Podcasts about New Economics

Aaron Levie is the co-founder and CEO of Box. Levie joins Big Technology Podcast live from the Big Technology AI Summit to discuss the government-mandated recall of Anthropic's Fable and Mythos models and what it reveals about where AI regulation is heading. Tune in to hear Levie argue that the recall — far from a conspiracy to kneecap the frontier labs — may be the closest thing yet to the "AI pause" critics have demanded, why he thinks the government is now effectively in the model-approval business, and how that shift could hand China the long-term economic edge. We also cover whether "token maxing" was ever real, why the application layer may capture more value than anyone expected, the open-weight models closing in on the frontier, and a quick lightning round on Siri, the "permanent underclass" meme, and SpaceX. Hit play for one of the sharpest, funniest reads on the AI moment you'll find anywhere, only on Big Technology. --- Enjoying Big Technology Podcast? Please rate us five stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ in your podcast app of choice. Want a discount for Big Technology on Substack + Discord? Here's 25% off for the first year: https://www.bigtechnology.com/subscribe?coupon=0843016b Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Semiconductors have moved from the background of the technology stack to the center of the AI economy. What used to be a specialized industry discussed mostly by engineers and investors is now shaping the speed, cost, and strategic direction of modern computing.In this episode of TechSurge, host Michael Marks speaks with Stacy Rasgon, Managing Director and Senior Analyst covering U.S. semiconductors and semiconductor capital equipment at Bernstein Research. Stacy has spent years analyzing the chip industry across cycles, but argues that the current moment feels different in scale: AI demand has created an unprecedented scramble for compute, memory pricing has surged, and companies across the stack are being forced to rethink capacity, architecture, and capital allocation.The conversation explains the 4 different kinds of semiconductor cycles—supply, inventory, product, and demand — and why Stacy believes the industry is currently in a demand cycle of unusual magnitude. The discussion also unpacks the distinction between DRAM and NAND, why high-bandwidth memory is becoming strategically central to AI systems, and how the physical realities of wafer capacity and silicon area are constraining supply in ways the broader market often misses.Stacy and Michael also discuss the hardware economics behind the current boom, with Michael pressing Stacy on why compute remains so scarce and how companies are improving performance through packaging and system design. Michael then moves the conversation beyond market headlines to the core business questions: who is actually paying for this compute, which use cases are generating real revenue, and whether AI spending is creating durable economic value or simply shifting costs elsewhere. Together, these questions highlight two of the episode's clearest insights: coding may be one of the earliest AI applications with meaningful willingness to pay, and inference, not training, is the real test of whether the current buildout becomes a lasting business or just another expensive wave of infrastructure.Stacy explains the concentration of power among the major wafer fabrication equipment players, the rise of ASICs as a meaningful share of AI silicon, Broadcom's rapidly expanding AI opportunity, and the growing role of Chinese companies as new entrants, especially in memory and semiconductor equipment. Along the way, the conversation asks the defining question facing the sector: is this just another semiconductor upswing, or the first true supercycle the industry has seen? Stacy believes that this might be the biggest supercycle he has seen in his career.Sign up for our newsletter at techsurgepodcast.com for updates on upcoming TechSurge Live Summits and future episodes.Links:Stacy Rasgon on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stacy-rasgon-6924963Bernstein: https://www.alliancebernstein.com/corporate/en/home.htmlReferences Mentioned During the DiscussionNVIDIA Blackwell Platform: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/blackwell-platform/High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) overview from Micron: https://www.micron.com/products/memory/hbmDRAM overview from IBM: https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/dramNAND flash overview from IBM: https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/nand-flash-memoryFurther ReadingMcKinsey on the semiconductor industry outlook: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/semiconductors/our-insights/the-semiconductor-industry-in-2025Semiconductor Industry Association: 2025 State of the U.S. Semiconductor Industry: https://www.semiconductors.orgNVIDIA on the Blackwell architecture and AI infrastructure roadmap: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/blackwell-platform/Broadcom AI investor materials and infrastructure commentary: https://investors.broadcom.comASML on lithography and advanced chip manufacturing: https://www.asml.com/en/technologyMicron on HBM and AI memory demand: https://www.micron.com/products/memory/hbmChapters[00:00:00] — Highlights[00:00:26] — Welcome to  the Episode[00:01:29] — Meet Stacy Rasgon[00:02:01] — Is This the First Real Semiconductor Supercycle?[00:05:33] — Inside the Strongest Memory Cycle in History [00:09:14] — Can Innovation Keep Up With AI Demand?[00:11:33] — Chiplets, Blackwell, and the New Economics of Compute [00:12:37] — What Could Signal the Cycle Is Slowing[00:14:26] — Vertical Integration at the Hyperscales [00:16:36] — The Difference between Apple and Meta[00:17:15] — What is Vertical Integration Being Done For?[00:18:15] — Will other bottlenecks develop as This Progresses? [00:21:13] — Oligopoly Pricing in the Market[00:22:22] — Any New Entrants into Memory?[00:23:46] — Why the Industry Must Pivot From Training to Inference[00:25:10] — Agentic Coding and the First Real AI Revenues[00:26:57] — Groq, Low-Latency Inference, and What GPUs Cannot Do Alone[00:29:28] —-Could The Smaller Companies All be Bought Up ?[00:30:19] — Why Semiconductor Equipment Matters More Than Ever [00:31:00] — How Semiconductor Equipment is Affected by the Cycle[00:32:55] — A Long Upcycle for Semiconductor Equipment Guys?[00:33:13] — The Big Five and the Rise of Chinese Equipment Players[00:34:24] — The Effects of Geopolitics[00:35:02] — Broadcom's Quiet AI Breakout[00:40:46] — ASICs vs GPUs and the Next Wave of Custom Chips[00:41:06] — Intel, Foundry Strategy, and the Long Turnaround[00:46:46] —-The Risks the Market May Still Be Underestimating[00:49:32] — Where Startups Still Have Room to Win[00:50:39] — What the Semiconductor Industry Could Look Like Next Year

What does great leadership actually look like? Can you make a difference even if you're in the middle of the hierarchy? "If you think you're too small, you've not spent the night under a bedsheet with a mosquito." In this episode, educator and Deming practitioner Balaji Reddie explains why W. Edwards Deming was far more practical about leadership than many people realize. Drawing on both The New Economics and Out of the Crisis, Balaji shares stories and examples that bring Deming's 17 principles of leadership to life. From creating trust and joy in work to understanding variation, coaching people, and improving systems, this conversation challenges conventional management thinking and offers a clear path toward transformation. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Balaji Reddie, who is an educator and trainer in the teachings of Dr. Deming and quality management generally. And the topic for today is Principles of Leadership. Balaji, take it away.   0:00:27.9 Balaji Reddie: Good morning. Thank you so much, Andrew. We had left our last session with that, we'd be dealing with this. And of course, Dr. Deming gave us the outline of Profound Knowledge and he gave us 14 points. He also gave us the deadly diseases and the 16 Obstacles. So people often talk about the diseases, but very often they forget the obstacles. And there are 16 of them which he highlighted for us. And if you think that they're outdated, they're as relevant as they ever were. So you need to keep revisiting those. I think if you start working on removing the obstacles, it's like you're taking your foot off the brake rather than pressing on the accelerator.   0:01:11.3 Balaji Reddie: So you're removing the things that actually stop you before you actually take things forward. But nevertheless, we start with point number 14 where he says, take action to complete, to make the transformation. And he says that there should be a critical mass of people that you need to educate and train and get them on the same page as you are. I'm gonna quote Hazel Cannon here, who is current president of the British Deming Forum. And she talks about the time when she was very young and she attended the Deming four-day seminar, I think in Birmingham. And at the end of those four days, she was overwhelmed as you normally are when you hear how the man speak. And he spoke... He wanted you to make drastic changes. It's not just tinkering here and there.   0:02:08.2 Balaji Reddie: And so she went up to him and she said, "I'm really taken up by what you just said." And then she made a statement, "I'm too small to make these changes in my organization." I believe she worked as a lab assistant in a chemical manufacturing company. They used to make chemicals for cosmetics. So she said, "I'm too small." And Deming just interrupted her and said, "Never think you're too small. If you think you're too small, you've not spent the night under a bedsheet with a mosquito." So make a change where you are and take it from there. So I would like to now quote Dr. Deming from Out of the Crisis. This is Plan for Action: Take action to accomplish the transformation. So he writes there, there are three points and then I'll come to what he writes below that.   0:03:01.8 Balaji Reddie: So he says, "Management in authority will struggle over every one of the above 13 points, the deadly diseases, and the obstacles. They will agree on their meaning and on the direction to take. They will agree to carry out the new philosophy. Management in authority will take pride in their adoption of the new philosophy and in their new responsibilities. They will have courage to break with tradition, even to the point of exile among their peers." So he talks about courage. He talks about courage of conviction. And then he says, "Management in authority will explain by seminars and other means." So I think he leaves it to people of the ways and means. And now today there are a lot of means of doing that. DemingNEXT is one of them. And he says, "To the critical mass of people in the company why change is necessary and that the change will involve everybody."   0:04:00.9 Balaji Reddie: Now he writes something very interesting. He says, "This whole movement may be instituted and carried out by middle management speaking with one voice." So he gave instructions. Why are people saying that he did not tell us what to do? It is just that he expected maybe a lot. And now let's get to that middle management and what he expected. He says here... Let's see here. I'm coming to chapter four now in The New Economics where he says, "A System of Profound Knowledge. The aim of this chapter: the prevailing style of management must undergo transformation." So we just heard that, that what we need to do. And he says, "A system cannot understand itself. The transformation requires a view from the outside. The aim of this chapter is to provide an outside view, a lens that I call a System of Profound Knowledge.   0:04:59.7 Balaji Reddie: It provides a map of theory by which to understand the organizations that we work in." Then he says, "The first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding the System of Profound Knowledge." Then he says that "the individual, once transformed, will set an example." So setting an example, I believe, is doing the right thing under adverse circumstances, when you stick to your principles despite the fact that there is an easier way out. As they say, choosing a path between good and bad is easy, you choose good. But good and better, you need to make the right choice. And that needs profound knowledge. "So be a good listener," he says, "but will not compromise. Continually teach other people and help people pull away from their current practice and beliefs and move to the new philosophy without a feeling of guilt about the past."   0:06:02.7 Balaji Reddie: So he explains to us what was needed here, right? And he says this is what we actually need to do. Now I'd like to, I mean, I'll be referring to a document. I don't know how we're gonna get this to people, but for the Principles of Leadership. All right, I think I'll have to send this over to you later, but we will do that. So in the Principles of Leadership, just come to them. I am quoting again from both Out of the Crisis and The New Economics. So you will find this there when he speaks about what needs to be done. Modern Principles of Leadership. And he says, "The modern principles of leadership will replace the annual performance review. The first step in a company will be to provide education in leadership." So that would be introducing people to profound knowledge from what we just heard. Then he said, "The annual performance review may then be abolished." Of course, that will take time. "Leadership will take its place, and this is what Western management should have been doing all along."   0:07:12.6 Balaji Reddie: So he says, "The annual performance review sneaked in and became popular because it does not require anyone to face the problems of people. It is easier to rate them, focus on the outcome. What Western industry needs is methods that will improve the outcome." And he says, "Suggestions follow." So first, institute... The first principle. "Institute education in leadership: the obligations, the principles, and methods." And so I think introduction to the System of Profound Knowledge will help. And then after profound knowledge has been sort of brought to the notice of... Of bringing to the notice of the people then you get into perhaps teaching them about 14 Points, et cetera.   0:07:57.8 Balaji Reddie: Comes the second principle. He says, "Ensure more careful selection of people in the first place." So choosing the people, he says again, now here's where it requires you to understand the purpose of what you're doing, purpose of your organization, purpose of the people you're looking out for and making this change. Because when you know your purpose, you know the aim, then you can choose people in the right way. And I believe he said this somewhere, it's a combination of education, training, skills, and experience. So we need to combine these four factors in choosing the right people. Then he says, after selection of the people, ensure better training and education. So we fine-tune all of their... He says a complete background. He said their aspirations, their goals.   0:08:54.2 Balaji Reddie: I kind of borrowed this idea from a company here in India where they had this thing called roles, responsibilities, and objectives. And they used to meet once in a month, but once in a year they used to decide. So the top management, the HR, would sit down with each and every employee and say that, "In this calendar year, this is what we intend to do and this is what we expect from you." And in turn, they used to ask the employee, "What do you expect from us? Because this is what we want from you." And then the employee had a chance of putting forth what he or she wanted, the management, what help they needed. And I think this is where we have to be... It's a give and take. And they didn't just meet once a year; every month they would meet and the question was, "How are we doing?" not "What have you done?"   0:09:51.1 Balaji Reddie: So I think it wasn't a traditional appraisal. If there was any appraisal, it was appraising what top management were doing or intended to do and not so much the employee. I thought that was a good move. So that's what we need to do here: better training and education. Principle number four states: "A manager understands and conveys to his people the meaning of a system. He explains the aims of the system. He teaches his people to understand how the work of the group supports these aims." Now, here's where, you know, when you talk about, say, hiring people in the first place, when you bring in new employees, I believe that there should be a special session by people inside the company who have stayed the longest, who served the company the longest, especially during their bad days. Because the employees need to know what really happened and how the company survived and how we were resilient, we came back despite all the problems that we had.   0:11:00.7 Balaji Reddie: And the historical perspective, especially if there's someone who's in touch with the founding members, that would be a great boon. I know nowadays we talk about the older companies, obviously none of the founders are there, but if there is such a person, exchanging those ideas with the young employees would definitely make a difference. So they would then understand the purpose, the aims, and how your work supports these aims. I think it's the best way to do that. But what I see right now in companies and I'm being very specific about this, because today when new employees join the company, they have an orientation, they have onboarding, as they call it, but that's done by a rookie, someone who's just joined the company and is just making...   0:11:46.8 Andrew Stotz: [0:11:46.8] Following a checklist?   0:11:48.1 Balaji Reddie: Exactly. Like a PowerPoint presentation. They don't talk about the history of the company. And I think there has to be an emotional connect before there is a logical or an intellectual connect. That emotional connect, I think, then makes you feel that pride and you feel good about coming to work and you say, "Oh, I did not know." So I believe this fourth principle is important in that sense, in the way to do that. Now, he says that... Principle five says he helps...   0:12:19.7 Andrew Stotz: By the way, do you know what chapter are you in?   0:12:23.9 Balaji Reddie: Oh, I have combined.   0:12:27.9 Andrew Stotz: Okay.   0:12:29.4 Balaji Reddie: I took some of the text... Okay. If you want to see here, this is management of people, all right? In that chapter. So I've taken... There are 14 principles there, management of people. In the new edition of The New Economics. It appears...   0:12:48.2 Andrew Stotz: So chapter six.   0:12:50.2 Balaji Reddie: Chapter six, yeah. That's chapter six...   0:12:51.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep.   0:12:52.6 Balaji Reddie: All right. And he talks about pictorial effect of transformation, and then he talks about management of people, role of a manager of people. So there were 14 there, but in Out of the Crisis, the first three which were there, he did not include here.   0:13:10.0 Andrew Stotz: Okay. I just just asked...   0:13:11.0 Balaji Reddie: So I just included those. Yeah. No, so that when people read the book, they could read it clearly, right? So, yeah. So he says now principle number five, which in Economics is principle number two or three, right? He says "he helps his people to see themselves as components in a system, to work in cooperation with preceding stages and following stages toward optimization of the efforts of all stages towards achievement of the aim." So we want optimization, not compromise. So you need to sit together. Just if I were to ask a simple question to you, Andrew, and without thinking, if I were to try to answer this question... Okay. I presume you know how to make a cup of tea.   0:13:58.7 Andrew Stotz: Yes.   0:14:00.1 Balaji Reddie: So what is the first step?   0:14:02.7 Andrew Stotz: For me, boil water.   0:14:04.6 Balaji Reddie: Boil water. And what if I say that's not the first step?   0:14:12.0 Andrew Stotz: Well, first of all, I think you probably have more experience with tea than I do, but I have more experience with espresso, probably. But anyways, go ahead and tell me.   0:14:20.9 Balaji Reddie: Okay. The first question is, whom am I making a cup of tea for? So what I just tried to convey is it's not natural to think about the customer. And so the first step is, for whom is the cup of tea? If it's the person...   0:14:30.8 Andrew Stotz: Grandma.   0:14:40.7 Balaji Reddie: That's right. If she's diabetic, then you would not need sugar. So you gather the ingredients accordingly. If he wants black tea, you don't take milk, right? And that's the point he's trying to say here. When you look at different stages, every every person has a customer. So the first question is, who is my customer?   0:15:07.1 Andrew Stotz: Right.   0:15:07.4 Balaji Reddie: And that part of profound knowledge, understanding psychology, I mentioned this last time, is empathy. The word empathy captures this. So you go to the next process as, "Whom am I doing this work for?" and sit down with that person and say, "What do you expect from me? How may I help you?" And that's what decides what you're gonna do. So this this fifth principle here, that he helps his people see themselves as components, I think this is important. The next process is your immediate customer, and the rest of them are customers in a very oblique sense. But what you do is critical to the next person in line, right? So you always spend extra time with that person and of course the other people down the line who your work is gonna be impacting over a period of time, right? But these are the... This is the first step you find out. So who's my customer? So that's principle five.   0:16:09.0 Balaji Reddie: Principle number six: now this comes under psychology again, that a manager of people understands that people are different from each other. He tries to create for everybody interest and challenge and joy in work. Now, if you look at the theory of knowledge, what exactly did he give us when he brought that component of profound knowledge into play? He says that theory is a statement that conveys knowledge by relating cause to effect. So I repeat, theory is a statement which conveys knowledge by relating some cause to some effect. It fits without fail all the observations of the past and helps us predict the future with the risk of being wrong.   0:17:04.7 Balaji Reddie: So I'm gonna repeat this whole statement again. Theory is a statement which conveys knowledge. How? By relating some cause to some effect. It fits without fail all the observations of the past and helps us predict the future with the risk of being wrong. So no amount of examples can establish a theory, and even one example can lead to either abandonment of the theory or modification of the theory. That's what he kept saying. Now, how does this work? So he says it's a system of learning, and all of us have this built in, right? Now, he came from the school of Clarence Irving Lewis, Mind and the World-Order. And if you read that book, Lewis says all knowledge is a priori, it's based on what you already know.   0:18:00.9 Balaji Reddie: For example, let me take this example here. Now, suppose I were to start describing the road to my house. Now, you've not been here, but if I start saying that the road bends towards the left and then there is a command you get to see, now you start constructing a picture in your head based on what you have already seen. It's not the same. That's your theory, right? And then when you actually visit, you say, "Oh, it's the difference between theory and what I actually saw," and then you change your theory. So theory is... It's natural. All of us think naturally like this. And that's why he says here that people are different from one another and we need to celebrate those differences. All of us are born with the system of learning, but not all of us learn the same way.   0:18:49.8 Balaji Reddie: There are some who learn by watching, there are some who learn by doing, there's some who learn by reading, there's some who learn by writing. For some people, one word is enough. You utter a word and they say, "I got it." And for some people, you have to repeat the statement maybe 10 times, 11 times, and then the 12th time you repeat it, they say, "Okay, I got it." Now, is that wrong? We're just different, right? And that's why he says here that we need to understand the learning process of people. And 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 was his definition of joy in work. People enjoy their work when they realize it resonates with them.   0:19:40.4 Balaji Reddie: And how does that resonance come in? When you under... And because this is so difficult to do, we just throw the responsibility on them by saying, "Here's the target." So the target actually distracts them when actually you should be working on understanding their learning process. So it's a lot of hard work. And sometimes people are motivated enough to discover it themselves, which is great, but we need to create that atmosphere for them to enjoy their work. So interest, challenge, et cetera, he tries to optimize. Now, here's the key. This is beautiful. He tries to optimize family background, education, skills, hopes, and abilities of everyone.   0:20:21.7 Balaji Reddie: So this is not ranking people, very clear. It is instead recognition of differences between people and an attempt to put everybody in a position for development. I think this is one of the most important principles in getting things done. When I teach this to the HR students in my college, I keep saying that I don't think you should call this science as human resource management, because the definition of a resource is obtain it, shape it, use it, and throw it away. We don't wanna do that. I think we should change the title of that department to Department of Learning, because that's what exactly this is all about, and it's learning in both ways where you are trying to understand their process of learning and in effect, you're trying to understand how the company is going to be learning.   0:21:17.0 Balaji Reddie: So you put this in... So this principle, he says, combine all of these things: family background, education, hopes, I love that word. Because if you see one of the things that people talk about, customer satisfaction, I think Deming was the only person who said customers should be happy. Not just satisfied, happier, right? Now comes the next principle. "He is an unceasing learner." So you can never say, "I know it all." Unceasing learner, he encourages his people to study. And I think this fits Dr. Deming himself. He made no excuses to learn. "May I not learn," he would keep repeating that. And I remember Bill Cooper getting irritated and said, "The last time I met you, you said this, and now you're saying this. I got that on tape." He said, "Well, you got this on tape now." He said that, "I do, I learn. And as I learn," he said, "that could have been under different circumstances that I said that, but I'm saying this."   0:22:22.4 Balaji Reddie: And so you keep learning. And he encourages his people to study. The word is study. And he provides, when possible and feasible, seminars and courses for advancement of learning, encourages continued education in college or university for people that are so inclined. So I think this bit is in many places getting to be a part of the systems in most companies. I've seen that happen now, which is a good sign. But it doesn't end there, there are a lot of other things to do. This was the Principle 7 in the list of 17. Now comes Principle 8, and this is so difficult to look at. He says "he's a coach and a counsel, not a judge." You judge people, they shut up.   0:23:15.4 Balaji Reddie: So he says coach and counsel. When they need help, guide them, show them the path. Sometimes maybe you need some help in doing that, well, go ahead. So that was principle number eight. Principle number nine says "he understands a stable system. He understands the interaction between people and the circumstances that they work in. He understands that the performance of anyone that can learn a skill will come to a stable state." Now, this is amazing. He said this way back in the 1950s when he was in Japan teaching them the control chart, where he took one example where he says that further training to the worker and the process was still in control. And he says, "I think he's reached the limit of his learning. He perhaps needs to be taken to another process or maybe given something more challenging so that we can develop the learning process."   0:24:17.6 Balaji Reddie: So he was speaking about this way back in the 1950s, which today you can say comes under understanding psychology through variation. And he says, upon which furthest the lessons will not bring improvement of performance, and a manager of people knows that in this stable state, it is distracting to tell the worker about a mistake, because he says you'll actually then demotivate someone. So these three principles...   0:24:44.1 Andrew Stotz: Because a mistake may be just normal variation, or are you saying... Okay. Yep. Okay.   0:24:51.0 Balaji Reddie: Yeah. I mean, it could be anything, right? But if you are highlighting that when he's already reached a stable state, it could just work in a detrimental way, the opposite direction.   0:25:05.4 Andrew Stotz: Ultimately you've reached your goal. A steady state is fantastic.   0:25:07.4 Balaji Reddie: A steady state. And then now you say if you want him to... Anything better here, I think you need to move him out from there, since maybe he needs to be given something either more challenging or whatever it is. But use of psychology and variation together. If people are saying that he spoke about this in the 1990s, he actually spoke about this in the 1950s in Japan. And I have proof. If you go and check Elementary Principles of the Statistical Control of Quality, the series of lectures that he gave in Japan, you will see this in one of the chapters, very clearly stating what needs to be done.   0:25:47.9 Balaji Reddie: Now we come to the next principle, which is... I don't know how to explain this, but it's amazing. He says that "the leader has three sources of power: authority of office, knowledge, and personality and persuasive power, tact." So authority, that's your title, knowledge, and personality. Now, personality, persuasive power, and tact is more of a personal thing. It is something that is an attribute. Authority is the title you're given. I think the only thing that you can really work on is your knowledge. And he says that a successful manager of people develops knowledge and personality and persuasive power, does not rely on authority of office. He nevertheless has obligation to use his authority, a source of power, for him to bring changes. He says that maybe some drastic changes to equipment, to materials, to methods, and to reduce variation.   0:26:55.0 Balaji Reddie: So he attributes this to a gentleman, Dr. Robert Klekamp, or Klekamp, I don't know how to pronounce that. So he says, "He in authority, but lacking knowledge or personality, must depend on his formal power. He unconsciously fills a void in his qualifications by making it clear to everybody that he's in position of authority, his will be done." So I think he said if things needed to be done and if he's being guided the right way, then he has to bring his authority into power. I think this brings me to one of the interactions he had with... Was it James McDonald at Ford? When he made him stand up and asked him, "What is your job?" And he said, "I'm vice president, manufacturing," and he sat down. Deming said, "Stand up. That's your title, not your job." And then for the next half an hour, he grilled him on what his job was. And after half an hour, he still didn't get an answer. He said, "You don't know what your job is. Do you think other people in the company know what their jobs are? I think you're running a mess here."   0:28:02.2 Balaji Reddie: So Jim McDonald, instead of feeling insulted, took it in a very different way. Though he said, "I did feel that I wanted to resign and just walk out of there," but he said, "I knew this man was onto something." And that kind of thing of authority of office, I think he did not like if people used it for the wrong reason, but he wanted them to develop knowledge, personality. Personality, well, I think again, on the soft side, persuasive power tact. Not all of us have that, but I think we are living in a knowledge economy, so knowledge would be the key here. And he also says that if you're in a position of authority, use this to get the right work done.   0:28:47.3 Balaji Reddie: Then next he says "he will study the results with the aim to improve his performance as a manager of people." So when the system is not getting what it's supposed to do, then he does not put the blame on the people. He says, "I have... I may be going wrong somewhere." I'd like to share an example of my father in Japan. My father was in Japan in 1964, I said this last time. And he was on this Asian Overseas Technical Scholarship, AOTS. And they run these courses even today. They have three-month, six-month, nine-month, and one-year courses. And from what I remember my father telling me, it's integrated in the sense, I think he was there for six months. So during the morning sessions, they used to have classroom training, sitting in a classroom. And in the afternoon, post-lunch, they would go and work in a company, and that was like their intern. And so it was a combination of theory and practice taking place almost every day.   0:30:02.4 Balaji Reddie: Now, what happened there was on the first day... And that's where he started working with Showa Electric, and said they were called the interns. So on the first day, he was taken to the company and was introduced to his supervisor. The supervisor took him on the shop floor and introduced him to the team that he would be working with. And then, while he was leaving, that supervisor said, "I just need to tell you this, that we also form what is called as a quality circle." And this was... The quality circle movement started in 1962, so '64, the quality circle. And so my father said, "I don't know what you're talking about." And he said, "Well, this is something new. So would you like to be a part of it?" Because quality circle is voluntary, not mandatory. They make you a part of the quality, so if you want to be a part of the quality circle. It's not imposed on you.   0:31:05.0 Balaji Reddie: So my father said, "I need to talk to my teacher, my sensei, at the class." He said, "Yeah. You can talk to him." So he went back to the class the next day in the morning, he asked the teacher, the sensei, that this is what they said. He said, "Oh, it's a very good system. You can become a member of the quality circle." So on the second day, he said, "Yes, I'll be a member of the quality circle." "Great," he said. Now, on the third day, his actual work started. Now, they used to make television screens, CRO, et cetera. And one of the steps there was soldering. They had to solder. And the soldering was the dip soldering. You had to take the printed circuit board and dip it into the solder bath and take it out. Of course you were to... There was a technique.   0:31:52.8 Balaji Reddie: And so his job was that. His first job that he was assigned is to do soldering on these PCBs. And so the supervisor himself sat with my father and demonstrated 10 to 15 times how to do it. Then he told my father, "Now you do it." And then he was guiding him, and he made him make around 10 pieces until he said, "Okay. Now you're getting it right." Okay. Now he said the ground rules. If by any chance you press it down too hard or you keep it too long because of the extreme heat, there will be a superficial crack on the PCB. And that would not be something that affects the customer right away, but over a period of time, it can result in the board cracking and the radio not working. So when you see a superficial crack, you're supposed to pull the cord. There was a cord there. And when you pull the cord, the supervisor will come and help you. Fine.   0:32:56.1 Balaji Reddie: Now my father started doing his work, and his fifth or sixth piece developed a crack. Now, he said, I don't want to sound derogatory, but the Indian in me caught up. Should I report this? What would he think? I hardly left this man alone, and his fifth piece is a rejected piece. And he said, I did not want to pull that cord. But then... He said that, he told me, "Please pull the cord," I decided, let me go ahead and pull it. So when he pulled the cord, a red lamp went on there, and there's a big siren that went on. And the supervisor came running and turned off the siren and turned off that lamp and said, "What happened?" My father showed him the crack. So he said, "Okay, no problem." He put it aside. He demonstrated to my father 10 times again how to do it. And then he made him do it 10 times till he said, "Ah, see, you did this." And he got it right. Now he said, "Let's continue production."   0:33:58.8 Balaji Reddie: Now they went away and now my father got it right. After an hour or so, or maybe two hours, they had their tea break. And they were sitting around a table. Now, this was the quality circle. So the supervisor got up and started speaking in Japanese. Now, this was my father's third day there, so obviously he did not understand what was going on. The only thing he knew that they were referring to him because they could not pronounce his name properly. So instead of Reddie, he was being called Leddie. So Leddie-san, Leddie-san, Leddie-san. So my father said, "I knew he was talking about me." And he said, "I felt so ashamed, I was looking down at my cup of tea rather than looking up." And then when I looked up, he said, all of them were looking at him in admiration and the thumbs up sign. And he was wondering what the hell just happened.   0:34:51.0 Balaji Reddie: And at the end of it, when that supervisor stopped speaking, they all clapped. They clapped. And as they dispersed, each one came and held his hand and they went away. And now my father told the supervisor, "What did you tell them? Did you tell them I made a mistake?" He says, "Yes, yes, I did tell them that." He said, "Then why are they complimenting me? Why are they... Why did they clap? Why did they clap for me? Why are they shaking my hands?" He says, "They're shaking your hand, they're clapping, and they're complimenting because you pulled the cord." So he said, "What do you mean?" He says, "Well, we have a saying here, here in Japan, if after explaining to a person 10 times how to do something, if the person still makes a mistake, then there's something wrong in the way I explained it." So this bit over here is he will study results with the aim to improve his performance as a manager. Don't blame the other guy. What am I doing wrong?   0:35:54.0 Andrew Stotz: You hired him, you train him.   0:35:56.4 Balaji Reddie: Yep. So when Jack Welch used to say, "Sack the bottom 10% of the people every year," and he called them dead wood, well, I would say when you hired them, they weren't dead. You killed them. So that was principle number 11. Now principle number 12 is where he combined both variation and psychology together. He said "he will try to discover who, if anybody, is outside the system, in need of special help." So he draws a normal curve. I'll pass on this document to you so you could share it along with the podcast. And he says here that people belong to the system. These are people who need not be ranked. But a person outside the system on the lower side needs special help. People outside the system on the higher side, well, we need to take the system to that level to improve the system.   0:37:08.4 Balaji Reddie: So he talks about that. He says this can be accomplished with some simple calculations. If there be an individual with figures on production or on failures, special help may be only simple rearrangement of work. It might be more complicated. He in need of special help is not in the bottom 5%. He's clean outside that distribution. So he's trying to use the understanding of variation in a very different sense to understanding people. And he says that we try to reduce that variation in performance between people. That's the job of the system. So this is principle 11 and 12.   0:37:51.0 Balaji Reddie: Now you come to principle 13: "he creates trust." And that creates trust, I would believe, it's a two-way process. And he creates an environment that encourages freedom and innovation. That is the environment where people are unafraid to make mistakes. Because we learned that theory is not the opposite of practice; it's a guide to better practice. And we need all of us working together. And that trust, I think, has got a very funny meaning in my country. I keep joking about this. In India, trust is we will lie a little less to each other. But that's not what this is. We need to be straight honest with each other. And honest is you can only do that by example. Like what happened in my case. I remember when we had installed the ERP system in our company, and there are interlocks. And I remember there was a backlogged order. And I knew that because when we did not deliver the order on time, I negotiated with the customer and I got the delivery date postponed.   0:39:08.0 Balaji Reddie: Now I was trying to test the ERP that month. So I said, let me see if the ERP can capture this because it should show it as a backlogged order. But it showed it as an order that was to be delivered on the new adjusted date. And I said, "How did that happen?" Because that should not have changed. And so I called my assistant. I said, "This should be in backlog. Why is it showing me as a spillover order?" And he said, "No, I changed the date." I said, "Why did you do that?" And he said, "No, because the finance guy will get angry with me." And I said, "That is my problem." I said, "When I told you you're not supposed to change that date..." And I removed his administrative powers in changing the date so that he could not change the date in the system.   0:40:01.7 Balaji Reddie: I removed his powers. And he apologized profusely and said, "Please let me." I said, "No." So till the day I resigned, I kept it. I said, "You're not gonna be doing this because it's not a question..." I said... If I had succumbed to that Andrew, they would have lost my trust. They would have thought that, "Oh, Balaji just talks. He doesn't walk the talk." I said, "No, you're not supposed to do this. We are trying to go by a system. Let's go by the system." So I think you can only create trust through example, through demonstration, if I may say so, and especially under adverse circumstances that you need to demonstrate this.   0:40:46.1 Balaji Reddie: Principle number 14: he says "he does not expect perfection." I think that even he said it in principle of variation. Principle 15: he says "he listens and learns without passing judgment on him that he listens to." This is an extension of the previous points. Principle number 16: he will hold an informal, unhurried conversation with every one of his people at least once a year, not for judgment, merely to listen. The purpose would be development of understanding of his people, their aims, their hopes, and their fears. This meeting will be spontaneous and not planned ahead. So there should be no bias, like an audit.   0:41:41.5 Andrew Stotz: Right.   0:41:42.2 Balaji Reddie: And lastly, principle number 17: "he understands the benefits of cooperation and the losses from competition between people and between groups." So these were the 17 principles of leadership, the beginning of transformation. I think there can be nothing more to do than this. He was so clear in what he wanted us to do. I wonder why people say that there was no method.   0:42:16.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. He definitely outlined a lot of stuff there. One of the questions I had for you on that list is, what do you say to people that say that he's kind of a dreamer? The idea that you can sit down with your employees and have this time and everybody's so busy and just talk about your fears and your goals and all that stuff where we live in this age of, we've gotta get the result, we've gotta be focused. How do you respond to that?   0:42:51.1 Balaji Reddie: Well, I say give this a try. All right? You've done it your way, right? You've done it... Let's just forget about it, and you're seeing what's happening. You want a change, you gotta do something different. So why don't you go by what this man is saying? And if you say that, you know, a dreamer or whatever, well, I'd like to quote John Lennon here: "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."   0:43:16.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Yep. Yep. And what do you say for people that feel that you gotta have these targets and goals and KPIs to get the most out of people? And when we think about what Deming's talking about, we're talking about this intrinsic motivation. But it's scary for people to think. It's a lot more comfortable to have these goals and structures than what you could argue is a little bit more unstructured. And how do we balance that? And obviously Deming wasn't saying don't have goals.   0:44:02.1 Balaji Reddie: Yeah, yeah. I think Henry addresses this very well in his 12-day course where he has a specific section on goals, et cetera. And he talks about how Deming said that there are some things called facts of life. Facts of life is, okay, we need to turn out, we need to generate so much of revenue this year because we need to pay for all our salaries and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then we need to have some money for the future. So we need to make so much of money this year. Now that's not a goal, that's a fact of life. But when you are bringing that number out and showing that to everyone, please also indicate to them how we intend to achieve that. Don't just leave it to them and say we need to do this.   0:44:54.4 Balaji Reddie: Okay. I'll give an example here. I don't want to sound... It may sound a little self-serving, but okay, take it in the right spirit. I remember when we had our first strategic meeting at my company, and my boss... Okay, was... He said... I think 20 of us sitting in the room and he said, "Last year, our target was 30 million and we're getting there and we're doing a great job. So this year we're gonna aim for 45 million." Now when he said that, I just put my hand up and he said, "Yes." So I said, "Why 45 million?" And he just stared me down and he looked up at everyone and said, "That's it. Meeting dismissed." He just walked out. These are those days when you had... You know the OHP? You know the overhead transparencies, the projector?   0:45:56.9 Andrew Stotz: Oh, yeah. Overhead transparencies, yep.   0:45:58.8 Balaji Reddie: Yeah. So he had the transparencies, and he just took them and walked out. And all the guys came to me, "Are you mad? You're questioning the owner of the company? Are you nuts?" And I was thinking, "God, what did I say wrong?" And then we started going back to our cabins, and when I sat down at my desk, the phone rang, and it was boss. And he just uttered one word, "Come." So when I was walking towards his cabin, I was thinking to myself, "Nice company, nice friends." And then I knocked on the door, and he said, "Yeah, yeah. Come in." He said, "Sit down." And then he said, "Shut the door." He said, "What the hell were you trying to do today? Are you trying to mock me?" I said, "Please, why would I want to mock you, boss? I wouldn't want to mock you. I just wanted to know why 45 million."   0:46:52.9 Balaji Reddie: He says, "All right." And so he took out what is called the blue book, where we have the yearbook, what happened in our country in the last one year. We have these books that get written, right? So he said, "Look, this is growth in our country in industry. This is our... Sector that we are in, and we are in the organized sector in this industry. And the year-on-year growth for the last five years has been this, and this year the expected growth is so much. And can I expect at least 3 or 4% of that growth?" I said, "Of course, why not?" He said, "That, son, is 45 million." So I said, "Why didn't you tell me this? That's all I wanted to know." He said, "You think these asses..." He was referring to my other colleagues... "Would understand?" I said, "Boss, if I can understand, they can understand. It's one and the same." "Okay. Let's meet tomorrow."   0:47:52.1 Balaji Reddie: So the next day we met again. And he said, "Yesterday, when I uttered 45 million, this genius asked me why, and so I'm gonna tell you why." And he went on to explain. After he finished explaining, my sales guy... Sorry, my marketing guy got up and he said, "I have something to share." "Okay, please come forward." He put the transparency. And he had listed there the top 10 selling items in my company based on revenue, based on profits, and based on quantities. Top 10 for each. There were three products that were common to all the three. So obviously he was sending a message to us, that we had to attain our targets, at least by focusing.   0:48:44.8 Balaji Reddie: The moment he showed that, he underlined these three, the sales guy put his hand up and said, "Yes." "That second product you underlined, our competitor is selling it as a package with another product, but we don't seem to have that on our list." So the R&D guy got up and said, "Could you tell me what the part number..." And he says, "It's part number so-and-so." He said, "Hang on, I've already developed that." You know what was happening, Andrew? We were talking to each other. And that meeting went on for three and a half hours. And at the end of the three and a half hours, all of us knew how to attain 45 million.   0:49:23.8 Andrew Stotz: I thought you were gonna ask a question on the second day, "Hey, boss, so 45 million, why is there no market share gain of our business that we're growing faster than the industry?"   [laughter]   0:49:41.4 Balaji Reddie: So anyway, but this was... This is what I think goals should be transparent in this sense, that why are we giving you this number? And more importantly is the discussion that happens is how are we gonna do this? It just doesn't happen by itself, right? And if you leave it to people, they start distorting numbers, right?   0:50:03.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:50:04.2 Balaji Reddie: As Brian Joiner said, "Distort the data, distort the system, or distort both."   0:50:12.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And we're working on a growth plan for my coffee business.   0:50:19.0 Balaji Reddie: A growth.   0:50:19.6 Andrew Stotz: And really what it comes down to is three things. Number one, are we as the owners gonna hire more salespeople? Because salespeople bring in revenue.   0:50:36.3 Balaji Reddie: Right.   0:50:37.0 Andrew Stotz: Number two, are we as the owners going to develop together with the rest of the team a higher value-added offering...   0:50:50.6 Balaji Reddie: Wow.   0:50:50.8 Andrew Stotz: That we can bring more value than what we're bringing right now, which would bring potential customers to us and allow us to sell more easily. Or are we as the owners going to buy another company?   0:51:07.8 Balaji Reddie: Oh, okay.   0:51:09.2 Andrew Stotz: So those are the three things. And Dale and I have been discussing each one of those in a lot of detail, testing out and debating and discussing. But those are the type that... When it comes to growth, that's just... We know the growth we can produce with no change. And that's in line with the inflation rate or whatever the economic growth, for sure. But as long as we don't lose people on our team or something like that. But to go to our team and say, "How are we gonna grow faster?" Well, that whole point is we can see. Also the other thing is that we can see bigger about the industry sometimes. Sometimes they see something at a small level that they bring back to us and think, "Whoa, wait a minute, that's something valuable." And yeah, so we're getting ready for our final decisions on where we're gonna go with that. But yeah, without that type of change, we're not gonna reach the type of growth that we want to get. And really our idea is 5x growth in five years.   0:52:19.9 Balaji Reddie: Okay.   0:52:20.5 Andrew Stotz: And in order to do that, we have to have a completely different level of quality, service, product, thinking. And so, yeah, it's fun... It's challenging. Anyways...   0:52:32.9 Balaji Reddie: Right.   0:52:33.2 Andrew Stotz: So how do we wrap this up? What is it you want people to take away? You've shared a lot of different stuff. What would you like them to take away from it?   0:52:42.0 Balaji Reddie: Yeah. One, I'm trying to shatter that myth that Deming did not tell us what was to be done. I think he was very clear and we need to reread and reread. And we have to take these as guidelines. You may come up with your own method, but see these as a guideline by and large to put you on the right path. And once you do that, you may develop something which works for you, and that's what he wanted. But let us not just say that he only philosophized about things. I think he was very clear in his head. He just wanted us to do things our own way because nobody understood our problems better than we ourselves. And he was just showing us how to understand things around.   0:53:32.6 Balaji Reddie: He wanted us to know, to understand what we do not know. Through these principles, we can address some of the gaps. Perhaps we were getting a few things wrong. So point number 14, take action to accomplish the transformation. I think it begins with leadership. So point number seven comes into the picture. It begins with training and education. Point number six comes into the picture and it also brings in point number 13, which is learning and development. And education and training is different from learning and development. Training can be very company specific and you can measure the outcomes of training, but you cannot measure the outcomes of development because that takes time.   0:54:19.8 Balaji Reddie: So you need to have some things going in your favor. And for that you need to choose, and he told us how to do that. And yes, he wanted top management to be a part of this because he said those in authority need to do this. But that one sentence that middle management can commence, it can commence there, is a telling statement. So he knew it was possible.   0:54:45.0 Andrew Stotz: That's great. And I like that. Commence. That there's... It's not necessarily gonna be completed by middle management, but middle management can start right now, right where you are. So that's a great way, that's a great way to end with the start. So, Balaji, I want to thank you on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute. And it's an interesting discussion and I'm enjoying it very much. And for listeners out there, remember to go to deming.org and also there, jump on DemingNEXT to continue your journey. 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."   0:55:32.1 Balaji Reddie: Oh, yeah. Andrew, I think saying thank you on behalf of the institute, I am also a part of the institute.   0:55:38.5 Andrew Stotz: Of course. Of course. You are. I appreciate it. Okay.

