Podcasts about mit center

Freight companies face increasing pressure to adopt AI, but which technology is actually working on the road? This episode examines critical findings from ground-level freight operations, revealing why Excel remains the dominant tool despite digital transformation efforts, and why data quality, not AI sophistication, remains the biggest bottleneck constraining freight efficiency. Joining tech journalist Jason Del Rey are Dr. Angi Acocella, Research Scientist in the FreightLab at the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, and David Gal, Vice President of Product and Engineering for Connected Equipment at Samsara, on a panel held at Samsara Beyond 2026 in Las Vegas. The conversation explores practical solutions shaping the freight industry today, including Bluetooth-enabled tracking labels for high-value shipments and how AI-powered geofencing is improving driver safety without replacing human oversight. From dynamic pricing mechanisms to how forward-thinking carriers are using AI agents to augment driver performance, this episode reveals what freight leaders should actually be investing in and where to be cautious.

"I'm not here to teach you anything new. I'm here to make you see things that you normally would not see." — Dr. W. Edwards Deming In this episode, Deming educator Balaji Reddie reveals the practices that are hiding in plain sight within most organizations. Practices that feel normal. That get celebrated. And that quietly undermine everything you're building. One example: arbitrary targets. An employee collected 2 million rupees in a single day — four times his target. He told no one and did nothing for four days. Because he knew his manager would just raise the bar. That single moment of silence cost the company a genuine breakthrough. This is what Deming called a "faulty practice." And there are many more where that came from. Host Andrew Stotz and Balaji dig into Chapter 2 of The New Economics — Deming's most overlooked chapter. They cover why ranking employees is built on a mathematical illusion. Why chasing quarterly results destroys long-term value. And why the best leaders, from Steve Jobs to Walt Disney, ignored the pressures that trap most organizations. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussions with Balaji Reddie. He's an educator and a trainer in the teachings of Dr. Deming and quality management generally. And the topic for today is becoming aware of faulty practices. Take it away, Balaji.   0:00:26.0 Balaji Reddie: Good morning. Thank you, Andrew. So part three of our series, what we're looking at. So last time we met, we spoke about essentially Point number 14, because we outlaid his profound knowledge. And then I always said that he gave us a lot of clues as to what needed to be done. So I started out by reading some of the excerpts from the book, which we tend to ignore. And then he said, "Here's what I expect." So he expected leadership, a critical mass to be created, and then he gave attributes of a leader. So we listed 17 of those points, which we said principles of leadership. And now once you've created that critical mass and there's someone who's taken the lead and there are a bunch of leaders, maybe, so what do we do next? So when you start becoming aware that you are now in a prison, so to say, because that's what he said here, that they feel it's a fixture, and this is the way things are, this is how things always have been. So he says, "No, you need to understand that these things are wrong." Right? And you first need to become aware, and then we need to look at what needs to be done, perhaps. So he's given some suggestions, and you could always adapt and adopt this. So most of this would be taken from the book, The New Economics, chapter two, which he has titled as "The Heavy Losses." Now, remember, when he wrote this book, it was after the other book, Out of the Crisis, where he had listed his 14 Points. Yes, but he also listed diseases and obstacles. And people tend to ignore that.   0:02:18.9 Balaji Reddie: In fact, I remember having a chat with Bill Bellows on this, and I said, "Diseases and obstacles." And he said, "Obstacles?" I said, "Yes, he has listed 16 obstacles in Out of the Crisis." And he said, "Oh, wow." And he took his copy and he said, "Oh, yeah, you're right. There are 16 of them." And so sometimes you see things that you normally would not see. So when he wrote this, initially, I think many people thought that it was just an extension of those Diseases. But when you start looking deeper, you'll find that he became more elaborate in what he listed as the heavy losses. So he says here that these are things that you start observing and you say, "This is not normal." So the language that he's used is pretty, pretty clear. Present practice, so faulty practices. The present practice, and he says these are only reactive. You only need certain skills and not nearly any theory of management. Whereas when you opt to go to a better practice, you need a theory. So let's start with the very first faulty practice. And this stems from his 14 points too. He says, "Lack of constancy of purpose, short-term thinking, and emphasis on immediate results. Think in the present tense, no future tense." And then he becomes more elaborate and says, "Keep up the price of the company's stock and maintain dividends."   0:04:02.0 Balaji Reddie: Which, well, okay, it seems like you should not do that. No. He says here, you fail to optimize through time. Make this quarter look good, ship everything on hand at the end of the month or quarter, never mind its quality, mark it as shipped, show it as accounts receivable, and defer till the next quarter repairs, maintenance, and orders for material. Just a word here, in the new edition of The New Economics, there's been a spelling mistake there. So if anyone's listening, you can just correct it in the next edition that comes out. Instead of "defer till the next quarter," he's written "defer toll the next quarter." So we need to correct that in the next printing. Now he says here, a better practice...   0:04:52.1 Andrew Stotz: And before you go to there, can we just talk about this for a second?   0:04:56.1 Balaji Reddie: Sure.   0:04:57.8 Andrew Stotz: One of the things that, having been a financial analyst all my career, we get quarterly results from companies in the stock market. And in my own business, of course, I look at monthly results because we close the books every month. And it's definitely one... Donald Trump recently came up with the idea of telling companies not to report quarterly results. And I believe the Singapore Stock Exchange also came up with the idea of maybe we'll reduce the amount of reporting to maybe half-yearly, because we do have half-yearly reporting in some countries, right?   0:05:39.6 Balaji Reddie: Right.   0:05:40.9 Andrew Stotz: But having learned the teachings of Dr. Deming many years ago, long before I became a financial analyst, I always thought, I never really got this one because I thought, what an idiot you would be if you're running a company and all you could see was the market's demand for quarterly performance. And I've always admired those people, I think Jeff Bezos was one that really made it very explicit. "If you're here for quarterly performance, you're not gonna get it." And so I always have said to CEOs, having seen analysts and fund managers, I've visited, taken fund managers more than 1,000 times to meet with CEOs, and CEOs ask me, "What's your advice from seeing all that?" And I said, "Don't listen to this too much." Take it on board, what the discussions are about, but you're the CEO. Your job is to optimize the value of this business. And that means, that doesn't mean making quarterly numbers, manipulating things to make quarterly numbers. So part of what I've said to people is, "Get a backbone. Don't come and complain to me, 'Oh, yeah, but the pressure of the market's quarterly.' Come on." You know and I know that the job of a CEO is to maximize the value of the business, not the quarterly result. So anyways, that's my little pet peeve.   0:07:13.6 Balaji Reddie: Yeah. Yeah, that's right. And if you look at even Jobs, Steve Jobs, when he came back as Apple CEO, he had the nerve and the spine, like you said, to tell the board, "Don't judge me on this. It's gonna take time. And believe me," he said, "someday you will see results." Now, unfortunately, he was not there to see what he's created, but I think anyone in Apple can safely say that they're growing because of the foundation that he laid so long back, right? And I think that was one of the major reasons why he did not make Jonathan Ive as the CEO, because he wanted him to focus on the product and the customer rather than the quarterly results. And I don't think Apple ever played it by quarterly results.   0:08:04.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And here's a good book called Competition Demystified by Bruce Greenwald. And there's a passage in here that's interesting because he published the book back in 2005, so it was long before Steve Jobs really made the company profitable. And he had basically gone through and explained the situation at that time as a strategist looking at the company. And what he said, it says, he just said that "Jobs had managed to restore operating margins, but Apple survived, it had hardly prospered, its future does not look bright." And I use this as an example in my strategy class to help people understand that when you're building strategy, you're thinking long term. And the ecosystem that Steve Jobs created, the value of that ecosystem didn't really truly appear until many years after he was working on it. So anyways.   0:09:06.6 Balaji Reddie: Yeah, so that's a classic case here.   0:09:11.1 Andrew Stotz: Let's keep going. You're on a roll.   0:09:14.5 Andrew Stotz: Oh, that's okay. So now better practice, he says, theory of management. Now see what he writes here. He says, "Adopt and publish the constancy of purpose." Now, that's one of the things that he also changed in his 14 points in the 1990 edition, which he never really published in a book but he gave as handouts in his seminars. Earlier on, it was "Create a constancy of purpose," but he says now, "Publish it." And it should be a proper statement, right? And he also said not just for the company, but for other organization. Now, he perhaps was envisioning or he already saw what is happening in the world today, that it's not one company against another, it's a family of companies against another family of companies, if I may say so. And these companies are globally dispersed, so there has to be something that binds them together, and that's the constancy of purpose. And purpose is why we exist, right?   0:10:13.4 Andrew Stotz: And I want to ask about this.   0:10:15.3 Balaji Reddie: Right.   0:10:16.2 Andrew Stotz: Professor, can I ask you about this?   0:10:18.4 Balaji Reddie: Sure. Right.   0:10:21.0 Andrew Stotz: Because if we go to Out of the Crisis, he has his section, and this for me is on page 24, but I don't know what edition I... Maybe I have an old edition, but it's the chapter "Principles for Transformation." He's gonna talk about the 14 Points, and I want to talk about the first point. And the first point is "Create constancy of purpose for improvement of product and service."   0:10:45.8 Balaji Reddie: Yeah. This is the old edition, 24.   0:10:48.6 Andrew Stotz: And the question that I have is that was he saying... Because now you've said in The New Economics he says constancy of purpose. He just states constancy of purpose. He doesn't say "for improvement of product and service." So my question to you is, is he saying that the constancy of purpose should be about improvement of product and service, or is he saying your constancy of purpose could be any purpose, but you just need a long-term purpose?   0:11:22.8 Balaji Reddie: Yeah. And he says that anything that help people to live better and have a market. That's on page 25. So whatever you do, your purpose should be to make life better, right?   0:11:40.2 Andrew Stotz: Right.   0:11:40.7 Balaji Reddie: And the product is just the manifestation of that. It's the outcome, correct? For example, if you talk about Walt Disney and his statement of purpose, he made a very telling statement, right? And how he came to write that down as a very fascinating tale. But he said, "I'll do anything to make a child smile. I'll do anything to make a child smile." So all that you see was aimed at the child, right? Whether it was the merchandise, whether it was the animated films, whether it was the actual non-animated films, if I may say so. And then, of course, coming out with Disneyland and then Disney World. So whatever he did was for the child. And then after he passed away, they lost that. I think they wanted to just sustain what they had attained, but there was nothing new coming out of Disney. And slowly people started encroaching on their turf, so to say. You had someone like a Steven Spielberg who made ET, and that really pulled the rug under their feet. And before they knew it, there was Goonies and Gremlins, and they were really crumbling. And they thought, "Let's join hands with the devil," and so they hired him to make a film. And that did very badly.   0:13:01.9 Balaji Reddie: We also know that Hook, which was supposed to be on Peter Pan, et cetera. And then they were in a crisis and said, "What do we do now?" And most of the top people were just washing their hands of everything. They were the employees who were left, many of them who had worked with Disney, and they said, Sony was very keen to buy them out. And they said, "We need to keep them out, and how do we do that? The only way we can do that is to make a comeback and let's make another film. And we've not been doing anything original, so let's go back to the drawing board." But they said, "We need something to guide us." And that's when they discovered what Walt Disney had written, "I'll do anything to make a child smile." And they said, "What a shame. We forgot the child. We hired the best, but we didn't do anything for the child." And they added one more sentence there. "Anything to make a child smile, and there's a child in every adult." That's how they created Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Unique idea.   0:14:03.0 Andrew Stotz: Right.   0:14:03.9 Balaji Reddie: You can see it's a statement of purpose that brought them back.   0:14:07.6 Andrew Stotz: Okay. That helps me to understand that what he's talking about, according to what you're saying, is come up with your purpose.   0:14:14.4 Balaji Reddie: That's right.   0:14:15.3 Andrew Stotz: Okay.   0:14:15.6 Balaji Reddie: And he of course also added the word "aim" later on, which is that direction, because he says there, "Where do we wish to be? And then by what method?" So you should know whatever you do should go in the right direction. So that's the first faulty practice, and also giving us a theory of what we need to do. So go back and try to rediscover your purpose if you don't have it, or maybe just come out with something and see what really ignites you, what really drives you forward. And he's given some bullet points here. No number of successes in the short-term problems will ensure long-term. Short-term solutions have long-term effects. So that's that statement where he said cause and effect are not closely related in time and space. Of course, management must work on short-term problems as they turn up, but it's fatal to work exclusively on short-term problems. So he tells us that there has to be some place where you need to stop and start focusing on the big picture. So that's the very first faulty practice. Now the next one is a real, real bucket of water on your face. "Present practice, ranking people, salesmen, divisions. Reward at the top, punishment at the bottom. The so-called merit system." At the top and bottom. It's an artificial creation because no matter what scale of measurement you use, there will be an average measure and there will be 50% above the average and 50% below the average. That's exactly what the word average means. So making these stupid claims that this is an above-average person or a below-average person does not really mean anything.   0:16:07.8 Andrew Stotz: Because what you're really doing is rewarding or punishing common cause variation?   0:16:14.9 Balaji Reddie: Well, that's one. But when you're artificially creating something which doesn't even exist, right? You're saying top half, bottom half. In fact, that funny statement where there's a headlines in England, this happened in England, which said studies have shown, and they spent half a million pounds on carrying out the study, that 50% of the children in England are below average nutrition level. You don't need to spend half a million pounds to figure that one out. That's the law of averages. And using that to judge people is crazy on some arbitrary scale that you've invented. And he goes on to...   0:17:06.7 Andrew Stotz: So the first question I asked was, is this just a frivolous or tampering with common cause variation? Or the other question that... Or is this part of psychology and the idea of demoralizing people through this type of behavior? Where does that fall in from the System of Profound Knowledge, let's say? Is it variation, psychology, or is it both?   0:17:34.5 Balaji Reddie: It's a bit of both.   0:17:36.4 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:17:36.6 Balaji Reddie: Because if you talk about understanding psychology, what he meant, I think I used the word empathy, that we need to be empathetic. When you're talking about employees, what do you mean by empathy there? Well, we need to understand their learning processes. Each one of us has a learning process, but we have a different kind of a learning process. And then when you understand the learning process of a person and then put that person in the right job, you'll have to stop that person from working. That's joy in work. He says that when you... And that takes time. And the ranking system or the merit rating system is an excuse for not having understood or making an effort to understand your employee. You're becoming lazy. You put the onus on them when actually the onus is on you. You have to find out what makes that person tick, if I may use the word resonates. What resonates with that person, right? And then put that person in the right job. He's been saying this from the beginning. It's fascinating that he said this in Japan when he was teaching the control charting there.   0:18:42.3 Balaji Reddie: He said if you draw the control chart for performance of a worker and then it's all within limits for a long period of time, despite all the training and all the lessons that he or she has been given, then he said, "I think it's time to move that person out from that job and give them some other job." Because they've reached statistical control. Any amount of effort put in will not result in a better output. You're gonna get the same thing. And if you want something else, then you need to shift them or maybe give them some better job, whatever it is. So he always had this, that we need to use these in tandem. And in any case, it's a System of Profound Knowledge, so all the four sciences work together, right? And if you want to ask me, when a person understands their purpose, I'm extending the statement of purpose here to the person, when a person understands why they're doing something, they always do the job better. So that statement of purpose needs to come in here too. Instead of ranking them, sit down with them and have a heart-to-heart with each one of them. This is back again to the 17 principles we discussed last time, that you have to spend some time with them.   0:19:57.9 Andrew Stotz: Okay.   0:19:58.3 Balaji Reddie: And understand what makes them tick. So he says "the better practice is to abolish the merit system and manage the company as a system. The function of every component, every division under good management contributes towards optimization of the system. That is, it's not compromise, it's optimize." We don't say either-or, it's and. And he says "differences there will always be, but the question is, what do the differences mean?" So that's where you can use control charting to figure that one out. And I told you how I did this in my company and I got the HR lady to finally say, "I think we need to remove performance appraisal." Performance management, yes, of course you need to have a system in place because I need to know where I am. Even when we later on come to the 14 Points, one of his most, according to me, most misunderstood points is point number three, cease dependence on inspection. But that doesn't mean you stop inspecting.   0:21:02.8 Balaji Reddie: And we will read that when we come to that as to what he meant. So you need to know what is happening, definitely. For that reason, you do need to have some system in place, but you cannot judge a person based on that. And so he says here that "ranking is a farce. Apparent performance is actually attributable mostly to the system." And a simple equation, that's my favorite, that's what we discussed last night too, Tim Higgins, when he said x + (x * y) = 8. And you've gotta solve this equation when you don't even know both. Both are unknowns. Then how can you figure out what is x and what is y? So the other factor, the Pygmalion effect, right? I think for those who are not conversant with the Pygmalion effect, the play by George Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion, which was made into the movie My Fair Lady, where he picks up a lady from the streets who was a flower seller, a flower lady, a flower girl. And he accepts the challenge of teaching her how to speak good English rather than what they call as Cockney English. And then it's like an experiment and a challenge and he starts teaching her. And then to test himself, he takes her to a party. And there she has one drink too many and she gets a little bit tipsy and then goes back to her old way of speaking, which really shocks the guests in the party.   0:22:41.5 Balaji Reddie: And he's very upset when they come back home and he said, "You'll always be a flower girl." And then she makes a statement, "Treat me like a flower girl, I'll behave like a flower girl. Treat me like a lady, I'll behave like a lady." And that's the Pygmalion effect. You start treating people that they're failures and then they have to live up to that reputation, right? So they continue being failures. You treat them well, so the Pygmalion effect comes into play. And of course, he talks about his red beads. That's an excellent experiment in bringing out many of his principles. Though he did not design it originally for this, that came much later. In fact, in Japan when he carried out the red bead experiment, it was purely for sampling. He invented that experiment for sampling. And he said that he broke down barriers and made things so simple for people. I think the lessons of management came much later at Hewlett-Packard where while he was explaining sampling and then when he went to what he was trying to teach them about management, someone jumped up, I forget the name of the person, who said, "But this is... So this is what you're trying to teach us with that sampling experiment." And then he suddenly realized he could use this. And of course, the so-called, and then raises in pay, et cetera. Yeah, whom to raise? Everybody within the system, blah, blah, blah.   0:24:13.4 Balaji Reddie: So I think last time I explained this about the roles, responsibilities and objectives, right? I borrowed this idea from another company in India where I saw this happen. When we removed the performance appraisal system, we came out with something which was quite different. We used to sit down with the people and explain to them what we intend to do as a company for the next four or five years and what their role is and what we expect them to... How do we expect them to contribute? But then came the next question. We turned around to them, "What do you expect from us as a company to help you grow in this direction or anything else?" And so they would give us certain expectations. And so we negotiated, came down and wrote things down. And then came the best part. We said we're gonna meet not once a year, but every month and as often as possible to discuss. That's why I loved it when the Deming Institute came out and were doing it, I'm sure they're doing it even now, in the two and a half day, from "me" to "we". So when we met every month, we used to ask the question, "How are we doing?" Not "What have you done?" "How are we doing?"   