Podcasts about obliquity

This talk is an introduction to John Kay's recent book “The Corporation in the twenty-first century”.In the industrial revolution, businesses were defined by their tangible capital. the iron works and the textile mills in which the routine assembly process was operated by minimally skilled workers. Modern business is no longer like this. Tangible capital is bought as a service from specialist suppliers who have neither interest or ability to control the business. The corporation is a collection of the capabilities of teams of people, and the workers, not the plant, are the means of production.Speaker:Sir John Kay is one of Britain's leading economists with wide practical experience in business and finance. A Fellow of the British Academy and Royal Society of Edinburgh, he was the founding dean of Oxford University's Saïd Business School and held a chair at London Business School. He is a winner of the Senior Wincott Award for Financial Journalism for his Financial Times columns. Other People's Money won the Saltire Prize for non-fiction and was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize for Political Writing. His other books include Obliquity, The Long and Short of It, Greed is Dead (written with Paul Collier) and Radical Uncertainty (with Mervyn King).

This short comes from a conversation that co-hosts Jean Gomes and Scott Allender had with Sir John Kay back in June 2021 (S2 Ep19).LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION:Distinguishing Risk and Uncertainty with John KayIn this episode of the Evolving Leader, co-hosts Jean Gomes and Scott Allender talk to John Kay, one of the world's leading economists, whose life's work is focused on the relationship between economics and businesses.  Together with Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England, he wrote Radical Uncertainty about the impoverished approach many economists and business strategists take regarding risk in the face of uncertainty.  In this conversation we get a wealth of insight about the judgement challenges facing leaders today and into the future. Social:Instagram           @evolvingleaderLinkedIn             The Evolving Leader PodcastTwitter               @Evolving_LeaderYouTube           @evolvingleader The Evolving Leader is researched, written and presented by Jean Gomes and Scott Allender with production by Phil Kerby. It is an Outside production.Send a message to The Evolving Leader team

CHAPTER 90. BACK ON THE AIR, NEW MUSIC For months off the air. Daniel Schifter returns with new music within the scene with some of the new music. GROUPS The genre of black metal is very extensive, in this chapter you will find recommendations interesting as: Melan Selas, Asmodous, Uada. PLAYLIST Garea, Dormant Watain, Before The Cataclysm Melan Selas, Mountain Tops Blood Incantation, Obliquity of the Ecliptic Sacrifire, My Sanctuary Asmodeus Maleficie --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ebmschifter/message

Paul Smaldino is an Associate Professor of Cognitive and Information Sciences at UC Merced, where he studies the evolution of behavior in response to social, cultural, and ecological pressures. In this conversation, we talk about his new book Modeling Social Behavior, everything related to formal models of social behaviour, and Paul's path to where he is today.Support the show: https://geni.us/bjks-patreonTimestamps0:00:00: Paul's new book 'Modeling Social Behavior'0:04:42: Paul's somewhat circuitous route to doing what he does today0:25:54: Why so interdisciplinary?0:36:58: The importance of (metaphorical) violence in modeling0:46:26: Newton's model of gravitation ignores almost everything0:52:11: Exact vs inexact sciences1:00:02: From simple to complex models of cooperation, and the complementarity of simulations and equations1:11:48: When is formal modeling appropriate and when is it too soon?1:27:47: A book or paper Paul thinks more people should read1:32:46: What Paul wishes he'd learnt sooner1:36:20: Any advice for PhD students or postdocs?Podcast linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-podTwitter: https://geni.us/bjks-pod-twtPaul's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/smaldino-webGoogle Scholar: https://geni.us/smaldino-scholarTwitter: https://geni.us/smaldino-twtBen's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-webGoogle Scholar: https://geni.us/bjks-scholarTwitter: https://geni.us/bjks-twtReferencesPrevious episode with Paul: https://geni.us/bjks-smaldinoAxelrod & Hamilton (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science.Boyd & Richerson (1988). Culture and the evolutionary process.Friston (2012). The history of the future of the Bayesian brain. NeuroImage.Giraldeau & Caraco (2000). Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press.Giraldeau & Gillis (1985). Optimal group size can be stable: a reply to Sibly. Animal Behaviour.Gleick (2004). Isaac Newton.Glimcher (2004). Decisions, uncertainty, and the brain: The science of neuroeconomics.Hamilton (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of theoretical biology.Kauffman (1970). Articulation of parts explanation in biology and the rational search for them. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.Kay (2010). Obliquity.Nowak & May (1992). Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature.Smaldino (2023). Modeling social behavior: Mathematical and agent-based models of social dynamics and cultural evolution. Princeton University Press.Smaldino (2017). Models are stupid, and we need more of them. Computational social psychology.Smaldino, Pickett, Sherman & Schank (2012). An agent-based model of social identity dynamics. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation.Turchin (2003). Historical dynamics: Why states rise and fall.Wimsatt (1987). False models as means to truer theories. Neutral models in biology.Wimsatt (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality.Zukav (2012). The dancing Wu Li masters: An overview of the new physics. 

