Podcasts about nummi

Tesla co-founder, current board member, and former Chief Technical Officer JB Straubel joins me to discuss Tesla's early days, his interest in batteries, building the first Gigafactory, his battery recycling efforts at Redwood Materials, and more. Enjoy! TIMECODES 10:45 Interview starts 11:33 More of a car guy or engineering guy? 12:14 Origin of his interest in batteries 12:47 Building his first EV…long before Tesla 14:43 Did he always want to go to Stanford for engineering? 15:35 How JB met Elon 17:55 Recalling when he helped build the first Lotus Elise engineering mule for Tesla 18:43 JB still has his original Tesla Roadster 20:30 On the origins of Gigafactory 1, aka Giga Nevada 21:28 What car(s) JB daily drives 24:11 How Tesla acquired the NUMMI plant from Toyota 25:16 What were the challenges of building the Model S versus the Roadster 27:41 How JB felt when the Model S started winning awards, like Motor Trend's Car of the Year 29:07 Did Panasonic get on board with Giga 1 right away? 32:21 How Model 3's “production Hell” was for JB 33:33 When JB felt like Tesla was going to be OK 35:07 When he started thinking about battery recycling 36:41 How JB feels about EV FUD 38:08 Battery recycling actually leads to better quality batteries 39:17 Figuring out what it would take to start Redwood Materials 41:03 It's not just about EV batteries 42:15 Redwood Materials' not-so-secret master plan 43:48 Goals for scaling Redwood Materials 45:04 Expansion plans 46:20 A tidal wave of EV battery recycling is coming 47:24 How much education is needed on the corporate side? 48:42 What about educating the general public about battery recycling? 50:32 What can Tesla/EV owners do to help spread the word about battery recycling? 52:07 Yes, you can send your ready-to-be-recycled batteries to Redwood Materials If you enjoy the podcast and would like to support my efforts, please check out my Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/teslapodcast and consider a monthly pledge. Every little bit helps and there are stacking bonuses in it for you at each pledge level, like early access to each episode at the $5 tier and the weekly Lightning Round bonus mini-episode (AND the early access!) at the $10 tier! And NO ADS at every tier! FOR FIRST-TIME TESLA BUYERS: The referral program is back and it's the best one in a while! You can get $2500 off of your Model 3 or $500 off your classic Model Y purchase (or $1000 off of Cybertruck, Model S, or Model X) by ordering through my referral link. Clicking this will take you to the Tesla website where you can order with the discount applied: https://ts.la/ryan73014  And don't forget to leave a message on the Ride the Lightning hotline anytime with a question, comment, or discussion topic for next week's show! The toll-free number to call or Skype is 1-888-989-8752. INTERESTED IN AN EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR YOUR TESLA? Be a part of the future of transportation with XCare, the first extended warranty designed & built exclusively for EV owners, by EV owners. Use the code Lightning to get $100 off our “One-time Payment” option! Go to www.xcelerateauto.com/xcare to find the extended warranty policy that's right for you and your Tesla. P.S. Get 15% off your first order of awesome aftermarket Tesla accessories at AbstractOcean.com by using the code RTLpodcast at checkout. Grab the SnapPlate front license plate bracket for any Tesla at https://everyamp.com/RTL/ (don't forget the coupon code RTL too!). 

Por que os castores constroem represas? Separe trinta minutinhos do seu dia e descubra, com a Mila Massuda, sobre a vida dos castores e os impactos de suas represas. Apresentação: Mila Massuda (@milamassuda) Roteiro: Mila Massuda (@milamassuda) e Emilio Garcia (@emilioblablalogia) Revisão de Roteiro: Luisa Kahakura (@lukahakura) Técnica de Gravação: Julianna Harsche (@juvisharsche) Editor: Lilian Correa (@_lilianleme) Mixagem e Masterização: Lívia Mello (@adiscolizard) Produção: Prof. Vítor Soares (@profvitorsoares), Matheus Herédia (@Matheus_Heredia) e BláBláLogia (@blablalogia) Gravado e editado nos estúdios TocaCast, do grupo Tocalivros (@tocalivros) REFERÊNCIAS FAIRFAX, E.; WHITTLE, A. Smokey the Beaver: beaver‐dammed riparian corridors stay green during wildfire throughout the western United States. Ecological Applications, v. 30, n. 8, 6 out. 2020. HORN, S. et al. Mitochondrial Genomes Reveal Slow Rates of Molecular Evolution and the Timing of Speciation in Beavers (Castor), One of the Largest Rodent Species. PLoS ONE, v. 6, n. 1, p. e14622, 28 jan. 2011. NUMMI, P. et al. Beaver creates early successional hotspots for water beetles. Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 30, n. 10, p. 2655–2670, 4 jun. 2021. PLINT, T. et al. Evolution of woodcutting behaviour in Early Pliocene beaver driven by consumption of woody plants. Scientific Reports, v. 10, n. 1, p. 13111, 4 ago. 2020.

Yasushi SUKO is a doctoral student at the Faculty of Social Sciences/Psychology, Tampere University, Finland. He studies the effects of nature experience on people, especially the restorative effect of repeatedly listening to natural sounds (e.g., birdsong, the sound of a running river, etc.). He is currently a member of the EnviWell Research Group, directed by Professor Kalevi Korpela.   In this episode we deep-dive into the acoustic stimuli and elaborate on the various potentials listening to specific sounds can have for health promotion, restoration and wellbeing. The roles of nature sounds are discussed and practical applications both for clinical and non-clinical contexts are investigated.   Time Stamps and Related References/Projects:   PART II:   04:40 Y. Suko's interest in natural sounds originates from J.S. Bach's (1685-1750) music and Ivan Shishkin's (1832-1898) forest landscape paintings.   06:10 Y. Suko's research on alleviating surgeons' stress through listening to natural sounds.   Suko, Y., Shindo, T., Saito, K., Takayama, N., Warisawa, S., Sakuma, T., Ito, M., Kytölä, P., Nummi, T., & Korpela, K. (2022). Alleviating surgeons' stress through listening to natural sounds in a half-encapsulated rest space after an operation: A pilot, longitudinal field study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12736. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912736   11:28 Literature on which Y. Suko based the audio files for his studies.   Ratcliffe, E. (2021). Sound and soundscape in restorative natural environments: A narrative literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 570563. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.570563   Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B., & Sowden, P. T. (2013). Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.08.004   13:20 Three theories explaining why natural sounds are restorative: attention restoration theory (ART), stress recovery theory (SRT), and conditioned restoration theory (CRT).   Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press.   Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7   Egner, L. E., Sütterlin, S., & Calogiuri, G. (2020). Proposing a framework for the restorative effects of nature through conditioning: Conditioned restoration theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6792. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186792   21:20 PART II   22:35 Y. Suko's research on the effects of faint traffic noise mixed with birdsong.   Suko, Y., Saito, K., Takayama, N., Warisawa, S., & Sakuma, T. (2019). Effect of faint road traffic noise mixed in birdsong on the perceived restorativeness and listeners' physiological response: An exploratory study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 4985. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16244985   33:20 Future applications of restorative natural sounds in clinical and non-clinical settings.   38:50 Restorative natural sounds are related to salutogenesis.   Antonovsky, A. (1996). The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promotion International, 11(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/11.1.11   40:00 Application of restorative natural sounds in public spaces.   46:45 Ideas for playing restorative natural sounds in prisons and psychiatric wards.   Chrysikou, E. (2014). Architecture for psychiatric environments and therapeutic spaces. Ios Press.   Maja, V., & Ojala, K. (2022).

Register for our new book - Leading Excellence https://www.leadingexcellencebook.com/Summary Keywordspeople, work, agile, talking, company, thinking, conference, organisation, podcast, started, understand, human, online, excellence, Gantt charts, called, Brisbane, employees, ways. IntroductionWelcome to Episode 174 of the Enterprise Excellence Podcast. It is such a pleasure to have Mr. Edwin on the show with us today. Ed is the founder of the LAST conference, which is focused on connecting people and sharing excellence on lean agile systems thinking. Ed is the first person I've seen who's pulled this whole piece together; it's just truly amazing. Today, we're going to explore all aspects of LAST with Ed. We are proudly sponsored by S A Partners, a world-leading business transformation consultancy. Register for our new book. https://www.leadingexcellencebook.com/ Episode LinksYouTube Full episode: YouTube Two-Minute Tip: Enterprise Excellence Academy Web: ContactsBrad: Connect via LinkedIn or call him at 0402 448 445 or email bjeavons@iqi.com.au. Visit Ed Wong at the website https://www.lastconference.com/What's next?1.     Listen to the Nummi story that Ed Wong mentioned he listens to several times a year: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-20152. Join our next community meeting   https://www.enterpriseexcellenceacademy.com/community.3. Register for our new book, Leading Excellence  https://www.leadingexcellencebook.com/To learn more about what we do, visit www.enterpriseexcellenceacademy.com. Thanks for your time and for helping to create a better future.To learn more about what we do, visit www.enterpriseexcellenceacademy.com.Thanks for your time, and thanks for helping to create a better future.

Joe has a book “Agile Kata” in the making, if you like to be the first to know when it launches, please visit www.agilekatabook.com.KataCon10 in Indianapolis April 9-10, 2024Transcript: Agile F M radio for the agile community. [00:00:05] Joe Krebs: Thank you for tuning in to another episode of Agile FM. I'm here today with Jim Huntzinger, who is speaking with me about behavioral patterns. We'll talk a little about the history of Kata. This is the Agile Kata series on Agile FM. So my goal is to bring you people closer from the Kata community to the Agile community and build bridges.So Jim is here with me today. Welcome to the show. [00:00:35] Jim Huntzinger: Yeah. Thank you, Joe. It's great to be here with you. [00:00:37] Joe Krebs: Yeah, and Jim, you are with the Lean Frontiers and as the name indicates, Frontier on many things including the KataCon conference, or actually there's different kind of names, but it emerged.And for all the listeners here on Agile FM who have been going to Agile conferences for a long time, and they are hearing possibly about Kata the very first time they would be surprised that this is going into the 10th year, this conference, the KataCon this year in 2024, and it's going to be in Indiana, [00:01:12] Jim Huntzinger: Indianapolis, you have caught a content in Indianapolis.So yeah, part of will be celebrating I guess the 10th birthday for it at the conference. [00:01:19] Joe Krebs: That is awesome. 10 years in the making, obviously, we want to go down memory lane a little bit together. Today there was obviously a starting point where you got exposed into Kata and scientific thinking.And I would like to go back, like, how did this all start for you? And for all the listeners here, what is an interesting piece of information is there is A person out there who started it like way, way back, 1890s, even. So, let's go [00:01:50] Jim Huntzinger: 1830s around the [00:01:52] Joe Krebs: 1830s, Jim, how did this all start for you?[00:01:57] Jim Huntzinger: Yeah. So, so yeah, I'll tell a little bit about, I'll tell my background, which a little bit of my history, which will bring in some of the. Older history that correlates and also a lot with TWI training within industry, which correlates as well too, and that'll actually come together on kind of that scientific thinking and scientific behavior.So anyway, when I came out of school, I my first job out of school was with a company that was a Toyota group company. That was in the process of transplanting in North America to support the Toyota plants. At that time there was the Toyota in Canada, the NUMMI plant, the joint venture with General Motors in California, and the Georgetown plant, which wasn't even started yet.It was, They were still setting it up at the time I started. And I went to work for Aisin, and they were a Toyota group company. And it's obviously a supplier into the transplanting here to supply into those plants. So, you know, part of my responsibility, I was a manufacturing engineer was helping ramp up the manufacturing processes.As we as we ramped up the plant and when I got there, my half the plant wasn't even built yet. So I was there through the actual construction of half the plant and we were doing great components drums, rotors brake boosters, oil pumps, water pumps on my part of the plant. So I went to Japan for nine weeks to train on the processes we had, the products.I went to different Aisin plants. where the products were made Toyota plant and also get training on the Toyota production system, which at that time didn't really have any meaning to me, you know, but we learned it. So came back and went through that ramp up process. To do that. So from there I left because I want to get more involved in the upfront process development because that was done by the Japanese of engineers, of course.So I moved to Wisconsin and took a job with Briggs and Stratton, who at that time, this is in 1990, were one of the first companies to really do some of the this lean stuff, trying to physically do it. So I was brought in here because supposedly I knew something about TPS, you know, haven't worked for Aisin.But the nice thing about that is basically we had a sandbox to play in. The guy I worked for said go find something you're interested in. Obviously it's beneficial to the company and go do it. So we were, you know, implementing flow production at a relatively now, even looking back now, 30 years, 30 plus years at a very rampant rate across the plant.So we did machining. And assembly of small engines for Briggs and Stratton. Now, the nice thing with me working for Aisin, even though it was a Toyota group company had TPS in it versus Toyota. Obviously Toyota is the practitioner of TPS, but their product is a great big, huge automobile. So you don't physically get all those correlations as easily since it's this big product versus when I worked for Aisin who made components.So the components correlated to the components we made at Briggs of doing one piece flow. So we were doing that, putting in standard work. We got involved with the Shingijutsu out of Japan. And we were doing, we internalized our own Kaizen workshops to do all that, implementing this. So in the course of doing that we changed the plan around entirely and actually a very rapid time all considering.And even to this day, let's go back 30 years ago, the basic designs of the cells, you know, one of these slow cells were actually. Pretty good. The things and attributes we did were very much one piece flow. So partially correlating it to Kata you know, one thing with the improvement Kata is you need to understand your direction or the challenge.Well, essentially our challenge back then was One piece flow, everything we did, we wanted to achieve one piece flow. And in that we had machines, obviously mostly machining the, actually some of the grinders I worked with when I got the manuals to them, the date on the manuals was prior to the U S being bombed at Pearl Harbor.So we had machine tools of that old up to an old, every place in between, you know, newer CNC equipment. So we're trying to put all this into true one piece flow. Now, we did that successfully, but the problem is we couldn't get the consistency that I had seen at Aisin of the consistency of output, consistency to tactile.And I, I didn't really know why, but I knew, you know, working for, you know, Japanese company, actually even some of the managers and engineers here, 37 years later, I still stay in contact with. Japanese are humans like everybody else. I knew they had to have some thing, whatever this thing was. That they were using that we just didn't know about and all that.So over the course of time, I ended up a number of years later, writing a couple books were published, one by Jeff Liker and one by Masaaki Imai. Jeff Liker's, I think, first book Becoming Lean and the one by Misaaki Imai, Gemba Kaizen, around 1997. And I read Liker's book and in it, it mentions this thing called TWI, Training Within Industry, in about a sentence or two.And I thought, what, and World War II program. I thought, what the heck does some World War II program have to do with the Toyota production system? Well, that's interesting, move on. The, about two months later, I miss, Imai's book, it has a couple pages discussing training with industries. And I just, I've got to find out what the heck some World War II program has to do with the Toyota production system.So I started diving into it. Just to jump forward a few years, it took me a while to dig. I was calling Washington, D. C., the archives, just trying to gather up information. And eventually, finding that the Depository Libraries of the United States was supposed to have information on it in the Milwaukee Public Library I finally found some information that there was a report done, which I was able to, in the library alone, to get this 300 page TWI, post World War II, written 1945 report.Got it, went to Kinko's, made copies of it, and then sat on it because I thought, I don't know how excited I am to read a 300 page government report. But eventually I went through all the work to get it. So I eventually pulled down and read it and started reading it. And I couldn't believe what I was reading.What I was reading through the report was it was correlating some of the things I had learned, you know, somewhat indirectly at Aisin. And also when we use the Shingijutsu group, some of the verbiage, it gave me the link to the manuals they use during the war. So I was able to start getting those through a library loan.And as I got the first one, the job methods. One is about improvement and read it. The language verbatim in that manual from 1943 was verbatim. What we had learned with like in Shingijutsu and some of that stuff. But now I understood the source. I understand what it's doing. So that kind of started this, the TWI.Now that now the importance of this TWI is if you look at all the main programs, job instruction is about training. Job methods is about improvement and job relations is about leadership and people problems. All of them used. I have some of the cards here. All of them use a the four step four step methodology based on the scientific method.Now the history with TWI because I got into that is it goes back to at least 1830. So a German philosopher and educator named Johann Harbert had developed a five step program to educate kids. Pedagogy. Five step method. In the 1830s. So in Europe, there are people, they called him herbations.So European herbations that followed his philosophy American herbations that did too. And one of them was a guy by the name of Charles Allen, Charles Skipper Allen. And I, and he was one and he took Harbert's five step methodology and he put it into a four step method, methodology that he called job instruction.And he wrote a book. He wrote a book on it. Around 1918. It's like a 500 page book just on the four step method. It's an amazing book. So in depth, but basically that job instruction when we get when the U. S. Got into World War Two, the guys they put in charge of the T. W. I. Program 3 of the four that were in charge of it.One had worked for Alan directly. The other two have been trained by so they pulled that job instruction forward. Yeah. And that became TWI job instruction and eventually pulling from some other, I won't go through all that history job methods, which is I industrial engineering techniques. That really has their base in the Gilbreth, some of the pioneers in industrial engineering and a guy named Alan Mogenson put that into place.So that was the instructing, the improvement, and then eventually job relations was leadership. So that comes into Toyota post World War II in the early 1950s, as Ono had struggled implementing flow production, trying to emulate the Ford motor company. One piece flow, as we call it today. And he'd struggled with it in their machine shop for about eight years.When the TWI program came in during the post war occupation through their training department, Ohno grabbed onto that. J I all three of them, J I J M and J R. And that's when he started succeeding. Yeah. So see implementing flow production, trying to emulate early Ford motor company. Yeah. So it's all based on a scientific method.[00:11:12] Joe Krebs: Absolutely. And this is, I think this is where we're, we want to go with it. It's the second, this is a great that you're going back in time because I think this is important for everybody to see that this is not like the latest, greatest trend that just emerged just recently. And we'll you were talking about Kata, you know, in a brand new way this has been a well established thinking patterns.Now just to go quickly back to this Johan n Harbart he if I understand this, right, he applied this in a five steps. But that was more on the educational level. He's redesigned instruction for kids in schools, I would assume, and colleges. And so, [00:11:50] Jim Huntzinger: Yeah. So it's for educating kids pedagogy type of thing, although it's very much on.On practicing, which again correlates to what Charles Alan did. He Charles Allen was actually vocational trainer. That's why he was a probation and took that and put it into, because he was trying to train people, especially in shipbuilding on, in, in the, you know, night 1890s, 19. Early 1900s and all that.So he was trying to train people. So it was a very pragmatic way to, to educate children by practice. And he put that into, in a way, educating, training people in vocational training. [00:12:26] Joe Krebs: Yeah. So as a community of Kata thinking, we could say we're speeding things up quite a bit now. Like there were 1830s, 1890s, 1900s 20th century, right?But now things get really into motion and we, you mentioned some of those books the, we're increasing the rate of publications, I think that's what's what has been seen. So I think. Scientific thinking applied outside of education possibly even outside of lean manufacturing becomes really interesting.And that's why we have you on the, in the Agile Kata series, right? How can these things possibly influence things outside of lean manufacturing? [00:13:02] Jim Huntzinger: And I want to, and I'll bring this to Toyota. So, the TWI stuff, as I researched, it was the late 1990s. And very early 2000s. So Mike publishes Toyota Kata in 2009.So, so I got that and read it. And Mike's always been a person that just does a good job of taking things, parsing them down and articulating them very succinctly. Mike's always been very good at that. So I read Toyota Kata and I'm going, what I'm reading through there, I love because this is exactly the behavioral patterns we were doing back in my days.When we were implementing it, Briggs and Stratton. Now we weren't doing it near to the prescriptive level, near to the discipline level, near to any of that, that Mike was doing, but the fundamental patterns. We were doing like for example, like I said, our challenge was one piece flow. We would have to go out and establish the current condition.We didn't use that terminology, the current condition, the machines or the processes as they were, and then we'd have a what our target condition was, how do we put those into one piece flow and we would go through iterative steps. We were practicing scientific method is mainly because we didn't have a choice.We weren't quite sure what we were doing. So we had to go through these iterative steps to figure it out. So experimentation, like Mike says, and my favorite diagram he has in Toyota Kata, he has the one where, you know, on each end, he has the current condition and a target condition. Then kind of in between them is this unclear territory.And that's why I related to it so much. That's exactly what we were doing when we were doing that lean thinking what now all the, you know, there's a few books but not much. There was no internet. So we had literally do this, learn by doing, which actually came from TWI actually learn by doing. So we were doing it through iterative steps, this unclear territory to get it.So that's why the Toyota kind of related to me. And then it gave a pattern, a better, more prescriptive pattern. And also too, when Mike was researching that, as he looked at these different companies, practicing it, none of them did it exactly alike. They had their own way. But of course, again, that's what Mike's good.He had to put it into something a little more prescriptive in order to articulate it back out to everybody, so people could grasp it, you could practice it, people could learn it. Right. And ultimately it is, and that's why the book, I have it here. Sylvain Landry's book bringing scientific to life is so important because that's really, that's what TWI is practicing scientific behavioral patterns, Kata goes through that practicing scientific behavioral patterns so that.You don't think your way through practice, you practice your way to thinking.. And that's what these are about. And that's why again, Toyota Kata is. So important about practicing so you get in that pattern, it just becomes natural and instinctive. [00:15:42] Joe Krebs: Oh, yes. And the terminology as you said, you reused other terms, right? I think when people are looking at these behavioral patterns, they're realizing, Oh, these are things I have done in a very similar way.And that's good. Right. And you might have used different terminology. I think the benefit of using a consistent terminology within an organization, let's say. It's obviously we all know what, where we are in terms of the journey, but that might change over time. Right? So I think as long as the pattern stays the same, the behavioral patterns.Yeah, one thing with that, I'd like to say over the years is I'll use this and this illustrates the importance of practice and continuing practice. So I say if if you're not using Kata or even TWI the same in three months, that's a problem. Because you need to practice the pattern, practice the behavior.But the other part of that is, if you're using if you're using Kata or TWI the same in three years, that's a problem. Because you should be learning it, so it becomes instinctive, so you do expand out your ability to use it. And it can be used, I realize, anywhere there's people and processes. You can use it.It doesn't have to be in manufacturing. It could be in healthcare. People are successfully using healthcare. In some of the insurance companies, I know people are using these. Anywhere there's people and processes, it's a, it helps you to be more successful because you're using that pattern, those behavioral patterns of scientific thinking.Yeah. To solve problems and move to a better level. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Your KataCon conference, just to come back to that for one more moment, it's like, I think it's a representation of exactly what you just said. It's like who comes to these conferences, right? It's a broad mix of people. Yes.[00:17:25] Jim Huntzinger: Yeah. Yes. Broad mix of people out of different industries, broad mix of people at different levels along their journey. [00:17:33] Joe Krebs: Yeah. And you're all running as part of these conferences or you have ran these kind of onsite, but also workshops in parallel to these conferences, right? But they are more focused on the lean manufacturing side, if I'm not mistaken, right?But that is very hands on practical skills. Yeah, [00:17:49] Jim Huntzinger: Very hands on. In the case, the comp, so the conference we try, what we do is try to bring together the community. So we, with Lean Frontiers, I guess we like to say we like to build communities within the lean community. So, you know, we've had a lean accounting communities, of course, the Kata community with KataCon, TWI community, product, you know, lean product development, so communities within there.And it's a chance what we want to do is bring together thought leaders, practitioners, sometimes academics, people to come in and just share what they're doing and learning with each other within that community. With our intent is hopefully people make connections and get to know each other. So we don't, we just don't want them there together.You know, the two days or three days of the conference, we like to make them good networking connections. So as they go out the other 300 and some days out of the year they talk with each other. They communicate, they, they help, they share, try to bring what's going on together. So people go out and do good things with it and hopefully come back a year later.Continue to share what they've learned over the last year. Yeah. [00:18:47] Joe Krebs: And Jim how, like for somebody who is like maybe in the agile community right now, it says, this sounds very interesting. I'm listening to the Kata series. I'm starting to maybe read one of the books you you mentioned you on this podcast, how.What's the speaking situation? Like, who's speaking? What's the format of this conference? Because the scientific thinking is you know, is obviously in the forefront of that and the behavioral patterns you're pointing out. But what's the format? Or do people have to envision this conference to look like it's two days, right?[00:19:17] Jim Huntzinger: So what we do with the KataCon, actually, we actually run the KataSummit, KataCon same thing. And the TWI Summit, we run them concurrently. Because there's obviously, just because of the deliberate practice and scientific, there's so much correlation. But we always like to say, if people want to come and all they want to do is Kata, we got them covered.All they want to do is TWI, got you covered. If they want to mix it up, however much they want, they can do that. But we have, Keynotes and our keynotes are usually shorter. Try to make them just the pace, you know, like shorter 15 or 20 minute keynotes we have going on. We have breakout sessions where some are by practitioners.So you're learning what people are doing in companies, some by some thought leaders where they could expand a little bit more. A lot of times they're usually working with companies about what they're doing. We have some deep dive sessions where they're even a little bit longer. They're almost like a, kind of a mini sub workshop where people can go in and practice, you know, some of the aspects a little bit more.We actually have workshops. We have like a level set, a TWI level set and a kata, like their half day kata level set. So if you're kind of new, you could come in and kind of get up to a baseline. So you can, that's pre summit. So you can get more out of the summit, but we have some workshops and then even.Post summit. We have a Kata dojo workshop by Tilo Schwartz, who him with just another good book, giving wings to your team and all that. And we also do the 10 hour session so that TWI was trained actually the same format. It was used during the war, these 10 hour sessions. So there's five two hour sessions.So we run those think we're running for one for job instruction and job relations post summit and also one for Toyota Kata. Where they go through most of the improvement kata, but some on the coaching kata also a 10 hour training so people could come out and get, you know, like a certification on they can go, you know, know how to go practice and those are really practice based kind of workshops, a 10 hour training.[00:21:14] Joe Krebs: And I think that's also important, right? Because it is about practicing scientific thinking. So the practice piece needs to come in. I think for what was pretty awesome in this episode, I want to thank you for that is your background and how you know, take us on this journey of how this all started, but also how deeply rooted it is in many things we do as humans in various different kinds of industries.And even though it's only a small piece of history of what we just covered. The 10 years of KataCon is significant. It's a huge accomplishment. I want to thank you for putting this out there and putting your energy into organize something like this as an a past conference organizer myself. I know how much work that is.[00:21:58] Jim Huntzinger: One of the thing I might touch on because this is also about practicing is we have these are outside of that. the summit. But we have a couple workshops, one called skill point, one called skills lab where you go practice, you go learn TWI and also Toyota Kata. But it's actually on a full scale simulator.So it's a life size line. Now, the reason I'm bringing that up is you learn these skills because these are about skills. you skill of the Toyota Kata, the skill of improvement, Kata skill of the coaching kata. Same thing with TWI, but it's always interesting when we run those workshops we used have people from different companies come in and literally by the end of day one, and certainly by the day two there, these three day workshops, you would think these people had worked together for 10 years.Even though for different industries, different companies, and that's not something we're directly trying to do. So the whole working together as a team and all that, that when you practice these things together, by default, you'll reap that benefit of people understanding each other, people working collaborative together.So it's been fascinating to watch those. Workshops and watch that just spontaneously happen that these people look, I said, they look like they've been working together for 10 years and just met less than 24 hours before. [00:23:12] Joe Krebs: Yeah, it's amazing. Great bonding, right? If you have a shared goal and you work as a team and you collaborate and you have the same language and can navigate.That's fantastic. Jim, I want to thank you. On the show page people will find a way of finding the conference for sure. They can also just Google KataCon and and get in touch and get their tickets and meet you in April in 2024 in Indianapolis. Thank you, Jim. [00:23:39] Jim Huntzinger: Yeah. Indianapolis.Thank you so much, Joe. Yeah. Looking forward to it and thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me today.