0:25:33.0 Balaji Reddie: And so when I heard that, I wanted to tell Bill Bellows I've been doing this since 2004. And when I heard the "me" to "we" thing, which was around 2017, '18, I think I saw that happen and I was, "Wow. All right." So thinking on the same lines. So the faulty practice, all right, when he talks about this, the second one and what needs to be done. Yeah, he gives some other advice also that if you're faced with problems, cut the dividend, cut it out. And that's, of course, when you're having hardships in the company. So he's given us a set of steps there too. And he says finally, if necessary, cut pay, but nobody loses a job. So, of course, those are extreme cases that we need to do, but he gives us advice what needs to be done. Now, the third faulty practice is incentive pay, pay based on performance. And I think that this has a lot to do with the arbitrary numerical targets that are set, right? And then, "If you do this, I'll give you that." So he says that the performance of an individual cannot be measured except maybe on a long term.   0:27:04.7 Balaji Reddie: He said reward for a good performance may be the same as reward to the weatherman for a pleasant day. He's got no control over it. And he says, "Abolish this incentive pay and pay based on performance. Give everyone a chance to take pride." I think you were talking about this last week too when we said about these arbitrary targets that lead to all of this, where somebody made a statement to me that, "The targets were a distraction to me from what my actual job was. My job is this. The target is just distracting me from my job." So very often people feel that way, right? And pay for performance, "I'm supposed to do this," right? And he gives an example. The top salesman may be a heavy loss to the company by overselling, selling to a customer a bigger copying machine than he, the customer, needs, right? And selling a bigger or fancy insurance policy than the customer can handle, promising immediate delivery, promising unauthorized discounts, et cetera, et cetera, right? It's the same thing, when one of my students was doing this, his internship project, he found that there was excessive inventories that were stocked up at an automotive company, at the authorized service stations and the sellers, and they had excessive stocks of components and that's why the sales had dipped over a period of time.   0:28:42.3 Balaji Reddie: Why were they holding so much of stock? Because the previous purchasing guy, or rather sorry, the marketing guy, forced these guys to buy extra, saying that, "I'll give you a discount," and things like that. And so they overstocked themselves to a point where they did not need anything because he had to meet a target. So he pushed it down their throat without really understanding what repercussions this would have. All right? And the problem with that pay for performance, it sounds good. Get what you pay for, pay what you get for. But the funny thing is you'll get only that much. Another case which I can tell you is how this student of mine was... His job during the internship was to collect receivables from the shops that were buying stuff. This was in the appliances, home appliances industry. And after they trained him to do that, how to call up the retail outlets and outstanding statements and then go collect the money, and his target was 500,000 rupees a day. 500,000 rupees a day collection. Now, one day he collected 2 million. My question is, do you think he reported it? Well, he did. And for the next four days he did nothing.   0:30:22.6 Balaji Reddie: Now, there's also a reason why he didn't report it. Because when you don't have Profound Knowledge, if he reported that he collected 2 million, immediately the manager would have said, "From tomorrow, your target is 2.1 million." Now, this is what happens when you don't understand variation. If you drew a control chart and you said that, "Okay, the average is so much, so I'm telling him to collect 500,000," and he's collected 2 million, he's done something special. As a manager, I'd call him and ask him, "Could you please tell me what exactly you did? Because you've not done what I taught you, otherwise you wouldn't have gone to this extent." Sometimes you don't know why you've been successful. The theory comes from the outside, right? So a manager with Profound Knowledge would sit down and have a talk and say, "Okay, you did this right. Now try doing this again." And he goes the next day and collects 2 million again, and then the next day and 2 million again. And then he comes and says, "Okay, boss, I'm ready for a new target. Raise the bar." Now what have you done? You've improved the system.   0:31:24.9 Andrew Stotz: We have new knowledge.   0:31:26.3 Balaji Reddie: We have new knowledge. And that's why, answering the same question what you asked me, it is a bit of both. So you need to understand that it's beyond... And we need to help the people understand why they've been successful. So better practice, here you go, is "abolish incentive pay, give everyone a chance to take pride." So when they start realizing, like this child, this student of mine, why he hit 2 million rupees that day, it would have been great. Instead, he just kept quiet. So see, you've lost an opportunity to really learn, to find a leverage point in a process which can take the process to another level. The next one he talks about is failure to manage the organization as a system. Instead, components are individual profit centers, everybody loses, right? And I think we have these separate business units, and he says here that they don't optimize for the aim of the whole organization. I think this is again, if you look at his Points number 9, 10, and 11, he very clearly mentions these because one thing leads to another, right? Break down the company into silos, each one focuses on what they're doing, and there's no communication, and they don't know their understanding the relationship of their work with the work of others.   0:32:54.9 Balaji Reddie: They don't even talk to each other. And he says here that "enlarge the boundaries of the system," but that comes when you understand your companies much better. And the system must include the future. Definitely, you start with theory. If this is what's happening in the world right now, this is how the world is going to change. Now he says, encourage communication. Now this part, a lot to do with Point number eight, drive out fear, where he says make physical arrangements for informal dialogue between the various components of the company regardless of level of position. That's a very telling statement. Encourage continual learning and advancement. Some companies have formed groups for comradeship in athletics, et cetera, all right, which provided facilitation for study groups. The company can well afford to underwrite the cost of social gatherings in outside locations. I can give you my personal example here. One of my college friends, and this was the time in the '90s when she came to America to do her Master's and then eventually started working in Ford, right? She did her Masters in applied electronics and she joined there as a design engineer. And that time, the world was a different place, and we Indians from India, we tend to be very, very conservative about a lot of things. We don't want to step on people's toes. So when someone says something, we, instead of opposing it, we keep our mouth shut.   0:34:32.6 Balaji Reddie: And so in meetings when they used to discuss and somebody brought up something and she said, "No, I think there's a problem," and they said, "What's the problem?" and she decided not to say anything, but eventually it turned out that she was right. And so the team members had a grouse against her that she doesn't share and she doesn't talk, she doesn't open up. Now what had happened was the HR lady in Ford, when she'd given her resume, when she asked about her hobbies and activities, one of the things she wrote there was dancing. Now she was learning a form of classical dancing here in India and obviously she could not continue pursue that in the United States at that time. So when that lady read dancing, she said, "You know, Ford sponsors ballroom dancing classes. So would you like to go for that?" So she said, "Oh wait, I learned a classical dance form in India. This has nothing to do with this." So she said, "Well, dancing is dancing. Why don't you just go? And we're paying for it, so why don't you go for it?" So she said, "I just enrolled in that class." Now, the first day when she went for the class, I don't know if you've seen the movie Shall We Dance, Andrew, but Richard Gere and Jennifer Lopez, and if you remember the first day, they tell you to hold your partner's hands and you're blindfolded and you follow your partner. It's about trusting the person in front, right? So she said when she went through that and she had to hold a stranger's hands, the whole barrier was broken.   0:36:08.2 Balaji Reddie: And she said, "I don't know, I had a different kind of a feeling when I came back to work." And she started trusting a lot more and it had an impact. Now, who would have dreamt that a ballroom dancing class could have changed my friend like this? That's Point number 13. You just have a theory that this will make that person a better person. You don't really do things to get a return on investment, but it works. So I think this is a beautiful paragraph by Deming where he says that there are ways and means of doing it and give it a shot. You have nothing to lose, right? Now he comes to the next one. Now this one, I think a lot has been spoken about this, MBO. But very clearly, he says "MBO as practiced." He does not blame Peter Drucker at all. In fact, he says Peter Drucker was clear that the objectives are interdependent and they're not mutually exclusive. He says, "Unfortunately, efforts of the various components do not add up. There is interdependence. Thus, the purchasing people may accomplish saving of 10% over the last year and in doing so raise the costs of manufacture and impair quality.   0:37:31.3 Balaji Reddie: They may take advantage of high-volume discount and thus build up inventory, which will hamper flexibility and responsiveness to meet unforeseen changes in the business." Peter Drucker was clear on this point. It's unfortunate that many people do not bother to read his work. In fact, let me just make a note that it was even Juran who said this, that having these kind of disjointed objectives can lead to a lot of problems. He said, of course, you can't be devoid. And that's why I think Deming has been very clear in chapter one of The New Economics where he says there are some things called as facts, right? Facts of life. So giving an arbitrary target is not a fact of life. He says here how he needs to improve that. So setting numerical goals, arbitrary numerical goals, I would say, right? Work on a method for improvement of a process. By what method? I think even Brian Joiner says that when you set this arbitrary goal. And now he goes on to explain that even further where setting a goal beyond the means of the process, they either distort the systems, distort the data, or distort both. Then management by results.   0:38:56.7 Balaji Reddie: Okay. Take immediate action on any fault, defect, complaint, action on the last data point. I think this again brings to the fore the understanding of variation where you need to look and ask questions and where you say, "Okay, I know this normally happens." So understand and improve the processes that produce that. Understand the distinction between common causes and special causes and understand the kind of action to take. So common causes, most of the time you need management to take action. There's a change in system. Yeah, there are some times when it is when a person close to the process can take that decision. Likewise, a special cause can be taken care of by the person closest to the process, but sometimes you need management action too. So that will always be the case, but it's rare, right? And so he talks about Sears, Roebuck, et cetera, and working on improvement of the process. The other one was buying materials and services at the lowest bid, right? Which he goes back to his Point number four, where he says here that it does not take brains to work with the cheapest. It takes brains to choose the best. Right?   0:40:23.4 Balaji Reddie: And estimating the total cost of materials and services, purchase price. Don't go by purchase price alone. And if I know right, Andrew, this was a point he was working on till the end of his life. You see the lady who was actually looking into the publication, the second edition of The New Economics, Elizabeth DiLorenzo. I was in touch with her because in my early days of my introduction to the Deming world, because I was quoting a lot from Out of the Crisis and The New Economics, and she was working for MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study that used to originally publish his books. And she told me a very funny tale of how she was expecting her twins and at the same time she had to release this book. So the joke at MIT was, "What's gonna come out first, the twins or the book?" And since Deming was no more, she had to release that very quickly. So March '94 is when she released the book, and she said her twins were born some weeks later. So they are as old as this book. Now, she was telling me that till the end, the one aspect of what he was working on was, if you see the notes in the appendix and purchase of supplies and service. So continuing purchase of supplies and services, World 1, World 2, World 3 and World 4. He made this so clear. I think nobody has made it clearer. Okay, World 3, sorry, there's no World 4. So he talks about this and he talks about how practical you need to be about this, right?   0:42:18.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, and I underlined something in there from a long time ago that said, "Sudden jump to a single supplier is inadvisable."   0:42:28.8 Balaji Reddie: Right. He says there's a method of doing that.   0:42:32.5 Andrew Stotz: Yep.   0:42:33.2 Balaji Reddie: And I teach that method, by the way, where you start with the product, then go on to the process, and then go on to the system. And that takes time. You just can't get up one fine morning and say, "You're my sole supplier." It doesn't happen that way. It takes a lot of effort and a lot of doing, right? The next faulty practice is delegate quality to someone else or some group. And this is, I remember my interaction with Dr. Juran on this, right? I had just received my certificate for ISO 9000, I became a lead assessor, and I quite liked the new standard that had come out at that time in the year 2000 because it had a lot of Deming flavor to it. Plan-Do-Study-Act had come in and things like that. I was quite happy, the definitions and this. I said, "It's better than what it was." It's not, they had a long way to go, no doubt about it, but I said at least they've broken away from the defense mode where they copied the whole document from, right? And when he asked me the question that, "What's the status of quality in India?" and I said, "Well, earlier on it was a lot of standards-oriented and ISO 9000 played a huge role in that," and he just raised his hand as to tell me to stop and he said, "I am very disappointed with the ISO." And then he made this statement, "The ISO 9000 is a standard for mediocrity splendidly marketed by the ISO." And I just stared at him. I said, "What?" because I had just received my certificate, so obviously I was very touchy about it. And I said, "Dr. Juran, a little harsh." He said, "I've just begun."   0:44:26.4 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And the problem is, is there's a lot of money to be made from it and it's an ingrained system.   0:44:30.5 Balaji Reddie: Yeah. So I just asked him, why would you say that? They made a lot of changes. He said, "Yes, but two things are missing." And one of them, he said, is something about leadership. Go back and read it. And then I went and read the standard again, and I realized what he was trying to say here. There was a lot of work that they were delegating to a person called the management representative, and he says, "Sorry, you can't delegate this to someone else. It begins at the top." Ed Deming also said that. He said, "It begins at the top. Only they can do this."   0:45:10.5 Andrew Stotz: I have a little story on that.   0:45:13.5 Balaji Reddie: Sure, sure, sure.   0:45:14.8 Andrew Stotz: In my coffee business, maybe 15 or 20 years ago, we got a big, big customer, and overall, they were a very good customer. But they picked us over all of our competitors. And then they told us, "Okay, in a month we're gonna come and inspect your factory, and if you get below 80%, then you're not gonna be our supplier." And so we said, "Well, I study with Deming, and I know quality, and we've never had a problem with quality ever." And my business partner, Dale, is very focused on the principles of quality. So they came, we were quite proud, and then by the end of the day, they had 600 questions they went through. And by the end of the day, we were like, "Yeah, what's our score?" And they said, "65. You're fired." They said, "You have 10 weeks or five weeks to fix these top 10 things." And then at that moment, we had a revelation, which is, oh, to them, paper is quality. And what I've always said, what I learned from that, was that it wasn't a big deal. We did the paperwork that they asked for, and then we got the job. And they were a customer for 16 years and a very good customer. But what we learned, one of the things I say, is that we had the heart of quality. They asked us for the paperwork that they thought represented quality. That's not such a big deal. But could you imagine having been trained that paperwork is quality, and then you have to try to develop the heart of quality? Very difficult.   0:47:01.9 Balaji Reddie: Very difficult. And now I come to this picture that he's drawn on page 37 of The New Economics, the old edition. I think the new one, let me just see what that is. Okay, that's on page 27. So he says here that unique processes that produce figures, all these principles have been applied to just 3%. Now, I have my own version of this particular picture that he's put here. Imagine an X and a Y axis, all right? And on the X axis, you can put down measures that are known. Close to the origin, you can write "known", and then as it goes away from that, "unknown", right? And then you have on the Y axis "measurable", and as you go up, "unmeasurable". So because he said that most of the things are unknown and unknowable, and among the known, you have only some fraction of those which are measurable. So the 3% deal with those factors or those parameters which are known and measurable. There are many parameters, he says 97%, which are unknown and unmeasurable, but you still need to manage them.   0:48:26.5 Balaji Reddie: And that's where he gives us a lot of advice that comes after this. Okay, when after this diagram, beautiful paragraphs in his book. "Beware of common sense," he says. And of course, he gives the example of Gallery Furniture, salary instead of commissions. Also goals, aims, hopes, facts of life, futility of a numerical goal. And a picture may help, where he talks about the goal being beyond the capability of a system. And will the goal be achieved? And he says redefinition of terms and distortion, et cetera. Gives a lot of examples there. And then he goes on to give even more examples. Okay, if you say merit pay, et cetera. Need to manage by results, wrong. And the last bit, the note where he says America 2000 was originally put together in December 1989 at the educational summit between the President and the governors of the 50 states. These goals were published in February 1990 by the White House, later incorporated into America 2000. This job may be an example of an enlargement of a committee. We shall learn in chapter four, he says, that the enlargement of a committee is not a way to acquire profound knowledge. How could they know?   0:49:57.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, and so what's happened to education since then in America?   0:50:00.6 Balaji Reddie: Oh, no comments. And we in India are almost going the same way. Of course, in some cases they've gone back to the roots saying that, no, we need to get back to our original way of educating people, right? We had this thing of exposing a child to all the different kinds of subjects, right? Like you have history, geography, languages, mathematics, science, just about everything. But the idea was to very quickly identify which child is resonating with what, because we need these different kind of people to work together. Some people are good at memorizing, some people are good at analyzing, some people are good at imagination. And so you throw all this out and then you cast the net and then you say the job of the teacher is to identify, okay, you're good at this, you're good at this. The problem is when you start saying if you're good at this, you are intelligent, and if you're not good at this, you're not. There are different kinds of intelligence. I would say the problem is more with the teachers and not with the system.   0:51:16.5 Andrew Stotz: We should wrap up at this point.   0:51:18.9 Balaji Reddie: Absolutely.   0:51:19.6 Andrew Stotz: How would you summarize what you want people to take away from this discussion?   0:51:24.0 Balaji Reddie: Sure. Go back and read chapter two in The New Economics. Dr. Deming has very clearly shown us why we need to do what we need to do. You're gonna be seeing things differently. As he used to say towards the end of his life, "I'm not here to teach you anything new. I'm here to make you see things that you normally would not see." And now he's just shown us what we thought was normal in the working of a company is actually detrimental to the running of a company over the long term. So my advice is go back, read this. You could watch some of the videos of the Deming Institute, especially on the 14 Points. We will be covering the 14 points later, but I would say that this is a real elaboration of his Diseases and he's given us what needs to be done. Not just pointing out what was wrong, but he tells us what needs to be done. That's why the heavy losses form an integral part of the preamble to actually what is the next step that you're taking your foot off the brake, so to say, trying to identify things that are pulling your company back.   0:52:37.8 Andrew Stotz: Well, Balaji, I want to thank you for this discussion. And recently I have been reading chapter two and I saw a lot of new stuff. It's funny how you just keep rereading. And then today you've just made me realize I gotta go back and read that chapter two because he does really the way he did the tables. I kind of forgot all about that. When I went back to it about three or four weeks ago, I was like, oh, this is really great. I kind of forgot about it. And now as you go through it, it's the tables was what I was focused on, but now I'm also seeing the text in between that you're highlighting that's valuable. So for everyone out there, grab your book, go to New Economics, go to chapter two. It's just gold. It's gold.   0:53:30.7 Balaji Reddie: It's gold.   0:53:31.0 Andrew Stotz: So, and for listeners out there, remember to go to deming.org and jump into DemingNEXT to continue your journey.   0:53:37.7 Balaji Reddie: Absolutely. Absolutely.   0:53:39.9 Andrew Stotz: Yep. And this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and that is, "People are entitled to joy in work."   0:53:52.2 Balaji Reddie: Absolutely.