Mark interviews Johanna Rothman about her latest book FREE YOUR INNER NON-FICTION WRITER. Prior to the interview, Mark shares a personal update and a word about this episode's sponsor This episode is sponsored by Mark's new book Yippee Ki-Yay Motherf*cker: A Trivia Guide to Die Hard. In the interview, Mark and Johanna talk about: Why Johanna is often called The Pragmatic Manager The thirty-years of consulting that Johanna has experience with The fact that she is not a "natural writer" Beginning to write in 1997 because she realized that speaking only wasn't a great way to market her business as a consultant Advice Johanna received from Gerald Weinberg How Johanna began to write short fiction in 2016 Being involved in the early days of "Agile" development Why Johanna recommends writing in 15 minute chunks for non-fiction Who the idea reader is for Johanna's book FREE YOUR INNER NONFICTION WRITER How to keep a business-related blog interesting How writing non-fiction includes universal story elements: "a person in a situation with a problem" The "write fast to write well" concept The importance of maintaining your voice Why Johanna writes a question of the week on her blog The book Obliquity by John Kay and how detours might help us better in the long run Advice Johanna would offer to writers for getting better at their own non-fiction writing And more... After the interview Mark reflects on the importance of your author voice as well as the divergent ways you sometimes find your way to your destination. Links of Interest: Johanna Rothman's Website Create an Adaptable Life Free Your Inner Non-Fiction Writer Lou J. Berger (IMDB) Buy Mark a Coffee Patreon for Stark Reflections Best Book Ever Podcast Lovers Moon Podcast The Relaxed Author Buy eBook Direct Buy Audiobook Direct Publishing Pitfalls for Authors An Author's Guide to Working with Libraries & Bookstores Wide for the Win Mark's Canadian Werewolf Books This Time Around (Short Story) A Canadian Werewolf in New York Stowe Away (Novella) Fear and Longing in Los Angeles Fright Nights, Big City Lover's Moon Hex and the City The Canadian Mounted: A Trivia Guide to Planes, Trains and Automobiles Yippee Ki-Yay Motherf*cker: A Trivia Guide to Die Hard   Johanna Rothman, known as the “Pragmatic Manager,” offers frank advice for your complex problems. She helps leaders and teams learn to see practical alternatives that help them achieve more agility in their work. With that knowledge, they can choose what—and how—to adapt their product development. For almost three decades, Johanna has helped her clients experiment with agile and lean alternatives for every piece of their product development. As a result, her clients create more management agility which translates to better business results. A prolific writer, Johanna is the author of 18 books and hundreds of articles about many aspects of product development. She uses her trademark practicality and humor to focus on what people can do—and not take herself too seriously.   The introductory, end, and bumper music for this podcast (“Laser Groove”) was composed and produced by Kevin MacLeod of www.incompetech.com and is Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang | The importance of Rest & 4 Day Week My guest today is Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, he is a program director at 4 Day Week Global, a nonprofit advocating for the 4-day workweek. His trilogy of books— SHORTER: Work Better, Smarter and Less— Here's How (Public Affairs, 2020); REST: Why You Get More Done When You Work Less (Basic Books, 2016), and THE DISTRACTION ADDICTION (Little Brown, 2013)— shows how companies and individuals can better integrate rest, creativity, and focus into digital-age lives and work. Alex has been a consultant at Institute for the Future and Strategic Business Insights, and a visiting scholar at Microsoft Research Cambridge, Oxford University, Stanford University, and UC Berkeley. Alex received a Ph.D. in history and sociology of science from the University of Pennsylvania. I read Alex's book Rest a while ago, and then I came back to it during Covid. In a high-pressure, ever changing environment, I grew to appreciate yet again the importance of Rest. I see it as a life changing advantage in a life of an investor, or any professional. Alex's book gave me tools, and guidance how to include rest in my life, and how to do it well. It also gave me a permission to see rest as an important part of my daily life. Today, you'll hear about: 1) The concept of Obliquity as in reaching your goals in an indirect way. 2) Learning to rest better 3) Seeing rest not as absence of work or opposite to work, but as an equal 4) The importance of rest in life of an investor, and what benefits it can offer 5) The impact of remote work on our rest and productivity. Please help me welcome, Alex Soojung-Kim Pang RECENT PUBLICATIONS LINKS Strategy+Rest: www.strategy.rest LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/askpang Twitter and Instagram: @askpang ---- To get regular updates and bonus content, please sign-up for my substack: ⁠https://bogumilbaranowski.substack.com/⁠ Learn more about Talking Billions Learn more about Bogumil Baranowski Learn more about Sicart Associates, LLC. Read Money, Life, Family: My Handbook: My complete collection of principles on investing, finding work & life balance, and preserving family wealth. NEVER INVESTMENT ADVICE. IMPORTANT: As a reminder, the remarks in this interview represent the views, opinions, and experiences of the participants and are based upon information they believe to be reliable; however, Sicart Associates nor I have independently verified all such remarks. The content of this podcast is for general, informational purposes, and so are the opinions of members of Sicart Associates, a registered investment adviser, and guests of the show. This podcast does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any specific security or financial instruments or provide investment advice or service. Past performance is not indicative of future results. More information on Sicart Associates is available via its Form ADV disclosure documents available adviserinfo.sec.gov. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/talking-billions/message

Climate of high obliquity exo-terrestrial planets with a three-dimensional cloud system resolving climate model by Takanori Kodama et al. on Tuesday 11 October Planetary climates are strongly affected by planetary orbital parameters such as obliquity, eccentricity, and precession. In exoplanetary systems, exo-terrestrial planets should have various obliquities. High-obliquity planets would have extreme seasonal cycles due to the seasonal change of the distribution of the insolation. Here, we introduce the Non-hydrostatic ICosahedral Atmospheric Model(NICAM), a global cloud-resolving model, to investigate the climate of high-obliquity planets. This model can explicitly simulate a three-dimensional cloud distribution and vertical transports of water vapor. We simulated exo-terrestrial climates with high resolution using the supercomputer FUGAKU. We assumed aqua-planet configurations with 1 bar of air as a background atmosphere, with four different obliquities ($0^{circ}$, $23.5^{circ}$, $45^{circ}$, and $60^{circ}$). We ran two sets of simulations: 1) low-resolution (~ 220 km-mesh as the standard resolution of a general circulation model for exoplanetary science) with parametrization for cloud formation, and 2) high-resolution (~ 14 km-mesh) with an explicit cloud microphysics scheme. Results suggest that high-resolution simulations with an explicit treatment of cloud microphysics reveal warmer climates due to less low cloud fraction and a large amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. It implies that treatments of cloud-related processes lead to a difference between different resolutions in climatic regimes in cases with high obliquities. arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.05094v1

Climate of high obliquity exo-terrestrial planets with a three-dimensional cloud system resolving climate model by Takanori Kodama et al. on Tuesday 11 October Planetary climates are strongly affected by planetary orbital parameters such as obliquity, eccentricity, and precession. In exoplanetary systems, exo-terrestrial planets should have various obliquities. High-obliquity planets would have extreme seasonal cycles due to the seasonal change of the distribution of the insolation. Here, we introduce the Non-hydrostatic ICosahedral Atmospheric Model(NICAM), a global cloud-resolving model, to investigate the climate of high-obliquity planets. This model can explicitly simulate a three-dimensional cloud distribution and vertical transports of water vapor. We simulated exo-terrestrial climates with high resolution using the supercomputer FUGAKU. We assumed aqua-planet configurations with 1 bar of air as a background atmosphere, with four different obliquities ($0^{circ}$, $23.5^{circ}$, $45^{circ}$, and $60^{circ}$). We ran two sets of simulations: 1) low-resolution (~ 220 km-mesh as the standard resolution of a general circulation model for exoplanetary science) with parametrization for cloud formation, and 2) high-resolution (~ 14 km-mesh) with an explicit cloud microphysics scheme. Results suggest that high-resolution simulations with an explicit treatment of cloud microphysics reveal warmer climates due to less low cloud fraction and a large amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. It implies that treatments of cloud-related processes lead to a difference between different resolutions in climatic regimes in cases with high obliquities. arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.05094v1

The thermal-orbital evolution of the Earth-Moon system with a subsurface magma ocean and fossil figure by Brynna G. Downey et al. on Sunday 04 September Various theories have been proposed to explain the Moon's current inclined orbit. We test the viability of these theories by reconstructing the thermal-orbital history of the Moon. We build on past thermal-orbital models and incorporate the evolution of the lunar figure including a fossil figure component. Obliquity tidal heating in the lunar magma ocean would have produced rapid inclination damping, making it difficult for an early inclination to survive to the present-day. An early inclination is preserved only if the solid-body of the early Moon were less dissipative than at present. If instabilities at the Laplace plane transition were the source of the inclination, then the Moon had to recede slowly, which is consistent with previous findings of a weakly dissipative early Earth. If collisionless encounters with planetesimals up to 140 Myr after Moon formation excited the inclination, then the Moon had to migrate quickly to pass through the Cassini state transition at 33 Earth radii and reach a period of limited inclination damping. The fossil figure was likely established before 16 Earth radii to match the present-day degree-2 gravity field observations. arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00935v1

We host Jessica Kerr for this episode. She is challenged with the heuristic “Commit to the direction, be adaptive along the path” from the Simon Wardley Doctrine repository (https://wardleypedia.org/mediawiki/index.php/Doctrine_Patterns#Commit_to_the_direction.2C_be_adaptive_along_the_path). She explains her own heuristic, “Having a quest” since often we are wrong about the path! The episode is a gold mine on heuristics, and there are a few more.   Jessica recommends the following resources: Learn Wardley Map (https://learnwardleymapping.com/) Honeycomb (https://www.honeycomb.io/) Introduction To Observability (https://www.honeycomb.io/obs101/) Obliquity by John Kay Games: Agency As Art by C. Thi Nguyen  Jessica Kerr (@jessitron) is a developer advocate, software developer and symmathecist with 20+ years of experience. She has worked in enterprises and startups, in Java, Scala, Clojure, Ruby, and TypeScript. Talk to her about technical details, or about how to get software to teach us about its needs.