In the bustling city of Fremont, California, on a momentous Monday, December 18, 1984, the automotive world witnessed the joyous spectacle of the first car produced by the groundbreaking collaboration between Toyota and General Motors at New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI). The air was filled with cheers, and toasts were raised with non-alcoholic cider as the four-door subcompact, the Chevrolet Nova, gracefully rolled off the assembly line, signaling the dawn of a new era in automotive partnership.www.nodrivingloves.com#cars #car #collectorcars #oldcars #cartalk #electriccars #ev #hotrod #carhistory #automotivehistory #automobile #thisdayinautomotivehistory #thisdayinhistory #classiccars #onthisday #NaPodPoMo #ithappenedtoday #december17 #GM #Toyota #nummi #nova #chevrolet

In this episode, Bill and Andrew discuss the shades of variation: meeting requirements, accuracy, precision, and precision around variety. Is reducing variation to zero a good thing? Plus, Bill and Andrew share stories that offer practical ways to think about these concepts. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for the day is The Paradigms of Variation. Bill, take it away.   0:00:28.1 Bill Bellows: Ooh.   0:00:28.1 AS: Exciting, exciting.   0:00:33.1 BB: Alright. So let me start off by saying this is episode number eight, and I wanna just make a couple comments about episode number seven, where we talked about "all straw" and "last straw" organizations also otherwise known as "me" or "we" organizations, or red pen or blue pen companies. And I just wanna burst a bubble and say neither one of them, neither organization exists, whether it's all or last or me or we. I view it as a... It's really a matter of which direction your organization is moving, it's a really simple model that I've seen get people to begin to appreciate what Deming's talking about, because I think that contrast is very much like a Deming organization versus a non-Deming organization. But instead of black-and-white thinking, there's really a continuum, and so I think... I just want to say at the beginning, it's really a question of which direction is your organization moving? Another thing I wanna throw out is... I don't think people know, I think absent an understanding of the System of Profound Knowledge, if you're in a last straw organization or a me organization, or a red pen company, I don't think you know that. I think if you become aware of Deming's work, you become aware of what could be. And I liken it to Dr. Deming saying, "How could they learn? How could they learn? The answer is frightening, how could they know?" So I think absent an understanding of The New Economics - Deming's work, I think it's hard to appreciate what you're missing.   0:02:11.4 BB: That you're being blamed for the grade, you're being blamed for the red beads. You're being blamed for the weather, if you're the weatherman. And the other thing that comes in mind there with that, "how could they know" is... There's a great video with Peter Senge, which he did a case with Dr. Deming, and there's a blog I wrote about it on the Deming Institute website if you just search for Peter Senge and my name. And you can find the blog as well as the link to the video. And in there Senge is talking about the present state of education systems and very much in this contrast of industrial and post-industrial, and he says, very much what it comes down to is, he says it's the water. He says, "We don't know what fish talk about, but you can be damn sure it's not the water." And likewise, I think people in a red pen company are not getting together. You and I talking about, "Andrew, this system sucks. I'm being blamed for the red beads," and I don't think we're the wiser. Now, if you turn me on to The New Economics. And we started listening to DemingNEXT and we became aware. But absent that, I think we're both frustrated, but we wouldn't know better. Alright, it's on the topic of variation.   0:03:30.8 AS: It's...   0:03:31.5 BB: Go ahead Andrew, you wanna say something?   0:03:32.4 AS: I was just gonna say that... That's where I think Dr. Deming's making the point of the difference between training and education. Education is the idea of bringing outside ideas into your mind, into your business, as opposed to training, which is trying to upgrade skills. And I had a little story of that when I was a head of research at an investment bank in Thailand. The whole job of a head of research is managing all these analysts who are writing research reports on company A, buy company A, sell company B for our institutional clients. And the job of a head of research is to try to manage that schedule. And you know that analysts are always gonna be interrupted and clients are gonna call, the market's gonna do this. So they're very rarely on time when they say that they're gonna finish something. So you're constantly scrambling for the morning meeting, because on the morning meeting you gotta have a story.   0:04:22.0 AS: And so that was just the job of a head of research. So I did that really well, managing them and, kind of, all that. And then I went to the number one investment bank, the number one broker in Thailand as the head of research. And I asked them, "So how often do you guys miss?" And they said, "Never." I said, "That's impossible." Because I've spent my whole career managing the flow of analysts. They said, "No, we never miss." When an analyst is gonna be on, they're always on. "And how do you do that?" "Well, we do a three-week-ahead schedule, everybody knows that you are held accountable for being that person on that day. And if you find out that you can't do it, you're gonna talk to someone else and rejigger it and say, hey, could you do Friday? And I'll do Monday the next week?" But they never miss. And I just thought, like the water, I never even knew I could go to a different level.   0:05:15.0 BB: Yeah.   0:05:16.8 AS: And then I went to a different level.   0:05:19.8 BB: Yeah, it's...it's the ability to step back. Alright, so on the topic of the paradigms of variation, I wanna throw out four words. Variety, variation, accuracy, and precision. A variety is, there's red beads and white beads, that's variety. There could be, eight different colors, that's variety, sizes of pants 32 waist, 32 length, that, to me that's variety. As opposed to variation is that a 32-inch waist or a gallon of gasoline, every time you go to get the gallon, you get a gallon of gasoline, it might not be exactly a gallon, that's variation. The reason I throw those out to begin with is that Dr. Deming is known in some circles back in the '80s, he was interviewed by somebody at the, I think at the BBC in England and an interview ends with him, with the interviewer saying, "Dr. Deming, if you could condense your philosophy down to a few words, what would it be?" And I thought, he's gonna say... He is just gonna reject that, that "I can't be condensed." No instead of that, he says, "Reduce variation." And I thought, "Oh, no... "   0:06:50.4 BB: So, and there are people alive and well today in the Deming community, who will quote that to me? "You know, Bill, Dr. Deming said, we gotta shrink variation to zero." And I said, "So, is he saying we all ought to be the same size? We ought to be the same skin color? Is he saying that he doesn't like diversity? What does that mean? And same religion?" I mean, you could look at religions as variety, and then you could say within each religion there's variation. So part of what I wanna get at today is what I think is confusion as to what he meant by shrinking variation to zero. So there's variety, variation. Accuracy is that when I get a gallon of gas, is it a gallon, or is it a couple ounces high, a couple ounces low? You go to the gas station, you'll see a sticker on the pump that says that it was calibrated to some standard, when you go to buy a pound of meat, are you getting a pound? Are you getting 15 ounces? And so the National Bureau of Standards is looking at accuracy, are all these things... Is every customer in the United States getting a gallon's worth of milk?   0:08:15.3 BB: Now, so that's accuracy. Precision is the idea that you get the same value each time, so I could go to the scale and it measures exactly a pound, exactly a pound, exactly a pound. But is that pound the same pound as the National Bureau of Standards pound? So I could be. 0:08:37.3 BB: Sorry about that. I could get the same value each time, and that's precision, but that's not to be confused with accuracy, so I just wanna throw those terms out. Relative to shrinking variation to zero, shrinking variation to zero which I, for the record, do not believe in. Dr. Deming would say anyone could accomplish anything if you don't count the cost. I think if you start to look at what is the benefit of having less variation versus the cost of that, then we can get to some point that makes sense economically as in The New Economics. But this idea of driving defects to zero, driving variation to zero without looking at cost.   0:09:24.1 BB: And you can look in The New Economics, we'll come back to this in a future episode. He definitely had in mind that you have to consider the cost, in fact, Dr. Deming would say, anyone could accomplish anything if you don't count the cost. But there's a... What I wanted to reference is a book by Peter Block called 'The Answer to How Is Yes' and what Block talks about is... Could be like, how...we get focused on, we're gonna go off and reduce variation, we're gonna go off and drive variation to zero or non-value added to zero. What Block talks about that I really appreciate, that I think Dr. Deming appreciate is, why? Why did... Let's step back a minute, and so part of what I wanna get at tonight in this paradigms of variation is the 'Why' piece. Okay. So the first example I wanna look at a variation is throwing darts okay? And hopefully that makes sense, you're throwing darts in a dart board and imagine meeting requirements is being on the dart board, so imagine it could be a foot in diameter.   0:10:29.4 BB: And in terms of meeting requirements, you wanna be on the dart board. So I throw it three times, and if you get three that are really close together, they may not be on the bullseye, and that says, I'm very precise, but if the three are not on the bullseye, then that's not very accurate. So again, throwing three and getting really, really consistent is one thing, but then how do I move that to the bullseye? So that's an idea that I could first focus on precision, and then often I find that if I could just slightly adjust my release or my arm, then maybe I could then move it over, so I wanna look at that.   0:11:14.7 AS: And moving over is accuracy or?   0:11:17.5 BB: Moving it over is accuracy.   0:11:19.2 AS: Okay.   0:11:19.5 BB: I mean, so the first thing could be, I'm just looking for three...   0:11:22.5 AS: Get on the board.   0:11:23.6 BB: I wanna be consistent.   0:11:25.9 AS: Yep.   0:11:26.6 BB: And then make the adjustment, 'cause I find often it's easier to make the adjustment, I think it's a lot of work to get consistency. So I just want to separate those out as two different strategies.   0:11:39.2 AS: Yeah, just go to the bar and start throwing darts and you'll see it's a lot of work. Yep that helps, that helps, that helps us to understand it.   0:11:45.9 BB: Alright, so next. Next I wanna talk about what I refer to as the Two Distributions Exercise, and so here's the context. Imagine that you are in the procurement organization, and your job is to make a decision as to who to buy a given product from. So your company goes out and gets quotes from four different suppliers, and they provide you with the information. And for simplicity, let's say what you're buying are these metal tubes and... Short metal tubes perhaps used in plumbing, they're a given length, a given diameter. And imagine these four suppliers come back to you. And again, you're the procurement person, "Who are we gonna buy from?" They come back and they say, they quote you the price, and they quote you exactly the same price. All four of them quote you exactly a dollar each, $10 each. It's like, "Holy cow, they're the same price."   0:12:46.2 BB: Imagine also, they quote the same delivery schedule. So you've got a plumbing supply, you need lots of these, they all tell you they're gonna give you the volume that you need. So I think, "Gosh, volume-wise that's the same, cost-wise, it's the same." Now imagine what they tell you is relative to meeting the diameter, let's say it's the outer diameter is really critical to how these things fit together. And they quote you and say, "All the outer diameters will meet requirements." They're gonna take care of the scrap and they're gonna get rid of the red beads. All the tubes they will send will meet requirements, guaranteed. And you're thinking, "I want that same schedule, same costs, same quality," now what? Well, now imagine they send you the distributions from the control charts and they tell you that these distributions, you're thinking, "Holy cow, these suppliers are using Cisco process control." And they provide you with the histograms, and they say, "These distributions will never change, shape or location." Holy cow.   0:13:49.6 BB: And then added onto that is that you're gonna use them as is. So you're not gonna take them and modify them, you're just gonna bring them into the inventory and send them off to the plumbers to use. So you're saying, "Okay, the process is in control, the level amount of variation, location is predictable, stable, forever. How could I go wrong?" And then the last thing they tell you is, procurement that, "Here's the lower requirement, here's the upper requirement, and here's the ideal value." And so then you end up with two distributions. If I was confusing, I meant to say two, not four [chuckle]   0:14:24.1 BB: Alright, so imagine you've got two suppliers and the one distribution goes from the lower spec to the upper spec. And let's say it's a normal Gaussian distribution and it starts at the low end, goes up, high in the center, then off to the other, and that's supplier A and then imagine the other supplier uses 10% of the variation, but is towards the upper spec so it's far more uniform, but it's off of the ideal value. And so I've been using those two distributions with people as an ideal scenario saying, "You're never gonna have all that information, let alone that's all the same." And very deliberately, what I want people to do is say, if it's the same price, same schedule, zero defects, guaranteed, distributions never change and you're looking at the lower spec, the upper spec, and you're saying, "Okay, so one distribution, it has more variation, but the average is right in the middle, which is the ideal value. And the other one is shifted towards the high end of the tolerance, but incredibly uniform," who do you choose?   0:15:38.3 AS: So it's a tall curve?   0:15:39.4 BB: It's a very tall curve, let's say it uses 10% of the variation, 10% of the tolerance and so I've been using that going on 30 years, and I'll have 30 people in the room and I'll ask them to write down on a three by five card, "Who would you buy from?" And I'll say, "Here are the choices you can buy from the, the one that's the widest, we'll call that supplier A and supplier B is the narrow one to the right, or You could say it doesn't matter." And what I find is incredibly consistent inside and outside of Rocketdyne and literally around the world is the majority of people will take the narrow distribution, to the right will call that supplier B, what I ask them, "Why do you like supplier B?" To a person they will say, "It's more consistent, there's less variation." And I say, "Less variation from what?" "Well, less variation from each other." Well Andrew, that's precision.   0:16:40.9 BB: And then I ask the others, and my find is three quarters of the room will take that distribution, the one which is precise. And for the ones who are focusing on the wider distribution, where the average is on target, I say, "Why do you like that one?" And they say, "Because it has less variation from the ideal value." Alright? And so I wanna throw that out is part of the confusion I find inside and outside of the Deming community, in the world of Six Sigma quality distribution B, using a smaller percent of the tolerance, is, has the higher process capability index. 'Cause what that index is doing is comparing the amount of variation, the width of the variation to the overall tolerance. And the idea that you're using a smaller portion is valued. And I said, "Okay, well that's not quite the same as what Dr. Taguchi is talking about. What Dr. Taguchi is talking about," and this one we'll get into in a later episode, "is the closer you are to the ideal value, what you're doing is affecting how this is used in a greater system, so if I'm at home cutting a piece of wood to a given length and I want it to be closer and closer to the ideal value, then what I'm gaining is making it easier to put that piece of wood, or whatever I'm making, together.   0:18:00.5 BB: And I find that people who preferred distribution B are really confused 'cause in a big way what they're saying is, "I don't care about where I am within, all I care about is using a small portion of the tolerance." And then when I press on that more and more, they say, "Well, I want fewer and fewer defects." I said, "Well, zero defects is guaranteed, so if you really believe in zero defects as the goal, then you should have said it doesn't matter." And so the reason I wanna talk about the paradigms of variation is that one: variation is one of the elements of the System of Profound Knowledge and it's not just the variation in the number of red beads, right?   0:18:58.0 BB: And not to dismiss that the variation of the red beads is caused by the system. But what I've tried to bring to these episodes interviews with you is what I learned from Dr. Taguchi is the variation in the white beads and what is the impact of the variation on the white beads. And if we ignore that, then what we're saying is, "As long as you meet print, that's all that matters at the end of the day." And I'd say if that's where you're going then, then you could do the same thing with Lean or Six Sigma operational excellence. What differentiates Dr. Deming's work, I believe in terms of his appreciation of variation as an element of Profound Knowledge, is what he learned from Dr. Taguchi. That the closer we are to the ideal value, that affects how the system, which is another element of Profound Knowledge, comes together.   0:19:53.8 BB: All right, so going back to those two examples, what I started to do, one is I was detecting that less variation, less, I was detecting within Rocketdyne and elsewhere that there was a far greater regard for less variation, less variation from each other than being on target. And I was just wanting to one; find out why does it matter if all you have to do is meet spec? Why does it matter? So relative to the paradigms of variation, and this was back into the mid '90s when I was working with some people in manufacturing and was greatly confused over this, and the confusion was, "Is it enough to meet print, Bill? You're not sure? And then we've got these capability indices. We want to use a small portion of the tolerance and then we've got this, "Bill you're telling we wanna be on target, help me understand that."   0:20:49.7 BB: Was what these guys were asking for. And the paradigms of variation that I come up with. And I described it, I said, "Well, let's look at it this way." I said, "There's this thing called... Let's call it paradigm A, and Paradigm A is meet print." All that matters at the end of the day, we wanna meet spec. So.   0:21:06.4 AS: When you say meet print, print is a kind of a word that maybe not everybody understands what that means.   0:21:12.7 BB: Thank you.   0:21:12.9 AS: What, that means spec?   0:21:13.6 BB: Meet the requirements.   0:21:14.6 AS: Meet the requirements.   0:21:15.6 BB: Meet the requirements. And so we want the meeting to start anywhere between here and here. And as long as we're in between... So "meeting requirements" such that everything is good, is paradigm A. And so if you went back to those... Looking at those two distributions, if you said it didn't matter which one to take, that would be the paradigm A answer. And that's rarely the case. And so what I was poking at with people is, "You tell me you're striving for zero defects, and then when I give you that information that there's zero defects, why does that not trigger you to say it doesn't matter?" Because there's something else going on. So then the idea that we want incredible uniformity, precision, that's what I refer to as paradigm B.   0:22:07.3 BB: And as I mentioned earlier, that is the dominant choice. We want narrow distributions. We want what people refer to as "piece to piece consistency" to be differentiated by the second most popular answer is being on the ideal value what Dr. Taguchi would call the target, which is what I refer to as paradigm C. So in explaining these three paradigms to these manufacturing folks, I said each of them has a goal. So the goal of paradigm A is to meet requirements, but they not only have a goal, they also have an approach. And their approach typically tends to be, "If you're slightly out measure again, if you're slightly in you're good. Can we change the requirements?" And so I thought as... The paradigm A solutions are all about playing with those lines, moving them in, moving them out.   0:23:01.1 BB: Paradigm B, which has a lot to do with, I find within Six Sigma quality, is we wanna have a given fraction of a percent of the tolerance. And these indices, the Cpk Cpk, Cp Cpk, and others, there'll be goals of, "It needs to be 1.33 or 2.0, or 1.67, and we wanna strive for Six Sigma quality." Well, the question I ask those people is, "How much money are we gonna spend to achieve Six Sigma quality? And is there a corresponding benefit?" And I don't get an answer. But so the paradigm B approach would be to take the distribution, and try to make it narrower, but narrow to the point that we're only using, 10% of the tolerance. And again, what bothers me about that is that it's not addressing what Taguchi's talking about, which is what we're doing at home.   0:24:04.8 BB: Whether it's baking something, we want the temperature to be close to 350 or, whatever it is we're doing. We're, looking for accuracy in how we're pulling something together, is we're looking for an ideal value. And there, what we're trying to do is, as I mentioned earlier, we're striving for, "Can we get precision and then can we make the adjustment to achieve accuracy?" And instead of just saying, "We wanna achieve some given value." To me, what I tell clients I work with and students in my classes is, "What is it gonna cost to achieve precision, to then focus on accuracy? How much money are we gonna spend on that? And what is the benefit?" And the benefit will be improvements downstream, which is looking at things as a system. And what we'll talk about in a future session, looking more at this is examples of things I've been involved with, that address this idea of not reducing variation to zero, but to me it's about managing variation and having the appropriate amount of variation, knowing that it could never be zero.   0:25:18.1 BB: But, does it...am I in a situation where meeting requirements is all I need to be. In the world of baseball there's a strike zone. You've got a batter coming up who can't hit the ball no matter what, and you say, "Well, it doesn't matter where it is. Just get it into the strike zone." The next batter comes up. And that batter is very determined to make... And you're trying to get the ball around the bat. Now it depends on where you are within the strike zone.   0:25:46.6 BB: Alright. So the other paradigm I wanna get into, and then we'll call it over, is, paradigm D. So there's A, is meet requirements, that's all that matters. B is, I'm looking for precision. C is, I'm looking for precision followed by accuracy. Paradigm D when I explained this to Dr. Taguchi in the late 1990s, and he said, I need to differentiate having one ideal value so I can be working in a place where all the tubes we make are one inch in outer diameter. And, so there's one ideal value, well, maybe what the company is doing is getting into variety and having different outer diameters. One inch, half inch, three-quarters of an inch. And in each case they're looking for accuracy, but accuracy around different values. And that's what Dr. Taguchi would refer to as... Well, he and I agreed to call it paradigm D, which is precision around an ideal value. But depending on your product line, you may have ideal values for different customers. And that's called variety. And so paradigm D is about precision coupled around varieties. So I just wanted to throw that out as well in our session.   0:27:16.7 AS: And the risk that you're highlighting is that somebody who's skilled in Six Sigma or some other tools will be patting themselves on the back, that they've got a very narrow distribution in that... And it's inside of spec and therefore they've done their job.   0:27:39.4 BB: Yes. Well...   0:27:40.1 AS: And what you're highlighting is that there is, there is an additional cost to the business or additional benefit if that narrow distribution could be moved to the target value?   0:27:58.2 BB: Well, here's what I've seen. I've seen organizations go from a really wide distribution where, in the assembly process, they need all those different sizes to put the puzzle together. And then somebody comes in and shrinks the variation to a fraction of that, not taking into account how they're used, and instead of going around and having all the different sizes to put the puzzle together, they can no longer do that. So what I'd say, I've seen plenty of examples where a given amount of variation that people are used to, that they're accommodating could be quite well until somebody comes along and gets rid of those other options.   0:28:48.2 BB: So I've seen variation reduction gone sour, a few times leading to some near catastrophic failures of a rocket engine because we're just looking at something in isolation. And, so I went to a very senior executive in that timeframe and I said... 'cause there's this big push in the company and we gotta reduce variation, "We gotta reduce variation." And I went to him and I said, "If we have a choice between shrinking the variation and doing nothing, I'd say do nothing." And he is like, "Well, what do you mean?" And I went through and explained this scenario with him and he said, "Oh, I've never seen anything like that." And I thought to myself, "You must have worked for companies that make the tubes, but don't use the tubes."   [laughter]   0:29:33.4 BB: I said. And so, this is why when I hear people talk about reducing variability, reducing cost, trying to make improvements, and again, we'll look at this in a whole nother episode, is my concern is are they thinking about that part in isolation? Are they thinking about how that fits into a greater system? So whether it's reducing the variation in the outer diameter, whether it's reducing the cost, if they're focusing on that as a KPI, and not looking at how that KPI fits into a greater system, I'd say I'd be nervous about that.   0:30:17.4 AS: One of the interesting examples I remember from when I was young and in maybe business school or whatever, was when Toyota came out with Lexus and they talked about how they spent a huge amount of time reducing variation in every part so that you had a much smoother and more quiet ride, and the reliability was better and better. And they talked about the pursuit of perfection was the tagline that they did. But it made sense to me that, many people would be... Many companies are satisfied with a certain amount of variation.   0:30:54.8 AS: When if they could get it more narrow around the desired outcome, then the knock on effects, particularly for a new company, maybe for an old company, and the knock on effects basically lead people to go, "Go back we want more variation," because you're screwing up everything downstream. But if you're building an operation where you can get more and more narrow distribution around the target output, the target desired output, then you're bringing benefit all the way down the line for the business. What have I got right and what have I got wrong out of that?   0:31:33.2 BB: Well, that's fantastic. And a couple things come to mind. I really appreciate that question. Andrew, if you were to do a Google search for Dr. Taguchi and Toyota, because this idea of being on target associated with what he referred to as the quality loss function, which again, will be a focus of another episode, I'd rather one, look at it as an integration loss function, just to reinforce the idea that being close to the ideal value is about improving integration. And that's it.   0:32:12.7 AS: When you say integration, what do you mean?   0:32:15.5 BB: Who's gonna use that tube? What are they gonna do with it?   0:32:18.1 AS: Okay. So downstream, integrating the process with the downstream.   0:32:20.5 BB: And so if I'm not looking at how the doctor fits into the system, how the tube fits into the system. So what I find is in the Taguchi community, people will say, Dr. Taguchi worked with Toyota back in the '50s and '60s. Dr. Taguchi and Deming met for the first time in the mid '50s in India. Dr. Taguchi was honored with the Deming prize in literature in 1960, and they would've met then. Don Wheeler in his books on Statistical Process Control, and inside the cover it will say, "In September 1960, a new definition of quality being on target with minimum variation." So there's all that. So what I've tried numerous times over the last 30 years is searching for documentation of Taguchi's influence on Toyota. I found nothing.   0:33:10.7 BB: And, so here I'm flying back from Japan, having gone there while Rocketdyne was owned by Boeing to explain these concepts to people at the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which is the largest aerospace company in Japan.   0:33:25.1 BB: There was a big partnership going on between Boeing, the division I worked for at Rocketdyne was part of Boeing. And, Boeing's, at that time, largest supplier in the world was MHI. So I was on a study team to go over there to... And I explained these ideas to them. They knew nothing about this. They were focusing on uniform... They were focusing on... Their quality system was precision, not accuracy.   0:33:47.6 BB: And I was explaining what we were doing with that. Well, flying home, I was sitting in business class, sitting next to me is a young engineer, flying out of Tokyo. He is Japanese. And now we started talking. Turns out he is a graduate of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo in California working for Toyota at the NUMMI plant. And I explained to him red pen and blue pen companies, he loved it. I explained to him the paradigms of variation. And he says, "Bill," he says, "I'm coming back from working with supplier to get them to focus on the ideal value." He says, "That is the thinking we use."   [laughter]   0:34:29.2 BB: He says they wanna change the tolerance. And I'm telling him, "No, you've got to hold that target value." So you can search the Internet, you won't find this. And so there's two data points I want to get before we close. So one is that the majority of the flight coming home was me explaining this stuff to him, and then afterwards maintaining a relationship with him and his boss and looking to see if I could learn more.   0:34:56.0 BB: But he was... For him to say, "That's exactly what we do." Well then I spent several years poking Dr. Taguchi about his loss function concepts and all, and he said, "No company in the United States uses the loss function." And I said, "Really?" He says, "No." He said, "The leading users in Japan are Toyota and Nippon Denso," now known as Denso, a major supplier to Toyota.   0:35:21.1 BB: And I said, "What do they do with it?" He says, well, he says, "Bill, they have a database of loss functions for how different things come together." He says, "They have a database for the impact of variation." And I said, "Really?" I said, "How do they use it?" He said, "They use it to guide their investments." That's what you're talking about, Andrew. But you won't find that on the Internet. I've not found that in any literature.   0:35:51.1 BB: So, those are two things that I hold there. I believe Toyota is using this somewhere deep in the organization as evidenced by this young guy. And my interest is to expand that appreciation within our community in The Deming Institute, that it is not about uniformity. It is not about precision. And, that improving precision could make things worse. [chuckle] If you're not focused on accuracy, then the question becomes, "Is every situation worth accuracy?" And the answer is, "No. You've got to look downstream."   0:36:29.6 AS: Okay. Now it's time for me to ask the question that was asked of Dr. Deming.   0:36:34.8 BB: Okay.   0:36:35.9 AS: Explain it in one short sentence. What do you think the key takeaway is from this excellent discussion?   0:36:44.8 BB: I think what's really important is the need to manage variation, which is the same thing as Akoff would say, the difference between managing actions and managing interactions. The idea is that how I accomplish my task depends upon how you're using it. And so for me to blindly meet a requirement from you not knowing how you use it, well, whether that's you asking me to clean the table and I don't know anything about the table, you saying, "I need you to meet these requirements."   0:37:21.2 BB: You saying, "I need this by tomorrow." And I say, "What do you mean by tomorrow, Andrew? Tomorrow at eight o'clock, tomorrow at nine o'clock?" And so I think what Deming's talking about is if I just blindly take a set of requirements and meet them in a way that I interpret without asking you for clarification, is not teamwork.   0:37:41.7 AS: Great.   0:37:44.1 BB: So I need to know how you're using this.   0:37:47.1 AS: And, that's a great lesson. And I think what it's telling us is the idea of communicating and cooperating and getting to the next level has to do with really understanding what the next process is doing with it, and how what you're delivering could be improved so that the improvement is measured by a benefit to the next and the next and the next profit process. Not as a loss to the next one, which is what you explained about if variation got reduced, all of a sudden people weren't built for handling that.   0:38:23.2 BB: Well, and let me throw one other thing out along those lines. And as a colleague of mine in Amsterdam says to people in the Lean community says, "How does Lean...how does implementation of Lean explain why we love Toyota products? How does it explain the reliability of the products? We buy nothing but Toyotas." Now, we've had bad luck with Toyotas, which people I met in business school classes told me, "You never buy anyone's first model even Toyota."   0:39:03.8 BB: So we will only buy Toyotas, but we'll never buy the first model year. And I'm buying it because I want it to start every single time. I don't want a car where I've gotta replace the water pump. And so for our listeners, if you wanna have customers revere your products for the reason, I think, many people revere Toyota products, I think what we're talking about tonight is a significant part of what makes those parts come together and those cars last so long.   0:39:41.3 AS: Bingo. Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for the discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, which is, "people are entitled to joy in work."