Warehouse automation is often evaluated through an operational lens in terms of productivity gains, labor efficiency, and accuracy improvements. Yet the environmental impact of technologies like drone-based inventory systems remains poorly understood. In this episode, we explore how a capstone project conducted with Verity, a warehouse automation company, and graduate students in the MIT Supply Chain Management (SCM) program quantified the real sustainability benefits of replacing manual forklift-based inventory counting with drones. Joining the discussion are Tommaso Portaluri, Sustainability Lead at Verity; Camilo Mora, Postdoctoral Associate at the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics (CTL); and Elisa Ruiz, an MIT SCM alum who worked on the project. Together, they reveal a surprising finding: inventory write-offs and waste reduction account for nearly 40% of post-implementation emissions savings, far outweighing energy savings alone. Through their analysis, they demonstrate how information quality and operational efficiency are intertwined levers for decarbonization, and why inventory management deserves a place at the center of warehouse sustainability strategies. You can read the full findings of the capstone project here and learn more about MIT SCM capstone projects here.

In this Humanitarian AI Today Voices flashpod, Eric Talbert, Co-founder of MedCycle Network guest hosts an interview with Jarrod Goentzel, founder and director of the MIT Humanitarian Supply Chain Lab in the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics. This interview dives into the evolution and modern practices of the MIT Humanitarian Supply Chain Lab for humanitarian professionals looking to optimize crisis response through system-level thinking and technology. The discussion traces the lab's journey from its origins during the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami to its needs-assessment work and market-resilience studies to it's general shift away from reactive, event-specific planning toward building structural, "system-level" understandings of supply chains and how organizations can better anticipate bottlenecks and coordinate with the private sector. For humanitarian professionals, the interview offers a grounded, pragmatic perspective on integrating artificial intelligence into crisis response. Goentzel explicitly addresses the limitations of relying solely on automated systems, noting that AI inherently struggles with data gaps, as it is bounded by what is publicly available and cannot easily synthesize entirely unique disaster contexts on its own. To overcome this, the MIT Humanitarian Supply Chain Lab utilizes AI as an initial data-gathering and pattern-matching catalyst, which is then verified through a human-in-the-loop framework. The lab deploys a network of real-time ground-truthers who are trusted professionals embedded within the supply chain who validate the AI's outputs. This hybrid model ensures that automated data collection never compromises the absolute operational integrity required when delivering life-saving aid to vulnerable populations. The interview touches upon "polycentric governance," which is the concept of humans organically cooperating to manage common resources during crises. The lab models supply chains as complex adaptive systems and conducts "Blue Sky Studies”which are highly detailed structural mapping done when there is no active emergency to locate vulnerabilities before disaster strikes. A prime example of this is the lab's SCAN (Supply Chain Analysis Network) mapping, which evaluated infrastructural bottlenecks in transportation and fuel pipelines. Looking toward the future of humanitarian tech, the conversation highlights cutting-edge applications of predictive modeling and advanced AI training. For AI developers, Goentzel offer's a futuristic vision for disaster AI: rather than letting a machine application start from scratch during an active crisis, the lab is actively researching ways to pre-embed AI with complex supply chain network science and system dynamics. By providing the machine with a sophisticated baseline of structural interdependencies beforehand, the AI can immediately interpret real-time news and data influxes with extreme speed. This effectively frees up human humanitarian leaders to step away from the information onslaught and focus entirely on creating the rapid physical and collaborative connections needed to save lives. The MIT Humanitarian Supply Chain Lab offers resources and educational platforms to connect researchers, technology experts, and ground-level aid workers. Goentzel invites listeners to join the lab's humanitarian supply chain community and take advantage of free online course developed by the lab, like the lab's free Humanitarian Logistics course through MITx: https://www.edx.org/learn/business-administration/massachusetts-institute-of-technology-humanitarian-logistics An article on the Lab's supply chain resilience work can be found here: https://ctl.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/scmr-innovation-strategies-september-2025.pdf To learn more about Eric Talbert's work and the MedCycle Network, check out his interview on the Grow Healthy, Help People Podcast: https://youtu.be/w495cOVVajw?si=EMZLr-zZXAWM93Oq

Peggy Smedley and Bryan Reimer, research scientist, MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, talk about some of the tough AI (artificial intelligence) questions: Who pays for its impact? How will we tax it? Who is liable when it fails? Who gets hit hardest in the workforce? What happens when innovation outruns governance? How do we make AI really useful? He says we forget that AI today may be as much of a transformation in society as electricity was many years ago. They also discuss: · What public officials need to be debating—and if taxes need to shift. · What obligations AI developers must ensure against systemic failure or success. · How AI is changing the workforce and how workers can prepare for it. https://ctl.mit.edu

Peggy Smedley and Bryan Reimer, research scientist, MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, talk about some of the tough AI (artificial intelligence) questions: Who pays for its impact? How will we tax it? Who is liable when it fails? Who gets hit hardest in the workforce? What happens when innovation outruns governance? How do we make AI really useful? He says we forget that AI today may be as much of a transformation in society as electricity was many years ago. They also discuss: · What public officials need to be debating—and if taxes need to shift. · What obligations AI developers must ensure against systemic failure or success. · How AI is changing the workforce and how workers can prepare for it. https://ctl.mit.edu

Singapore has long been one of Washington’s closest and most pragmatic partners in the region. But new findings from the State of South-east Asia 2026 Survey suggest that sentiment may be shifting. From trade policy to geopolitical leadership, Singaporean stakeholders are expressing growing unease about the reliability and predictability of the United States even as its strategic importance remains unchanged. Joanne Lin, Senior Fellow and Coordinator, ASEAN Studies Centre, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. Visiting Scholar at the MIT Center for International Studies, joins the Breakfast Show to unpack what’s driving this shift in perception.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Freightvine Podcast, host Chris Caplice sits down with Dr. Matthias Winkenbach, Director of Research at the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics, to explore how the “last mile” problem is evolving under modern logistics pressures. Winkenbach explains how rising customer expectations for speed and consistency are stretching traditional optimization models and how machine learning and generative AI are now being used alongside operations research to enable faster, more dynamic delivery decisions. The discussion also covers his shift in research focus from urban megacity logistics to warehouse and facility-level systems, highlighting the growing need to connect internal operations with broader supply chain networks. Finally, they examine how AI-driven scenario modeling is helping companies design more resilient supply chains and better prepare for future disruptions. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What makes Lyme disease resolve quickly in some people but turn into a life-altering chronic illness in others? In this episode, world-leading immunologist Dr. Michal “Mikki” Tal, Principal Scientist at MIT, explains what her team is discovering through the MAESTRO Study — the largest clinical research project in MIT's history and the first of its kind to include real Lyme patients in a multi-system biological analysis. Dr. Tal's work sits at the intersection of immunology, bioengineering, and women's health, uncovering how infections like Lyme and COVID can cause persistent inflammation, immune miscommunication, and hormonal imbalance. Through MAESTRO, she's mapping how recovery breaks down — and what can be done to predict, prevent, and ultimately reverse chronic illness.

Dr. Andrew Friedman is an Assistant Research Scientist at the Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). He is also a Research Affiliate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). As an astrophysicist and cosmologist, Andy is studying the history of the universe from the Big Bang through present day. Andy and his colleagues use the universe as a laboratory to learn more about how things work. Specifically, Andy uses observations of astronomical objects in other galaxies to learn about fundamental physics and quantum mechanics. When he's not at work, you can find Andy hanging out with his wife and dog, or enjoying good food and good conversation with friends and family. Andy received his bachelor's degree in physics and astrophysics from the University of California, Berkeley and his master's and PhD degrees in Astronomy and Astrophysics from Harvard University. Afterwards, Andy worked as a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow at MIT, a National Science Foundation funded Research Associate at MIT, and a Visiting Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics. He joined the Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences at UCSD in 2017. In our interview, Andy tells us more about his life and science.

