Podcasts about r d

From nuclear fission to GPS to the internet, it's common knowledge that many of the most resource intensive technologies of the last century got their start as military R&D projects in government-funded labs. But as Avery Trufelman explains in her fashion history podcast, Articles of Interest, the influence of the US military is, in many ways, even more intimate than that, shaping much of the clothing we all wear everyday. On today's show, a tale of Army surplus economics. How military designs trickled down from the soldiers on the front lines to the hippies on the war protest line to the yuppies in line at Banana Republic. And why some of your favorite outdoor brands may just be moonlighting as U.S. military suppliers, while keeping it as under the radar as they can.Pre-order the Planet Money book and get a free gift. / Subscribe to Planet Money+Listen free: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app or anywhere you get podcasts.Facebook / Instagram / TikTok / Our weekly Newsletter.This episode of Planet Money was produced by Luis Gallo, edited by Jess Jiang, fact checked by Yasmine Alsayyad, and engineered by Robert Rodriguez. Alex Goldmark is Planet Money's executive producer.Articles of Interest is produced by Avery Trufelman, edited by Alison Beringer, fact checked by Yasmine Alsayyad, and engineered by Jocelyn Gonzalez.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Shefali Kakar, Global Head of PK Sciences and Oncology at Novartis, returns to the AI in Business podcast to discuss how AI is reshaping the earliest and most critical phases of drug development—where strategic investment decisions are made long before a clinical trial begins. Together with Emerj Editorial Director Matthew DeMello, Shefali explores how advanced modeling, in silico design, and patient data are creating a clearer picture of risk and return across R&D portfolios. She explains how pharmaceutical organizations are leveraging multi-factorial models to simulate safety, efficacy, and market potential—down to the molecular level. Want to share your AI adoption story with executive peers? Click emerj.com/expert2 for more information and to be a potential future guest on the 'AI in Business' podcast!

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Matt Maher discusses how businesses can turn emerging technologies into actionable strategies that drive growth and innovation. Matt is a futurist and founder of M7 Innovations, an independent R&D firm helping brands stay ahead of technological disruption.Vogue named him a Top 100 Innovator of 2024. Host, Kevin Craine Do you want to be a guest? https://DigitalTransformationPodast.net/guest Do you want to be a sponsor? https://DigitalTransformationPodcast.net/sponsor

Today, I'm joined by Ana Montero and André Marques-Smith, co-founders of Atlas. A behind-the-ear brain sensing wearable, Atlas tracks clarity, stress, and cognitive performance in real time, bringing neuroscience research from academia to consumers' hands. In this episode, we discuss building the brain health wearable for everyday life. We also cover: Atlas's five-year R&D process Modernizing outdated mental health diagnostics Early detection and prevention of neurological conditions Subscribe to the podcast → insider.fitt.co/podcast   Subscribe to our newsletter → insider.fitt.co/subscribe   Follow us on LinkedIn → linkedin.com/company/fittinsider    Join the Waitlist: www.atlaswearable.com  Atlas on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/atlaswearable/  Atlas on X (Twitter): https://x.com/atlaswearable  - The Fitt Insider Podcast is brought to you by EGYM. Visit EGYM.com to learn more about its smart fitness ecosystem for fitness and health facilities. Fitt Talent: https://talent.fitt.co/  Consulting: https://consulting.fitt.co/  Investments: https://capital.fitt.co/   Chapters:  (00:00) Introduction  (01:30) Ana and André's backgrounds in neuroscience  (03:25) The problem with mental health diagnostics today  (04:30) Why existing wearables can't track brain activity  (05:50) Building sensors that work in motion conditions  (06:25) Five years of R&D  (08:00) Why behind-the-ear brain sensing  (10:30) What Atlas measures (13:00) Brain scores vs. peripheral body metrics  (15:30) Use cases (18:00) The personalization challenge in brain data  (20:30) Long-term vision (23:00) Building consumer traction before clinical applications  (25:30) Fundraising and investor interest in brain tech  (28:00) Beta testing program and user feedback  (30:20) Research studies: stress, nutrition, and brain activity  (32:35) Early detection and prevention  (35:05) Conclusion

Join SADA's CTO, Miles Ward, and Associate CTO of AI & ML, Simon Margolis, for this special and final episode of the Cloud and Clear podcast. They share their biggest, most impactful predictions for 2026 and beyond, focusing on the massive shift required for businesses to get value from AI. Miles and Simon discuss how the conversation around AI investment is changing. Boards will no longer tolerate putting AI in the R&D bucket. The focus is shifting from "what's possible" to "what's profitable," demanding financial returns on a quarterly basis. In this insightful discussion, you will learn: The model choice: Why optimizing your model selection matters, noting that a model like Gemini Pro 2.5 can have output tokens that are 25 times more expensive than Gemini Flash. Service as software: The need to think of your business as a new startup, building "machinery to let you run service as if it's software." Democratization: How "anybody that knows their natural language is able to go and build some type of truly agentic system." The ability to build a prototype with a prompt is replacing lengthy Product Requirement Documents (PRDs). The luxury trap: Why reducing friction will become a required, contractually obligated expectation. This includes developing "user interfaces for an audience of one" to accommodate different customer cohorts. If you are a technology leader, cloud engineer, or executive looking to set your strategy for the next wave of transformation, this episode is packed with valuable knowledge. And even though this is the last Cloud and Clear, the journey continues with InsightON! Connect with SADA & InsightON: Check out all of our experts' 2026 predictions: https://sada.com/blog/2026-technology-trends/  InsightON: insight.com/InsightOn Host: Miles Ward, Chief Technology Officer, SADA, An Insight company Guest: Simon Margolis, Associate CTO of AI & ML, SADA, An Insight company  