Healthy//Toxic Healthy versus Toxic is a podcast where licensed mental health professionals explore what makes a relationship healthy or unhealthy from a scientifically informed perspective. This show often centers around the topics of narcissism, narcissistic abuse, and the negative effects of being exposed to a narcissist in the workplace, family, or in a romantic relationship. Our hosts aim to provide a scientifically informed perspective on what factors go into making healthy relationships, how to build secure attachment, and how to be a better parent, child, partner, or friend.  Resources: Gignac, G. E., Darbyshire, J., & Ooi, M. (2018). Some people are attracted sexually to intelligence: A psychometric evaluation of sapiosexuality. Intelligence, 66, 98–111. 10.1016/j.intell.2017.11.009 Greengross, G. humorology@gmail. co., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39(4), 188–192. 10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.00 Milonoff, M., & Nummi, P. (2012). Adolescents but not older women misjudge intelligence from faces and do not consider intelligent-looking men attractive. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 49(5/6), 378–384. 10.5735/086.049.0512 Kanazawa, S., & Kovar, J. L. (2004). Why Beautiful People Are More Intelligent. Intelligence, 32(3), 227–243. Retrieved from    Want more mental health content? Check out our other Podcasts: Mental Health // Demystified with Dr. Tracey Marks  True Crime Psychology and Personality Cluster B: A Look At Narcissism, Antisocial, Borderline, and Histrionic Disorders Here, Now, Together with Rou Reynolds   Links for Dr. Grande Dr. Grande on YouTube Produced by Ars Longa Media Learn more at arslonga.media. Produced by: Erin McCue Executive Producer: Patrick C. Beeman, MD Legal Stuff The information presented in this podcast is intended for educational and entertainment purposes only and is not professional advice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Augmented reveals the stories behind the new era of industrial operations, where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. In this episode of the podcast, the topic is Lean Manufacturing. Our guest is Michel Baudin (https://www.linkedin.com/in/michelbaudin/), author, and owner of Takt Times Group. In this conversation, we talk about how industrial engineering equals the engineering of human work and why manufacturing and industrial engineering education needs to change because it has drifted away from industrial work and a future where manufacturing is not going away. If you like this show, subscribe at augmentedpodcast.co (https://www.augmentedpodcast.co/). If you like this episode, you might also like Episode 84 on The Evolution of Lean with Professor Torbjørn Netland from ETH Zürich (https://www.augmentedpodcast.co/84). Augmented is a podcast for industry leaders, process engineers, and shop floor operators, hosted by futurist Trond Arne Undheim (https://trondundheim.com/) and presented by Tulip (https://tulip.co/). Follow the podcast on Twitter (https://twitter.com/AugmentedPod) or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/75424477/). Trond's Takeaway: Lean manufacturing might mean many things, but industrial work has largely been a consistent practice over several hundred years, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Having said that, if we want to go about improving it, we might want to stay pretty close to the workforce and not sit in statistics labs far removed from it. Efficiency is tied to work practices, and they cannot be optimized beyond what the workforce can handle or want to deal with. As we attempt to be lean, whatever we mean by that, we need to remember that work is a thoroughly human endeavor. Transcript TROND: Welcome to another episode of the Augmented Podcast. Augmented brings industrial conversations that matter, serving up the most relevant conversations on industrial tech. Our vision is a world where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. In this episode of the podcast, the topic is Lean Manufacturing. Our guest is Michel Baudin, author, and owner of Takt Times Group. In this conversation, we talk about how industrial engineering equals the engineering of human work and why manufacturing and industrial engineering education needs to change because it has drifted away from industrial work and a future where manufacturing is not going away. Augmented is a podcast for industrial leaders, process engineers, and shop floor operators hosted by futurist Trond Arne Undheim and presented by Tulip. Michel, welcome. How are you? MICHEL: Fine, thank you. How about yourself? TROND: Things are good. Things are looking up. I'm excited to talk about lean manufacturing with you, having had such a rich, professional background. Michel, you're French. You originally, I think, were thinking of becoming a probability researcher, or you were actually, and then you went to Japan and studied Toyota. You have had this career in English, German, Japanese sort of consulting all the way back from 1987 onwards on exciting topics, lean manufacturing, and especially implementing it, right? The real deal. You've authored at least four technical books that I know about. And I think you listed probably a while back, having written 900 blog posts. You've been very busy. You are the owner of the Takt Times Group, which is a consulting firm on lean manufacturing. And you love math, but you have this very interesting attitude, which we'll talk about, which is math is great, but it's not always the best communication tool. Tell me a little about that to start off. You're a probability researcher that doesn't use math; I think that's fascinating. MICHEL: I use it, but I don't brag about it with people that it turns off. So I have to be in the closet for this because people who work in manufacturing usually focus on concrete things, things that they can see and touch, and abstraction is not something that they respond well to. So whenever you explain a principle, my approach is to state this principle and then dig into some very specific examples right away; otherwise, I'm losing the people I'm talking to. But anyway, that's what I've had to do. TROND: So, did I capture your background okay? I mean, you've had a very international life so far. I hope it's been enjoyable and not just professional because you've spent your time in Germany, and Japan, and in the U.S., So you're really enjoying the different kinds of manufacturing environments. Or is it that you just want to be close to where it's all happening? MICHEL: I've enjoyed living in many different countries. And so you mentioned I'm French. I was born and raised in France, but I'm an American citizen, and I spent most of my life in the U.S. I think of myself as being part French, part American, part German, part Japanese. Because when I'm in a country, I tend to immerse myself in the culture; I don't stay aloof from it. TROND: Well, I'm curious about that because in the abstract... so if we are in the world of math, then you could maybe say that efficiency techniques are global; that was the idea. Some people have that idea, let's say, that efficiency is a global thing, and there's one thing called efficiency, and everybody should just learn it because then it's all better. It seems to me that because you spent a lot of time in three different places, it shows up differently. MICHEL: I don't use the word efficiency so much because it's limited. There are techniques to improve manufacturing performance in every aspect of it, efficiency only being one of them, and these techniques are pretty universal. Now, when you're trying to help people in different countries, it's a postulate. You have to postulate what works in one place will work in another. So far, I haven't found any reason to believe otherwise. I have encountered many people who are saying things like, "This is country X, and these techniques don't work because our people are from country X." It's one of the most common techniques to refuse to implement anything new. The fact is the Toyota Production System wasn't supposed to be applicable to American workers until Toyota applied it with American workers in its joint venture with GM in the early 1980s at NUMMI specifically. It became a showcase. Later, Toyota opened its own factory in the U.S. in Georgetown, Kentucky, and applied the system there. And then, a few years later, it opened its own factory in France, and it worked with French workers. So it's really the idea that this only works in certain cultures or this only works in Japan. It's just the reality is different. It works pretty much everywhere. TROND: Well, that's fascinating, though, because, like you said, you have immersed yourself in these different factory and industrial cultures, if you may, and you are implementing lean in all of them or advising on lean methods. Why don't we start with that, then, perhaps? Tell me a little bit, what is lean to you? MICHEL: Lean to me...and I use the term less and less because I think over the past 30 years, it's lost a lot of its meaning. When it first came out, it was the latest in a number of labels that have been applied to the same thing. In the early 1980s, you talked about just-in-time then there was world-class manufacturing. A number of different terms were used and never really caught on. This one caught on. And the way I took it, I took it to mean generic versions of the Toyota Production System. There are very good reasons why you can't call what you're proposing to a company that makes frozen foods a Toyota Production System. There are also very strong reasons why you can't even go to a car company and do this. It's very awkward for a car company to openly admit to be using a competitor's system. So you have to have a label that refers to the content but doesn't refer to where it's coming from. TROND: So for you, at the basic level, if you strip away everything, it still is essentially the Toyota Production System, and lean is just to you, I'm just paraphrasing, it's a convenient wrapping for a way to explain it in a way that's non-threatening. But it is essentially the lessons from the Toyota Production System from a while back. MICHEL: That's the way I took it. That's why I adopted this label in the early 1990s, but a lot of time has elapsed since then. Because it became popular, very many people started using that label. And the content they were putting under it was pretty much...they were attaching this label to whatever they were doing. It has lost a great deal of its meaning which is why at this point, I rarely refer to it. TROND: So you're saying a lot of people are attaching lean to whatever they're doing, I mean, understandably so, Michel, right? Because it's become a very successful term. It sells books. It sells consulting. It does refer back to something that you think is real. So can you understand why people would do this if you are in consulting, or even in teaching, or you work in an industry, and you're managing something, why people would resort to this label? MICHEL: First of all, consultants have to have a brand name for what they're selling. It was useful. As a brand name, you have to call what you're offering by a given name, and clients look for this. It's a keyword they look for, and that's how they find you. So it's really necessary. I'm not criticizing consultants for using that. TROND: No, no, I understand it. And, I mean, you're also a little bit in a glass box in the sense that you are within the general tent of lean yourself. So I understand that. I fully understand it. MICHEL: What happens when it's successful is that more and more people jump on this bandwagon and say, okay, I'm going to offer a lean. When you look at what they're saying, it does not reflect the original content. By about 2000s, it had evolved into...what most consultants were offering was drawing value stream maps and organizing Kaizen events. Those two keywords are absent from the Toyota Production System. TROND: Can you explain...so this is interesting. Because I was going to ask you exactly this, what are the types of elements that you react to the most that you feel is really...because one thing is to say it diverged from the original content, but if it is kind of a valuable extension of something...but you're saying value streams and the Kaizens, the Kaizen practices they have very little to do with the Toyota Production System in your reading. MICHEL: That's right. The value stream mapping is a new name for a technique that they call; I mean the translation of the original name is, Materials and Information Flow Analysis (MIFA), Mono to Joho no Nagare in Japanese, flow of materials and information. So that's one idea. And there is a particular graphic convention that has actually evolved from Toyota that became the value stream mapping graphic convention, but it never was in the Toyota context. Mike Rother's own admission (He wrote Learning to See, which promoted this technique.) said it was not an important topic at Toyota. It has some uses, but if you go on factory tours in Japan, you don't see a lot of value stream maps. And so it's been taken...it was a specific tool for a specific purpose like figuring out how to work with a particular supplier. And then it was made into this supposedly all-powerful analytical tool that is the first thing that you have to do when you go into a factory is map its value streams, so that's taking a very small part of what Toyota does and make it into this big thing. As for Kaizen Events, it's actually an American invention. It's something that came out of...in the early 1990s; there were a number of executives who were frustrated with the slow pace of lean implementation with other methods. So they came up with this format they called the Kaizen Blitz, that became the Kaizen events. It's also traced back to some Japanese consulting firms, which found this particular format as a convenient way to make good use of a trip from Japan to the U.S. They would organize one-week events at their clients because it was a good way to justify essentially the cost and the trouble of flying over. TROND: I'm going to go with your story here. So let's say these two are kind of examples for you of things diverting from the original content. Why don't we speak about what the original content then is for a minute? What is the core of the Toyota production method or of lean in its original form for you? MICHEL: Well, the Toyota Production System is something I'm very interested in and still studying. And it's not a static thing. It's something that, for example, the first publication about it was from the early 1970s, an internal document from Toyota with its suppliers. And then there have been many, many other publications about it through the decades. And it's changed in nature, and the concepts of manufacturing have evolved. By definition, the Toyota Production System is what Toyota does. They're very good at making cars. And so it's always important to try to keep up with what it is they're doing, knowing that there is a 5 to 10-year gap between the time they come up with new concepts and the time that the rest of the world gets to know about them. And so, in the early 1990s, there were essentially concepts of how to organize production lines, how to lay out production lines, how to design operator workstations. And there were concepts on how to regulate and manage the flow of materials and the flow of information between stations and lines and between suppliers and customers. And there was also an approach to the management of people and the whole human resource management aspect of hiring people for careers, having career plans for everybody, including shop floor operators, managing to improve the operations based on this infrastructure. So it's a very rich concept, and it encompasses every aspect of manufacturing, logistics, and production control, all the way to accountability. So it's compared with other things like the Theory of Constraints or TPM that are much more limited in scope. There is an approach to quality that Toyota has. The quality improvement is not all of the Toyota Production System. It's a complete system for making a product covering all the bases. TROND: Let me just pick up on one thing, so you're saying it's a complete system. So one thing you pointed out was the HR aspect, and hiring people for careers is one thing, but you also said the career plans for shop floor operators. So I took two things from that, and I was going to ask about this because this has been used as one example of why you cannot implement the Toyota Production System in the same way in different countries, namely because that is one aspect of society that a company doesn't fully control because it is regulated. So, for example, in Europe and in France, which you know, really well, and Germany, you know, employment is regulated in a different way. If a company was going to have the same HR policy in three different factories in three different countries, they would have to have, first of all, obviously, follow the national regulation. But then they would have to add things on top of that that would, you know, specific employee protections that are perhaps not part, for example, of U.S. work culture. So that's one thing I wanted to kind of point to. But the other thing is interesting. So you said career plans for shop floor operators meaning Toyota has a plan for even the basic level worker meaning the operators, the people who are on the floor. And that seems to me a little bit distinct. Because in the modern workplace, it is at least commonly thought that you spend more time both training and caring about people who are making career progression. And you don't always start at the bottom. You sort of hope that the smart people or whatever, the people who are doing the best job, are starting to advance, and then you invest in those people. But you're saying...is there something here in the Toyota Production System that cares about everybody? MICHEL: Yes. But let me be clear about something. The way Toyota manages HR is not something that there are a lot of publications about. There's probably a good reason for this is because they probably consider it to be their crown jewel, and they're not that keen to everybody knowing about it. A lot of the publications about it are quite old. But there's nothing in the regulations and labor laws of any country that prevent you from doing more for your employees than you're required to. TROND: That's a great point. That's a great point. MICHEL: So there are laws that forbid you from doing less than certain things, but they're not laws that prevent you from doing more. There is no rule that you have to offer career plans for production operators because there's nothing preventing you from doing it. In a completely different situation, a large company making personal products ranging from soap to frozen foods...I won't name what the company is, but they have a policy of not being committed to their workers. Essentially, if business is good, you hire people. If there's a downturn, you lay people off. They wanted to migrate from the situation where you have a lot of low-skilled employees that are essentially temps to a situation where they have higher level of qualification and fewer people. So the question is, how do you manage the transition? The way this company eventually did it in this particular plant was to define a new category of employee like, say, technical operator. And a technical operator will be recruited at higher a level of education than the general population of operators. They will be given more training in both hard skills and soft skills and the specific processes they're going to be running, and some additional training on how to manage the quality of these processes, that sort of thing. But at the level of a production operator, they will be put in charge of these processes. And this small group would be separate job categories than the others. And gradually, this evolves to a situation where you only hire into this group. You don't hire any more of the traditional operators. And then, you provide a transition path for the other operators to become members of that group so that over a period of time, gradually, the general population of less skilled, less stable operator shrinks. And you end up over a number of years with a situation where all of the operators that you have are these highly trained operators who are there for the duration. So that's one kind of pattern on how you can manage this kind of transition. TROND: Super interesting. Can I ask you a basic question? So you've been in this consulting part of this venture, you know, of this world for a long time. Where do you typically start? When do you get called, or when do you sign up to help a company, at what stage? What sort of challenge do they have? Do you visit them and tell them they do have a challenge? What is the typical problem a company might have that you can help with or that you choose to help with? MICHEL: There are a lot of different situations. One particular case was a company in defense electronics in the U.S. had a facility in Indiana, and they were migrating all this work to a new facility in Florida. What they told me...they called me in, and they told me that they wanted to take the opportunity of this move to change the way they were doing production. Generally, my answer to that would be, well, it's really difficult to combine a geographical change of facility with an improvement in the way you do the work. Normally, you improve first where you are. You don't try to combine transformation and migration. TROND: It's a funny thing, I would say. It seems like the opposite of what you should be doing to try to make one change at a time. MICHEL: But there were several circumstances that made it work. You can have general principles, and when you're in a real situation, it doesn't always apply. One is the circumstances under which they were doing this migration was such that the people in the old plant were in an environment where there was a labor shortage, so none of them had any problem finding jobs elsewhere if they didn't want to move to Florida. If they wanted to move to Florida, they could, if they didn't want to move to Florida, they had to leave the company, but there were plenty of other companies hiring around. And so there was not this kind of tension due to people losing their jobs and not having an alternative. And then, the transition was announced way ahead of time, so they had something like a 15-month period to plan for their transfer. And to my great surprise, the operators in the old plan were perfectly...were very helpful in figuring out the design for the new lines and contributed ideas. And there was no resentment of that situation. TROND: In this particular example and in other examples, to what extent is production, you know, process redesign a technology challenge, and to what extent is it a human workforce challenge? Or do you not separate the two? MICHEL: I try not to separate the two because you really have to consider them jointly. A technical solution that nobody wants to apply is not going to be helpful. And something everybody wants to apply but that doesn't work, is not going to be helpful either. So you have to consider both. And in this transition, by the way, between these two plants, most of the labor difficulties were in the new plant, not in the old one, because this plant became a section of the new plant. And none of the other lines in that new plant did anything similar, so it stood out as being very different from what all the other lines did. What all the other lines did is you had a structure that is common in electronics assembly where you have rows of benches at which people sat and did one operation, and then the parts were moved in batches between these rows of benches. And instead of that, we put cells where the parts moved one at a time between different operations. And it was also organized so that it could be expanded from the current volume of work to higher volume of work. And so a lot more went into the design. I was a consultant there, but I don't claim credit for the final design. It was the design of the people from the company. They actually got a prize within the company for having done something that was exceptionally good. And when I spoke with them a few years later, they had gone from having something like 20% of the space used for production in the new facility to having it completely full because they were able to expand this concept. MID-ROLL AD: In the new book from Wiley, Augmented Lean: A Human-Centric Framework for Managing Frontline Operations, serial startup founder Dr. Natan Linder and futurist podcaster Dr. Trond Arne Undheim deliver an urgent and incisive exploration of when, how, and