In "Inside the DAT - Convoy Platform Deal: What This Acquisiton Means for the Freight Market", Joe Lynch and Bill Driegert, EVP of Convoy Platform - DAT Freight & Analytics, discuss how the integration of the Convoy Platform's automation and AI technology with DAT's massive freight marketplace will help brokers combat fraud, increase efficiency, and focus on high-value work. About Bill Driegert Bill Driegert is the EVP of Convoy Platform at DAT Freight & Analytics. He was previously the EVP of Trucking at Flexport and the co-founder and Head of Operations at Uber Freight, Uber's logistics business. Bill began his career in freight as the fourth employee at Coyote Logistics (acquired by UPS), where he grew the role to Chief Innovation Officer. Prior to joining Uber, he served as COO at Pillow Homes. He also spent time at Amazon as Director of Planning and Innovation. Bill holds an M.A. in Supply Chain from MIT, an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago, and a B.A. from Southern Methodist University. About DAT Freight & Analytics DAT Freight & Analytics operates the DAT One truckload freight marketplace; Convoy Platform, an automated freight-matching technology; DAT iQ analytics service; Trucker Tools load-visibility platform; and Outgo factoring and financial services for truckers. Shippers, transportation brokers, carriers, news organizations, and industry analysts rely on DAT for market trends and data insights, informed by nearly 700,000 daily load posts and a database exceeding $1 trillion in freight market transactions. Founded in 1978, DAT is a business unit of Roper Technologies (Nasdaq: ROP), a constituent of the Nasdaq 100, S&P 500, and Fortune 1000. Headquartered in Beaverton, Oregon, DAT continues to set the standard for innovation in the trucking and logistics industry. Visit dat.com for more information. Key Takeaways: Inside the DAT - Convoy Platform Deal: What This Acquisiton Means for the Freight Market In "Inside the DAT - Convoy Platform Deal: What This Acquisiton Means for the Freight Market", Joe Lynch and Bill Driegert, EVP of Convoy Platform - DAT Freight & Analytics, discuss how the integration of the Convoy Platform's automation and AI technology with DAT's massive freight marketplace will help brokers combat fraud, increase efficiency, and focus on high-value work. Solving Major Brokerage Challenges: The acquisition of the Convoy Platform is a strategic move by DAT to help freight brokers tackle significant industry challenges like fraud, the need for increased automation, and the integration of AI. Automation for Efficiency: By integrating the Convoy Platform, DAT aims to automate routine tasks, which will allow brokers to dedicate more time to complex, high-value work, such as building relationships with clients and carriers. Enhanced Fraud Prevention: The deal combines the Convoy Platform's advanced, machine-learning-powered fraud prevention technology with DAT's extensive network and data. This fusion is intended to create a safer and more secure environment for freight transactions. Augmenting the DAT One Platform: The Convoy technology will be incorporated into DAT's flagship product, DAT One. This integration will offer brokers and carriers new automated capabilities while ensuring that the core, familiar functions of the load board remain unchanged. Leveraging Bill Driegert's Expertise: Bill Driegert's background, including his leadership roles at Uber Freight and Coyote Logistics, is a crucial asset for DAT. His experience as a technologist and innovator in the freight industry is key to the successful integration and future development of the Convoy Platform. The Practical Role of AI: The interview clarifies that AI is not just a buzzword but a practical tool for improving freight operations. The technology will be used to enhance decision-making, optimize processes, and increase overall efficiency for the brokers DAT serves. Building a Comprehensive Ecosystem: The Convoy acquisition is part of a larger plan to unify DAT's recent acquisitions, including Trucker Tools and Outgo. The goal is to create a complete, integrated ecosystem that provides solutions for everything from freight matching and payment processing to carrier tracking and automation. Learn More About Inside the DAT - Convoy Platform Deal: What This Acquisiton Means for the Freight Market Bill Driegert | Linkedin DAT Freight & Analytics | Linkedin DAT DAT - Convoy Platform Convoy Platform - DAT DAT + The Convoy Platform: A new chapter in our marketplace evolution Infographic: Modernize your brokerage MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics with Chris Caplice Navigating Market Uncertainty with Sarah Bertram A Trillion Dollars in Freight Transactions with Ken Adamo DAT iQ: The Metrics that Matter with Samuel Parker Taking the Uncertainty and Risk Out of Freight with Erika Voss The Logistics of Logistics Podcast If you enjoy the podcast, please leave a positive review, subscribe, and share it with your friends and colleagues. The Logistics of Logistics Podcast: Google, Apple, Castbox, Spotify, Stitcher, PlayerFM, Tunein, Podbean, Owltail, Libsyn, Overcast Check out The Logistics of Logistics on Youtube

Bryan Reimer, Ph.D., is a Research Scientist in the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics and co-author of the book "How to Make AI Useful: Moving Beyond the Hype to Real Progress in Business, Society and Life." Bryan discusses AI's current trajectory, its impact on transportation, jobs, creativity, and other areas of life. He discusses how to harness AI as a useful tool to fully realise AI's potential in a safe manner.

Automotive manufacturing leaders have no shortage of data, but only those who turn it into action are winning, and AI is the accelerator.In this milestone episode, Jan Griffiths is joined by Sanjay Brahmawar, CEO of QAD, and Dr. Bryan Reimer, MIT Research Scientist and author of How to Make AI Useful, for a grounded conversation about how AI is creating real advantage in automotive manufacturing.The challenge facing automotive manufacturing leaders is not visibility. Leaders know where problems exist. The issue is that action often stalls between insight and execution. Dashboards explain what happened. They do not decide what happens next.Sanjay and Bryan draw a clear distinction between systems of record and systems of action. Systems of record observe. Systems of action decide, execute, and learn. Agentic AI belongs in the second category. It creates value when it removes friction from work, accelerates routine decisions, and gives people better context at the moment action is required.Frontline teams in automotive manufacturing do not resist AI. They adopt it when it respects their expertise and helps them do their jobs better. Adoption follows usefulness, not mandates. When AI amplifies human judgment instead of supervising it, execution speed improves and results follow.This episode challenges automotive manufacturing leaders to stop treating AI as a reporting layer and start using it as an execution engine. The organizations pulling ahead are not waiting for perfect conditions. They are starting small, learning fast, and letting action build confidence.Themes Discussed in this episode:Why data visibility alone does not drive performance in automotive manufacturingSystems of record vs systems of actionHow AI removes friction from automotive manufacturing operationsFrontline-first AI adoption in plantsAgentic AI as an execution multiplierLeadership ownership of decisionsBuilding momentum with 60 to 90-day winsFeatured Guests: Name: Sanjay BrahmawarTitle: CEO of QAD About: Sanjay Brahmawar is the CEO of QAD, a cloud software company delivering cloud-based solutions for manufacturers and global supply chains. With more than two decades of experience leading global technology businesses, he brings deep expertise in digital transformation, AI, IoT, and data-driven platforms, built through senior leadership roles at IBM and Software AG.Connect: LinkedInName: Dr. Bryan ReimerAbout: Dr. Bryan Reimer is a Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics and a key member of the MIT AgeLab. He is also the author of How to Make AI Useful: Moving beyond the hype to real progress in business, society and life. His work focuses on how...

In this episode of The Brand Called You, MIT researcher Nils Fonstad unpacks digital innovation as a disciplined, impact-focused process. From end-user centricity to improvisation, modularity, and learning at scale, the conversation reveals how organizations can innovate without wasting resources—and turn digital from hype into measurable value.00:35- About Nils FonstadNils was educated at Cornell and MIT Sloan and earned his PhD from MIT.He has held senior research roles at INSEAD/eLab in Paris and MIT, publishing widely, including in Harvard Business Review.He co-founded the European CIO of the Year Awards with CIO Net and is currently based in Madrid.

Register NOW for the UHY 2026 Annual Automotive Supplier Outlook - click hereSometimes a conversation hits so deeply that it demands a part two , and that's exactly what happened after our episode with MIT's Dr. Bryan Reimer. The response was immediate, and the very first message came from CADIA CEO Cheryl Thompson, who had been quietly diving deep into AI for months. Her reaction captured what so many leaders are feeling right now: excitement, overwhelm, fear, and possibility all at once.This episode brings Cheryl and Bryan together to talk about what AI is really doing inside companies — not the hype, but the human impact. The emotional truth? AI is forcing us to look hard at our culture, our trust levels, and our willingness to unlearn the habits that hold us back. That's where transformation starts.Cheryl shares how AI has changed the way she works, creates, leads, and even manages her daily life. But she's honest about the trap many leaders fall into: using AI to produce more… instead of stepping back to breathe, think, and lead. Bryan brings the research lens, grounding the conversation in what AI can do, what it can't, and how leaders must shift from delegation to collaboration if they want AI to be truly useful.Together they unpack psychological safety, generational differences, the rise of agentic AI, and the cultural tension AI exposes inside legacy automotive. And they remind us that AI will not replace leaders — but leaders who use AI well will absolutely outpace those who don't.This isn't a conversation about technology. It's a conversation about courage, trust, and the future of leadership in an industry that desperately needs to move faster while staying true to its values.Themes Discussed in This EpisodeHow trust and culture determine whether AI succeeds or stallsWhy leaders must collaborate with AI instead of delegating blindlyWhat the Wow, Whoa, Grow framework reveals about human behaviorHow generational differences shape AI adoption and comfort levelsWhy AI in automotive demands unlearning old processes, not just adding toolsThe risk of locking down AI too tightly — and the risk of letting it run wildHow small businesses and startups are using AI to outrun traditional OEMsWatch the Full Video on YouTube - click hereThis episode is sponsored by Lockton, click here to learn more Featured GuestsCheryl Thompson, CEO, CADIACheryl leads the CADIA: Culture Evolved, where she equips organizations to build equitable, high-performing cultures. A former manufacturing engineering leader in the automotive industry, Cheryl is known for her human-centered approach to leadership, her commitment to psychological safety, and her skillful integration of AI into learning and development. She helps teams work smarter, remove friction, and accelerate change by pairing technology with deep emotional awareness.Dr. Bryan Reimer, Research Scientist, MITDr. Bryan Reimer is a Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics and a founding member of the MIT AgeLab. His work examines how humans and automation interact in real-world conditions, including driving, attention, decision-making, and safety. He leads three major academic–industry consortia focused on

Rising geopolitical tensions and global trade volatility has revealed a key power struggle: supply chains are a matter of national security. This year's annual report from the congressional U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission warns that China has begun weaponizing key supply chain chokepoints, from critical minerals to foundational semiconductors, creating risks that reach far beyond trade. In this episode, we're joined by Livia Shmavonian and Josh Hodges, two commissioners of the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission, along with Professor Yossi Sheffi, Director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics. They discuss key findings from this year's report: why companies have been slow to recognize the strategic nature of their dependence on China, how subsidies and overcapacity distort global competition, and why innovation remains the United States' greatest advantage. From U.S. manufacturing limitations to market access in China, the conversation explores what's at stake, what must change, and how companies and policymakers can prepare for a future where supply chain strategy is inseparable from national security. You can read the full report here. 

On this episode of LID Radio Podcast, authors of How to Make AI Useful: Moving Beyond the Hype to Real Progress in Business, Society and Life. About Bryan Reimer & Magnus Lindkvist Bryan Reimer, PhD, is a Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics (MIT CTL) and a global expert on the intersection of AI, technology, human behaviour, mobility and public policy.  Magnus Lindkvist is a Swedish futurologist and trendspotter known for blending insights from business, science and the arts to challenge how we think about the future. HE's A sought-after global speaker and author of multiple books,.    About How to Make AI Useful In How to Make AI Useful, the authors show how to harness AI's potential, from automating the tedious to amplifying creativity, for real progress, long after today's bubble bursts.

Endometriosis is a painful disease that occurs when endometrium-like tissue grows outside of the uterus. It's extremely common—if you have a uterus, you have a 1 in 10 chance of getting it. Yet, it takes seven years on average to receive a formal diagnosis. What does the latest science tell us about the biology of the condition and how to treat it? And why do so many people have such a difficult time getting diagnosed? Host Flora Lichtman is joined by endometriosis researcher and patient Linda Griffith to answer those questions and more. Guest: Dr. Linda Griffith is a biological engineer and Scientific Director of The MIT Center for Gynepathology Research.Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

One of the things Ben Davis likes about contemporary art is that he is always learning new things, because art spaces are always bringing new ways of making and thinking into the mix. Recently, unexpectedly, this has included magic. Specifically, Jeanette Andrews. Andrews began her career as a professional magician, but now works mainly in museums, creating a body of work that's something new, exploring magic as an expressive medium. Her works usually bring together the science of perception, the intrigue of coded messages, and the history of illusion as a craft. Andrews has performed parlor tricks dreamed up by an algorithm to investigate human versus machine creativity; re-performed the earliest documented magic trick from 1584; and made art inspired by the use of sleight of hand in actual CIA espionage in the 1950s. And her explorations of this unusual creative space are actually getting their first dedicated museum exhibition soon, at the Elmhurst Art Museum in Illinois—that's a little bit of news we're breaking on the Art Angle, as a matter of fact. Earlier this month, Ben went to see one of Jeanette Andrews's most recent commissions in Boston, "The Attestation," at the MIT Center for Art, Science, and Technology. He describes it as a hybrid of stage magic and social experiment. The questions of why, if, and how magic fits in in the museum seem fascinating to me, so he was happy that Andrews agreed to talk about how she pulled off her biggest trick of all: making magic art.

In this special Tick Boot Camp Podcast episode recorded live at Project Lab Coat during New York Fashion Week (NYFW), we sit down with Dr. Michal “Mikki” Caspi Tal, Principal Scientist in the Department of Biological Engineering at MIT and Associate Scientific Director of the MIT Center for Gynepathology Research. Dr. Tal is an immunologist and immunoengineer whose groundbreaking research focuses on the connections between infections and chronic diseases, including Lyme disease and long COVID. At her Tal Research Group lab, she studies why some people recover quickly after infection while others develop chronic illness, with a focus on the immune system's different responses in men and women. What You'll Learn in This Episode How Dr. Tal's lab uses mouse models of chronic Lyme and a large clinical study to take a deeper look at Lyme disease. Why some patients make a protective immune response while others develop catastrophic responses like dysautonomia, MCAS, gynecological issues, or clotting disorders. How her team is moving beyond “yes/no” antibody tests to create new biomarker diagnostics that can guide treatments. Why sex differences matter in chronic illness and why women are more likely to experience long-term symptoms after infection. How her research could lead to more personalized treatment approaches for Lyme disease patients by grouping individuals based on immune response patterns. What samples (blood, saliva, sweat, tissue) her team is collecting at MIT to uncover new insights into chronic Lyme disease. Why this research brings hope to Lyme patients who feel unseen and unheard. About Dr. Michal Caspi Tal Principal Scientist, MIT Department of Biological Engineering Associate Scientific Director, MIT Center for Gynepathology Research Focus areas: Lyme disease, long COVID, chronic inflammatory diseases, sex differences in immune response, predictive diagnostics Background: PhD in Immunobiology from Yale (mentored by Dr. Akiko Iwasaki), postdoctoral training at Stanford (Irving Weissman lab), infectious disease research leader at Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. Awards: NIH NIAID F31 and F32 Fellowships, Bay Area Lyme Foundation Emerging Leader Award About Project Lab Coat at New York Fashion Week Project Lab Coat was a groundbreaking event held on September 13, 2025, during New York Fashion Week (NYFW). The show brought together prominent celebrities, researchers, doctors, and advocates who were invited to walk the runway to spotlight Lyme disease and raise funds for Lyme disease research. For the first time, the global visibility of NYFW was used to highlight one of the fastest-growing infectious diseases in the world. Tick Boot Camp co-founders Matt Sabatello and Rich Johannesen, together with Dr. Tal, walked the runway at Project Lab Coat, joining leaders from medicine, science, entertainment, and advocacy. Project Lab Coat demonstrated the power of mainstream platforms to bring awareness, credibility, and resources to the fight against Lyme disease. Why This Episode Matters For too long, chronic Lyme patients have been told their symptoms are “all in their head.” Dr. Tal's work at MIT proves otherwise by measuring the real biological differences in immune system responses. This research not only validates patients' experiences but also charts a course toward better diagnostics, clinical trials, and personalized treatments.