Tax season doesn't have to be a scramble — and today's guests show farmers exactly how to get ahead. We're joined by two ag-focused CPAs: Mackenzie Sprain from LattaHarris and Hannah Mann from Pioneer Accounting LLC. One brings deep ag tax expertise, the other specializes in helping farmers build cleaner records and better financial visibility — together, they give producers a complete roadmap for winning tax season before it starts.We open with an honest look at the 2025 tax landscape: inflation pressures, high interest rates, shifting policy environments, and the growing relevance of tools like Section 180 deductions, R&D credits, conservation program rules, CRP tax treatment, and more. Mackenzie and Hannah outline how year-round planning beats last-minute spending — and why quarterly conversations with your accountant can save thousands.From there, we dig into the power of modern recordkeeping. Tools like Ambrook allow producers to tag expenses by enterprise, monitor breakevens in real time, organize receipts, and make equipment or land decisions with clarity instead of guesswork. The CPAs share real stories of farmers who uncovered hidden savings, improved profitability, or avoided costly mistakes simply by keeping organized, digital records.We also cover common mistakes farmers make — outdated depreciation schedules, misclassified wages, partnership changes not reported, misunderstood conservation payments, or relying on handshake agreements without tax implications in mind. Mackenzie and Hannah walk through the opportunities available for 2025: Section 179 planning, bonus depreciation limits, energy tax credits, R&D credits for agronomy trials, and strategies to minimize interest-driven tax impacts.We close with actionable takeaways: start early, track continuously, communicate often, and use technology to transform tax planning from compliance into strategy. If you want to reduce stress, avoid surprises, and make tax season another profit tool for your operation, this episode is packed with practical, CPA-approved guidance you can apply immediately. Want Farm4Profit Merch? Custom order your favorite items today!https://farmfocused.com/farm-4profit/ Don't forget to like the podcast on all platforms and leave a review where ever you listen! Website: www.Farm4Profit.comShareable episode link: https://intro-to-farm4profit.simplecast.comEmail address: Farm4profitllc@gmail.comCall/Text: 515.207.9640Subscribe to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR8c1BrCjNDDI_Acku5XqwFollow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farm4profitllc Connect with us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Farm4ProfitLLC/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Lurch and I are joined by Ken Madden from Ciro and we talk about counterfeit and knock off motorcycle products.   Ken is a Senior Product Designer at Ciro and he just happens to also be a Patreon supporter of Law Abiding Biker.  Ken, along with Ciro and other motorcycle parts innovators and creators are being ripped off.  Overseas companies that do not respect patents are recreating inferior version of the hard work others put in.  Knockoff motorcycle products may look like a bargain up front, but they come with some serious downsides that riders often don't realize until it's too late. SUPPORT US AND SHOP IN THE OFFICIAL LAW ABIDING BIKER STORE 1. Lower Quality Materials Knockoffs typically use cheaper metals, plastics, and electronics. That means parts can crack, fade, corrode, or fail much faster than name-brand components. 2. Poor Fitment & Compatibility These products often aren't engineered to OEM tolerances. Expect problems like: Misaligned holes Rattling or vibrating Parts that require modification to fit Components that interfere with other accessories 3. Reduced Safety This is the biggest risk. Knockoff: Helmets may not meet DOT/ECE standards Brake parts may not withstand heat Lighting may fail or deliver low visibility Structural parts can break under stress A small failure at 70 mph can become a major problem. 4. No Warranty, Support, or Testing Reputable motorcycle brands invest in R&D, testing, and customer support. Knockoffs typically offer: No meaningful warranty No replacement parts No safety testing No customer service Once it fails, you're on your own CHECK OUT OUR HUNDREDS OF FREE HELPFUL VIDEOS ON OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND SUBSCRIBE! 5. Shorter Lifespan (Costing More Over Time) Cheap parts often wear out quickly, so riders end up replacing them multiple times. The "savings" disappear fast. 6. Potential Damage to Your Bike Poorly made accessories can: Stress mounting points Scratch paint Cause electrical issues Throw off suspension or geometry Saving $50 on a part can cause hundreds in damage. 7. Resale & Reliability Hit Buyers can spot cheap accessories. Knockoffs on a bike can: Lower resale value Make the bike look poorly maintained Raise concerns about what other shortcuts were taken 8. Ethical & Legal Issues Many knockoffs: Copy patented designs Copy brand logos Are made in unregulated factories Hurt legitimate manufacturers NEW FREE VIDEO RELEASED: Vance & Hines V02 Air Intake Install & Overview for Harley-Davidson Motorcycles S&S Cam Kit Installation on Harley-Davidson Milwaukee-Eight | Full Guide Sponsor-Ciro 3D CLICK HERE! Innovative products for Harley-Davidson & Goldwing Affordable chrome, lighting, and comfort products Ciro 3D has a passion for design and innovation Sponsor-Butt Buffer CLICK HERE Want to ride longer? Tired of a sore and achy ass? Then fix it with a high-quality Butt Buffer seat cushion? New Patron: Fred Wheeler of Mobile, Alabama Bottom Line Knockoff motorcycle parts may save money up front, but the risks—in safety, reliability, and long-term cost—usually make them a bad investment. Quality aftermarket or OEM parts nearly always pay off in durability and peace of mind. If you appreciate the content we put out and want to make sure it keeps on coming your way then become a Patron too! There are benefits and there is no risk. Thanks to the following bikers for supporting us via a flat donation: Joseph Horner of Bolivar, Missouri Kenneth Hall of Maryville, Tennessee Paul Estoppey of Wallbach Switzerland HELP SUPPORT US! JOIN THE BIKER REVOLUTION! #BikerRevolution #LawAbidingBiker #Bikaholics #RyanUrlacher

Secretary Juan Pablo Segura joins BioTalk for a conversation about Virginia's growing position in the biohealth economy and the statewide strategy behind it. He outlines the significance of the new partnership with AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck, including up to $120 million in private investment to create a workforce development center and expand the Commonwealth's life sciences capacity. Segura talks through how Virginia approaches company recruitment, what investors are responding to, and why the state is seeing increased interest from biomanufacturing and advanced R&D companies. He also discusses Virginia's use of public-private partnerships to accelerate industry growth, strengthen the talent pipeline, and support emerging hubs across the Commonwealth. The conversation closes with a look at Virginia's role in the BioHealth Capital Region and how the regional identity helps amplify the state's message as it continues building a competitive biohealth ecosystem.   Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com). Juan Pablo Segura is the Secretary of Commerce and Trade for the Commonwealth of Virginia. He leads 13 agencies focused on economic growth, business development, and industry expansion across the state. Before entering public service, Segura spent his career building companies in the digital health sector, most notably as a founder of Babyscripts, a widely adopted maternity care platform. His work has been recognized by Startup Health, CTIA, EY, and the White House. He is a CPA and a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and he lives in Henrico, Virginia with his family.

