Podcasts about plando

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

In this episode of Business Ninjas, Duane Reiff, President of Global Source International, joins Andrew to talk about how his company helps improve sales teams.About Global Source International:Are you struggling with…Growth: Experiencing stagnant/declining sales, or are you growing too quickly and can't scale? Stress: Doing too many things (and none as well as you could), and frustrated by the lack of control you feel?Balance: Are you inundated with day-to-day decisions, instead of focusing time on new ideas and ways to drive the business forward?Plan: Do you have a clear roadmap outlining how to build a solid sales infrastructure?If you find yourself facing uncertainty about the road ahead, you are not alone. Business leaders of all sizes face this. Global Source International's Certified Sales Operating and Management System™ will help you reclaim control of your sales organization.Learn more: http://globalsourceinternational.com/ -----Do you want to be interviewed for your business?  Schedule time with us, and we'll create a podcast like this for your business:  https://www.WriteForMe.io/-----https://www.facebook.com/writeforme.iohttps://www.instagram.com/writeforme.io/https://twitter.com/writeformeiohttps://www.linkedin.com/company/writeforme/ https://www.pinterest.com/andysteuer/Want to be interviewed on our Business Ninjas podcast? Schedule time with us now, and we'll make it happen right away! Check out WriteForMe, more than just a Content Agency! See the Faces Behind The Voices on our YouTube Channel!

Your phone rings every day with someone trying to sell you another way to market your business. So how do you know which option will really deliver results?In this episode, Brandon and Caleb break down the two biggest types of advertising and give you a clear method for determining where you should put your dollars for the best result. PLUS – get the scoop on one of the shiniest objects in digital advertising; Geo-Fencing. Start your week strong with Maven Monday!Episode Highlights: 2:50 - Should I be Spending My Money on Digital or Traditional Advertising?3:20  - What is digital? What is traditional?4:26 - Why this is so confusing5:32 - The question you should be asking7:10 - Why digital never gets cheaper8:50 - Are radio and TV ads inefficient?10:15 - A warning before you waste money11:17 - The Today Customer11:57 - If you don't want to be a discount provider12:22 - Randy and Dee's success (zero to hero)14:50 - Why it's not just traditional vs. digital17:22 - Why some companies grow exponentially19:14 - Does Geofencing? if so, how?20:40 - What is geofencing?21:43 - All of the things that have to go right23:02 - Beware of this sales pitch23:48 - If you want to do GeoFencing right (email kent@thunderburstmedia.com)25:04 - Why you should stop before you spend26:15 - Who should use geofencing (and when)28:50 - Using common sense and debunking myths30:21 - How to utilize psychology to make the best planDo you have a marketing problem you'd like us to help solve? Send it to MavenMonday@FrankandMaven.com!Get a copy of our Best-Selling Book, The Maven Marketer Here: https://a.co/d/1clpm8a

This is a kickoff for a series on what my team and I feel are the top 20 writing tips to support anyone on their writing journey. Part 1 focuses on getting started, and I share 5 simple tips to help you with setting up your writing journey. Here is a brief overview: Don't wait for the “right” time to write–it will never happen. Write yourself a message with your intention at the top of your document before you beginDevelop a habit/ make a calendar plan that involves gluing your butt to the chair come what mayCreate a flexible “both/and” organization planDo what you KNOW writers do. As always, leave us a review so that more people see the podcast and get the writing support they need. Then, share your takeaways and this episode on IG, tagging me @shanahartman_ Remember, we are here to change the personal growth and biz strategy publishing world by activating our unique voices and stories.If you are ready to see if the Embodied Writing Mastermind is your next step for leaving your legacy and getting your core messages from business and life in an empowering book click this link to work with Shana!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Leaders create vision while managers execute vision. Vision is essential for successful leadership. Without it, influence fades along with the current trends. This could not be more true in business. Unless you, as the leader, have a clear picture of the destination where you want your business to be in three to five years, you've got nothing that will inspire your people to follow you.  Seth Goodin said, “Leaders create things that didn't exist before, they do this by giving the tribe a vision of something that could happen but hasn't yet.” Today we are going to be talking about vision. Your business vision is a clear, inspiring, practical, and inviting picture of your business's future. Seeing what the future could be, and then sharing that potential in an inspiring, clear, practical, and inviting way. A clear message from you, the leader that your team can follow into the future.When you are clear on what you want and how you plan to get there, you avoid the many pitfalls that can happen in business. Because you are better prepared for the future, you capitalize on key opportunities and you're better attuned to what will help you move forward. You have the ability to filter out opportunities that will distract or derail you. Your strategy is aligned with your big picture. Because of this focus and alignment, you waste less money, time, and talent. Your team is on board and all pulling in the same direction. And maybe most importantly, you are motivated to stick with it when times get tough.Today we will discuss: The importance of a clear business vision planElements of a clear vision business planHow to craft your own clear vision planDo you have any doubts or limiting beliefs about your future? Can you reject, reframe, or replace any of these to create a new room for possibility? We discuss in more detail about obstacles and limiting beliefs in the Peake Creative CEO Mindset Business Vision Plan. Find it on our Peakecreative website and use promo code CEOMINDSETVISION to receive $10 off this amazing tool that will help you lay the foundation for ongoing business success in your early childhood business.We have created a pdf resource located on our website that will guide you through sample questions and a process based on the 4 domains we talked about today. We hope that these general business questions will help you get started crafting your own business vision plan.Hopefully, this episode brought you a fresh new perspective on the importance of putting in a little time and effort to create a strong foundation in your early childhood business will reap huge rewards.  When you nurture your CEO Mindset you are leading your business and not just managing it. Spending less time on the busy work and spending more time doing the things you truly enjoy. Focusing on the things that really matter, your top priorities, your key relationships, your most important projects, all the things that will bring you more joy and your business more success. Take care and have a great week!