Here's my brief recap of the amazing Irresistible 2026 (photos coming), and my discussion with clients about many things, including the new insane costs of AI. I just read a study that Ramp (credit card) did, discovering that the top AI users are spending $7500 per month per employee on AI. (Yikes!) That aside, the conference was spectacular and we all learned a lot. Stay tuned for a more detailed article on the Pacesetters and other major research we unveiled. In the meantime here's my update on economics and AI maturity (companies are maturing and learning about this stuff quickly), as well as my heartfelt thanks to everyone who participated. Additional Information Announcements: The Josh Bersin Institute, HR 2030, And The Global HR Excellence Certification. HR 2030: Overview and Detailed Blueprint for clients and Galileo Users AI Prices Are Going Up, Up, Up – And What This Means For Enterprise AI Chapters (00:00:00) - Irresistible Conference 2017(00:00:55) - What I Learned at the Conference on AI & the Code(00:01:52) - The role of data in AI HR(00:03:44) - The Token Economics of AI(00:08:03) - Intro to Enterprise AI and HR(00:12:29) - The Future of AI HR(00:15:42) - Happy Summer Solstice!

The damage from your Q1 goal doesn't show up until Q3, on someone else's dashboard, after the person who flagged it got fired.Part 2 of the Outcome Trap series. Brian and Om argue why you can't see the trap from inside it: second-order effects land too late to trace, the people who spot trouble get removed, and the truth fractures across team dashboards until nobody owns the whole picture. By the end you'll have questions to ask before any number you set quietly destroys the business.Listen or watch as we discuss and debate:Why Goodhart's Law turns every new leading indicator into another surface to gameHow Sears split into 40 competing units and imploded while every department hit its OKRsThe Wells Fargo whistleblower fired for 'tardiness' eight days after calling the ethics hotlineWhy Deming's 1986 warning to eliminate numerical goals got ignored for forty yearsTwo questions to ask before setting any targetIf you've ever been in a company where every conceivable metric was green while the business slowly bleed out, this podcast is for you!.#OKRs #Deming #GoodhartsLawW. Edwards Deming (Out of the Crisis, The New Economics), Goodhart's Law, Peter Senge The Fifth Discipline, The People's Republic of Walmart, Sears (Eddie Lampert), Wells Fargo (Bill Bado), Frances Haugen Facebook testimony, Careless People by Sarah Wynn-WilliamsLINKSYouTube: https://youtu.be/BuWgxH8VpRISpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/362QvYORmtZRKAeTAE57v3Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/agile-podcast/id1568557596INTRO MUSICToronto Is My BeatBy Whitewolf (Source: https://ccmixter.org/files/whitewolf225/60181)CC BY 4.0 DEED (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en)

Patrick Wood of Technocracy News has a newly released book ‘The New Economics of Technocracy.' Technocracy News: https://www.technocracy.news/ www.worldviewmatters.tv © FreedomProject 2026

On this week's episode of the podcast, I am joined by Danny Frankel, the founder of Punchup Live, a digital platform and ticketing ecosystem built for stand-up comedians. We explore how the economics of content distribution and audience building are being fundamentally rewritten. Danny provides a unique perspective on the shifting landscape of social media, the rise of clipping farms, and the digitization of live entertainment markets. Among other things, we discuss:How clipping farms and Discord communities are distorting organic distribution algorithms for independent creators across social media platformsWhether the extreme efficiency of AI-driven content recommendation engines is leading to user burnout and eventual platform rejectionWhy the traditional touring model is inverted for comedians compared to musicians and how that affects audience building strategiesWhat the phenomenon of blue dot fever reveals about shifting consumer behavior and transparency in the secondary ticketing marketIf the current fragmentation of the live entertainment ecosystem prevents artists from accurately predicting and capturing true market demandHow the lack of audience portability across major social platforms forces creators to adopt direct-to-fan communication tools like emailWhen the innovator's dilemma will force legacy platforms to choose between advertiser needs and the long-term health of creatorsThanks to the sponsors of this week's episode of the Mobile Dev Memo podcast:⁠⁠INCRMNTAL⁠⁠⁠. True attribution measures incrementality, always on.Xsolla⁠. With the Xsolla Web Shop, you can create a direct storefront, cut fees down to as low as 5%, and keep players engaged with bundles, rewards, and analytics.⁠Branch⁠. Branch is an AI-powered MMP, connecting every paid, owned, and organic touchpoint so growth teams can see exactly where to put their dollars to bring users in the door and keep them coming backInterested in sponsoring the Mobile Dev Memo podcast? Contact Mobile Dev Memo advertising.