The phrasal template random acts of ________ is clearly one of my favorites. I seem to have used it 20+ times on Twitter in the last few years. Here are the actual instances: random acts of ontolog… https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2022/01/06/random-acts-of-x/ used it 20+ times on Twittertweeted a promptThe Science of Muddling ThroughObliquitywhat theory is not, theorizing isFrederick Brooks’ idea that you should “plan to throw one away”counter-argument

Briefly, at The Australian National University, I was a member of AIESEC, an international group of economics students. There were good moments, but I eventually had the realisation that these weren't really my people; they just didn't have a similar lens on the world, to me. So, I assumed that all economists were the same, until a few years ago when I read a wonderful book called Obliquity. It was wise, grounded, human, provocative, and had, at its heart, the insight that we rarely figure out - the hard, complex things - and it was written by an economist.  After some time in academia, John Kay realised that he possessed a unique skill, one that was uncommon in the typical economist. John has already appeared on this podcast, featured as an author in someone else's read. He's a British economist, and truthfully, a philosopher. He is what a real influencer looks and sounds like. Get‌ ‌book‌ ‌links‌ ‌and‌ ‌resources‌ ‌at‌ https://www.mbs.works/2-pages-podcast/  John reads two pages from ‘The Secret of Our Success' by Joseph Henrich. [reading begins at 11:15]  Hear us discuss:  The significance of social learning in the world: “You'll never see two chimpanzees carrying a log together.” [16:52] | The process of shifting foundational beliefs: “It's not that they're worse people, it's that the environment in which they operate has been a different one.” [18:12] | Finding inspiration and hope. [22:47] | Reducing polarisation. [24:39]

O Muro - Festival de Arte Urbana ocupa paredes, Destaque para Obliquity, a galeria de Odeith na Gare do Oriente; Tiago Rodrigues estreia “O Cerejal” de Tchékov com Isabelle Huppert, no Festival de Avignon.

My conversation with Karl immediately reminded me of the brilliant little book, Obliquity, by LSE and Oxford professor John Kay, who makes the argument that our goals are best achieved indirectly. While counterintuitive, Kay explains that the most successful, most profitable enterprises don't focus on profits or shareholder value. Arguably, this is a lesson fundraising hasn't learned. Far too much of contemporary fundraising adheres to a direct approach, and I would venture to say that our fundraisers suffer the brunt of this truth. The direct approach convinces us that our attention should be narrowly focused on donors and dollars. Karl has developed an appreciation for the indirect route in real time, discovering that being embedded in his community in a variety of ways makes for opportunities that he wouldn't otherwise encounter. The oblique approach has taught him to trust the process and to not to become overly anxious when things diverge from where he thought they were headed. Karl has learned that fundraising at best is exploratory work; that it rarely goes according to our plans; and that, like everything that involves living, breathing human beings, it's going to be messy and unpredictable. As always, we are grateful to our friends at Cueback for their support of The Fundraising Talent Podcast. And, if you'd like to learn more about hosting Responsive Fundraising's roadshow in your community, let's coordinate a call. #unpredictable #responsivefundraising

In this episode of the Evolving Leader, co-hosts Jean Gomes and Scott Allender talk to John Kay, one of the world's leading economists, whose life's work is focused on the relationship between economics and businesses.  Together with Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England, he wrote Radical Uncertainty about the impoverished approach many economists and business strategists take regarding risk in the face of uncertainty.  In this conversation we get a wealth of insight about the judgement challenges facing leaders today and into the future. "Radical Uncertainty: Decision-making for an unknowable future", John Kay and Mervyn King (2020)Social:Instagram           @evolvingleaderLinkedIn             The Evolving Leader PodcastTwitter               @Evolving_Leader

Have you ever wondered how radio telescopes work? Why was the recent news on the Arecibo so important? Tune in to our latest episode to find out! Music from filmmusic.io "Tyrant" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) License: CC BY (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Henna's Sources: “Arecibo Message.” SETI Institute, www.seti.org/seti-institute/project/details/arecibo-message. “Arecibo Message.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Jan. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message. “Arecibo Telescope.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Jan. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Telescope. Arecibo: Facts and Figures, NSF, www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/arecibo/Arecibo_Fact_Sheet_11_20.pdf. “Electromagnetic Spectrum.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Dec. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum. “Hulse–Taylor Binary.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Jan. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary. Hurley, Natasha. How Radio Telescopes Show Us Unseen Galaxies. YouTube, 16 May 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFEgRt2EH1g&t=333s&ab_channel=TED. “National Schools' Observatory.” Arecibo Observatory | National Schools' Observatory, www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/eng/tels/groundtel/arecibo. “Neutron Star.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Jan. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star. “Pulsar.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Jan. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar. Radio Image, www.gb.nrao.edu/epo/image.html. “What Are Radio Telescopes?” National Radio Astronomy Observatory, 27 Nov. 2019, public.nrao.edu/telescopes/radio-telescopes/. Anna's Sources: Adee, Sally. “War by Any Means: The Story of DARPA.” New Scientist, 22 Mar. 2017, www.newscientist.com/article/2125337-war-by-any-means-the-story-of-darpa/. “American Nonprofit Research Institute.” SRI International, 19 Jan. 2021, www.sri.com/. “Arecibo Observatory.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Jan. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Observatory. “Arecibo, Puerto Rico Latitude Longitude.” Arecibo Latitude Longitude, latitudelongitude.org/pr/arecibo/. “Dwight D Eisenhower and Science and Technology.” Dwight D Eisenhower Memorial Commission, web.archive.org/web/20101027163454/eisenhowermemorial.org/onepage/IKE%20%26%20Science.Oct08.EN.FINAL%20%28v2%29.pdf. “F Region.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/science/F-region. Gohd, Chelsea. “China Is Opening the World's Largest Radio Telescope up to International Scientists.” Space.com, Space, 18 Dec. 2020, www.space.com/china-fast-radio-telescope-open-international-scientists. History.com Editors. “Red Scare.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 1 June 2010, www.history.com/topics/cold-war/red-scare. History.com Editors. “The 1950s.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 17 June 2010, www.history.com/topics/cold-war/1950s. “Milestones:NAIC/Arecibo Radiotelescope, 1963.” Milestones:NAIC/Arecibo Radiotelescope, 1963 - Engineering and Technology History Wiki, ethw.org/Milestones:NAIC/Arecibo_Radiotelescope,_1963. “Milutin Milankovitch.” NASA, NASA, earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php#:~:text=Obliquity%20(change%20in%20axial%20tilt)&text=Today%2C%20the%20Earth's%20axis%20is,between%2022.1%20and%2024.5%20degrees. “National Science Foundation - Where Discoveries Begin.” US NSF - Dear Colleague Letter: National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC) (NSF 09-014), www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09014/nsf09014.jsp. Tracking Solar Flares, solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/activities/ionosphere.html. Witze, Alexandra. “Gut-Wrenching Footage Documents Arecibo Telescope's Collapse.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 2 Dec. 2020, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03421-y. Witze, Alexandra. “Legendary Arecibo Telescope Will Close Forever - Scientists Are Reeling.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 19 Nov. 2020, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03270-9.