What happens when AI adoption surges inside companies faster than anyone can track, and the data that fuels those systems quietly slips out of sight? That question sat at the front of my mind as I spoke with Cyberhaven CEO Nishant Doshi, fresh from publishing one of the most detailed looks at real-world AI usage I have seen. This wasn't a report built on opinions or surveys. It was built on billions of actual data flows across live enterprise environments, which made our conversation feel urgent from the very first moment. Nishant explained how AI has moved out of the experimental phase and into everyday workflows at a speed few anticipated. Employees across every department are turning to AI tools not as a novelty but as a core part of how they work. That shift has delivered huge productivity gains, yet it has also created a new breed of hidden risk. Sensitive material isn't just being uploaded through deliberate actions. It is being blended, remixed, and moved in ways that older security models cannot understand. Hearing him describe how this happens in fragments rather than files made me rethink how data exposure works in 2025. We also dug into one of the most surprising findings in Cyberhaven's research. The biggest AI power users inside companies are not executives or early career talent. It is mid-level employees. They know where the friction is, and they are under pressure to deliver quickly, so they experiment freely. That experimentation is driving progress, but it is also widening the gap between how AI is used and how data is meant to be protected. Nishant shared how that trend is now pushing sensitive code, R&D material, health information, and customer data into tools that often lack proper controls. Another moment that stood out was his explanation of how developers are reshaping their work with AI coding assistants. The growth in platforms like Cursor is extraordinary, yet the risks are just as large. Code that forms the heart of an organisation's competitive strength is frequently pasted into external systems without full awareness of where it might end up. It creates a situation where innovation and exposure rise together, and older security frameworks simply cannot keep pace. Throughout the conversation, Nishant returned to the importance of visibility. Companies cannot set fair rules or safe boundaries if they cannot see what is happening at the point where data leaves the user's screen. Traditional controls were built for a world of predictable patterns. AI has broken those patterns apart. In his view, modern safeguards need to sit closer to employees, understand how fragments are created, and guide people toward safer workflows without slowing them down. By the time we reached the end of the interview, it was clear that AI governance is no longer a strategic nice-to-have. It is becoming a daily operational requirement. Nishant believes employers must create a clear path forward that balances freedom with control, and give teams the tools to do their best work without unknowingly putting their organisations at risk. His message wasn't alarmist. It was practical, grounded, and shaped by years working at the intersection of data and security. So here is the question I would love you to reflect on. If AI is quickly becoming the engine of productivity across every department, what would your organisation need to change today to keep its data safe tomorrow? And how much visibility do you honestly have over where your most sensitive information is going right now? I would love to hear your thoughts. Useful Links  Connect with Cyberhaven CEO Nishant Doshi on LinkedIn Learn more about Cyberhaven Tech Talks Daily is Sponsored by NordLayer: Get the exclusive Black Friday offer: 28% off NordLayer yearly plans with the coupon code: techdaily-28. Valid until December 10th, 2025. Try it risk-free with a 14-day money-back guarantee.

In this episode, Jamie shares the key themes she's taking into her 2026 planning — and why now is the moment to shift from working in your business to working on it. She also walks through what to expect in this year's Q1 planning workshop and pop-up community. In this episode you'll learn: • Why "radical responsiveness" is becoming a major differentiator • How to plan for outcomes instead of tactics • What owners should keep close instead of delegating • Why carving out R&D time (especially around AI) matters • How to think realistically about projects, KPIs, and capacity Join the Q1 2026 Planning Workshop: everythingcoworking.com/quarterly Resources Mentioned in this Episode: Q1 2026 Planning Workshop: everythingcoworking.com/quarterly Everything Coworking Featured Resources: Masterclass: 3 Behind-the-Scenes Secrets to Opening a Coworking Space Coworking Startup School Community Manager University Follow Us on YouTube

"Leadership is staying ahead of change without losing authenticity". "Trust is the real currency of sales, teams, and Japan's business culture". "Zeiss's foundation model is a rare advantage: patient capital reinvested into R&D". "Japan is less "risk-averse" than "uncertainty-avoidant" when decisions lack clarity and consensus". "Language is helpful for connection, but not the primary qualification for leading in Japan". Brief Bio Vincent Mathieu is the CEO of Carl Zeiss Japan, leading a multi-division portfolio spanning semiconductors, medical devices, microscopy, industrial quality solutions, ophthalmic lenses, and imaging optics. Originally from the south of France near the Basque Country, he studied business in Toulouse, then spent several years travelling and working across Morocco, Denmark, Ireland, Chile, and South America—discovering along the way that his core strength was building trust in sales. He first came to Japan in 2001 to launch and grow a new division, learning the realities of hiring, selling, and leading without fluency in Japanese. After returning to Europe for global and country leadership roles—including navigating a corporate receivership in the UK—he was recruited to Zeiss and returned to Japan for a second stint. There, he led a turnaround in the vision care business by rebuilding the team, premium positioning, and distribution strategy, then expanded to broader regional responsibilities before taking the top role in Japan, leading a larger organisation through compliance, regulatory, structural change, and remuneration reform. Carl Zeiss is often mistaken as "just cameras", yet the company's real gravity sits elsewhere: precision optics, industrial measurement, medical equipment, and the advanced semiconductor ecosystem that powers modern computing. Vincent Mathieu, CEO of Carl Zeiss Japan, uses that breadth as both a strategic advantage and a leadership test—because leading a portfolio business demands credibility across wildly different technical domains, from microscopy used by Nobel Prize-winning researchers to X-ray inspection systems supporting EV battery quality control. He also points to a structural difference that shapes Zeiss's long-term posture: the company operates as a foundation rather than a classic shareholder-led public entity, enabling sustained reinvestment into R&D and the patience required to develop complex innovations that may run at a loss for years before they become indispensable. In semiconductors, that mindset shows up in partnerships and breakthrough optics supporting lithography and EUV pathways tied to ever-smaller chips and AI-era demand. Mathieu's personal story mirrors the adaptive leadership he advocates. He describes an early uncertainty about career direction, a formative period of travel and "odd jobs", and a gradual shift into commercial roles where trust, not extroversion, became his sales engine. His first Japan assignment was a tough entry: conservative hiring conditions, limited language ability, and the slow build of distributor confidence—where one relationship took years to convert. Returning later via Zeiss, he expected a smoother "global" environment and instead found a familiar friction point: leadership without a shared language, competing internal politics, and the need to earn followership through visible effort. His approach was practical and gemba-oriented—going into the field with salespeople, learning enough Japanese to observe and debrief well, and leading by example rather than relying on title or hierarchy. In his current role, the leadership challenge is no longer a small turnaround team but a larger organisation navigating regulatory scrutiny, compliance expectations, talent gaps, and a shift from "box-moving" to workflow and digital solutions. He frames Japan's organisational reality as deeply sensitive to trust, transparency, and consistency—especially when change touches taboo areas such as pay. Whether the topic is performance-based remuneration, AI adoption, or organisation redesign, Mathieu returns to the same idea: leadership is change management plus authenticity. The most durable influence, in his view, comes from understanding who the leader is, then showing up coherently—because Japanese organisations may not offer immediate feedback, but they do evaluate whether words and actions match. Q&A Summary What makes leadership in Japan unique? Leadership in Japan is uniquely shaped by trust, time, and social proof. Decision-making often relies on nemawashi (pre-alignment), the ringi-sho approval flow, and a preference for consensus that reduces future friction. Feedback can be indirect, and the "real signals" may appear later, after relationships deepen. Why do global executives struggle? Global leaders often struggle when they arrive expecting predictable "rules" about Japan, or when they assume a corporate title will create followership. Without local credibility, language bridges, and contextual awareness of honne/tatemae dynamics, even good strategies can stall. Impatience can be read as shitsukoi (pushy), yet excessive patience can also lead to inertia—forcing leaders to balance consistency with restraint. Is Japan truly risk-averse? Japan is frequently labelled risk-averse, but a more useful lens is uncertainty avoidance. When ambiguity is high, organisations increase process and consensus to control outcomes. Once clarity exists—shared numbers, shared logic, shared stakeholders—Japanese teams can execute decisively and at high quality, often outperforming more improvisational cultures. What leadership style actually works? A field-based, trust-building style works: lead by example, show operational commitment, and invest in relationships. Mathieu's experience suggests credibility is built through visible contribution—being present with customers, coaching sales behaviours, and demonstrating consistency. Authenticity matters: employees may accept difficult change if the leader is transparent, coherent, and reliably delivers on commitments. How can technology help? Technology helps when framed as decision intelligence rather than novelty. AI tools, automation, and even "digital twins" for process and manufacturing can reduce reporting burden, strengthen compliance, and redirect scarce talent towards analysis and customer value. The warning is "AI for AI's sake": capability must be learned, prompts must be mastered, and use cases must be chosen with discipline. Does language proficiency matter? Language matters for connection and cultural nuance, but it should not be the primary criterion for leading in Japan. A leader can choose English for clarity at scale—especially when communicating strategy—while still building trust through effort, respect, and selective Japanese usage in day-to-day engagement. What's the ultimate leadership lesson? The ultimate lesson is that leadership is managing change while staying true to oneself. As confidence grows, leaders feel less pressure to perform to other people's expectations and more capacity to act with authenticity. That inner coherence becomes a stabiliser for teams navigating uncertainty, consensus-building, and transformation. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, offering practical insights on leadership, communication, and Japanese business culture. He is also the host of six weekly podcasts, including The Leadership Japan Series, The Sales Japan Series, The Presentations Japan Series, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews. On YouTube, he produces three weekly shows — The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews — which have become leading resources for executives seeking strategies for success in Japan.