What if the problem isn't your strategy, your people, or your tools, but the lens you're looking through? In this first conversation with Andrew Stotz, quality educator Balaji Reddie explains why so many organizations chase Deming's 14 Points and prizes but miss the philosophy underneath. He also gets into what changes once you start seeing your organization as one connected system. There are a few surprises along the way, like why his employees actually celebrated the day he got rid of performance appraisals. 0:00:01.9 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm here with featured guest Balaji Reddie, who is an educator and trainer in teaching of Dr. Deming and quality management generally. Now the topic for today is a deeper perspective of the teachings of Dr. Deming. Balaji, how are you?   0:00:29.6 Balaji Reddie: I am fine. It's wonderful to see you this morning. I have been looking forward to this for quite some time now.   0:00:37.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. In fact, we've been talking back and forth in the past and then we had a meeting recently to get going on this because you've got so much to share. And one of the things I just said is a deeper perspective on the teachings of Dr. Deming. Maybe you could just give a little background of yourself for those people that have never heard of your journey. Maybe tell us a little bit about your journey, the Deming journey, as well as what you're doing now.   0:01:02.2 Balaji Reddie: All right. So I am an electrical engineer by profession and my first job which I got was in a lamp, a bulb manufacturing company which made automotive lamps. And that's where I chose to be in the quality department because I was being shunted around in all the different departments and the owner of the company asked me, "Where would you like to be?" and I said, "Quality." I don't know, when I look back why I chose. I think it appealed to me as an engineer and also the fact that I wanted to be a manager. It combined engineering and something to do with managing people. I don't want to sound dramatic, but I don't think I chose quality, I think quality chose me. But what I did after that was conscious. I did a postgraduate diploma in quality management, the first structured course in the country, and then went on to a Master of Science in quality management here in India.   0:02:00.2 Balaji Reddie: So that's been my journey here as far as working. I worked a lot. I used to teach part-time, but I made this switch 20 years ago to be an educator primarily and decided to put all my focus into creating the next gen of managers. At the same time, during the bit of a free time that I have, I do consult, but that's not the core profession of mine. So, yes, I'm an educator and a trainer. You can say that. I teach quality management, anything to do with operations, supply chain, et cetera, but there's always been a Deming slant to it. Along with that, I've also liked to... Because I went into the works of Dr. Juran, I got a good chance to meet with him and be in touch with him. It was only the last six years of his life, but I think he had very little time to give me, but he gave me time. So I have a good perspective of both these gentlemen. And if you know quality, they're the pioneers.   0:03:01.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And I'm curious, when you first started out with the degrees and the, as you mentioned, getting a diploma and then a master's, was Deming front and center in there or was that a secondary thing? What was it like in the beginning?   0:03:19.6 Balaji Reddie: Oh, my entire focus was actually Deming. I needed to be qualified in that. I wanted to qualify myself in quality, that's what I meant here, because there was no... I was looking for a structured course on the subject. You had these training programs, certificate courses, but this one caught my attention when they said we have a diploma in quality. And part of the course was we had to, there was a project like a dissertation, and we had to show how we implemented this in our companies where we were working. And for those who were not working, they were provided companies where you go and actually implement these. So it was a win-win. So the company gained and you gained. That's how it was. That's what I liked about that course. Same with the masters. It was a complete two-year course. This was a year-and-a-half or three semesters. That was more elaborate, the masters. So, yeah.   0:04:18.0 Andrew Stotz: And what is the state of Deming and the teachings of Dr. Deming in India? We know that many companies in India have implemented the teachings of Deming over the years. But of course, there's a lot of people that just know nothing. I'm just curious, what is the state right now as far as the teachings of Dr. Deming?   0:04:40.3 Balaji Reddie: Oh, I'd like to... Just a slight correction there. We have the highest number of Deming Prize winners, but that does not necessarily mean that they're implementing the teachings of Dr. Deming. In fact, many of them after having got the prize... I worked in a company, we were suppliers to one of them. And when they came to do a vendor assessment to our factory, obviously there's a lot of buzz. Everyone in the company, they called me the Deming man. They used to call me that. And so when these guys came down and they were talking and when they gave their business card which had the Deming Prize logo, so they said, "Oh, we have... You know, Balaji is here and he's our Deming man." So who's he and what is this? And so they came and met me and they said that, "We got the Deming Prize." I said, "Excellent." But I said, "Just because you got the Deming Prize, I mean, have you worked on the Deming philosophy?" "Isn't this the same?" And I said, "No." And I, of course, joked with them, and they said, "So how do we learn?" And I said, "Pay me." [laughter] Anyway, yeah, then we got talking and they realized that there was such a big gap in what they were doing. For instance, when I spoke to them about performance appraisals and having quotas and things like that, they were like, "What?"   0:06:04.9 Andrew Stotz: Interesting. And when we talk about the Deming Prize, when I asked you that, we're talking about the Deming Prize which is offered by the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers through their Deming Prize Committee. This isn't something done through the Deming Institute.   0:06:12.3 Balaji Reddie: No.   0:06:19.7 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Okay. And do people study Deming there in India anymore or is it fading out or...   0:06:26.7 Balaji Reddie: Well, yeah, that's what I said, they do know. The good part is that because of the fact that the Deming Prize winners are there, at least they know about Dr. Deming. And then they're curious to know, "Oh, what did he teach?" Because again, they've been given that perspective that he taught, well, wrongly, PDCA, and he focused on the 14 points. And then when they read the 14 points and then they get... Because when you read it just without understanding, you can actually... It can put off certain people. You may get a little repulsed and say, "Oh, my God, what's he saying?" But then there are certain people who get intrigued and say, "Wait a minute. This is challenging. He's saying that we need not have quotas? Then how are you going to get work done?" And that's where the questioning begins. And there have been normally these trends where some companies where they called me over, I shall not name one of them, one of the students I was teaching in class and I was talking about the 14 points, and then she comes up to me and she says, "I've spoken about you to my father, and he's working in this company, and they're going for the Deming Prize. He wants to meet you." And then she brings him to the college the next morning and then we had a lovely discussion. And he said, "We've been discussing the 14 points." And I said, "You know what? You're putting the cart before the horse. You need to discuss profound knowledge first." So he said, "I'll put you in touch with my HR, the human resource." And then that lady got in touch with me, then we had a good chat and I explained to her and she understood very quickly. Incidentally, Andrew, that's something very amazing, when I speak about these things to the HR people, they take to it like a fish takes to water. They say, "You're right. What can we do about appraisals? Appraisals are wrong." But they also know they're shackled. They do not have the authority to break and come out of it. There have been some cases where they've been bold enough, but many of them... That's one of the things I've seen over these last 20 years that I've been teaching, that everybody principally agrees, but they also say that we're bound by it.   0:08:37.6 Andrew Stotz: That reminds me when I attended my first seminar when I was 24, and I was very intimidated by all the people in the room. I was just fresh out of university, working at Pepsi in Los Angeles. I flew into Washington, D.C., and so I sat right in the front row and I just decided I'm not gonna look at anybody behind me because they're all bigwig executives. But then when I heard Deming really show no mercy and really be tough to them, I was like, "Wow, wow, this is interesting." And he was getting to the... As a factory supervisor, which is what I was at Pepsi, I could just see he was getting to the heart of the matter. And so, yeah, a lot of things are very obvious to people in the factory, but then it's the leadership that is an issue. I'm curious when we think about... Let's imagine that someone listening to this has never heard of Dr. Deming and it's their first time, they stumbled upon this, they're hearing you speak. They're gonna ask the question, "Why does this matter? What benefit do I get from this?" How would you describe that to someone who knows nothing about Dr. Deming and his teachings?   0:09:59.3 Balaji Reddie: Oh, well, when you start getting aware of what this man had to say, let me tell you, when you start actually getting to it, you'll find that what you've been missing all this time in life. And then when you actually get to implement this, it'll be way, way better than where you are right now, sometimes totally in a very, very different direction. And you begin to realize that you had an illusion of knowledge, that you thought you were correct, and then suddenly a new perspective comes in. Just to make a point here, I don't want to be boastful about this, but I'm really proud to say this, that in all the companies that I worked, I removed performance appraisal. None of the companies I worked in had performance appraisal. And the day we removed it in one of the companies, there were actually celebrations.   [laughter]   0:10:56.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Which for many people listening that don't know anything about the teachings of Dr. Deming may think, "That's crazy, because I thought that we run business through performance appraisals, KPIs, and the like." One of the ways I was thinking when you were just speaking was it's a little bit like Deming's... You're a fish, and Dr. Deming is a guy that's gonna come up and tell you, "Oh, by the way, you're surrounded by water." And you're like, "Wait, what do you mean? What's water?" And then all of a sudden he brings this awareness like, "What am I swimming in? I am swimming in something, and it's called water." And it's like everything that's going on, the concept of how we learn, the concept of variation, the concept of psychology, it's like all of these are foundational things that we've been swimming in, but we really haven't been paying attention to. And I think he woke me up to a lot of that. So what should we talk about today? What do you got on your mind?   0:11:55.7 Balaji Reddie: Well, I presume that the audience would be someone who's read about Deming, or if they have not read, I can go it either way.   0:12:05.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I mean, I would say just let's go into what your learnings are and what you want to teach us today and share with us, and then people can follow along.   0:12:17.4 Balaji Reddie: All right. So let's begin with what he meant by Profound Knowledge, because that was something he put together only towards the end of his life. I'm reminded of a few things that led to me thinking about these things. One of the very first books that was written on him was by Mary Walton, The Deming Management Method. And with due respect, she was an excellent journalist, and so she followed him around. Everyone was intrigued to know who this man is because he had just gained popularity. If Japan Can... Why Can't We? And so she wrote this book, I think as early as '84, if I'm not mistaken. And she followed him around for almost three years before she actually published the book. So she attended four-day seminars, and she's trying to understand what this man was. So the biography bit of it was very nice. But if you go there in the preface and in one of the chapters, there's a very interesting conversation where she says, "I asked Deming that why don't you set up a body, an organization? Why are you doing this all alone?" And he didn't say a word to her, and he just mentioned to her, "I'm good." So I believe he was still looking for the answers to offer something to the world. He had it all in uncoordinated stuff here and there, but that came much later, I think in 1989, when he finally put it all together and called it Profound Knowledge. Because that was when a year, a month or so before he passed away, he set up the Deming Institute. I think he thought he was ready now to leave behind a legacy that others could build upon, right?   0:14:08.0 Balaji Reddie: And so that he called it... Again, I'm looking for the missing link here—. Apparently, when he wrote it, as he called it deep knowledge, but it was someone who gave him the word profound, and that's how the name stuck. So I'm still trying to find out who did that. I saw this in one of the letters to Henry Neave, where he was writing to all of his colleagues, he called them, and taking feedback from them. And in that, he said that, "I profess this is deep, this is wide." And somebody said, "It's profound." I forget. I really want to find out who it is. I asked Bill Scherkenbach, and he said, no, it wasn't him. Henry, of course, no. I asked Bill Latzko, and he said, "No way. I never said that." So I really don't know who said it, but he christened it "profound." And we all know now, it sounded very pompous to begin with when you hear profound, and then you say, "Wait a minute." When you start getting into it, you say, "He's right. There's no other word to describe this. It is profound." So what exactly is Profound Knowledge? Now, it's a different way of looking at things around you. And especially he designed this or created this for man-made systems, organizations that you and I work in, helping us to look at things differently, right? And that's why he said it's a different lens. And when you see things differently, you ask different questions, right? When you ask different questions, you get different answers. When you get different answers, you draw different conclusions. When you draw different conclusions, you take different decisions. And when you take different decisions, that's when you get different results. It's insanity to expect different results by asking the same questions every single time. All right.   0:15:53.8 Balaji Reddie: Now, what exactly is, again, what do you mean by this whole thing, the lens? He brought together four seemingly disconnected sciences, right? He never invented any single one of them, but he saw the interconnections. All right. And the four sciences, he felt that if you had good knowledge, working knowledge of these four sciences, you need not be an expert in them, just enough for you to understand what's going on around you. All right? And in no order of importance, he had his title for each of those sciences. One was he called it appreciation for a system, which I would like to say very simply is connectedness, right? Because when people say systems thinking, okay, then you have the systems thinking experts who jumped into the picture. And I think they were caught napping. To be quite honest, Andrew, I think the people from the world of management were suddenly caught napping, and the experts were completely caught napping because they realized they'd missed the bus. Here's this man who caught everything together and put it into place, right? And so when they were... When they said systems thinking, so the systems experts came in and started trying to find out, "Oh, but he missed out on this, and he's confusing this with that." That's where it is. Dr. Deming knew where to start. All right? He said, "Yes, of course, it's all about systems, appreciation for a system, the fact that nothing exists in isolation." So I would like to say connectedness. Everything's connected to everything. When you start having that systemic approach, you realize you're not dealing with events, you're dealing with eventualities, and that there are always a huge myriad of inputs that create the outputs that you see in front of your eyes, right? And there's so many other attributes that they're separated in time and space, et cetera. We can talk for this forever. But the short word here is connectedness. Second...   0:17:56.1 Andrew Stotz: And I would say that the systems experts retreated soon after because they're nowhere to be found when we look at it these days, because everything's divide and conquer.   0:18:07.6 Balaji Reddie: Yes. Yeah, because there were people like Russell Ackoff, Stafford Beer was mentioned many times, and then their books. Now, I went on to read their books and I found, yes, they were going deep, but Dr. Deming knew where to draw the line and said, "That's it. Please don't go beyond this," and it depends on where you are, what you want to study. So draw your line around that and say that's it. And I think that thinking came from the next science which I'm talking about, which is understanding of variation, right? Now, although we say understanding of variation and people talk about the control chart, I think that's just the manifestation. If you look at the philosophy behind it, what Walter Shewhart actually was trying to do was to draw a line between when to act on the process and when to leave it alone, right? He came out with... He demarcated, and that's where it turned into the control chart with data. But broadly, Deming started applying this everywhere, right? He said that there are some things which are in my control and some things out of my control, and so he drew a line. And same with systems thinking, that how big and how deep should I go? And that's why he said every system must have an aim. Without an aim... So the aim and the purpose decide where you're gonna stop. You can't just keep on saying, "Oh, yeah, finally, okay, the whole world is a system." Fine, great, I get that. But I'm trying to study this, okay? My company, my organization, this process, these people. So you draw the line and say, "This is my purpose, so let me restrict." Again, I repeat, he knew where to stop. People tend to go overboard. And so he always said, "Begin with the aim, begin with the purpose." The purpose is the reason the system exists, and the aim is the direction in which you're headed. So you keep going there, keep revisiting that to let yourself remind yourself that I need to stop right here. Okay, and that's it. When I come to it later, because he said... Coming to the third part of Profound Knowledge, where he said you must have a theory of knowledge.   0:20:13.4 Balaji Reddie: Now, when people hear the word theory they get very put off. At least in my country, the broad doctrine is that theory is the opposite of practice. And so they think that theory belongs to the books and theory belongs at home. And when you come into the company, we all believe in being practical, right? And as you go through what Dr. Deming had to say about theory, you realize theory is a guide to better practice. And all the great practitioners are actually theorists. It's just that they don't know it, and we need to remind them. I've had enough of experience on this in my own company. And I remember when I turned on the light bulb for one of the very, very senior people in my company, he went completely quiet. He did not say anything, but I loved the way he reacted or responded to this when he started doing things very differently after the interaction that we had once. So that's with theory of knowledge. And...   0:21:19.9 Andrew Stotz: And would you say that theory of knowledge, would you correct my description of it, which is that you need to have a method of... You need to understand how you acquire knowledge?   0:21:40.1 Balaji Reddie: Yeah.   0:21:40.2 Andrew Stotz: And you gotta figure out, because acquiring knowledge, for instance, as an individual, we can play around lots of different ideas and experiments and stuff like that, but acquiring knowledge within an organization is a much harder thing. And so first is the idea that there's a level of rigor that you need in an organization to make knowledge stick.   0:22:06.9 Balaji Reddie: I think it's more about awareness. When you become aware of how you're converting information into knowledge. When you... He makes you aware of that, right? Dr. Deming gets you aware, he makes aware, "Okay, okay, wait, what's happening here?" Now, that method and all turned out to be the Plan-Do-Study-Act, whatever you call it. But he helped you understand how you're doing this, right? And you become cognizant. You get your cognitive behavior, you get very aware of things happening around you, right? You start asking the question, "Why? Why is this happening?" And then you get to the bottom of it. "Oh, when I do this, I get this." And that's when it becomes powerful for you. And then you also, "When I do this, I do not get this." And the more the theory fails, the more powerful it gets for you, because you know where it fails. So that's the awareness thing. So connectedness, being aware of the fact that it's beyond just numbers. It's about where, the variation bit, the third bit is about awareness, like I said, about learning, and the fourth, of course, about people. And he said here that all of us are born with a learning system, right? Each one of us has a learning system, a system of learning, but every single one of us has a different system of learning. We learn differently, and we learn at different speeds, at different paces, right? And so understanding the learning process of a person and then putting that person on the right job, right? He said you have to stop that person from working, and that's where joy in work comes in. People enjoy their work. I think the bottom line there is empathy when you start understanding why people do what they do, whether it's your people in the company, the customers, your suppliers, the entire system. So he says the learning process of every person needs to be understood. You want to control the market, you need to understand what makes the customer tick. You want to keep the suppliers with you, you want to understand what makes the suppliers tick, right? And what makes them tick.   0:24:23.3 Balaji Reddie: So that's the fourth part, which I would put as the word empathy. Trying to empathize. So putting this all together, he said that's what he called as Profound. So if you look at it in a broad sense, connectedness and empathy are very philosophical, and the variation and theory are very scientific. So he wanted us to be scientific and philosophical simultaneously. It's not either-or, it's and. And that's difficult to do, right? You have the big divide. You have a set of people who say, "Oh, I believe only in data. Show me the data, show me the results." And then there's a whole other set of people who says, "You gotta feel. You gotta feel for the company. Motivate." Yeah, but neither is wrong, but neither is complete. And this is complete. So this is where I found that I think we could begin, that we need to look at all these four sciences together. And of course, then came the 14 points which he laid out for us. Now, these 14 points, now if you look at them, because I just discussed the four... Of course, I've not gone into depth of each of the sciences, but I think good enough to understand what we are trying to deal with here, then you'd see that the 14 points are actually 14 consequences of this way of thinking. That you don't try to do the 14 points. When you start thinking this way, you end up with the 14 points, right? And there are some things which need to be done, right, and we need to start somewhere with this. And one of the main things that he always said is that people need to be educated about this, that people need to learn about this. And so education and training is important even when it comes to profound knowledge. And he said someone has to take the lead, all right? Someone has to get things done. And so that was his point number 14, that create a critical mass of people in the company that understand, believe, and will work towards these 14 points, right? So I'm gonna begin right there.   0:26:43.1 Andrew Stotz: I was just thinking about his saying, "One need not be an expert in any one point, [chuckle] any one of these areas." With the System of Profound Knowledge, the more I've studied it recently, which I've been working on a project recently where I had to go back to the System of Profound Knowledge, you really see that he's trying to provide a coherent, holistic system.   0:27:16.1 Balaji Reddie: Yes. I call it as a theory of leadership and management.   0:27:23.6 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And then you start to realize that if you can understand these four things, which isn't that... It doesn't have to be that complex, it can be pretty amazing. And I know one part of my business is investing, which I do on behalf of my clients. And one of the things that makes me stand out as unique is that I don't get distracted by the random variation in the markets. And so that doesn't mean that I'm gonna get it right all the time, but what it means is that my mind is much more clear when I understand. And as I tell people about variation, I say, if you think about just your birth, the beginning of your life is a random event. You had no influence over that, who you were born of. And therefore we at least know that randomness plays one role in your life. But when you start exploring the possibility that randomness is all around you just like water, it just wakes you up and you start to realize, "Aha, I've been reacting to things," and punishing and rewarding and all of that stuff that's happening in companies. And what I'm really doing is I'm just chasing my tail. Or as Dr. Deming would say, putting out a fire. A man could run... A manager could run... Could put out fires their whole career and never improve the system.   0:29:02.8 Balaji Reddie: Yeah. A lot of activity, no work.   0:29:04.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:29:06.2 Balaji Reddie: Okay. Incidentally, when you said about investing, one of my students who did something fascinating, I've yet to get to the bottom of it, I never sat down and asked him how he did it, but he used control charts for the stock market. And one day he explained to me, he was trying to rather, because I never... I'm not into all of that investing. That's done by my wife. I just sign the papers and she puts it in. So I... I mean, I might as well be shown the Constitution and say, "Okay, this is what it is," you know? But yeah, so he... I remember sharing with him and he said, "Can I use this for stock market?" I said, "Look, son, I don't know how this works, but I presume what you can do is this. If you had yesterday's Sensex numbers and you have today's, then you can draw a control chart for the differences, you know? And then you get an upper limit and a lower limit. And then if today's closing is so much, it can rise up to the upper control limit, that is the difference. You can add the difference to today's closing and say it can rise to so much, it can fall by so much, and likewise to the lower control limit." And then his eyes just lit up and he said, "I know what to do." And that was it. And I didn't meet him for a week. And a week later, I meet him and he says, "I want to show you something." And he opened his laptop and there were control charts all over the place and I just couldn't figure out, "So what was all this?" And then he said, "I've been following these. There are some blue chip companies and there are some..." I don't know, I don't understand these things much, but he said that, "I'm drawing a control chart for these and so I know that when it crosses the upper control limits, that's the max I can get for the share, so I sell."   0:30:55.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. I mean, the hard part... The stock market is purely random most of the time and it's a challenge. But one of the things... I gave a speech to my investors and I did control charts and I did it as a way of helping them understand the markets.   0:31:04.2 Balaji Reddie: Okay.   0:31:12.7 Andrew Stotz: To predict the markets is hard.   0:31:15.7 Balaji Reddie: It's hard.   0:31:16.4 Andrew Stotz: But the control chart allows us to kind of.. It allows us to understand that most of the variation is just normal ups and downs.   0:31:24.8 Balaji Reddie: Yes.   0:31:26.5 Andrew Stotz: And so don't freak out about it. That's the first thing that really helps me. So that area of variation I find very fascinating.   0:31:34.7 Balaji Reddie: Very fascinating. I used it for COVID data, by the way. And there was a lot of criticism about that, but I knew I was going in the right direction because I was plotting the charts for the percentage positive and not the number of cases that were being tested positive every day. And so if the percentage positive lay within limits, then we were safe. I mean, everyone wants a zero, I get that. But I'm just saying here, having said that we're collecting the data and we are turning out so much of positive every day, then it should lie within certain controllable or predictable limits. And when it crosses the limit is when we get a little worried. And that's what I used this for initially. I remember it was Lloyd Provost who stood by me, whereas the other practitioners were saying, "No, you cannot use control chart for COVID and for data and for epidemic and pandemic." Whereas Deming himself used it for an epidemic of cholera somewhere. I read it in his work and where he used the c-chart and he saw that areas where the points were outside limits and then they tested the water and well, well, whatever it was, it turned out to be that he found the special cause and blah, blah, blah. So that's what gave me the idea of using the control chart for COVID and it was quite fascinating.   0:32:56.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Yeah, unfortunately there wasn't a lot of independent thinking during that time.   0:33:02.5 Balaji Reddie: Yeah. [laughter]   0:33:03.0 Andrew Stotz: Real serious groupthink at that time. So I had my experience in my PhD research and my job as an analyst all my life where... And I teach my students believe nothing, believe no one, demand evidence. And so I'm constantly digging and that's just the heart of being an analyst. But when I go back... I want to go back to when I was starting at Pepsi. The reason why my boss recommended me to go to the Deming seminar was simple because I knew how to work a computer. And that was 1989 when I went to work at Pepsi. And what I had, all of these loaders that were loading up trucks with Pepsi each night. We would load about 80, 90 trucks each night. And in the heat of the summer, we would work till 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, but generally we would finish at 11:00 or midnight. But they were just... I would go to the drivers in the morning and then the drivers would come back in the afternoon and complain that the product that they needed was not on the truck. And there was just... And I went to the loaders, they go, "I put it on the truck. I don't know what you're talking about." And so there was this battle between the night loaders and the truck drivers. And so what I just did originally was I just started... I did inspection. The first thing I did is I said, "Look, before you close the doors on the trucks at night, I just want to count myself to understand what's happening here." And then I started keeping a record of that and I put that in Excel, it was Lotus 1-2-3 at the time, and then I put up charts of each person's error rate each night. And so we had a long chart. And I never actually even told them what I was doing, I just put up on the wall. And then they started looking at it over time and talking about it and then asking me questions. And it wasn't for the purpose of blaming, it was the purpose of just understanding.   0:35:01.2 Andrew Stotz: But then what we really started to see was that some people were much more accurate than others. And then we started to ask the question, "Well, how are they doing it?" And then they explained how they kept records of what they were doing and all that. And so we started to see that we could improve this. And we started to improve those numbers quite dramatically until we got to the point where I told the loaders when they were done that they were to lock the trucks and seal them and the drivers were not allowed to open them. They had to take them as is. And when everybody realized we really have to build from the beginning that this is loaded right, then we started to have massive efficiency. In the number of... Let's say you have 50 or 100 truck drivers that come in at 5:00 in the morning. It could take you till 9:00 AM to get them out the door if they've got problems and they're checking their trucks and all that. But if you've got it set right and you've done it right, we were able to rush people through the door and the drivers would get out to the LA freeways much earlier and that makes a difference for the whole day. So that was my first experience with it all. And then my boss just said, "Well, seems like you know about statistical quality control." I said, "I have no idea. I have no idea what that is." But he said, "You should go to Washington, D.C. And study with Dr. Deming." And that's my little story.   0:36:20.4 Balaji Reddie: Oh, wow. Okay.   0:36:21.6 Andrew Stotz: So how would we... What's the best way to wrap this up and think about what somebody who doesn't really necessarily have experience with the System of Profound Knowledge, you've given them some good overview. What would you like them to take away from this?   0:36:39.2 Balaji Reddie: Well, if you have now come to know about what this is, I think you could go to the W. Edwards Deming Institute website and you could subscribe and start looking into the learning pathways, systems thinking, there are a lot of catalogs available there and they've done a great job of putting things together. So they could do that reading, of course, you need to start reading, but the danger in reading Dr. Deming's work is it could put you off sometimes. And I would recommend a good place to start reading and understanding the Deming philosophy would be Henry Neve's book, The Deming Dimension. It's a very good start, one of the best introductions. You could always build upon that. So along with having Out of the Crisis, The New Economics, and Essential Deming, which was put together by Joyce Orsini, these are the three essential Deming books which contain papers, his own works, and then use Deming Dimension as a guide, so to say. You could read the books together and you could read profound knowledge to begin with. And once you get a good idea about what there is, then the question comes is where do we start? And that's where I just ended by saying that we start at point number 14 about creating a critical mass and take on leadership, right? So somebody has to take the lead. So what we could do is, I think the next time we meet, we could begin with that, how do we start? So we'll talk about the principles of leadership that W. Edwards Deming spoke of and what did he expect the leaders to do once you've decided or you've started seeing things differently and you say, "No, I need to do something about this. I need to start somewhere." And so we'll start with the principles of leadership. That's the way I look at it.   0:38:44.5 Andrew Stotz: Fantastic. Well, I look forward to our next conversation, how we can start to think about how we take this information and make a better world and make a better company, feel better. And so from everybody at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org and jump into DemingNext to continue your journey.   0:39:09.7 Balaji Reddie: Yes.   0:39:11.1 Andrew Stotz: It's an exciting tool. 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."

The U.S. State Department's Pax Silica initiative reframes Pax Americana for the AI age — chips, semiconductors, critical minerals, energy, data centers, payment rails. This week in Beijing, two of the Trilogy of Boards Patrick Wood predicted clicked into place. The Trilogy is now whole. In this two-and-a-half-hour conversation, Courtenay Turner and Patrick Wood — co-authors of The Final Betrayal: How Technocracy Destroyed America — walk the architecture being built around you: Pax Silica, the IMEC corridor, the Abraham Accords as the template for the China play, the Five Walls boxing China in, Gaza's new order under the Board of Peace, Taiwan as silicon shield and silicon hostage, the tokenization of property and the New York Stock Exchange, the occult roots of the technocratic movement, and how to think about preserving sovereignty, autonomy, and property in a rapidly closing system. Read the full essay: https://courtenayturner.substack.com/p/pax-silica ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ CHAPTERS ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 0:00 — Opening: The Petrodollar Ends, Pax Silica Begins 1:31 — Welcome to the Technocracy Roundtable 5:11 — Property, Rights, and the Founders' Distinction 6:44 — What Is Pax Silica? (Video Explainer) 9:08 — Locke, Private Property, and Sovereign Property 13:05 — The Regime That Comes With Tokenized Property 14:01 — Tokenization, Titles, and the Loss of Control 21:57 — When Your Home Becomes a Programmable Asset 24:58 — Sovereign Farm Rights and Self-Sufficiency 25:54 — Daniel's Silicon Kingdom: The Biblical Frame 29:22 — The State Department Pax Silica Declaration 30:45 — The Allies Joining the Corridor 34:29 — Terms-of-Service Control of Everything 39:05 — Why Technocratic Countries Rise to the Top 41:53 — Trump's Empire Strategy in Beijing 46:33 — How China Gets Boxed In: The Five Walls 51:46 — Global Power Shifts: BRICS, Gulf, India 58:18 — The Trump-Xi Meeting: Body Language and Substance 1:01:31 — Abraham Accords as the Template for China 1:06:54 — Israel, Zionism, and the Technocracy Conflation 1:11:56 — Gaza's New Order: USD1, CENTCOM, and the Board of Peace 1:15:13 — Gulf Sovereign Wealth, Islamic Finance, and Tokenization 1:25:32 — Pax Silica's New Power Triangle 1:37:53 — Taiwan and the Chip Leverage Question 1:45:02 — How the Trade Boards Replace the Global Order 1:52:25 — Why Technocracy Is Beyond Politics 1:56:04 — Occult Roots, AI Consciousness, and the 2025 Conclave 2:05:21 — HOAs as Control Layers 2:08:40 — Tokenization and the Financial Fallout 2:13:19 — Protecting Assets: Cash, Land Patents, UCC Article 8 2:30:00 — Closing: "Use AI to Destroy AI" ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ KEY NUMBERS & SOURCES MENTIONED ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ • New York Stock Exchange (ICE): $25 trillion in U.S. assets targeted for tokenization by end of 2026; $170 trillion globally • UN Security Council Resolution 2803: Board of Peace authorized November 17, 2025 • Trump-Xi Beijing summit: Boards of Trade and Investment agreed May 14, 2026 • Pax Silica Declaration: signed in Washington, December 12, 2025 • H.R. 3633 / Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act: passed July 17, 2025 by 294–134 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ FURTHER READING ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ • Courtenay Turner & Patrick Wood, The Final Betrayal: How Technocracy Destroyed America • Patrick Wood, The New Economics of Technocracy • Patrick Wood, "The China Card: Global Technocracy Is Emerging Under Trump's Reign" • Courtenay Turner, "The Tokenization of Everything" • Courtenay Turner, "The Governance Stack: How Technocracy Was Built Over 200 Years" • Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt & Craig Mundie, Genesis: Artificial Intelligence, Hope, and the Human Spirit ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ CONNECT ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Courtenay Turner: • Substack • Website • X: @CourtenayTurner Patrick Wood: • Technocracy.News • X: @StopTechnocracy ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ The Final Betrayal: How Technocracy Destroyed America — co-authored by Courtenay Turner & Patrick Wood. Available through Coherent Publishing. #PaxSilica #Technocracy #Tokenization #PatrickWood #CourtenayTurner #TheFinalBetrayal #IMEC #CLARITYAct #Geopolitics #BeijingSummit Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Other Side of the Story with Tom Harris and Todd Royal – Kotz et al claimed that climate change could reduce global GDP by up to 62% by 2100, with annual damages reaching an unbelievable $38 trillion by 2049. The Network for Greening the Financial System, a consortium of central banks and supervisors around the world, incorporated the paper's erroneous damage function into its...

This week on The Geek in Review, we talk with Keith Maziarek, founder of Lucratic Method and Bodhi Solutions, about the shifting economics of legal work, AI's impact on pricing, and why law firms and clients need better commercial conversations. Keith brings more than two decades of experience in pricing, profitability, legal project management, and business-of-law strategy from firms including DLA Piper, Perkins Coie, and Katten. His new consulting work focuses on aligning client value with law firm operations, a topic gaining urgency as AI changes how legal work gets produced, measured, and priced.Keith argues the legal industry has spent too much time asking what technology firms use, while ignoring how economic models, client expectations, and service delivery structures support the work. For him, the problem is less about whether BigLaw is broken and more about both firms and clients being “tone deaf” to each other's business realities. Firms talk about realization rates. Clients talk about cutting spend. The better conversation starts with mutual value, risk, predictability, staffing, and clarity around which work deserves premium treatment and which work should be systematized.The discussion turns directly to generative AI and the mistaken assumption that faster work must always mean cheaper work. Keith makes an important distinction between routine, high-volume work and complex, high-stakes legal matters. AI will reduce variance and improve budget predictability in many workflows, especially where tasks are repeatable and pattern-based. But in complex work, AI's greater value might come from better preparation, broader analysis, and stronger outcomes, rather than dramatic cost reduction. The Neil Katyal Supreme Court preparation example gives this point a useful frame. AI might not reduce time, but it might improve judgment.Keith also explores how AI will reshape law firm staffing and leverage. Fewer junior associates might be needed for some traditional tasks, but firms will need more data professionals, technologists, process experts, and other allied professionals to make AI-driven work reliable. This raises hard questions about associate development, talent pipelines, compensation, and the future shape of the partnership model. The old pyramid might narrow into something closer to a specialized team, with carefully selected lawyers and business professionals working together around data, process, and client value.The episode closes with Keith's view of the next phase of legal transformation. Firms are still experimenting, but the experimental period will give way to sharper questions about revenue models, profitability, AI-enabled service delivery, and whether certain work belongs inside the firm, with an ALSP, or in a hybrid model. His crystal ball points toward a market where firms with mature commercial thinking gain ground, while firms slow to rethink pricing, staffing, and process risk falling behind. As Keith suggests throughout the conversation, the future of legal work is not only about smarter tools. It is about whether firms learn to run better businesses. Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | Substack[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 

The Other Side of the Story with Tom Harris and Todd Royal – Kotz et al claimed that climate change could reduce global GDP by up to 62% by 2100, with annual damages reaching an unbelievable $38 trillion by 2049. The Network for Greening the Financial System, a consortium of central banks and supervisors around the world, incorporated the paper's erroneous damage function into its...

Generative AI has moved from the margins of the average person's awareness to all of us witnessing industry leaders and consumers shift dollars and human capital because of the technology's impacts. Jonathan Nessler with The Law Offices of Frederick W. Nessler and Associates and founder of Integrated Cognition, LLC, has published a new book about how the practice of law is forging novel paths because of widespread access to generative AI. The book is titled, A Lawyer's Guide to Understanding Artificial Intelligence and the New Economics of Practice, and is available from IntegratedCognition.com and other online retailers.IICLE® is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit based in Springfield, Illinois. We produce a wide range of practice guidance for Illinois attorneys and other legal professionals in all areas of law with the generous contributions of time and expertise from volunteer attorneys, judges, and other legal professionals.

Arkose Labs sits at the intersection of bot management, fraud prevention, and identity protection -- working with the world's largest consumer-facing brands to make fraud unprofitable. Frank Teruel walks through how the threat landscape shifted from nation-state actors and organized crime to fully democratized crime-as-a-service platforms, where MFA bypass kits are sold online and multi-billion dollar fraud operations run with the efficiency of a product company. The conversation covers three of the biggest attack categories hitting organizations today: SMS toll fraud, bonus abuse, and fake account registrations. Each one exploits legitimate business flows -- onboarding, loyalty programs, referral bonuses -- and often goes entirely undetected by security teams because the attackers never trigger a traditional alert. In one example, a rideshare company's cell bill climbed by millions before anyone connected it to a fraud campaign. With agentic AI now in the mix, the attribution problem has become exponentially harder. Is that agent booking a hotel room a legitimate user action or the opening move of an account takeover? Arkose Labs places its defenses at the very top of the funnel -- registration and login flows -- combining risk scoring, challenge technology, a 24/7 SOC, and a dark web intelligence program called ACTOR. When a novel attack technique surfaces in gaming, Arkose Labs writes a global mitigation; when that same technique hits banking two days later, the defense is already deployed. Frank Teruel closes with a direct message to CISOs: 75% of organizations surveyed cannot perform attribution, and 97% expect a major AI-driven incident within the next 12 months. The signal to watch for is not always in the security stack -- it shows up in rising SMS bills, unusual account-linking activity, and transaction abandonment rates that do not match marketing spend. The answer is internal fusion: security, fraud, finance, and operations sharing data before the incident, not after. This is a Brand Spotlight. A Brand Spotlight is a ~15 minute conversation designed to explore the guest, their company, and what makes their approach unique. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/creation#spotlight GUEST Frank Teruel, Chief Operating Officer, Arkose Labshttps://www.linkedin.com/in/frankteruel/ RESOURCES Arkose Labs: https://www.arkoselabs.com RSAC Conference 2026: https://www.rsaconference.com Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight KEYWORDS Frank Teruel, Arkose Labs, Sean Martin, brand story, brand marketing, marketing podcast, brand spotlight, fraud prevention, bot management, account security, SMS toll fraud, agentic AI, fraud deterrence, identity protection, crime as a service, RSAC Conference 2026, CISO, account takeover, fake account registration, bonus abuse, loyalty fraud, federated threat intelligence Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

One of the most requested guests on FET has been Professor Steve Keen. Steve has been a student of economics since the 1970s, and a critic of the oversimplifications of the neoclassical economic school. He was an academic at the University of Western Sydney for many years, and Head of School at Kingston University in the mid-2010s. One thing Steve taught me is to really think about the hidden assumptions in our economic models, which has been extremely valuable to me during my economic journey. Our conversation starts with Steve's concerns about the Vietnam War draft, and moves on to his epiphanies about what was missing from economics education. We discuss his attempts to model the key insights of Hyman Minsky about the economic behaviour that generates macroeconomic cycles, and the state of the economic debate. Oh, and we talk about the very controversial issue of money creation by banks and the public Treasury!Find Steve's YouTube channel here.Steve's Debunking Economics podcast is here.And of course, Steve writes on Substack at Building a New Economics, which is where you can find his latest writings and conversations. As always, please like, share, comment, and subscribe. Thanks for your support. You can find Fresh Economic Thinking on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts.Theme: Happy Swing by Serge Quadrado Music—Creative Commons Licence CC BY-NC 4.0 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fresheconomicthinking.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Battleground Podcast, Saul David and Roger Moorhouse analyse what appears to be a possible tipping point in the four-year-long Russo-Ukraine war. The discussion centres on the overwhelming effectiveness of Ukraine's Unmanned Systems Forces, led by Robert "Madyar" Brovdi, which is reportedly achieving a staggering kill ratio of 400 Russians for every one Ukrainian at a remarkably low material cost. This drone-led strategy has expanded the "kill zone" up to 93 miles behind the front lines, effectively breaking the rhythm of Russian offensive operations and forcing the Kremlin to face unsustainable casualty rates.The hosts also examine the growing internal instability within Russia, highlighted by the arrest of former loyalist mil-blogger Ilya Remeslo and the expansion of state-sanctioned internet blackouts to St. Petersburg. These moves suggest a desperate attempt by the Putin regime to stifle dissent and prepare for wider conscription as recruitment struggles persist. Additionally, they explore the geopolitical impact of the conflict in Iran, where fluctuating oil prices and potential U.S. military manoeuvres under Donald Trump continue to influence Russia's war economy.Join the Conversation: If you have a question about the war in Ukraine or any of the conflicts we cover, email us at podbattleground@gmail.comFollow us on:X - @PodBattlegroundInstagram - podbattlegroundTikTok - Producer: James HodgsonA Goalhanger Podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Battleground Podcast, Saul David and Roger Moorhouse analyse what appears to be a possible tipping point in the four-year-long Russo-Ukraine war. The discussion centres on the overwhelming effectiveness of Ukraine's Unmanned Systems Forces, led by Robert "Madyar" Brovdi, which is reportedly achieving a staggering kill ratio of 400 Russians for every one Ukrainian at a remarkably low material cost. This drone-led strategy has expanded the "kill zone" up to 93 miles behind the front lines, effectively breaking the rhythm of Russian offensive operations and forcing the Kremlin to face unsustainable casualty rates. The hosts also examine the growing internal instability within Russia, highlighted by the arrest of former loyalist mil-blogger Ilya Remeslo and the expansion of state-sanctioned internet blackouts to St. Petersburg. These moves suggest a desperate attempt by the Putin regime to stifle dissent and prepare for wider conscription as recruitment struggles persist. Additionally, they explore the geopolitical impact of the conflict in Iran, where fluctuating oil prices and potential U.S. military manoeuvres under Donald Trump continue to influence Russia's war economy. Join the Conversation: If you have a question about the war in Ukraine or any of the conflicts we cover, email us at podbattleground@gmail.com Follow us on: X - @PodBattleground Instagram - podbattleground TikTok - Producer: James Hodgson A Goalhanger Podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

SaaS companies moving toward usage-based and hybrid pricing models are discovering that revenue is no longer secured when the contract is signed.Instead, revenue is earned continuously through product usage, introducing new challenges for finance teams around billing accuracy, revenue visibility, forecasting, and managing increasingly complex cost structures driven by AI-powered products.In the latest episode of Tech Transformed, host Dana Gardner speaks with Lee Greene, Vice President of Sales at Vayu, about how AI and usage-based pricing are reshaping the economics of SaaS and why many companies are discovering that their pricing strategy is only as strong as the infrastructure behind it.One idea from the conversation“Pricing strategy is only as strong as the infrastructure behind it.”What you will learn in this episodeWhy usage-based pricing exposes hidden revenue leakage in many SaaS companies• How AI-driven products introduce unpredictable cost structures and margin pressure• Why disconnected CRM, product, and ERP systems break revenue visibility• What finance and revenue teams need to support scalable usage-based billing and forecastingWhy SaaS Economics Are Breaking Away From Fixed SubscriptionsGreene argues that usage-based pricing isn't simply an emerging trend. It is a response to assumptions that no longer hold true.Traditional SaaS subscription models were built around predictable costs and relatively stable product usage. AI-driven products have fundamentally changed that equation. Each interaction with an AI-powered system can create variable cost, making static pricing models increasingly difficult to sustain.This shift is also changing buyer expectations. Customers increasingly resist flat pricing structures and instead prefer models that reflect the value they actually receive. Usage-based pricing aligns economic benefit with real consumption, allowing buyers to justify spend internally while pushing vendors to be accountable for measurable outcomes rather than bundled feature sets.AI's Double RoleThe conversation also highlights how AI is introducing a structural challenge for SaaS finance and revenue teams.Usage-based pricing generates enormous volumes of data across product usage, customer behaviour, and cost inputs. Traditional billing systems were not designed to process this level of complexity.At the same time, AI is also becoming the only scalable way to manage it. Automated usage tracking, dynamic pricing logic, and real-time billing reconciliation are increasingly necessary to maintain operational accuracy and financial control.Treating AI solely as a product capability, rather than embedding it into revenue operations, can leave organizations exposed to billing errors, misaligned pricing models, and revenue leakage.Revenue Management Shifts From Contracts to OperationsOne of Greene's key observations is that usage-based pricing does not necessarily create revenue leakage. Instead, it reveals problems that already existed.The difference is visibility.In traditional SaaS models, revenue was largely secured at the moment of contract signature. In usage-based models, revenue must be earned continuously through product consumption. This means billing accuracy, system integration, and data flow directly influence financial performance.Disconnected CRM, product, and ERP systems can create gaps that lead to misbilling, delayed revenue recognition, and customer disputes. As a result, the infrastructure supporting revenue operations becomes inseparable from pricing strategy itself.What SaaS Leaders Must Build to Stay Economically ViableThe discussion concludes with a broader perspective on how SaaS companies must evolve to support this new economic model.The future belongs to organizations that design their pricing and revenue systems for variability. Pricing models must adapt to changing demand, and the systems behind them must support that flexibility without relying on heavy manual processes.Automation and no-code AI tools are increasingly enabling finance and revenue teams to adjust pricing models as usage patterns evolve. This agility is not simply about speed. It is about maintaining control in an environment where AI-driven cost structures and product usage can shift rapidly.Usage-based pricing is doing more than changing how SaaS products are sold. It is reshaping how companies think about value, risk, and revenue itself, making flexibility, intelligent automation, and data-driven decision making central to long-term success.About VayuVayu helps SaaS companies manage complex usage-based and hybrid revenue models by connecting product usage data, billing systems, and finance infrastructure.Learn more at:https://www.withvayu.com/TakeawaysThe shift from fixed subscription models to usage-based pricing driven by AI How AI is both creating and solving new pricing and billing challengesWhy revenue infrastructure plays a critical role in preventing revenue leakageThe importance of flexible pricing models that adapt to demand and usage patternsThe growing role of automation and AI in modern revenue operationsChapters00:00 – Introduction02:30 – The economic shift in SaaS: Moving toward usage-based models05:00 – The role of AI in transforming SaaS pricing and revenue streams06:47 – Buyer preferences and evolving value quantification08:38 – Infrastructure's role in supporting flexible billing models11:49 – How finance teams can shape technology to control revenue14:24 – Process reengineering and AI-driven automation17:15 – Adaptable SaaS infrastructure and market signals20:30 – Preparing for the unknown: sandboxing and scenario modeling24:49 – Opportunities in connecting SaaS apps and managing data flow28:54 – Building automated, scalable billing and integration flow