Star Wars Rebels 11: Idiot's Array The wrong gamble forces the crew to transport unusual cargo. First aired on January 19, 2015, written by Kevin Hopps, and directed by Steward Lee. Music by Zen_Man

Today’s Topics:PFL’s new weight cutting rule won’t help and it probably hurtsMy thoughts on Julija Stoliarenko collapsing on the scale at UFC weigh inBKFC’s pension plan is heavy on promises, very light on facts There’s a Venum Brazil that could throw a big wrench into the UFC’s outfitting planDo you know something about UFC, USADA, an MMA manager or a fighter, that I should know? You can email me at trent.reinsmith@gmail.com or contact me via ProtonMail at trent.reinsmith@protonmail.comSubscribe to the YouTube Page: Get full access to C'mon Now at cmonnow.substack.com/subscribe

Thestoryographist.com and shawnkunkler.com present: Soloprenuer180 Episode 24, STOP being lazy! Do the Work!Are these words from Bruno Mars' hit song "The Lazy Song" been ringing in your ears more often than they should?"Today I don't feel like doing anything. I just want to lay in my bed.I don't feel like picking up my phone so leave a message at the tone.'Cause today I swear I'm not doing anything, nothing at all!"The pressure a solopreneur feels can be daunting; it can take the passion out of what you do. While the flexibility of doing it on your terms is great, you still sometimes lack the motivation to continue moving forward. The stress of tracking finances, paying bills, and creating and maintaining client relationships would have anyone ready to throw their hands up in the air and quit. But.... if you keep at it.... it will all pay off.This week, San Francisco Realtor Agent Shawn Kunkler and The Storyographist share their personal experiences of doing the work. And provide examples of how in the end, big deals were closed and new opportunities presented themselves.Things you will learn in this episode:Showcase your successThe secret sauceGet in front of your audienceStick to the planDo the workYou can connect with Shawn and The Storyographist on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter @solopreneur180. We'd love to connect with you.Know another Solopreneur who feels trapped on an island alone? Show them some love and share this podcast.

Qualified Tuition Programs, also called 529 Plans, provide a way to save money for future education expenses. Today we cover:Qualified Tuition Programs, also called 529 Plans, provide a way to save money for future education expenses. Today we cover:How 529 Plans WorkWho owns the planContribution LimitsTaxationQualifying InstitutionsHow to invest money in a 529 PlanDo 528 Plans affect Financial Aid? Resources:Birch Run Financial WebsiteEmail Alex: ACabot@birchrunfinancial.comEmail Ed: ELambert@birchrunfinancial.comCall Alex and Ed: 484-395-2190Find Alex on LinkedInFind Ed on LinkedIn

Hurf's back! And the episode title spoiled our other surprise; we'll get to that in a moment! First timp, Axeil, & Hurfydurfy need to give an update on the Go Mode Podcast Mentor Tournament, discuss the 2nd Plando tourney, and revisit Hints in Rando in order to provide even more knowledge. FEATURE: Go Mode is proud to welcome accomplished Rando racer Kohrek to the show to discuss Entrance Randomizer, AKA "Entrando". 1:20 - GMP:MT Brackets Round 1 & Quarterfinals 8:10 - 2nd Plando Tourney Kicking Off Now 12:05 - Hints, Part Two 21:40 - Entrance Randomizer (“Entrando”): Meet Kohrek 24:25 - Entrando: A History & The Basics 31:50 - Entrando: Tips For the Traditional Rando Player 42:10 - Entrando: Memorable Moments 46:45 - Entrando: Changes? 50:30 - Entrando: Tracking 57:15 - Entrando: Hints 1:02:00 - Entrando: Final Words 1:06:15 - Wrap-up LINKS GO MODE PODCAST MENTOR TOURNAMENT Match Schedule (updated daily): https://tinyurl.com/y5m4r4bx Discord (for spectating): https://discordapp.com/invite/KHTyEc5 Challonge: https://challonge.com/GMPMT 2019 FALL PLANDO TOURNAMENT Schedule: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7PlHoI5xMsWugomcs_uROClqVoaemQ7tXtmuEicIR0/edit#gid=139083832 Challonge: https://challonge.com/lttpplandofall2019 Customizer Options on alttpr.com: https://alttpr.com/en/customizer#settings Entrance Randomizer Options: https://alttpr.com/en/game_entrance Entrance Randomizer Hints: https://gomodepodcast.com/entrance-randomizer-hints/ Follow Kohrek on Twitch: https://twitch.tv/kohrek/ Follow The Go Mode Podcast on Twitter: @GoModePodcast Watch GMP:MT Races on Twitch: https://twitch.tv/gomodepodcast Join The Go Mode Podcast Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/KHTyEc5

Hurf's back! And the episode title spoiled our other surprise; we'll get to that in a moment! First timp, Axeil, & Hurfydurfy need to give an update on the Go Mode Podcast Mentor Tournament, discuss the 2nd Plando tourney, and revisit Hints in Rando in order to provide even more knowledge. FEATURE: Go Mode is proud to welcome accomplished Rando racer Kohrek to the show to discuss Entrance Randomizer, AKA "Entrando". 1:20 - GMP:MT Brackets Round 1 & Quarterfinals 8:10 - 2nd Plando Tourney Kicking Off Now 12:05 - Hints, Part Two 21:40 - Entrance Randomizer (“Entrando”): Meet Kohrek 24:25 - Entrando: A History & The Basics 31:50 - Entrando: Tips For the Traditional Rando Player 42:10 - Entrando: Memorable Moments 46:45 - Entrando: Changes? 50:30 - Entrando: Tracking 57:15 - Entrando: Hints 1:02:00 - Entrando: Final Words 1:06:15 - Wrap-up LINKS GO MODE PODCAST MENTOR TOURNAMENT Match Schedule (updated daily): https://tinyurl.com/y5m4r4bx Discord (for spectating): https://discordapp.com/invite/KHTyEc5 Challonge: https://challonge.com/GMPMT 2019 FALL PLANDO TOURNAMENT Schedule: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7PlHoI5xMsWugomcs_uROClqVoaemQ7tXtmuEicIR0/edit#gid=139083832 Challonge: https://challonge.com/lttpplandofall2019 Customizer Options on alttpr.com: https://alttpr.com/en/customizer#settings Entrance Randomizer Options: https://alttpr.com/en/game_entrance Entrance Randomizer Hints: https://gomodepodcast.com/entrance-randomizer-hints/ Follow Kohrek on Twitch: https://twitch.tv/kohrek/ Follow The Go Mode Podcast on Twitter: @GoModePodcast Watch GMP:MT Races on Twitch: https://twitch.tv/gomodepodcast Join The Go Mode Podcast Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/KHTyEc5