Trong số các thỏa thuận về thương mại và an ninh – quốc phòng mà Washington và Seoul cùng thông báo hôm 14/11/2025, hồ sơ đáng quan tâm nhất là việc Hoa Kỳ chấp nhận để Hàn Quốc đóng tầu ngầm tấn công chạy bằng năng lượng hạt nhân cho hải quân cả hai nước. Dự án này, nếu được thực hiện, đánh dấu một bước ngoặt lớn, khẳng định hơn nữa thế thống trị của Hàn Quốc trong lĩnh vực công nghiệp hàng hải cũng như là sức mạnh hải quân nước này. « Ngành đóng tàu, lá chủ bài để Hàn Quốc đàm phán thuế quan với Mỹ », ngày 23/06/2025, trang Le Marin chuyên về kinh tế hàng hải đã đưa ra nhận định này. Seoul sở hữu một công nghiệp đóng tàu bậc nhất thế giới, chỉ sau Trung Quốc. Thậm chí nước Mỹ của Donald Trump, ngày càng bị Trung Quốc bỏ xa trong lĩnh vực hàng hải, gần đây phải đưa tàu chiến của mình đến bảo trì tại các xưởng của Hàn Quốc, một quyết định mang tính chiến lược. Truyền thống hàng hải lâu đời Thế mạnh ngành công nghiệp này đã có từ xa xưa, nhưng chúng thực sự trở thành một trong những chiến lược quan trọng của đất nước khi tổng thống Park Chung Hee (1962 – 1979) lên nắm quyền. Trong thập niên 1960, ông đã quyết định thúc đẩy phát triển các ngành công nghiệp nặng, bao gồm cả sản xuất thép (Hàn Quốc là nhà sản xuất thép hàng thứ tư trên thế giới), vượt qua Nhật Bản vào thời điểm chuyển giao thế kỷ, vốn thống lĩnh thị trường đóng tàu trong một thời gian dài sau Đệ Nhị Thế Chiến cho đến khi bị ngành đóng tàu giá rẻ Trung Quốc cạnh tranh gay gắt. Từ Seoul, thông tín viên Trần Công nhắc lại đôi nét lịch sử phát triển ngành đóng tàu Hàn Quốc : « Từ thời Đô đốc Yi Sun Sin (1545 – 1598), kỹ nghệ đóng tàu của Triều Tiên đã góp phần quyết định giúp quân dân Hàn Quốc đánh bại hải quân Nhật Bản trong cuộc chiến tranh bảo vệ đất nước. Chiến thuyền “Tàu Rùa” với cấu trúc bọc sắt độc đáo đã trở thành nền tảng lịch sử cho truyền thống hàng hải của quốc gia này. Bước sang thời cận đại, ngành đóng tàu Hàn Quốc chính thức hình thành từ năm 1929 với sự ra đời của các xưởng cơ khí và cơ sở đóng tàu đầu tiên. Giai đoạn Thế chiến II và thời kỳ Nhật Bản chiếm đóng khiến đất nước chìm trong xung đột, nhưng nhu cầu tàu vận tải và quân sự đã tạo nền móng ban đầu cho kỹ thuật đóng tàu hiện đại. Đến cuối thập niên 1960, sau khi Hyundai bước vào lĩnh vực đóng tàu, mở ra bước ngoặt lịch sử và đặt nền móng cho sự trỗi dậy của ngành. Tuy nhiên sau cuộc khủng hoảng tài chính toàn cầu và áp lực cạnh tranh giá rẻ từ Trung Quốc, ngành đóng tàu Hàn Quốc từng có giai đoạn chững lại nghiêm trọng vào những năm 2012–2016. » Tại Ulsan (đông nam Hàn Quốc), xưởng đóng tàu lớn nhất thế giới của tập đoàn Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI), cung cấp việc làm cho khoảng 21 ngàn người lao động, mỗi năm cho xuất xưởng đến 50 loại tầu cỡ lớn bao gồm thương mại và quân sự. Năm 2024, hãng HHI ký kết đến 9 tỷ đô la hợp đồng, theo như phóng sự của kênh truyền hình Pháp France 24 ngày 29/10/2025. Một trong những mặt hàng chủ lực của Ulsan là tàu chở khí hóa lỏng, xưởng này có thể cung cấp mỗi năm từ 13-14 chiếc với ba loại tải trọng khác nhau 176, 180 và 216 ngàn tấn, theo như một phóng sự khác của Le Monde (ngày 16/09/2022). Cũng theo thông tín viên Trần Công, « ngày nay, Hàn Quốc đã vươn trở lại vị trí cường quốc số một thế giới về đóng tàu, đặc biệt ở các dòng tàu công nghệ cao như tàu chạy bằng khí hóa lỏng (LNG carrier), tàu chở dầu thô cực lớn (VLCC), tàu chạy methanol và các loại tàu thân thiện môi trường. Ba tập đoàn HD Hyundai, Hanwha Ocean và Samsung Heavy Industries dẫn đầu toàn cầu về công nghệ, tiêu chuẩn an toàn và khả năng chế tạo tàu cỡ lớn. Ngành đóng tàu hiện là trụ cột kinh tế, chiếm tỷ trọng lớn trong xuất khẩu (khoảng 7%-8%) và là biểu tượng cho năng lực kỹ thuật, công nghiệp và sáng tạo của Hàn Quốc trong kỷ nguyên mới. » Ngành đóng tầu : Một trong những trụ cột kinh tế Một nhịp độ sản xuất khiến các đối thủ châu Âu vất vả đuổi theo. Ngay vào năm 1987, xưởng đóng tàu của Thụy Điển là Kockums đã phải tuyên bố phá sản. Báo Pháp Le Marin cho biết, trước khi Donald Trump đe dọa áp thuế, xuất khẩu của Hàn Quốc đạt mức kỷ lục trong năm 2024. Các phân tích dữ liệu cho thấy, ngành đóng tàu là một trong những đầu tàu chính của kinh tế đất nước : lĩnh vực này chiếm gần 4% tổng kim ngạch xuất khẩu Hàn Quốc và trong năm 2024, đã tăng lên gần 20% so với năm 2023. Để có thể phát triển mạnh ngành công nghiệp này, Hàn Quốc đã có những chiến lược như thế nào ? Đâu là những thế mạnh của ngành công nghiệp đóng tầu Hàn Quốc ? Thông tín viên Trần Công giải thích tiếp : « Hàn Quốc sở hữu lợi thế địa lý hiếm có trong ngành đóng tàu khi gần như bốn bề giáp biển, chỉ phần phía bắc tiếp giáp Triều Tiên nên mọi hướng phát triển kinh tế đều tự nhiên hướng ra đại dương. Với bờ biển dài, nhiều vịnh sâu, khí hậu ổn định và hệ thống cảng tự nhiên thuận lợi, Hàn Quốc từ lâu đã hình thành truyền thống hàng hải và nền tảng phát triển công nghiệp biển mạnh mẽ. Vị trí nằm giữa Trung Quốc – Nhật Bản cũng tạo ra mạng lưới thương mại nhộn nhịp, thúc đẩy nhu cầu đóng tàu và dịch vụ kho bãi cảng biển (logistics). Song song với lợi thế địa lý, Hàn Quốc còn dẫn đầu thế giới về công nghệ đóng tàu, đặc biệt ở các lĩnh vực LNG carrier, VLCC, tàu chạy nhiên liệu xanh và hệ thống tự động hóa thông minh. Quan hệ chặt chẽ với Mỹ, châu Âu và các tập đoàn năng lượng toàn cầu giúp Hàn Quốc luôn tiếp cận sớm tiêu chuẩn mới, công nghệ mới và giữ vị thế đối tác chiến lược trong