How do you run an offsite that actually changes performance — not just conversations? In this episode, Travis Timmons and Kelly Allan share with Andrew Stotz what happened during the Fitness Matters off-site. They discuss how a Deming-inspired approach helped their team tackle a critical business aim, align around system improvement, and turn employee engagement into measurable competitive advantage. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Travis Timmons, who is the founder and owner of Fitness Matters, an Ohio based practice specializing in the integration of physical therapy and personalized wellness. For 13 years, he's built his business on Dr. Deming's teaching. His hope is simple. The more companies that bring joy to work through Deming's principles, the more likely his kids will one day work at one of those companies. And we also have a special guest, Kelly Allan, who is a long term practitioner of the teachings of Dr. Deming. And he's also been instrumental in bringing the teachings of Dr. Deming to Travis and Fitness Matters, and particularly to this offsite. So the topic for today is how a Deming style offsite can strengthen your company's competitive advantage. Travis, take it away.   0:01:01.4 Travis Timmons: Hey Andrew, thanks again for having us and super excited to share with Kelly and your audience how our offsite went a couple of weeks ago. The short answer, kind of the upfront, is it was amazing. We had fun, number one, which is always important, but engagement from the team was through the roof. For four and a half hours straight. We worked on the work together and had Kelly there to make sure we were appropriately following Dr. Deming's teachings. Had Kelly there to facilitate and a couple of fun things we did. One was the red bead experiment, which I'm sure we'll talk about as we go through the conversation here. The short answer is I know in the last podcast we talked about the preparation that Kelly worked with myself and our leadership team on in preparing for a Deming focused and led offsite. We did that and it was just amazing. What were your thoughts, Kelly?   0:02:06.4 Andrew Stotz: I'm curious, Kelly, as an outsider helping them, observing, what are your observations of how it went?   0:02:14.2 Kelly Allan: I think there was just incredible energy and interest in figuring out some of the challenges ahead for the company. People came in well prepared and it showed. The interactions in the breakout groups, interactions in the full groups. Often when you're in a full group of 60, 70 people, folks are often, especially new folks, and the company's been growing and adding new people, new folks are often somewhat hesitant to speak up. But the culture of the people in that room, the culture of the organization is bring it on, let's have a conversation, let's hear what people have to say. Let's share theories, let's get down and debate and wrestle with some of these things that are not easy. There's no low hanging fruit here. It's complex stuff in a complex and highly competitive industry.   0:03:28.9 Travis Timmons: Some of the feedback we received, I think I shared last time, Andrew. As Kelly said, we've hired several new team members and they've all shared with me just a breath of fresh air from where they came from before. The power of this offsite with it being focused on some of the core teachings of Dr. Deming allowed them to see how is this different? They know they like it, they know the culture is different. They know they can provide care the way they want to. They know they can have a voice, have an impact on the system. But they didn't really know why they just liked it. Having a Deming focused offsite to explain a little bit, you can't fully explain Dr. Deming in four and a half hours, but we covered quite a bit. Make the system visible, operational definitions. What are a couple other ones with the red bead, Kelly? We did some tampering.   0:04:28.8 Kelly Allan: Making sure that we're not being confused by visible numbers alone. That what's important is how we work on the system so that we're not doing special efforts all the time to get great results. It's built into how we do things.   0:04:43.8 Travis Timmons: To Kelly's point, part of why our team, for four and a half hours we had over 50 people all in, sharing thoughts without hesitation because one of the things we talk about in the very beginning of the meeting, one of Dr. Deming's core philosophies, if that's the right way to put it, Kelly, correct me if I'm off base here, but 96% of issues within an organization are system issues, not people issues. When you put that out there, we're here to talk about the system and improve it and make it visible. We're talking about problems with systems and processes, not people. Then the gloves are off and let's dive in and we're gonna say whatever's on our mind and there's no drama, there's no feeling of any backstabbing or throwing under the bus. We just get to work on making the system work better for everybody. That's where it's fun and fast.   0:05:41.9 Andrew Stotz: What I'm hearing is that Dr. Deming, my favorite quote is "people are entitled to joy in work." And part of the key to joy in work is contributing. People want to contribute in life. I love that word because I think everybody wants to feel like they're contributing to a mission, to an aim, to a goal, to a team. And one of the biggest problems we have these days is siloing off people and getting them focused on this little area and missing the whole bigger picture. And so to some extent, you've proven through what you've done that people really do want to contribute. Throughout this discussion, what we're gonna be talking about is this concept of Deming style offsite. And I'm gonna push back at times to try to make sure that we're clear on what's a Deming style offsite. Because it's not to say that Dr. Deming said this is how you do an offsite. But what we're talking about is your interpretations of how do we apply this thinking to this particular meeting style and offsite and ensure that we're true to that.   0:06:56.6 Andrew Stotz: One of the first questions I would discuss is just the idea that maybe you just had a really open, caring environment. And so is that Deming or was that just that? Or maybe you did a lot of prep. You guys have done a tremendous amount of prep. That's what I was impressed about in our prior discussions. Maybe you prepped, maybe you focused on the one thing. Those types of things is what could go through people's minds. Why is it that you're calling this a Deming styled offsite?   0:07:34.9 Kelly Allan: Well, I think in part it starts with Deming's teachings and continued Deming's teachings. I think it might be useful to start with the aim, to have Travis talk about the time that he spent researching and thinking and what's going on in the industry. And even though we can talk later about their industry leading statistics and data and recognition etc, it's off the charts. It starts with the aim. And Dr. Deming said let's be focused on the aim. And so there are a couple, Travis, you wanna just talk about the content aim and then we can talk about even a more cultural Deming cultural aim.   0:08:21.1 Travis Timmons: That was one of my early learnings years ago, Andrew, was the difference of an aim versus a goal. And so from the perspective of this offsite through the Dr. Deming lens, our aim as an organization is to maintain one to one care because we believe that results in optimal outcomes. And it's very rare in our industry to have one to one care. Part of how we do that is we have to be industry leading in everything we do. And the thing that we are industry leading in, but I feel it was the one thing that we could improve upon was our arrival rate. Patients get better if they show up, team members are happy, they don't want holes on their schedules. Referring physicians are happy. Everybody wins. So that aim of a higher arrival rate was our aim of this offsite and conversation.   0:09:17.6 Andrew Stotz: Can you back up just for a second and define arrival rate for those that didn't listen to prior discussions on it?   0:09:23.9 Travis Timmons: Sure. Arrival rate is a visit we have on the calendar. Do they show up or do they cancel? And part of what we worked on and a little bit of an aside here is operational definition of what's a cancellation on our schedule to make sure we're measuring what we want to measure. A funny aside, competitors, we hired several new team members came from other organizations and they tout an arrival rate that is high, like 92% arrival rate. Right.   0:09:55.9 Travis Timmons: And I asked them in the meeting and Kelly will remember this, I said, I know your institutions claim a 90 plus percent arrival rate. Did you have a 92% arrival rate? And they said, absolutely not. But they had people on their team, for example, the front desk might have been bonused based on arrival rate. So how they would take visits off of the calendar would not negatively impact arrival rate. So we talked a lot about operational definition and our aim is to study what we want to study, not to tamper or. Kelly, you share your favorite saying. There's only three ways to get better numbers, and those are   0:10:39.6 Kelly Allan: Manipulate the numbers which you were referring to from another company. Manipulate the system that gives you the numbers. So that also kind of fits with, well, we're not gonna call that a late arrival or a late cancel or a non arrival. We're gonna call that something else so we can manipulate the numbers. And then the third way, which was Deming's way, which is how do we figure out how to improve the system so that late arrivals go down. So that they're a natural part of what we do when people show up, the patients show up when they need to.   0:11:14.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah. And I think that's one of the things to your point earlier, Andrew, is was it just a happy go lucky meeting because Travis and Kelly have great personalities. Well, we know that's not true.   0:11:26.9 Kelly Allan: Speak for yourself.   0:11:29.3 Travis Timmons: But no, I think anymore people know when they're working on something meaningful that's gonna have an impact on their lives or where you're just there to drink coffee and have snacks. People don't suffer fools, right? They want to be there. To have a team of 50 plus people leaning in for almost five hours doesn't happen just because it's a fun environment. To your point, it's the right question to ask. I appreciate you asking that. It comes down to they understand that we're a Deming organization. They understand that what we're talking about is gonna be implemented in a Deming way. We'll talk about that more as we go on, but that, to Kelly's point, was starting with the aim. Our aim is improving arrival rate. How do we do that? That's where the Deming offsite comes into play. Kelly and I and our leadership team worked on, okay, how do we best convey this problem and this aim to our entire team rather than just five or six leadership people working with Kelly and just coming up with our own ideas and then spitting it out to the team at a monthly meeting?   0:12:47.8 Travis Timmons: The power of them owning and seeing the problem and then working on system improvement is the power of that is unmeasurable, as Dr. Deming would say.   0:13:03.1 Kelly Allan: Yeah. I think we talked about the aim to be able to continue to do the one-on-one care with patients because most companies are doing two patients, one physical therapist, three patients. Locally here in Columbus, Ohio, where Travis and I are at, we sometimes hear about classes of five patients with one physical therapist. Physicians and insurance companies, these people are not getting better. Right? These people are... Or if they get discharged, 'cause that's a way to get a better number. "Oh, we got them out." But they come back because they're not really healed. They don't really know how to take care of themselves the way they do when they come out of Fitness Matters. One of those overarching aims has to do with building the culture even further so everybody understands the why behind the what. We could say the what is how do we increase those arrival rates, and then the meeting was about the how we're gonna figure that out, how to do that. But the overarching piece had to do with the why. Why does this matter?   0:14:16.9 Kelly Allan: How do we see...If we see the organization as a system and we use a fishbone chart as a way to visualize some of that, everybody can see handoffs. Everybody can see how different parts of the system, of that patient journey, that patient story, intersect and how what happens upstream affects downstream and how the feedback loop from the discharge point of a physical therapist discharging the patient, how that can wrap back into the understanding of the customer care coordinators and how they can work with that at the very beginning of that relationship with the patient. It's all a part of a system, all a part of continuous flow. We wanted to make sure that everybody, especially the new people, really had a visual, a view of the organization as a system and how they interact. Part of those weeks of planning, it wasn't every day all day long. You start with some ideas, you refine them, you get some research, you refine them, you refine further. Travis spent a lot of time on that. Part of that value is time for reflection, time to have the others on the leadership team weigh in, give their points of view so that we're really seeing this from a fishbone perspective as well.   0:15:44.5 Kelly Allan: So now we can go into that meeting with everybody, and their homework was in part the fishbone with some instructions on how to do that and some examples of how to do that. And that was pre-work. So people came into the meeting already successful. They had already figured some things out. This just gave launch, just gave liftoff to the energy. They'd done this work, to your point, Andrew, they're making a difference, and it just fed on itself. The output was stunning.   0:16:21.0 Andrew Stotz: Travis, I'm gonna write your company aim as I heard it from you, and that is, or from both of you, is maintain one-to-one care. It's best, it's rare, it works. And the off-site aim was different from the company aim. It was the number one thing that we can do to improve that company aim is improve our arrival rates. Correct?   0:16:51.4 Travis Timmons: 100% correct. And you talk, I think you used the term silos earlier, Andrew. Part of the aha moments and making the system visible and working on this and building culture and teamwork, when everybody sees the complexity within your organization and understands that, there's a lot more willingness to support, like, "Hey, we need to change this process at the front desk," even though it may not be optimal for the physical therapist, as long as it achieves our overarching aim and improves joy in work for the front or less friction for a client coming in. Now the team starts to see and understand, all right, that's a system win rather than silos or turf wars. The amount of energy that is spent on that in organizations is... I couldn't do it.   0:17:52.9 Andrew Stotz: Another thing I think that would be difficult for many people with an off-site is you just had one aim. If we were doing prep in the companies that I know and I own and others, we're gonna list out 17 things we want to talk about in that four-and-a-half-hour off-site. From your perspective, why is it so important to get this one focus, one aim? And then I want you also to tell us more about how it went. We've set it up now, so just one last thing on the setup is this idea of focusing on one thing when you've got 17 different problems in our company and we got everybody together and you're telling me just one thing.   0:18:40.5 Travis Timmons: Well, and Kelly can chime in here because he was instrumental in getting us from pre-work to meeting day. But part of it, that's why it's two-and-a-half, three months of work leading up to this. We had the aim of arrival rate. All right, what are we gonna do? A lot of different ways we could have tackled that. We landed on fishbone and making the entire system visible. And that turned out to be the right move. I think Kelly can correct me if I'm wrong.   0:19:15.0 Kelly Allan: I would agree.   0:19:16.0 Travis Timmons: So we started with the aim and it's like, okay, how do we get 50 people to work on this together? Dr. Deming says make the system visible. And so we chose to do that via a couple different breakouts of a fishbone. And to your point, Andrew, when we did that, now there's understanding of complexity and then where are the biggest opportunities? Because we have seven things we're working on to achieve that aim. There's gonna be three or four large PDSAs. We're doing a software upgrade, which in and of itself... And a funny aside, so our organization's been doing the Deming approach for 13 years. Right, Kelly? We announced that we're changing softwares at this meeting. Right.   0:20:13.7 Travis Timmons: Everybody was like, "Okay, let's do it."   0:20:17.4 Kelly Allan: Unheard of. I see a lot of companies, that's usually panic time.   0:20:23.5 Travis Timmons: And it was announced at the beginning of the meeting. Any questions? "Nope, sounds like the right move for our aim."   0:20:32.3 Kelly Allan: Well, Travis, you provided the why behind the what. The what was that we have to change the software. You provided the rationale from all points of view, including from internal people who deal with the software to making it even less friction for customers and for physicians and for insurance companies, etc. People understood the why behind that what, and now they're ready to work on the how.   0:21:06.4 Travis Timmons: And I would even argue, because I agree with that, and because we've done Dr. Deming and have had success and accomplished so many things that people don't believe we've been able to accomplish as an independent organization, having lenses to look through and "by what method?" That's one of my favorite Kelly Allan-isms. By what method?   0:21:33.5 Kelly Allan: That's a quote from Dr. Deming.   0:21:36.0 Travis Timmons: Oh, okay. We're good.   0:21:38.9 Andrew Stotz: We stand on the shoulders of giants.   0:21:41.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah. There's a high level of trust in our organization that we can implement change. I think that...   0:21:51.3 Kelly Allan: I agree.   0:21:51.8 Travis Timmons: I don't want to undersell that in terms of how powerful that is that I announce we're changing our entire operating software in a few months and the entire team was... And we told them why, to Kelly's point. But to make that announcement and then just have everybody say, "Okay. Cool." I think that's crazy to me. I believe it because of everything else I've seen happen over 13 years. But to have a way, by what method, using Dr. Deming's principles, PDSAs, operational definitions, system view, we're gonna diagram it. Everybody left there confident that, "All right, we can do this and we're gonna do it." Anyway, what would you add to that, Kelly?   0:22:40.9 Kelly Allan: Yeah. I would say that fulfilling the promises that have been made at previous offsites just builds the credibility that this leadership team gets it, understands it, and is interested in engaging people and making things happen and getting things done in a way that doesn't disenfranchise people, it doesn't beat up on people, it doesn't cause harm, but people work together because they wanna figure it out. It's fun to figure it out. Yeah.   0:23:17.5 Kelly Allan: It can be at times a little too much fun, a little too exhausting to figure it out. But we're born wanting to make a difference and people can come to work there and know that they have a voice, they're heard.   0:23:33.1 Travis Timmons: And I think that's our superpower that I've learned from Dr. Deming is if I'm the only one figuring stuff out, we're in trouble. We're in trouble. So the team knows that we're gonna bring stuff, we're gonna talk about it, and we're gonna solve problems collectively through the Dr. Deming philosophy. That's something that just popped in my brain, Andrew, because it was such a non-event. But in most instances, that would have been the entire meeting would have been about that, the side conversations, people coming up to me...   0:24:15.0 Kelly Allan: And Travis, there would have been a lot of discussions at a non-Deming company about, "How do we get buy-in?"   0:24:22.4 Travis Timmons: Right.   0:24:22.8 Kelly Allan: "How do we manipulate people into saying this is okay?" We didn't have any...We didn't spend a minute on that.   0:24:30.5 Travis Timmons: Not one person asked me about the software the entire evening at dinner. It was just like, "We're gonna do it." It just struck me because it was a non-event in the meeting, but I think that would have been rare had we not had our history of Dr. Deming's approach and how we presented it in the meeting.   0:24:52.9 Andrew Stotz: Kelly, you said something that made me think of a book that I read in the past by Richard Feynman called The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. Great scientist. You talked about contribution and the desire for contribution and you talked about how people were figuring things out. And that's fun, that's exciting. That's what people want to get out of their management team and out of their employees. In some ways, I feel like you're talking about recess, a playground. Put all that stuff aside, let's go out and let's build this thing. All the joy that we did have when we were young. Think about, "Let's make a sandcastle! Yeah, you do that, I'll do this." That excitement...   0:25:45.0 Kelly Allan: That's what it was in the room that day. Different breakout groups working on different parts of the fishbone and then bringing them together and debriefing around it. It was very exciting. The energy was high. Andrew, you mentioned something, I think in part you were channeling Dr. Deming there because he also pointed out about how we're born wanting to make a difference, to make a contribution. Then we go to school and that gets beaten out of us with grades and command-and-control teaching, et cetera, et cetera. But to your earlier question about what makes this unique, special in regard to Deming, Travis mentioned the complexity. And so we go right back to the core of Deming: understanding variation and special cause, common cause, the important few things versus the trivial many, and how do you sort through those? That makes it very Deming. It makes it very Deming. The other thing that you won't see, and I've been in a lot of them through the years, in most offsites is those conversations about the why. It's usually, "Competitor's doing this," or, "We gotta make more money," or whatever.   0:27:01.0 Kelly Allan: No, the why for Fitness Matters is to achieve those aims. Right.   0:27:07.1 Andrew Stotz: Some of the things that you mentioned: have an aim, what makes this a Deming style, have an aim, think system, not individual focus, understand variation and how that can help you think system, not individual focus. You talked about pre-work, taking it seriously, and I would say that kind of responsibility for your employees and the environment. I was blown away with the amount of pre-work that we talked about previously. You talked about some tools like fishbone as an example. You've talked about the why. Travis, why don't you give us a very high level... We arrived at this time, this was then, we did this first, then we did that, then that. So we can just understand the structure of this meeting a little bit.   0:27:59.5 Travis Timmons: Sure. We've been big on operational definitions. So the operational definition of start time is Travis will start talking at 12:30 to start the meeting. Learned that one over the years. And I...   0:28:18.2 Travis Timmons: It was at a new location, so we had a couple people go to the wrong place. We put the map inside of the homework, swim upstream, try to make this as easy as possible. But to answer your question, we had an operational definition of the meeting starts at 12:30, and that means the meeting begins at 12:30. Operational definition, we had name tags. From an efficiency standpoint, we had six tables when we were going to do breakouts. People picked up their name tags, it had number one through six on it, so they know what table they would be going to at breakouts. We did a quick intro of every team member and what location they work at because we have had a lot of growth. Put names with faces, introduced Kelly so that everybody knew who he was. There's probably 11 people that didn't know who he was in person introduction and how that was going to be diving more into Dr. Deming. I made it very clear up front that this meeting, we're going to celebrate wins from 2025, but I made it very clear we're going to go through those quickly, not because they weren't huge wins, but because we had a lot of work to do to make sure we stay on that growth and excellence trajectory.   0:29:38.2 Travis Timmons: So we went through all of our wins for 2025. We reviewed our BHAGs, and then we got into the aim. In 30 minutes, we introduced everybody, we went over our wins for 2025, we reviewed our BHAGs, one of which is to be the best, leverage technology better than any physical therapy practice in the country was one of our BHAGs. Then I dovetailed that into, and we're switching softwares in a few months. Any questions? No. We go right into, here's what we're going to be working on today, referenced they're going to be using their homework, so they brought their homework booklets with them. We had PowerPoint slides so they knew what the directions were for the first breakout group. Kelly and I got there early and some of the leadership team got there early. We had the table set. We had the, I call it newsprint, up on tripods ready to go. You want to be prepared. They hit their tables because of the name tag. We had leaders assigned for each table.   0:30:50.1 Kelly Allan: And they were trained in advance. Yeah. Facilitators. Yeah.   0:30:53.5 Travis Timmons: We had leadership.   0:30:54.7 Andrew Stotz: So there was an intro period and then you said, "This is our aim and now go to your tables," or how did that... What were you telling them to do at the tables?   0:31:06.0 Travis Timmons: We told them the aim, reviewed the aim. To your point earlier, Andrew, overarching aim is maintaining our one-to-one care model.   0:31:14.0 Andrew Stotz: Yep.   0:31:14.7 Travis Timmons: Our aim of the meeting is how do we improve our arrival rate as an organization to greater than 85%? One of the ways we're going to accomplish that is making the entire system visible. We're going to go to our tables and we're going to work on... We had the fishbones drawn at each table, but we wanted them to fill in the fishbone as groups from their homework because everybody brought different ideas to the table. We wanted some conversation around that.   0:31:44.2 Andrew Stotz: That was a general fishbone. I think I remember later you talked about then breaking it down into separate fishbones, but that was just a general one to review what they'd done.   0:31:54.8 Travis Timmons: General one, work on the work together. To Kelly's point earlier, just the energy around working on ideas or, "Hey, I hadn't thought about that," or, "I didn't even know we did that in our system." Right.   0:32:07.0 Travis Timmons: Just understanding the complexity and really just getting the juices flowing on, here's what we're going to be working on because the next layer is going to be diving deeper into each one of those.   0:32:18.5 Andrew Stotz: How long was that period of going through the first fishbone and looking at their homework, discussing it together? How long did that last?   0:32:27.7 Travis Timmons: That one was a half hour because they'd already done the pre-work, so we assumed most of it was already going to be done. It was just kind of...   0:32:38.4 Andrew Stotz: Did you have them present any of that or that's just, "Go through that and that'll prep you for the next thing"?   0:32:46.0 Travis Timmons: We had them spend 25 minutes on that and then we saved room for five minutes for them to have kind of sharings or learnings or ahas. What did this experience teach you? Do you have anything to share?   0:33:01.9 Andrew Stotz: They're doing that within their group or they're doing that...   0:33:05.1 Travis Timmons: We went table by table and had them share with the entire team. Table by table, we had the team lead or anybody at the table, "Hey, what'd you think? What'd you learn?"   0:33:14.3 Andrew Stotz: Someone may say, "I didn't even realize that this impacts that and I just realized that now after seeing it." Okay.   0:33:24.0 Travis Timmons: Yeah. What are some of the things you heard, Kelly? I heard, "Oh, this is complex."   0:33:29.8 Kelly Allan: I also heard things like, "Well, I know how to handle this, but I need to define a process so that if I'm out, someone else can do it." Right? It's those kinds of little aha moments. Others were just, "Oh, is there a way for us to systematize that even further?" Again, it was that thinking about the system coming out in their comments. I think another part of the appreciation was really recognizing that a lot of people have to win. Deming talked about win-win being very stable and win-lose is not. They wanted to make sure the patients and the clients win, the physicians win, that the insurance companies are getting what they need, that the PTs and the Pilates people and the MAT people, etc., and the customer care coordinators are also having joy in their work. Because when you have a joyful staff, customers, clients really appreciate that. They just know there's something different. There's something different.   0:34:42.0 Andrew Stotz: And one question is, did you have any drift at that point where people started talking about other things that were unrelated but were key problems they're facing, or was setting your aim and doing the pre-work really kept them on track?   0:34:56.8 Kelly Allan: Great question. Yeah.   0:34:58.5 Travis Timmons: They were focused. They were focused the entire meeting. One of the things I learned it from Kelly or Ray, or maybe you taught Ray, I don't know, but we have a piece of paper we put up at every off-site, Andrew, we call it the parking lot. So that if somebody does have an idea that's outside of what we're there to tackle, we just have them go up and write it down so that they're heard, and it could be important, for sure, but we're not working on that today. We gotta stay laser-focused on what we're here for. So we have a parking lot, which has been super powerful, but nobody went to the parking lot the first half of the day at all.   0:35:39.2 Andrew Stotz: That's good. That's better than the woodshed. Excellent.   0:35:43.5 Travis Timmons: Speaking of the woodshed, this is one of my... I think this is one of the critical learnings, one of the many critical learnings I've had with Dr. Deming and the approach to leadership's responsibility. For me as the owner, at the end of the day, the buck stops with me, is to create joy in work, to create engaged teams where they can do fulfilling work. So you talked about the woodshed. It reminds me another one of my favorite quotes. A lot of owners or leaders talk about, "We have a lot of dead wood around here. Have a lot of dead wood on our team." The first Deming off-site I went to, Kelly said, "Well, there's only two ways that could have happened. Either one, you hired dead wood, and if you did, that's on you with your hiring process. Or number two, you hired live wood and you killed it. Either way, it's on the owner and leadership."   0:36:52.4 Kelly Allan: And I stole that from Peter Scholtes.   0:36:55.5 Andrew Stotz: Okay, got it.   0:36:57.0 Travis Timmons: But that struck me in terms of, okay, responsibility's on Travis to ensure we don't have that. Can't point fingers anywhere else. It's not people coming in with bad attitudes. So anyway.   0:37:15.8 Andrew Stotz: Okay, excellent. So now you've had the general fishbone discussion, you've had people present what were their key learnings from it. What happened next?   0:37:26.6 Travis Timmons: Just some quick aha's, anything from the homework, stuff like that. And then from there we did a couple-minute break and then we went right into the...   0:37:37.9 Andrew Stotz: It sounds like a HIIT, like a high-intensity interval training here. We did a couple-minute break.   0:37:44.6 Travis Timmons: We had work to do, man. People were there to get work done and get on to dinner. We had snacks and water in there they could grab real quick. Restrooms were close. And then agenda, we've gotta stay... And the team understands we have to do what we're doing, we have to be excellent in all categories. So the next thing we did, we came back together as a team, the entire team, and Kelly did the red bead experiment in preparation for the next breakout. Super powerful. For those that have seen the red bead experiment and how Dr. Deming used that to show how the willing worker shows up wanting to get all white beads, right? And the white bead, it's the white bead company, but there's red beads intermixed. No matter how hard they try, or Kelly offered a hundred-dollar bonus to somebody if they would just only bring out white beads the next time they put their paddle in, and it just had that visceral, in-the-moment realization that people show up wanting to do a good job. And issues, so the red beads were what we called cancellations impacting our arrival rate. Therapists want their patients to show up. Front desk wants, the client care coordinators want their patients to show up. Physicians want their patients to show up. So what do we need to do? It can't be bonus them if they show up or just try harder. What's not working? So that was a great...   0:39:23.4 Andrew Stotz: Why don't we go to that for a second. We're gonna have Kelly, maybe you can tell us a little bit about what you observed from that, and then we'll continue on with the rest of the structure.   0:39:36.2 Kelly Allan: Well, the way we set up the red bead experiment was very much focused on the real challenges and real issues that everybody at Fitness Matters faces in terms of this topic of increasing the arrival rate and how complex that is. I think the red bead experiment demonstrates for not only the people who are the willing workers and the people who are the inspectors and the person who is the scribe who keeps the spreadsheet, they realize that the numbers alone are not telling us what's going on. They realize that unless there's a system improvement, process improvement, and people working together to make those happen, you can bribe people, you can incent people, you can threaten people, you can send them home, you can give them a performance appraisal, you can do every kind of command-and-control management, but you haven't improved the system in which people work. There's still red beads. There's still red beads. We have to reduce the friction, we have to change the paddle. We have to figure out how it is we can help make it possible and easier for clients to want to show up so that they can get healthy and so that they can really appreciate what happens when they don't show up, how they are a part of the system. Once they become a patient, they're a part of the system of Fitness Matters.   0:41:18.3 Andrew Stotz: I'm just curious if there was also anything different. You've done the red bead experiment a lot of times with a lot of different types of companies. Were there any observations you had of the way they interpreted that that was either the same or different? What were some of your observations there?   0:41:37.7 Kelly Allan: Well, we planned it so that Travis and his leadership team could really do more of the debriefing so that they would have the context for the people in the audience as well as for the people on the stage, versus just a more generic, which is still powerful, to talk about how the system's in control and is this a common cause system or a special cause, what's really going on. Travis and his folks were able to then bring that context to the red beads, which I think made it especially powerful for this audience, for this group.   0:42:16.2 Andrew Stotz: Excellent. Travis, why don't you continue?   0:42:22.0 Travis Timmons: As Kelly shared, the leadership team debriefed after the red beads of the learnings and how that might be. The red beads were the cancellations that we currently have. Then we introduced, "Okay, now what we're gonna do is go do a deeper dive into the fishbones." There's five primary parts of our system, five bones. Each bone we're now gonna break out and work on the granular details. We did a fishbone for each of the larger bones.   0:43:01.8 Kelly Allan: Why don't you give a couple examples of the bones if you have it handy?   0:43:07.3 Travis Timmons: First bone is what we call initial contact. The first time a client has an interaction with Fitness Matters. Could be website, could be a physician referral, could be a neighbor talking to them, could be driving by. Initial contact, that's bone number one. How does that entire process work at Fitness Matters? Where's the friction point? Are there people that we don't even get into our door efficiently? They're not coming in set up for success, for example. Next bone would be setting them up for the evaluation. Third bone is evaluation day. Fourth bone is every subsequent visit up until discharge. And the fifth and final bone is discharge to ongoing wellness and how do we continue to stay connected? Those are the five bones as you flow through as a client at Fitness Matters, and the five major gates, if you will, is how we looked at it.   0:44:07.8 Kelly Allan: Every one of those is filled with complexity. There are a lot of little details to reduce the friction for the clients and for the system, for the patients in the system. I think that was an aha moment for people as well because a lot of them are in the quadrant four of unconscious competence. They've been doing this job well for a long time and they tend to forget the complexity. We have to identify the complexity so we can work on it and make it less complex, more streamlined, and so new people coming in can appreciate why Fitness Matters makes informed, thoughtful decisions about how they do things. It didn't just happen. These have been thoughtful things that have been worked on for years, but they can still be improved further and we can document them and make them more visible. When people saw all those little bones coming off the main bones, it's like, "Wow, there's a lot of little things that happen and we can impact almost all of those."   0:45:18.1 Travis Timmons: In some of the work we've already done on the bones to already have industry-leading arrival rate, but I think we can do better. We're one of the few, maybe one of the few medical appointments people have in their lives, not just physical therapy, but in general, that you go to do a medical appointment, do you know what it's gonna cost you out of pocket before you show up? Generally, you don't. We've swam upstream to make that visible to clients, so they already are coming in knowing what the cost is gonna be and are we providing that value? Just an example of, okay, can we swim further upstream with that and make it easier to pay and make it visible on their insurance deductible and all of that?   0:46:05.9 Kelly Allan: Well, and also, Travis, I think... I was just gonna say in terms of how many times have people been to a doctor's office, they've had to fill out a whole bunch of forms either online or in the office and then nobody ever looks at it. Something that Fitness Matters has been a leader on for a long time, which is how many of these questions are really required? How are we really gonna use that information? Let's not have seven pages. Can we get it down to four? Can we get it down to three? And increase... Because remember Deming's teachings are quality goes up as costs go down. Quality goes up as we have to commit less time. Quality goes up as joy in work goes up. Right? So that's that Deming structure of, no, quality does not have to cost more. In fact, Deming said if you're doing it this way, quality will cost less. And that's in part how Fitness Matters can compete against these big, big companies and win. I think, Travis, you've gotta share some of the statistics about what makes Fitness Matters an industry leader. What kinds of things are measured that you and others look at in the industry?   0:47:17.8 Travis Timmons: One of the big things in the physical therapy industry, Andrew, is what they call outcomes. They're measurable questionnaire by body part that you have a patient fill out at evaluation day and at discharge day, and it gives you a percentage of... In our industry, they call it functional ability. Are you 100% able with your shoulder or do you have a 60% disability with your shoulder? For example, across all body parts, we're 30 to 40% above national average on our outcomes. Not even close. Because of the efficiency, our patients show up. Again, the one-to-one care model is why it's our true north, and everything we do has to support that because of those industry-leading outcomes. Our no-show rate is one of the other things we define. Again, something we're working to improve upon, but we're already nation-leading. Our definition of a no-show is 24 hours notice up into a no-show. Most companies in our industry only call it a no-show if the patient just doesn't show up. With our definition of 24 hours notice or less, we're at 4% to 5%. National average of true no-shows, just not showing up, is 15%.   0:48:45.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I can imagine even probably higher than that, but 15, yeah.   0:48:49.7 Travis Timmons: 15 to 20% depending on the research. Just two examples there. The Deming approach to system thinking, team engagement, getting rid of silos, operational definitions. To Kelly's point, we worked years ago on that initial client intake. I used an example several years ago around the time we were working on that project. My one son, got him an Apple iPad for Christmas. Other son got an Xbox 360. One product we got out of the box and turned it on, it was fully charged and ready to go in about 37 seconds. The other product took all kinds of unpacking, had to plug it in, and as soon as it came up, it said software upgrade required, and it proceeded to spend the entire day of Christmas downloading the update. We just use that as an example of how hard is this? We want that same experience for our clients. How do we make it an unbelievable healthcare experience for our clients?   0:50:10.1 Kelly Allan: Well, and Travis is being way too modest here, so I have to jump in. I don't know if I have the numbers exactly right, but Travis will correct me. Let's say you have an injury or you're recovering from surgery or whatever it happens to be, and the industry average is it's going to take 17 visits with a physical therapist for you to be at some level of functionality. At Fitness Matters, it might be 13 visits. Travis, is that too high?   0:50:42.3 Travis Timmons: 10.   0:50:43.1 Kelly Allan: 10 visits. 10 visits. So cut it in half. They're getting better in half the time. That's Deming.   0:50:52.9 Travis Timmons: Yeah.   0:50:53.3 Kelly Allan: Quality goes up, costs go down. Which is why Travis then can... Insurance companies also love them, right? It's like, wow, these people are getting better and they don't circle back just because they were... Operational definition is they're well. Discharged by somebody else, oh yeah, they had their 17, 18 visits, 19 visits, they're well. No, they're not. They come back or they go somewhere else and they're claiming insurance again. Fitness Matters, they learn how to stay well.   0:51:22.4 Travis Timmons: And that brings in another important thing that we've learned over the years, Andrew, with the Deming approach. Our data is industry leading, and we've worked hard at that. And we've got a great team that works within the construct that we've created through Deming. To get back to the unknown or unknowable quote that Dr. Deming would use, our marketing costs are low because patients go back to their physicians and say, "Hey, this is the best PT experience I've ever had." And after they hear that four or five times with us and they get complaints when they send them elsewhere, all of a sudden we start getting referrals from these doctors we've not even heard of before.   0:52:07.6 Kelly Allan: Yeah. Yep.   0:52:08.9 Travis Timmons: How do you measure that? What amount of marketing dollars would have to be spent to get in front of... Like, we doubled the number of physicians that referred to us in the last year.   0:52:23.6 Kelly Allan: Yes. That's a double, Andrew. Unheard of.   0:52:27.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:52:28.1 Kelly Allan: Unheard of.   0:52:28.5 Andrew Stotz: Incredible. So you got amazing outcomes. Let's now wrap up about where did you get to at the end of this? What did you personally and the management team end up with?   0:52:45.9 Travis Timmons: So we had some do-outs. Our closing PowerPoint slide was within two weeks we would report back with one to two updated operational definitions and probably three PDSAs that we were going to tackle. That was kind of our promise back to the team, that we would look at all the work. We have paper everywhere. People got to vote. We had a one-page paper on potential PDSAs, and we gave them little stickers to vote on where they think we should put our time and energy and resources. Our takeaway, our product, if you will, three PDSAs. One that has two under it is the new software. We're gonna start doing online scheduling, automated waitlists. I won't get into all the details, but PDSA one has software change. PDSA two, there was a lot of feedback on, "Hey, it would be great if we had kind of a scripted conversation point for the client care coordinators for these four scenarios: first phone call, first in-visit, how we take payment and make their benefits visible to them, how do we take a phone call and handle a cancellation when they do happen to ensure that it's a positive experience."   0:54:12.4 Travis Timmons: And then how do we handle kind of a no-show? Another PDSA is we're gonna have those client care coordinators create their first version of what they think the best script would be, 'cause they're the ones that do it all day. Why would I try to come up with that? And then have them send it to us and do some feedback there. Then we updated our operational definition of canceled visits so that there was clarity across the system to make sure we're measuring what we want to measure, which is how many people show up to their visits each day. We reported that back to the team last Friday, actually, to make sure we hit the deadline we promised to them. And then we let them know we're also gonna be working on kind of a third or fourth PDSA—I kind of lost track there of how we're counting it under the software—but training the entire team on what does it mean to have client engagement and what is our operational definition of client connection and client engagement. So they know we're gonna be doing that on a location-by-location basis at the March monthly meeting.   0:55:26.4 Travis Timmons: That was our takeaway. A lot of product to come away with, and they're gonna have all of the context from the team off-site to understand what we're getting ready to tackle, especially with the software change.   0:55:40.1 Andrew Stotz: My first reaction to that is, oh, those seem like kind of things that you could have figured out some other way, or there's not that many things, or there wasn't some stunning breakthrough. Explain why you're happy with what you got versus you prepared, you did a lot of work, you got those things. Some of it may be that, hey, we need to go through a process. I may have known some of those conclusions, but if we don't have a process of going through that, first we have the risk of maybe I'm wrong in what I think. And the second thing we have is that we have the risk that it's just a business run by dictate rather than getting real buy-in. I'm just curious if you could explain a little bit about that.   0:56:30.7 Kelly Allan: You said the bad word. You said the B-word.   0:56:34.5 Andrew Stotz: Buy-in.   0:56:35.4 Travis Timmons: Understanding, Andrew. Not buy-in.   0:56:38.4 Andrew Stotz: We're looking for buy-in. No. Okay.   0:56:40.8 Kelly Allan: We change it. How do we get... The conversation changes when you say, "How do we get understanding?" Now it's about the why behind the what that leads to the how, versus buy-in, which means, "How are we gonna sell this to somebody?" Sorry, Travis, I couldn't resist.   0:57:02.8 Travis Timmons: No, it's 100% true. And to answer your question, Andrew, my first answer and probably the most powerful answer we already talked about earlier, but it's very important to reiterate and maybe close with, is because of our approach and the time and investment we spent preparing for the meeting, doing the meeting, the fact that there was zero concern or stress around us switching our software system. The amount of engagement that there's gonna be, 'cause there's gonna be work to be done by all team members in preparation for that software change. I am confident I'm not gonna have to do any motivational speeches leading up to that. I'm not gonna have to bribe people. They want this to work because they understand why we're doing it, they understand the value it's gonna provide, and they understand, now that they have deep understanding of our system, they understand why we need to do this to continue to excel.   0:58:13.9 Travis Timmons: I don't know what that's worth. That's unmeasurable. But I know had I just announced this and not had any process, not a Deming approach, just, "Hey, guys, Travis thinks we need to do a new software and we're gonna change how you document, how you schedule," I feel fairly confident how well that would've gone. That would be my answer, Andrew, is the power of being able to present that to a team. They're already asking me questions about, "Have you thought about this in our system?" We have a shared Word document across the team. What questions are coming up in your system thinking? "How are we gonna message this to all of our clients so that they know they're gonna get new emails for their home program?" Great question. I had not thought of that. That is unmeasurable, but I know we're gonna be successful when we switch softwares because of our approach via Deming. What would you add to that, Kelly?   0:59:14.7 Kelly Allan: I think that's the essential nature of what happens. When you set out with a clear, healthy, thoughtful aim, you have conversations around that with your leadership team and what they can do then to filter that and start to talk about that with their teams at their locations, and then you have time to reflect and continually improve that, you're really creating a racehorse. Most off-sites, and Andrew, you've been to these, I know, they start... It's the 17 things. I thought of this when you mentioned it earlier. We start out, we have a racetrack and we want to have a racehorse. But by the time most companies get to their off-site, they've put so much stuff on that horse that it's now a pack mule. It will eventually make it around the track, but if you're competing with Travis, his racehorse, that team's racehorse has been around that track past you many, many times. You may get there, but they're already onto another track by the time you get to the finish line. You're finished.   1:00:36.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. You may even be releasing kittens and he's got a horse.   1:00:42.0 Travis Timmons: Kelly brings up another great point there. The other thing that gives our team confidence, because of our system view, 96% of issues are due to systems and processes, not people, the Fitness Matters team is confident that there's gonna be hiccups with a software change. They're confident they're gonna be able to talk about it in a system view quickly, and they're confident we're gonna implement change to rectify that. That goes into one of the reasons why I got zero shocked looks or zero sidebar conversations the entire day. The only feedback I've gotten is, "Hey, we're excited about it. We think we need to do this. And have you considered this as part of our system change?" I don't know what else as a business you could want.   1:01:40.4 Andrew Stotz: Kelly, I was thinking about a good wrap-up from you is to help the listener and the viewer think about how can they apply this into their business. Let's step back a little bit from Travis and think about the work you do and give us some hope, give us some guidance about, can we do this? How?   1:02:04.6 Kelly Allan: Yeah. Several things come to mind. One is that when you first start to learn about the Deming lens, the System of Profound Knowledge, his approach, it seems, it's different. It is different and it can seem to be, oh my gosh, that's so different. We'll never be able to do that. But the point is, the Deming Institute offers a two-day seminar workshop and they can learn not to be incredibly proficient or masterful in two days of how to go back and do Deming, but they know how to get started and they do get started. And then it just becomes part of, again, the Deming magic is as you start to work on these things, your costs go down, your quality goes up, and sometimes you can raise your prices because of the quality and sometimes you just are more competitive at the existing price, but you're taking work and rework and waste out of the system through the Deming approach, which allows you the time. That's the big constraint in most companies. I don't have time to work on improvement. I gotta fix this.   1:03:29.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Right.   1:03:30.9 Kelly Allan: So that's a fix that's gonna fail. That's a fix that's gonna fail. So I think the message is you just want to read The New Economics. If you get the third edition, start with the new chapter. It's like 40 pages and it sums up a whole lot of what we've been talking about. Then there's DemingNext videos through the Deming Institute. You can get your feet wet there. You can then, if you want, attend a seminar or read more things or reach out and have conversations with people. But you just have to try it so that you can see that the payback is there, that the joy in work is there. And in a war for talent, they wanna work for Deming. People wanna work for Deming-based companies because they're not about manipulating people. They're about joy in work. They're about reducing the friction. So you just gotta get started and don't be just because it's so different doesn't mean you can't learn it quickly. You can.   1:04:36.7 Andrew Stotz: Yep. And Travis is a great example of that. In our prior episodes, he talked about the journey, about the pain and all that. I think that's exciting. I'm gonna wrap it up. I just have to laugh because I've been out of the corporate world for a while, just doing my own thing. But I was thinking, you mentioned about buy-in and then you said it means you're selling something. And I thought that's funny. I remember my father used to say, he used to get so annoyed because he'd say, "Yeah, let's talk around this," which was a common thing back in those days. But then I was also thinking another thing that we were saying was onboard. Let's get people onboard with this. What if you're onboard? It pretty much means you're drowning. And I just thought about those types of things that when we talk about fear and work or fear in what we're trying to remove fear and stuff, part of it is the way we speak and the way we communicate.   1:05:41.1 Andrew Stotz: Travis, I feel like I want to leave you with the last word. So why don't you bring us home?   1:05:48.0 Travis Timmons: Yeah, I think I would follow on what Kelly said is I would just the amount of joy, the amount of stress this took off of me as a business owner and as a parent thinking about things differently. And the first time you start learning about Deming's teachings and the System of Profound Knowledge, it seems a little off. Seems a little like this just doesn't seem possible. I've had several people I've talked to about that. It just doesn't work that way. To Kelly's point, I would encourage just try a couple things, whether it be do you have clear operational definitions? Have you done a PDSA? Do you know how to do a PDSA? But the two-day seminars is where you kind of do the deep dive into like, oh, okay, I need to think about things differently. So anyone struggling with a business trying the latest and greatest book that's been out or the latest and greatest compensation model to create ownership thinking within your organization or whatever the buzzwords are, this is a long-term path to clarity and to just an understanding of how you can make your organization a place that has a positive impact on the lives of your employees and your clients.   1:07:17.7 Travis Timmons: And man, if you get that right, everything else follows. Sales, profit, all the stuff that a lot of metrics look at. If you get the point of your job is to have a positive place for your team to work and how do you do that? Deming is the way to do that. Everything else follows after that, in my opinion.   1:07:38.6 Andrew Stotz: And on that note, Travis and Kelly, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember, as Kelly and Travis have both said, go to deming.org, go to DemingNEXT. There's resources there so you can continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. I constantly repeat it because I love it, and that is: "People are entitled to joy in work."