Emerging markets play an essential role in global supply chains, providing much of the food, raw materials, and labor that keep the world running. But they also face unique challenges: fragmented systems, limited infrastructure, and volatile economies. At the same time, these regions hold immense potential for innovation, resilience, and growth if their logistics systems can adapt to meet rising pressures from climate change, geopolitical shocks, and shifting consumer demands. In this episode, we're joined by Dr. Chris Mejía, Founder and Director of the MIT Emerging Market Economies Logistics Lab (EMeL), along with Research Affiliates Dr. Edgar Gutierrez and Isabel Agudelo. They discuss the launch of this new lab at the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, its mission to strengthen supply chains across the Global South, and the human decisions that ultimately shape logistics outcomes. From the fate of mangoes in Ghana to cobalt in the Congo, the conversation reveals why emerging markets matter to everyone—and how building trust may be the biggest logistics challenge of all.

Mikki Tal, PhD, is a Principal Scientist at MIT's Department of Biological Engineering and Associate Scientific Director of the MIT Center for Gynepathology Research. She leads the Tal Research Group, focusing on host-pathogen interactions, immune responses to infections like Lyme disease, and the mechanisms behind chronic illnesses, particularly their disproportionate impact on women. She earned her PhD in Immunobiology from Yale University and conducted postdoctoral research at Stanford University's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. Tal was the recipient of our 2018 Bay Area Lyme Foundation Emerging Leader Award.

In “Inside the DAT - Convoy Platform Deal: What This Acquisiton Means for the Freight Market”, Joe Lynch and Bill Driegert, EVP of Convoy Platform - DAT Freight & Analytics, discuss how the integration of the Convoy Platform's automation and AI technology with DAT's massive freight marketplace will help brokers combat fraud, increase efficiency, and focus on high-value work. About Bill Driegert Bill Driegert is the EVP of Convoy Platform at DAT Freight & Analytics. He was previously the EVP of Trucking at Flexport and the co-founder and Head of Operations at Uber Freight, Uber's logistics business. Bill began his career in freight as the fourth employee at Coyote Logistics (acquired by UPS), where he grew the role to Chief Innovation Officer. Prior to joining Uber, he served as COO at Pillow Homes. He also spent time at Amazon as Director of Planning and Innovation. Bill holds an M.A. in Supply Chain from MIT, an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago, and a B.A. from Southern Methodist University. About DAT Freight & Analytics DAT Freight & Analytics operates the DAT One truckload freight marketplace; Convoy Platform, an automated freight-matching technology; DAT iQ analytics service; Trucker Tools load-visibility platform; and Outgo factoring and financial services for truckers. Shippers, transportation brokers, carriers, news organizations, and industry analysts rely on DAT for market trends and data insights, informed by nearly 700,000 daily load posts and a database exceeding $1 trillion in freight market transactions. Founded in 1978, DAT is a business unit of Roper Technologies (Nasdaq: ROP), a constituent of the Nasdaq 100, S&P 500, and Fortune 1000. Headquartered in Beaverton, Oregon, DAT continues to set the standard for innovation in the trucking and logistics industry. Visit dat.com for more information. Key Takeaways: Inside the DAT - Convoy Platform Deal: What This Acquisiton Means for the Freight Market In “Inside the DAT - Convoy Platform Deal: What This Acquisiton Means for the Freight Market”, Joe Lynch and Bill Driegert, EVP of Convoy Platform - DAT Freight & Analytics, discuss how the integration of the Convoy Platform's automation and AI technology with DAT's massive freight marketplace will help brokers combat fraud, increase efficiency, and focus on high-value work. Solving Major Brokerage Challenges: The acquisition of the Convoy Platform is a strategic move by DAT to help freight brokers tackle significant industry challenges like fraud, the need for increased automation, and the integration of AI. Automation for Efficiency: By integrating the Convoy Platform, DAT aims to automate routine tasks, which will allow brokers to dedicate more time to complex, high-value work, such as building relationships with clients and carriers. Enhanced Fraud Prevention: The deal combines the Convoy Platform's advanced, machine-learning-powered fraud prevention technology with DAT's extensive network and data. This fusion is intended to create a safer and more secure environment for freight transactions. Augmenting the DAT One Platform: The Convoy technology will be incorporated into DAT's flagship product, DAT One. This integration will offer brokers and carriers new automated capabilities while ensuring that the core, familiar functions of the load board remain unchanged. Leveraging Bill Driegert's Expertise: Bill Driegert's background, including his leadership roles at Uber Freight and Coyote Logistics, is a crucial asset for DAT. His experience as a technologist and innovator in the freight industry is key to the successful integration and future development of the Convoy Platform. The Practical Role of AI: The interview clarifies that AI is not just a buzzword but a practical tool for improving freight operations. The technology will be used to enhance decision-making, optimize processes, and increase overall efficiency for the brokers DAT serves. Building a Comprehensive Ecosystem: The Convoy acquisition is part of a larger plan to unify DAT's recent acquisitions, including Trucker Tools and Outgo. The goal is to create a complete, integrated ecosystem that provides solutions for everything from freight matching and payment processing to carrier tracking and automation. Learn More About Inside the DAT - Convoy Platform Deal: What This Acquisiton Means for the Freight Market Bill Driegert | Linkedin DAT Freight & Analytics | Linkedin DAT DAT - Convoy Platform Convoy Platform - DAT DAT + The Convoy Platform: A new chapter in our marketplace evolution Infographic: Modernize your brokerage MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics with Chris Caplice Navigating Market Uncertainty with Sarah Bertram A Trillion Dollars in Freight Transactions with Ken Adamo DAT iQ: The Metrics that Matter with Samuel Parker Taking the Uncertainty and Risk Out of Freight with Erika Voss The Logistics of Logistics Podcast If you enjoy the podcast, please leave a positive review, subscribe, and share it with your friends and colleagues. The Logistics of Logistics Podcast: Google, Apple, Castbox, Spotify, Stitcher, PlayerFM, Tunein, Podbean, Owltail, Libsyn, Overcast Check out The Logistics of Logistics on Youtube

For seemingly years now, getting your goods delivered by drone has been a reality that's always just around the corner. Yet the long-promised technology has been slow to take off in the United States. More than six years after the Federal Aviation Administration approved commercial home deliveries with drones, the service mostly has been confined to a few suburbs and rural areas. That could soon change. The FAA proposed a new rule last week that would make it easier for companies to fly drones outside of an operator’s line of sight and therefore over longer distances. A handful of companies do that now, but they had to obtain waivers and certification as an air carrier to deliver packages. Today on AirTalk, Larry speaks with Politico reporter Sam Ogozalek and principal research scientist and director of research of the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics Matthias Winkenbach about whether commercial drone usage is about to take off.

Dr Selene Silvestri, Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, discusses the environmental impact of e-commerce packaging. Measuring the cost of e-commerce packaging Growth in e-commerce and impact on packaging Benefits of recycling cardboard packaging E-commerce shifting the cardboard recycling burden from retailers to consumers Obstacles to higher recycling rates Current models to encourage recycling Regulations on reducing empty space in parcels Reducing the weight of packaging Reverse logistics framework to support recycling Efficiency and convenience of doorstep recycling collection Reusable packaging Consolidated recycling drop-off points  

The Voice Of GO(r)D podcast is very happy to bring you a discussion with former MIT Data Scientist Dr. David Correll, whose work within MIT FreightLab, a project of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, examines the mother of all problems in trucking, and the one that begets so many others, DETENTION.For non-truckers, detention is when trucks are held up for unreasonable amounts of time in the loading and unloading process at customer facilities. Some facility operators are notorious for this, and I have spent days trying to get certain things unloaded, and will share a particularly egregious example in the book I am writing on the fate of the North American Trucker in 2025. (see details below)Everyone remembers seeing footage of a hundred container ships waiting to be docked at the Port Of Long Beach/Los Angeles during Covid - imagine that this is what its like in many sectors of trucking, except it happens all the time, year in, year out, and has been this way since forever.Dr. Correll's research concludes, in his words, that America leaves “40% of its trucking capacity on the table every day” due to this pernicious and seemingly intractable problem, which is the proximate cause of -- Truck driver churn and retention issues- Speeding and aggressive driving behavior which pose a saftey hazard on our roads, and has resulted in the imposition of ELDs and other surveillance tech into the lives of truckers- Shippers being ghosted by carriers who find better facilities to work with- The wasting of millenia, yes, literally thousands of years worth of valuable human capital. Multiply all of the hours lost times millions of truckers times decades of this problem …. and its probably more than millenia.- An unnecessary drag on the resiliency of American supply chains.We had an interesting discussion that covers detention and then connects it to these other issues, and we also discuss possible solutions.You can read all about it at the following links -David's testimony to the Biden ‘Trucking Task Force' -https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114233/witnesses/HHRG-117-PW0Wstate-CorrellD-20211117.pdfDavid at Medium -https://medium.com/mitsupplychain/is-there-a-truck-driver-shortage-or-a-capacity-crisis-73a7d7a5bcbFrom MIT's own news site -https://news.mit.edu/2022/are-supply-chains-stuck-detention-0425Some FreightLabs research papers for your perusal -https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/130093https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/142935https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/126383You can find Dr. Correll onlinehttps://www.linkedin.com/in/davidhccorrell/https://x.com/DavidHCCorrellPlease enjoy this musical interlude - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7kwFSp7yh4&list=RDc7kwFSp7yh4&start_radio=1I have written extensively about one of the solutions to this problem, and that solution has been sitting in Congress for 3 years, waiting to be acted upon. Its amazing how a one line bill that doesn't include new taxes or giveaways to anyone seems to have so much trouble getting out of committee -https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-want-support-working-class-vote-andy-levins-trucker-bill-opinion-1715058https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-proposal-remove-taxes-overtime-almost-perfecthe-just-needs-include-truckers-opinion-1954663https://www.theamericanconservative.com/pay-truckers-for-their-work/Questions, comments, suggestions, corrections and Hate Mail are welcomed and encouraged, especially if you are being abused by lazy and disorganized cretins holding you up and wasting the only resource you can't make more of and is the most important thing we have in life - TIME.gordilocks@protonmail.comI'm almost done the rough manuscript of this detailed overview of what has become of the North American Trucker in 2025 -https://autonomoustruckers.substack.com/p/book-project-announcement-and-a-major

Self-driving cars have been heralded by many as the future of transportation—promising safer roads, reduced traffic, and greater mobility for all. Yet despite rapid advancements in technology and a surge in assistive driving features, acceptance of full vehicle automation remains elusive. As the public grapples with questions of trust, safety, and responsibility, the road to widespread adoption of automated vehicles is anything but straightforward. The stakes are high: how we navigate this transition could redefine the way we move for generations to come. So, how far are we from acceptance, adoption, and implementation?  In this episode, we're joined by the co-directors of the Advanced Vehicle Technology (AVT) Consortium, hosted within the MIT AgeLab at the MIT Center or Transportation & Logistics: Dr. Bryan Reimer, Dr. Pnina Gershon, and Dr. Bruce Mehler. They explore key insights from their recent research, the role of data in shaping safer and smarter mobility solutions, and how the consortium is addressing critical questions around driver behavior, automation readiness, and industry collaboration as they celebrate their 10th anniversary year.

Peggy Smedley and Josué Velázquez, research scientist and lecturer, MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, talk about sustainability in supply chains. He says sustainability is part of MIT's core mission, which focuses on solving the problems of humanity. They also discuss: What happens in the sustainable supply chain lab. How generative AI is impacting the supply-chain sustainability conversation. How companies can approach Scope 3 emissions. josue.mit.edu  (6/17/25 - 925) What You Might Have Missed:  Build Resilient Businesses Smarter Manufacturing with Gen AI AI as a Collaborator IoT, Internet of Things, Peggy Smedley, artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, digital transformation, cybersecurity, blockchain, 5G, cloud, sustainability, future of work, podcast, Josué Velázquez, MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics This episode is available on all major streaming platforms. If you enjoyed this segment, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts.

Sustainability has become an imperative for many companies—but in the face of regulatory rollbacks and budget cuts, are those goals here to stay? In this episode, we explore how companies can meaningfully pursue sustainability, even amid shifting political and economic pressures. We discuss growing public support for sustainability, the role of data and modeling in shaping corporate sustainability strategies, and how companies can build resilient, responsible supply chains.  In this episode, we're joined by members of the MIT Sustainable Supply Chain Lab, hosted within the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics: Tori Arnold, Project Manager, Dr. Sreedevi Rajogopalan, Research Scientist, and Martin Staadecker, Research Assistant. The lab's annual State of Supply Chain Sustainability Survey offers insights into the current state of sustainability across industries—we invite you to complete this year's survey here (open until May 31st, 2025).

Machine learning, generative AI and other technology innovations have the ability to drive safer and more efficient supply chains. Freight-transportation markets are in the early stages of leveraging AI’s capabilities which will be transformational in the years to come. In this Talking Transports podcast, Dr. Yossi Sheffi, director of the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics, joins Lee Klaskow, Bloomberg Intelligence senior transportation and logistics analyst, to share his insights about the opportunities these new technologies can bring and what it takes for wider adoption. Dr. Sheffi also talks tariffs, autonomous vehicles, warehouse robots, value-added tax (VAT) and how his real-world experience as an entrepreneur helps him to be better in the classroom.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In recent years, online education has come to the forefront as an alternative to traditional education programs. Its increasing prominence reflects its adaptability, flexibility, affordability, and far-reaching scale. As the global workforce stands to undergo significant changes in the next 5-10 years due to digitalization, advancements in AI, and automation, employers are increasingly valuing skills over degrees. For workers, this requires a practice of continuous learning. In this episode, we're joined by Dr. Eva Ponce, Director of Online Education at the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics, and Dr. Inma Borrella, Academic Lead for the MITx MicroMasters Program in Supply Chain Management. Eva and Inma discuss the role of online education in upskilling the workforce and the impact of the MITx MicroMasters Program, the first of its kind.

Barbara Wixom, principal research scientist at MIT's Center for Information Systems Research (CISR), draws on 30 years of research in this bonus episode of the Me, Myself, and AI podcast. She believes data monetization is the key to enterprise success with AI and breaks down why. With hosts Sam Ransbotham and Shervin Khodabandeh, Barb details case examples to highlight best practices for AI implementation and how to measure value, as well as how data governance and ethics play a critical role in successful AI projects. They also talk about what companies get wrong and the challenges and rewards of AI research. Read the episode transcript here. Guest bio: Barbara Wixom is a principal research scientist at the MIT Center for Information Systems Research (CISR). Her academic research explores how organizations generate business value from data assets. She is the author of the award-winning book, Data Is Everybody's Business: The Fundamentals of Data Monetization, which she wrote to inspire workers to engage in data monetization. Me, Myself, and AI is a collaborative podcast from MIT Sloan Management Review and Boston Consulting Group and is hosted by Sam Ransbotham and Shervin Khodabandeh. Our engineer is David Lishansky, and the coordinating producers are Allison Ryder and Alanna Hooper. Stay in touch with us by joining our LinkedIn group, AI for Leaders at mitsmr.com/AIforLeaders or by following Me, Myself, and AI on LinkedIn. We encourage you to rate and review our show. Your comments may be used in Me, Myself, and AI materials.