Hurf's back! And the episode title spoiled our other surprise; we'll get to that in a moment! First timp, Axeil, & Hurfydurfy need to give an update on the Go Mode Podcast Mentor Tournament, discuss the 2nd Plando tourney, and revisit Hints in Rando in order to provide even more knowledge. FEATURE: Go Mode is proud to welcome accomplished Rando racer Kohrek to the show to discuss Entrance Randomizer, AKA "Entrando". 1:20 - GMP:MT Brackets Round 1 & Quarterfinals 8:10 - 2nd Plando Tourney Kicking Off Now 12:05 - Hints, Part Two 21:40 - Entrance Randomizer (“Entrando”): Meet Kohrek 24:25 - Entrando: A History & The Basics 31:50 - Entrando: Tips For the Traditional Rando Player 42:10 - Entrando: Memorable Moments 46:45 - Entrando: Changes? 50:30 - Entrando: Tracking 57:15 - Entrando: Hints 1:02:00 - Entrando: Final Words 1:06:15 - Wrap-up LINKS GO MODE PODCAST MENTOR TOURNAMENT Match Schedule (updated daily): https://tinyurl.com/y5m4r4bx Discord (for spectating): https://discordapp.com/invite/KHTyEc5 Challonge: https://challonge.com/GMPMT 2019 FALL PLANDO TOURNAMENT Schedule: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7PlHoI5xMsWugomcs_uROClqVoaemQ7tXtmuEicIR0/edit#gid=139083832 Challonge: https://challonge.com/lttpplandofall2019 Customizer Options on alttpr.com: https://alttpr.com/en/customizer#settings Entrance Randomizer Options: https://alttpr.com/en/game_entrance Entrance Randomizer Hints: http://gomodepodcast.com/entrance-randomizer-hints/ Follow Kohrek on Twitch: https://twitch.tv/kohrek/ Follow The Go Mode Podcast on Twitter: @GoModePodcast Watch GMP:MT Races on Twitch: https://twitch.tv/gomodepodcast Join The Go Mode Podcast Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/KHTyEc5

When your mind understands the information you have gathered, you will be able to create a Y.O.U. Plan. What is a Y.O.U. Plan? Do you understand Y.O.U.? Do you accept Y.O.U.? Do you allow/express Y.O.U.?

14 – Misery Mire + Fall Tournament Finale, Plando Glitches, & Voice Chat Races   00:00 / 01:33:00 1X Download file | Play in new window | Duration: 01:33:00 | Recorded on February 10, 2019Subscribe: iTunes | StitcherIn a consummate return to form, the Go Mode Podcast crew discusses some of the exciting developments in THREE tournaments that are in their finishing stages: The Fall Tournament which wraps up this week, the Chall

14 – Misery Mire + Fall Tournament Finale, Plando Glitches, & Voice Chat Races   00:00 / 01:33:00 1X Download file | Play in new window | Duration: 01:33:00 | Recorded on February 10, 2019Subscribe: iTunes | StitcherIn a consummate return to form, the Go Mode Podcast crew discusses some of the exciting developments in THREE tournaments that are in their finishing stages: The Fall Tournament which wraps up this week, the Chall

In a consummate return to form, the Go Mode Podcast crew discusses some of the exciting developments in THREE tournaments that are in their finishing stages: The Fall Tournament which wraps up this week, the Challenge Cup which will end soon as well, and the SMZ3R 1v1 tournament, which has just concluded. The crew also checks back in on the Reddit Plando tourney and briefly weighs in on a recent mandate about voice chat during weekly races. FEATURE: timp, Axeil, & Hurfydurfy wade through the time sink known as Misery Mire, aLttP’s penultimate crystal dungeon. 2:00 - Fall 2018 Tournament 12:25 - SMZ3R 1v1 Tournament 14:00 - Challenge Cup Update 17:20 - Plando Tournament Check-in, new bug discovered 23:20 - Weekly Race Voice Chat Ban 30:50 - Misery Mire Part 1 56:35 - Misery Mire Part 2, route divergence 1:21:00 - Misery Mire Boss & Go Mode 1:31:05 - Wrap up LINKS 2018 Fall Tournament Schedule: http://speedgaming.org/alttpr/ Hazukitty vs. Maligord Brutal Plando Tournament Race (Strong Language Warning): https://www.twitch.tv/videos/375417280 Hurfydurfy's voice chat race vs. gamercal, DT, Willard, & Lanxion: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/241912709 Spooky Action glitch gif: https://gfycat.com/adoredmedicaljavalina Vitreous eats one of Hurfydurfy's arrows: https://www.twitch.tv/hurfydurfy/clip/CarefulSourSkirretTebowing Follow The Go Mode Podcast on Twitter: @GoModePodcast Join The Go Mode Podcast Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/KHTyEc5

13 – Ice Palace + Fall Tournament Final 4, Tourney Break, & Plando Opinions   00:00 / 02:29:43 1X Download file | Play in new window | Duration: 02:29:43 | Recorded on January 26, 2019Subscribe: iTunes | StitcherTIMECODES IN DESCRIPTION! Yes, you’re seeing this correctly. The Go Mode Crew really does spend about two and a half hours talking about Rando this time, taking time to check in on all the current tournaments, including

13 – Ice Palace + Fall Tournament Final 4, Tourney Break, & Plando Opinions   00:00 / 02:29:43 1X Download file | Play in new window | Duration: 02:29:43 | Recorded on January 26, 2019Subscribe: iTunes | StitcherTIMECODES IN DESCRIPTION! Yes, you’re seeing this correctly. The Go Mode Crew really does spend about two and a half hours talking about Rando this time, taking time to check in on all the current tournaments, including