What do you do when a new data point drops—and all eyes turn to you? In this episode, John Dues and Andrew Stotz explore the leadership discipline required when performance data changes. Instead of reacting to a single data point, they unpack how Deming thinking (understanding variation, avoiding tampering, and pausing to interpret patterns) can protect trust, stability, and improvement. A practical conversation for leaders who want wisdom—not speed—to guide their decisions. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. The topic for today is when the numbers change and everyone looks at you. John, take it away.   0:00:28.4 John Dues: Yeah, it's good to be back, Andrew. I think this is sort of an interesting topic. Many of us that have been in leadership roles have been in this position where the numbers change, whatever they may be. For me, they're dips in attendance, they're assessment results changing, something like that, a subgroup's results changes from the previous year. Sometimes the changes are small, sometimes they're big. But I'm thinking about times when they're just large enough to draw attention in a meeting. And it's not even really so much the size of the change that's important, it's what happens next.   0:01:12.9 John Dues: So you can kind of put yourself in one of these meetings where you're looking at data and maybe you didn't even expect it, but people kind of notice. Then someone asks what went wrong? And then the next thing that comes is someone suggests some type of fix or solution, and then this pressure starts to build. Especially if they're all sort of looking at you, the silence can feel irresponsible. And so what do we do? We react in some way. We call another... For explanations, maybe from others. We adjust a plan that's already in place. We launch a new initiative or tighten expectations on people, whatever it may be. None of it's out of malice. It's done out of care, most typically, or at least in the settings I've observed this sort of phenomenon.   0:02:13.1 Andrew Stotz: Don't just stand there, do something.   0:02:15.2 John Dues: Don't just stand there, do something. But the thing is, very often it just makes things worse. Right?   0:02:21.0 Andrew Stotz: Don't just do something. Stand there.   0:02:23.8 John Dues: Right, right. The opposite. But even if you know that, it's very, very difficult in the moment to...   0:02:32.5 Andrew Stotz: The pressures.   0:02:33.6 John Dues: Yeah.   0:02:34.9 Andrew Stotz: Well, I have a little... Little thing happened last night when a friend of mine came to see my mom and me, and we went out for there's a restaurant nearby, so we got the walker and got mom going. And her natural inclination was to help mom in getting up and that type of thing. And I was explaining to her the difference between what I call a caregiver and a caretaker. And I was saying that most people are caretakers where they're just taking care and they want to just help. And she's like, "It's irresistible. I mean, in my bones, I want to help." And I said, "It's very hard to see that sometimes the best help is to let her struggle and use her legs to get up, not to help her on that." And that was like a revelation for her last night, it just made me think about that.   0:03:33.8 John Dues: No, that's actually a perfect analogy because her health is sort of a high stakes environment. Just like schools are high stakes environments or many of the businesses that people run that listen to this podcast have high stakes. In our cases, it's students and families matter, outcomes matter. There's a lot of different stakeholders that are interested in what's going on in schools. And when those numbers do change, it can feel like neglect if you don't do anything. We're expected to notice. We're expected to... Good leaders are supposed to respond. They're supposed to act decisively, right?   0:04:12.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, because there's another aspect to it too. Let's just say that you have a boss that understands it and you're like, "Yeah, it's just noise. It's not signal." But how many times can you say that? Right?   0:04:27.8 John Dues: Yeah, that's right.   0:04:28.5 Andrew Stotz: That's another kind of pressure in that situation.   0:04:31.6 John Dues: Yeah, that's like the second-in-command type person, right? So they have their own pressure. And what you can see happening, this like visible action is sort of like evidence of competence because you can see it. And so the reaction becomes the default. So just like in this example you're giving with your mom, that action to help is very hard to resist. Even though by doing so, like you were saying, she doesn't get the physical exercise and actually makes things worse in the long term for your mom's health.   0:05:10.4 Andrew Stotz: "Boss, why did Kevin get a promotion and not me?" "Well, Kevin's a man of action."   0:05:14.8 John Dues: Man of action, right. Exactly. Exactly. And there's all these risks for a leader that doesn't react right away. Are they disengaged? If they're asking questions instead of acting right away, are they just uncertain? They lack certainty? Are you ignoring the data if you are pausing or waiting? Again, under these conditions, which I think are prevalent just about everywhere that I've been, at least, reacting quickly feels like the safest move. But I think the conflation is speed and wisdom. But speed is not, definitely not the same thing as wisdom, right?   0:06:02.1 John Dues: In all of our organizations, the data fluctuates naturally over time. No different in schools, like we've talked about. Attendance rises and falls, assessment results bounce up and down, behavior incidents they spike and they dip. And it's not necessarily a sign that something's broken. It's often just how systems typically behave, the systems that we're paying attention to. I think the main mistake leaders typically make in that moment when they see that movement is that they think that automatically means something changed. And so you get these concerns if it's a bad move in the data. If it's a short-term increase, maybe we trigger some type of celebration. So this works both ways, actually. But the main point is that one data point becomes a story. It becomes the story of what's... We try to attach an explanation to this dip or this increase that's actually not grounded in any kind of reality. We would say they're just reacting to noise, kind of like what you just said. And the problem, though, is that there's a number of then very predictable things that happen. First, educators, and I felt this as a teacher. I taught in Atlanta Public Schools, a big district that was trying lots of new things in the early 2000s. You feel this whiplash. So priority shifts, guidance changes. Yesterday's focus is replaced by today's concern.   0:07:44.5 John Dues: And what happens in a setting like that, that I found, is that people start explaining instead of learning. Especially when there's a strong accountability system like there is in education systems, results are questioned immediately, often. And so the safest response at almost all levels of the organization is just to justify what's already happened, not to explore what might be improved. Very, very, very difficult. And that then leads to trust eroding. And over time, what I've seen is that educators learn that any fluctuation brings scrutiny. They become cautious, defensive, quiet. And obviously none of that improves outcomes. And again, just like in the example with your mom, it actually makes things harder to improve in the long term. So this overreacting to this routine variation then often increases variation, and so the system actually becomes noisier and not more capable. You get this vicious cycle. What's that?   0:09:00.5 Andrew Stotz: Tampering.   0:09:01.8 John Dues: Yeah, tampering. Exactly. That's what Deming would call it, tampering. When you intervene in a stable system.   0:09:07.3 Andrew Stotz: It's interesting. The one data point becomes a story is a great, great line. In the world of finance, everybody's trying to get the next wave. As a financial analyst, you're trying to think, okay. And all we do constantly is look at the next data point and say, "Does this confirm or not my view that gold's going to crash now, or gold's going to rise, or US stocks are going to X, or the dollar is going to... " And most of the time, we're just making one data point become a story, and then the next data point comes out and it's like, "Okay, so there's a different story here." And then...   0:09:51.3 John Dues: Yeah. That explanation there it's sort of... The key idea is reaction. It's literally seductive. It is seductive because it feels productive.   0:10:04.3 Andrew Stotz: In my finance work, when I help people with their money, what I do introduce what I've learned from Dr. Deming to say it really helps me separate the signal from the noise in the stock market, and therefore, I will never react. And I even set parameters where I rebalance my portfolio every three months. So when they go, "What are you going to do about such and such?" it's like, "Everything's set. I'm going to wait until the results are in, and I'm going to reevaluate on a framework, on a systematic way," which just helps me from getting whipsawed this way or whiplash this way or that way. And it's proven to be not only great for helping people feel like I have a deeper understanding and follow what I'm doing, but it also improves performance.   0:11:07.7 John Dues: Yeah. And you know, I'm definitely no financial expert by any means, but it makes me think of The Big Short, the movie, when I don't know how true to reality it is, but when the character played by Christian Bale, Michael Burry, is sticking to his guns with his shorting of the housing market and people are coming into his office and screaming at him. He's getting emails that are coming in one after another calling him an idiot, threatening him with lawsuits, and he holds. So that's like an extreme example of not reacting to noise. And you can see what it does to him in the movie, the intestinal fortitude, before sort of it comes to the conclusion. He got less and less certain even though he stuck to his guns, that he was doing the right thing. Right.   0:12:00.3 Andrew Stotz: I got to get that clip because I want to combine that with Mel Gibson in that movie, I can't remember, the Celtic battles in England where he's saying, "Hold the line! Hold the line!" What is it?   0:12:13.6 John Dues: Braveheart, probably.   0:12:16.3 Andrew Stotz: Braveheart. Yeah.   0:12:17.9 John Dues: Braveheart. Yeah. That's because when you're having a conversation like this and you talk about this leadership concept, just about everybody's going to nod along with you. But when you are actually in the moment, very few people hold the line, very few people hold the line. But at least if you have this grounding, at least you'll be more likely to hold the line because you have some techniques and some ways to sort of paint this picture that there's a firm logic. There's never certainty, but at least there's a firm logic for why you're holding the line in a particular situation. But it's very, very hard. Very hard.   0:12:58.2 Andrew Stotz: One question is, could there be such a thing like a mantra that the management team could have? Something like, "One point is not the full story," or something that they talk about in non-emotional times so that they've got it set. So when all of these numbers change and everyone looks at you, it's like, "Guys, remember, one point is not the story."   0:13:28.1 John Dues: Yeah, no, that's a really good idea. That would be a good sort of internal value or something marketing-wise that you could sort of, something sticky that would remind people of this, especially in those moments of anxiety or even panic, depending on the particular situation and the type of data that you're talking about. That's a good idea. I think the key thing is that activity is not the same as improvement. It feels good. It feels good to change something, introduce something new, new rules, new expectations, even though the system itself hasn't changed. And like you said, that's tampering. You make adjustments to a stable system based on something that's just routine ups and downs and it degrades performance. I think a lot of people are familiar with Deming's Red Bead Experiment. Less of them are familiar with the Funnel Experiment. He basically talks about when you are trying to hit a target through a funnel and you move it each time to sort of adjust for the variation from the mark. You actually, he called it going off into the Milky Way in terms of where you end up when you make these adjustments every single time.   0:14:46.1 Andrew Stotz: I thought that demonstration was so... I don't remember that he did it in the seminars that I attended. I remember the Red Bead Experiment. But that tampering is so powerful to understand the mess you can end up in.   0:15:05.7 John Dues: Yeah. And that was in The New Economics. I don't think he ever did it in a four-day seminar that I remember. But the interesting thing is generally the best choice is just to keep the funnel in the same place and keep going. But again, that's very hard. Especially let's say you're doing this as a group activity and group two, three, four, and five, you're looking over and they're making these adjustments every time, and you're just sitting there. And you're like, "Maybe they're onto something," or "Maybe I do need to move." But at the end of it, they're much farther away than you are.   0:15:43.4 Andrew Stotz: And I feel like the title you talked about, "When the Numbers Change and Everyone Looks at You," is evoking that emotion of, "Am I doing something wrong? Other people would do it a different way. Oh, they're making progress. I'm just sitting here." Those kind of emotions are the types of things that cause that tampering.   0:16:02.7 John Dues: Yeah. And then that shows up as initiative overload. You get these contradictory messages, constant course correction like in the Funnel Experiment. And the irony is you typically have a leader who cares deeply and they don't realize they're creating the very instability that makes improvement impossible. It's a tough realization. So what I would say is that when the data does change, the most important leadership move is not action, but it's interpretation. So instead of asking, "What should we do?" maybe a good first question is, "Is this shift within the range of what we should expect?" So just that question kind of slows the moment down. It shifts attention from reaction to understanding and it invites the group to look at data over time rather than point to point. It opens up this possibility that nothing is wrong even if the results aren't yet acceptable.   0:17:15.4 Andrew Stotz: Love that. Love that.   0:17:16.8 John Dues: Yeah, I think it's a really important...   0:17:17.5 Andrew Stotz: Is this shift within the range of what we would expect?   0:17:20.6 John Dues: Yeah.   0:17:21.1 Andrew Stotz: Answer's going to be "Yes, this is in the range." So next topic in a meeting.   0:17:28.5 John Dues: Right. And we've talked about this before. And it's possible when you've asked that question that the system itself looks stable, but it also may be producing outcomes we don't like. And so the key is even in those cases, reacting to an individual data point is not going to help. In that case, if you have stability but outcomes you don't like, you need thoughtful system redesign. But these sort of urgency-driven immediate fixes, overreaction, that's not going to help. That's not going to help.   0:18:06.9 John Dues: So the big thing is pausing before reacting. But that's often misunderstood. We talked about is he or she ignoring the data? Are they lowering expectations? Is that leader just indecisive? I don't think so. I think that's really what discipline is. And pausing, being that person that says, "Let's take a breath and pause here," it creates the space to study patterns rather than focusing on those individual data points. It allows leaders to separate stability from acceptability. It prevents unnecessary pressure then cascading through the system, which is what often happens. And so what I think is when you actually pause, what you're doing is protecting the people in your organization. When you do that, I think in an education system it protects teachers from being judged on noise they can't control. I think it protects leaders from... They are often then turning around and making promises that the system can't actually keep. It's sort of like a short-term thing, but you're hurting the long term. And then it protects students because they don't then undergo all these constant changes that disrupt their learning.   0:19:43.1 John Dues: So I think what a leader, a strong leader does that's different is they ask questions. What does this look like over time? Is this a meaningful signal from what we've seen before? What should we expect if nothing changes? Just some basic questions. I think resisting the urge to explain every up and down movement. And it's really at the end of the day what it comes down to is you're not trying to assign meaning to every data point, but what you're trying to do is understand the underlying system behavior. Now sometimes action is warranted, and in those cases, you're going to act in a deliberate way. When it's not, they're going to communicate that and communicate why we're going to wait in this particular scenario and why that's the responsible choice. So there's got to be this underlying logic whichever direction you're going to go. And I think if you've ever been around a leader like this, it feels calm. It just feels calm. It feels steady. And over time, the key thing is it creates this system that's trusting and then as a result, it's far more capable of improvement. It's far more likely that improvement's going to happen.   0:21:13.4 Andrew Stotz: That's amazing. And I was just taking lots of notes, but I wrote down pause, have discipline, protect employees, protect students. But I wrote down protect the aim.   0:21:27.0 John Dues: Yeah, protect the aim. That's good.   0:21:28.7 Andrew Stotz: Protect the aim of the system. Why are we here? And if we can't do that pause and look at it carefully, there's just no way we're going to achieve that.   0:21:43.3 John Dues: Yeah, no, I agree. And I think the thing is with these situations is that the most damaging decisions in schools are often made after the numbers change, but not because of the numbers themselves. Like even if they've declined, typically it's not to the point that it's catastrophic, but what's catastrophic is the series of decisions that are made as a result of the decline. And so in those situations again, this reaction feels responsible. But really what happens when you react without understanding is it creates more noise, more stress, more instability, and you still don't have the improvement at the end of all that consternation.   0:22:30.1 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I would sum up my sum of this is the bad manager says, "That's a terrible result. Let's make it worse."   0:22:42.0 John Dues: And that's really what's happening. They're obviously not saying it, but that's exactly what's happening. Exactly. That's a really good summary. And I would kind of sum it up with three big ideas that would be helpful for listeners. I think the first one is that not all variation is meaningful. Most fluctuations actually are just routine, should not trigger action. The second one we've talked about, that overreaction creates instability. Acting on noise makes systems worse, not better. And then the third thing I would say is that pausing is a leadership skill and understanding must come before action.   0:23:30.2 John Dues: And I say it's a skill 'cause you actually have to practice it. I think you have to prepare yourself for what you're going to do when you get in front of a group and you're going to talk about results and those results maybe aren't exactly where you want them to be. You have to practice that, rehearse it. What are you going to say? How are you going to back that up? What's the logic? But I think when leaders learn to have that pause before reacting, they actually protect learning, they protect trust, and then they actually create the conditions for improvement. And I think that's the work that matters most when everyone's looking at you to make a key decision. Not easy, but certainly important work.   0:24:08.6 Andrew Stotz: That's a great wrap. I'm not going to add anything to it. John, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book, Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge, and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."      