why to augment your workforce with technology, and how to do it in a way that scales, maintains innovation, and allows the organization to thrive. The key thing is to prioritize humans over machines. Here's what Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, says about the book: "Augmented Lean is an important puzzle piece in the fourth industrial revolution." Find out more on www.augmentedlean.com, and pick up the book in a bookstore near you. TROND: Michel, I know that you have a consulting life and a consulting hat, but you also have a teaching hat and a teaching passion. Why did you write this recent textbook which is coming out on Routledge this fall, I believe, with Torbjø Netland from ETH? It's an Introduction to Manufacturing but with a very specific kind of industrial engineering perspective. You told me when we talked earlier that there's a really specific reason why you wrote this textbook, and you have some very, I guess, strong views or worries about how manufacturing education, but perhaps the way it's taught really needs to change. And you feel like some schools are drifting away from the core. What's happening there? MICHEL: Well, industrial engineering as a discipline is about 100 years old, take or leave a decade or two. It started out as...the way I describe it is the engineering of human work in the manufacturing environment. And it expanded to fields other than manufacturing, even at the time of pioneers like Frank and Lillian Gilbreth. For example, we know the way operating rooms in hospitals work with the surgeon being assisted by nurses who hand all the tools to the surgeon; that particular form of organization is due to Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, industrial engineers who looked at the way operating rooms worked and figured that you really don't want to leave a patient with his belly open on the table while the surgeon goes to fetch the tool. You got to have some people giving the tools to the surgeon so that the surgeon can keep operating on the patient. It sounds obvious now, but it wasn't obvious in 1910. And so they were immediately some applications outside of manufacturing, but the bulk of the work was on manufacturing. And the way it's evolved, especially in the past few decades, is that it's gotten away from that focus on human work. And when you look at the research interests of the academics in this field, you find that it's completely dominated by operations research and math. TROND: So we're back to the math. [chuckles] So I find it fascinating that...well, you obviously have a deep insight into it, so you are sensitized to the challenges of overfocusing on one technical discipline as kind of the mantra and the fodder, I guess, the research data for all kinds of processes. I mean, why is math such a big problem, and what do you mean by human work in industrial manufacturing? Because to many people, the advanced work right now is about digitization, digitalization, and it has to do with machines and computers, and one would assume with big data or at least with data. Are you arguing against that trend? MICHEL: No. I mean, if you ask the question of what is human work? The classical answer that I would give is what happens when the guy picks up the wrench. That's one answer. But what happens when the operator sees an alarm message on the control screen of a machine, that's a different answer, a more modern answer. So you had people with the torque wrench applying the right torque to a bolt manually, and then the torque wrench would tell him when the torque was achieved. That's one form of human work. But monitoring and looking after multiple machines that are connected and have a central control system is also human work. You also have people doing it. And they have to feed these machines. They have to make sure that the machines have the right kinds of tools and dyes available to them. They have to maintain these machines. They have to program these machines, and they have to monitor them during production. And one particular problem with automatic systems is micro stoppages. Are you familiar with that term? TROND: Well, explain it to all of us, micro stoppages. I mean stoppages, obviously, anything that stops the production line, whether it's a minor, major, I mean, that would be what I think you are saying. MICHEL: Well, if it's a big problem, the operator doesn't solve it. The operator calls maintenance, and maintenance sends somebody to solve it. Micro stoppage is a problem that's small enough for the operator to deal with. And so, in daily life or in any office life, one very common micro stoppage problem is the copier, right? You tell the copier to print 20 collated copies of a document, and you walk away expecting to find these 20 copies ready when you come back. It doesn't happen because there are some paper jams and so you have to clear the paper jam and restart. You have a lot of things like that in production where parts jam and shoots and stop coming down in automatic system. You have all sorts of issues like this which cause production lines to stop in a way that the operator can resolve in half a minute or a minute and restart. What these things cause is that you have to have an operator there. And so if you really want to have an automatic system that are fire and forget...when you press a button, you move away to do something else while the machine goes through an automatic cycle. When that automatic cycle is finished, you come back. Micro stoppages prevent you from doing that. And they're very difficult to avoid, but they're a major problem, even today. TROND: Michel, I wanted to keep talking about the educational part. But before that, I just wanted to benefit from your experience here and ask you a much more basic question which is so you're writing this textbook about the future or introducing prospective students to industrial engineering and manufacturing. My question is, historically, factories were a very, very big part of manufacturing. Nowadays, meaning in the last few years after the pandemic and other things, a lot of us start to spend a lot more time on an issue, which I'm assuming you have spent a lifetime working on as well, which is supply chain which goes far beyond the factory because it's not located in any one factory, if anything, it's a system of many factories, and it's obviously the supplies of material flows into the factory. And the reason I'm asking you about this is in thinking about the future, which I'll ask you about in a second, a lot of people are sort of factory of the future, this and that. And there are visions about how this is going to change. But it strikes me that manufacturing is and has always been so much more than the factory. What are the components that you really worry about? So, humans, you worry about humans. And you worry about materials. And then you obviously have to worry about the physical infrastructures that are regulating these things. What else goes into it on the macro level? What is this book about, I guess? MICHEL: We're talking about supply chains as well because, as you mentioned, they're a very important part of manufacturing. And when you design a manufacturing system to make a product, you have to make decisions about your products, about components of your product, and what you make in-house, and what you buy from the outside. And there's a major difference between supply chain issues relating to customers, on one hand, the suppliers on the other. It's not just suppliers; it's both sides, incoming supply chain and the outgoing as well. One major difference with what happens in the factory is that you don't control what other people decide, what other organizations decide. So when you manage a supply chain, you have to manage a network of organizations that are independent businesses. How do you get this network of independent businesses to work with you, to cooperate with you, to make your manufacturing successful? That is a big challenge in supply chain management. Inside a factory, that's an environment you control. It's your organization. What management says is supposed to go; it doesn't always, but it's supposed to go. And you have a lot more control over what happens inside than over what happens in the supply chain. And how much control you have over what happens in the supply chain depends greatly on your size. For example, if you're a small customer of a special kind of alloy that only has one manufacturer in the world, you're a very small customer to a very large manufacturer, a metals company. You're not in a position of strength to get that supplier to work with you. If you're a car company making 10 million cars a year and you're dealing with a company that is making forgings for engine parts, you have a lot of control. You have a lot of influence. You represent a large part of their business. They can't afford to lose you. You can't afford to lose them. You can replace them if they don't perform. They can't afford to lose you. They might go out of business if they did. So it's a very different kind of position to be in. And so when you deal with that sort of thing, you have to think through, what is my position with respect to suppliers and customers? Where is it? Where's the driving influence? And it's not always...power in a supply chain is not always resident with the company that does the final assembly of consumer products. In electronics, for example, semiconductor manufacturers are much more key than people who assemble computers. TROND: I wanted to ask you a little bit about the trends and how these things are evolving in the next decade and beyond that. And one example you gave me earlier when we talked was pilots and jetliners because manufacturing in...well, the aviation industry is an example of an industry that, yes, it has an enormous amount of high tech. It's a very advanced science-based development that has produced air travel. But yet these pilots...and I experienced it this summer, a pilot strike stops everything. So the role of people changes as we move into more advanced manufacturing. But people don't always disappear. What do you see as the biggest challenge of manufacturing and the role of manufacturing in the emerging society? What is going to happen here? MICHEL: What I think is going to happen is that in many countries, the manufacturing sector will remain a large part of the economy, but as economies advance, it will have a shrinking share of the labor market. So it's a distant future, maybe like that of agriculture, where 2% of the population does the work necessary to feed everybody else. And manufacturing is now about 10% of GDP in the U.S., 20% in Germany and Japan, about 10% in England, France, Italy. In China, we don't really know because they don't separate manufacturing from industry. And industry is a broader category that includes mining, and it includes road construction, et cetera. They don't separate out manufacturing, but really, it's a big sector of the economy. And so it can remain a big sector, that's not a problem. But you have to think through a transition where the number of people that you employ doing this kind of work goes down, their level of qualifications go up, and the nature of the work they do evolves towards telling machines what to do and maintaining machines. So telling machines what to do can be programming machines when you develop processes, or it can be scheduling what work the machines do. TROND: Is that incidentally why you have gone into teaching in a kind of an academic setting or at least influencing curriculum in an academic setting so much that you see a role here in the future? Beyond what's happening in factories today, you're quite concerned about what might happen in factories ten years from now, 20 years from now when these students become, I guess, managers, right? Because that's what happens if you get education in management at a good school, reading your hopefully great textbook. It takes a little time because you trickle down and become a manager and a leader in industry. So I guess my question then is, what is it that you want these people to know ten years from now when they become leaders? What sort of manufacturing processes should they foster? It is something where humans still matter for sure, and machines will have a bigger part of it. But there's things we need to do differently, you think? MICHEL: The airline pilot metaphor, you know, you have this $300 million piece of equipment. And how much money you make from operating it depends on these two people who are in the pilot's cabin. You have to pay attention to the work of people. And in most factories, the work of people today is an afterthought. So you put in machines. You put in production lines without thinking how will people get from the entrance of the building to where they actually work? TROND: I was going to say it's a fascinating example you had with the airline industry in the sense that, I mean, honestly, even in the old industrial revolution, these machines were expensive, but I guess even more so. I don't know if you've done any research on this, but the amount of dollars invested per worker presumably has to go up in this future you are talking about here where we're increasingly monitoring machines, even these perhaps in the past viewed as low-skilled jobs or operator jobs. I mean, you are operating, maybe not airplanes, but you're operating industrial 3D printers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars with presuming error rates that could be catastrophic, either for you, for the production line, or for the product you're making. MICHEL: Or photolithography machines that cost millions. TROND: Right. But then that begs the question for me, Michel, how on earth is it possible? If you are right about this that education has been somewhat neglected and skills has been neglected, how's that even explainable? If you are a responsible factory manager or executive of a large manufacturing firm, how could it have gotten...and I'm obviously paraphrasing here. I don't know if you think it's that bad. But how could it get this bad that you actually had to come out and say it's a massive problem? MICHEL: What happens is that you hear a lot about systems thinking, which, to me, it's pretty obvious there's more to a factory or more to a manufacturing system, to supply chain than the collection of its components; it's pretty obvious. And when you change the way a supplier delivers parts, it has an impact over what happens at the assembly workstations where these components are being used, for example. You have to think of the whole as a system. And you have to think about whenever you make any changes to it; you have to think through how these changes affect the whole. What's happening is that there has been a great deal of specialization of skills; I'm not talking about factory workers here. I'm talking about engineers and managers that have been put into silos where they run production control. They become production control manager in the factory. Their next career move is to become production control manager in the factory of a different company. TROND: So here's my open-ended question to you; you're sort of saying that industrial engineering, in one sense, needs to go back to its roots where it was. But the other side of the coin here is you're also talking about a world that's changing drastically. So my question is, the industrial engineer of the future, what kind of a person is this ideally, and what sort of skill sets and what sort of awareness does this person have? MICHEL: The skill sets that this person should have are both technical and managerial. It's management and technology considered together. So they may not be able to write code, or they may not be able to design how to cut a piece of metal, or how to tweak the electrical properties of a circuit, but they know the importance of these things. They've been exposed to them through their education and career. And they have an appreciation for what they are. So, for example, one particular task that has to be done in every manufacturing organization is technical data management. You have to manage the problem definition, the process definitions, which machines you use to do what, down to the process program that these machines run. All of this is data, technical data that has to be managed, put under revision control. And you'd expect someone with training in industrial engineering to understand the importance of revision control on this. If you change something to the cutting program of a milling machine, you may affect what happens elsewhere. You may affect the mechanical properties of the product and make it difficult to do a subsequent operation later. And that's why before you implement this change in production, you have to have a vetting process that results in revision management. So I would expect an industrial engineer to understand that. TROND: Well, you would expect an industrial engineer to understand that, but, I mean, some of the challenges that come from these observations that you're making here they impact all operators, not just engineers. And they certainly impact managers because they are about this whole system that you are explaining. So it sounds to me that you're mounting a pretty significant challenge to the future manufacturers, not just in skills development but in evolving the entire industrial system. Because if we're going to make this wonderful spacecraft, and solve the environmental crisis, and build these new, wonderful machines that everybody expects that are going to come churning out every decade, we certainly need an upskilled workforce, but we need a whole system that works differently, don't we? MICHEL: Yes. Can I give you a couple of examples? TROND: Yeah. MICHEL: One company outsourced the production of a particular component to a supplier then there were technical problems with actually producing this component with the supplier. So the customer company sent a couple of engineers to the supplier, and they found some problems with the drawing that had been provided to the supplier. And they made manual corrections to the drawings, the copies of the drawing in possession of the supplier. And it worked. It solved the immediate problem. But then, at the customer company, they didn't have the exact drawing. The only place with the exact drawings was at the suppliers. And a few years later, they wanted to terminate this supplier. TROND: Aha. MICHEL: You can see the situation. You want people to be able to understand that you just don't do that sort of thing. TROND: Right. So there are so many kinds of multiple dependencies that start to develop in a manufacturing production line, yeah. MICHEL: And then you find a company that's a subcontractor to the aircraft industry. And you find out they route parts through a process that has about 15 different operations. And the way they route these parts is they print a traveler that is 50 pages long, and it's on paper. And the measurements they make on the parts that they're required to make by their customer they actually record by hand on this paper. What's wrong with this picture? TROND: So yeah, multiple challenges here. MICHEL: Yes. TROND: Are you sensing that these things are fixable? Are you optimistic in terms of this awareness of all aspects of the systems changing both among managers and next-generation industrial engineers, and perhaps even among the operators themselves to realize they're getting a more and more central role in the production system? MICHEL: I won't try to prophesy what will happen to industry as a whole but what I'm confident about is that the companies that know how to address these problems will be dominant. Those are the sort of basic mistakes that really hurt you and hurt your competitive position. So there will be a selection over time that will eliminate people who do these kinds of mistakes. TROND: Michel, I don't want to put you on the spot here. And you have spent your career researching and tracking Toyota as an excellent, excellent manufacturer that has graciously taught other manufacturers a lot. And also, people have copied and tried to teach them Toyota methods, even if Toyota wasn't trying to teach everyone. Are there any other either individual companies or things that you would point to for the eager learner who is trying to stay on top of these things? I mean, so lean, obviously, and the Toyota Production System is still a reference point. But are there any other sources that in your career or as you're looking at the future where there is something to learn here? MICHEL: Oh yes. Toyota is a great source of information, but it's by far...it's not the only one. One of the key parts of Toyota's management system is Hoshin Planning. Hoshin Planning didn't come from Toyota; it came from Bridgestone tires. And so that's one case where a different company came up with a particular method. Honda is a remarkable company as well, so there are things to learn from Honda. HP was, under the leadership of its founders, a remarkable company. And they had their own way of doing things which they called The HP Way. Companies have recruited a lot of people...electronic companies have recruited a lot of people out of HP. And you feel when you meet the old timers who have experienced The HP Way, they feel nostalgia for it. And there were a lot of good things in The HP Way. They're worth learning about. So I also believe that it's worth learning about historical examples because history is still with us in a lot of ways. The Ford Model T plant of 100 years ago was a model for a lot of things at the time. It also had some pretty serious flaws, namely, its flexibility. And you still see people putting up the modern-day equivalent of a Model T plant with new products and new technology but without thinking about the need. That particular plant may have to be converted in the not-too-distant future into making a different product. So it's always worth looking at examples from 100 years ago, even today, not for the sake of history but because, in a lot of ways, history is still with us. TROND: Well, on that note, history is still with us; I thank you for this, Michel. And I shall remember to forget the right things, right? So history is still with us, but [laughs] you got to know what to remember and what to forget. Thank you so much. MICHEL: Culture is what remains once you've forgotten everything. TROND: [laughs] On that note, Michel, thank you so much for your time here and for sharing from your remarkable journey. Thank you. MICHEL: You're welcome. TROND: You have just listened to another episode of the Augmented Podcast with host Trond Arne Undheim. The topic was Lean Manufacturing. Our guest was Michel Baudin, author, and owner of The Takt Times Group. In this conversation, we talked about how industrial engineering equals the engineering of human work and why manufacturing and industrial engineering education needs to change because it has drifted away from industrial work. And indeed, we are looking at a future where manufacturing is not going away. My takeaway is that lean manufacturing might mean many things, but industrial work has largely been a consistent practice over several hundred years, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Having said that, if we want to go about improving it, we might want to stay pretty close to the workforce and not sit in statistics labs far removed from it. Efficiency is tied to work practices, and they cannot be optimized beyond what the workforce can handle or want to deal with. As we attempt to be lean, whatever we mean by that, we need to remember that work is a thoroughly human endeavor. Thanks for listening. If you liked the show, subscribe at augmentedpodcast.co or in your preferred podcast player, and rate us with five stars. If you liked this episode, you might also like Episode 84 on The Evolution of Lean with Professor Torbjørn Netland from ETH Zürich. Hopefully, you'll find something awesome in these or in other episodes, and if so, do let us know by messaging us because we would love to share your thoughts with other listeners. The Augmented Podcast is created in association with Tulip, the frontline operation platform connecting people, machines, devices, and systems used in a production or logistics process in a physical location. Tulip is democratizing technology and empowering those closest to operations to solve problems. Tulip is also hiring, and you can find Tulip at tulip.co. Please share this show with colleagues who care about where industry and especially where industrial tech is heading. To find us on social media is easy; we are Augmented Pod on LinkedIn and Twitter and Augmented Podcast on Facebook and YouTube. Augmented — industrial conversations that matter. See you next time. Special Guest: Michel Baudin.