các dự án hải quân, hải dương. Ba tập đoàn HD Hyundai, Hanwha Ocean và Samsung Heavy Industries duy trì mạng lưới hợp tác mạnh mẽ, từ Nghiên cứu – Phát triển (R&D) đến sản xuất, tạo ra hệ thống công nghệ bậc nhất thế giới. Về chiến lược phát triển, Hàn Quốc đặt mục tiêu duy trì vị trí dẫn đầu bằng cách tập trung vào các loại tàu giá trị cao, đầu tư mạnh vào nhiên liệu sạch như LNG–amoniac–methanol, đẩy nhanh áp dụng công nghệ số trong ngành công nghiệp đóng tàu (digital shipyard), và mở rộng lĩnh vực hải dương như tàu Sản xuất, Lưu trữ và Hạ tải (FPSO), tàu khoan (drillship), tàu khai thác khí thiên nhiên hóa lỏng (FLNG). Nhà nước hỗ trợ qua chính sách tín dụng xuất khẩu, đào tạo nhân lực tay nghề cao và quy hoạch các cụm công nghiệp biển. Nhờ định hướng dài hạn này, ngành đóng tàu Hàn Quốc tiếp tục giữ vai trò trụ cột trong kinh tế quốc gia và là tâm điểm của tương lai công nghiệp biển toàn cầu. » Đóng tàu nhanh, chi phí thấp và kỹ thuật tiên tiến là những lợi thế cạnh tranh mạnh của Hàn Quốc, hiện chiếm đến ¼ thị phần thế giới. Đây cũng chính là những thứ mà nước Mỹ đang thiếu. Trên bảng xếp hạng, Trung Quốc và Hàn Quốc chiếm các vị trí đầu bảng, còn Hoa Kỳ hầu như vắng bóng. Báo cáo của Quốc Hội Mỹ đưa ra hồi tháng 11/2023, được tờ Wall Street Journal (23/09/2024) dẫn lại, cho thấy Trung Quốc, Hàn Quốc và Nhật Bản sản xuất ra những con tàu chiếm hơn 90% trọng tải của thế giới, trong khi Mỹ chỉ đóng có 0,2%. Từ thương mại đến quân sự Việc tổng thống Mỹ Donald Trump bật đèn xanh cho phép Hàn Quốc đóng tầu ngầm chạy bằng năng lượng hạt nhân đánh dấu một bước ngoặt lớn trong ngành công nghiệp hàng hải đất nước. Một mặt, « điều này cho thấy Washington hoàn toàn thừa nhận tầm quan trọng vị thế chiến lược của Hàn Quốc với tư cách là một cường quốc hàng hải và đồng minh đáng tin cậy ở Ấn Độ - Thái Bình Dương. Sự ủng hộ của Hoa Kỳ không chỉ mang tính chính trị, mà còn có thể mang lại sự hợp tác chặt chẽ về công nghệ, phát triển công nghiệp và lập kế hoạch tác chiến », theo như đánh giá của nhà nghiên cứu Yu Ji-hoon, cựu sĩ quan Hải quân Hàn Quốc, người đã tham gia sâu rộng vào các chương trình tàu sân bay và tàu ngầm của Hải quân, trong một chương trình của Arirang News (12/11/2025). Mặt khác, điều này cho phép Seoul thực hiện tham vọng tăng cường năng lực phòng thủ hải quân mà nhiều đời tổng thống đã theo đuổi nhưng bất thành do vấp phải sự phản đối từ Mỹ. Tuy nhiên, quyết định đóng tầu ngầm trong nước của tổng thống Lee Jae Myung cũng làm dấy lên nhiều tranh luận trong giới chuyên gia và truyền thông Hàn Quốc cũng như quốc tế, khi lo rằng tham vọng này của Seoul có nguy cơ mở ra một cuộc chạy đua vũ trang trong vùng Đông Bắc Á. Từ Seoul, thông tín viên Trần Công tường thuật : « Sau khi Tổng thống Lee Jae-myung công khai mong muốn đóng tàu ngầm hạt nhân (SSN) tại Hàn Quốc, việc tự đóng SSN trong nước đang tạo ra làn sóng ý kiến mạnh mẽ từ giới chuyên gia, khu vực và báo chí quốc tế. Giáo sư Mun Geun-sik (Hanyang University) khẳng định Hàn Quốc hoàn toàn có năng lực nội địa hóa SSN, từ thiết kế thân tàu, chế tạo lò phản ứng tới hệ thống điều khiển – điều mà Philadelphia không thể đáp ứng do thiếu toàn bộ hạ tầng tàu ngầm. Nghị sĩ Yoo Jung-ju cũng nhấn mạnh rằng Philadenphia chỉ là xưởng đóng tàu thương mại, và nếu xây dựng dây chuyền hạt nhân từ đầu sẽ mất 5 – 10 năm, nên “đóng trong nước là lựa chọn duy nhất hợp lý”. Giáo sư Peter Ward (Sejong Institute) đưa ra góc nhìn chiến lược hơn, cho rằng Hàn Quốc cần thành lập Ủy ban Mỹ – Hàn về đóng tàu ngầm để kết nối Nghiên cứu & Phát triển – sản xuất – chuỗi cung ứng nhằm rút ngắn thời gian triển khai và giải quyết các rào cản pháp lý. Trong khi đó, giáo sư Kim Yong-hun (Amherst College) nhấn mạnh trở ngại thực sự không phải công nghệ, mà là nhiên liệu hạt nhân, và dự báo Mỹ vẫn muốn giữ quyền kiểm soát phần lò phản ứng trong khuôn khổ hợp tác. Báo chí Nhật Bản đánh giá rằng Hàn Quốc đã âm thầm chuẩn bị năng lực đóng tàu ngầm hạt nhân trong nhiều thập kỷ, nhưng kế hoạch liên tục bị đình trệ vì phụ thuộc hoàn toàn vào sự chấp thuận của Mỹ trong vấn đề cung cấp uranium làm giàu. Các tờ như Sankei Shimbun và Mainichi nhận định việc Tổng thống Lee Jae-myung công khai theo đuổi SSN, cộng với sự đồng thuận mới từ Washington, đã tạo ra “cơ hội thực tế đầu tiên” để Seoul hiện thực hóa chương trình vốn bị bỏ lỡ từ những năm 1990. Tuy nhiên, truyền thông Nhật cũng cảnh báo rằng nếu Hàn Quốc sở hữu tàu ngầm hạt nhân, cục diện an ninh Đông Bắc Á sẽ biến động mạnh, đẩy Trung Quốc vào trạng thái cảnh giác cao độ và làm gia tăng cạnh tranh chiến lược trong khu vực. Bắc Triều Tiên thậm chí chỉ trích kế hoạch của Seoul là “màn dạo đầu cho hiệu ứng domino hạt nhân”, đồng thời tuyên bố sẽ tăng cường hợp tác quân sự với Trung–Nga để đối trọng. Dù vậy, các chuyên gia Hàn Quốc đều thống nhất nhận định : nếu vấn đề nhiên liệu được tháo gỡ, Hàn Quốc có đủ năng lực công nghiệp để tự đóng SSN, và đây sẽ là bước ngoặt nâng tầm tự chủ quốc phòng trong bối cảnh môi trường an ninh khu vực ngày càng biến động. » Dự án hợp tác đóng tầu ngầm Hàn – Mỹ có thể biến thành hiện thực hay không vẫn là một câu hỏi lớn vì nhiều lý do. Tuy nhiên, hầu hết giới chuyên gia đều có chung một nhận xét : Để rút ngắn khoảng cách với lực lượng hải quân Trung Quốc, nước Mỹ của Donald Trump giờ phải dựa vào các đồng minh châu Á. Ông cũng hiểu rằng khẩu hiệu « America First » còn đồng nghĩa với « America Alone » !