TIMECODES IN DESCRIPTION! Yes, you're seeing this correctly. The Go Mode Crew really does spend about two and a half hours talking about Rando this time, taking time to check in on all the current tournaments, including the Fall Tournament, Challenge Cup, the SMZ3R 1v1 Tournament, and a new Plando-inspired tournament starting up on Reddit, as well as answer some Fetch Questions. FEATURE: timp, Axeil, & Hurfydurfy plunge the icy depths of aLttP's 5th Crystal Dungeon Ice Palace. 2:30 - Fall Tournament Update 18:30 - Tournament Admin & Player Break 25:55 - Plando Tournament 39:50 - Challenge Cup 43:10 - SMZ3R 1v1 Tournament 45:15 - Ice Palace Part 1 1:23:20 - Ice Palace Part 2 1:54:50 - Ice Palace Boss & Go Mode 2:12:35 - Fetch Questions & Wrap up LINKS 2018 Fall Tournament Challonge: https://alttp.challonge.com/fall2018rando Reddit Post for 2019 Plando Tournament: https://www.reddit.com/r/alttpr/comments/aghdg8/2019_plando_tournament/ Challenge Cup Challonge: https://challonge.com/alttprcc2018 SMZ3R 1v1 Brackets Challonge: https://smz3.challonge.com/1v1top8 Bomb Jump Video Tutorial by Gamercal: https://youtu.be/ZUXbQ23Pxyg Follow The Go Mode Podcast on Twitter: @GoModePodcast Join The Go Mode Podcast Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/KHTyEc5

Marcus Garrett was born and raised in the great state of Texas. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration after surviving the mean streets of the inner suburbs. A decade of professional experience as a Certified Internal Auditor, combined with freelance writing on topics ranging from current events to love and relationships, helped Marcus develop a unique qualitative and quantitative writing style. His book and website, Debt Free or Die Trying, keep readers entertained with cautionary tales and helpful tips for living debt free. Marcus’ mission statement is: To make a difference in the lives of others by helping people develop sustainable plans for staying out of or getting out of debt. No plan, no budget, and no ideas: Can you imagine accruing $26,000 of debt in ONE weekend? Marcus can, because that’s really where his debt story really takes a turn for the worse. That few hours of free spending took him 7 years to pay off. He knows exactly how and why it happened: “I had a detached recognition of money because money just ‘happened’ around me.” He was a young man with no budget and no plan, so a consolidation loan check sent him on a drinking, partying, and shopping rampage. Marcus uses this part of his story to tell us all “what NOT to do.” TWEET: If there is a hustle for a get-rich quick scheme out there, I probably did it, tried it, or tried to get a friend to do it to see if it works. #ChasingDreams   How Marcus ended up doing a podcast: Are you holding yourself back, afraid to take that next step? Marcus and his podcast partner, Rich Jones, started their podcast, but were afraid to tackle personal finance and debt, so they started out talking about “everything else.” Marcus explains how they finally overcame “analysis paralysis” and jumped into the podcast. Marcus says, that with any new endeavor, you need to fail as quickly as possible so you can move on the “next great thing.” TWEET: I thought I was OK since I was covering the minimum payments on my debt. #ChasingDreams   The Plan: Do you find yourself too focused on the end—the championship? Marcus explains why so many people don’t realize that significant changes and decisions are made along the way of your journey. His advice is to acknowledge the problem, put a plan together, and then follow the plan. Marcus says, “Just do it and demonstrate the outcome!” TWEET: I had no budget and no plan. Money was something that came in and went out.  #ChasingDreams     Guest Recommendation: ONE action for a dream chaser to take—“It comes down to having a plan or creating a plan. Most people don’t know what the debt-free dream looks like. Put action items in place for your dream to happen. The plan will tell you how to get there.” OUTLINE OF THIS EPISODE: [2:03] Marcus’ interesting story of his background in debt [2:46] “How I spent $26K in ONE weekend!” [8:39] Marcus’ “Aha” moment, several years later [13:22] Helping people through books and the podcast [18:30] What Marcus and Rich talked about on the podcast, tiptoeing around personal finance [24:02] The painful experience of debt reality [30:35] Applying “The Five Why’s” [31:47] Marcus’ recommendations for others [36:35] In our consumerist society, debt is “the new normal” [38:21] Marcus’ ONE action for a dream chaser   RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE EPISODE: Marcus on LinkedIn  Marcus on Twitter @PayBalances Marcus on Instagram Pay Balances Marcus on Facebook Paychecks and Balances Marcus’ Podcast Marcus’ Website  Debt Free or Die Trying by Marcus Garrett    TWEETS YOU CAN USE: TWEET: If you are the thing holding yourself back, just STOP. #ChasingDreams TWEET: A lot of smart people are just bad at managing money. #ChasingDreams TWEET: If you make $30K or $300K, it doesn’t matter if you don’t know how to manage money. #ChasingDreams TWEET: If you want to do “normal,” then you WILL be in debt. #ChasingDreams  

It's just like the confusing title says, this week regular cast members Jack and Jonty welcome Lando to to the ranks, they talk about city adventures, ideas for video games and make some outlandish claims! This episode was recorded Jan 12th 2018.

Today's EpisodeIt happens. Lots of companies have a PR fail or two. Sometimes it's a bad decision and sometimes it's a stupid decision. Be sure you mitigate the stupid decisions. Be sure you do not make the stupid decision. I also talk about content standard guidelines and some basic tips on marketing plans. Enjoy!Show Topics:What is a content standardWhy marketers should start writingWhat is a marketing planWhy is it importantHow do you start to write a marketing planLesson from a PR FailHighlights from the Show:Content Standard Guideline is something every business needsMarketing plans are essential for any business.It's best to figure out a theme for your marketing planDo big goals, but, also have micro goals, too.As a business, you are going to cater to everyone on every political spectrum See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Are you following your Plan? Do we all have our business plans on paper? Good idea or waste of time? Join us and share your experiences. Tonight's Sponsor is http://archpatton.com

The Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce today curated a fascinating roundtable discussion on the future of innovation in Australia, with specific reference to the role the education sectors, in particular universities, are playing in this brave new world. On the panel was technologist and entrepreneur Paul Shetler, who is currently the CEO of Digital Transformation Office. Also on stage was social scientist Anne Moore, founder and CEO of PlanDo; and former telco whizz and now the founder of startup accelerator muru-D Annie Parker. The fourth and final panellist was University of Sydney deputy vice chancellor (research) professor Duncan Ivison.

The Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce today curated a fascinating roundtable discussion on the future of innovation in Australia, with specific reference to the role the education sectors, in particular universities, are playing in this brave new world. On the panel was technologist and entrepreneur Paul Shetler, who is currently the CEO of Digital Transformation Office. Also on stage was social scientist Anne Moore, founder and CEO of PlanDo; and former telco whizz and now the founder of startup accelerator muru-D Annie Parker. The fourth and final panellist was University of Sydney deputy vice chancellor (research) professor Duncan Ivison.

The Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce today curated a fascinating roundtable discussion on the future of innovation in Australia, with specific reference to the role the education sectors, in particular universities, are playing in this brave new world. On the panel was technologist and entrepreneur Paul Shetler, who is currently the CEO of Digital Transformation Office. Also on stage was social scientist Anne Moore, founder and CEO of PlanDo; and former telco whizz and now the founder of startup accelerator muru-D Annie Parker. The fourth and final panellist was University of Sydney deputy vice chancellor (research) professor Duncan Ivison.

Read more about Dr. Deming's work in his books, Out of the Crisis and The New Economics.   Cliff Norman and Ron Moen, of Associates in Process Improvement (API) discuss the history of the Plan Do Study Act (PDSA Cycle) and their research on the subject.  Cliff and Ron start with how the underpinning of Deming's philosophy was the idea of "continuous improvement", with the PDSA Cycle underlying that philosophy. They discuss the PDSA Cycle of never-ending improvement and learning, and how the iterative nature of the cycle fits with The Deming System of Profound Knowledge®. As Ron shares, Dr. Deming believed that "business is more exacting than science" as businesses must continually learn and improve to survive. Next Cliff and Ron delve into why they wrote a paper on the PDSA Cycle. Ron explains that the quality movement in America began after the NBC White Paper, If Japan Can..Why Can't We? aired in 1980. This raised interest in the Japan and the Plan Do Check Act (PDCA) cycle, which originated there.  Although Dr. Deming never spoke of PDCA, it was connected to him in the early 80's. That incorrect attribution was the inspiration behind the paper.  Cliff and Ron discuss the evolution of the PDSA Cycle, starting hundreds of years ago with the theories of Galileo and Aristotle. Listen as they take you through the progression, from the Shewhart Cycle, through the Deming Wheel and ultimately the PDSA Cycle as we know it today. Tripp Babbitt: [00:00:14] In this episode of The Deming Institute Podcast. Ron Moen and Cliff Norman of API are our guests. Ron and Cliff will discuss the history of PDSA and some of the research they've done on the subject.   Tripp Babbitt: [00:00:35] Hi, my name is Tripp Babbitt, I am host of the Deming Insitute podcast. My guests today are Cliff Norman and Ron Moen.   Tripp Babbitt: [00:00:44] Welcome, gentlemen.   Ron Moen: [00:00:46] Thanks, Tripp. Glad to be with you.   Cliff Norman: [00:00:47] Thank you. Thanks.   Tripp Babbitt: [00:00:49] I wanted to start out with our subject today is going to be kind of the history of plan, do study act. But for those in the audience that maybe are quite familiar with the Shujaat cycle and the history of Plan D0 Study Act, can you tell us a little bit about how it fits into the broader Deming philosophy?   Cliff Norman: [00:01:09] This is called the underpinning of Deming's philosophy was the idea of continuous improvement. And the PDSA cycle is kind of underlies that idea. Once we start improving has to be never ending.And the idea that learning and improvement are never ending underlying that under theory of knowledge.   Cliff Norman: [00:01:29] And as we'll discuss, having was heavily influenced by pragmatists out of Harvard University and the idea of inductive, deductive and inductive learning and the innovative nature of those two ideas are built in to the PDSA cycle. So it really fits up under the theory of knowledge in terms of a system of profound knowledge. What to add to that?   Ron Moen: [00:01:57] Sure. I think the context here for Deming, at least, is that we're talking about improvement of products and services, processes and systems. So it has a business context, but it goes broader than business. But I do have a quote used to say in a seminar. He said, business is more exacting than science. And what he meant by that is that a scientist really doesn't plan to study. You set up your experiments and you share what you've learned. You do your publication. Whereas in business you actually say in business you have to continually learn continuous improvement, Kyra. But also you need to act. So it's more exacting than science business. You have to act in what you're doing. So not only have you learned, but then you have to take action as a basis for that. So you can think of that as really the plan to study act. So in that sense, I think the PDA was adaptive. The scientific method was more adapted to business and industry and a very broad context for any improvement activity.   Cliff Norman: [00:03:04] Instead of Plan Do study publish its Plan Do Study Act.   Tripp Babbitt: [00:03:10] Yes, well said. OK, very good.So when you wrote this paper on plan Do Study Act and gave a history. What was why did you choose this particular subject to write on? What was what was your what was the impetus behind it? What was the purpose behind that?   Ron Moen: [00:03:30] I think what we were seeing in the early 80s, first of all, the quality movement in the United States really was from Deming's presentation.   Ron Moen: [00:03:39] And the NBC white paper, Japan can. Why can't we? Well, that made Japan very popular, too. And so what we were seeing coming out of Japan was the Plan Do check Act and having helped Deming with multiple seminars in the 80s, he never used the term. He never lectured it, and it wasn't part of it. He talked about the theory of knowledge, how we generate knowledge and so on. But the PDCA became connected to Deming back in the early 80s. I knew that was incorrect. And so what I was really trying to do is understand how it came about. And so that's how we end up with this paper. I might add it took me over 10 years to work on.   Ron Moen: [00:04:24] Ok, because the bottleneck I had was nobody in Japan claimed authorship. They kept pointing to Deming. And then when I'd work on Deming and the four day seminar, she had nothing to do with it. So there was a disconnect there that took me quite a while maybe.   Tripp Babbitt: [00:04:42] So what's let's start down this path of the PDSA. So. So how did it evolve over time?   Ron Moen: [00:04:49] Cliff, why don't you back us up to the history of a few hundred years? I think we need to back up the scientific method.   Cliff Norman: [00:04:56] The in the article circling back, Ron and I went back quite a ways, a lot of the information that we had, the first reference in this is from a book called The Metaphysical Club. But then it goes shorefront ways back. But in Western culture, we often credit Galileo with being the father of modern science. And of course, before that used to go to Aristotle on the idea of deductive reasoning. And unfortunately, you know, Aristotle would come up with things like males and male animals and nature have more kids than females or the version of that in nature. And the poor man was married twice.   Cliff Norman: [00:05:47] And if Sir Francis Bacon had been around and he didn't get there till 15, 64 with the idea of inductive reasoning, he said, you know, we can't just have theories, we have to go test them. And Aristotle, who is married twice, he had two opportunities to test that theory. I don't know that it would have changed his mind. But in science, it only takes one observation, as Einstein said, to cause us to either revise or throw out our theory. So he would have had that opportunity. And so those those two are really when we look at deductive reasoning and the follow on by Galileo and and so Francis Bacon really coming up with inductive learning.   