Skuespilleren Ryan Reynolds har sagt ja til at få lavet en koloskopi på direkte TV, for at sætte fokus på tarmsygdomme. Dennis er i tvivl om man egentlig screener mænd for tarmsygdomme, i Danmark og det skulle vi selvfølgelig undersøge, i morges.

Augmented reveals the stories behind the new era of industrial operations, where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. The topic is "The People Side of Lean." Our guest is Jeffrey Liker, academic, consultant, and best-selling author of The Toyota Way (https://www.amazon.com/Toyota-Way-Management-Principles-Manufacturer/dp/B09BDC3525/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2JABTVWQBAZC8&keywords=the+toyota+way&qid=1661872838&sprefix=the+toyot%2Caps%2C107&sr=8-1). In this conversation, we talk about how to develop internal organizational capability and problem-solving skills on the frontline. If you liked this show, subscribe at augmentedpodcast.co (https://www.augmentedpodcast.co/). If you liked this episode, you might also like Episode 84 on The Evolution of Lean (https://www.augmentedpodcast.co/84). Augmented is a podcast for industry leaders, process engineers, and shop floor operators, hosted by futurist Trond Arne Undheim (https://trondundheim.com/) and presented by Tulip (https://tulip.co/). Follow the podcast on Twitter (https://twitter.com/AugmentedPod) or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/75424477/). Trond's Takeaway: Lean is about motivating people to succeed in an industrial organization more than it is about a bundle of techniques to avoid waste on a factory production line. The goal is to have workers always asking themselves if there is a better way. Transcript: TROND: Welcome to another episode of the Augmented Podcast. Augmented brings industrial conversations that matter, serving up the most relevant conversations on industrial tech. Our vision is a world where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. In this episode of the podcast, the topic is the People Side of Lean. Our guest is Jeffrey Liker, academic, consultant, and best-selling author of The Toyota Way. In this conversation, we talk about how to develop internal organizational capability, problem-solving skills on the frontline. Augmented is a podcast for industry leaders, process engineers, and shop floor operators, hosted by futurist Trond Arne Undheim and presented by Tulip. Jeffrey, how are you? Welcome to the podcast. JEFFREY: Thank you. TROND: So I think some people in this audience will have read your book or have heard of your book and your books but especially the one that I mentioned, Toyota. So I think we'll talk about that a little bit. But you started out as an engineering undergrad at Northeastern, and you got yourself a Ph.D. in sociology. And then I've been reading up on you and listening to some of the stuff on the musical side of things. I think we both are guitarists. JEFFREY: Oh, is that right? TROND: Yeah, yeah, classical guitar in my case. So I was wondering about that. JEFFREY: So I play also a classical guitar now. I played folk and rock earlier when I was young. But for the last more than ten years, I've been only studying classical guitar. TROND: Well, so then we share a bunch of hours practicing the etude, so Fernando Sor, and eventually getting to the Villa-Lobos stuff. So the reason I bring that up, of course, beyond it's wonderful to talk about this kind of stuff with, you know, there aren't that many classical guitarists out there. But you said something that I thought maybe you could comment on later. But this idea of what happened to you during your studies of classical guitar actually plays into what you later brought into your professional life in terms of teaching you something about practicing in particular ways. So I hope you can get into that. But obviously, you've then become a professor. You are a speaker and an advisor, and an author of this bestseller, The Toyota Way. Now you run some consulting. And I guess I'm curious; this was a very, very brief attempt at summarizing where you got into this. What was it that brought you into manufacturing in the first place? I mean, surely, it wasn't just classical guitar because that's not a linear path. [laughs] JEFFREY: No. So for undergraduate, I had basically studied industrial engineering because I didn't really know what I wanted to do with my life. And my father was an engineer. And then I literally took a course catalog and just started reading the descriptions of different kinds of engineering. And industrial engineering was the only one that mentioned people. And in theory, industrial engineering is a systems perspective which integrates people, materials, methods, machines, the four Ms. And in the description from Northeastern University, they said it's as much about human organization as it is about tools and techniques. So that appealed to me. When I got to Northeastern...I was not a particularly good high school student. So I didn't have a lot of choices of what colleges I went to, so Northeastern was pretty easy to get into. But they had a cooperative education program where you go to school, and you work. You go back and forth between school and work and had a pretty elaborate system for setting you up with jobs. I got one of the better jobs, which was at a company called General Foods Corporation at the time, and they make things like Jell-O, and Gravy Train dog food, and Birds Eye vegetables, and a lot of other household names, Kool-Aid, all automated processes, even at that time in the 1970s. And they had been experimenting with something called socio-technical systems, which is supposed to be what I was interested in, which is bringing together the social and technical, which no one at Northeastern University had any interest in except me. But I was very interested in this dog food plant where they were written up as a case study pioneer. And the basic essence of it was to give groups of people who are responsible, for example, for some automated processes to make a certain line of Gravy Train dog food, give them responsibility for all their processes, and they called them autonomous workgroups. And what we try to do is as much as possible, give them all the responsibility so they can work autonomously without having to go and find the engineer or deal with other support functions, which takes time and is kind of a waste. So that fascinated me. I studied it. I wrote papers about it even in courses where it didn't fit. But the closest I could get to the social side was through sociology courses which I took as soon as I was able to take electives, which was about my third year. And I got to know a sociology professor closely and ultimately decided to get a Ph.D. in sociology and did that successfully, published papers in sociology journals at a pretty high level. And then discovered it was really hard to get a job. TROND: Right. [laughs] JEFFREY: And there happened to be an advertisement from an industrial engineering department at University of Michigan for someone with a Ph.D. in a social science and an undergraduate degree in industrial engineering. And I was probably the only person in the world that fit the job. And they were so excited to hear from me because they had almost given up. And I ended up getting that job quickly then getting to Michigan excited because it's a great university. I had a low teaching load. They paid more than sociology departments. So it was like a dream job. Except once I got there, I realized that I had no idea what I was supposed to be doing [chuckles] because it wasn't a sociology department. And I had gotten away from industry. In fact, I was studying family development and life's course development, and more personal psychology and sociology stuff. So I was as far away as I could be. So I had to kind of figure out what to do next. And fortunately, being at Michigan and also being unique, a lot of people contacted me and wanted me to be part of their projects. And one of them was a U.S.-Japan auto study comparing the U.S.-Japan auto industry going at the same time as a study at MIT and Harvard that ultimately led to the book The Machine That Changed the World, which defined lean manufacturing. So this was sort of a competitive program. And they asked me to be part of it, and that's what led to my learning about Toyota. I mean, I studied Toyota, Nissan, Mazda mainly and compared them to GM, Ford, and Chrysler. But it was clear that Toyota was different and special. And ultimately, then I learned about the Toyota Production System. And from my perspective, not from people in Toyota, but from my perspective, what they had done is really solve the problem of socio-technical systems. Because what I was seeing at General Foods was workers who were responsible for technical process and then were given autonomy to run the process, but there was nothing really socio-technical about it. There was a technical system, and then there was social system autonomous work groups and not particularly connected in a certain way. But the Toyota Production System truly was a system that was designed to integrate people with the technical system, which included things like stamping, and welding, and painting, which were fairly automated as well as assembly, which is purely manual. And Toyota had developed this back in the 1940s when it was a lone company and then continued to evolve it. And the main pillars are just-in-time and built-in quality. They have a house, and then the foundation is stable and standardized processes. And in the center are people who are continuously improving. Now, the socio-technical part the connection is that just-in-time for Toyota means that we're trying to flow value to the customer without interruption. So if what they do is turn raw materials into cars that you drive, then anything that's turning material into a component or car physically is value-added, and everything else is waste. And so things like defects where you have to do rework are waste. And machines are shut down, so we have to wait for the machines to get fixed; that's waste. And inventory sitting in piles doing nothing is waste. So the opposite of waste is a perfect process. And Toyota also was smart enough, and all that they figured out was more like folk learning or craft learning. It was learning from doing and experience and common sense. And they didn't particularly care about linking it to academic theories or learning from academic theories, for that matter. So their common sense view is that the world is complicated. Humans are really bad at predicting the future. So the best we can do is to get in the ballpark with what we think is a good process and then run it and see how it fails. And then the failures are what lead to then the connection of people who have to solve the problems through creative thinking. So that was the integration that I did not see before that. TROND: Just one thing that strikes me...because nowadays, comparing the U.S. or Europe and Asia in terms of business practices, it's sort of like, oh, of course, you have to compare them because they are culturally different. But it strikes me that in the automotive industry, was it immediately really clear to you at the outset that there would be such striking differences between the Japanese and the U.S. auto industry? Or is that actually something that had to be studied? Or was it something that was known, but no one really knew exactly what the differences were? JEFFREY: So it wasn't like the American auto companies figured out that if they get good at using chopsticks, they'll be good at making cars. They weren't looking for something peculiar in Japanese culture. But they were addressing the more general problem, which was that Japanese companies were making small fuel-efficient cars at low cost with high quality. And none of the American companies could do that. The costs were higher. The quality was terrible compared to Japan. They took a long time to do everything, including developing cars. So somehow, the Japanese were purported, they weren't convinced this was true, but according to the evidence, the Japanese were purported to be better at just about everything. And the Americans wanted to know why particularly. And at that time, there had been an oil crisis, and there was a demand for small cars. The real question they were interested in is how could they make small cars that were competitive with the Japanese? So they had to understand what the Japanese were doing. Now, they realized that some of what the Japanese were doing were purely technical things that had nothing to do with culture. And then there was also a level of attention to detail and motivation that maybe was, for some reason, peculiar to Japan. But they needed to figure out how to replicate it in the United States. And then, in addition to that, they had Americans like Dr. Deming, who had gone to Japan and taught the Japanese supposedly quality control methods. And Japanese companies had taken quality control methods that were created in the United States more seriously than the American companies. So part of it was relearning what came from America to Japan and got done better. So it wasn't necessarily this kind of strange place, and how can we emulate this strange culture? TROND: Right. But that becomes then your challenge then, right? Because what you then discover is that your field is immensely important to this because what you then went on to do is...and I guess part of your consulting work has been developing internal organizational capability. These are skills that particular organizations, namely Toyota, had in Japan. So you're thinking that this then became...it's like a learning process, the Japanese learned some lessons, and then the whole rest of the automotive industry then they were trying to relearn those lessons. Is that sort of what has been happening then in the 30 years after that? JEFFREY: Yeah, the basic question was, why are they so good? Why are we so bad? And how can we get better in America? Then there were lots of answers to that question coming from different people in different places. My particular answer was that Toyota especially had developed a socio-technical system that was extremely effective, that was centered on people who were developed to have the skills of problem-solving and continuous improvement. And while the study was going on, they were doing a study out of MIT that led to The Machine That Changed the World. And around that same time, a joint venture between Toyota and General Motors had been formed called NUMMI. It was in California. And in their first year, it was launched in 1983, and in the first year, they had taken what was the worst General Motors plant in the world, with the worst attendance, the worst morale, workers who were fighting against supervisors every day, including physically fighting with them, terrible quality, and General Motors had closed the plant because it was so bad. And then, in the joint venture, they reopened the plant and took back 80% of the same workers who were like the worst of the worst of American workers. And within a year, Toyota had turned the plant around so that it was the best in North America with the best workers. TROND: That's crazy, right? Because wouldn't some of the research thesis in either your study or in the MIT study, The Machine That Changed the World, would have to have been around technology or at least some sort of ingenious plan that these people had, you know, some secret sauce that someone had? Would you say that these two research teams were surprised at finding that the people was the key to the difference here or motivating people in a different way? JEFFREY: Well, frankly, I think I probably had a better grasp that people were really the key than most other researchers because of my background and my interest in human-centered manufacturing. So I was kind of looking for that. And it was what the Toyota people would say...whenever they made a presentation or whenever you interviewed them, they would say, "People are kind of distracted by the tools and methods, but really at the center are people." And generally, most people listening to them didn't believe it, or it didn't register. Because Toyota did have cool stuff, like, for example, something called a kanban system, which is how do you move material around in the factory? They have thousands of parts that have to all be moved and orchestrated in complicated ways. And Toyota did it with physical cards. And the concept was a pulse system that the worker; when they see that they're getting low on parts, they take a card and they post it. They put it in a box, and then the material handler picks it up. And they said, okay, they need another bin of these. On my next route, I'll bring a bin of whatever cards I get. So they were replenishing the line based on a signal from the operator saying, "I need more." So it was a signal from the person who knows best what they need. And it also, from Toyota's point of view, put the employee in the driver's seat because now they're controlling their supply in addition to controlling their work process. And it didn't require that you predict the future all the time because who knows what is happening on the line and where they're backed up, and where they maybe have too many parts, and they don't need more? But the worker knows. He knows when he needs it and when he doesn't. It was kind of an ingenious system, but the fact that you had these cards moving all over the factory and thousands of parts are moving just to the right place at the right time based on these cards, that was fascinating. So a lot of the consumers were more interested in that than they were in the people aspect, even though Toyota kept talking about the people aspect. TROND: But so this is my question, then there was more than one element that they were doing right. JEFFREY: There were multiple elements, yeah. TROND: There were multiple elements. Some of them were structural or visual, famously. JEFFREY: Right. TROND: But you then started focusing, I guess, on not just the people aspect, but you started structuring that thinking because the obvious question must have been, how can we do some of this ourselves? And I guess that's my question is once you and the team started figuring out okay, there are some systematic differences here in the way they motivate people, handle the teams, but also structure, honestly, the organizational incentives minute by minute, how then did you think about transferring this? Or were you, at this point, just really concerned about describing it? JEFFREY: Like I said, I was kind of unusual in my background, being somewhere between industrial engineering and sociology and being in industrial engineering departments. So maybe I wasn't as constrained by some of the constraints of my academic colleagues. But I never believed this whole model that the university gathers information structures that formulates it, then tells the world what to do. I never thought that made any sense. And certainly, in the case of lean, it didn't, and it wasn't true. So the way that companies were learning about this stuff was from consultants, largely, and from people who had worked for Toyota. So anybody who had worked for Toyota, even if they were driving a forklift truck, in some cases, suddenly became a hot commodity. I consulted to Ford, and they were developing the Ford Production System. They were using a consulting firm, and all their consulting firm's business was to poach people from Toyota and then sell them as consultants to other companies. And that company literally had people every day of the week who were in their cars outside the gates of Toyota. And as people came out, they would start talking to them to try to find people that they could hire away from Toyota. TROND: It's funny to hear you talking about that, Jeff, right? Because in some way, you, of all people, you're a little bit to blame for the fame of Toyota in that sense. I mean, you've sold a million books with The New Toyota -- JEFFREY: Well, that was -- TROND: I'm just saying it's a phenomenon here that people obsess over a company, but you were part of creating this movement and this enormous interest in this. [laughs] JEFFREY: I didn't feel that that was...I personally had a policy because I had a consulting company too. So I personally had a policy that I would not hire somebody away from Toyota unless they were leaving anyway. That was my personal policy. But the important point was that there were a lot of really well-trained people coming out of Toyota who really understood the whole system and had lived it. And they could go to any other company and do magic, and suddenly things got better. [laughs] And what they were doing was setting up the structures and the tools, and they also were engaging the people and coaching the people. They were doing both simultaneously, and that's how they were trained. Toyota had sent an army of Japanese people to America. So every person who was in a leadership position had a one-on-one coach for years, a person whose only reason for being in the United States was to train them. So they got excellent training, and then they were able to use that training. And then other people once they had worked with a company and then that company got good at lean, then, within that company, you'd spawn more consultants change agents. Like, there was a company that I was studying called Donnelly Mirrors that made exterior mirrors for cars. And one of the persons that was trained by a Toyota person became a plant manager. And he ended up then getting offered a job as the vice president of manufacturing for Merillat Kitchen Cabinets. And now he's the CEO of the parent company that owns Merillat. And he's transformed the entire company. So little by little, this capability developed where most big companies in the world have hired people with lean experience. Sometimes it's second generation, sometimes third generation. And there are some very well-trained people. So the capability still resides within the people. And if you have someone who doesn't understand the system but they just set up a kanban system or they set up quality systems, and they try to imitate what they read in a book or what they learned in a course; usually, it doesn't work very well. TROND: Well, that was going to be my next question. Because how scalable is this beyond the initial learnings of Toyota and the fact that it has relied so heavily on consulting? Because there is sort of an alternate discourse in a lot of organizational thinking these days that says, well, not just that the people are the key to it but actually, that as a leader, however much you know or how aware you are of people processes, it is the organization itself that kind of has to find the answers. So there's perhaps some skepticism that you can come in and change a culture. Aren't there organizations that have such strong organizational practices, whether they are cultural in some meaningful way or they're simply this is the way they've done things that even one person who comes in has a hard time applying a Toyota method? What do you think about that kind of challenge? JEFFREY: Okay, so, anyway, I think what you said is...how I would interpret it is it's a gross oversimplification of reality. So first of all, in the second edition of The Toyota Way, because I realized from the first edition, which was fairly early back in the early 2000s, I realized that some people were taking my message as copy Toyota, even though I didn't say that in the book. And I specifically said not to do that, but I said it in the last chapter. So I put out the second edition a year ago, and I say it in the first page or first few pages. I say, "Don't copy Toyota," and explain why. And then, throughout the book, I say that, and then, in the end, I say, "Develop your own system." So it's probably repeated a dozen times or more with the hope that maybe somebody would then not ask me after reading it, "So, are we supposed to copy Toyota?" So the reason for that is because, as you said, you have your own culture. And you're in a different situation. You're in a different industry. You're starting in a different place. You're drawing on different labor. You have maybe plants around the world that are in different situations. So the other thing I said in the book, which is kind of interesting and counterintuitive, is I said, "Don't copy Toyota; even Toyota doesn't copy Toyota." TROND: So what does that mean? Did they really not? JEFFREY: What it means is that...because Toyota had this dilemma that they had developed this wonderful system in Japan that worked great, but they realized that in auto, you need to be global to survive. So when they set up NUMMI, that was the first experiment they did to try to bring their system to a different culture. And in reality, if you look at some of the cultural dimensions that make lean work in Japan, the U.S. is almost opposite on every one of them, like, we're the worst case. So if you were a scientist and you said, let's find the hardest place in the world to make this work and see if we can make it work, it would be the United States, particularly with General Motors workers already disaffected and turned off. So Toyota's perspective was, let's go in with a blank sheet of paper and pretend we know nothing. We know what the total production system is and what we're trying to achieve with it. But beyond that, we don't know anything about the human resource system and how to set it up. And so they hired Americans, and they coached them. But they relied a lot on Americans, including bringing back the union leader of the most militant union in America. They brought him back. TROND: Wow. JEFFREY: And said, "You're a leader for a reason. They chose you. We need your help. We're going to teach you about our system, but you need to help make it work." So that created this sort of new thing, a new organizational entity in California. And then what Toyota learned from that was not a new solution that they then brought to every other plant, whether it was Czechoslovakia, or England, or China. But rather, they realized we need to evolve a cultural system every time we set up a plant, starting with the local culture. And we need to get good at doing that, and they got good at doing it. So they have, I don't know, how many plants but over 100 plants around the world and in every culture you can imagine. And every one of them becomes the benchmark for that country as one of their best plants. And people come and visit it and are amazed by what they see. The basic principles are what I try to explain in The Toyota Way. The principles don't change. At some level, the principle is we need continuous improvement because we never know how things are going to fail until they fail. So we need to be responding to these problems as a curse. We need people at every level well trained at problem-solving. And to get people to take on that additional responsibility, we need to treat people with a high level of respect. So their model, The Toyota Way, was simply respect for people and continuous improvement. And that won't change no matter where they go. And their concept of how to teach problem-solving doesn't change. And then their vision of just-in-time one-piece flow that doesn't change, and their vision of building in quality so that you don't allow outflows of poor quality beyond your workstation that doesn't change. So there are some fundamental principles that don't change, but how exactly they are brought into the plant and what the human resource system looks like, there'll be sort of an amalgam between the Japanese model and the local model. But they, as quickly as possible, try to give local autonomy to people from that culture to become the plant managers, to become the leaders. And they develop those people; often, those people will go to Japan for periods of time. TROND: So, Jeff, I want to move to...well, you say a lot of things with Toyota don't change because they adapt locally. So my next question is going to be about future outlook. But before we get there, can we pick up on this classical guitar lesson? So you were playing classical guitar. And there was something there that, at least you said that in one interview that I picked up on, something to do with the way that guitar study is meticulous practice, which both you and I know it is. You literally will sit plucking a string sometimes to hear the sound of that string. I believe that was the example. So can you explain that again? Because, I don't know, maybe it was just me, but it resonated with me. And then you brought it back to how you actually best teach this stuff. Because you were so elaborate, but also you rolled off your tongue all these best practices of Toyota. And unless you either took your course or you are already literate in Toyota, no one can remember all these things, even though it's like six different lessons from Toyota or 14 in your book. It is a lot. But on the other hand, when you are a worker, and you're super busy with your manager or just in the line here and you're trying to pick up on all these things, you discovered with a colleague, I guess, who was building on some of your work some ways that had something in common with how you best practice classical guitar. What is that all about? JEFFREY: Well, so, first of all, like I said, the core skill that Toyota believes every person working for Toyota should have is what they call problem-solving. And that's the ability to, when they see a problem, to study what's really happening. Why is this problem occurring? And then try out ideas to close the gap between what should be happening and what is happening. And you can view that as running experiments. So the scientific mindset is one of I don't know. I need to collect the data and get the evidence. And also, I don't know if my idea works until I test it and look at what happens and study what happens. So that was very much central in Toyota. And they also would talk about on-the-job development, and they were very skeptical of any classroom teaching or any conceptual, theoretical explanations. So the way you would learn something is you'd go to the shop floor and do it with a supervisor. So the first lesson was to stand in a circle and just observe without preconceptions, kind of like playing one-string guitar. And the instructor would not tell you anything about what you should be looking for. But they would just ask you questions to try to dig deeper into what's really going on with the problems or why the problems are occurring. And the lesson length with guitar, you might be sweating after 20 minutes of intense practice. This lesson length was eight hours. So for eight hours, you're just on the shop floor taking breaks for lunch and to go to the bathroom and in the same place just watching. So that was just an introductory lesson to open your mind to be able to see what's really happening. And then they would give you a task to, say, double the productivity of an area. And you would keep on trying. They would keep on asking questions, and eventually, you would achieve it. So this on-the-job development was learning by doing. Now, later, I came to understand that the culture of Japan never really went beyond the craftsman era of the master-apprentice relationship. That's very central throughout Japan, whether you're making dolls, or you're wrapping gifts, or you're in a factory making a car. So the master-apprentice relationship system is similar to you having a guitar teacher. And then, if you start to look at modern psychology leadership books, popular leadership books, there's a fascination these days with the idea of habits, how people form habits and the role of habits in our lives. So one of my former students, Mike Rother, who had become a lean practitioner, we had worked together at Ford, for example, and was very good at introducing the tools of lean and transforming a plant. He started to observe time after time that they do great work. He would check in a few months later, and everything they had done had fallen apart and wasn't being followed anymore. And his ultimate conclusion was that what they were missing was the habit of scientific thinking that Toyota put so much effort into. But he realized that it would be a bad solution to, say, find a Toyota culture -- TROND: Right. And go study scientific thinking. Yeah, exactly. JEFFREY: Right. So he developed his own way in companies he was working with who let him experiment. He developed his own way of coaching people and developing coaches inside the company. And his ultimate vision was that every manager becomes a coach. They're a learner first, and they learn scientific thinking, then they coach others, which is what Toyota does. But he needed more structure than Toyota had because the Toyota leaders just kind of learned this over the last 25 years working in the company. And he started to create this structure of practice routines, like drills we would have in guitar. And he also had studied mastery. There's a lot of research about how do you master any complex skill, and it was 10,000 hours of practice and that idea. But what he discovered was that the key was deliberate practice, where you always know what you should be doing and comparing it to what you are doing, and then trying to close the gap. And that's what a good instructor will do is ask you to play this piece, realize that you're weak in certain areas, and then give you an exercise. And then you practice for a week and come back, and he listens again to decide whether you've mastered or not or whether he needs to go back, or we can move to the next step. So whatever complex skill you're learning, whether it's guitar, playing a sport, or learning how to cook, a good teacher will break down the skill into small pieces. And then, you will practice those pieces until you get them right. And the teacher will judge whether you got them right or not. And then when you're ready, then you move on. And then, as you collect these skills, you start to learn to make nice music that sounds good. So it turns out that Mike was developing this stuff when he came across a book on the martial arts. And they use the term kata, which is used in Japanese martial arts for these small practice routines, what you do repeatedly exactly as the master shows you. And the master won't let you move on until you've mastered that one kata. Then they'll move to the second kata and then third. And if you ask somebody in karate, "How many katas do you have?" They might say, "46," and you say, "Wow, you're really good. You've mastered 46 kata, like playing up through the 35th Sor exercise. So he developed what he called the improvement kata, which is here is how you practice scientific thinking, breaking it down into pieces, practicing each piece, and then a coaching kata for what the coach does to coach the student. And the purpose of the scientific thinking is not to publish a paper in a journal but to achieve a life goal, which could be something at work, or it could be that I want to lose weight. It could be a personal goal, or I want to get a new job that pays more and is a better job. And it becomes an exploration process of setting the goal. And then breaking down the goal into little pieces and then taking a step every day continuously toward, say, a weekly target and then setting the next week's target, and next week's target and you work your way up the mountain toward the goal. So that became known as Toyota Kata. He wrote a book called Toyota Kata. And then, I put into my model in the new Toyota Way; in the center of the model, I put scientific thinking. And I said this is really the heart and soul of The Toyota Way. And you can get this but only by going back to school, but not school where you listen to lectures but school where you have to do something, and then you're getting coached by someone who knows what they're doing, who knows how to be a coach. TROND: So my question following this, I think, will be interesting to you, or hopefully, because we've sort of gone through our conversation a little bit this way without jumping to the next step too quickly. Because the last question that I really have for you is, what are the implications of all of this? You have studied, you know, Toyota over years and then teaching academically, and in industry, you've taught these lessons. But what are the implications for the future development of, I guess, management practice in organizations, in manufacturing? Given all that you just said and what you've previously iterated about Toyota's ideas that not a lot of things change or necessarily have to change, how then should leaders go about thinking about the future? And I'm going to put in a couple of more things there into the future. I mean, even just the role of digital, the role of technology, the role of automation, all of these things, that it's not like they are the future, but they are, I guess, they are things that have started to change. And there are expectations that might have been brought into the company that these are new, very, very efficient improvement tools. But given everything that you just said about katas and the importance of practicing, how do you think and how do you teach preparing for the future of manufacturing? JEFFREY: And I have been working with a variety of companies that have developed what you might call industry 4.0 technologies, digital technologies, and I teach classes where a lot of the students are executives from companies where in some cases, they have a dual role of lean plus digitalization. So they're right at the center of these two things. And what I learned going back to my undergraduate industrial engineering days and then to my journey with Toyota, I was always interested in the centrality of people, whatever the tools are. And what I was seeing as an undergraduate was that most of the professors who were industrial engineers really didn't have much of a concept of people. They were just looking at techniques for improving efficiency as if the techniques had the power themselves. And what I discovered with people in IT, and software development, and the digital movement is often they don't seem to have a conception of people. And people from their point of view are basically bad robots [laughs] that don't do what they're supposed to do repeatedly. So the ultimate view of some of the technologists who are interested in industry 4.0 is to eliminate the people as much as possible and eliminate human judgment by, for example, putting it into artificial intelligence and having the decisions made by computers. I'm totally convinced from lots of different experiences with lots of different companies that the AI is extremely powerful and it's a breakthrough, but it's very weak compared to the human brain. And what the AI can do is to make some routine decisions, which frees up the person to deal with the bigger problems that aren't routine and can also provide useful data and even some insight that can help the person in improving the process. So I still see people as the ultimate customer for the insights that come out of this digital stuff, Internet of Things, and all that. But in some cases, they can control a machine tool and make an automatic adjustment without any human intervention, but then the machine breaks down. And then the human has to come in and solve the problem. So if you're thinking about digitalization as tools to...and sometimes have a closed loop control system without the person involved. But in addition, maybe, more importantly, to provide useful data to the human, suddenly, you have to think about the human and what makes us tick and what we respond to. And for example, it's very clear that we're much better at taking in visual information than text information. And that's one of the things that is part of the Toyota Production System is visual management. So how can you make the results of what the AI system come up with very clear and simple, and visual so people can respond quickly to the problem? And most of these systems are really not very good. The human user interface is not well designed because they're not starting with the person. And the other thing is that there are physical processes. Sometimes I kind of make a sarcastic remark, like, by the way, the Internet of Things actually includes things. TROND: [laughs] JEFFREY: And there's a different skill set for designing machines and making machines work and repairing machines than there is for designing software. There are a lot of physical things that have to go on in a factory, changing over equipment, be it for making different parts. And the vision of the technologists might be we'll automate all that, which may be true. Maybe 30 years from now, most of what I say about people will be irrelevant in a factory. I doubt it. But maybe it's 100 years from now, but it's going to be a long time. And there was an interesting study, for example, that looked at the use of robots. And they looked at across the world jobs that could be done by a human or could be done by a robot. And they found that of all the jobs that could be done by a human or a robot, 3% were done by robots, 97%...so this kind of vision of the robots driven by artificial intelligence doing the work of people is really science fiction. It's mostly fiction at this point. At some point, it might become real, but it's got a long way to go. So we still need to understand how to motivate, develop people. But particularly, the more complex the information becomes and the more information available, the more important it is to train people first of all in problem-solving and scientific thinking to use the data effectively and also to simplify the data because we're actually not very good at using a lot of data. We actually can't handle a lot of bits of data at a time like a computer can. So we need simple inputs that then allow us to use our creativity to solve the problem. And most of the companies are not doing that very well. They're offering what they call digital solutions, and I hate that term, on the assumption that somehow the digital technology is the solution. And really, what the digital technology is is just information that can be an input to humans coming up with solutions that fit their situation at that time, not generic solutions. TROND: It's fascinating that you started out with people. You went through all these experiences, and you are directly involved with digital developments. But you're still sticking to the people. We'll see how long that lasts. I think people, from the people I have interviewed, maybe self-selected here on the podcast, people and processes seem enormously important still in manufacturing. Thank you for your perspective. It's been a very rich discussion. And I hope I can bring you back. And like you said if in X number of years people are somehow less important...well, I'm sure their role will change, will adjust. But you're suspecting that no matter what kind of technology we get, there will be some role, or there should be some role for people because you think the judgment even that comes into play is going to be crucial. Is that what I'm -- JEFFREY: There's one more thing I want to add. If you look at industry 4.0, it'll list these are the elements of industry 4.0, and they're all digital technologies. But there's something that's becoming increasingly popular called industry 5.0, where they're asking what's beyond industry 4.0? Which has barely been implemented. But why not look beyond it? Because we've talked about it enough that it must be real. Once we kind of talk about something enough, we kind of lose interest in it. We want to go on to the next thing. So none of these things necessarily have been implemented very well and very broadly. But anyway, so industry 5.0 is about putting people back in the center. So I call it a rework loop. Uh-oh, we missed that the first time. Let's add it back in. TROND: So then what's going to happen if that concludes? Are we going to then go back to some new version of industry 4.0, or will it -- JEFFREY: Well, industry 4.0 is largely a bunch of companies selling stuff and then a bunch of conferences. If you go and actually visit factories, they're still making things in the same way they've always made them. And then there's a monitor that has information on a screen. And the IT person will show you that monitor, and the person on the floor may not even know what it is. But there's a disconnect between a lot of these technologies and what's actually happening on the shop floor to make stuff. And when they do have a success, they'll show you that success. You know, there's like hundreds of processes in the factory. And they'll show you the three that have industry 4.0 solutions in there. And so it's a long way before we start to see these technologies broadly, not only adopted but used effectively in a powerful way. And I think as that happens, we will notice that the companies that do the best with them have highly developed people. TROND: Fantastic. That's a good ending there. I thank you so much. I believe you've made a difference here, arguing for the continued and continuing role of people. And thank you so much for these reflections. JEFFREY: Welcome. Thank you. My pleasure. TROND: You have just listened to another episode of the Augmented Podcast with host Trond Arne Undheim. The topic was the People Side of Lean. Our guest was Jeffrey Liker, academic, consultant, and best-selling author of The Toyota Way. In this conversation, we talked about how to develop internal organizational capability. My takeaway is that Lean is about motivating people to succeed in an industrial organization more than it is about a bundle of techniques to avoid waste on a factory production line. The goal is to have workers always asking themselves if there is a better way. Thanks for listening. If you liked the show, subscribe at augmentedpodcast.co or in your preferred podcast player, and rate us with five stars. If you liked this episode, you might also like Episode 84 on The Evolution of Lean. Hopefully, you will find something awesome in these or in other episodes. And if you do, let us know by messaging us, and we would love to share your thoughts with other listeners. The Augmented Podcast is created in association with Tulip, the frontline operation platform that connects people, machines, devices, and systems used in a production or logistics process in a physical location. Tulip is democratizing technology and empowering those closest to operations to solve problems. Tulip is also hiring, and you can find Tulip at tulip.co. Please share this show with colleagues who care about where industry and especially where industrial tech is heading. To find us on social media is easy; we are Augmented Pod on LinkedIn and Twitter and Augmented Podcast on Facebook and YouTube. Augmented — industrial conversations that matter. See you next time. Special Guest: Jeffrey Liker.