John Kay is one of Britain's leading economists, and has been a Fellow of St John's College, Oxford since 1970. His work is centered on the relationships between economics, finance, and business. Today his main focus is on writing and he is renowned for his ability to express complex ideas clearly and succinctly. He is the author of many books, including The Truth about Markets (2003) and Obliquity (2010). In his new book, Radical Uncertainty: Decision-Making Beyond the Numbers, co-authored with Mervyn King, he argues that models have only limited value in guiding business decision making. In a numerical world, decision making should be guided by developing and critically challenging reference narratives, to figure out “what's going on here?”. In a conversation with Martin Reeves, Chairman of the BCG Henderson Institute, Kay discusses insights from his new book, epidemiology, the accuracy and applicability of models, and what leaders can do to break with prediction addiction. *** About the BCG Henderson Institute The BCG Henderson Institute is the Boston Consulting Group's think tank, dedicated to exploring and developing valuable new insights from business, technology, economics, and science by embracing the powerful technology of ideas. The Institute engages leaders in provocative discussion and experimentation to expand the boundaries of business theory and practice and to translate innovative ideas from within and beyond business. For more ideas and inspiration, sign up to receive BHI INSIGHTS, our monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgUJQtQUrEs IDEA Pharma: A Conversation with Dr. Menelas Pangalos of AstraZeneca Mike Rea:                          Just a quick note this is Menelas Pangalos, can I have your official title? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       I am EVP of Innovative Medicines and early development. I’m at Biotech Unit and also Global Business Development. Mike Rea:                          Okay, we’ll get on to innovative medicines. This is obviously one of the series of Idea collider interviews with people with actually very interesting thoughts on innovations. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Hopefully. Hopefully interesting. Mike Rea:                          Definitely interesting and hopefully very useful for the viewers. So, actually let’s starts with our first question, what does AstraZeneca means by innovative medicine? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Yes that's probably the most difficult question because innovation is different things to many people, & I’m sure - I remember when first joined the company & was walking around the site’s; looking at project’s & people were telling me about their innovative programs & they actually - you know, if you think about this as a competitive sport, I think our view of innovation when I first joined was personal best versus world records, And when I think of innovation, I think of world records. You know, you’re cutting edge, the cold face of innovation in terms of whatever area you’re in, whether it’s a technology or whether it’s a therapy area. Disease understanding is actually - you’re making the discoveries rather than following discoveries. Mike Rea:                          So, that was an almost an internally referenced versus external referenced. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Yeah, so exactly they were very inwardly as an organization we were incredibly inwardly focused & we were getting better internally but when your benchmark is very low, you’re getting better on a very low benchmark actually it’s isn’t getting you anywhere near where you need to be. So, one of the big shifts in our culture which I think is helpful in our innovation is being much more outwardly focused. Seeing what’s happening as a consequence, understanding where we should be pushing ourselves to be even better & who we should be working with to enable us to build on whatever it is that we choose to do. Mike Rea:                          That’s interesting & the innovative medicines group is focused on forward looking pipeline -? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Yeah, So I run everything from the first target ideation all the way to proof of concept. So, we have to hand over to our latest [inaudible 02:28] organization programs that are ready for phrase III. So, everything from - you know the basic disease understanding – to therefore give you the new targets so you identify & optimizing those programs to generate molecules that are ultimately suitable for phrase III investment. So, there’s therapy area-based research, then we also have our technology platform group to support the therapy areas  Mike Rea:                          And you’re essentially then combining ways of doing that with choices that you’ve made along the way of which areas to focus on itself. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Choices all the way & one of the things - the big shifts that we made, which actually we made when Pascal joined the company at the end of 2012 is really focus down on the areas where we thought we could be globally competitive or we could be setting world records not personal bests, & so, we really focused organization down on to sort of oncology, cardiovascular, metabolic & renal disease. Which there’s a lot of overlap & than respiratory disease & there’s couple of areas that we not dabbled in but we have small – relatively small investments, less than 5% of our budget goes on there in neuroscience & infections where we tend to pawn all those program with other companies where that’s their core area of competence & where they want to be leading from an innovation perspective. Mike Rea:                          ok, that’s interesting. So, it’s more like the British Olympic teams approach the winning gold medals. where we can win gold and…  Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Go deep & yes, it’s been very interesting because, as we’ve gone deep and as we’ve got more & more focused in those areas. You see that actually you’re starting to build a depth of knowledge & a depth of pipeline that really does make you quite competitive in that space, & the quality of the partnership – you can create the quality of the people who you recruit – the quality of the decision making it all gets better because the commercial organizations also lined up the same way. For me it was like the organization was never all - but I always thought of us as iron filings all going in different directions. When we focus organization on those three core areas, everyone’s thoughts then point in the same direction & they understood, well good looking [inaudible 04:44]  Mike Rea:                          Yeah, & it’s been interesting. you mentioned when Pascal took over but it seems to be in a purposeful shift at AstraZeneca, because for a long time it wasn’t my favorite company. But this certainly - your publications & the kind of pursuit of a kind of directed improvement Has been clear from the outside. Do you have the room to do that? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Yeah, look I mean - I was hired by the CEO before Pascal joined, a guy called David Brennan who was a super smart guy, very commercially driven. They’ve built a great company with an amazing brand Seroquel, Nexium, Crestor. And what’s interesting is most of those were me too or me better drugs, but nevertheless, very successful in their time & what David realized when he hired me was that the R&D organization wasn’t where it needed to be & they had to try & re-invent themselves & I was the one of the first recruits to try & help with that reinvention.  Mike Rea:                          What was the first thing that you had to do under that new regime? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Yeah, it was a challenging [blank] - activity wasn’t particularly high so one of the things that I tried to really get the organization bought into reasons why we need to change, to learn from what we’ve done before. So, we looked at all of the projects that were run from 2005 - 2010. We were spending about 5 million dollars a year on R&D. And really trying to look at what differentiated a successful project from a non-successful project. obviously, we had a lot more unsuccessful projects. Mike Rea:                          What was your definition of successful? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Launch.   your medicine launching or moving into late stage of development at least. But actually, launching is the most important one & looking at what data – what information we have & how programs actually progressed from candidate nomination all the way through to phase III. And what we saw was – actually when we did the analysis, if you measured us by the number of things that we were doing, the numbers of candidates that we’re putting into the clinic or the number of R&D's that we were filing. We were one of the most productive companies in the industry. Secondly only to Pfizer after it had acquired Wyeth. But if you measured us by the number of launches that we had – we were the second least productive company in industry. So clearly there was a disconnect. Our science was getting rewarded, but there were no medicines coming out at the other end & that’s what we had to fix it.                                          The take-way message from all of this work was quality over quantity. It’s the quality of what you work on not the quantity of what you do. And then as we dug further there were five things or we call a five R framework that we thought, based on the data that we analyzed would improve your probability of running a successful program and they’re pretty obvious I have to say, pretty intuitive & yet actually quite difficult I think to execute on consistently.                                          So, the first of the five R's is around the right target. How well do you understand the biology of the target that you work on? how well do you understand the disease pathophysiology? How it connects – relates to path whether you’re trying to modulate? What genetic validation do you have either in pre-clinical animal models or in human genetics & how do your scientists consequently try to prove or importantly disapprove Your hypothesis. are they asking those killer questions to try and invalidate, not just validate there’s something for hypothesis? Mike Rea:                          Yeah. So how important is that almost adversarial nature? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       It’s really important actually rewarding your scientists for disapproving things as much as approving things & making good decisions – good kills is actually something that we’re very passionate about and very proud about & we celebrate as well.  As I’ll say in a moment the reason why we’re failing now the most is actually because of lack of efficacy in phase II, which means we still don’t understand the targets and the pathways well enough. But we’re getting better, so that’s perhaps the most important of all of the 5 R's. Mike Rea:                          Okay. I think we talked about this a little bit before that we’ve reframed this role and we're calling it failure; we call the process of early phase – development asymmetric learning. Can you learn faster & better than the other guys? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Exactly. Mike Rea:                          And if you call it learning it’s not trying to failing anymore. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       It’s exactly right & making sure that you fail, you haven’t spent too much money & you don’t just keep on - cause what we were very good at what we saw as we had – our science was very creative. Finding ways of getting to the next hurdle & just for the sake of getting the next hurdle, cause that’s where we're being measured on. So right target, second one right issue. When you have a molecule whether it’s a monoclonal antibody or small molecule or the drug modality, demonstrate first of all in the preclinical models that you can engage the target & understand what your PK / PD relationships are. So, understand you’ve got to inhibit a kinase in a tumor? Do you have to inhibit that kinase for 24 hours? Do you have to inhibit it at 50%, 80%, 100%? Really understand what the relationship is in order to generate the efficacy you are after & then even more importantly you have to have a way of measuring that in the clinic. If you can’t demonstrate target engagement in a clinic, we have a big problem, because then if you fail you have no idea if it’s your molecule is cramp or lousy - excuse my French - or if your hypothesis is wrong. So, a good failure is for me is ones who I know have demonstrated target engagement but the molecule didn't work so biology is wrong. Right. And we hardly had any ways of demonstrating proof medicines – so a number of phase II that we were running. where the molecules failed and you asked the question – I remember these first six months in project meeting, so it didn't work – did we engage the target? Did the receptor antagonist get into the brain? If it’s a schizophrenia program and quizzical blank stares from everybody saying - we have no idea.  Mike Rea:                          Oh, so you weren't learning well.  Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       So, you weren't learning anything, not well, you weren't learning anything actually because you had no idea why you are failing, so that doesn't happen anymore. The third one is right safety, so again because our scientists were being rewarded for number of candidates, they were remarkably good - working how to lower the doses to the minimum amount, where they now – because they're not measuring target engagement, engaging the target but they still get the candidate through. And what we saw was that when you had early safety signals, they invariably came back to bite you somewhere during early development or even worse later stage development. So, waiting out your safety signals early, making sure you are working on the right series, on the right scaffolds, that you understand both your target-based toxicity and your molecule-based toxicity, really, really important. So, we spent a lot of time developing our safety models. Fourth of the five R's right patient. To find the patient population in which your medicine is most likely to work. Because if It doesn't work in that patient population, it's not going to work on a broader patient population, and we were again very good at going into broad patient populations. What we saw actually was that as the programme moved through the clinic, the commercial organization got into full steam ahead and wanted to go into broader bigger. Of course AstraZeneca was very much a primary cadre of an organization and so what we saw actually in the data was that the scientists were becoming less confident about their projects and the commercial folks were becoming more confident because the big yourselves the number is getting bigger, but you know a 100% of nothing is not a very big number. So that was the other pieces - to find the patient population and do that experiment first and develop it there and then other things will happen. This is not different, advanced for example we have been doing for quite some time, and then finally the last of the 5R’s is right commercial. By right commercial, I don’t mean is it going to be a billion dollar pick yourselves - what I mean is why would anyone want to take or prescribe the medicine and why would anyone want to reimburse it. So, understanding what your comparators need to be, understanding what the standard of care will be in the time frame that you are going to be launching. It’s a very difficult thing to do, often 10 - 15 years ahead but really challenging the teams to think about where that puck will be when the programmes moves through the clinic or when it launches to make sure they are being ruthless about the comparisons they do. This now goes back to the conversation around being outward looking versus inward looking. And then it was interesting, when we submitted the paper for review, one of the comments that came back from one of the reviewer's was - well if you do all of this you need to add a 6th R which is the right culture. Because what you are actually doing is changing the culture of the company and so you need to talk about how it back ships and he was actually, he or she was actually right because as we start to implement  the 5 R's to every governance meeting we have, through  every project review that we do, what you start to see is is the culturing shifting from one where science is being rewarded for just numbers of candidates, to they are being rewarded for proof of mechanism, for proof of concept, for launches, for diagnostic strategies and for publishing great research papers and it has shifted the culture from one that's being very inwardly focused, personal best to one that's outwardly focused, more collaborative and hopefully setting a few world records. Mike Rea:                          Which is interesting. So, we, did you use incentive structure as a lever or was that a kind of after effect of getting people to focus in the right place? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       So the incentives changed and our global incentives in the company actually changed when Pascal joined where we didn't just have R&D incentives, we had incentives around R&D - which were phase 3 investment decisions, launches, phase II starts, and there's assessing of commercial goals which are around the growth drivers of the company which you can land everybody up in oncology, cardiovascular, metabolic, respiratory etc. and then  some financial goals and we were thrust to meet our objectives, we have to get all of these things - not just the R and D ones. So, the whole organizations actually got very well lined up. But for us the things that we rewarded scientists on were:- the quality of the work they were doing, so these good kills, or good moving forward in a CD package, coming forward you know a lot less candidates coming forward every year than we ever had, we were no longer the most prolific, but the quality was much higher and the teams had to be able to cover every aspect of the programme including what the developing plan looks like going forward to proof of concept. And then the successes, their rewards came and they demonstrated proof of mechanism, demonstrated proof of concept, when they get the phase III investment decision because I don't get to decide what goes into phase III, someone else has to put that through and so that you can’t game the system in that way. Mike Rea:                          Yes. Interesting. We have always quoted the Brazil Germany World Cup final, cause as you look at the goals, clearly very big divide, but actually Brazil won the game on all of the surrogate metrics. They shot some goals, shot some targets, possession Brazil won.   Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       But the goals count. Launching drugs count. So, the launching drugs counts and of course the challenges is, when you are in a research team launching a drug somewhere away. We were lucky that we had a few drugs that moved quite fast through the whole process. So, people got a sense that we could actually do this and then the other piece that was a very important measure actually for us is actually just the quality of the publications coming out of the organization. And if you look at where we were, I had an organization of about 5000 people when I joined and we were publishing about 200 papers and one nature or science paper. Today we are half that size, we are about 2500 people, we are publishing between 40 - 50 nature science sell papers a year. So even those, and of course when I first joined it was impossible, you couldn’t do drug discovery and good science, now it’s part of our DNA. Mike Rea:                          It’s all the same thing. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Yeah and people don't even question that, and of course what happens as a consequence of doing it is, people want to come and work with you, whether it is an academic collaborator, whether it is Biotech or whether it’s someone who actually wants to be a part of AstraZeneca.  Mike Rea:                          Of course  Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       So it’s made a huge shift to us and of course our move down to Cambridge is all part of that shift, it’s part of being close to an academic hotbed where there is amazing science because we have become much more open than we ever were, which for me again it’s part of my DNA in terms of being collaborative. Being collaborative in Cambridge is really, really easy because there is so many people you can collaborate with. And of course we have Oxford, London in our doorstep and the rest of the UK and the rest of the world, we have tried to join UK and Sweden together to try and create a European hub and the partnerships we have now which when we have many and some quite unusual, we actually have AstraZeneca scientists work in the same lab as an academic scientist, shared goals and they are working on basic research as well as drug discovery programs. It’s made us much, much more porous than we have ever been. Mike Rea:                          The thing I mentioned to you before was, we have been doing the pharmaceutical innovation index for 9 years now. And if you look where AstraZeneca started to where Astra Zeneca came number 1 this year. It’s been a rapid turnaround. I think because all the things that you recognize and our index measures, did you launch and did you launch successfully? Did you get reimbursement?  So clearly you have gone from that period when you were doing a lot of internal R&D anywhere to suddenly getting somewhere. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       And it’s been - the wins are important. Celebrating the wins when you get them is actually one of the things that galvanized the organization. But you know, I think that are the three key things, being really focused on high quality science, being really collaborative and open, and then executing flawlessly when it comes to moving through the pipeline and launching. Mike Rea:                          When you said, you came up with the five R’s. Was that a process to come up with or were those the five things that mattered the most or did you go in with -? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       No actually look, you know Pfizer had published their three pillars,  these things are very intuitive and most interesting is people ask me about - because these are you know, they're bleeding obvious, you’d think everybody would do it, people ask me - why do you publish this, because it’s like a trade secret. They're not! Everybody should be doing this and I think many companies do, but Actually many companies don’t and when I ask people that join us from other companies about what's different about the way that we do it versus others, it’s that we really do practice this. I don't let well not I; we don't let programs come forward if the odds don't look good, and if they do come forward with a gap, let’s say we’re not sure about right safety, we have a question mark about whether we’re going to have the right dose versus safety liability. It’s the first question we ask in the clinic. So, do you really understand the proof of mechanism, the PKPD and workout the margins, so it really focuses the attention is you understand where your liabilities are in a program to go there first and workout whether you can flip a red to an amber or green –  Mike Rea:                          So, it’s okay to go at risk as long as you –  Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       As long as you know what the risk is and you're very clear about what the killer experiment is. Mike Rea:                          Hoping it’s not there. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Yeah and then of course the first few years projects will come and you say no once, you say no twice, you take teams through it and teams change their behavior. Mike Rea:                          Oh, you do mean it? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Yeah, yeah. Doesn’t make a difference. It’s kind of important, right. There's got to be some tease to it. Mike Rea:                          So, is there a definition of innovation at AstraZeneca? Because one of the things we always find is that everyone has a different approach to what it is and what it means. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       As I said earlier, it means so many things to different groups. So, for my precision medicine group, innovation would be developing the first plug-based DNA test for EGFO - it’s very different to my oncology therapy, it should be looking to identify a new target or pathway and get the first molecules or the first crystal structure that target with the molecule. So I think innovation really is different things to different groups, I think as I said earlier the most important thing is that whatever we choose to do and whichever areas we’re focusing, whether its Crispr or whether its Protacs or whether it’s a new – some other drug modanity or something around new safety models that improve our prediction, that we are aware of what's out there, so we’re not re-inventing the wheel. We’re working with the very best people and we’re pushing the boundaries of science so that when hopefully we’ve cracked something, when we publish it, people aren't saying ‘so what’. I’d really like us to be viewed as driving science forwards and not just helping ourselves but actually helping the fields that we work in also get better at what they do, and that culture piece is really important because it’s one of the things that I think can make us a little bit different. When we moved to Cambridge, our new building in Cambridge is right in the Addenbrookes campus, the Addenbrookes hospital, its next to the Papworth hospital and then on the other side we’re opposite the laboratory for microbiology, the MRC microbiology. More Nobel laureates than any other institution in the world and an incredibly, if you want high powered science that's one of the places to go in the world and I was talking to John Savalo at the time, he was the CEO of the MR center, ‘wouldn’t it be great, given that we’re going to be in Cambridge to see if we can start working with the MRC, with the LMB’ and so we put a small pot of money together that we co funded and I went and saw Hugh Pelham who was the director at the time and I said, let’s try and do something and of course his natural first inclination was well you know, we’re all very, very smart and you're from industry and we don't want you to suck our brains dry and us get nothing back. Which I think is – I think pharma has moved on a long way over the past few years but I think still in some circles the [inaudible 23:55] of what we do and how we work – and so we worked really, really hard to build a strong relationship with the LMB and to actually make it a very easy way to get – we created this pot of money that basically PI’s from AZ and the LMB, to come and apply for, and they can get a post doc and it’s a two pager and it would be very, very quick and easy and not bureaucratic and Hugh and myself would review this and we’d say yes or no. Based on the quality of the science. Mike Rea:                          Together? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Together, we did it together. And it was – of course the first round was not particularly well subscribed but today we work with more than half the PI’s in the LMB, collaboratively, and they get back as much as – because they can see that we can do things, we can create molecules for them, we have certain capabilities and technologies that they don't have access to, but more importantly there's actually a lot of overlap in terms of our common interest. And so, when you put us both together, we actually get more powerful because we’re obviously quite plad in our thinking, they're quite basic in their thinking, we put it together and actually magic happens, and we've got some amazing stuff that's going on working with them.  Mike Rea:                          Which is an interesting – I think your comfort with ‘open’ is an interesting differentiator for you in that way that you described this long-term approach, proof of concept if you like of going in. Have you found it easy to have your scientists behave the right way in the collaboration? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       It’s been an evolution right, because initially we were incredibly closed. We didn't want to share anything. Everything was proprietary and you just do it in baby chunks and you chip away, you chip away and eventually people get comfortable and there's many examples, of course we had to do it – because if you think of where we were and having to try and change the culture quickly, one of the best ways of changing the culture is actually bringing external scientists in that can show you what world records they'd make. So for example, we did another collaboration with the MRC, we made lots of our molecules, clinical molecules available to MRC scientists to try and find new indications for which then spurred the - NCATs was happening as well, and we’re one of the companies that has the most molecules, both clinical and preclinical in those types of things, you know when we set up the bio park in [inaudible 26:17], park, we had this huge site that was half empty and I used to wander through the corridors going from one group to the other and there would be those empty laboratories, they used to call it tumbleweed labs where you could hear the winds rushing through and it was a demoralizer and from the era when everyone was investing in bricks and infrastructure, bricks and mortar and infrastructure, because they thought they could just industrialize R&D and find out the very hard way that you couldn't, so then the organization shrank and we had these huge buildings. And so, what we did was we said – lets collapse our footprint on the building and let’s bring biotech’s in. So that was actually our first bio park and in contrast to other bio park cities, let’s not have the biotech’s that come in partitioned and walled off. Let’s have them using our cafeteria, our coffee shops, our shared spaces, let’s have them potentially using our equipment if they want to, so they have to buy capital, and we can really try and share our infrastructure, make ourselves good partners, help give them advice when they need it, if they need some regulatory advice some clinical advice, without asking for anything in return, it does start to encourage biotech’s to come in, it makes us again start to forge relationships with other companies and probably most importantly it starts to fill the space up and make you feel vibrant and energetic and full. Mike Rea:                          Which is an interestingly human approach – there's this great book called Obliquity which talks about getting what you want but approaching it in an oblique way and you're described a lot of internal and external signals about your readiness to embrace the future instead of the past. How important is that -? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       And treat people like grown-ups, the other thing is treating people like grown-ups, because again when we first set this up they were like – what do you mean they're going to be wandering around – everyone signs a CDA, if they don't follow what they should be doing they’ll get kicked off the side, so I think if we go in with the assumption that everybody is going to behave themselves and actually follow the appropriate principles, then actually you're pretty safe. You don’t have to have barriers and passes and everything else, and actually we’ve done it in Boston, in Wharton and actually created – we had a half empty building in Boston which is now packed and actually has a waiting list for biotech’s to come in and in Gothenburg as well. Now in Cambridge it’s a little bit different because we’re already in the middle of the biotech cluster so it’s a little bit less important, but for those sites it’s a little bit more isolated and not right in the midst in Kendall square or not in England for example, in Sweden. It makes quite a big difference having this sort of vibrant environment.  Mike Rea:                          Kendall Square has almost become a hiring hub rather than an innovation spreading hub, because people aren’t necessarily collaborating there, just hiring the folks from –  Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Well the nice thing about this – what I find about us being in Cambridge is you know–  you go to a coffee shop or you drop your kids off into school, and you bump into someone, happens to be a hematologist who has just come over, is working and you can start to talk about things that we couldn’t talk about when we were in Cheshire, because the environment is just different. So, it’s actually amazing, how many collaborations and relationships have been initiated through these informal connections. So one of the things that I've been trying to do over the years is try and generate as many opportunities for our scientists to have informal connections, whether it’s with people in the bio houses where the collaborators were, you're just making it easier for the serendipitous to happen and then again innovation can happen. Mike Rea:                          Yeah planning for serendipity. Absolutely. So, one of the things that's been apparent from the outside is the way that you've approached innovation as an active process and five hours is a very good illustration of that. Do you measure it year on year?  Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       So, we measure lots of things. I have got a great portfolio management group. I measure it but don’t necessarily incentivize on it. So, I think we measure how many proof of mechanisms we have done, we measure our proof of concepts, so obviously we get rewarded for things like phase III investment decisions and launches. We measure how many publications are coming out, from which groups. But I try not to get to, we tend to do - first full three-year holding averages, so no one is ever pressured into doing something in one year and getting a number. And actually, the focus really is on the quality of what people are doing, and how innovative is it, how inventive is it. Is it going to lead to hopefully to break through in the therapy area in terms of capability? Mike Rea:                          So, you have got trendlines rather than timelines. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Yeah so, we are quite careful about that because I just think it drives the wrong behavior if you are not careful. Mike Rea:                          Right, People start gaming whatever they are given as a target. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Sounds so brilliant doing that. You know you give whatever target you give them they are good at hitting them. Again, the CD one, it’s amazing what behave - in 2005 - 2010 period, because there were [inaudible 31:30] the number of backups we had in the pipeline. Backup number 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, then of course all the backups had exactly the same probability as the lead molecule. So, we don’t do backups anymore. Mike Rea:                          Right, I remember sitting in Sweden once, listening to the team saying that it doesn’t matter if this one doesn’t work because you have got a backup - how does that not matter? Just because you are in a job for another couple of years, but -  Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Exactly right. Now unless it’s a really, really important program they know they are going to get one shot so they've got the time, they have got to work out the quality of the molecules versus taking a bit more time to get rid of a few more of the work. So, it’s a real balancing acta and for some plans we will have backups, but they are unusual. Less than 5% of our pipeline now has backups.   Mike Rea:                          Interesting times, and what’s been the biggest learning for you as a director of all of this activity over the period? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       You know I've worked in different companies now, there's not a lot I would have done differently. I have seen Wyeth go through - before it was acquired by Pfizer, go through relatively similar transformations of what [inaudible 32:45] said of R&D, time was much more focused on a number of things. But he had a leadership team that was very passionate about science. And so, we were all very much focused on the quality of the science. I think the biggest piece is celebrating the wins, but also celebrating the good failures and then exemplifying them - constantly exemplifying the individuals, teams, projects. You know we were lucky that we had to grow in [inaudible 33:15] in particular, which came from our teams in Orderly Park actually which went from – you know we put the resources behind it and there was a new generation when I arrived and we moved it in the CD and then it went from CD to launch and in about three years, now that was a brilliant thing to have coming along because it was an example of what you can do.  And of course having a quick win, that also made the organization feel better about itself, Limpasa which was written off, we resurrected and brought back to line, even though we’ve never really stopped working on it and the Imed, when Pascal joined me asking me why is this not in phase III, suddenly pumped everyone's chest up and then everything we’ve been doing at Astra has been about rebuilding and then [inaudible 34:04] really well your artistic molecule. So, there's lot of really cool stuff in every area that we’re working in, of course that makes it easier to walk on and keep going.  Mike Rea:                          So, with what you described sounds like the early stage of an exponential growth rather than just seeing the results -  Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       I hope so. So, the other piece I love about our company is I think we are a humble company, starting with Pascal and his leadership team all the way through our leaders and our scientist. You know once we got better, I think - I have said this to you previously, we are still failing 80% of the time. Right so we have got lots of room for improvement and very few companies that have been able to continuously in 5 years cycles continue to be at the top end of the productivity chart. So, we have had a good 5 years. That is one set of 5 years so for me the huge chance is making sure we continue to do this. So, the pipeline continues to fuel new launches and new medicines, that No one in the organization gets complaced in any way- shape or form. They remain humble collaborative, open and porous to ideas whether they are from inside or outside. Mike Rea:                          Which has been an interesting characterization of the change I think and having that humility seems – adds more to AstraZeneca, in my external perception to where it is today. So, what drives you personally in this space? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       I have always been - it’s difficult now not to think of myself as a leader, but I always used to get really upset when people called me a line manager or a leader versus scientist. I'm a scientist first and foremost. I get excited about seeing people’s data. Not the bullet points from the power points, the actual data. The graphs the –  Mike Rea:                          And a scientist in your approach to the day job as well, I guess. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       There's a keenness, so I still have a couple of students and I don't spend anywhere near enough time with them but I’ve tried to keep my academic links, but more importantly it’s just to encouraging science, constantly encouraging science, constantly speaking to our scientists. Going and seeing their projects, seeing them present their posters, seeing and encouraging the next generation of science and scientist just to come through. To me that's the first driver is just the quality of the science and being an organization that you can say and be really proud is doing good science. Second one is about being collaborative. I’ve always been quite collaborative by nature and I get irritated actually by people that hoard data or think that they can't share things and so –  Mike Rea:                          Yeah, I’ve noticed cause you're active on twitter too that that's – how do you feel about that as a collaborative exchange. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       It’s good so we’ve got this new thing called Workplace which is a spinoff from Facebook and its actually working really well, where you can start to post – so someone will post a bit of scientific data and then you can ask questions and you can generate – Twitter is a great place for – I see it more for news and getting people’s opinions on things that are coming out., particularly if they're from outside of AZ. But this being open to ideas wherever they come from and being porous and you can talk about being collaborative and then you can be collaborative and I really want it to be collaborative. So, I am probably being too open rather than less open. If I ever have to choose if it works for us, I think the risks are relatively small and the upside is huge. And then – there is two things, and then the other piece that I'm incredibly passionate about which – actually Katherine in the room here, was an example is developing our talent. So really I’ve seen it happen all through my career actually as I’ve grown through the industry, but surrounding yourself with people that are smarter than you are, but also pulling people up more rapidly, and I kind of think about my career journey and I’ve been lucky to have some managers that were quite – leaders that were prepared to take risks on me and sort of propelled me up the line, probably more quickly than I was ever expecting, not probably, a lot more than I was ever expecting, but some people getting there – you're sure about that? And I kind of have this same conversation with my leaders and their leaders about take risks on people. If you haven't got people in places that are a little bit uncomfortable and really pushing themselves and finding out they can really swim versus sign, you'll never accelerate people’s careers. So that's something that we spend quite a little time, with my team and their team. So, I spend a little time doing talent development and really trying to pull out the bright sparks faster than they would otherwise have moved Mike Rea:                          That's interesting. I’m going to ask Katherine; do we have two more minutes? I'm going do the 2-minute timeline. Okay so, within a spurt of a 2-minute rule, so what – you clearly read a lot, what books do you go back to as your core – which books do you recommend? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       So, the one that's probably closest to my heart from a heartstring’s perspective is probably Roy Vagelos’s autobiography around Science, Medicine and Merck. Mike Rea:                          That was a great period. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       And for me he was – apart from [inaudible 40:04] obviously a Greek heritage like I am, I’ve never had a scientist in my family, so reading his – I just read his book and it was just amazing what he did and Merck for me, as you know I was doing my PhD, that was the prototypical, what a great R&D organization looks like and I actually did a PhD that was sponsored by them and Roy was like a hero. He was one of the first science led CEO’s and he took a company and really to me he epitomized the science at organizations and so – that's probably one of my favorite discovery books that I read in kind of a – I’ve never actually met him, but I would love to meet him and I just think he did an amazing job and actually it so happened when Merck lost that science focus – they got it back now and I think it made a huge difference, that for me has been one of my guiding lights. All through my career. And then when I was at Wyeth actually I met Bill George for the first time and we’ve met him – I’ve been at AstraZeneca a few times, he’s written a book called Discover your True North and that's about what are your guiding principles, what are your true norths and sticking to them, well actually not sticking to them, knowing what they are so you can stick to them and that has been something that again I have used, when I first joined the company I wrote down my list of four or five things that were the most important things for me, but I never should have talked about over the past few minutes and sticking to those principles and not ever letting them go, because they're what define you, and have been really important. Mike Rea:                          Fantastic. And what are your ambitions for the next five years? Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       To do this. I think we have the best jobs in the world honestly. Scientists in the organization, we’re able to turn science into medicine and really see the impact of what we do and for me, I’ve completed part one of my journey at AstraZeneca, we now need to show that we can do it again, and that we can hopefully improve even further. It was something that we can continue through, I want to just keep doing that, I love doing what I'm doing. Mike Rea:                          Fantastic, and one thing that you wished that I’d ask you that I haven't asked you. That's the last question. Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       How do you relax? As I'm sure you know, you know from speaking to – these are pretty intense jobs, and so my family probably are the thing that brings me down to earth and you're talking about your kid being a guitarist, my kids they're young, they're nine and ten, my wife’s a scientist but they're all very good at when I come home to making me silly daddy and just bringing me completely down to earth and I find that the most relaxing thing out there, being with my family. Mike Rea:                          Excellent, well thank you so much and I know there's a thousand questions I could have continued to ask you. Hopefully we’ll get to do it again. Thanks.  Dr. Menelas Pangalos:       Thank you very much. 