German auto giant Volkswagen has announced the completion of a new R&D centre at its hub in Hebei, eastern China, saying that for the first time in the company's history, new cars can be developed from start to finish outside Germany. Volkswagen is hoping to win back its share in the world's largest auto market. Also in the segment: the UK government has backed a plan for a third runway at London's Heathrow Airport, moving the long-running project forward. 

Today's guest is Dr. Mark Kiel, Chief Science Officer and Founder at Genomenon. Genomenon is a genomics intelligence company that unlocks real-world evidence from biomedical literature to help pharmaceutical and clinical diagnostics companies inform precision medicine, accelerate patient diagnosis, and guide trial design and label expansion. Mark joins Emerj Editorial Director Matthew DeMello to explore how AI can streamline the extraction, organization, and interpretation of genomic and clinical data, enabling faster, more accurate decision-making in pharmaceutical R&D. He also shares practical approaches to integrating AI with human curation, improving workflow efficiency, and scaling insights for rare disease diagnosis, trial design, and drug development strategy. This episode is sponsored by Genomenon. Learn how brands work with Emerj and other Emerj Media options at emerj.com/ad1. Want to share your AI adoption story with executive peers? Click emerj.com/expert2 for more information and to be a potential future guest on the 'AI in Business' podcast!

Nordlondon er RØD! Men det vidste vi jo godt... Den perfekte weekend 2.0 udspillede for øjnene af os, da både Liverpool og Manchester City tabte lørdag, og Arsenal vandt hele 4-1 over ærkerivalerne fra Tottenham søndag aften. Så nu er der seks point ned til nummer to i Premier League-tabellen - og det er Chelsea, som vi møder på søndag. Eberechi Eze (who?) blev kampens helt store oplevelse, for med et hattrick i sit første North London Derby skrev han sig ikke bare ind i historiebøgerne, han skød også sig selv lige ind i alle Arsenal-fansenes hjerter. Vi taler naturligvis om Eze i denne uges PL-udsendelse, hvor vi også svælger i sejrens sødme, roser Piero Hincapié til skyerne og ser frem mod Champions League-topbraget mod Bayern München på onsdag og topkampen mod Chelsea på søndag, hvor Arsenal med en sejr kan lægge yderligere afstand til forfølgerne i Premier League. Medvirkende: Tobias Halskov & Alex Munk Hjort Altid Arsenal laves af Arsenal Denmark - den officielle danske Arsenal-fanklub. Podcasten udgives i samarbejde med Café Dan Turèll i København, som viser alle Arsenals kampe live og tilbyder pladsreservation og rabat på øl til kampene. Produceret af Aloud Media. ++++++ Følg Arsenal Denmark: Facebook Instagram X/Twitter Hjemmeside – hvor du bl.a. finder fanshoppen, information om billetsalg til Arsenals kampe og nyheder Følg Café Dan Turèll: Facebook Instagram Hjemmeside - hvor du bl.a. finder kampoversigt og kontaktinfo til bordreservation Følg Altid Arsenal: Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