Episode page: https://leanblog.org/451 My guest for Episode #451 of the Lean Blog Interviews Podcast is Dr. Alan G. Robinson. He specializes in managing ideas, building high-performance organizations, creativity, innovation, quality, and lean production. He is the co-author of 13 books, many of which have been translated into more than twenty-five languages. Dr. Robinson is on the faculty of the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts. He received his Ph.D. in applied mathematics from the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins University, and a B.A. and M.A. in mathematics from the University of Cambridge. He has served on the Board of Examiners of the United States' Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and on the Board of Examiners for the Shingo Prizes for Excellence in Manufacturing. He's a returning guest (Episode 217) – talked about one of his previous books (co-authored with Dean Schroeder) — The Idea-Driven Organization. His bestselling book, Ideas Are Free, co-authored with Schroeder, was based on a global study of more than 150 organizations in 17 countries. It describes how the best companies go about getting large numbers of ideas from their front-line employees, and the competitive advantages they gain from this. His new book, available now, also co-authored with Schroeder is Practical Innovation in Government: How Front-Line Leaders Are Transforming Public-Sector Organizations. Today, we discuss topics and questions including: As we've learned from you previously… “Roughly 80 percent of any organization's improvement potential lies in front-line ideas.” — Potential? Continuous Improvement vs Innovation? Used to draw a distinction The Tesla factory doesn't have the continuous improvement culture of NUMMI? How much progress have you seen in terms of executives understanding the power of engaging everybody in bring forward and implementing ideas? Alan's first book was with Shingo — “mass creativity” UMass Memorial Health — 100,000 ideas and your role helping them? Tell us about the new book — what prompted you and Dean to write this for this audience? What prompted the research? Educating / influencing elected leaders vs. career government employees The role of front-line leaders vs. senior leaders vs. elected officials? Non-partisan – almost 50/50 from their research party wise The phrase “practical innovation”? Does adopting these practices mean we are “running government like a business”??  Adoption at local (including schools), state, or federal levels? Does “practical innovation” get past pointing simply to budgets as a barrier? Demanding cost savings or ROI is a kiss of death for improvement? 1841 — Original article that invented cost/benefit analysis… “only useful for the simplest…” “Why cost/benefit analysis is stupid“ Would we expect government in Japan to be a leader in Kaizen?

In this episode, John Rooney and I discuss Nummi and its impact on European workers during his time as an executive at General Motors.  What you'll learn during today's episode: What is Nummi? The impact of Nummi on the GM European plants  True Lean vs. the appearance of lean Has manufacturing changed? What one bit of advice would you give to a company starting out on its lean journey? What do you most enjoy about helping companies improve? About the guest: John Rooney had 40 years Automotive Experience (Opel-Vauxhall-General Motors). John started as an apprentice and made it to executive level by the time he was thirty. He had the opportunity to see and work in many manufacturing plants across the globe (Europe, Brazil, USA, China, and South Korea). He is also a Six Sigma Black Belt. Since retiring from the Automotive Industry in 2018 felt he needed to share his learnings over the many years. Has collaborated with several companies (including the ILSSI) working on Lean, Lean Six Sigma, Leadership training and CIP workshops to name a few. More recently decided to start his own company (JRC Learn to be Lean) with his partner Roddy Craig who again spent 41 years in the Automotive Industry. Roddy and John now work with companies to help create that culture that is needed for Lean creating bespoke training packages to suit the companies' individual needs. Links: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-rooney-b017a74a/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/roddy-craig-01585816b/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/leansolutions/support

Jessica samtalar med Anja om hennes livsresa som ledde henne till Jesus och sedan till Korskyrkan.

This week we're talking about the NUMMI joint venture between Toyota and General Motors (1:16:00), and how it relates to supply lines, the UAW, toilet paper, Tesla, and "the worst workforce in the automobile industry in the United States." But first we talk about our project cars, the IATSI strike, Amazon, and Lordstown Motors' latest struggles. Complete Notes: https://web.archive.org/web/20211213042129/https://shoutengine.com/CarsComrades/nummi-103256Sources/Links: IATSI strike https://people.com/tv/iatse-strike-everything-you-need-to-know/EV start-up Lordstown Motors to sell Ohio plant to Foxconn for $230 millionhttps://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/shares-of-lordstown-motors-surge-on-reported-deal-with-foxconn.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Assemblyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMIhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Production_Systemhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Toyota_Wayhttps://www.reutersevents.com/supplychain/supply-chain/end-just-timehttps://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Factoryhttps://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-06/tesla-left-injuries-out-of-reports-california-safety-regulator-sayshttps://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-safety-violations-dwarf-big-us-auto-plants-in-aftermath-of-musks-model-3-push/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/tesla-workers-getting-hurt-because-elon-musk-hates-yellow.htmlAllende and Cybersyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn General Intellect Unit http://generalintellectunit.net/ The Peoples' Republic of Wal-Mart https://www.versobooks.com/books/2822-the-people-s-republic-of-walmart The Tulip Bubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania Bread Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_War

As learning & development professionals, we use the terms facilitation, coaching, and training interchangeably.   But which is which, and when should you coach or train or facilitate?   Today's guest Pepe Nummi is the Founder and Managing Director of Grape People, a Finnish company which has helped over 15,000 students to become facilitators.   Pepe is also the author of The Handbook of Professional Facilitation: Theory Tools Design.   That's 450 pages covering what you need to know to become a top professional facilitator.   In today's episode   What is facilitation? Which of your clients need facilitation? What are the differences between training and facilitation? Which skills do you need to become a facilitator? Which kinds of work are best suited to facilitation?

Sorry we're a couple days late. This week we're talking about the NUMMI joint venture between Toyota and General Motors (1:16:00), and how it relates to supply lines, the UAW, toilet paper, Tesla, and "the worst workforce in the automobile industry in the United States." But first we talk about our project cars, the IATSI strike, Amazon, and Lordstown Motors' latest struggles.Sources/Links: IATSI strike https://people.com/tv/iatse-strike-everything-you-need-to-know/EV start-up Lordstown Motors to sell Ohio plant to Foxconn for $230 millionhttps://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/shares-of-lordstown-motors-surge-on-reported-deal-with-foxconn.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Assemblyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMIhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Production_Systemhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Toyota_Wayhttps://www.reutersevents.com/supplychain/supply-chain/end-just-timehttps://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Factoryhttps://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-06/tesla-left-injuries-out-of-reports-california-safety-regulator-sayshttps://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-safety-violations-dwarf-big-us-auto-plants-in-aftermath-of-musks-model-3-push/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/tesla-workers-getting-hurt-because-elon-musk-hates-yellow.htmlAllende and Cybersynhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_CybersynGeneral Intellect Unithttp://generalintellectunit.net/The Peoples' Republic of Wal-Marthttps://www.versobooks.com/books/2822-the-people-s-republic-of-walmartThe Tulip Bubblehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_maniaBread Warshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_WarMike Rowe Citations Neededhttps://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-64-mike-rowes-koch-backed-working-man-affectationDoug DeMuro Pontiac Vibe GThttps://youtu.be/JWkFXH2jum4 Email us with tips, stories, and unhinged rants:carsandcomrades@gmail.comRSS feed:https://shoutengine.com/CarsComrades.xml   Follow us on social media:https://www.instagram.com/cars_and_comrades_podcast/https://twitter.com/CarsAndComradeshttps://www.facebook.com/Cars-Comrades-Podcast-101908671824034https://www.reddit.com/user/CarsAndComradeshttps://www.hexbear.net/u/CarsAndComrades All music from the free album Polygondwanaland by King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard:https://kinggizzardandthelizardwizard.com/polygondwanaland  

Perinnehameet hulmuavat, kun aimara-kansan naiset astuvat vapaapainikehään Boliviassa. Paraguayssa paikallisen pikkukylän elämänmeno viehättää - ja samalla herää huoli uhatusta Atlantin metsäalueesta Gran Chacosta, Etelä-Amerikan toiseksi suurimmasta ekosysteemistä, jonka kohtalo on jäänyt suurelta yleisöltä pimentoon. Muraalit ja katutaide ottavat kantaa ympäristöön ja naisten asemaan, ja bolivialainen Knorke Leaf on feministisen katutaiteen suurnimi. Kun Latinalaiseen Amerikkaan tutustuu kuukausien tai vuosien ajan polkupyörän selässä tai bussin kyydissä, millainen maailma ja arki avautuu? Miten siihen tutustutaan ilman tirkistelyä? Mitä matkustaminen ylipäätään tarkoittaa, kun matkan kesto mitataan kuukausissa tai vuosissa? Sissi Korhonen on pyöräillyt Argentiinan eteläkärjestä Meksikoon vuosina 2015-2018 ja kirjoittanut matkastaan Strangerless-blogissaan. Heidi Nummi on työskennellyt vapaaehtoisena ja matkustanut Brasiliassa, Boliviassa ja Paraguayssa vuonna 2019 ja kirjoittanut matkasta kertovan kirjan Etelän ääniä - vastarinnan ja toivon jäjillä Etelä-Amerikassa. Vieraina ovat toimittajat Sissi Korhonen ja Heidi Nummi. Katutaidetta kommentoi feministinen katutaiteilija, kuvataiteilija Knorke Leaf La Pazissa Boliviassa. Lähetyksen juontaa Hannamari Hoikkala.

John Shook learned about lean management while working for Toyota for 11 years in Japan and the U.S., helping it transfer production, engineering, and management systems from Japan to NUMMI and other operations around the world. While at Toyota's headquarters, he became the company's first American kacho (manager) in Japan. In the U.S., Shook joined Toyota's North American engineering, research and development center in Ann Arbor, Michigan as general manager of administration and planning. His last position with Toyota was as senior American manager with the Toyota Supplier Support Center in Lexington, Kentucky, assisting North American companies adopt the Toyota Production System. Shook co-authored Learning to See, the book that introduced the world to value-stream mapping. He also co-authored Kaizen Express, a bi-lingual manual of the essential concepts and tools of the Toyota Production System. With Managing to Learn, Shook revealed the deeper workings of the A3 management process that is at the heart of Toyota's management and leadership. Link to claim CME credit: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3DXCFW3 (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3DXCFW3) CME credit is available for up to 3 years after the stated release date Contact CEOD@bmhcc.org if you have any questions about claiming credit.

I swear I was going to do a muscle car, and then I found this little thing called NUMMI and needed to do it. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_(automobile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMI_Automotive https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/toyota-cavalier-was-americas-attempt-conquering-japanese-auto-market-281474979856562 https://carsalesbase.com/us-chevrolet-prizm/ https://carsalesbase.com/us-chevrolet-cavalier/ https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015 Social Media: Email: theautoriff@gmail.com Instagram: @theautoriffpod Twitter: @autoriff_pod Facebook: @theautoriff YouTube: The Auto Riff Podcast --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carspace/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carspace/support

Brian Orlando and Om Patel discuss Agility and some common challenges that organizations face before Brian takes off on a rant for the rest of the Episode about Scrum Masters; why we need them, and why people think they don't.0:00 Agility & Toyota12:23 Organizational Challenges17:26 Can't Afford a Scrum Master26:06 Let's Rotate our Scrum Master36:59 More things a Scrum Master helps with...44:45 Personal/Professional Disappointments57:12 Final Thoughts on the Scrum MasterThis American Life Article on NUMMI (2010)https://www.thisamericanlife.org/403/nummi-2010Also available on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3DI--lIO2s

#414 EVs, WEC, FE & Indy. Lots of new electric vehicles appear. The World Endurance Championship begins, but where’s Glickenhaus? What went wrong for Formula E at Valencia. How are things going in the 2021 IndyCar season? Kraftwürst perform A Nuclear Car.

Dennis spærrede øjnene op da han læste en af dagens nyheder. Det viser sig nemlig, at Kina er gået i gang med at coronateste personer analt med vatpind - og det var ikke kun Dennis, der fik et sæt i kroppen ved den nyhed.

I dagens episode kan du blandt andet høre udviklingen i sagaen om Celinas sofabetræk. Derudover taler vi om pornoblade, varme i bilen og så får vi gode råd til, hvorfor det er så fedt at gå lange ture i de her tider med forsamlingsforbud og coronarestriktoner.