Kevin är en vinnarskalle och älskar tävlingsmomentet i försäljningen. Det gör dock inte alla hans anställda. Hur ska han då motivera dom? Sofia ger råd. Och Fredrik vaknar till och tipsar om boken Obliquity av John Kay, som handlar om hur man når mål indirekt. Bara fortsätt att skicka in frågor till ledarskapsdags@kunskapsgruppen.se  :)

In 2010 John Kay wrote an article for the FT called Obliquity. It proved so popular that it became a best selling book. Obliquity is the concept that to achieve what we want to do we should aim for other things - we achieve our goals obliquely. Tweet us your feedback @eatsleepwkrpt See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dominic Frisby talks to John Kay, one of Britain's most respected economists and author of Obliquity - Why our goals are best achieved indirectly.As well as discussing the philosophy behind the book, in the second half of the programme they discuss banking regulation and systems of money. Full of thought-provoking ideas, the final discussion surrounding the financial system should give all listeners plenty of food for thought. John Kay's career has spanned academic work and think tanks, business schools, company directorships, consultancies and investment companies.  He is a visiting Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, a Fellow of St John's College, Oxford, the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He is a director of several public companies and contributes a weekly column to the Financial Times. Click here to buy Obliquity.This podcast was recorded on 14 March 2013. It can also be heard at Goldmoney - the best way to buy gold and silver. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit frisby.substack.com/subscribe

Dominic Frisby talks to John Kay, one of Britain’s most respected economists and author of Obliquity - Why our goals are best achieved indirectly. As well as discussing the philosophy behind the book, in the second half of the programme they discuss banking regulation and systems of money. Full of thought-provoking ideas, the final discussion surrounding the financial system should give all listeners plenty of food for thought. John Kay’s career has spanned academic work and think tanks, business schools, company directorships, consultancies and investment companies.  He is a visiting Professor of Economics at the London School... See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.