In this episode of the ChinaPower Podcast, Dr. Mihaela Papa joins us to explore the significance of BRICS and its evolving role in reshaping global governance. Dr. Papa begins by examining the importance of this platform, such as the BRICS countries' central role in addressing major global development challenges, and its goals as an organization, such as striving towards a more equitable multipolar world order. She discusses the group's rapid expansion over the past two years and delves into the key factors driving its growing appeal among countries in the Global South. The conversation focuses particularly on China's role within BRICS, highlighting how it leverages the bloc to advance its strategic objectives on the global stage. Particular attention is given to China's efforts in pushing for innovation and AI cooperation and the bloc's de-dollarization agenda. Dr. Papa concludes by evaluating the effectiveness of BRICS and examining the strategic implications it presents for U.S. policy. Dr. Mihaela Papa. Dr. Papa is a BRICS expert from MIT Center for International Studies, where she serves as the Director of Research and Principal Research Scientist. Before joining MIT, she co-founded and led the Rising Power Alliances project and taught sustainable development and global governance at The Fletcher School at Tufts University. She began her BRICS research over a decade ago as a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard Law School and a visiting scholar at Fudan University's Center for BRICS Studies. Dr. Papa has published extensively on the rise of new powers and their coalition-building efforts. Her recent publications in International Affairs and the European Journal of International Relations explore when BRICS converge and how they can challenge the United States. She has also analyzed BRICS's de-dollarization efforts in the Chinese Journal of International Politics and Cambridge University Press Elements and written on the China-India conflict within BRICS in the Global Policy journal. Her commentary was featured in Foreign Affairs and The Conversation, as well as on Bloomberg, BBC, News24, the South China Morning Post, and other media outlets. Originally a trade economist with a BA from Croatia, she completed her MA in Law and Diplomacy and PhD in International Relations at The Fletcher School, Tufts University.

In today's new episode of Supply Chain Now, hosts Scott Luton and Sophia Rivas Herrera welcome Dr. Yossi Sheffi, Director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, to the show. Listen in to a discussion covering a range of topics including the evolving skillsets required for supply chain professionals, the impact of AI on the industry, and the importance of understanding supply chain dynamics for all managers. Dr. Sheffi emphasized the need for risk-taking in business, the practical challenges of sustainability, and the critical role of supply chain knowledge in maintaining competitiveness. The conversation also touched on the future of tariffs and trade policies under the current administration, highlighting the complexities and potential impacts on global supply chains. Join us for this must-listen episode, suited for anyone looking to stay ahead in the ever-evolving field of supply chain management.Additional Links & Resources:Connect with Dr. Sheffi: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yossi-sheffi-b38b731/Learn more about Supply Chain Now: https://supplychainnow.comWatch and listen to more Supply Chain Now episodes here: https://supplychainnow.com/program/supply-chain-nowSubscribe to Supply Chain Now on your favorite platform: https://supplychainnow.com/joinWork with us! Download Supply Chain Now's NEW Media Kit: https://bit.ly/3XH6OVkWEBINAR- The Rise of the Decision Makers: https://bit.ly/42z5GYUWEBINAR- AI Insights for Smarter Shipping Strategies: https://bit.ly/40wwSWDWEBINAR- Embracing Agility for better TMS ROI: https://bit.ly/40CrwIaThis episode is hosted by Scott Luton and Sofia Rivas Herrera, and produced by Joshua Miranda. For additional information, please visit our dedicated show page at: https://supplychainnow.com/candid-supply-chain-conversation-1384

We sit down with Centaur Labs founder and CEO Erik Duhaime. Duhaime — and his company —are alums of our delta V accelerator program.Centaur Labs was born out of research at the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, which explores how people and computers can be organized so that – collectively – they act more intelligently than any person, group or computer alone.They “provide high-quality, trusted data annotation at scale, to power the development of superior AI models. We unlock the power of Collective Intelligence. By gathering and intelligently synthesizing multiple expert opinions, we achieve better-than-expert quality at scale.”

Katie Date and Joe Lynch discuss reflections on Manifest, the premiere conference that unites the entire eco-system of Fortune 500 global supply chain executives, logistics service providers, innovators and investors at the forefront of logistics tech and supply chain. Manifest 2024, was bigger and better than ever and Manifest 2025 will be held February 10th – 12th, 2025 in Las Vegas. Register now for Manifest 2025 and save big: Manifest Registration About Katie Date Katie Date is SVP, Industry Relations & Strategic Initiatives at Manifest, a pivotal position that focuses on shipper relationships and attendance, facilitating the show's growth and elevating its content around topics that are important to the industry. Prior to joining the Manifest team, Katie spent almost 10 years at the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics. During her time at MIT CTL, Katie was responsible for managing industrial relations as well as working with the international network of Supply Chain and Logistics Excellence (SCALE) centers to better connect them to research and corporate engagement opportunities. Additionally, Katie was responsible for the creation, implementation, and management of several custom executive education courses. Katie is passionate about helping companies realize the benefits of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) in their organizations and in their supply chains. In 2018 she founded the MIT CTL Women in Supply Chain Initiative which seeks to better understand gender balance in supply chain management. The initiative aims to create knowledge and tools for people interested in creating more gender balance in their organizations. About Manifest: The Future of Logistics The world of logistics is changing faster than ever. Technology advances plus rapidly changing consumer behavior has already dramatically changed how business gets done. Manifest will provide a focused look at what's to come across the spectrum of LogisticsTech and which companies and technologies are transforming the way goods circumnavigate the globe. Manifest will help you forge new relationships, new alliances, and foster new strategies that help move your business forward and avoid falling into the traditional mindset. Key Takeaways: Manifest: The Future of Supply Chain and Logistics h Katie Date Register now for Manifest 2025 and save big: Manifest Registration Focus on Innovation: Manifest is the “Global Destination for Supply Chain and Logistics Innovation,” highlighting its dedication to showcasing cutting-edge solutions. Industry Convergence: They bring together a diverse ecosystem including Fortune 500 executives, logistics providers, entrepreneurs, and investors, fostering collaboration within the supply chain landscape. Networking Powerhouse: Manifest facilitates connections between industry leaders, innovators, and investors, creating opportunities for partnerships and growth within the sector. Future-Oriented: The conference emphasizes exploring the latest advancements in logistics technology and how they impact the entire end-to-end supply chain. Exclusive Access: Attendees gain “unprecedented access” to key decision-makers and thought leaders influencing the future of logistics. Targeted Audience: Manifest caters to a specific audience, attracting those actively involved in transforming the supply chain, including industry executives, entrepreneurs, and investors. Las Vegas Venue: Manifest takes place annually in Las Vegas, positioning it as a major industry event held in a central and high-profile location. Larn More About Manifest: The Future of Supply Chain and Logistics  Katie Date | Linkedin Mnifest | Linkedin Manifest Manifest: The Future of Supply Chain & Logistics Is Here Highlights from Manifest 2023 with Courtney Muller | The Logistics of Logistics End to End Supply Chain Disruption with Pam Simon | The Logistics of Logistics Key Takeaways from Manifest with Pam Simon | The Logistics of Logistics Reflections on Manifest with Courtney Muller | The Logistics of Logistics The Logistics of Logistics Podcast If you enjoy the podcast, please leave a positive review, subscribe, and share it with your friends and colleagues. The Logistics of Logistics Podcast: Google, Apple, Castbox, Spotify, Stitcher, PlayerFM, Tunein, Podbean, Owltail, Libsyn, Overcast Check out The Logistics of Logistics on Youtube

In this episode we sit down with Dr. Matthias Winkenbach, Director of Research at the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics, Alejandro González, Software Business Unit Director at Mecalux, and Iñaki Fernández, Chief Technology Officer at Mecalux. Mecalux, a provider of warehouse management solutions, is a founding research partner of the new MIT Intelligent Logistics Systems Lab, which is at the forefront of advancing logistics through innovative technology. We discuss how AI and machine learning are not just buzzwords but can actually create additional value in warehouse robotics, such as in the case of autonomous robots and software solutions that help companies manage demand out of a distributed network.

Cortico, in collaboration with the MIT Center for Constructive Communication (CCC), has built a platform that connects rather than divides communities, and in so doing, helps create a healthier society. We talked to its CEO and co-founder, Deb Roy, and one of its Directors, Prof. Kathy Cramer, about how it works and how it's working.   