En este podcast comentamos una experiencia de éxito histórica. Cómo Toyota en los años 80 logró cambiar la cultura de una fábrica que, poco antes había sido incluso cerrada... y con el 85% de las mismas personas. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

In episode 1 of the Biome podcast, we discuss the reintroducing of beavers in the UK. Support our channel by subscribing and please comment below to join the conversation.Instagram.com/biomebygrizzlyinstagram.com/robi_watkinson_wildlifeinstagram.com/emma_hodson_wildlifeReferences for the podcast.(Alakoski, Kauhala, Tuominen and Selonen, 2020)Alakoski, R., Kauhala, K., Tuominen, S. and Selonen, V., 2020. Environmental factors affecting the distributions of the native Eurasian beaver and the invasive North American beaver in Finland. Biological Conservation, 248, p.108680.(Auster, Puttock and Brazier, 2019)Auster, R., Puttock, A. and Brazier, R., 2019. Unravelling perceptions of Eurasian beaver reintroduction in Great Britain. Area, 52(2), pp.364-375.(BARNETT, 2020)BARNETT, R., 2020. MISSING LYNX. [Place of publication not identified]: BLOOMSBURY WILDLIFE.(Bashinskiy, 2020)Bashinskiy, I., 2020. Beavers in lakes: a review of their ecosystem impact. Aquatic Ecology, 54(4), pp.1097-1120.(Graham et al., 2020)Graham, H., Puttock, A., Macfarlane, W., Wheaton, J., Gilbert, J., Campbell-Palmer, R., Elliott, M., Gaywood, M., Anderson, K. and Brazier, R., 2020. Modelling Eurasian beaver foraging habitat and dam suitability, for predicting the location and number of dams throughout catchments in Great Britain. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 66(3).(HALLEY, 2010)HALLEY, D., 2010. Sourcing Eurasian beaver Castor fiber stock for reintroductions in Great Britain and Western Europe. Mammal Review, 41(1), pp.40-53.(Jackowiak, Busher and Krauze-Gryz, 2020)Jackowiak, M., Busher, P. and Krauze-Gryz, D., 2020. Eurasian Beaver (Castor fiber) Winter Foraging Preferences in Northern Poland—The Role of Woody Vegetation Composition and Anthropopression Level. Animals, 10(8), p.1376.(Monbiot, n.d.)Monbiot, G., n.d. Feral. Penguin.(Thompson, Vehkaoja, Pellikka and Nummi, 2020)Thompson, S., Vehkaoja, M., Pellikka, J. and Nummi, P., 2020. Ecosystem services provided by beavers Castor spp. Mammal Review,.(Westbrook, Cooper and Baker, 2011)Westbrook, C., Cooper, D. and Baker, B., 2011. Beaver assisted river valley formation. River Research and Applications, 27(2), pp.247-256.(Wróbel, 2020)Wróbel, M., 2020. Population of Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) in Europe. Global Ecology and Conservation, 23, p.e01046.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thebiomeproject)

 “I desire you to spare no expense and no pains” [WIST]    Sherlock Holmes had to go places, see people, investigate things. And doing so meant that he incurred expenses. If we itemized what some of these were—absent the specific amount—what would that tell us about Sherlock Holmes?   Where did he go? How did he travel? Where did get get the funding when there wasn't a well-off client behind his cases? It's just a Trifle.       Find Trifles wherever you listen to podcasts: Listen to Sherlock Holmes: Trifles      Have you left us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts yet? You don't need to own an Apple device, and every review helps more people find the show.  And please consider supporting our efforts through Patreon or PayPal.   Links / Notes This episode: ihose.co/trifles201 Related episodes:  Episode 74 - The Administrative Side of Baker Street Episode 75 - Nummi in Arca, or The Fiscal Holmes   Sponsor The Baker Street Journal   Music credits Performers: Uncredited violinist, US Marine Chamber Orchestra Publisher Info.: Washington, DC: United States Marine Band Copyright: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0   --  

If you’re looking for a new pair of shoes click on the link in the description and use our code NOWYOUKNOW to get $25 Off your Vessi shoes! https://www.vessi.com/nowyouknow On today's episode of "In Depth" Zac & Jesse talk about where Ford will be in 5 years if they stick to the path they are on. #Tesla #Ford #ElectricCars Want to buy Zac and Jesse's shirts and help support the show? Visit https://nowyouknow.ecowear.us/  to get your merch!   Tom Nash Video:https://youtu.be/WL-bwCC-aYE   Electric Performance YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM0ZuBiBwTMFjz4NBhF88rw Use our Tesla Referral Code! https://www.tesla.com/referral/dave7196   Use promo code “NowYouKnow” to get your free trial of A Better Route Planner Premium: https://abetterrouteplanner.com/premium/ https://apps.apple.com/us/app/a-better-routeplanner-abrp/id1490860521 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.iternio.abrpapp   Check out our Now You Know Clips channel here! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCacwzDEdpVEO2UjIO00CpqQ   Check out Energy Pals here: https://www.energypals.com/nyk Want more Tesla videos? Check out our friends' channels here: Like Tesla - http://www.youtube.com/LikeTesla Hyperchange TV - https://www.youtube.com/hyperchangetv   Sean Mitchell - https://www.youtube.com/user/seanmmitchell Teslanomics - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbEbf0-PoSuHD0TgMbxomDg   https://www.patreon.com/nowyouknow     Our Amazon Affiliate Link: https://amzn.to/2JFZjaE International Amazon Affiliate Link: http://geni.us/NowYouKnowAMZN Links: https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tesla-paid-only-42-million-for-Nummi-plant-3187254.php  https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/05/28/ford-opens-portfolio-of-patented-technologies-to-competitors-to-.html https://electrek.co/2020/10/03/ford-electric-pickup-range-extender-design-f150/  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Bronco https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2020/07/02/ford-2q-20sales.pdf  https://s23.q4cdn.com/799033206/files/doc_financials/2020/q2/Ford-2Q2020-Earnings-10Q.pdf https://electrek.co/2020/09/29/ford-slashes-mustang-mach-e-electric-car-prices/  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/new-ford-ceo-jim-farley-announces-restructuring-and-executive-shakeup.html

Show #682   Good morning, good afternoon and good evening wherever you are in the world, welcome to EV News Daily for Thursday 30th January 2020. It’s Martyn Lee here and I go through every EV story to save you time.   Thank you to MYEV.com for helping make this show, they’ve built the first marketplace specifically for Electric Vehicles. It’s a totally free marketplace that simplifies the buying and selling process, and help you learn about EVs along the way too.   1 - Same as Nummi factory when it was in Fremont. Expecting to exceed it this year as they'll be adding Model Y. Love for Shanghai with the battery production getting a mention. Model Y is in production, with 4.1 MPkWh giving an EPA rating of 315 miles. How the Cybertruck went viral, never seen a level of demand like it, making as many as they can. The product is better than people realise. 2019 a billion dollars free cash flow, whilst building Shanghai and Model Y massive investments. Model Y , Giga Berlin, Tesla Semi, Solar Glass Roof, Cybertruck, Battery Improvements, FSD, next gen Roadster - hard to think of a better roadmap. 100x more cars in 2020 than in 2010. 500 to 500,000.   Zach Kirkhorn: new and organic demand for Model 3. Increase in average selling price. Learned from Model 3 and new capacity is on board with less cost - Shanghai Model 3 and Fremont Model Y.  Improvements in recurring revenue, beginning of updates via the app. Model Y this quarter! Higher gross margins on Model Y. Shanghai Model 3 will have local supply chain to lower cost. Warning about the car industry slowing down every Q1, and two big product launches.   Elon 2 - Car sharing will start before they are autonomous. Tesla Network.   Elon 3 - Insurance will be a major product for Tesla, and this is why.   Elon 4 - this is why Tesla needs to build more Gigafactories, and make the cars closer to where the buyers are, rather than one factory in California.   Elon 5 -  the 18650 vs 2170 cells. It's really just a form factor because the chemistry has changed.   Elon 6 - Cybertruck, they have way too much demand to fulfil quickly, they want to increase battery production capacity because it's fundamental. Elon keeps dropping hints about this. Battery day is April. 2000GWH of production a year. Elon tweeted in April that 35GWh/yr was their theoretical capacity was at two thirds of that. IN May 2016 at the Annual Shareholder Meeting Elon predicted it would operate at 150GWH/yr.   Elon 7 - a new, more humble, uncertain Elon. We're not sure what Model Y will do to Model 3. Check out the phrase herky jerky s-curve! Impressed with a Model Y teardown - Elon starts to freestyle!   Elon 8 - and the key. Autonomy is the key to making the most of the customer base.   Elon 9 - on efficiency of powertrains. leading by a country mile! Plaid powertrain is mind blowing. End of the year is later than planned. But he describes it as alien technology from a kickass hardcore engineering team.   Elon 10 -  Tesla can demonstrate massive growth, doing what the other car companies are finding hard. Kind words around Panasonic, with an official comment on the CATL and LG Chem partnerships. Being SUPER deep on batteries. Man do we know a lot about batteries, jeez. Their new tech blows Elon's mind, it's going to be pretty cool.     NEW QUESTION OF THE WEEK The MYEV.com Question Of The Week…   If I could one something extra in 2020 with EV News Daily, what would it be? Collaborations? Education?   I want to say a heartfelt thank you to the 231 patrons of this podcast whose generosity means I get to keep making this show, which aims to entertain and inform thousands of listeners every day about a brighter future. By no means do you have to check out Patreon but if it’s something you’ve been thinking about, by all means look at patreon.com/evnewsdaily   [mention for Premium Partners]   You can listen to all 680 previous episodes of this this for free, where you get your podcasts from, plus the blog https://www.evnewsdaily.com/ – remember to subscribe, which means you don’t have to think about downloading the show each day, plus you get it first and free and automatically.   It would mean a lot if you could take 2mins to leave a quick review on whichever platform you download the podcast.   And if you have an Amazon Echo, download our Alexa Skill, search for EV News Daily and add it as a flash briefing.   Come and say hi on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter just search EV News Daily, have a wonderful day, I’ll catch you tomorrow and remember…there’s no such thing as a self-charging hybrid.     PHIL ROBERTS / ELECTRIC FUTURE (PREMIUM PARTNER) BRAD CROSBY (PREMIUM PARTNER) AVID TECHNOLOGY (PREMIUM PARTNER)   DAVID ALLEN (PARTNER) OEM AUDIO OF NEW ZEALAND AND EVPOWER.CO.NZ (PARTNER) PAUL O’CONNOR (PARTNER) TRYEV.COM (PARTNER) GARETH HAMER eMOBILITY NORWAY HTTPS://WWW.EMOBILITYNORWAY.COM/  (PARTNER) ALAN ROBSON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ALAN SHEDD (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ALEX BANAHENE (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ALEXANDER FRANK @ https://www.youtube.com/c/alexsuniverse42 ANDERS HOVE (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ANDREA JEFFERSON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ASEER KHALID (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ASHLEY HILL (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) BÅRD FJUKSTAD (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) BARRY PENISTON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) BRENT KINGSFORD (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) BRIAN THOMPSON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) BRIAN WEATHERALL (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) BRUCE BOHANNAN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) CHARLES HALL (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) CHRIS HOPKINS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) COLIN HENNESSY (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) CRAIG COLES (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) CRAIG COOPER (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) CRAIG ROGERS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DAMIEN DAVIS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DAN FAIRS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DARREN BYRD (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DARREN FEATCH (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DARREN SANT FROM YORKSHIRE EV CLUB (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DAVE DEWSON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DAVID BARKMAN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DAVID FINCH (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DAVID PARTINGTON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DAVID PRESCOTT (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DEREK REILLY FROM THEEFFECT.NET (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) DON MCALLISTER / SCREENCASTSONLINE.COM (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ENRICO STEPHAN-SCHILOW (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) FREDRIK ROVIK (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) FREEJOULE AKA JAMES (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) GENE RUBIN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) GEOFF LOWE (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) IAN GRIFFITHS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) IAN SEAR (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) JACK OAKLEY (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) JAMES STORR (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) JERRY ALLISON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) JIM MORRIS (EXECUTIVE PRODICERS) JOHN BAILEY (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) JOHN LACEY FROM CLICK CLACK VIDEO NZ (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) JON AKA BEARDY MCBEARDFACE FROM KENT EVS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) JON KNODEL (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) JUAN GONZALEZ (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) KEN MORRIS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) KEVIN MEYERSON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) KYLE MAHAN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) LARS DAHLAGER (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) LAURENCE D ALLEN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) LEE BROWN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) LUKE CULLEY (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MARCEL LOHMANN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MARCEL WARD (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MARK BOSSERT (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MARLIN SCHELL (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MATT PISCIONE (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MATTHEW ELLIS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MAZ SHAR (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MIA OPPELSTRUP (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MICHAEL PASTRONE (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MICHEAEL KYFFIN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MIKE ROGERS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) MIKE WINTER (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) NATHAN GORE-BROWN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) NEIL E ROBERTS FROM SUSSEX EVS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) NORTHERN EXPLORERS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) OHAD ASTON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) PAUL RIDINGS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) PAUL SHELLEY ((EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) PAUL STEPHENSON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) PERRY SIMPKINS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) PETE GLASS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) PETE GORTON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) PETER & DEE ROBERTS FROM OXON EVS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER)  PHIL MOUCHET (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) PONTUS KINDBLAD (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) RAJEEV NARAYAN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) RALPH JENSON (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) RENÉ SCHNEIDER (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ROB COOLING / HTTP://WWW.APPLEDRIVING.CO.UK/ (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ROB HERMANS (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ROBERT GRACE (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ROBIN TANNER (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) RUPERT MITCHELL (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) SARI KANGASOJA (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) SEIKI PAYNE (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) STEPHEN PENN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) STEVE JOHN (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) STUART HANNAH (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) THOMAS J. THIAS  (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) THE PLUGSEEKER – EV YOUTUBE CHANNEL (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) TIM GUTTERIDGE (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) WILLIAM LANGHORNE (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) ZACK HURST (EXECUTIVE PRODUCER)     CONNECT WITH ME! EVne.ws/itunes EVne.ws/tunein EVne.ws/googleplay EVne.ws/stitcher EVne.ws/youtube EVne.ws/iheart EVne.ws/blog EVne.ws/patreon   Check out MYEV.com for more details: https://www.myev.com

In today's podcast we have a wide-ranging discussion about Women in Agile and Agility itself with Carina Silfverduk, an Agile Practice Lead at CAS. The basis being creating abundance in business through compassion, empathy, and discipline. Carina leads the local chapter of Women in Agile, working at the national level with the Executive Sponsors Natalie Warnert and Deema Dajani. Carina opened our discussion stating that men are welcome since this is a group focused on maximizing diversity in the creation of better solutions. The group is also meant to provide a safe space for women to seek support and grow with others. Women in Agile provides that support through three programs: 1. Launching New Voices: Providing mentors in learning how to speak publicly 2. Conference Allyship: Women in Agile connect with other groups sponsoring conferences 3. Seed Local Communities: this provides support in the creation of local chapters and meet ups The main concern of the group right now is promoting women in STEM careers especially since numbers have been dropping off the last four or five years. The conversation switched to diversity with regards to implied white, male privilege versus being a woman. An example was provided of a woman researcher with a PhD leading a meeting where she was the only woman present and it was assumed she would take care of the notes as well as making sure appropriate refreshments were present. There is also the issue of women appearing "ladylike" when it comes to emotional expression, e.g., when a man is forceful he is considered to be a "leader," while if a woman shows the same emotional expression she is at risk for being considered "bitchy." These implied biases can be quite damaging to an organization since they blind those doing the hiring to a pool of talent that can add to the organizations diversity which, again, can lead to better more effective problem-solving. From a risk perspective there is also the issue when failing to hire for diversity of creating a blind spot where major problems develop on projects and the team as well as senior management are caught unaware, much to the disappointment of the customer. Gender bias is one of many cognitive biases that knowingly or unknowingly contribute to failure or inability to achieve the maximum amount of success possible under the circumstances. Carina referenced Ash Coleman, Head of Diversity and Inclusion at Credit Karma, when speaking with a group of interns. In a previously attended conference, Ms. Coleman spoke regarding the decrease in product performance when diversity is not taken into consideration. Examples were given of products that failed miserably, products that were created by all-white, male teams, e.g., facial recognition. Multiple, diverse frames of mind are needed when working on product creation based on market segmentation. This includes career, cultural, and life experience diversity in addition to gender diversity. Jazz was used in the conversation as a metaphor for the power of diversity when working in an agile environment when addressing problems that have not been solved before. Jazz musicians bring their various frames of mind as well as the discipline they learned working with various chordal systems. The artist's experiment with different frames of mind while they're actually performing, challenging each other to "keep up" and work in an integrated way so that the customer (audience) has a pleasant experience. Doug McCullough, the CIO for the city of Dublin, Ohio, was also mentioned because he believes if everyone in the room is in agreement then some of those individuals are probably redundant and, there's potential for missing key components associated with solving the problem. Also, there’s the need to be comfortable with discomfort when maximizing the diverse talent present on a team. Also, the need for self-doubt in order to leave room for team member’s thinking is critical when doing product development. This leads to the need to be vulnerable to be an effective leader, a trait not reinforced in our culture. Rotating individuals between different teams in different areas of an organization is one way to promote diversity as well as integrate individuals more deeply into the organization. As an Agile Practice Lead Carina looks for diversity at the team level. She looks to see who's Introverted and who's Extroverted as well as timing and style differences; always looking to see how the diversity can be used as a constructive force. In the end, this means that we all benefit from each other and there is no need to have boundaries, e.g., women versus men. Unfortunately, cultural stereotypes as to men versus women still have a strong influence on a day-to-day basis both at the tactical and strategic level, e.g., who gets to speak and how during meetings. Various techniques for conducting meetings and gaining information when working with a diverse group were discussed, e.g., using "parking lot" flipcharts as well as techniques from books such as "Back of the Napkin." Ideally there would come a time where people treated others equally and there be no need for groups with names such as Women in Agile. The conversation then shifted to the pluses and minuses associated with teams either being together for extended periods or members being swapped out at a frequent rate. This led to a lively discussion around the words habit, expectations, principles, complexity, chaos, and simplicity. The results fell into several categories: 1. Working together for extended periods allows team members to quickly pick up on body language and subtle cues which is a plus. On the downside, habits that tend to cause people to go blind could set in; 2. An agile approach is ideal in situations where the rules have either fallen apart or it is an exploratory situation where there frankly aren't any rules. This is the nature of complex and chaotic situations; 3. Conversely, in simple situations where the rules function well there is no reason to confuse and overcomplicate by acting as if the situation is actually more an R&D endeavor; 4. The word "principal" was contrasted with the word "habit." It was agreed that those who are principal-based should and do have habits which reflect their awareness of the situation and the appropriate application of principles. This is in contrast to a more negative use of the word "habit" where individuals are mindlessly going about doing their work without bothering to see if what they are doing is actually appropriate for the situation. Also, habits can shift over time based on the continual, flexible application of principles; 5. Essentially, it's critical to avoid going on autopilot without reflecting when making decisions as to the best way to proceed; 6. The importance of being on guard with respect to expectations and working to avoid letting them cloud one’s vision; 7. The importance of focusing on commitments and areas of agreement to help avoid the team falling apart due to internal differences. The conversation then shifted to misconceptions regarding agility, e.g., agile approaches are undirected, agile approaches are just another form of anarchy, agility has no safety net, agile approaches are dangerous because products are released without adequate testing, etc. While there is some documentation, one of the key aspects of agility is the project living within the relationship between the team members. Consequently, having and appreciating diversity is critical if the customer is to be served appropriately. This lack of documentation can be taken to the extreme is expressed in Haydn Shaughnessy and Finn Goulding's book, "12 Steps to Flow," where the documentation is limited as much as possible to post it's on the wall, Twitter, text messages, and phone calls. The conversation returns to a discussion of simplicity and, specifically, the use of waterfall methodologies and when they are appropriate. Essentially, when a proven methodology has been established, e.g., say, laying a foundation for house, then there is no reason to use an agile approach. Stick to the methods that work. Agility in this case would cause confusion and over-complicate the situation. What this gets down to is the need to use the right tool at the right time that’s appropriate for the situation. Waterfall is good for some projects while agile approaches are good for others. The important point here is to avoid viewing any particular methodology as the "religion" of the "true believer." It's that sense of religiosity which makes what was initially a very healthy approach into something that is counterproductive. There is also the need, as Carina says, to pay attention to the fact that we live in the "real world." This means that regulatory, financial, and risk-oriented stakeholders may demand compliance with a particular methodology that may run counter to using an agile approach. The key point that Carina wants to reinforce is reflected in the book "The Four Agreements," by Don Miguel Ruiz. Her point being there's actually a Fifth Agreement, be skeptical. This allows for considering various ways to view a situation in order to get the best solution, which brings us back to the value of diversity, which brings us back to Women in Agile. Have questions, wonder what the story is behind a situation, etc. This leads to practicing cognitive dissonance which is the ability to carry multiple models of the situation simultaneously in one's head and go back and forth between and/or choose combinations of the various models. Again, a diverse conversation is quite beneficial. It gets beyond cultural biases as reflected in sexist approaches. The conversation then shifted to agility versus lean and the relationship between the two. Essentially, they can work well together where, say, in a manufacturing situation lean is appropriate but when an unanticipated problem surfaces a switch to agility could be the best way to resolve the issue and get back into steady production. At the extremes, agility relies on a Bayesian statistical approach, i.e., as new information is gathered the model or frame of mind one is using to solve the problem shifts accordingly. This is in contrast to a lien approach where one may be looking at "six Sigma" statistical certainty. How this relates to Women and Agile is this: if you want to have a disciplined, flexible, fluid team that can get to the heart of a matter and solve problems and create solutions then diversity is needed along with a correspondingly safe environment where the team members can be spontaneous and proactive…free of worry or retribution for being put down or being sidelined. The Toyota-GM joint venture, NUMMI, is offered as an example of culture, discipline, teamwork and the need for safety and what happens if those factors are missing. TPS, Toyota Production System is referenced as a method that combines management philosophy, production methods, and societal influences to increase the level of quality and sustained success. This is grounded in allowing people working on the line to stop production when observing a safety or quality issue that is best resolved now. This is contrasted with the punishing aspect GM held at the time towards workers who would stop the line. The point of all this is it is critical to allow the workers to perform in an agile manner even when it cuts against the expectations associated with formal processes. Again, we come back to the importance of diversity. Finally, we all flip to an agile frame of mind routinely even when working with standardized methods, we may just not call it such. So just stop, look, and think about what the best tool for the situation is. Whether or not that proposed solution comes from a woman is essentially irrelevant. The important thing is deciding whether or not senior management, the team, and associated stakeholders will unite and embrace the discomfort they need to walk through in order to identify root causes and succeed. Dealing with this challenge is something Gary runs into in his consulting and coaching practice. You can contact Carina Silfverduk on: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/silfverduk/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgileCarina You can reach Gary Monti on: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/garywmonti/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/garymonti Center for Managing Change: https://www.ctrchg.com/contact/ If you are working in Agility and dealing with complex situations, you can download CMC’s free e-book MINDSET – 5 SIMPLE WAYS TO LOOK AT COMPLEX PROBLEMS and learn how to find a simple vantage point from which you can resolve challenges. Your feedback is important. Choose from the following options: • place a review in iTunes, • click on “leave a comment” below, • send any comments along with your name and the show number to support@ctrchg.com Listen to future episodes for our reply.

December 23, 2019 Featuring: Deborah McGee and Jeff Smith As this series continues to explore the implications and dynamic of “coaching” in a business environment, Jeff Smith reveals the importance of the learning environment for impactful coaching. Jeff draws on 22 years experience within the Toyota Production System and recalls his coaching experience at New United Motor, and later as a coach in many organizations. We talk about coaching in the front office as well as shop floor, engaging with problems using A3 thinking, and mechanisms to signal abnormal conditions inherently perfect for effective coaching moments. We invite your thoughts and experiences about coaching and being coached: email your stories! pod@lean.org Related Articles/ content: Learning to Help Anna Elevate Her Game(article) Toyotas Secret: The A3 Report (article) Lessons from NUMMI (podcast) Kaizen Express (book) Managing to Learn (book)  

In this episode, we chat with Excella Co-Founder and Partner Jeff Gallimore about all things DevOps culture. In this episode we take a departure from our technical deeps dives to explore culture: how to measure culture, culture typology, psychological safety, how continuous delivery impacts culture, how culture affects performance, and more! We even get into a discussion around real-world experiences such as a joint venture called NUMMI. Listen here:

Transcript What I have to share with you today is not a lean tool but a profound truth. I learned it from a friend and mentor of mine who spent some time working at the historic NUMMI plant with Toyota in California. Sometimes he listens to this show, so let me tell you—if you are […] The post 009 – No Need, No Kaizen appeared first on Lean Smarts.