This episode brings together three leaders working at the intersection of pediatric innovation, health security, and early-stage commercialization. Kolaleh Eskandanian, Program Director of SPARK, is joined by founders Dori Jones of AcQumen Medical and Jugal Suthar of Vesynta for a conversation about advancing breakthrough solutions for children. They discuss the mission behind the BARDA-funded SPARK for Innovations in Pediatrics Hub at Children's National Hospital, the challenges of developing technologies for pediatric populations, and the impact of public-private partnerships in moving lifesaving tools to market. Dori and Jugal share what their companies are building, the inflection points that shaped their journeys, and how BioHealth Innovation's Entrepreneur-in-Residence program supported their progress. The group reflects on lessons learned, the value of mentorship, and how collaborative accelerator ecosystems help drive breakthroughs in pediatric care, preparedness, and health equity.   Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com).   Dr. Kolaleh Eskandanian is a nationally recognized leader in pediatric health innovation with more than twenty years of experience across academia, government, and industry. She previously served as Vice President and Chief Innovation Officer at Children's National Hospital, where she founded Innovation Ventures and secured significant federal funding, patents, and licensed technologies. She now leads the BARDA-funded SPARK Accelerator Hub for Pediatrics and serves as Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer at Compremium AG, while also supporting early-stage innovators as an angel investor with Citrine Angels.   Dori Jones is the Co-Founder and CEO of AcQumen Medical, a medtech company developing UltraTrac, the first ultrasound-guided impedance technology designed for rapid assessment of hemodynamics in critically ill infants and children. She brings nearly two decades of experience across R&D, clinical education, and commercialization roles supporting cardiac and critical care devices at organizations ranging from early startups to Abbott and Medtronic. Her commitment to pediatric innovation is shaped in part by her experience as the mother of a NICU and PICU patient.   Dr. Jugal Suthar is the Co-Founder and CEO of Vesynta, a precision medicine company developing the DosoLogic platform, the first marketplace-enabled precision prescribing software aimed at improving accuracy and safety for every patient. His background includes clinical work as a hospital pharmacist and roles in drug development in the pharmaceutical industry. His PhD in precision medicine fuels his focus on bringing personalized dosing insights to populations often underrepresented in clinical research.

Brian Balfour, Founder & CEO of Reforge and former VP of Growth at HubSpot, joins Mostly Growth to explore why product-market fit is a moving target. He introduces the concept of the Product-Market Fit Treadmill, a state where rising customer expectations and competitive pressure make it harder than ever to stay ahead. Brian breaks down how AI has accelerated PMF collapse, explains the hidden costs of product adoption, and shares how Reforge shipped five AI-native products with a team of just 20 people. Packed with frameworks, strategic insight, and startup realism, this episode is essential listening for product leaders, operators, and founders navigating the next wave of GTM.—SPONSORS:Pulley is the cap table management platform built for CFOs and finance leaders who need reliable, audit-ready data and intuitive workflows, without the hidden fees or unreliable support. Switch in as little as 5 days and get 25% off your first year: https://pulley.com/mostlymetricsMetronome is real-time billing built for modern software companies. Metronome turns raw usage events into accurate invoices, gives customers bills they actually understand, and keeps finance, product, and engineering perfectly in sync. That's why category-defining companies like OpenAI and Anthropic trust Metronome to power usage-based pricing and enterprise contracts at scale. Focus on your product — not your billing. Learn more and get started at https://www.metronome.com—LINKS:Mostly Metrics: https://www.mostlymetrics.comCJ on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cj-gustafson-13140948/Growth Unhinged: https://www.growthunhinged.com/Kyle on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyle-poyar/Brian Balfour: brianbalfour.comBrian on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bbalfour/Slacker Stuff: https://www.slackerstuff.com/Ben on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/slackerstuff/https://brianbalfour.com/four-fits-growth-frameworkhttps://x.com/amasad/status/1981201454032703662?s=46https://getlatka.com/companies/firefliesaihttps://x.com/rowancheung/status/1988218743952916537?https://gamma.app/insights/how-we-built-a-usd100m-business-differently—RELATED EPISODES:When the marketing math doesn't math | with Emily Kramerhttps://youtu.be/sSuoV_YSrlwWhy Founders Are Posting Sad Dinnershttps://youtu.be/Zl6NSIHF2Gk—TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Preview and Intro00:01:51 Sponsors – Pulley, Metronome00:04:11 Introducing Brian Balfour & Reforge background00:07:22 Evergreen frameworks & Four Fits resurgence00:11:01 PMF treadmill and rising expectations00:14:26 AI shocks and PMF collapse (Chegg)00:16:43 CRM expectations & AI-native workflows00:20:44 R&D as ongoing cost to serve00:22:26 Customers buying based on future product velocity00:24:32 Communicating rapid releases & driving adoption00:25:17 Reforge's expanding AI product suite00:27:52 Product delivery vs. product adoption bottlenecks00:29:32 Platform distribution shifts introduction00:30:51 Evaluating emerging platforms00:32:04 The open → close platform cycle00:33:31 Moats, escape velocity & platform dominance00:36:32 Choosing major vs. emerging platforms00:40:22 ChatGPT dominance in AI discovery00:42:16 Hiring, resumes & filtering AI-generated applications00:43:30 AI note-taking market & “Flintstoning”00:47:03 Trying Gamma & AI-generated presentation tools00:50:08 AI onboarding innovations (WhatsApp agent)#MostlyGrowthPodcast #ProductMarketFit #BrianBalfour #StartupStrategy #Reforge This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cjgustafson.substack.com