Cliff Norman: [00:06:29] And then it goes in in the article, we talk about the influence of pragmatism, which was an American born philosophy of learning and the rest of it, and went Deming was working with Shewhart. He was really impressed with Shewhart intellect. And he asked Suhag. And while they were having lemonade, I think I'm sure it's frankly hard, you know, what causes you to think the way that you think? And Trueheart told him that he had recently read a book by CI Lewis entitled Mind and the World Order and WCI. Lewis had done had taken what the pragmatist school from Charles Purse William James had brought forward, you know, just right after the Civil War. And from that, you know, things have to be practical. We can't just have some theories that are not tested. And so the whole pragmatist's school had a huge influence on Shewhart and Deming, and it was from that. And the short cycle was taught to the Japanese in the 1950s. And so while it's picked up there.   Ron Moen: [00:07:36] So Shewhart really, I think we should be credited with bringing the scientific method to industry and his 1939 book, which was they helped an editor that talked about the scientific method, is connected to three step. Cycle through short cycle with was basically specification production and inspection specification production and inspection. And she says that those three as a circle and they're continuously going to go round it over and over again for industry, that these are really the same thing as in the scientific method.   Ron Moen: [00:08:21] Hypothesizing, carrying out the experiment and testing the hypothesis. So she said these three steps constitute a dynamic scientific process for acquiring knowledge. So I would connect in history, sure. To bring the scientific method, which had been around for 500 years, as Cliff just said, to industry for the first time.   Ron Moen: [00:08:43] So that was the Shewhart cycle that really influenced Deming from thereon. So Deming took that Shewhart cycle, and when he lectured in 1950 to the Japanese, he made it quite different. I think he said it's a four step process. First of all, I said the old way of thinking is design something, build it, sell it. So the context here is designing new products, services. So design the product, sell it, make it and sell it, he said. Instead, you've got to add a fourth step and that's test the product and service and through marketing research and then go around the cycle again. So he made this a cycle as well. Circle it was four steps. So this was his lecture in 1950 in Japan and the Japanese called this the the the Deming wheel, not the Deming cycle they call the Deming wheel. So it was a four step wheel.   Ron Moen: [00:09:43] That was 1950. Shortly thereafter, those that attended his seminar and the next year he was there three or four times and that's two, three years.   Ron Moen: [00:09:53] They sort of evolved what was called the PDCA. And the PDCA was connected back to Deming's lecture very indirectly. The design was really the planned production was to do sales was a check and research into act. So Deming's four steps became the plan do check act kind of a leap of faith.   Ron Moen: [00:10:17] And that's where I spent most of my research time trying to figure out how those two were connected and who connected them. There's a book by Imai and I hope I pronounce that my am I on Kaizen?   Ron Moen: [00:10:35] And he says that basically that's that was the connection between the two. And but there was no name given. He just says that Japanese executives recast the Deming will wheel presented in nineteen fifty seminar into the PDCA. But who did it? How they did it wasn't clear. That's why I spent my research. This includes something in the 80s where I actually interviewed one of the participants in the 1960 lecture that was in nineteen eighty six when I met with him. And of course he was very old and I showed him the PDK in Japanese and I said, who did you, how did you learn this? And he said, We learned it from Deming. And so what I, what I, that didn't help me at all. What I've concluded is that the barrier was Japanese culture. No one wanted recognition for changing it. And so to this day, there's no name associated with the PDK. So it did evolve through the Deming wheel, which came from the Shihad cycle, which came from the scientific method. That's the connection we have. And from that then Dr. Deming's, since he had seen so many articles of PDK in nineteen eighty five, he introduced the Plan to Study Act and his seminar before the eighty six publication Under Wikinomics. I'm sorry to out of the crisis. And so that version in the paper is much like what we see today, and that is the Deming cycle.   Ron Moen: [00:12:19] He called it the Shewhart cycle for learning and improvement. So again, it was four steps. What what's most team's most important accomplishment and then plan a test or change, carry out the test or change, prefectly be on small scale, observe the effects of the change, study results, what we learn, what can we predict? That was the eighty six version. And then over all of his seminars, which he had about 10 or 12 a year between eighty six and ninety three. And the ninety three publication was the new economics there. It was much simpler. The step first step plan, a change test aimed at improvement, the second step to carry out the change, preferably on a small scale, third step to examine the results. What did we learn? What went wrong? And fourth was adopted change of management or run through the cycle again. So this was his final version, the published in The New Economics of nineteen ninety three. And of course, he died in December of nineteen ninety three. So that was his last version. However, in doing my research, I also found several other articles, Fleming responded to things. And so if we still had a little time trip, I'm going to share three of those there in the paper. One was a comment. It was a jail transcript, a roundtable discussion with Dr. Deming in 1980. By now. By now, they have the PDCA.   Ron Moen: [00:13:49] And so.He was asked at this round table. To respond to it, is this really the Deming cycle and he says he says they bear no relation to each other. They bear no relation to each other, meaning the PDCA and what he Deming called the Deming was a Deming circle, but they call it the Shewhart cycle for learning improvement.So there is no resemblance there.   Ron Moen: [00:14:17] The second one was in 1990, published a book with No End and Provo's on an experimental design.And Deming was reviewing the chapters and the very first chapter we had to plan to study at, and Deming's comment in a letter to me on November 17th, 1990. Sure. And call it the PDSA, not the corruption PDCA, the corruption PDCA. I was shocked. He was so angry about how I was seeing the PDCA being used and connecting that to his name.   Ron Moen: [00:14:59] And then finally, my third day of research was at the Library of Congress and the Archives, it was a response. Somebody sent a letter to him. And it was actually a paper and he asked Deming to comment on it, and it had the PDCA cycle in there, and he and here was Deming's response in this.   Ron Moen: [00:15:22] He said, what you propose is not the Deming cycle. I do not know the source of the cycle that you propose, how the PDCA ever came into existence. I know not. So I think the message in this that we're trying to get across is Deming's did not create the PDCA except very indirectly through his lectures in Japan, very indirectly. And so the connection probably is only back to the scientific method and connecting Shewhart work. So any other comments, Cliff?   Cliff Norman: [00:15:58] That's also I think I think it's also goes back to your first question as to what causes us to write this. This article. Ron and I took a first shot at this article in nineteen eighty nine in the fiftieth anniversary of the Shujaat cycle that was published in this book, Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control in nineteen thirty nine. And we put it in a newsletter for the Southwest Quality Network which has been running since nineteen eighty nine. And in writing that Ron and I realized right away there's a cap and we did not understand as Ron was just articulating what actually happened in Japan relative to PDK and what the relationship was and all the rest of it.   