#15 "We are artists and we should be artists."Roundtable 2017.03.13 A day late but worth the wait! In this high signal-to-noise roundtable episode, each member of the club picks a topic that they are particularly passionate about:Stephen shares his wisdom and guidance about playtesting your work early and often, Martha helps you get your act together in a practical discussion about project management, and Mark tries to explain the obligation he feels as an artist, but picks a weird hill to die on as he wrongly insists that Portal 2 isn't really about anything.We're trying to make the show even better and we need your input! Be nice and visit our feedback form to tell us what you think!Ice Cold Games@zacharyjohnsonNIce Games Club Feedback Form Demoing and Playtesting 0:03:27 Stephen McGregorProduction Project Management 0:33:26 Martha MegarryProductionToolstrelloAgile Development - WikipediaWaterfall Development - WikipediaKanban Development - WikipediaThe Blue Yarn - 99% Invisible - The Blue Yarn, 99% InvisibleNUMMI (2015) - NUMMI, This American LifeDavid Megarry's Three Questions all project managers should ask: “Do you have all the resources you need?" "Do you have any roadblocks or impediments?" "Are you on schedule?”“A project manager (PM) is more of a problem solver than anything else. If you don't have the resources, the PM finds them. If there are roadblocks, the PM helps to find a way to get around them. If not on schedule, the PM alters it or adds more resources or changes scope. Above all, the PM communicates with management as to the state of the project so they can make proper decisions and not be blindsided or surprised.” -David Megarry Messages and Meanings 0:52:56 Mark LaCroixGame DesignSummerland - Michael Chabon, NovelA Closer Look at How Three Assassin's Creed Games Have Handled Slavery - Evan Narcisse, KotakuFor Honor's accidental alt-right connection - Allegra Frank, Polygon

Naapuruus voi tunnetusti olla tuskaa, käskeehän raamattukin ottamaan naapurisovun huomioon. Tapporadiossa Kainolle syntinsä tunnustaa Nummi, jonka naapurin kohtaloksi koituu omenan kurottaminen. Tapporadio on kuvitteellinen radiokanava, jonka lujan lempeä studioisäntä Kaino Kaipainen vastaa tappajien puheluihin. Podcastin kaikki hahmot on luonut ja näyttelee Jari Salmi. Tapporadio sisältää voimakasta kielenkäyttöä, viittauksia väkivaltaan, sekä herkimpiä kuulijoita mahdollisesti häiritsevää sisältöä.

"I pocket my fee" [STUD]    How much money did Sherlock Holmes make from his clients? And when did he begin making money?    We went back to an early piece of Sherlockian scholarship by Robert Keith Leavitt, first published in Vincent Starrett's 221B: Studies in Sherlock Holmes for inspiration. We run through Leavitt's assessment, commenting on certain cases and even finding a few points where we disagree with his analysis.      Have you left us a rating and review on the podcast player of your choice yet? We could really use your help.    And please consider supporting our efforts through Patreon or PayPal.     Links / Notes This episode: ihose.co/trifles75 "Nummi in Arca, or The Fiscal Holmes" by Robert Keith Leavitt, as originally appeared in 221B: Studies in Sherlock Holmes   Music credits Performers: Uncredited violinist, US Marine Chamber Orchestra Publisher Info.: Washington, DC: United States Marine Band Copyright: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

It’s Thursday 7th June 2018 and this is your EV News Daily. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening! Wherever you're listening around the world, a very warm welcome from London, UK.  Here is today’s news about electric cars and the future of transport. My name is Martyn Lee and I go through every EV article online so you don’t have to.   The background to the shareholder meeting was a $785million loss in the first quarter of this year alone. Model 3 production is good, and behind expectations.   Mission: "To accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.   Thank you to everyone who I follow who attended and posted pictures, from a few thousand miles away I felt very close. Thank you Dennis Pascual who had great pics of the white Roadster on show, albeit without an interior so not a working model. A reminder to those with a spare $250,000 kicking around, you can put you deposit down now. The deposit being the full amount!   1.ELON GETS EMOTIONAL Elon started off emotional, almost walking on stage with tears in his eyes and steadying his voice. It was quite personal anything with some shareholders wanting him removed as Chairman, which was never a realistic proposal. Shareholders gave Elon and the board a full vote of confidence. It was visceral how much he cares, and how deeply invested he is on a personal level. Invested in the financial success, the quality of cars and above all, the safety of his workforce. "At Tesla, we build our cars with love. At a lot of other companies, they're built by marketing or the finance department, and there's no soul. We're not perfect, but we pour our heart and soul into it and we really care."   WORKER INJURY RATE REDUCED Safer Employees was the title of this slide. Zach from Clean Technica says: "Tesla’s factory worker injury rate is now approximately 6% below the auto industry average and 50% what it was when GM and Toyota were last building cars in the NUMMI factory. Last year, Tesla’s factory worker injury rate was a bit above the auto industry average. Tesla’s long-term goal is to get it to 50% of the industry average, or 25% of what it was when GM and Toyota were running the factory."   TESLA ARE IMPROVING QUALITY Tesla Model 3 repairs reduced rapidly from Sep 17 to January 18, and have stabilised now at a much lower level.   BATTERY PACK AND CELL COST REDUCTIONS In the Q&A section, I thought some of the most interesting comments came when Elon and JB were chatting about battery cell prices. Below $100/kWh is the holy grail for cost parity with combustion engines and some analysts put that at 2020, others I’ve seen only last week said if couldn't be done before 2023. BNEF, hugely respected and knowing a lot more than I do, say 2025. Elon said...by the end of this year at cell level. That took my breath away to be honest. He said it depends on commodity prices, and it's cell level not pack level, but $100 by the end of the year? Even if you account for ElonTime and add 6 months (make it 12!) and it would be huge news. Pack level $100/kWh within two years, and even Elon joked that wasn't ElonTime, that was realistic time. He specifically talked about improvements to the chemistry, vertical integration at Giga, and production of anodes and cathodes. If i was an analyst today or at BNEF I’d be going back the calculator sharpish and revising my estimates so not to seem out of touch. As the battery pack is always the most expensive part of an EV, which reduces Tesla's costs and increases their margins.   MODEL 3 IS TOP SELLING PREMIUM SEDAN It's hard with Tesla to focus on the stories that matter, such can be the chaos of media attention around them. Partly brought on by their own success, the half a million Model 3 reservations, and the bold claims they make about their ability to produce them. But they ARE making a lot of cars, and rates are improving. So much so that Model 3 is now the best-selling mid-sized premium sedan in the U.S. on a monthly basis, now outselling Daimler's popular Mercedes-Benz C-Class, according to Tesla. More than the Audi A4, more than the BMW 3Series, more than the Lexus IS.   GIGAFACTORY OVERDRIVE Tesla expects to produce more than half of the world’s EV batteries in Q3 2018, including Chinese production. Without any sort of fact check, that was the stat which struck me as intriguing. There are a LOT of Chinese cars, trucks and buses being produced with rates on the rise, from the likes of BYD, BAIC etc. Oh and don't try to take a quick trip around the Gigafactory, Elon says it takes 2 hours if you don't stop, to see it all. And he & JB said it was only one third built. When finished it will easily be the biggest building on planet earth. That won't be complete for another 4 or 5 years.   1GWh OF ENERGY STORAGE As I talked about on yesterday’s podcast, if you missed it you might want to download that one we discussed more in detail the JB Straubel quotes, but Tesla didn't miss the chance to reiterate the news Tesla’s energy storage production has now reached 1 GWh worldwide. And they want to deploy the next 1GWh within a year, more of that phrase 'exponential growth' from EM. And talking energy, Elon dropped in how he happened to have bought a house opposite where he lives - not sure whether that's to live in or whether that's what you do as a billionaire - but that he had the Solar Roof put on it, and he's so happy with how it looks and works. It doesn't get the headlines but you could see how much Elon wants the Solar Roof to be the default choice of roof covering in the future, and he talked about it wanting to last 50 years.   MODEL Y This was never meant to be the forum for major announcements about any of those things but inevitably we heard snippets of info. There was a new silhouette image of the Model Y, just the front, but the fanboys and fangirls loved it. He reiterated Twitter claims of a model Y reveal date of March 2019, with production commencing in H1 2020.   ROADSTER The surprise of the Roadster unveil at the Semi event took the air out of the room at the time, but it gets better. There was laughter when Elon called the car he revealed last year the "base Roadster" and said “it’s gonna have a SpaceX options package.” So that's an improvement on 0-60mph in 1.9 seconds, Top Speed of 250mph and 620 mile range. I also thought it was interesting, and this doesn't get reported because Elon often says a 'thing' which gets all the headlines, but the sentence he says next can be more powerful. He said combustion technology has a halo effect on all ICE cars because it still owns the records, but he wants the Roadster to be the best, full stop. The fastest accelerating, the quickest, the best on the track, and the longest range between adding fuel. He said once an electric car bests combustion for everything then it's game on. Or rather, game over for gas.   SEMI RE-DESIGN Elon did say the semi would get a redesign, where in Europe we have to use the cab-over-engine design to meet regulations on total length of truck. He also said the range would be beyond what anyone thinks is possible. He confirmed the finalised, single design would work in North America, Europe, China, and the rest of the world.   MODEL 3 TEST DRIVES If you're lucking enough to live in an area with a Model 3 on display, you're already doing better than most, and certainly better than here in Europe. But Elon announced he wanted a Model 3 at every Tesla store, and next some cars for test drives. That's in the next two months. What model do you think they would put out for test drives? A basic 35k model, a fully spec'd model, a dual motor (let's call it the 3D) or the full beans performance P3D model? Either way I don't think just anyone will get a test drive, either existing S and X owners, or even just Model 3 reservation holders, to dissuade them from cancelling.   COMPACT TESLA I love how an innocent question can be huge news. Will there be a compact-sized Tesla? One to take on the VW ID range, the Golf buying market? Oh yes says Elon, within 5 years. So watch out Golf, or Ford Focus, or Vauxhall Astra, or Audi A3.   ELON WANTS TO GET BETTER AT 'TIME' “I do think I have an issue with time. This is something I’m trying to get better at. I’m a naturally optimistic person. I’m trying to recalibrate these estimates as much as possible.”   AUTOPILOT He said he has been up until 1am last night testing Autopilot. Isn't that a fascinating insight? Autopilot features were said to “exponentially” improve over the next six-twelve months. He even confirmed that Tesla plans to bring back free Autopilot trials.   TESLA BODYSHOP Domenick at InsideEV's described it best when he pointed out: "Tesla service centres will double over the next year, Musk mentioned that they will be adding Tesla body shop repair locations. These would be attached, mostly, to existing service centres, with the top 10 metro areas in the US getting one by the end of the month. Saying that this would create a huge improvement in both time and cost of body repair claiming, incredibly, that they would be able to achieve same-day repair in a lot of cases."   35K MODEL 3 DELIVERED FIRST QUARTER OF 2019 We will honor that obligation” to deliver at that price, he said, “and we would do so now if it was physically possible.”   MODEL 3 AND THIRD ASSEMBLEY LINE He said the third general assembly line in its Fremont, California, plant will come online soon, ensuring production will hit 5,000 cars per week by the end of June. "All Model 3 production lines have demonstrated capability of producing 500 cars per day". If you remember 5,000/week was the target for end of 2017 but it's now looking like it might actually happen by the end of Q2, the end of June is 23 days time. Line 3 was confirmed to be more efficient than Lines 1 and 2.   SUPERCHARGER EXPANSION 9,969 Superchargers Globally Today, a whisker away from 10,000. The Supercharger V3 will be ready by the end of the year, and when ready, the expansion rate will be increased to get more of the V3's out there. Elon said the plan is to put them at all the right places so you can drive around the world only on Superchargers. Long term they're working on charging ratios, which was a new term to me, with a charging time ratio on long trips of 6:1, later 8 or 10:1 (currently around 4.5:1). On the earnings call, but not in my notes from yesterday, was the charge rate of 200-250kW.   CASH FLOW POSITIVE I was watching the live stream, which was super late here, on Ben Sullins YouTube channel, he was live streaming it but also had himself picture-in-picture in the corner of the screen offering some commentary. And when this came up, i think he punched the air. Or at least clapped. Cash. Flow. Positive. Something Tesla has claimed in the past would happen but never did, however Elon carefully chose his words to say they'd be cash flow positive and GAAP net income positive in Q3 & Q4 of 2018. He was careful to say "expecting" which backed off the word "definitely" he's used previously. Elon also said he doesn't expect to raise any capital during the year through debt or equity.   CHINESE PRESENCE I got the feeling they weren't meant to talk about China, but it happened! They confirmed Shanghai as the rumours suggested for Giga there, and all operations under one roof. From raw materials in, to complete cars out. It follows the very recent news that China is now allowing EV makers to build facilities there without needed a joint venture with a domestic company. Tesla's revenue in China has risen from $319 million annually in 2016 to over $2 billion in 2017, with a presence there they will soon avoid import tariffs. Oh and not to forget Europe, they're deciding the location. And in total, they see a need for 12 worldwide Gigafactgories.   I’d love to spread the word about electric cars so, if you can, share this somebody who might be interested. You can listen to every previous episode of this podcast on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, YouTube, TuneIn, Stitcher, and the blog https://www.evnewsdaily.com/ – remember to subscribe, which means you don’t have to think about downloading the show each day, plus you get it first and free and automatically. It would mean a lot if you could take 2mins to leave a quick review on whichever platform you download the podcast. And if you have an Amazon Echo, download our Alexa Skill, search for EV News Daily and add it as a flash briefing. Come and say hi on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter just search EV News Daily, have a wonderful day, and I'll catch you tomorrow.   CONNECT WITH ME! evne.ws/itunes evne.ws/tunein evne.ws/googleplay evne.ws/stitcher evne.ws/youtube evne.ws/soundcloud evne.ws/blog

Did Toyota's Mindset Really Leave the (Now) Tesla Building? Tesla builds cars in what used to be the NUMMI factory, a joint venture between Toyota and GM (which meant it was run as a Toyota plant with "Lean" practices). Before that, it was a dysfunctional GM plant. Now that it's a Tesla plant, did they learn from Toyota or does it seem more like "the old GM?" --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lean-blog-audio/support

Como a Toyota ensinou o mundo a repensar os nossos métodos de trabalho. ERRATA: O ditado diz que sempre haverá um oriental melhor do que você, não um ocidental como eu disse :/Ver MaisPara enviar comentários acesse bkpcerebral.blogspot.com

See http://www.leanblog.org/259 Today's episode #259 is Part 2 of a discussion I started with Steve Bera in episode #256. Steve was one of the original 16 "NUMMI Commandos" that General Motors sent to work with Toyota in the 1980s, as discussed in the outstanding book Comeback: The Fall & Rise of the American Automobile Industry. In Part 1, we talked about his experience at NUMMI. Today, we talk about what happened after his two years at NUMMI, why he feared getting lost back in the regular old GM, what he's done to teach and spread Lean in various industries over the past 30 years, and other thoughts on the current state of Lean. A transcript of the discussion can be found at the bottom of the post.

We wrap up Season 1 of The Bridge with one of our favorite stories - about the aftermath of the closure of the NUMMI car factory in Fremont, California. What happens when 5,000 people lose their jobs in an area where there are no other car factories for hundreds of miles? KALW's Angela Johnston goes to find out. For updates on Season 2 of The Bridge, subscribe to our podcast. Search for "Bridge KALW" in your favorite podcast app, or go to kalw.org/subscribe and click on "The Bridge."

See http://www.leanblog.org/256 I'm really excited to have Steve Bera as my guest for Episode 256 of the podcast. I read about him, as he was featured prominently in parts of the 1994 Pulitzer-Prize winning book Comeback: The Fall & Rise of the American Automobile Industry.

Today’s guest is Russ Elliot. Russ is the founder of and a principal consultant for the Conscious Culture Group, a company committed to linking culture to business performance by creating widespread ownership for shaping the culture and the business. They believe employees matter, leadership matters and culture is the bridge that creates the success. For more than 30 years, Russ has been bringing his expertise in human resources and coaching to organizations across the country. His work has extended from the manufacturing plant floor to technology and financial companies including Toyota, NUMMI, Texas Instruments, Easton-Bell Sports and Bridge Bank. While serving as a Senior Vice President and human resources executive, Russ not only brought his strategic skills to implement change, but his coaching skills as well. Russ is on the faculty of Global Institute of Leadership Development (GILD), Women in Leadership (WIL) and UC Berkeley extension. You can learn more about Russ and the rest of his team at www.ConsciousCultureGroup.com. Today’s show is being brought to you by The Conscious Life Summit 2016! Reserve your spot today while it is still absolutely FREE. To learn more about Sponsorship Opportunities, send an email to Admin@MichaelNeeley.com. Thanks! Become a patron of Consciously Speaking! To contribute, you can click on the Podbean link in the upper right corner of this page or simply on the word Podbean here. There are rewards available for all levels of patron sponsorships including t-shirts, coffee mugs, tickets to my live events and more. Thanks in advance for your support. And don’t forget to subscribe to Consciously Speaking so that you don’t miss a single episode. While you’re at it, won’t you take a moment to write a short review and rate our show? It would be greatly appreciated! To learn more about our previous guests, listen to past episodes, and get to know your host, go to www.MichaelNeeley.com and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

#267 The Cult of Tesla Pt1. Gareth joins the rapidly growing number of people driving a Tesla in the UK and engages a Model S 70D on an all-electric road trip from London to North Wales. Is this the car of the future?

It’s the 2015 recap show, where Brent and Alan reflect on 2015, and make some predictions for 2016…and somehow take nearly an hour to do so. Some links from the show Podcasts: This American Life – Episode 403: Nummi – http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/transcript Freakonomics Radio – http://freakonomics.com/radio/freakonomics-radio-podcast-archive/ Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me – http://www.npr.org/podcasts/344098539/wait-wait-don-t-tell-me Good Job Brain – http://www.goodjobbrain.com/ Total Soccer […]

It’s the 2015 recap show, where Brent and Alan reflect on 2015, and make some predictions for 2016…and somehow take nearly an hour to do so. Some links from the show Podcasts: This American Life – Episode 403: Nummi – http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/transcript Freakonomics Radio – http://freakonomics.com/radio/freakonomics-radio-podcast-archive/ Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me – http://www.npr.org/podcasts/344098539/wait-wait-don-t-tell-me Good Job Brain – http://www.goodjobbrain.com/ Total Soccer […] --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/abtesting/support

When the NUMMI auto plant in Fremont closed five years ago, thousands of people lost their jobs. Some workers had decades of experience — but it wasn't easy to get work. A new car company moved in, but it was … different.

On this episode of Inside Outside, we dig into the day to day struggle of working and dealing with people. We also sat down with internet marketer and entrepreneur, Jeremy Shoemaker also known as "Shoemoney". Links mentioned:   "Nummi" episode of This American Life - http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/561/nummi-2015 Music: http://www.bensound.com/royalty-free-music For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

http://leanblog.org/audio71 Episode #403 of the public radio program "This American Life" originally aired in 2010, telling the story of the NUMMI plant that was a joint venture between GM and Toyota (it's now where they build Teslas). As a joint venture, that meant the closed-down GM Fremont plant was re-opened to be managed under the Toyota Production System.The This American Life story asks why GM didn't learn more of the lessons from NUMMI. Well, GM did learn many lessons, but it wasn't enough to save the company from bankruptcy (going from 50% market share to just over 20% will do that, regardless of how Lean your factories are, when you have moreretirees than active employees). The story re-aired on NPR stations last weekend, which I learned of when many of you emailed me or tweeted at me about the program... and even some of my personal Facebook friends who don't share my passion for Lean shared the link with me. What makes it a throwback, in a way, is that I first blogged about the episode in 2010 in this post: NPR on the "End of the Line" at NUMMI and My Story About an Interviewee. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lean-blog-audio/support

When the NUMMI auto plant in Fremont closed five years ago, thousands of people lost their jobs. Some workers had decades of experience — but it wasn't easy to get work. A new car company moved in, but it was … different.

Markus Nummi: "Am Anfang ein Garten", Übers.: Stefan Moster, Insel Verlag 2014, Preis: 24,95 Euro

The UAW wants to organize Tesla workers at the former NUMMI plant in California. The new smart fortwo EV features an all-new electric powertrain that is a big upgrade compared to the previous model. Skip Barber Racing adds two Hyundai models to its High Performance Driving School. All that and more, plus we’ll take an in-depth look at the exterior design of the new Jaguar F-TYPE.

Episode #145 is a conversation with Natalie J. Sayer, co-author of the recently updated 2nd edition of the book Lean For Dummies. I was able to meet Natalie at the recent ASQ Lean and Six Sigma Conference, where she was also a presenter. While I was a bit resistant at first to the "for Dummies" being associated with Lean (given that "dummy" is a sort of disrespectful word), I came around when I read the first edition and found it to be a fun, solid overview of Lean concepts and a great first read for people who are new to Lean. In the podcast, Natalie shares what's new in the second edition and shares some of her history and experience with Lean, including some time learning at the famed NUMMI plant while working for GM. ADVERTISEMENT: This podcast episode is brought to you by Creative Safety Supply, leaders in Visual Safety, floor marking, label printing and more visit their website at www.creativesafetysupply.com/leanpodcast for a discount. To point others to this, use the simple URL: www.leanblog.org/145 You can find links to posts related to this podcast there, as well. Please leave a comment and join the discussion about the podcast episode. For earlier episodes of the Lean Blog Podcast, visit the main Podcast page at www.leanpodcast.org, which includes information on how to subscribe via RSS or via Apple iTunes. You can also listen to streaming episodes of the podcast via Stitcher: http://landing.stitcher.com/?vurl=leanblog If you have feedback on the podcast, or any questions for me or my guests, you can email me at leanpodcast@gmail.com or you can call and leave a voicemail by calling the "Lean Line" at (817) 776-LEAN (817-776-5326) or contact me via Skype id "mgraban". Please give your location and your first name. Any comments (email or voicemail) might be used in follow ups to the podcast.

With a cool time-lapse video, Audi shows how it built its massive display pavilion at the Frankfurt Motor Show. By reusing old robots and other equipment from the shuttered NUMMI plant in California, Toyota has been able to keep the cost of the 2012 Camry down, cutting an average of $550 off the sticker price. Chevrolet asked fans to vote for the best Chevy of all time. Well, the people have spoken and the results are in! All that and more, plus Peter De Lorenzo sounds off on what he thinks is one of the most beautiful vehicles coming out in 2012.

Edition #383 A celebration of science   Act 1: NUMMI is reborn for electric cars - NPR Song 1: Electric car - They might be giants Act 2: News of the warm 1 - Le Show Song 2: Warning sign - Coldplay Act 3: Bill McKibben Interview Part 1 - The Progressive Song 3: Fake Empire - The National Act 4: Climate change vs. Biblical Armageddon - The Onion Song 4: The end's not near - Band of Horses Act 5: Bill McKibben Interview Part 2 - The Progressive Song 5: Big black nothing - Conor Oberst and The Mystic Valley Band Act 6: How to draw attention to climate rallies - Counterspin Song 6: Starsign - Apoptygma Berzerk Act 7: Bill McKibben Interview Part 3 - The Progressive Song 7: Drive - R.E.M. Act 8: Denying science - Ring of Fire Song 8: Science is real - They might be giants Act 9: News of the warm 2 - Le Show Song 9: Polar bear - The Quiet Two Act 10: What the fuck is wrong with you people - Bill Maher   Bonus iPhone/iPod Touch App Content: The Quest For Arctic Riches - Colbert Report   Produced by: Jay!   Thanks for listening! Check out the Best of the Left iPhone/iPod Touch App in the App Store! Visit us at www.BestOfTheLeft.com Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Vote for us and leave comments at www.PodcastAlley.com or Review the show on iTunes.

The Morning Show discusses the Confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Then David Bacon gives his report on labor issues. In the second hour a report on the possible shut down of the NUMMI auto plant in Fremont. Wrapping up the program Spencer Sherman, is in studio to discuss his book, "The Cure for Money Madness, Break your Bad Money Habits, Live without Financial Stress and Make More Money”.   The post Terra Verde – June 5, 2009 at 1:00pm appeared first on KPFA.