Thanks to our Partners, NAPA Auto Care and NAPA TRACS Watch Full Video Episode In this episode, Carm Capriotto speaks with Tom Ham about the rising labor rates shaping the automotive repair industry. Drawing from the Labor Rate Tracker tool on the Automotive Management Network, Tom explains how shops across the country are steadily increasing rates, with many approaching the $200 per hour threshold. Geographic trends reveal higher rates in regions like the San Francisco Bay Area and Connecticut, and Tom recommends gradual monthly increases of $1 to $2 to maintain profitability without alarming customers. They also discuss shifting business realities, including rising repair order values driven by vehicle complexity, higher parts costs, and increased technician compensation, even as car counts may level off. Many shops are also setting vehicle age limits to improve efficiency and reduce liability. Looking ahead, Tom highlights how artificial intelligence will enhance diagnostics and workflow, supporting the rise of a highly skilled mechanical specialist working alongside AI. The episode offers a forward looking view of an industry evolving through smarter pricing, cultural alignment, and advanced technology. https://laborratetracker.com/ Timestamps (00:00:00) Introduction & Industry Updates (00:02:30) Tom Ham discusses the "Labor Rate Tracker" and how shops are breaking through psychological pricing barriers as they approach $200 per hour. (00:05:00) Geographic Heat Maps: A breakdown of where rates are highest (Bay Area, Connecticut) and lowest (Midwest, South), and the use of heat maps to visualize the data. (00:08:15) The Incremental Increase Strategy: Tom advises shop owners on how to raise labor rates by small amounts (1–2) to overcome the fear of price adjustments. (00:10:45) Rates by Shop & Vehicle Type: Analysis of which shops command the highest rates (RVs, Diesels) versus the lowest (Collision, Tire Stores), and vehicle makes (Euro vs....

February 20, 2026 In this episode, Scott, Mark, and Dr. Ray Painter break down the financial realities of the new prostate biopsy CPT codes and what they mean for urology practices. Moving beyond coding mechanics, the discussion focuses on the economic differences between transrectal and transperineal approaches, MRI fusion versus ultrasound guidance, targeted lesion add-on payments, and the site-of-service differential between office and facility settings. They explore how practice expense values, capital equipment costs, disposable supplies, physician time, and block scheduling all factor into the decision to bring advanced biopsy techniques in-house. The episode emphasizes balancing clinical judgment with financial sustainability—helping practices evaluate whether expanding in-office prostate biopsy services makes sense now and in the future. PRS Coding and Reimbursement HubAccess the HubFree In-Office Prostate Biopsy Calculator (Suppoted by UC-Care)Download NowPRS Coding CoursesFor UrologistFor APPsFor Coders, Billers, and Admins Join the Urology Pharma and Tech Pioneer GroupEmpowering urology practices to adopt new technology faster by providing clear reimbursement strategies—ensuring the practice gets paid and patients benefit sooner.         https://www.prsnetwork.com/joinuptpClick Here to Start Your Free Trial of AUACodingToday.com   The Thriving Urology Practice Facebook group.The Thriving Urology Practice Facebook Group link to join:https://www.facebook.com/groups/ThrivingPractice/ 

In this episode of Shift, investor and innovation leader John Ruffolo offers a bold, forward‑looking take on the forces reshaping Canada's economic future and the massive opportunity ahead. From digital sovereignty and the evolving implications of the U.S. Cloud Act to strengthening industrial strategy and anchoring homegrown innovation, Ruffolo highlights why now is the moment for Canada to rethink how it builds wealth and scale its brightest ideas.Candid, optimistic, and deeply pragmatic, this conversation offers a roadmap for how Canada can seize this moment and build world‑leading companies on its own soil. A must‑listen for executives, investors, and builders shaping Canada's next chapter.

Guest: Arthur Griffiths, Former owner of the Vancouver Canucks, Vancouver Grizzlies, and General Motors Place. Also a member of the B.C. Sports Hall of Fam Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Flashback Friday is from episode 613 published last Dec 29, 2015. Jason ushers us into this episode by taking us through Julie Malinowski's article "6 Trends Among Landlords and Tips to Outperform the Norm". He also reminds us there are a few tickets left to the upcoming Meet the Masters event and about the upcoming Venture Alliance Mastermind in Dubai. In today's guest interview, Alvin E. Roth has written a book about markets. If you are wondering what type of market, as Mr. Roth tells us himself, it's not important what type of market. It's the market itself. He guides us through the interview discussing chapters of his book, "Who Gets What and Why" with real life examples of the organ donation market, the online matchmaking market and even shares his thoughts on how realtors have survived in our internet-based, do it yourself economy.     Follow Jason on TWITTER, INSTAGRAM & LINKEDIN Twitter.com/JasonHartmanROI Instagram.com/jasonhartman1/ Linkedin.com/in/jasonhartmaninvestor/ Call our Investment Counselors at: 1-800-HARTMAN (US) or visit: https://www.jasonhartman.com/ Free Class:  Easily get up to $250,000 in funding for real estate, business or anything else: http://JasonHartman.com/Fund CYA Protect Your Assets, Save Taxes & Estate Planning: http://JasonHartman.com/Protect Get wholesale real estate deals for investment or build a great business – Free Course: https://www.jasonhartman.com/deals Special Offer from Ron LeGrand: https://JasonHartman.com/Ron Free Mini-Book on Pandemic Investing: https://www.PandemicInvesting.com  

Our South Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses how the unprecedented demand to power AI is set to transform the power industry for years to come.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Mayank Maheshwari: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley's South Asia Energy Analyst. Today: how AI and electrification are rewriting the rules of global power. It's Tuesday, December 2nd at 9 pm in Singapore. If you've noticed your electricity bills are climbing and headlines are buzzing with talk of AI, you're not alone. The way we use – and need – power is changing fast, and it's impacting everyone from homeowners to major tech companies. Global power consumption is surging at the fastest pace in over a decade. Annual demand is set to rise by more than one trillion kilowatt-hours every year through 2030, with AI-driven data centers contributing nearly a fifth of that growth. We estimate about [U.S.]$3 trillion investments in datacenters by 2028, with power consumption growth of nearly about 126GW in these three years till [20]28. This is almost as large as Canada's total [annual] power consumption. And in this context, power prices are set to further rise. In 2024 – the latest full-year data available – global power sector investments hit a new high of $1.5 trillion, and consumer power prices have risen by about 15 percent. By 2030, U.S. power markets will account for half of the global data center power consumption. And Asia will also see about a 15 percent spillover of that U.S. hyperscaler demand, which will be also part of why some of the power markets in Asia will get a lot tighter. As power consumption rises, the difference between the price at which electricity is sold and the cost to generate it – also known as power spreads – are likely to rise by nearly 15 percent. This expansion in profit margins could lead to higher earnings forecasts for power generation companies and create $350 billion in value creation through the entire power supply chain. At the same time, years of under-investments in electric grids have led to bottlenecks, sparking a wave of new spending and pushing the industry to rely more on natural gas and energy storage and other new technologies – while also supporting that option of renewable power. In 2024, gas investments hit record highs, and starting in 2026 gas is set to become a new truly global source of new power generation. Looking ahead, natural gas is expected to meet about a fifth of [the] world's new power needs, excluding China. And nuclear energy is well positioned for increased investments; while batteries – which is energy storage – is also getting to get a new set in terms of new investments across datacenters and in markets like China . Moving forward, the power industry faces a multi-decade transformation, marked by unexpected shifts and opportunities. We'll see increased collaboration between fossil and non-fossil fuels, wider adoption of tiered pricing, and a surge in spot market and behind-the-meter sales all driving longer-lasting, elevated power spreads. Gas, nuclear, energy storage, and fuel cell supply chains – especially in Asia and the U.S. – stand to gain from stronger pricing power [and] new growth prospects, while grid operators benefit from higher investment and better returns. On the flip side, pure solar and wind producers may continue to see rising costs in Asia, something we have already seen in [the] U.S. and Europe, as [the] global grid leans more on batteries and steady fossil fuel supplies to balance the requirements of the rising needs of power across the supply chains – in AI as well as domestic utilization of manufacturing. Ultimately, as AI and electrification supercharge power demand, the real challenge isn't just adding renewables. It's about building a resilient, flexible grid and navigating the new economics of energy. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As Jim Hill and Drew Taylor sit down just hours before Zootopia 2 preview screenings begin, they dig into the film's early reactions, the surprising box-office shape of the holiday season, and the escalating economics behind today's animated franchises. HIGHLIGHTS Early reactions to Zootopia 2 and what Drew learned from scoring sessions and long-lead press days. How Wicked: For Good outpaced the original film's opening—and why reviews may complicate the long-term outlook. Stephen Schwartz's long history with animation—from Pocahontas to The Prince of Egypt—and his record-breaking opening weekend. A surprise Thanksgiving return for Prep & Landing and why Snowball Protocol deserved more promotion. Drew breaks down the blockbuster salaries behind Frozen 3 and 4—and how favored-nations deals shaped the cast's negotiations. Tim Allen completes his Toy Story 5 recording, plus a look back at the franchise's evolving pay scale. Trailer talk: David, Hoppers, and what Pixar's 2026 slate signals for the studio. Hosts Jim Hill — X/Twitter: @JimHillMedia | Instagram: @JimHillMedia | Website: jimhillmedia.com Drew Taylor — X/Twitter: @DrewTailored | Instagram: @drewtailored | Website: drewtaylor.work Follow Us Facebook: @JimHillMediaNews YouTube: @jimhillmedia TikTok: @jimhillmedia Producer Credits Edited by Dave Grey Produced by Eric Hersey Sponsor This episode is brought to you by Unlocked Magic, from the team at DVC Rental Store — offering discounted Disney theme park tickets, including special events. Save on your next trip at UnlockedMagic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As Jim Hill and Drew Taylor sit down just hours before Zootopia 2 preview screenings begin, they dig into the film's early reactions, the surprising box-office shape of the holiday season, and the escalating economics behind today's animated franchises. HIGHLIGHTS Early reactions to Zootopia 2 and what Drew learned from scoring sessions and long-lead press days. How Wicked: For Good outpaced the original film's opening—and why reviews may complicate the long-term outlook. Stephen Schwartz's long history with animation—from Pocahontas to The Prince of Egypt—and his record-breaking opening weekend. A surprise Thanksgiving return for Prep & Landing and why Snowball Protocol deserved more promotion. Drew breaks down the blockbuster salaries behind Frozen 3 and 4—and how favored-nations deals shaped the cast's negotiations. Tim Allen completes his Toy Story 5 recording, plus a look back at the franchise's evolving pay scale. Trailer talk: David, Hoppers, and what Pixar's 2026 slate signals for the studio. Hosts Jim Hill — X/Twitter: @JimHillMedia | Instagram: @JimHillMedia | Website: jimhillmedia.com Drew Taylor — X/Twitter: @DrewTailored | Instagram: @drewtailored | Website: drewtaylor.work Follow Us Facebook: @JimHillMediaNews YouTube: @jimhillmedia TikTok: @jimhillmedia Producer Credits Edited by Dave Grey Produced by Eric Hersey Sponsor This episode is brought to you by Unlocked Magic, from the team at DVC Rental Store — offering discounted Disney theme park tickets, including special events. Save on your next trip at UnlockedMagic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ever wondered what Dr. Deming really meant by "profound knowledge" — and how it can still transform your work today? In this conversation, Bill Scherkenbach shares with host Andrew Stotz lessons from Dr. W. Edwards Deming on profound knowledge, systems thinking, and why "knowledge without action is useless, and action without knowledge is dangerous." Tune in for wisdom, humor, and practical insights on learning, leadership, and finding joy in work. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Scherkenbach, a dedicated protege of Dr. Deming since 1972. Bill met with Dr. Deming more than a thousand times and later led statistical methods and process improvement at Ford and GM at Deming's recommendation. He authored the Deming Route to Quality and Productivity at Deming's behest, and at 79, still champions his mentor's message, learn, have fun, and make a difference. Bill, how are you doing?   0:00:36.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Doing great, Andrew. How about you?   0:00:38.6 Andrew Stotz: I'm good. It's been a while since we talked. I took a little holiday to Italy, which was. I was out for a bit, but I'm happy to be back in the saddle.   0:00:48.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Dove in Italia?   0:00:51.3 Andrew Stotz: Yes.   0:00:52.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Where in Italy?   0:00:53.6 Andrew Stotz: Well, I went to Milan for a trade show in the coffee industry, and then I went to Lake Como and relaxed and oh, what a paradise.   0:01:03.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Beautiful. Beautiful. Yep.   0:01:05.0 Andrew Stotz: And, of course, always great food.   0:01:09.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Yep, yep, yep. Well, you have a chance to use the PDSA on improving your mood there.   0:01:16.6 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, it was just... The resort I stayed at was a tiny little place on the side of a hill, and the food at this tiny little place was fantastic. We just didn't want to leave. Every single meal was great. So I love that. Who doesn't love that?   0:01:34.4 Bill Scherkenbach: They didn't have a food cart in the background.   0:01:38.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. In fact, they didn't really open for lunch.   0:01:39.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Like what they do over here.   0:01:41.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, they didn't open for lunch. They only served sandwiches at 2pm so we had to hold out. But we still, the sandwich was so good. We just thought yeah, just wait.   0:01:51.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Early lunch. Yep.   0:01:53.3 Andrew Stotz: Well, you've got some interesting stuff to talk about today, and I'm gonna share the screen, and then I think we can kick it off from there. So let me see if I can get that up straight here. One second in. All right, so hopefully, you see a white screen that says profound knowledge. You see that, Bill?   0:02:16.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yes, I do.   0:02:17.2 Andrew Stotz: All right, well, let's... Yeah, let's. Let's get into it.   0:02:23.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Oh, okay. I'll go from the bullets that I've got, and we'll hear from Dr. Deming and how he couched it in a little bit, in a few minutes, but he recognized that leaders would say they had the knowledge. Oh, yeah, we do SPC. We follow Deming's philosophy, we do that. But they really only knew the buzzwords. And to an extent, and I don't know how he came up with the word profound, but I do know in speaking with him that he intended it to be a degree of expertise that was beyond the buzzwords. Now, he said you didn't have to be an expert in it, but you had to know enough to be able to understand it and in fact, use it, as we'll talk about in a little bit. And knowledge obviously includes, as he said, an appreciation for a system and variation and knowledge and psychology. And as we'll hear in the audio, he also didn't really limited to that when he said there was there... His point, main point was that there are a whole bunch of interrelated subject matters that are very, very useful in managing your business or managing any organization.   0:04:17.1 Andrew Stotz: You know, I was thinking about that word profound. It's oftentimes wondering exactly what is meant by that. This is helpful to help us understand. It's, number one, about expertise. And I think the thing that I've always also felt is like, when you understand appreciation for a system, knowledge about variation, theory of knowledge and psychology, it, like things click, like it comes together, it's a whole. And that's the way I've thought about it. But that's interesting about the expertise aspect.   0:04:51.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. And that's something Don Peterson at Ford spoke about. He gave a very good talk to our leaders with Dr. Deming in attendance. And he said that a lot of you have said, "Oh, yeah, we already do this at Ford, " but you have to come to grips with a lot of you have been promoted for perhaps the wrong reason throughout your career, and you're gonna have to change. The change starts with us. So that was very impactful for Dr. Deming to listen to that.   0:05:32.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And I just thought about the idea of profound action. Like, once you get this knowledge, does that mean that you're going to also, you know, the way that you do things is going to change substantially.   0:05:47.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. I mean, that's been a philosophical question. In one of the slides, I quote Confucius. About 2500 years ago, essentially saying knowledge without action is useless and the action without knowledge is pretty dangerous. But that's been consistent with Eastern and Western. Aristotle did the same thing, and Mid Eastern folks did it as well. Philosophers dealing with, yeah, we've got knowledge, but everyone agrees, at least in the good thinker role, that, that you've got to take action, otherwise it's useless. Okay, so we've got, and the subject matters, as I said, are not new. And he coalesced on four, but the general thought was that. And you've got to remember Dr. Deming was a classically trained physicist in the 1920s. And because of that a lot of, although it had been a few years, but they were very aware that everything started in the both, the eastern philosophies and western philosophies. Everything started with philosophy. Science wasn't a separate subject matter. And so everything was connected on how people should live, on how the stars move, a whole bunch of stuff. It all was philosophy. And these various subject matters evolved over the years.   0:07:50.6 Bill Scherkenbach: So even though he stopped it for his general intent was that a whole bunch of things are interconnected. If you go study these various subject matters.   0:08:05.1 Andrew Stotz: It's interesting because I attended the seminars in 1990, 1992 and then I went to Thailand and then I did other things and I didn't really keep up with it because I was in the financial world and doing my thing. And then I got The New Economics years later and there was this discussion about System of Profound Knowledge. And then I think about also going back to your previous discussions of what it was like being in a classroom with Dr. Deming when you first met him and studied with him. You know, that these things were going on. Obviously he had a deep understanding of variation. He definitely understood about the theory of knowledge from his scientific background. But I'm just curious, as you... It's interesting what you said, these things are not new. It's the way he brought them together. I just find that, that fascinating. How do you see that journey for him going from when you first met him to a very full formed concept or theory of profound knowledge at his later years?   0:09:15.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, I think things just solidified or codified. I mean, when I first met him in '72 at New York University Graduate School of Business, he didn't have 14 Points. He didn't have the Deadly Diseases. So none of the stuff that were codified as he progressed. I mean the one thing that I've mentioned it a number of times, the most important thing I learned from him is that you never stop learning. And he epitomized that sense of continual learning in improving oneself. So he tried to learn from everyone. But, but yes, for instance, as I mentioned, he was a degreed physicist and ended up doing a whole bunch of. And that transitioned into statistics which was a relatively. Well, I'm going to say everything is relative. But new in operationalizing the use of statistics besides counting people and the experiments at Rothamstead for agriculture. I mean, that really was some of the... But the earlier stuff, yeah. Was helping their patrons gamble better.   0:11:02.0 Andrew Stotz: And so I often take comfort in your descriptions in the first episodes about how he hadn't put all of these things in place at the age of 72. And I think there's still hope for me, Bill, to figure it out and put together my grand thinking.   0:11:22.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Oh, no, I understand. I mean, I'll be 80 in less than six months. But he really, he started out getting his foot in the water here anyway when he was 79 also. So there's a chance. There's a chance.   0:11:46.4 Andrew Stotz: There's a chance. All right, well, the next slide, you're talking about the connections.   0:11:51.6 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Again, all the subject matters are, again, evolve from philosophy and they all are interconnected in many, many ways. So, yeah, if you could play what Dr. Deming's introducing, that might set the stage.   0:12:14.0 Andrew Stotz: Okay, let me play this audio. Hopefully it comes across. Okay.   [video playback] Dr. Deming: Let us begin our study of Profound Knowledge. Profound Knowledge. Provides a roadmap to transformation, not just change, but a roadmap to transformation. Nothing else will satisfy our needs. Not just change, a roadmap to transformation into a new state. The System of Profound Knowledge, appears here in four parts, all related to each other: first, Appreciation for a System. Which we shall study, we shall study a system, and soon, I won't keep you waiting. And Theory of variation and theory of knowledge and knowledge of psychology and add anything you please, sociology, anthropology, whatever you please. I present these four parts to Profound Knowledge. They are interdependent, they cannot be separated. One need not be imminent in any part of Profound Knowledge in order to make it, in order to understand it and apply it.   0:13:30.9 Andrew Stotz: That's quite a mouthful.   0:13:33.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. What I've got to do is go back to the tapes and get the lead in and follow on to that. But yeah, that's how he introduced profound knowledge in his later seminars.   0:13:56.2 Andrew Stotz: So what would this have been? What, 1990, 1991, 1992?   0:14:03.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, probably, I would say, yeah, maybe '89.   0:14:10.6 Andrew Stotz: Okay.   0:14:11.9 Bill Scherkenbach: In there. Yeah.   0:14:13.8 Andrew Stotz: So I took out a little transcript of that and I want to just go through a couple quick points, if you don't mind. He starts off by talking about it's a roadmap to transformation, not just change. Why would he say transformation rather than just change?   0:14:38.6 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, he changed really, transformation. And he thought a metamorphosis would be better. There's a butterfly in there somewhere, but it needs change. And it's not just, I know he mentioned the western style of management, but in my travels, Eastern style of management is just as bad. And again, knowledge is, is literally encompasses space and time. Looking at the past, projecting or predicting the future, little space, great space. And when you look at Western philosophies or western style management, we have emphasized the individual. So restricted space and short term. And the eastern philosophy of management took a longer term viewpoint of things. And they said it's not the individual, it's the team, the family. In my opinion, you have to, everyone, no matter where you live in the world has to balance those two, being able to take joy in your work as an individual. To be able to take joy in your work as a member of the team. And, I mean, I've been asked years ago, how long would it take? And I would say, "Well, Deming says it'll take 30 years." So over here in the US it's going to take a long time, but it's not going to take a long time in Asia, it's only going to take them 30 years. So time is relative, so is space.   0:16:53.2 Andrew Stotz: And there's something else he said in here that if you could try to help me understand and help the listener understand it. He talks about, you know, he gives a summary, theory of variation, theory of knowledge, knowledge of psychology. And then he adds in this line, "add anything you please, sociology, anthropology, whatever you please." What does he mean by that?   0:17:16.6 Bill Scherkenbach: That's what I said before he came from the the school that everything started with philosophy and things broke off science and all of these various disciplines. What he's saying is he's gone to, his theory of profound knowledge is included these four. But the general message is any discipline is interconnected with each other. So you don't have to be restricted to these four. And you're going back to how knowledge was developed in the first place. And perhaps it could be full circle, although I'm not going to get bogged down with the potential of AI contributions. But you need to, you need to recognize that many, many subject matter are interrelated because they were spawned from the original Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy.   0:18:37.5 Andrew Stotz: And one last thing on this, he wraps it up with this statement that also, you know, particularly given his depth of knowledge of the subject, he said, "One need not be imminent in any part of profound knowledge in order to make it, nor to understand it and to apply it." Why do you think he had this need to explain that you don't really have to know this in super deep detail?   0:19:02.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, I think he was being off a little bit. The word profound scares a lot of people. And so there's again a balance. You need to go far beyond the buzzwords, but you don't need to be an expert in any of those fields in order to grasp and be able to in some cases, I think, contribute to them. So he's saying that he's trying to better explain or define the word profound.   0:19:48.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Okay, now the next slide is incredible. A lot of different things on here that you're showing. Maybe you can explain what you're getting across in this one.   0:19:57.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, this is a MEGO chart. My Eyes Glaze Over. What I tried and I'm. I'm continually updating it. The different colors are from the fields of statistics, the fields of epistemology, psychology and systems thinking. And I'm linking a whole bunch of them together to show that there are similar thoughts in all four of these fields that contribute to a better understanding and use of all of them. Now the next slide, hopefully is more visible. It should be. I'm focusing on a stable process, which is statistical concept. Stable process means you've got by definition of Shewhart. There's a... Deming would call them common causes. When common causes are... When a process is stable, you're able to do design of experiments. Some of the enumerative methods work very, very well or with some degree of belief with a stable process. The red bead experiment was stable. Rule one and two of The Funnel. Stable process. Common causes in theory of knowledge. There's comment, well, I've seen that before or no, jeepers, I've never seen that that hooks up to some other special causes and statistics. There's a concept in theory of knowledge where you're talking about general providence or specific providence that the storm just, it hit everyone and pick out anyone in systems thinking you can only have a stable process if you have negative feedback loops and negative feedback.   0:22:40.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Again, I think I had mentioned in a previous discussion with you, negative doesn't mean it's bad. It just means it closes the loop and it seeks a stasis so, and that's the only way you're going to get. I'll simplify just about the only way you're going to get a stable process. There's a negative feedback loop in there somewhere. Stable process leads to long term thinking versus short term thinking, the theory of knowledge, empirical knowledge is never complete. Knowledge is theory applied over time. Stable process over and over and over again. The theory matches the data or what you predict, you then have knowledge. So the point is that, that there are a number of specific learnings. Well, for instance, let me see here, what's on. I have to adjust this. Okay. From psychology you've got what the psychologists call a fundamental attribution error. And that is mistaking who, as Dr. Deming says, who, who did it, who did it, did the people do it? Or did the system do it? Did the process do it? And in psychology, although it's in a different place, you've got following Rule 3 of The Funnel is a psychological term called complementary schismogenesis.   0:24:42.3 Bill Scherkenbach: And that's easy for me to say, going back to the Greek schism of split in genesis of a birth of a split. What that means is in psychology it's two people trying to one-up another. I've got this example. Well, I can do it. I mean, who, yeah, and the move or the musical Annie Oakley. Anything you can do, I can do better. So, psychology has observations and subject matters that they didn't have a clue. That was rule 3 of The Funnel. So my point in looking at all of these is that as you dig into things, they are interrelated. Now I haven't dug through anthropology or started. I've just restricted it to the four things Dr. Deming spoke about. But that would be a challenge to our listeners. If you really know some of these sciences, some of these bodies of knowledge, how are they connected? Okay. The aim of profound knowledge, he says, has to have an aim. Confucius in the East, Aristotle in the West, and in the Mid east, someone essentially said knowledge without action is useless and action without knowledge is dangerous.   0:26:51.0 Bill Scherkenbach: And Deming said the aim of a system, of his System of Profound Knowledge is action. And as we discussed previously, it's a transformation of Western, I think it's a transformation of Eastern and Western style of management. And he, the way he pronounced it was metamorphosis. And I will have to check the OED, Oxford English Dictionary. I haven't done that yet. But he has been 100% right in his pronunciation and usage of the English language. So as I said, there's got to be a butterfly in there somewhere. But he's talking about a major, major shift, major rebirth if you will, management. Systems theory. A lot of this is obvious and these are what he mentioned in his, not Out of the Crisis, but The New Economics. A network of interdependent components that work together to try and accomplish its aim. And, and he, and this I had mentioned earlier, I think that in his work. Well, I've got... Going back to some things, this is a 1954 speech he gave in Rome and this is a 1940 speech he gave. And because he was a Renaissance scholar, they were talking about a Systems View before it was popular.   0:29:06.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Everyone knows that he introduced the improvement on the old: design it or spec it, make it, try to sell it. And he introduced his expertise, sampling theory to be able to check on the customers and see what they think about stuff and be able to create a system of production instead of just one way through. Now. And I'm sure anyone who has read any of his books knows he spoke about the interdependence. He said in the example he gave was bowling. You just add up the scores. In the orchestra, you don't use a bunch of soloists, but they have to work together to be able to make sure that the result is what the composer, well, we don't know, I don't think what modes are intended.   0:30:28.9 Andrew Stotz: One of the things that's interesting about that orchestra concept is even, you know, it's a relatively complex system, but there's a score, there's a rule book, there's a play guide, here's what we're going to play. But sometimes with business there is no guide particularly, you know, you're running your own business relative, you know, you're focused on your own development of your own business. And it's not like you wake up every morning and there's a manual that says, "Here's what you do, here's what you play today." Which makes it that interdependence even more difficult and the need for communication and cooperation even more challenging. I have a client of mine that they've struggled to get the team to work together. But what I've also found is that they never sat down as a team and really had honest discussions consistently to try to break down the barriers and figure out how we're going to work together for this aim. So I'm curious about how do you look at business compared to, let's say, that orchestra example?   0:31:36.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, yeah, and Deming made that exact same point, at the far end of complexity or just about is business. They are far more complex and require far more interaction than the orchestra. Now, in trying to operationalize Dr. Deming's philosophy, I've tried to emphasize. And we've got a process to be able to create a vision and it obviously is followed by mission, values and question. We covered the physical, logical, emotional a few talks ago. But, but you have to... Top management has to have that vision that will include everyone in its and all sorts of voices in its creation. And then you have to have a way to be able to master that vision or make sure that that vision is operationalized. And that requires a whole bunch of feedback loops, if you will, systems thinking, a whole bunch of being able to work with people. And so it literally needs the application of profound knowledge from the management's perspective. You need to be able to operationalize your vision, not just come up with the vision and put it on the bookshelf.   0:33:34.5 Andrew Stotz: And the final bullet, says "the obligation of any component is to contribute its best to the system, not to maximize its own production, profit or sales, nor any other competitive measure." Oftentimes in the world of finance where I teach and I work, a lot of stuff, people think that the objective is to maximize profit, but the reality is the objective is to maximize value. And so when we look at, for instance, the value of a business, it's two components. Number one, the profit, which you could consider is kind of in the numerator. And then we reduce the profit by the denominator, which is risk. So think about it. If you were to invest money in two projects. One, you invest $100 in two projects, and one is very proven and you're very confident that this is going to work, and the other one is brand new, very possible it doesn't work. We would reduce the second cash flow and say, "Well, yeah, the amount we're investing is $100, but the reality is the cash flows may or may not hit." So we would reduce the value by the risk. And I try to help my young students particularly understand that it's an intricate balance of profit and risk. And if you overemphasize profit, you could be increasing the risk, which actually doesn't increase the value of the company.   0:35:07.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. And Dr. Deming had a similar statement saying that the cost of something doesn't mean anything. It's the value of what you get for the cost and value is determined by the quality. My look at systems theory, especially the obligation this last one is to contribute its best to the system. What many people forget is as I mentioned in the beginning, everything is defined as in space and time. And Bill Ouchi who wrote the book Theory Z stated that... And this is an eastern management concept that you have to have, I guess, corporate knowledge because in order for someone to say, "Okay, this department, I'm going to..." Well, for instance, lunches, the corporate lunch room will lose money so that the corporation can make. So the people would stay on site and be able to contribute more work. But that's in the longer term. And so if someone steps aside today to let someone else get the kudos or the credit, the corporation needs to remember that. He called it societal knowledge or memory. And if you ended up being saying, "Screw you, I'm taking what's owed to me, " that also will be remembered. So you have to introduce the dimension of time to any systems theory view. Time and space.   0:37:36.3 Andrew Stotz: You mentioned about... Oh, go ahead.   0:37:40.5 Bill Scherkenbach: No, it's a statistician's attempt at humor before Einstein. Yeah.   0:37:49.6 Andrew Stotz: You mentioned about metamorphosis and you mentioned about transformation and I was just looking it up and let me maybe if I'll read out what I found. "Metamorphosis is a biological stage based change. Like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It implies a natural structured process. Transformation is a broad change in form, character or condition. It can be physical, emotional or organizational. In short, every metamorphosis is a transformation. But not every transformation is a metamorphosis."   0:38:26.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Good point. Understand.   0:38:30.7 Andrew Stotz: So let's continue.   0:38:35.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. Variation. I think the first noble truth of Buddhism is "life is suffering." And Deming equated variation with suffering. So when I presented similar slides to my friends in Asia, I... Life is variation.   0:39:02.2 Andrew Stotz: That's great.   0:39:03.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Now there are two extremes in taking action on variation. Well, in taking action, I know this is in front of us, but Dr. Deming spoke about Shewhart's contribution. And that is the two mistakes that people can make with variation, while in taking appropriate action on variation. And one is mistaking common cause for special causes or special causes for common causes. And that's really the primary view. But Deming seminars showed that if you're going to take action, there also are two extremes in taking action. And one was every action taken tends to make things worse, which he used The Funnel experiment. And the other extreme is every action taken has no effect on the variation. And that's obviously the red bead experiment. And so he, those were the two extremes that he wanted to show and demonstrate to people in order to solidify the folks learning. Theory of knowledge. Okay, Management is prediction, temporal spread, space and time absolutely required, knowledge is built on theory.   0:40:50.5 Bill Scherkenbach: He got that from Shewhart and indirectly through C.I. Lewis and on knowledge being built on theory. And with that, that jogged my mind as far as coming up with my theory-question-data-action cycle, which is a bit different than the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. But in knowledge development knowledge is built on theory. So anytime any data that you see you and he asked, he told people, by what method did these data get to me? If you see data you have to ask that. If you see data you have to say what was the question that was asked? If you're a question asker, questions come from theory. They're connections of concepts in your mind. And so theory could be a guess or it could be as proven as scientific law, but everything, and that scares people away, but everything really starts with theory. Given a theory you can ask a question. You can tell people when you ask the question what I'm going to do with the data so they have a better idea of how to collect the data and what data to collect. And then you take the action and go back and revisit the theory. So theory, question, data, action over time generates knowledge. And with some other emotional and physical constraints and consistencies, you're going to gain wisdom.   0:42:58.8 Andrew Stotz: There's something...   0:43:00.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Go ahead.   0:43:01.5 Andrew Stotz: There's something that I always, I've questioned, I think you can probably clear it up in this part of our discussion is that Dr. Deming used to say something along the lines of without prediction or without theory there is no knowledge. Something along that line as I recall. And sometimes I understood that clearly and other times I question that. What would you say about that? How should I understand that?   0:43:33.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, it's something that he and Shewhart spoke about a lot. And let's see, in his 1939 book The Statistical Methods from the Viewpoint of Quality Control by Shewhart and edited and commented on by Dr. Deming, they speak about that, as far as. And again Shewhart was influenced by C.I. Lewis. And as an aside, when, when I was at Ford and we had a speaker who had studied under CI Lewis. I had to get Dr. Deming to speak with them. And I've put part of a video of their conversation on LinkedIn, YouTube, I guess. But knowledge is built on theory. Now can you explain it again? I might be able to...   0:45:03.0 Andrew Stotz: So let me get a quote from New Economics. He said "experience by itself teaches nothing. Without theory, experience has no meaning. Without theory, one has no question to ask. Hence without theory there is no learning."   0:45:19.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Yeah, okay. He was getting to, and he had all sorts of examples on the, on the first statement that experience teaches nothing. If you're, you might have an experience that perhaps you were, you, you were picked on. And what are you going to do about it? Well, your theory could have been: well, they don't like me. It could have been that: well, that person was a bully. Could be a whole bunch of things. But without the theory, what are you going to do in the future to make that experience more to your liking? And so you have to go beyond the experience and look at what is the thoughts and motivations behind that, which is theory. And now I don't know why I mentioned that, but I mean a number of the way... Well, I'll leave it at that.   0:47:02.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:47:04.3 Bill Scherkenbach: As the left and right dukes it out based on their own theories. Okay. Psychology, it's incomplete without knowledge of variation. You mention that if you know the red beads, you won't make the fundamental attribution error. I had mentioned schismagenesis earlier, which is rule three of The Funnel. It invites, it says helps us understand people as different individuals. In, again, my take on this part of psychology. And again Dr. Deming saying everyone is entitled to take joy in their work. And he spoke about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Well, I have looked at it for many years as each one of us has an internal voice of the customer. We are the customer. And what makes me take joy would make another person perhaps take despair. And so it's management's responsibility who manages the people, materials, methods, equipment, environment to know me as a customer and be able to, if this works for me, then the management would try to arrange things that would help me take joy because it's more congruent with my internal voice of the customer. Deming used a number of examples that I gather some psychologists call it overjustification. But it in fact says the description was he tried to tip someone and it was an insult.   0:49:30.8 Bill Scherkenbach: And so instead of a thank you. He talked, he talked about the letter he sent to a surgeon of his, meant more than adding $500 to the bill. And the surgeon would carry the letter from Dr. Deming because he was, Deming was thankful for it. But it takes an astute manager to be able to understand all of the individual voices of the customers, their employees, and be able to construct a system that is going to be more congruent with each of them. And if you know that money doesn't influence or isn't congruent with someone, maybe it's retirement point, maybe it's a day off, maybe it's a variety of things managers would know that works for one person pisses off another. So that's where I stand on that, on the overjustification. And the obvious: fear invites wrong figures. Yeah. Although I think I had mentioned that in my work over in Asia, in China. So we don't have fear. It's called respect. So.   0:51:09.0 Andrew Stotz: I've just been reading a book about the Gaokao, the exam that students have to take in China to get into the elite university system. And it really makes you, it definitely gives you all kinds of both sides of the thinking on that. It really has got me thinking about this, one measure, everybody's ranked and they go through the pros and cons of it, which is challenging, it's good to go through that and think about that. So, fascinating. Well, that's been a great discussion for me, the idea of transformation, the concept of metamorphosis was interesting to me also the stuff related to having, you know, that how do we acquire knowledge? I think sometimes when in research, let's say in financial research that I've done all my life, I come up with a vague hypothesis and then I just start playing with numbers to see what I find. And so I'm kind of fiddling around. I wouldn't say that I have...   0:52:18.7 Bill Scherkenbach: What's the vague hypothesis? Give an example of...   0:52:22.7 Andrew Stotz: So, one observation that I've been able to make is that a particular ratio has fallen consistently across the world for the last 30 years, and that is the amount of revenue that assets generate out of companies. And I looked at 10,000 companies across the world. So the first thing I thought, okay, well, maybe it's a particular sector that's causing this. And I broke down that those 10,000 companies into 10 different sectors, and I saw they all had almost the same pattern. So that kind of showed me yeah, it's probably not that. And then I went through. I came up with kind of five different ideas of what it could be. And I could test that because I had a lot of data to be able to test it, but I couldn't find an answer to it. Now, I guess what you could say is that my fiddling around was based on some type of theory or guess or prediction. It wasn't until I came up to one final one, which was, could interest rates have a relationship with this? We have been through a period of time of very, very low interest rates.   0:53:39.7 Andrew Stotz: So could that decline have been caused by or related to interest rates? So I looked at the average interest rate that these 10,000 companies were paying over the past 30 years, and I saw it was going down, down, down, down, down, down very low. And I would say that that was the most plausible explanation I could find was that low interest rates incentivize companies to invest in projects that generated less revenue than previous projects.   0:54:13.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. Yeah. I would think that the system. Well, you have to take into account the lag in response to lower and lower. Okay, am I going to wait for the next one? Whatever. And what's the lag in decision-making on the thing? But you need to codify, what's your theory? Okay, if X, then Y, then collect, ask the questions, make sure you understand how you got the data. And then try to take action there. But, yeah, everything starts with theory. Yeah. So it'll be good to be specific about it. What do you think it is?   0:55:09.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, that's, that's helpful. Well, let's wrap this up. How would you, if you were to, to bring this into a very condensed takeaway of what you want people to get from this discussion, what would you say is the core takeaway you want them to remember.   0:55:25.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Space and time. And I have done my best. Dr. Deming ended all of his lectures.   0:55:38.9 Andrew Stotz: I have done my best. Well, I love that. And let me wrap it up, Bill, by saying, on behalf of everybody at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion, another one that I've enjoyed immensely and for listeners remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And of course, you can find bill on LinkedIn in particular, where he's posting a lot of these cool discussions and thoughts and all of that. So this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it relates to what we were just talking about. And that is "people are entitled to joy in work."