Cliff Norman: [00:16:46] And that's what started the additional research it was just been talking about. And it's interesting to me, you know, we always used to say that history and analytic study, as opposed to numerous study because it keeps evolving. And every time we write an article just like this one, we find additional gaps, new questions, you know, and Richard Feynman, he says that science begins and ends in questions and that's alive and well here. So as long as it's discussing, we're really not sure about the authorship. And when Ron and I presented this to the Japanese junior scientists and engineers in 2009 in Tokyo, Dr. Choteau, he started to try to fill in some gaps that again, that's one man's view. And he credited Dr. Mizuno as being the creator of this. But again, we don't know that for sure. That's a new question for us, that we need to do additional research on to shore that up. So it's one man's opinion at this point, and we can't find any documentation to support that. And so in the article where we said authorship at this point is unknown, but I would hope to close that gap if we could.   Tripp Babbitt: [00:17:52] Ok, let me let me ask a couple of questions. As I was reading the article, you start with the Shujaat cycle from 1939. And I noticed that there was this Straight-line process that that Ron has already talked about, specification, production, inspection, and then it went to evolved apparently or through Shewhart reading went into more of a circular motion as opposed to a linear piece. Is that is that what mined in the world order brought to Shujaat is the the circle type of specification production inspection from a linear look? How does this relate?   Cliff Norman: [00:18:32] I think what Shewhart recognized and particularly from the pragmatist's, that is what what what you learn in the real world, you know, you need to act on that. And the learning is going to be continuous and updating your theories is really important. So from a theory of knowledge standpoint, I think that's what Shujaat took from a practical school Ron. What would you add to that?   Ron Moen: [00:18:58] Yeah, what he said in his thirty nine book was that the circle is three sets of dynamic scientific process for acquiring knowledge. So it's multiple iterations of it and that's how we acquire knowledge. Once again, the basis for that is Theory of knowledge, which Deming lectures on in all of its four day seminars. Really important aspect, which I assume that everybody had taken a course in college and a theory of knowledge or epistemology. But there weren't many hands that went up when they would ask that, but it was really critical in his thinking. And so the TSA is involved with Deming. Here is truly a methodology that comes directly from theory of knowledge. The acquiring of knowledge, building of knowledge is very dynamic, and that's why there should been multiple PDSA. Saifullah, now, in all fairness.   Cliff Norman: [00:19:55] They also say that his productions use a system that he shows half an inch, you know, that you once you produce a product or service, you have that structure in place in which to learn and get feedback from customers. And so all that that whole idea was built even into that diagram in 1951.   Ron Moen: [00:20:15] One and the other is the context or the overall philosophy is always making improvements. Of course, the Japanese kaizen was critical for this, but the thinking of Deming and others that we have to continually improve our products and services. So that requires an iterative nature of learning.   Ron Moen: [00:20:34] And the PDSA cycle is the best tool to do that.Ok, Tripp,   Tripp Babbitt: [00:20:40] Yeah, no, I was just as I'm listening to this, I'm going through I was looking at some of the drawings in the article, you know, with the Shujaat cycle and then the Deming wheel, which is apparently the part that seems to be the mystery, because your belief is that he showed them the Schuett cycle. It sounds like in 1950 when he met with the folks and the Deming wheel somehow emerged from that conversation. And what and who is it seems to be the question that that's unanswered. Do I have that right?   Ron Moen: [00:21:14] Yes, it is a cycle we don't know. OK, yeah, OK. And again, I could never get to it. And my my explanation is that the Japanese culture, no one wanted the recognition. They wanted to continually give Deming the credit because it came from his lectures in nineteen fifty nineteen fifty one has already published and working as a PDK with the QC circles and so on in the late 50s and early 60s I think it was so it was already around and then they would see that because he continually went back to Japan and the lecture there, he attended many of the Deming prize ceremonies, but he never mentioned the PDK. I've never seen anything other than the three references that I gave you. He was criticizing people that used him so. So I think in the United States, PDCA was in a lot of the literature and, you know, there's nothing wrong with it. But Cliff and I try to answer, what is the PDCA? It's really mostly for implementation and problem solving is to implement something. Now, Deming, when he did talk about the PDCA, he said c means check and he says in the English language check means to hold back. That's really almost the antithesis of theory of knowledge to hold back. There's no learning and holding back. So he thought this was very misleading and really didn't help build knowledge. But for implementation, I think this is fine to ask somebody to do something. They go ahead and do it. You check to see if it's been done.   Ron Moen: [00:22:53] So, you know, it's served that very useful purpose. But what Deming try to do is make it more general and not only for implementation, but for testing and early testing, prototype testing and so on for products. But it's more general than just testing products and services to.   Cliff Norman: [00:23:12] We've got we've got a lot of pushback when we presented at JUSE that they're very clear to us and they kind of own the PDCA cycle, that it was all about the implementation of a standard. In fact, I went back and looked at Dr. Ishikawa's book on total quality control, and they're very clear about it. You know, management determines goals and targets and determine the method. And then the workers say they do the plan, that the management came up with inspection checks to make sure it's OK, that we've implemented the correct standard and it's working. And if it's not working, then we take action to correct it. And Jayyousi was very clear. That's very different than PDSA, which is about the whole idea of the depth of impact of learning and people changing what they find out and developing a new path and all of that.   Cliff Norman: [00:24:04] That's that's what we found in the PDCA as practiced by JUSE.   Ron Moen: [00:24:10] So the PDSA, the PDSA, again, that plan to do is really the deductive part.That's where you set up your hypothesis and make your predictions or state your questions. The study of activity, inductive parts. So it's deductive inductive iteration which goes back to the Francis Bacon contribution and 16 hundreds. So that was really critical in Deming when he taught the PDSA. It was really kind of deductive inductive. So there is where the learning takes place so that can be used in testing anything, prototypes that can be testing a management theories. It really has very broad application.   