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Thank you for that. Lots of important points there, and I guess your emphasis that enjoying the journey rather than thinking about the destination, but did you always know where your destination would be? And, in fact, that brings me to another question. Have you actually reached your destination, or is your journey still ongoing? Dr Calum MacRae:          So, exactly. I think that's the key thing. You don't need to necessarily know where you're going to stop. You just need to know where you're headed. That's something I actually tell people as they're interviewing for fellowship or residency, that part of what people are looking for when they talk to you is that you have thought through and organized your life around your goals. And those goals can change. Nobody's going to hold you ...

Host Dawn Davenport, Executive Director of Creating a Family, the national infertility & adoption education and support nonprofit, interviews Dr. Mark Perloe, a Reproductive Endocrinologist with  Georgia Reproductive Specialists, and Mark Schwartz, a Fellow of the American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine specializing in the treatment of infertility and founder of Buckhead Acupuncture & Herbal Center. Creating a Family has many free resources related to this topic on our website at www.CreatingaFamily.org. Please leave us a review on iTunes. Thanks. Click to Tweet: http://ctt.ec/XI27b Share on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A//creatingafamily.org/infertility-category/acupuncture-alternative-treatment-infertility/ Show Highlights: https://creatingafamily.org/infertility-category/acupuncture-alternative-treatment-infertility/   Support the show (https://creatingafamily.org/donation/)

Featuring Great Jewish Music, the Latest News from Israel and Morning Chizuk with Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser.

Host Dave Robertson goes "All American" for the Fourth of July. His first guest is Eric Bernstein, VP of Marketing and Product Development for the Ames Company, which has been able to keep its shovel business relevant since 1774. Next, it wouldn't be a Fourth of July discussion without fireworks - Dave's second guest is a man behind some of America's most amazing nighttime productions, Don Dorsey, who has spent his career creating shows like Disney's "IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth." After that, Dave looks at how the American Government thinks about innovating. His guest is Mark Schwartz, CIO of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, who discusses how to create an innovative culture in the public sector. The final segment features a look at design. Professor Emeritus of Design History at the University of Illinois, Victor Margolin, joins Dave to discuss how the American culture has influenced design throughout the years.

Information technology in the federal government is large, complicated, and often slow. Our guest, Mark Schwartz who is Chief Information officer of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USICS), wants to change that by applying lean methods and shifting the focus of IT toward consumers inside the government and citizens on the outside. In this show, Schwartz shares his experience with DevOps and other methods to improve IT and enable digital government.

Mark Schwartz, a vice chairman of Goldman Sachs and chairman of Goldman Sachs Asia Pacific, discusses China's reform efforts, future growth and prospects for an enhanced investment relationship with the United States. This podcast was recorded on February 13, 2015. This podcast should not be copied, distributed, published or reproduced, in whole or in part. The information contained in this podcast is not financial research nor a product of Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research. Neither Goldman Sachs nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or any information contained in this podcast and any liability therefore (including in respect of direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage) is expressly disclaimed. The views expressed in this podcast are not necessarily those of Goldman Sachs, and Goldman Sachs is not providing any financial, economic, legal, accounting or tax advice or recommendations in this podcast. In addition, the receipt of this podcast by any listener is not to be taken as constituting the giving of investment advice by Goldman Sachs to that listener, nor to constitute such person a client of any Goldman Sachs entity. Copyright 2015 Goldman Sachs. All rights reserved.

Alejandro Rojas with the latest in UFO news, then Mark Schwartz speaks about his project, Truth Funders, Jonas Petchonka joins the show to talk about his book on truthfunders.com called, OMG, UFOs! geared toward the younger audience in the second hour of the full show, hour two Rick Friar joins us, author of The Keepers.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/podcast-ufo--5922140/support.

'The Old Silk Road in China Today: The Fate of Xinjiang'. Professor Mark Elliott, Mark Schwartz Professor of Chinese and Inner Asian History, Harvard University. Perspectives:Asia is produced by The Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University and the Australian Centre of Asia-Pacific Art, Queensland Art Gallery I Gallery of Modern Art

In this episode we look at the Assyrians, 930BC to 630BC, their empire stretched from Egypt to Babylon, it was the first great iron age empire with resources to fund a standing army equipped with iron weapons. They excelled at siege warfare, something very difficult to successfully achieve in the ancient world. We delve into all these aspects plus look at the putting down of internal descent, propaganda, chariots and the use of specialised infantry.  Jasper, Lindsay and Michael are joined by Mark Schwartz. Dur: 43min

In this episode we look at the Assyrians, 930BC to 630BC, their empire stretched from Egypt to Babylon, it was the first great iron age empire with resources to fund a standing army equipped with iron weapons. They excelled at siege warfare, something very difficult to successfully achieve in the ancient world. We delve into all these aspects plus look at the putting down of internal descent, propaganda, chariots and the use of specialised infantry. Jasper, Lindsay and Michael are joined by Mark Schwartz. Dur: 43min

Today's Investor Relations: An Art or Science?, TK Kerstetter, President, Corporate Board Member, Barbara L. Gasper, SVP, Investor Relations, MasterCard Inc., Mark Schwartz, Board Member, MasterCard Inc.

Jasper and the gang with special guest Mark Schwartz discuss the end of the bronze age and the coming of the Sea people raiding in the Mediterranean.

Jasper is joined by Mark Schwartz and regular Murray Dahm to discuss the Campaigns of Caesar. Dur: 35min File: .mp3

Jasper is joined by Mark Schwartz and regular Murray Dahm to discuss the Campaigns of Caesar. Dur: 35min File: .mp3

Mark Schwartz '76, award-winning screenwriter. Originally aired January 12, 2008.