As many regular listeners to the podcast know, on this channel we have been exploring the new kinds of educational institutions that are emerging in response to the challenges that our legacy institutions are facing. For the last 250 years we've gotten used to compulsory standardised schooling being provided at scale by either the state, as public government schools, or by the market, as private fee-paying schools. I'm fascinated by the question of what alternatives there might be to this binary choice. Home-schooling networks, religious and intentional communities are certainly examples, but often still very much at the margins. My guest this week, David Bollier, is a global expert in the the way that communities work together to steward shared resources often known as the Commons, rather than relying on the market or the state. So I was very keen to ask him about the implications of reframing education itself as a commons, what would this do to the ways that we provide, fund, and govern education.David is an author, activist, blogger and independent scholar with a primary focus on the commons as a new paradigm of economics, politics and culture. He is the Reinventing the Commons Program Director at the The Schumacher Center for a New Economics https://centerforneweconomics.org/, and co-founder of the Commons Strategies Group, an advocacy/consulting project that assists the international commons movement. David's work on the commons especially focuses on Internet culture; law and policy; ecological governance; and inter-commoning. David has written and edited many books on the commons, including the revised second edition of Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons that was published this year. His other books include: Free, Fair and Alive: The Insurgent Power of the Commons and The Commoner's Catalog for Changemaking; Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons (2014); Green Governance: Ecological Survival, Human Rights and the Commons (2013), co-authored with Burns Weston; and Viral Spiral: How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of Their Own (2010). With Silke Helfrich, he co-edited two anthologies of original essays, Patterns of Commoning (2015) and The Wealth of the Commons: A World Beyond Market and State (2012).David spent many years in various policy advocacy jobs in Washington, D.C. in the 1970s and 1980s – with a Member of Congress, the auto safety regulatory agency, and public-interest organizations.  From 1985 to 2010, David collaborated with television producer, writer and activist Norman Lear on a wide variety of non-television public affairs and political projects.  In 2001, David co-founded Public Knowledge, a Washington advocacy organization for the public's stake in the Internet, telecom and copyright policy. David's website and blog: https://www.bollier.org/David's podcast, 'Frontiers of Commoning', with The Schumacher Center for a New Economics: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/frontiers-of-commoning-with-david-bollier/id1501085005David on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-bollier-254129/

Prof. Steve Keen talks with Class Unity about the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-8, the problems with mainstream understandings of it, and the contemporary situation. He is the author of:The New Economics. A manifesto. Polity. (2021)Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis? Polity. (2017)Developing an economics for the post-crisis world. World Economics Association and College Publications. […]

Episode NotesThe discussion moves into how standards evolve beyond tools, the trade-offs of monocultures vs. consensus-driven teams, and why ownership matters when the original authors move on. Nathan also unpacks the cost of neglect, describing defects as anything that slows developers down—not just issues that impact end users.Later in the conversation, Nathan recounts a migration from a React SPA to Turbo and Stimulus that removed barriers between designers and developers. He highlights how keeping all problems on the radar together prevents teams from falling into local optima. The episode closes with reflections on TestBench, blind spots in testing, continuous improvement in remote teams, and advice for developers who feel stuck raising maintenance concerns.Episode Highlights[00:01:07] Defining Well-Maintained Software: Nathan shares his three key markers—up-to-date dependencies, adherence to team standards, and fixing defects immediately.[00:02:53] From Tools to Tacit Knowledge: Why norms start with tool-enforced rules like RuboCop but evolve into cultural agreements within teams.[00:04:49] Speed vs. Durability: Teams built on monoculture move quickly early on, but diverse, consensus-driven cultures go farther.[00:11:11] Owning the Architecture: When original developers leave, new teams must take responsibility for architecture rather than defer decisions.[00:13:37] The Cost of Neglect: Dependencies, drifting standards, and defects interact in compounding ways. Nathan reframes defects as “anything that impedes developer effectiveness.”[00:17:46] React → Turbo + Stimulus Migration: A costly SPA and siloed design team gave way to a simpler approach that reduced rework and empowered designers to contribute directly.[00:22:44] Avoiding Local Optima: Tackling problems in isolation creates dead ends—addressing them holistically opens real paths forward.[00:24:32] Who We Seek Validation From: Developer identities often align with whose approval they value—shaping front-end vs. back-end divides.[00:27:34] Comfort vs. Maintenance Burden: Silos built for comfort create tomorrow's maintenance problems.[00:33:45] Relentless Improvement in Remote Teams: Start as an ensemble, evolve into autonomous work cells, and use work logs to sustain consensus.[00:38:33] What's Missing from Remote Work: Nathan reflects on lost “hallway conversations” and the challenge of building social glue remotely.[00:40:50] The Story Behind TestBench: Dissatisfaction with existing frameworks and a desire for simplicity led to TestBench's creation.[00:47:38] Testing Blind Spots: The biggest blind spot is equating testing with automation—interactive testing and intelligible output remain essential.[00:50:35] Advice for Stuck Engineers: Nathan encourages developers to study quality traditions, connect with peers, and embrace continuous improvement.[00:53:16] Book Recommendations: Deming's Out of the Crisis and The New Economics, Toyota's product development work, and Rawls' A Theory of Justice.Tools & Resources MentionedBrightworks Digital – Nathan's current company, where he serves as Principal.Nathan Ladd on LinkedIn – Connect with Nathan and follow his work.TestBench – A Ruby testing framework co-created by Nathan.Turbo – Hotwire framework for building modern, fast applications without heavy JavaScript.Stimulus – A modest JavaScript framework for enhancing HTML with small, reusable controllers.RSpec – A popular Ruby testing tool for behavior-driven development.Minitest – A simple and fast Ruby testing framework.RuboCop – A Ruby static code analyzer and formatter.Lessons Learned in Software Testing – Classic book on testing by Cem Kaner, James Bach, and Bret Pettichord.Out of the Crisis – W. Edwards Deming's influential work on quality and systems thinking.The New Economics – Deming's follow-up book on continuous improvement.A Theory of Justice – John Rawls' seminal work on moral and political philosophy.The Toyota Product Development System – Insights into Toyota's continuous improvement and development practices.Thanks to Our Sponsor!Turn hours of debugging into just minutes! AppSignal is a performance monitoring and error-tracking tool designed for Ruby, Elixir, Python, Node.js, Javascript, and other frameworks.It offers six powerful features with one simple interface, providing developers with real-time insights into the performance and health of web applications.Keep your coding cool and error-free, one line at a time! Use the code maintainable to get a 10% discount for your first year. Check them out! Subscribe to Maintainable on:Apple PodcastsSpotifyOr search "Maintainable" wherever you stream your podcasts.Keep up to date with the Maintainable Podcast by joining the newsletter.

Kai Heron, Keir Milburn and Bertie Russell discuss Radical Abundance, transition and public-commons partnerships. Shownotes Heron, K., Milburn, K., Russell, B. (2025). Radical Abundance. How to Win a Green Democratic Future. Pluto Press. https://www.plutobooks.com/product/radical-abundance/ Kai Heron at Lancaster University: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/about-us/people/kai-heron Keir Milburn's contributions at Novara Media: https://novaramedia.com/contributor/keir-milburn/ Bertie Russell at the Autonomous University of Barcelona: https://portalrecerca.uab.cat/en/persons/bertie-thomas-russell Abundance (the collective): https://www.in-abundance.org/ on Marta Harnecker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Harnecker on Michael A. Lebowitz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Lebowitz Lebowitz, M. A. (2013). Contested Reproduction and the Contradictions of Socialism. Socialist Project. https://socialistproject.ca/2013/09/b877/ on Yevgeni Preobrazhensky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeni_Preobrazhensky Preobrazhensky, Y. (1965). The New Economics. Oxford University Press. https://files.libcom.org/files/%5bPreobrazhensky%2C_Evgeny_Alekseevich%5d_The_New_Econo(BookZZ.org).pdf Nunes, R. (2021). Neither Vertical nor Horizontal. A Theory of Political Organization. Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/products/772-neither-vertical-nor-horizontal on Public-Commons Partnerships: https://www.in-abundance.org/what-is-a-public-commons-parntership https://www.in-abundance.org/reports/public-common-partnerships-building-new-circuits-of-collective-ownership for case studies on Public-Commons Partnerships, see: https://www.in-abundance.org/case-studies on Public-Private Partnerships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%E2%80%93private_partnership on council farms in the UK: https://www.cpre.org.uk/explainer/county-farms-explainer/ Common Wealth (the organization): https://www.common-wealth.org/ Common Wealth's recent project on privatization and Public-Private Partnerships in the UK: https://www.common-wealth.org/interactive/who-owns-britain/home on Che Guevara: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara on Stuart Hall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(cultural_theorist) on Hugo Chávez: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez Gilbert, C. (2023). Commune or Nothing! Venezuela's Communal Movement and its Socialist Project. Monthly Review Press. https://monthlyreview.org/9781685900243/ on agroecology: https://agroecology-coalition.org/what-is-agroecology/ SCOP-TI: https://www.scop-ti.info/ the Berlin Housing Campaign: https://dwenteignen.de/en on the Wards Corner Market: https://www.in-abundance.org/case-studies/wards-corner Amarnath, S. et al. (2023): Varieties of Derisking. Phenomenal World. https://www.phenomenalworld.org/interviews/derisking/ on the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory_in_the_United_States on marronage communities and their role in slave rebellions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maroons on the coal strikes in Appalachia in the late 19th and early 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars on the Black Panther Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party on SYRIZA and their development: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/rethinking-populism/the-systemic-metamorphosis-of-greeces-once-radical-left-wing-syriza-party/ on Erik Olin Wright's “Transition Troughs” concept, see chapter 9 and 10 of: Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning Real Utopias. Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2143-envisioning-real-utopias the “Abundance” report on the social property of water in the UK: https://www.in-abundance.org/latest/beyond-bailouts on the 2023 strike in France where workers cut energy to certain sectors: https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/30/robin-hood-electricians-and-oil-blockades-the-radical-tactics-of-frances-striking-energy-w van Dyk, S. & Haubner, T. (2021). Community-Kapitalismus. Hamburger Edition. https://www.hamburger-edition.de/buecher-e-books/artikel-detail/community-kapitalismus/ van Dyk, S. (2018). Post-Wage Politics and the Rise of Community Capitalism. Work, Employment and Society, 32(3), 528-545. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017018755663 on municipalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipalism Bianchi, I. & Russell, B. (eds.) (2026). Radical Municipalism. The Politics of the Common and the Democratization of Public Services. Bristol University Press. (forthcoming) https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/radical-municipalism on the Occupy Movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement on Climateflation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/26/tuesday-briefing-how-climateflation-is-pushing-food-prices-ever-higher-and-changing-how-we-eat on hernani burujabe (the tripartite economic planning system in the city of Hernani): https://hernaniburujabe.eus/es/que-es/ Egia-Olaizola, A., Villalba-Eguiluz, U. and Gainza, X. (2025), Beyond the New Municipalism. Towards Post-Capitalist Territorial Sovereignty in the Case of Hernani Burujabe. Antipode, 57: 1448-1469. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.70030 on the Commons (concept): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons on Evergreening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening Klein, E. & Thompson, D. (2025). Abundance. Avid Reader Press. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Abundance/Ezra-Klein/9781668023488 on Marx's concept of the realm of necessity and freedom: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/capital/vol3-ch48.htm on David Graeber: https://davidgraeber.org/ Suits, B. (2005). The Grasshopper. Games, Life and Utopia. Broadview Press. https://kevinjpatton.com/teaching/phil_3230/readings/Bernard%20Suits%20-%20The%20Grasshopper.pdf on the socialist ecomodernism and degrowth debate: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-01-23/ecomodernism-on-its-own-terms/ Future Histories Episodes on Related Topics S3E44 | Anna Kornbluh on Climate Counteraesthetics https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e44-anna-kornbluh-on-climate-counteraesthetics/ S03E30 | Matt Huber & Kohei Saito on Growth, Progress and Left Imaginaries https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e30-matt-huber-kohei-saito-on-growth-progress-and-left-imaginaries/ S03E29 | Nancy Fraser on Alternatives to Capitalism https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e29-nancy-fraser-on-alternatives-to-capitalism/ S03E19 | Wendy Brown on Socialist Governmentality https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e19-wendy-brown-on-socialist-governmentality/ S03E03 | Planning for Entropy on Sociometabolic Planning https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e03-planning-for-entropy-on-sociometabolic-planning/ S02E51 | Silvia Federici on Progress, Reproduction and Commoning https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e51-silvia-federici-on-progress-reproduction-and-commoning/ S02E13 | Tine Haubner und Silke van Dyk zu Community-Kapitalismus https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e13-tine-haubner-und-silke-van-dyk-zu-community-kapitalismus/ --- If you are interested in democratic economic planning, these resources might be of help: Democratic planning – an information website https://www.democratic-planning.com/ Sorg, C. & Groos, J. (eds.)(2025). Rethinking Economic Planning. Competition & Change Special Issue Volume 29 Issue 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/ccha/29/1 Groos, J. & Sorg, C. (2025). Creative Construction - Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. [for a review copy, please contact: amber.lanfranchi[at]bristol.ac.uk] https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction International Network for Democratic Economic Planning https://www.indep.network/ Democratic Planning Research Platform: https://www.planningresearch.net/ --- Future Histories Contact & Support If you like Future Histories, please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories Contact: office@futurehistories.today Twitter: https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories English webpage: https://futurehistories-international.com   Episode Keywords #KaiHeron, #KeirMilburn, #BertieRussell, #JanGroos, #Interview, #FutureHistories, #FutureHistoriesInternational, #futurehistoriesinternational, #Transition, #SocioecologicalTransition #DemocraticPlanning, #DemocraticEconomicPlanning, #Capitalism #BerlinHousingCampaign, #DWE, #Economics, #Socialism, #Socialisation, #Commons, #PublicCommonsPartnerships, #RadicalAbundance, #Abundance, #Municipalism, #Agroecology, #Derisking, #Investment, #Degrowth, #SocialistEcomodernism, #Ecomodernism

This government has taken a record-breaking plummet in popularity, our chancellor keeps telling us the Treasury has no spare cash for our crumbling schools and hospitals, and Reform have become the most popular party in the country. So, where did it all go wrong for Labour? Is it true that this government is hamstrung by the UK's ailing economy? And why are so many people turning to Reform? For the first episode in a new series of the New Economics podcast, Ayeisha Thomas-Smith is joined By Faiza Shaheen, chief executive of Tax Justice UK, and Alex Chapman, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation. Follow our Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/neweconomicspod/ Follow our Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@neweconomicspod Music by Lee Rosevere, Free Music Archive: freemusicarchive.org/m... used under Creative Commons licence: cre​ativecom​mons​.org/​l​i​c​e​n​s​e​s​/​b​y​-​n​c​/4.0/. Produced by Katrina Gaffney and Margaret Welsh. The New Economics Podcast is brought to you by the New Economics Foundation. Find out more about becoming a NEF supporter at: neweconomics.org/donate/build-a-better-future New Economics Foundation is a registered charity in England and Wales. Charity No. 1055254

In this latest OIES podcast from the Electricity Programme, Dimitra Apostolopoulou talks to the Director of Research at the Electricity Programme and Senior Research Fellow Rahmat Poudineh about his latest paper titled “From Scarcity to Scale: The New Economics of Energy”. In this podcast, we begin by explaining how our energy system is shifting from an operating-expense […] The post OIES Podcast – From Scarcity to Scale: The New Economics of Energy appeared first on Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

In a candid conversation with Zendesk CTO Adrian McDermott, it's become clear that enterprise AI has reached a pivotal moment. We're witnessing the end of AI theater and the emergence of practical platforms delivering real business value.   "We're moving from chapter one to chapter two of the application of generative AI," McDermott explains. "It's not just party tricks anymore - it's platforms. And we're really building things that have value and meaning." The Rise of Platform Thinking The shift from isolated AI features to comprehensive platforms marks a significant evolution in enterprise technology. Companies are no longer satisfied with flashy demonstrations - they demand measurable outcomes and clear ROI. This transformation is evident in Zendesk's new resolution platform, which integrates multiple AI capabilities into a cohesive system. The New Economics of AI Implementation Zendesk has pioneered outcome-based pricing for AI agents in the customer experience industry - a significant departure from traditional seat-based pricing models. This approach aligns vendor success directly with customer outcomes.   "You should really be able to run a model that would prove and predict the ROI upfront," McDermott notes, highlighting the increasing sophistication of AI implementation. Customers now expect vendors to demonstrate clear business value before deployment. Voice: The Critical Escalation Channel Despite predictions of voice's decline, it remains crucial in an AI-first world. McDermott explains: "In a world of automation, the escalation channel is voice, and you need it to be tightly integrated."   The future of voice in customer service is being reimagined through: Seamless integration with AI systems Warm handoffs between digital and voice channels Enhanced context preservation across interactions Real-time analytics and support The Resolution Platform Framework Zendesk's resolution platform represents a comprehensive approach to customer service, incorporating: Customer-facing AI agents Agent copilot systems Automated content generation Continuous analysis and quality assurance Unified governance and measurement Looking Ahead: The iPhone Moment? McDermott poses a crucial question: "Are we building Windows Mobile on top of generative AI, or is there innovation and disruption to come?" This reflection suggests we're still in early stages, with significant disruption ahead. Key Takeaways Enterprise AI has matured beyond demonstrations to delivering measurable outcomes Platform approaches are replacing point solutions Voice remains critical in an AI-first service strategy Economic alignment between vendors and customers is essential Continuous innovation and adaptation are necessary The shift from AI theater to practical platforms marks a new era in enterprise technology. Organizations must now focus on building comprehensive, outcome-driven AI strategies rather than chasing individual features or capabilities.

Playing for Team Human today, activist, Blogger, and Director of the Reinventing the CommonsProgram at the Schumacher Center for a New Economics, David Bollier.Team Human is proudly sponsored by Everyone's Earth.Learn more about Everyone's Earth: https://everyonesearth.com/Change Diapers: https://changediapers.com/Cobi Dryer Sheets: https://cobidryersheets.com/Support Team Human on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/teamhumanFollow Team Human with Douglas Rushkoff:Instagram: https:/www.instagram.com/douglasrushkoffBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/rushkoff.comGet bonus content on Patreon: patreon.com/teamhuman  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Connor Boyack is the founder of the Libertas Network, and co-creator of the popular Tuttle Twins book series. He discusses a recent controversy in which the children's books were (temporarily) removed from public libraries in New York state. He also discusses Bob's new economics course which is part of the Tuttle Twins Academy.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this interview.The link to Bob's online economics course at the Tuttle Twins Academy.Connor Boyack's website, with links to his various projects.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Today we're examining the evolution of asset management and financial advisory services. As technology transforms how we invest and manage wealth, we're exploring the critical balance between innovation and human expertise. We'll discuss how disruption in the advisory space creates new opportunities for clients and advisors alike, why personal relationships remain essential even as AI expands, and how progressive firms are reimagining compensation models. We'll also look at the hybrid approach resonating with next-gen clients who want both self-directed tools and personalized guidance. Joining me to explore these topics are Steven Woods, CEO and Founder of Stirlingshire, and Jim Webb, VP of Investments. Their firm is working to remake the asset management model for both clients and advisors. Today, we'll hear about their non-traditional approach to wealth management, how they're balancing technology with the human touch, and why this matters for both financial professionals and their clients. The Big Ideas: Challenging the Traditional Asset Management Fee Structure: Stirlingshire allows advisors to keep 100% of asset management fees and commissions with zero expenses. This flips the traditional model where firms take substantial cuts from advisor earnings, creating better economics for both clients and advisors. The "Advice on Demand" Innovation: Stirlingshire offers a hybrid model between self-directed investing and full management. Clients can self-direct at zero commission but access professional advisors when needed, with advisors only getting paid when their specific recommendations result in profits. Technology-Enabled Compliance and Remote Work: By embedding compliance directly into their technology systems, Stirlingshire eliminates the need for physical offices and reduces compliance staffing. This automation significantly reduces overhead costs while increasing advisor flexibility. AI as an Efficiency Tool, Not a Replacement: Rather than replacing human advisors, Stirlingshire uses AI to make them more efficient. Their AI tools quickly analyze portfolios and provide market context, saving advisors time without making actual investment decisions. Disrupting the Industry to Drive Broader Change: Stirlingshire aims to force change across the entire financial advisory industry, similar to how Robinhood disrupted commission structures. Their goal is to push other independent firms toward more advisor-friendly compensation models by demonstrating a successful alternative approach.