Ron Moen: [00:24:53] So something that a broader approach, PDSA, much broader now, it can also be used with often implementation can be used for implementation.   Cliff Norman: [00:25:07] Deming would often say tourism seminars that there's no experience without a theory in which to observe it. And I walked up to him. He was having a gathering of statisticians at New York University. And and I said, you know, Ulysses S. Grant said a man has had a bull by the tail. And those a couple more things about it. The man who has it. And then he laughed. And then he said to me, Mr. Norman, don't you think you had to have some theory in order to understand which end to grab, you know? And so when we're in the PDSA cycle, we have an initial theory that we're going to go out and we're going to learn from and then from that, as Ron was just talking about, we're going to have the inductive point that kicks in and study and that we do see people running around and trying to reverse at all. They'll say, no, you start with induction first and all that.   Cliff Norman: [00:25:57] I think then we would argue with that, that when you're out trying to learn, you've already got some initial theory that's a good currency that you're going to start with.   Tripp Babbitt: [00:26:09] I guess the question we see this kind of evolution go on all the way back from nineteen thirty nine as we read the paper. And then there was the Shujaat cycle eighty six, the PDSA cycle in nineteen ninety three. Assuming that probably came out of the new economics with you guys using this all the time. Is this the end or I mean and I say that kind of tongue in cheek but has it evolved with application as you guys have continued to use PDSA. Where does it go from here, maybe is my my broader question is, is it perfect as it is or myself and our other colleagues?   Ron Moen: [00:26:54] We published a version of our version of it in 1991. We took Deming actually Deming reviewed this and liked it, but he didn't put it in his 93 book. And so the planning is really we we asked people to state the objective. What are your questions that you want to answer and what are your predictions to those questions? Then you have a plan to carry out that cycle, carrying it out. Then when you go through the to the study part, you compare your results or complete your data analysis, compare your data to your predictions, summarize what was learned. So we made this deductive inductive, which I think is more closely tied to to the scientific method and Deming dead. So I think that's a change that we made and we've been using that since 1991. So it's really the planning is you might think of PDSA as pinnings prediction and then the study part is comparing your prediction to what happened and then what did we learn from that? So it's a little bit different. Deming liked it, but he didn't put it in his book. So a lot of times with Deming, he would assume that most things are known. You don't need to be that specific, whereas I think both Cliffe and my experience is that you need to be much more prescriptive.   Ron Moen: [00:28:19] He kept it very high level plan to study at well, so we added that to it. And I think we've been using that since 1991.So it's has a lot of leverage, right, Cliff?   Cliff Norman: [00:28:33] Yeah, I think so. I could just add another angle to your question and I think really cover it quite well to me. The future is to use the method with some rigor and what we don't see with PDSA inspectors. There's article written on it in the British Medical Journal with PDSA and the authors of this deceptively simple. And so there's a lot of misuse and abuse of the idea and the name of PDSA. But when somebody wrote this down and they have to pose a good inquiry question rather than a yes and no answer and really make a prediction about what they're going to do there and then develop a data collection plan around that and be prepared to be surprised and do that. Or our pet theory isn't working out and be prepared, you know, to update our thinking and how we're going to approach the world after we've been surprised.   Cliff Norman: [00:29:31] And unfortunately, what a lot of people do is they go out, they fall into the confirmation trap, they try something one time and then a very small range of conditions and then they get the answer they want and they're done. And PDSA, if they're using the rigor that you're asking yourself the question, the what conditions, could this be different? And have I tested over a wide range of conditions here? There's a bunch of things that go along with that.   Cliff Norman: [00:29:55] And I think those authors from the British Medical Journal went on target. It's deceptively simple. And unfortunately, what we had up to now are some fairly simple and as H.L. Mencken said, usually wrong applications of PDSA as opposed to following the rigor that Ron was just talking about.   Ron Moen: [00:30:14] The British publication was only last year, wasn't it? Yeah. That January this year problem tenure is so.   Cliff Norman: [00:30:22] Yeah. Wonderful. Wonderful article.   Cliff Norman: [00:30:25] Ok, and what was the name of the article again. Problems with PDSA,   Tripp Babbitt: [00:30:30] Problems with PDSA.   Tripp Babbitt: [00:30:32] Ok, well, and I think this might yeah, I think this may fit into kind of my my last question.   Tripp Babbitt: [00:30:37] And, you know, we know, you know, organizations out there. You know, we're talking about scientific method and things of that sort. But we know organizations out there are pretty good at copying each other. It's a cultural thing. You know, they have the certain assumptions and beliefs. And and so when you guys are out there using PDSA, how does that how does that work in or filter into, you know, the existing kind of style of managing organizations where you just you're basing everything off of assumptions and beliefs, you know, how do you get get the scientific method to take hold when people are so used to just, you know, you make a decision? Oh, the corporation I worked for before, you know, did it this way. And so it'll work for us type of thing. How are you guys breaking those habits using PDSA so?   Ron Moen: [00:31:32] Well, they come in and at first we have what's called a model for improvement. And so on top of the findings, study act for any organization. They have three questions called the model for improvement. What are we trying to accomplish? Second question, how would we know a change is an improvement? And the third question is, what changes can we make that will result in improvement?   Ron Moen: [00:31:56] So those three questions sort of frame the starting point for turning the PDSA cycle. So having an idea that you want to test comes out of that question number three. But the really the first one to start, what are we trying to accomplish? What is our aim? How will we know what changes, improvements? Articulate what what what would it look like if the changes were made? And then the third one, what are the ideas that we think are we predict will actually result in improvement? And that's when the PDA starts going around. So we think this model for improvement, which we published in Will, there was a clip, I think that was a little bit later the. I know it's 1996 that the improvement died right after that, but that really has helped, I think, organizations tie the PDSA cycle into what are we trying to accomplish? The first edition of the Improvement Day, 1996. Yeah. Yeah.   Tripp Babbitt: [00:32:58] Well, I think we've covered off pretty well some history and actually got a little bit into how this might be applicable to organizations. So, gentlemen, I appreciate you sharing your time with the Deming Institute podcast. And we look forward to future episodes and research that you're doing.   Cliff Norman: [00:33:17] Thanks, Tripp.   Ron Moen: [00:33:18] Thanks, Tripp.