What makes a team intelligent? Brian and Linda Rising explore the surprising factors that foster group intelligence, from psychological safety to diversity, backed by groundbreaking research from MIT and Google. Overview In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian Milner sits down with Agile thought leader Linda Rising to explore the concept of group intelligence. They dive into what makes teams intelligent, discussing the importance of diversity, psychological safety, and social perceptiveness. Using research from MIT and Google, Linda also highlights how storytelling and a growth mindset can enhance team dynamics, leading to more effective and innovative collaboration. References and resources mentioned in the show: Linda Rising Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas by Mary Lynn Manns & Linda Rising MIT Center For Collective Intelligence Project Aristotle The Fearless Organization by Amy C. Edmonson Amy Edmonson’s TED Talks 3 ways to better connect with your coworkers - Mark T. Rivera’s TED Talk Advanced Certified Scrum Product Owner® Advanced Certified ScrumMaster® Agile For Leaders Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule Join the Agile Mentors Community Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast Want to get involved? This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input. Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one. Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com This episode’s presenters are: Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work. Linda Rising is an internationally recognized consultant, speaker, and author with a Ph.D. in object-based design metrics. Known for her expertise in agile development, retrospectives, and the intersection of neuroscience and software, Linda has authored five books and numerous articles. In 2020, she received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the World Agility Forum for her impactful contributions to the industry. Auto-generated Transcript: Brian (00:00) Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back here with you for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I am with you as I always am, Brian Milner. And I wanted to introduce you today to someone I think you're really gonna enjoy here on this episode. I have the one and only Linda Rising with me. Linda, thank you so much for coming on. Linda Rising (00:09) Okay. It is my pleasure, Brian. Thank you so much for inviting me. It's a beautiful day here in Nashville, Tennessee. Brian (00:32) In Nash Vegas, yes. I actually spent a couple years in Nash Vegas. So I know that area back in the day, back in the day, because I worked at Opryland. So that'll tell you how long ago it was. Yeah, back in the dark times, right? But Linda, for those, if anyone who might not be aware, Linda is an author. She is... Linda Rising (00:33) Yeah! wow okay Brian (00:58) really what people would call an agile luminary. She has been involved with this movement for quite a while and has really, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say shaped the conversation around this a lot with her research and other things that she's provided. we wanted to have her on because she, well, because it's Linda Rising, right? We wanted to have her on for that, but. Recently, she spoke at the Scrum Gathering, the regional Scrum Gathering that took place in Stockholm, and her topic just sounded really fascinating. I thought it would be fascinating for us to talk about. It was a topic of group intelligence. So Linda, I'm sure there's a lot of people out there like me that when they heard that the first time thought, I have no idea what that means. What does group intelligence mean? Linda Rising (01:43) Yeah. Actually, normally when I do anything, give a keynote or an interview on a podcast or the interviewer or the person who's inviting me will say, what would you like to talk about? That's what you did. What would you like to talk about with the idea that I could come up with a list of things I was interested in that I wanted to talk about because I knew something about it. Brian (02:09) Yep, it's true. Linda Rising (02:20) But in this case, no, it was, want you to be the opening keynote for this amazing gathering in Stockholm. and by the way, we want you to talk about group intelligence. So. That was about a year ago and I thought to myself, I don't know anything about, well, maybe I do. Maybe I do know something about group intelligence. But I have spent the past year getting ready for that talk. It was just a few weeks ago and along the way, what I found was it pulled together the research around this topic. pulled together a lot of things that I have been thinking about and it is still not over. I had to give that talk, there was a date for that, but now there are little threads that, as you say, I'm following those down various rabbit holes because they're connected to other things that I'm interested in. So this turned out to be, even though I didn't pick it and I didn't know a whole lot about it, It's turned out to be a great introduction to a different way of thinking. So we know what intelligence is, I think. Don't you? Do you know you have an idea? And aren't you intelligent? Brian (03:41) That's so awesome. Well, that's a quite a loaded question, right? Linda Rising (03:53) Of course you are and and so are our listeners our listeners are intelligent and what's interesting is that the psychologists who measure that They don't really have a definition for intelligence. What they do is they can test for it So have you ever had you know an intelligence test You know, an IQ test. Have you? Have you ever had one? Brian (04:25) You know what, I don't think I ever have, but I know my wife has, my daughters have, I'm very familiar with them, but I can't point back to one to say, hey, I know what my score was. Linda Rising (04:28) I'll bet you have. Well, sometimes you're given that test at a particular point, maybe in high school, and they didn't tell you that it was an intelligence test. You just took it along with the other battery of tests that you were taking at the time. And maybe they didn't tell you, you have an IQ of 145. They didn't tell you how smart you were. Brian (04:47) Yeah. Linda Rising (05:06) but somebody, somewhere, somehow along the way, they did. They measured it. And that's without having a definition for whatever it is. So what that test does is it says you're pretty good at solving a bunch of problems. And that's what the test is. Brian (05:17) That's amazing. Linda Rising (05:32) it asks you to look at some math problems, logic problems, spatial problems, different kinds of problems, and you either solve them pretty well or not so well, and when they are finished with that, that score on that test says something about how well you do at solving those problems. And that's what they're calling intelligence. Brian (06:03) I think I see where you're going with this because to me, if we're going to try to be very precise with words on that, I would say that sounds more like education. If I know how to solve a particular kind of math problem, that's because I've been educated to learn that. It's not a measure of my... Linda Rising (06:13) Yeah. Yep, yep. And so those tests, yeah, those tests do have a bias. They're biased toward people who have a certain kind of education biased against people who maybe didn't have that kind of education. Also, it doesn't even begin to talk about music. Here I am in Music City. Doesn't talk about musical talent. Brian (06:43) Yeah Linda Rising (06:46) It doesn't talk about your ability to perform, say, some sports activity, whether you're going to be a great basketball player or a baseball player. There are a lot of things that intelligence tests don't even, they don't even think about. Now, it doesn't mean this isn't a valid exercise because those IQ tests have been around a long time and they do measure what they measure, they measure it very well. And they do correlate with a lot of performance activities. In fact, if you were hiring somebody, the absolute best thing, if you could just do one thing, would be to give them an IQ test. That correlates most strongly with any kind of performance on the job. So it's a valid test, even if it has some biases, some problems. So that's individual intelligence and we call that IQ. So now the question is, can you do that for a group or a team? Brian (07:53) Yeah. Linda Rising (08:03) Could you say this group, could we measure it somehow? And if so, would it have the same kind of validity? That is, if they do well on this test, would that mean they would do well in the workplace? If we had that, then could we use it to say, all right, this team. is really going to be great for whatever it is that we wanted them to do. Is that possible? So obviously the answer is yes, or I wouldn't be here talking about it. Yeah. So the research is fascinating and it would take a long time to actually go into it, but it was started at MIT. The organization is called the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. and they have been doing this now for over a decade. So this is not brand new out of the box. We're not sure where this is going. This has been happening and has been happening successfully. They do have a test. They can give it to a group. And what they find is that if the group does well, that group will also do well on other, just like IQ, other kinds of things that the test measures. And so, yes, they can measure group intelligence. Brian (09:38) Very interesting. This is really fascinating. Yeah. It's fascinating. I'm going to interrupt you for just a moment because I know, and forgive me if I'm taking you off track with where you were intending to go. But I know, having heard some of your other talks in the past on agile mindset and what you've written about, I know there's kind of this fundamental idea of the fixed verse. Linda Rising (09:39) It is interesting. Yeah. No, no, no, it's okay. Brian (10:05) growth mindset and the idea of intelligence being not necessarily a thing you're born with, but really something that you have the potential to change and grow. And how does that translate then to the group environment and the group's intelligence? Linda Rising (10:23) Yeah, so that's a great lead in because the next part of it was, well, okay, so we have this test and we can give it to a group, but we'd like to tease out some attributes of teams to say, you know, the teams that do really well on this test, they all seem to have, and they found there were three things that characterized Brian (10:26) Yeah. Linda Rising (10:52) intelligent group. The first one was called social perceptiveness. That is, are the people on the group, are they able to relate to each other? If one of the persons in the groups having a struggle for some reason, are they able to pick up on that? It's kind of hard to say, well what is that social perceptiveness? and we can come back to that, but that's first on the list. The second attribute is that when they have any kind of a discussion, that everybody talks. And that's pretty easy to see, and I know that you've probably been on teams as I have, where really not everybody talked, where maybe mostly one or two Brian (11:24) Yeah. Okay. Linda Rising (11:49) You know the loud people they did all the talking and the rest of us We just kind of sat in the corner and we said well, you know, whatever Yeah We've been there. Well, have we have we have seen that and I don't know how you're gonna feel about the third one But we all are concerned about diversity Brian (12:00) Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Linda Rising (12:17) We know that diversity is an issue. All organizations are struggling with the best way to deal with that. But the third attribute has to do with the percentage of women on the team. Brian (12:34) Really? Linda Rising (12:35) So this isn't like 50-50. This doesn't mean that you should have some women. It means the more women you have, the better. Ooh. You wanna think about that one? Brian (12:38) Yeah. You know what? I would not argue with that one bit because all the women that I've had in my life have been the most intelligent people I have known. So I would wholeheartedly concur with that. We're just a bunch of knuckleheads, the guys are. So I completely... Linda Rising (12:58) Ha! Brian (13:17) You know, I'm having some fun, but you're right. I can see that, you know? Like, I could see how that would be a really distinguishing characteristics. Linda Rising (13:22) Wow! So the researchers say maybe it's really not a gender thing because women are very good at social perceptiveness. And maybe what this third attribute, and they did a lot of statistical analyses, you you have to really dig down into the statistics and we don't want to do that. Maybe this third attribute is really a reflection of the first. And then if you, and here we're going to come to your growth mindset, if you could work with the people on the team who were not women, but who were these nerdy guys, know, could you somehow have them grow, improve, get better at social perceptiveness, then that would have the same effect as having more women on the team. And that's kind of where they are right now is can you do this? Are they equivalent? Are they really measuring the same thing? But they know that somehow that's what you've got to have is this ability to read. It's called theory of mind. Read the minds of the people on the team and that typically You know, we're stereotyping here. Typically men are not as good. So can you, could you, can you grow that characteristic? Can you get better? Can you get better at that? Brian (15:06) Yeah, I'll take a slight little side trail here and say that that makes perfect sense to me because one of the things that I found when I was doing my research on neurodiversity and specifically autism was that there's a book out there that I think I've shared on the podcast before, but it's called Autism in Heels. And basically the point of the book is to really examine autism in women. And one of the key points that's made in the book is the fact that when you see statistics about autism, you'll find that there's a huge number, there's a disparity. There's a large number of men, of males that are diagnosed and a few, a smaller percentage of females. And it gives the impression when you look at the data that you might think, well, this is a male thing, right? It's something that happens much more often than male. But this book is making the point that really, Linda Rising (16:02) Yeah. Brian (16:04) the criteria that was set aside to designate whether someone was autistic or not was really geared towards how it presents in males. So women were vastly underdiagnosed and still are to this day vastly underdiagnosed. And one of the things that makes it difficult to diagnose them is women are better at masking their symptoms. very much, they adapt to the environment around them. They pick up on the people around them. Linda Rising (16:18) Yeah. Brian (16:34) and they will mask the things that maybe are naturally a part of them, but they've learned in other parts of life how to do that. And so they're applying that to their autism as well. So that makes perfect sense to me. Linda Rising (16:43) Yeah. Yep, exactly. And of course, if we want to talk about women who have this tendency or on the spectrum, we have to mention Temple Grandin, who is one of the most famous female autistics in the world. I she's done more to gain attention for this problem, and she's definitely female. yeah, it's not it's not a male thing. But you're right that what's happened is that the women have had a growth mindset and whatever they inherited or were born with, they've done a better job at learning how to adapt given what they had as a limitation, adapting to working with others and using that as a strength. So that means that possibly, We could do that kind of thing to improve our teams if we included men in, well, what would it be? Would it be a training program? Would it be just coaching? Maybe this could be the job for a coach can certainly watch. The behavior of the team can notice, for instance, for that second attribute, is the discussion. Brian (17:54) Ha Linda Rising (18:10) Does that involve everybody equally? That could be a first step. And to encourage the growth in that direction. So one of the experiments that was done to follow on with that was to try to get male members of the team who didn't do well, you can actually measure social perceptiveness. And you mentioned autism, one of the tests. for autism is called reading the mind in the eyes. And with that test, you can show that people are better than others. And so maybe this could help us identify people who might benefit from this experimental approach. And that is to have something like, you know, I'm a patterns fan. So a collection of patterns that we used to talk about back in the day was written by Joshua Kerievsky and it was for running a study group where you read a book together a chapter at a time and you talk about it. So in the experiment the hypothesis was that reading a book together would improve the theory of mind or the social perceptiveness if it were a book that was fiction. Brian (19:37) Huh. Linda Rising (19:37) It's a story. A story. There's a hero and a beautiful princess and an adventurer and a bad guy and a good guy. in reading that, you learn to identify with the characters. And you talk about it. What was the character feeling when the handsome prince ran in to rescue the what was he thinking? Brian (19:39) Yeah. Linda Rising (20:05) So in a structured study group situation like that, reading fiction together and the results so far are positive but not enormous. It does help. It does help. Brian (20:20) Yeah. Yeah, I can see that, because you're trying to collectively interpret and you're getting a peek into someone else's mind of how they might interpret a situation and that can help you to interpret other situations. Yeah, I can see that. Linda Rising (20:23) May not. Yeah! Yeah, especially if someone was not in the habit of doing that. There are a lot of people who say, I've never even stopped to think about how the other members of my team are feeling. Brian (20:43) Yeah. Linda Rising (20:56) So attached to all of this is an enormous project that Google also started called Project Aristotle. And their idea was we wanna know what the secret is, what makes great teams. And they looked at everything. They spent years. mean, Google collects data, data they've got. and statisticians and analysts, they got it. And they spent years collecting and analyzing. And the summary at the end of all that was they found nothing. Brian (21:38) Hahaha Linda Rising (21:40) Did you read that? Did you read about that study? Yeah. Brian (21:44) I I'm familiar with that study. I really like what they did. Because when you have that kind of data available to you across cultures, across business units, it was an ambitious kind of study. I'm really thankful that they did it because I think they had some good findings there that came out of that as well. you're right. Linda Rising (21:52) Yeah! Yeah. Yeah? Yeah, they didn't find anything. Brian (22:12) Right, they thought it was gonna be, you know, it's a skill, it's the right mix of skills that makes it a high performing team or expertise and none of that really had a bearing. Yeah. Yeah. Linda Rising (22:15) Get off! And what was interesting about all of this is it sort of all came together because the folks at Google kind of looked over and said, well, look at what these folks at MIT are doing. And they said, maybe we're just not looking at the right thing. And they had talked about this social perceptiveness and what is that anyway? And it was kind of serendipity at about this time. Amy Edmondson wrote a book called The Fearless Organization, and it was about something she called psychological safety. And it was bigger than what the folks at MIT had identified. This has, I am free, I feel safe. Well, that would mean that you could speak up in a discussion and that would make the discussion more, okay, now we would think about what, I mean, what she talked about kind of put a big blanket around all of it and said, hey, I think we might be all talking about this. And the folks at Google said, well, you know, that makes sense. Maybe that's what we're looking for. And how do we do it? How do we do this? So your listeners might wanna just wander out to the Google site because now Google's been very transparent about this. How do you make this work? How do you bring about this psychological safety? How do you get people feel free to talk and to discussion? How do you help people be aware? of what other people are feeling. And they've got a whole raft of suggestions for managers, suggestions for team members, for, you know, and they're really all singing the same song. It's about this awareness of others, feeling that you are safe and that thinking about what other people are thinking. can lead your team to behave in more intelligent way. Brian (24:41) That's so, that's awesome. Right, right. Linda Rising (24:41) It's kind like a miracle. It's like a miracle. It all just came together. They weren't planning that. know, here at MIT, going one direction, Google going another direction. Here's Amy Edmondson at Harvard, and that it all kind of came together. Brian (24:48) That's awesome. You came together now. Yeah, Amy Edmondson is definitely one of my heroes. we've tried to get her on. We tried to get her to come on, but I know that there's layers to get to people like that. so if anyone's listening and has an end to Amy Edmondson, tell her that this is a welcome, this is a psychologically safe podcast to come on. We'd love to have her, but yeah. Linda Rising (25:07) Yeah. Well, yeah. think she did go out and talk to Google. I think there's a Google talk about psychological safety. So they did have her come in and give them some ideas, some suggestions or yeah. And she's on to failure now because her book, After Fearless Organization, which was about psychological safety, the one that, in fact, I just finished it is about failure. Brian (25:44) Yeah. That, Linda Rising (25:59) and their case studies of failures and what can you do about failure and yeah but anyway so she she's on she's she's on to whatever but yeah. Brian (26:07) That's awesome. Yes, she does great research and it's it's chock full in her book So I highly recommend her writing to anyone who's listening if that if this interests you Yeah, definitely read Amy Edmondson's work. You'll really enjoy it Linda Rising (26:14) Yeah Yeah. So, and if you do, then the story is not over, it's still going, which is, not just Amy Edmondson, but there's a fellow named Kevin Dunbar. This is not Robin Dunbar who did the 150 is kind of the magic number. This is a different Dunbar, same last name, but he did a lot of studies about thinking and. especially in science, how do scientists think? And in particular, he was interested in failure. And you know that as a scientist, you propose some hypothesis and then you test it in an experiment and then you stand back and you do an analysis and you say, well, did this work out or not? And he found that some scientists don't... like it when things don't go well. What a surprise, huh? Brian (27:26) Yeah, right. Linda Rising (27:28) Yeah, and they just ignore it. They either pretend it didn't happen or they put it in a drawer saying, we'll come back and, you know, we'll look at it later. But some scientists do a really good job of accepting that failure, working with it, and building on it. saying, hey, this is something we didn't think about. Maybe we can, they, you know, and they're off and running. It doesn't slow them down at all. And it turns out that the scientists who have that characteristic, who are able to do that, are scientists in groups. and they're in groups that are intelligent. They're diverse and open. They let everybody speak. They think about what other people are thinking if they're discouraged or not with this bad result. So the characteristics of those groups of scientists who do well with failure is the same. Brian (28:22) you Linda Rising (28:40) as the groups that MIT identified, the groups that Google is trying to grow. And I think it's really what we want in Agile development. We want groups like that. Not just because we think, intelligence is what. No. We want groups that have that characteristic. We want groups that feel psychologically safe. We want groups that feel free. Brian (28:54) Yeah. Linda Rising (29:08) to express their ideas. We want groups of people who are aware of what other people are thinking. That's what we want. Brian (29:16) Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That's so cool. Linda Rising (29:18) So they're all talking about the same thing. They may be using different words, but they are really, and one thing that we might wanna note right here is that all these different researchers made the same mistake in the beginning. And it's the same mistake organizations make. Is they thought in the beginning that what makes a smart team is smart people. Wrong. Not that you don't want smart people. Brian (29:48) Yeah. Right. Linda Rising (29:53) But that's just an okay thing to have. You can have a team of very smart people that doesn't have any of these other characteristics that is not intelligent as a group. So I think we really have to wake up and realize, first of all, that we're doing that, that we're valuing IQ or individual intelligence, smartness, you went to this school or you got that particular SAT score. It has nothing to do with that. It's not that there's no correlation, but it's weak, it's very weak. It's much better to have people who have these other characteristics. Brian (30:33) Yeah, let me just, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Let me connect it just a second to maybe someone who's listening who's a Scrum Master or someone like that, right? You might hear this and think, those foolish leadership people, they make these kinds of mistakes. I wouldn't make that kind of mistake. I know better than this kind of thing, right? Well, how much emphasis are you placing on whether your team knows all the details of what they should be doing in Scrum versus... helping them to know and understand each other, communicate with each other, right? How much effort and energy are you putting into those things versus the facts, right? I think that's where it can hit home for us is, these other areas, I think are, as you said, really much stronger predictors of success. And I think as Agilist, that's where we should be pouring our attention into because that's what's going to make the most significant difference. Linda Rising (31:40) Yeah. And I think since software development and I've been in it for a long time has had this really strong emphasis on smartness. We like smart people. And it's not that that's a bad thing necessarily. It's that it's not enough. So as a mathematician, you could say necessary, but not sufficient. Not even close. and that all of these researchers all said the same thing, that we thought it was going to be about smart people. We thought it was about IQ, that teams of smart people would be smart. And you and I both know that's not true. Brian (32:32) Right, right, right. I've been on some teams with some very smart people that were horrible teams. Linda Rising (32:35) Yes. Yes, yes, exactly. And I guess without belaboring it or beating it up, what's happening to me right now is that in reading about all of these different research activities, more and more things start to bubble up. that sort of are like the glue that holds all of this together. And the one that just, it just happened yesterday has to do with brainstorming. So I've been on a ramp to not, you know, I'm against brainstorming because there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't work. They've done experiments, they've said, okay, here's a group of people and they're gonna get together and they're gonna come up with ideas. Okay, we know how many ideas they came up with and whether they're any good or not. And now let's just take individuals and tell them individually, you come up with ideas and then we'll just measure. And the results are always the same, the individuals do better. So I have come up with explanations for that and I'm like, okay, well here's what. Well, I was wrong. Because in the research, it just was like an accident. I just happened to discover it in one of the papers that the groups that are intelligent, the groups that are aware, the groups that embrace failure, the groups that do well also do better at brainstorming. Why is that? Well, because everybody feels free to talk. Everybody feels psychologically safe. Everybody's aware of how other people are feeling and that impacts how they come up with ideas or think about things that other people suggest. So as a group, they do superbly at brainstorming. So it's not the brainstorming, it's the group and how they... Brian (34:43) Yeah. Ha Linda Rising (34:48) get in a room together and discuss things and share ideas. And so, you know, I hate to say this is gonna be the answer to all our prayers. And of course we still don't, we're still working on, well, how do you do this? How do you make this happen? And I remember a story. It's in fact, it's in one of the documents, I'm trying to think now on the Google website. It's a story of a team. Brian (34:58) Hahaha Yeah. Linda Rising (35:18) where the team leader tells the other people on the team that he has a terminal illness. And when he did that, everybody else on the team realized that they didn't really know anything about this guy. And they in turn began to share, well, I'm also having some struggles and here's my story. And going through that. cause that team to move up a notch, if you will, to become more intelligent, to be more aware, to suddenly be a little more respectful of how the discussions were. It was just telling stories about what you're going through so that everyone will be aware of how you feel, what you think is gonna be your... Brian (35:48) Yeah. Linda Rising (36:11) future in the next six months that they didn't have any training or study groups or they just told stories. Brian (36:26) They got to know each other as humans. And it's amazing how often we forget that that's who we work with. At least right now, we work with other human beings. And I hope that never changes, because that's where the best ideas, that's where the best creativity comes from. And yeah, it's fascinating, but you're absolutely right. I can see that point. Linda Rising (36:28) Yes, exactly. think for me, this is all, it's been really a hopeful journey because in the beginning, I wasn't even sure how it would go. I didn't know anything about the intelligence of groups. And in the beginning, it was all, okay, here's what MIT is doing and reading through, I mean, there were a lot of papers that I slogged through and it wasn't until about halfway through that, I discovered. Project Aristotle and I saw, this really connects. And now all these other things start to bubble up that really make a lot of sense. And of course, that it fits. It fits with Agile. It fits with the Agile message that the big things like that cause you, especially if you've had any experience with Agile, to sort of wake up and say, how do I miss this? Brian (37:50) Ha ha. Linda Rising (37:52) I should have seen this and it's news to me. So, wow, we're all still learning, I guess, aren't we? Brian (38:03) Yeah, I mean, you get presented with something like that and think, I've kind of intuitively known this all along, but I didn't have words for it. And now, now there's a vocabulary that can describe it. And I agree, right? That's exactly what it is. So yeah, you're absolutely right. Well, Linda, this is, this is such a fascinating discussion. And, you know, it's, I had no idea where, you know, group intelligence would lead us, but that it's all just fascinating. Linda Rising (38:09) Yeah Brian (38:32) the different threads of the spider web and where this kind of ends up. So I know it led you in a lot of places with your research and everything else. I really, really appreciate you sharing that with us and helping us to try to understand a little bit of the journey you've been on and kind of discovering this over the past year or so is what you said. Linda Rising (38:53) Yep. And I was going to say, anybody, I know most people don't want to spend the time reading the original research papers, and I don't blame you, that does take a lot of, you know, have a lot of investment in that. But there are some, I would call them sort of lightweight. There's some excellent, excellent Harvard Business Review articles that do a very good job of talking about. what is happening at MIT, what is happening at Google, that kind of a high-level summary, like Harvard Business Review does that like nobody else. And of course, there are TED Talks that Amy Edmondson has given, and there are all the Google Talks, of course, are also out on YouTube. And she has been to Google as well, so you can go listen to what she has to say there. So if you want to dig into this for yourself, there's a lot that you can get without having to read the book or read all the research papers. Brian (39:57) Yeah, we'll try to link to as much of this as we can in the show notes of this. So anyone who's listening, if you want to go down one of these rabbit holes like we talked about, maybe we can point the direction and say, hey, try this one. So we'll also include in the show notes some links to some of Linda's work as well so that you can find out more about her and maybe read one of her books as well and see some of the Linda Rising (40:11) Yeah! Brian (40:27) some of the insights she's already brought to this Agile community. And if you like what you heard here, I know you'll like her books as well. So Linda, thank you so much for making your time. I know it's very busy. Thank you for coming on the show. Linda Rising (40:41) It's been my pleasure. Can we close with some good wishes, some thoughts and prayers for all the people who are in Western North Carolina or in Florida who have just been two horrible disasters and are going to be a long time recovering. And that includes my good friend and co-writer Mary Lynn Mans who's in Asheville, North Carolina. So fingers crossed, prayers, good thoughts. Brian (41:11) Absolutely. I wholeheartedly concur with you on that. So I agree. Well, thanks again, Linda.