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

In this episode, Doc Danny breaks down the latest trends in cash-based and hybrid physical therapy practices and why these models are thriving in 2025. From patient spending behavior to economic factors like inflation and interest rates, he highlights what clinic owners need to know to stay profitable and scale successfully this year. Key Takeaways: ✔ Cash & hybrid PT clinics are growing, not slowing—patient spending remains strong ✔ Hiring is the biggest challenge for growing clinics, not lack of patients ✔ High deductibles & co-pays drive patients to cash-based providers ✔ Inflation, interest rates & tariffs affect the economy, but PT clinics remain stable ✔ AI will automate admin tasks, but hands-on PT remains in demand ✔ A strong brand, niche focus & customer experience are key to growth ✔ Prevention & performance services drive recurring revenue and clinic stability Resources Mentioned:

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

In this week's episode of Economic Update, Professor Richard Wolff delves into the heroic efforts of California firefighters and their extraordinary work in battling the recent wildfires in Los Angeles. We also explore the progressive transformations occurring within U.S. labor unions and shed light on the escalating housing affordability crisis across the United States. Additionally, we interview Professor Clara Mattei, Director of the newly established Center for Heterodox Economics in Oklahoma. Professor Mattei shares details about this groundbreaking initiative, outlining its goals, mission, and activities, as well as how it distinguishes itself from mainstream economic approaches.   The d@w Team Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff is a DemocracyatWork.info Inc. production. We make it a point to provide the show free of ads and rely on viewer support to continue doing so. You can support our work by joining our Patreon community: https://www.patreon.com/democracyatwork Or you can go to our website: https://www.democracyatwork.info/donate   Every donation counts and helps us provide a larger audience with the information they need to better understand the events around the world they can't get anywhere else. We want to thank our devoted community of supporters who help make this show and others we produce possible each week.1:01 We kindly ask you to also support the work we do by encouraging others to subscribe to our YouTube channel and website: www.democracyatwork.info

As we head into times where rising temperatures, superstorms, and mega-fires dominate the headlines, what has happened to our disaster-averting solutions? In this episode, we explore 'The Carbon Conundrum' and rethink our relationship with nature. Join host Jack Eidt as he features a discussion with post-humanist philosopher Báyò Akómoláfé and environmental leader and author Paul Hawken, moderated by Alex Forrester, Board Member of the Schumacher Center for a New Economics and Co-Founder of Rising Tide capital. They delve into the failures of current climate strategies, the pitfalls of solutionism, and the importance of reconnecting with Traditional Ecological Knowledge. This enlightening conversation challenges listeners to reconsider their approaches to environmentalism and climate action. Support the Podcast via PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=LBGXTRM292TFC&source=url Paul Hawken [https://paulhawken.com/] starts ecological businesses, writes about nature and commerce. He has written nine books, including six national and NYT bestsellers: ‘Growing a Business', ‘The Next Economy', ‘The Ecology of Commerce', ‘Blessed Unrest', ‘Drawdown', and ‘Regeneration'. His latest book, ‘Carbon, The Book of Life', is available from Penguin RandomHouse in February 2025. Paul is the founder of Project Drawdown and Project Regeneration (https://regeneration.org/), which is the world's largest, most complete listing and network of solutions to the climate crisis. Báyò Akómoláfé Ph.D., [https://www.bayoakomolafe.net/] rooted with the Yoruba people in a more-than-human world, is a posthumanist thinker, poet, teacher, public intellectual, essayist, and author of two books, These Wilds Beyond our Fences: Letters to My Daughter on Humanity's Search for Home (North Atlantic Books) and We Will Tell our Own Story: The Lions of Africa Speak. Bayo Akomolafe is the visionary founder of The Emergence Network, a planet-wide networking project and inquiry at the edges of the Anthropocene that seeks to convene new kinds of responsivities, sensuous solidarities, and experimental practices for a posthumanist parapolitics. He currently lectures at Pacifica Graduate Institute, California. He sits on the Board of many organizations. A frequent keynote speaker and guest lecturer, Dr. Akomolafe's critically popular expression, “the times are urgent, let us slow down,” with which he attempts to frame new concepts (such as ontofugitivity, the Afrocene, iatropolitics, curapoiesis, white syncopation, ecocognitive assemblage theory, postactivism and parapolitics) that reframe and renaturalize human action, agency, and responsibility in an immanent, agonistic worlding of possibilities for life-death. Dr. Akomolafe is a Member of the Club of Rome and an Ambassador for the Wellbeing Economy Alliance. He is currently writing his third book, ‘An Ocean of Milk: Morality, Desire, and the Monster at the Edge of the World'. Jack Eidt is an urban planner, environmental journalist, and climate organizer, as well as award-winning fiction writer. He is Co-Founder of SoCal 350 Climate Action and Executive Producer of EcoJustice Radio. He writes a column on PBS SoCal called High & Dry [https://www.pbssocal.org/people/high-dry]. He is also Founder and Publisher of WilderUtopia [https://wilderutopia.com], a website dedicated to the question of Earth sustainability, finding society-level solutions to environmental, community, economic, transportation and energy needs. Podcast Website: http://ecojusticeradio.org/ Podcast Blog: https://www.wilderutopia.com/category/ecojustice-radio/ Support the Podcast: Patreon https://www.patreon.com/ecojusticeradio PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=LBGXTRM292TFC&source=url Executive Producer and Host: Jack Eidt Engineer and Original Music: Blake Quake Beats Episode 249 Photo credit: Carbon book cover

Everyone is in favor of improving quality, but what does that mean? In this episode Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz discuss stories of meeting requirements, missing the mark, and what Dr. Deming said about how to do better. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 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 Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. And I guess now that we're into 2025, it's gonna be 32 years pretty soon. The episode for today is episode 10, are you in favor of quality? Bill, take it away.   0:00:33.5 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew, and Happy New Year.   0:00:35.1 Andrew Stotz: Happy New Year.   0:00:36.4 Bill Bellows: Happy New Year to our listeners. And yeah, so here we are episode 10 of Misunderstanding Quality. We got up to 22 episodes in our first series and then we'll have a follow-on series. One is I would like to thank those who took the invite to reach out to me on LinkedIn. And I've just started connecting with a few new people who are doing some interesting things involved in types of work that I'm not familiar with, it's just fascinating to listen to the types of issues they deal with. And they each come to me with an interest in Dr. Deming's work. So they're following the podcast series, this one, the others that you're doing, and they listen to all of them. And I'm not sure if they've contacted the others, but they've reached out to me. So I wanna once again say for those of you that are enjoying this conversation, my conversation with you, Andrew, then please reach out to me.   0:01:50.0 Bill Bellows: If you'd like to know more, that's one thing. The last episode was called Worse Than a Thief. And one thing I wanna mention, there's a bunch of meanings relative to being worse than a thief. One distinctly from Dr. Taguchi was... And I don't... He gave examples of manufacturers that made plastic sheeting for crops to protect the crops and his complaint was that they made it to the minimum side of the requirement. So there was a requirement on the thickness, so again, even if you have a 1mil thick here, we have in the States, there's you can buy plastic 1mil, which is 0.001 inch or something heavier. And so, and obviously, in the world of manufacturing, you're not gonna get exactly 0.001, it's gonna be a little low, a little high. So what Dr. Taguchi was referencing is companies in Japan that were making plastic sheeting that would be used for a number of things. But in particular, he talked about it, what if it's being used to protect crops?   0:03:19.8 Bill Bellows: And what if the manufacturers, to save money because they're buying the plastic by the pound, selling it by the yard, so they're gonna make it as thin as possible. And his concern was, so how much are you saving to make it as thin as possible? And what is the impact of being on the thin side when a crop is lost? And that was his reference to being worse than a thief, that you're saving a few pennies but costing the farmer the... Right? And so that could be... So that's a situation where there's a requirement, the requirement is met minimally. You and I reference that as leaving the bowling ball in the doorway, delivering to the absolute minimum, or I mean delivering to the minimum, the maximum of the requirement, whatever best suits me. So if I'm delivering to you a term paper and you as the professor say, "It must be between five and 10 pages," and I say, "Well, I'm gonna make it five pages."   0:04:23.9 Bill Bellows: If in another situation, [chuckle] an example, I guess is if when our daughter was in high school and we said, "Allison, make sure you're home between 10:00 and midnight," then she may move that to the high side of the tolerance and come home at 10:00 or 11:59. But in either case, what Taguchi is referencing is in the world of acceptability, the requirements have been met. But the worse than a thief aspect is, is what is the personal gain versus the impact to others in the system. So that could be picking up the nail in the parking lot or deciding not to do it. So I just wanna point out that I see that as a very broad statement, not just in terms of meeting requirements, but within your organization are you... To what degree are you focusing on your department at the detriment of the organization? That's another way of being worse than a thief.   0:05:28.7 Bill Bellows: It could be you're spending all of your budget just before the end of the year. 'Cause you know what happens, Andrew, if you don't spend all of your budget.   0:05:38.0 Andrew Stotz: Gonna get taken away.   0:05:38.9 Bill Bellows: So if you're 10 percent under, the next year you're gonna get 10% less. So I used to kid people is, so what will I spend... Again, so you learn the hard way, if you don't spend the entire budget then your boss the next year says, "Well, Andrew, you only spent 80% of the budget, so we're only gonna give you 80% of last year." So what's the... What message does Andrew learn? I tell people is you go a little bit over the 100%, right? You go a little bit over. And so even that I would say is worse than a thief 'cause what are you doing? You're withholding your resources that others may find. So I just wanna say that that statement is not as narrow as looking at a set of requirements, it is looking at things from what's good for me versus good for the system. All right, have fun to that one.   0:06:30.0 Andrew Stotz: Right.   0:06:31.0 Bill Bellows: So relative to the title you mentioned. Are you in favor of quality? What inspired that? There's another thing I've been looking at recently, whether on LinkedIn or elsewhere on the internet. I'm a member of ASQ, the American Society for Quality, so I get regular notes from them. And I go off and look, and I'm just reminded of how most organizations think about quality, which is meeting requirements, and it could be much more than that. But anyway, in The New Economics, Dr. Deming's book, first edition, came out in 1993. In there in the first chapter, he says, let me pull it up, and I wanna read it exactly from the good doctor.   Near the end of chapter one of the New Economics, Dr. Deming, in bold text, our listeners will find a statement, “a look at some of the usual suggestions for improvement of quality.” And Dr. Deming says, "There's widespread interest in quality. Suppose that we were to conduct next Tuesday a national referendum with the question, are you in favor of improvement of quality? Yes or no? The results." predicted Dr. Deming "would show, I believe," and again, I'm quoting Deming, "an avalanche in favor of quality. Moreover, unfortunately, almost everybody has the answer on how to achieve it. Just read the letters to the editor, speeches, books. It seems so simple. Here are some of the answers offered, all insufficient, some even negative in results."   0:09:17.9 Bill Bellows: "Automation, new machinery, more computers, gadgets, hard work, best efforts, merit system, annual appraisal, make everybody accountable, MBO, management by objective as practiced, MBR, management by results." And I'll just pause. Dr. Deming, when he would read this list in a seminar, would also make reference to MBIR, management by imposition of results. All right, back to Dr. Deming. "Rank people, rank teams, rank divisions, rank salesmen, reward them at the top, punish them at the bottom. More SQC, statistical quality control, more inspection, establish an office of quality, appoint someone as VP in charge of quality, incentive pay, work standards," in parentheses, "quotas," comma, "time standards," end quote. "Zero defects, meet specifications, motivate people." And then in bold print, Dr. Deming adds, "What is wrong with these suggestions?" He says, "the fallacy of the suggestions listed above will be obvious from subsequent pages of the text," meaning The New Economics.   0:10:36.1 Bill Bellows: "Every one of them ducks the responsibility of management," Andrew. "A company that advertised that the future belongs to him that invest in it, and thereupon proceeded to invest heavily," 40 million, no, 40 billion, I'm sorry, that's ten to the ninth. "40 billion in new machinery and automation, results, trouble, overcapacity, high cost, low quality. It must be said in defense of the management that they obviously had faith in the future." And I asked some people that knew Dr. Deming far better than me. Once upon a time, I said, "So who was Dr. Deming talking about, the company that invested $40 billion?" He said, "Oh, that was General Motors." And I used to think when I was at Rocketdyne that you could not ask for a better competitor than one that would invest $40 billion to lose market share, right? Talk about self-inflicted gunshot wounds that they're gonna go off, invest heavily in technology gadgets. That's what Dr. Deming's calling 'em, gadgets.   0:11:55.2 Andrew Stotz: Gadgets.   0:11:55.8 Bill Bellows: Did you ever hear what Dr. Deming said about, he says, there's a couple of things he said. This is one of the things I heard him say live. He said, "Where's the data in the computer? Gone forever." And then he'd say, "the hardest thing in all the world to find..." You know what he said, Andrew, was the hardest thing in all the world to find?   0:12:24.0 Andrew Stotz: No, what was that?   0:12:27.3 Bill Bellows: "A piece of paper and a pencil." 'Cause his mindset was just put the data that you wanna plot on a piece of paper, as opposed to in the computer, gone forever. Now, I worked with a company as a consultant for three years. And one of the first things they had me work on, of course, was trying to learn about a problem that happened a few years earlier. A problem, meaning something that did not conform to requirements. And in the middle of working on that for about three months and working on that, and the issue was, let's learn about what happened a couple of years ago so it doesn't happen again. And what happened a few years ago was a very stringent set of requirements for this aerospace hardware, missed the requirement by 10%. It was close. It was close, but the customer would not buy it. And it was a multimillion dollar asset that they held onto 'cause they were hoping they can convince the customer to buy it. And the customer just said, "You keep it, you keep it." So the issue was, "Come over and help us understand what happened. We don't do that again."   0:13:54.1 Bill Bellows: Well, in the midst of that, the same product being produced a few months later, instead of missing the requirement by about 10%, missed the requirement by about 70%.   0:14:12.9 Andrew Stotz: Oh.   0:14:13.2 Bill Bellows: Oh, oh. It was a nightmare. And the company spent a whole lot of money chasing that. In the long run, it may have been a bad test. We never found exactly what it was. And when I caught up with them years later, they eventually went back into production. But the reason I bring that up is, after the incident, I was called over. It was a very intense time to go figure out what's going on, only to find out that the data was in a computer. So, the data was not being plotted real time. So after the incident, one of the things that happened within a few days of the incident was to go back and plot the data. So when I was in a meeting and they showed the data and I knew what they were saying was they had pulled it out of the computer. I thought, "Dr. Deming's not kidding. Where's the data, in the computer? Gone forever." So I wanted to...   0:15:23.8 Andrew Stotz: I had something I wanted to add to that, and that is I have a couple of great classic pictures in our family that were made 100 years, 120 years ago.   0:15:36.8 Bill Bellows: Oh wow. Lucky you.   0:15:39.9 Andrew Stotz: Great grandma, those old, really old pictures. And I was just showing them to my, to some of the ladies that take care of my mom and they just can't. And I said, "Now think about all the improvements that have been done in photography. What is the chance that one out of your 10,000 pictures on your iPhone that you've taken is going to survive 120 years like this picture?" And the answer is zero. There's zero chance.   0:16:14.4 Bill Bellows: That's right. Because even if you have kids, they don't want 4000 photos then... 4000...   0:16:25.0 Andrew Stotz: Nobody can deal with that.   0:16:26.4 Bill Bellows: No one could... You're absolutely right. They will not. Unless that photo is printed and turned into a keepsake. Gone forever.   0:16:38.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:16:39.0 Bill Bellows: Yeah. No, that's a good point. That's a very... And the fact that these photos lasted that long is pretty damn amazing.   0:16:47.2 Andrew Stotz: Well, there's a great book. I forgot the name of it, but I'll remember it. There's a great book about how slow this... The pace. It's called "Future Hype" is the name of it. It's all about the slow pace of innovation. And this is a great example. Going from no photo to a great photo 120 years ago was true innovation.   0:17:12.0 Bill Bellows: Oh, yeah. Yes.   0:17:13.8 Andrew Stotz: Just coming up with ways to do thousands of photos. And the author just basically crushes everything that you think is innovation. That there's millions of patents now that are coming out. We're much more innovative than we were in the past. And then his whole point is, "Yeah, and go and look at them, and what you see is that they've changed the color a little bit, they've changed this, they've changed that, and they're just doing modifications." So, every single area that you think there is innovation. And I think that's part of what Dr. Deming's talking about, about it's in the computer that doesn't. Tools and gadgets don't solve the problem.   0:17:56.1 Bill Bellows: No, it's... Well, they are tools. And as we've talked about in this series, in the first series, there are tools and techniques. Cell phones, computers, automobiles. These are tools. Techniques are how to use them. And tools, to borrow from Ackoff, are about efficiency, doing things well. But not to be confused with effectiveness, also from Ackoff, which is doing the right thing. And what I admire... I think what we both admire about Dr. Deming's work is the ability of the System of Profound Knowledge to provoke the question of whether or not something is... Doing something is worthwhile to do. And that has to do with not doing things faster, but stepping back and asking, "Why am I doing this in the first place?" Dr. Deming talked about. I think he used to say... He phrased it as, be, Dr. Deming saying, "Andrew, do you know how companies make toast?" And Andrew says, "No, Dr. Deming, how do companies make toast?" You ever hear that?   0:19:16.0 Andrew Stotz: No.   0:19:17.1 Bill Bellows: He says, "First, they burn it, then they scrape it." [laughter] And so what I see in organizations is the people who make the toast pass it off to the next person who does the inspection, and then upon the inspection, is sent to the toast scraper, then the toast scraper scrapes the toast and then sends it to somebody else, which could be a second toasting. [laughter] And then on to the next. And the person who makes the toast in the first place is none the wiser that X percent of the toast, they're just passing it on and so the technology is used to speed that up. And what's not happening is some type of feedback on adjusting the controls. It's just, it's... And this is what I saw when I worked in Connecticut, was immense toast scraping. Oh, it was just phenomenal. We had a machine making these plates for a heat exchanger for the Army's current main engine battle tank. A 1500 horsepower gas turbine engine. And half the volume, Andrew, of the tank is a heat exchanger to capture the exhaust heat to preheat the compressed air to improve the fuel economy.   0:20:52.4 Bill Bellows: Even when half the volume of the tank engine is a heat exchanger to capture every ounce of excess energy and convert it back to the efficiency of the engine. Even with that, the fuel economy of the Army's today main battle tank is measured in gallons per mile 'cause it drinks gasoline. Now, it's phenomenal performance. But they can't move too fast to outrun the tankers. So, these heat exchanger plates have, in the original design, I'm not sure what design is nowadays, had roughly 2 miles of welding in the heat exchanger. And the welding was what's known as resistance welding. And these very, very thin plates were welded together with a little dot of current to melt the metal to create a little bead, and then another one on, and they were overlapping melts, and that created a seam. And after these plates were welded together, you know, two together, each of them was put on to this under a bright light, a literally a Lazy Susan.   0:22:11.0 Bill Bellows: This thing had a 27 inch outer diameter and there'd be a bead around the outside and a bead around the inside. Two different diameters. And on a given plate one inspector would look under a magnifying glass to see, are there any gaps in the beads? And then flip it over and look at the other side, and then hand off to the next person to look at the same plate again.   0:22:37.1 Bill Bellows: So, every plate was 200% inspected. There were 10 machines making these plates. There was no traceability from the inspector. All the problems might have been coming from machine number one. There was no such awareness. And so, after the inspector, "I found a quarter of an inch where you... " "Okay. Then we send it to Andrew for a re-weld." There's no feedback and is that system any better today? I'm aware of systems today that are very similar to that. So, anyway, that's what Deming's talking about relative to the... Yeah. How do companies make toast? Well, the other thing I want to jump to, relative to this "Are you in favor of quality?" Which got it on my one is, I thought, is something really neat to include in this series that we're doing Misunderstanding Quality. But as I'm getting these prompts from ASQ on a regular basis, I was reminded of a few things that are near and dear within the world of the American Society of Quality. And one is what's known as Quality 4.0. Not, 1.0, Andrew, 4.0. 4.0.   0:24:00.1 Andrew Stotz: So, we're out of the crisis.   0:24:01.1 Bill Bellows: Oh, and so the phrase, Quality 4.0, this is today, right? And actually, the incentive, "Quality 4.0," this is actually five years old. So maybe they're on to Quality 5.0, Andrew. The phrase, "Quality 4.0," derived from the German industrialization program called Industry 4.0, is an evaluation of the role of quality in the increasing digital and automated world. One question surrounding Quality 4.0 is where increasing automation will leave quality professionals in the future. Technology, Andrew, has changed quality work and now offers useful statistical software that allows the Six Sigma quality movement to grow. Tons of data that allow quality professionals to act on quality issues in almost real time and new statistical methods. So, what I find is, "Quality 4.0" is artificial intelligence. It's the Internet of Things. It is technology. So if Deming was writing the, you know, the chapter on that we just mentioned earlier, the list of all the things on that list would be pretty much everything I see in "Quality 4.0." Right.   0:25:23.9 Bill Bellows: So, how far have we come in the professional world of quality? At least I am... I find there's a lot missing relative to what Dr. Deming was talking about 30 some years ago. So, that's what I wanted to put on the table is, you know, we're again not... None of us have said we're against tools and techniques. Whether it's chat GPT, artificial intelligence, those are fantastic. But if they're not guided with a System of Profound Knowledge, then you're going to improve uniformity in isolation.   0:26:09.8 Bill Bellows: And we've talked about that in this series and that is the difference between precision and not accuracy. It is making things uniform. Then you have to ask, again when I... What I challenge for those that are in the Six Sigma world is everything I've seen and I've been reading a lot about Six Sigma for the last 30 years. Everything I see about it when it comes to reducing variability, it is about reducing variability to shrink the distribution such that, what, Andrew? Such that we end up with acceptability 100% all. No red beads, all white beads. And then we get into... I went in preparation for a call today to the ASQ website to learn, just a reminder, refresher on Quality 4.0 and again, nothing wrong with advanced digital technologies, but what if we coupled that with a strong foundation that we're trying to offer people in the Deming ??? who are interested in what Dr. Deming's ideas bring to improve, to guide that technology. So anyway, that's, you know, Quality 4.0. Also, I'm on the ASQ website and their glossary section if anyone wants to go look there. If you're a member, you get free access to this. "Quality, a subjective term for which each person or sector has its own definition."   0:27:42.7 Bill Bellows: Okay. "In technical usage, quality can have two meanings. One, the characteristic of a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs. Two, a product or service free of deficiencies." Excuse me. "According to Joseph Juran, quality means fitness for use. According to Philip Crosby, it means conformance to requirements." And I don't see in here a reference to Dr. Deming and how he defined quality, Andrew. Huh? Interesting. What I enjoyed about being a member of the... In fact I'm still a member of the American Society for Quality. The reason I joined is I was excited by quality. Everything I was learning about Dr. Taguchi's work and then Dr. Deming's work and then began to wonder if the American Society for Quality was advancing and doc... So if anyone listening has access to the American Society for Quality and people that make decisions there, you might want to include Dr. Deming's definition of quality.   0:29:00.2 Bill Bellows: Where Dr. Deming would say a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market. And what I find is unique about that is my interpretation, as Dr. Deming is saying a lecture I deliver, a podcast we present, that we are not the judge of the quality that our listeners, students are. The people downstream are the judge of that. So, it's not me handing off a part that meets requirements saying this is good. Even when Juran says fitness for use, what I would ask is fitness absolute or is fitness relative? And so that's... So anyway, I just thought it'd be fascinating to remind our listeners of the simplicity of Dr. Deming's message from The New Economics. You know, is everyone and anyone in favor of quality? Yes. And again, nothing wrong with tools and techniques, but what a Deming organization, a Blue Pen Company, a "We" organization. What they could do, guided by the Deming philosophy, with computers, where computers make sense, with AI, where AI makes sense, would seriously outpace what other companies are doing. It's interesting, but it's just not enough to compete with companies who will do that.   0:30:32.3 Bill Bellows: So, if nobody is following the Deming philosophy, then you can get by with Quality 4.0, doing AI and doing those things. But if you've got competitors and what Dr. Deming would say, Andrew, is be thankful for a good competitor, one who raises your game, right. And so, if you and I are playing tennis and you know, we're out there to become better tennis players, and as soon as I find out that you're out there so you can go brag to your mom about how you beat me last night, then I say, "Andrew, find somebody else to beat." But if you're interest and my interest is, you know, getting a lot of exercise and improving our game. That's a different story. So, that's what I just wanted to share with our ongoing listeners, is there's a lot to be gained by continuing to study the Deming philosophy. Add it to your repertoire, build a foundation guided by what The Deming Institute is doing and sponsoring podcasts like this, as well as DemingNEXT is, there's just a lot of opportunities for what Dr. Deming is offering. And I'm reminded of that on a regular basis that people are saying, "Boy, why didn't I learn about this a long time ago, what this can bring organizations?" So that's what I wanted to bring to the table today.   0:31:50.1 Andrew Stotz: That's wonderful. Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion and for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You'll see DemingNEXT there and the like. If you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn and reach out to him because he is responsive. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I want to leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. I just never stop talking about this quote 'cause I love it. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

In this episode, we go back to the future with the groundbreaking book by Dr. W. Edwards Deming - "The New Economics." Join us as we explore this goldmine of wisdom on leading organizations that are built to last. This podcast is a no-holds-barred breakdown of Deming's System of Profound Knowledge and its four key elements:Appreciation for a system Knowledge about variationTheory of knowledgePsychologyWatch or listen to learn why pursuing short-term wins often leads to long-term ruin, and how to cultivate an organization-wide focus on quality as a strategic priority. With insights on leadership, teamwork, continuous improvement and more, this episode is a must-listen for managers, executives and anyone passionate about building great organizations!!!= = = = = = = = = = = =Watch on YouTube= = = = = = = = = = = =Subscribe on YouTubeApplehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/agile-podcast/id1568557596Spotifyhttps://open.spotify.com/show/362QvYORmtZRKAeTAE57v3Amazonhttps://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ee3506fc-38f2-46d1-a301-79681c55ed82/Agile-Podcast= = = = = = = = = = = =Toronto Is My Beat (Music Sample)By Whitewolf (Source: https://ccmixter.org/files/whitewolf225/60181)CC BY 4.0 DEED (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en)

When 460,000+ law firms compete for attention, casting a wide net is no longer enough. In this episode of Personal Injury Mastermind, we explore how AI and innovative business models are reshaping case acquisition. From precision targeting to owning distribution channels, discover how forward-thinking firms land premium cases by fishing with a spear instead of a net. Dominate your market today. Grab a copy of Chris' latest book, Personal Injury Lawyer Marketing: From Good to GOAT.  We discuss: How FirmPilot's AI platform uses psychographic data to target ideal clients Why vanity metrics like organic traffic matter less than qualified leads The real metrics that determine Google Ads placement and cost How Top Class Actions built a 1.5M monthly visitor platform The economics of commercial vehicle cases and mass torts Why traditional case acquisition methods are becoming obsolete Using data feedback loops to optimize marketing spend Guest Details Jake Soffer is the founder and CEO of FirmPilot, an AI-powered marketing platform helping law firms target premium cases. With a background in computer engineering and natural language processing, Jake is revolutionizing how firms approach digital marketing.  Jake Soffer: LinkedIn Firm Pilotl: Website  Scott Hardy is the founder of Top Class Actions and Leagify Law Firm. Through his innovative approach to case acquisition and Arizona's new rules allowing non-lawyer ownership, Scott has built a platform that attracts 1.5 million potential clients monthly.  Scott Hardy: LinkedIn  Top Class Actions: Website, Legal Fi Website Chris Dreyer and Rankings Details Chris Dreyer is the CEO and founder of Rankings.io, the elite legal digital marketing agency.  Rankings: Website, Instagram, Twitter Chris Dreyer: Website, Instagram Newsletters: The Dreyer Sheet  Books: Personal Injury Lawyer Marketing: From Good to GOAT; Niching Up: The Narrower the Market, the Bigger the Prize Work with Rankings: Connect Time Stamps 00:00 Intro  00:43 Meet Jake Soffer & FirmPilot 03:22 The Evolution of Legal Marketing  07:06 AI Marketing Capabilities  10:30 Scott Hardy & Top Class Actions  12:14 Commercial Vehicle Cases  14:59 Forward Integration Strategy  18:36 Closing Thoughts Additional Episodes You Might Enjoy 80. Mike Papantonio, Levin, Papantonio, & Rafferty — Doing Well by Doing Good 84. Glen Lerner, Lerner and Rowe – A Steady Hand in a Shifting Industry 101. Pratik Shah, EsquireTek — Discovering the Power of Automation 134. Darryl Isaacs, Isaacs & Isaacs — The Hammer: Insights from a Marketing Legend 104. Taly Goody, Goody Law Group — Finding PI Clients on TikTok 63. Joe Fried, Fried Goldberg LLC — How To Become An Expert And Revolutionize Your PI Niche 96. Brian Dean, Backlinko — Becoming a Linkable Source 83. Seth Godin — Differentiation: How to Make Your Law Firm a Purple Cow 73. Neil Patel, Neil Patel — Digital A New Approach to Content and Emerging Marketing Channels

Bayo Akomolafe (Ph.D.), rooted with the Yoruba people in a more-than-human world, is a widely celebrated international speaker, posthumanist thinker, poet, teacher, public intellectual, essayist, and author of two books, These Wilds Beyond our Fences: Letters to My Daughter on Humanity's Search for Home (North Atlantic Books) and We Will Tell our Own Story: The Lions of Africa Speak. Dr. Akomolafe is the Founder of The Emergence Network, a planet-wide initiative that seeks to convene communities in new ways in response to the critical, civilizational challenges we face as a species. He is host of the postactivist course/festival/event, ‘We Will Dance with Mountains' and currently lectures at Pacifica Graduate Institute, California. He sits on the Board of many organizations including Science and Non-Duality (US) and Ancient Futures (Australia).In July 2022, Dr. Akomolafe was appointed the inaugural Global Senior Fellow of University of California's (Berkeley) Othering and Belonging Institute. He is also the inaugural Special Fellow of the Schumacher Centre for New Economics, the Inaugural Scholar in Residence for the Aspen Institute, the inaugural Special Fellow for the Council of an Uncertain Human Future, as well as Visiting Scholar to Clark University, Massachusetts, USA (2024). He has been Fellow for The New Institute in Hamburg, Germany, and Visiting Critic-in-Residence for the Otis College of Art and Design, Los Angeles (2023).Finally Bayo is the father to Alethea Aanya and Kyah Jayden Abayomi, the grateful life-partner to Ije, son and brother. In This EpisodeDr. Bayo Akomolafe's WebsiteBayo's writingsSocials:  FB: bayoakomolafeampersandIG: @the_emergence_networkBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-trauma-therapist--5739761/support.

Harvard professor of international political economy Dani Rodrik has long been skeptical of what he calls "hyperglobalization," or an advanced level of interconnectedness between countries and their economies. He first introduced his theory of the "globalization trilemma" in the late 1990s, which states that no country can simultaneously support democracy, national sovereignty, and global economic integration.At the time when he proposed his trilemma, Rodrik was considered an outcast. However, economists and policymakers have come to accept his theory as governments seek to address populism, trade imbalances, and uneven growth through renewed interest in industrial policy, or government efforts to improve the performance of key business sectors. Rodrik joins co-hosts Bethany and Luigi to discuss changing attitudes towards globalization: its distributional effects, how it affects politics, and how it is still searching for a narrative consistent between academic circles and the media. Together, the three of them discuss what role corporate America should play in our world restructured by economic and political populism and if economics is getting too far away from the rest of the social sciences when it comes to shaping industrial policy and creating the jobs of tomorrow.Show Notes:Read Rodrik's co-authored December 2023 paper on the "New Economics of Industrial Policy"Read an ebook by ProMarket on cutting-edge contemporary debates around industrial policy