Vehicle routing is one of the most well-understood, extensively studied problems in both history and academia—it's been studied by academics since the early 1800s. Yet 200 years later, optimal efficiency remains just out of reach. And given the enormous increase in pressure for consumer expectations in recent years, that remaining "last mile" of vehicle routing  efficiency could, on a global scale, make a huge difference to a huge number of people. In this episode, we're joined by Matthias Winkenbach, Director of Research at the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics. Matthias is an expert in urban logistics, last-mile delivery, and vehicle routing, and he has just launched a new lab, the MIT Intelligent Logistics Systems Lab, that will use AI and machine-learning techniques to tackle today's vehicle routing challenges—and that could make a major impact on vehicle routing solutions where traditional methods and algorithms have come up just short. intelligent.mit.edu

Nils Kok, professor of real estate at the University of Maastricht, and Siqi Zheng, professor of real estate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, were guests on the latest episode of Nareit's REIT Report podcast.Kok and Zheng are two of the academic directors of the Global Real Estate Leaders Program, an executive training program aimed at emerging real estate professionals with at least 10 years' experience, sponsored by the MIT Center for Real Estate and Maastricht University Centre. Nareit is a participating organization in the new executive education program.Kok noted that the program is aimed at executives who are eager to learn about the latest real estate finance or mega trends, but don't have the time to go back to school for a year.

Our guest on this week's episode is David Correll, a research scientist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Transportation and Logistics. This coming Monday, April 22, we celebrate Earth Day. Begun in 1970, this is a worldwide event designed to recognize the importance of preserving our environment. Due to its basic role of moving goods worldwide, our supply chains are among the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases. While we can't totally eliminate our environmental footprints, there are things we can do to lessen their impacts on the environment. Each year, the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals and the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics produce a State of Supply Chain Sustainability report. Correll is the project lead for this ambitious research. He shares about the progress being made for sustainability with in supply chains. Members of the American Trucking Associations' (ATA) Women in Motion (WIM) group met with federal government leaders in Washington this week to advocate for policies that support women drivers and that will encourage recruitment and retention of more women in the industry. We look at the specific legislation they are promoting to improve the lives of women truckers. Freight company Yellow Corp. went out of business last year. It was one of the largest trucking companies to declare bankruptcy in history. Yellow blames its demise on contract negotiations with the Teamsters, while the union says the company spent more than it could afford to acquire other companies and expand. Regardless, the bankruptcy court has been selling off the company's remaining assets. We look at those assets and what other trucking firms have been buying them in order to expand their own operations at bargain prices.   Supply Chain Xchange  also offers a podcast series called Supply Chain in the Fast Lane.  It is co-produced with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals.  Go to your favorite podcast platform to subscribe and to listen to past and future episodes.Articles and resources mentioned in this episode:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Transportation & LogisticsState of Supply Chain Sustainability Report (2023)Women truckers take their case to WashingtonEstes to open wave of new freight terminals acquired from bankrupt Yellow Corp.Get episode transcriptsVisit Supply Chain XchangeListen to CSCMP and Supply Chain Xchange's Supply Chain in the Fast Lane podcastSend feedback about this podcast to podcast@agilebme.comPodcast is sponsored by: Travero LogisticsOther linksAbout DC VELOCITYSubscribe to DC VELOCITYSign up for our FREE newslettersAdvertise with DC VELOCITYTop 10 Supply Chain Management Podcasts

New Zealand born Aerospace engineer Karen Willcox is on the frontline of the rapidly developing field of digital twins. Digital twins are two-way data driven virtual representations that predict real world outcomes, with applications spanning aviation, aerospace, medicine and climate change. Willcox is director of the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at The University of Texas at Austin. Willcox spent 17 years as a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where she served as the founding co-director of the MIT Center for Computational Engineering.

In association and partnership with the ACM Bytecast, this episode features a conversation with Affective Computing Pioneer Dr. Rosalind Picard. Dr. Picard is a scientist, inventor, and engineer, member of the faculty of MIT's Media Lab, founder and director of the Affective Computing research group at the MIT Media Lab, founding faculty chair of MIT's MindHandHeart Initiative, and a faculty member of the MIT Center for Neurobiological Engineering. She has co-founded two companies:  Affectiva (now part of Smart Eye), providing emotion AI technologies now used by more than 25% of the Global Fortune 500, and Empatica, providing wearable sensors and analytics to improve health. 

The term ‘supply chain' is relatively new, but the activities involved are not as new as we think. Rob and Jackie sat down with Yossi Sheffi, Director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, to discuss the complex history of supply chains and how technology and AI will continue to evolve supply chain processes in the future.MentionedYossi Sheffi. The Magic Conveyor Belt: Supply Chains, A.I., and the Future of Work, (MIT CTL Media, 2023).RelatedStephen Ezell and Stefan Koester, “Transforming Global Trade and Development With Digital Technologies,” (ITIF, May 2023).

What does a spider web sound like? Join us as we weave a web of connections between science and music - and learn some truly mind-blowing facts about spiders! MIT scientist and musician Markus Buehler shares his journey into the spiderverse, turning spider silk into instruments and making materials from nature.  Watch Markus' spider music videos on the blog on our website, sciencepodcastforkids.com The song "Spider Variations" by Markus Buehler was used with permission from Markus. The sounds are based on a sonification method of a spider web as described in the references below [1-2], part of a larger collaboration with Tomás Saraceno, Saraceno Studios, Ally Bisshop, Thomas Muehletahler, and Evan Ziporyn, and the MIT Center for Art, Science and Technology (CAST). Hear more of Markus' songs on his Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/user-275864738 Hear more from Markus about materials and music in our bonus interview episode, available when you support us on Patreon for just $1 or more a month on Patreon.com/tumblepodcast.

On this episode, I'm speaking with Jeff Johnston, Managing Director at Cathartes. Cathartes is a boutique commercial real estate firm focused mainly on ground-up multifamily in New England. Jeff's focus is primarily on investment strategy, entitlements, and, more recently, raising equity for their latest project. He went to UNH undergrad, night school at Northeastern for his MBA, and the MIT Center for Real Estate for a Master's in Real Estate Finance and Development. In his free time, Jeff supports his favorite charities, including No Kid Hungry, Friends Forever, and The Portsmouth Music Hall. He also spends time with his wife and two daughters while making time to get out on the bike. Related links for this episode: · Cathartes - https://cathartes.com/ · Jeff on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-johnston-2aa42a6/ · Portwalk Place - https://cathartes.com/portwalk-place/ · Building Small (Jim Heid) - https://www.jheid.com/small/ · Rethinking Real Estate (book) - https://amzn.to/42ZQUso · Setting the Table (book) - https://amzn.to/3SwHlw1 · Psychology of Money (book) - https://amzn.to/49P32hU · Never Finished (book) - https://amzn.to/4bVPTW1 · Leadville 100 MTB - https://www.leadvilleraceseries.com/mtb/leadvilletrail100mtb/ Be sure to support this podcast by subscribing and reviewing! Get on the list at https://transformingcities.io for future announcements. Brought to you by Authentic: https://authenticff.com © 2024 Authentic Form & Function

Democracy is challenged, at home and abroad, and at least some of this blame falls on “Big Tech.” Kara talks to Alexis Ohanian, Reddit co-founder and venture capitalist, and Deb Roy, the director of the MIT Center for Constructive Communication, about how we got here and what some potential solutions are. Stick around after the interview to hear Kara and Nayeema discuss the ethics of stapling bread to trees. This episode was recorded live at the University of Virginia's Karsh Institute for Democracy's Democracy 360 event on October 17th. Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find us on social media. We're on Instagram/Threads as @karaswisher and @nayeemaraza Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In climatetech circles, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was a big deal. The expectation was that, combined with other parts of U.S. industrial policy like the CHIPS and Science Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the IRA would transform the American economy and ultimately slash U.S. carbon emissions.  We can't see the impact on carbon emissions yet, but we can measure the initial effects on the economy. So how's it going so far? In this episode, Shayle talks to Trevor Houser, partner at the Rhodium Group, about the organization's new Clean Investment Monitor, a database of climatetech investments developed with the MIT Center on Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Trevor highlights three different categories of policy impacts: Sectors where policy accelerated existing trends, like solar deployment and EV sales. Sectors where policy catalyzed new growth that probably would not have happened otherwise, like in manufacturing, hydrogen, carbon management, and sustainable aviation fuels. Sectors that are declining despite policy incentives, like the deployment of wind and heat pumps. They discuss the drivers behind these trends and cover topics like: The regional clustering of manufacturing investment and new geographic hubs, like the Southwest. The surprising growth in hydrogen made from steam methane reforming, also known as blue hydrogen. Recommended Resources: Rhodium Group: Clean Investment Monitor Canary: Made in the USA: Ramping up clean energy manufacturing Canary: US offshore wind pushes ahead despite industry turmoil Catalyst is a co-production of Post Script Media and Canary Media. Are you looking to understand how artificial intelligence will shape the business of energy? Come network with utilities, top energy firms, startups, and AI experts at Transition-AI: New York on October 19. Our listeners get a 10% discount with the code pspods10. Catalyst is brought to you by BayWa r.e., a leading global renewable energy developer, service supplier, and distributor. With over 22GW in their project pipeline, BayWa r.e. is rethinking energy every day and at every level. Committed to being a solid partner for the long run, BayWa r.e. wants to work with you to help shape the future of energy. Learn more at bay.wa-re.com. Catalyst is brought to you by Sungrow. Now in more than 150 countries, Sungrow's solutions include inverters for utility-scale, commercial and industrial solar, plus energy storage systems. Learn more at us.sungrowpower.com.

Neil Gershenfeld is the director of the MIT Center for Bits and Atoms. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - LMNT: https://drinkLMNT.com/lex to get free sample pack - NetSuite: http://netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour - BetterHelp: https://betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off EPISODE LINKS: Neil's Website: http://ng.cba.mit.edu/ MIT Center for Bits and Atoms: https://cba.mit.edu/ Fab Foundation: https://fabfoundation.org/ Fab Lab community: https://fablabs.io/ Fab Academy: https://fabacademy.org/ Fab City: https://fab.city/ PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (05:37) - What Turing got wrong (11:02) - MIT Center for Bits and Atoms (24:08) - Digital logic (30:44) - Self-assembling robots (41:12) - Digital fabrication (52:07) - Self-reproducing machine (59:53) - Trash and fabrication (1:04:49) - Lab-made bioweapons (1:09:04) - Genome (1:20:56) - Quantum computing (1:25:28) - Microfluidic bubble computation (1:30:49) - Maxwell's demon (1:39:35) - Consciousness (1:46:35) - Cellular automata (1:51:07) - Universe is a computer (1:55:53) - Advice for young people (2:05:10) - Meaning of life