This episode is a live, energetic dispatch from Dubai Watch Week 2025, where Felix is immersed in the new, vastly expanded, and culturally electric atmosphere of the Middle East's premier horological event. Felix reports on the show's massive scale at the Burj Park location, the wave of incredible new novelties released (like the Chopard Grands Sonnerie and new Louis Vuitton Escale stone dials), and the unprecedented level of CEO cooperation. Discover why DWW is quickly becoming the most engaging watch event for the global enthusiast and what the new trends, like colored stone dials and a community-first approach mean for the future of the watch industry. 1. Dubai Watch Week: Bigger, Better, and More Open (01:00:24) Live Dispatch from Dubai: Felix is reporting live from the event (DWW), held every two years. The Scale: DWW has moved to a new, larger location at Burj Park next to the Burj Khalifa, boasting 90 exhibiting brands and massive, multi-level booths from brands like Audemars Piguet and Rolex. The Vibe: The event is non-commercial, free to register, and fosters a "school camp vibes" vibe and genuine community.  2. Unprecedented CEO Access & Industry Talks (01:04:52) The Rolex Keynote: A highly rare, hour-long public discussion with Rolex CEO Jean-Frédéric Dufour (moderated by Wei Koh) and Ahmed Seddiqi. This historic event focused on industry challenges, the importance of attracting young talent, and Rolex's enduring retail partnerships. (Watch the discussion on the official Dubai Watch Week YouTube channel!) The CEO Roundtable: An even more unusual event featuring four competing CEOs on the same stage: Julien Tornare (Hublot), Georges Kern (Breitling), François-Henry Bennahmias (AP), and Karl-Friedrich Scheufele (Chopard).  Chronomania Panel: A packed event featuring unexpected watch figures like investor Kevin O'Leary ("Mr Wonderful"), independent watchmaker Rexhep Rexhepi (Akrivia), and cricketer Kane Williamson. 3. Hot Novelties & Emerging Watch Trends (01:10:00) Chopard L.U.C Grand Strike: The major, high-end release everyone is talking about, which combines a Grande Sonnerie, Petite Sonnerie, and Minute Repeater using Chopard's innovative sapphire crystal gongs (a culmination of 11,000 hours of R&D). Louis Vuitton Escale Ornamental Stones: Louis Vuitton debuts new, highly artistic versions of the Escale with turquoise and malachite used not just for the dial, but for the entire monolithic caseband (limited to 30 pieces). Independent & Enthusiast Watches: The Tudor Ranger with a sandy dial is noted for its regional connection. Trilobe impresses with high-quality, non-prohibitive watches. Oris ProPilot Date: A new, refined, and more wearable take on the ProPilot line. Key Trends: The proliferation of colored stone dials (Obsidian, Lavender Jade, Quartzite) and a noticeable wave of sandy dials influenced by the desert environment. George Kern's "House of Brands": Discussion on the formation of Kern's new group, which includes Breitling and the re-launch of Universal Genève.  Show Notes: https://www.otpodcast.com.au/show-notes OT: Discord - https://discord.com/invite/X3Vvc9z7aV   How to follow us: https://www.instagram.com/ot.podcast https://www.facebook.com/otpodcastau https://instagram.com/andygreenlive https://instagram.com/fkscholz   Send us an email: otthepodcast@gmail.com If you liked our podcast - please remember to like/share and subscribe

Kenneth Lasoen joins Lisa Burke to expose modern espionage, from cyberattacks to insider threats and the hidden power struggles shaping our world today. I wonder if John Le Carré's protagonist spy, George Smiley, could recognise the world of tradecraft today. Dr Kenneth Lasoen is one of Europe's foremost intelligence and security scholars. He serves as Associate Professor of Intelligence & Security at the University of Antwerp, Senior Lecturer at the KSI Institute, and is an advisor to governments, institutions and major corporations on national security, counterintelligence, and risk mitigation. His academic background includes degrees from Ghent, Leuven, Brunel and Cambridge; and the Belgian Royal Military Academy. Kenneth's research focuses on espionage, insider threats, economic and industrial spying, and how intelligence agencies shape geopolitics and corporate competition. He also briefs senior industry leaders on cybersecurity, supply-chain vulnerabilities, and foreign influence operations. Espionage has slipped out of the shadows and into everyday life. It's no longer a distant Cold War memory of trench coats, microfilm and whispered exchanges in European capitals. In the 2025 world, the spy wars are being fought through our smartphones, coded supply chains, university labs, satellites, corporate R&D hubs, and even the unlocked devices on our desks. Every industry is a target. Every citizen, a potential data point. Every corporation, hackable banks of information. Kenneth reveals the uncomfortable truth:
 • Allies spy on allies, because they can • Insider threats (it just takes one) can bankrupt global companies
 • Cyber incidents can cripple supply chains instantly
 • The Internet of Things is, in reality, the Internet of Hacked Things • Some of the most devastating breaches begin with the simplest human error (or human intent) Russia, China, North Korea and Iran might operate aggressively in the intelligence space, but Western governments, corporations and academia are deeply enmeshed in their own networks of surveillance, information-gathering and counter-espionage. Kenneth also brings the story closer to home: into research labs, corporate headquarters, scientific centres, and even vineyards. He explains why security failures often start from the inside, why organisations underestimate their risk, and how a single breach, digital or human, can destroy decades of innovation. There are vulnerabilities across all parts of our society that touch every citizen and business. https://ksi.institute/en/

Superpowers for Good should not be considered investment advice. Seek counsel before making investment decisions. When you purchase an item, launch a campaign or create an investment account after clicking a link here, we may earn a fee. Engage to support our work.Watch the show on television by downloading the e360tv channel app to your Roku, LG or AmazonFireTV. You can also see it on YouTube.Devin: What is your superpower?Aaron: Curiosity.Stellar: Community building.Creating a delicious beer that is 100% gluten-free and celiac-safe is no small feat. Yet, Aaron Gervais and Stellar Cassidy, the co-founders of Otherwise Brewing, have achieved just that. Their mission is clear: to create craft beer that tastes as good as traditional beer while being accessible to a growing community of people who avoid gluten for health reasons.Stellar explained, “Otherwise Brewing is a passion project that Aaron and I launched in 2021 after years of R&D. The beer is 100% gluten-free and celiac safe. We brew with grains alternative to barley, like rice and millet, which also have a smaller carbon footprint.” This dual focus on inclusivity and sustainability has been central to their journey.The need for gluten-free beer is significant. Aaron, who has family members with gluten sensitivities, highlighted the growing demand, saying, “We've gotten a lot of inbound requests from people across the country to ship gluten-free beer to them because there just aren't that many options out there.” With nearly a third of people reporting they try to avoid gluten, Otherwise Brewing is filling a critical gap in the market.What makes their beer stand out isn't just the absence of gluten—it's the taste. “We wanted to make sure that we were doing something unique,” Aaron said. “We developed a way to make gluten-free beer that tastes just like regular beer. Beer is not health food—we drink it for the enjoyment.”This innovative approach, combined with their dedication to building a loyal community in the Bay Area, has positioned Otherwise Brewing for expansion. The company is currently raising capital on SMBX, a regulated crowdfunding platform, to support statewide distribution and marketing efforts. “We want to make a big splash,” Stellar shared.As they prepare to scale, Aaron and Stellar are inviting supporters to invest in their vision of making craft beer more inclusive. Through passion, innovation, and a commitment to sustainability, they are leading the gluten-free beer revolution.If you're interested in supporting their mission, you can learn more about their campaign at SMBX.tl;dr:Today's episode highlights Otherwise Brewing's mission to create delicious, 100% gluten-free craft beer.Co-founders Aaron and Stellar share their journey to develop a sustainable, celiac-safe brewing process.The company is raising capital on SMBX to expand distribution across California and grow its community.Aaron's superpower, curiosity, drives innovation, including the creation of gluten-free beer recipes.Stellar's superpower, community building, fosters inclusivity at the taproom for gluten-free beer lovers.How to Develop Curiosity and Community Building As a SuperpowerAaron's superpower is his relentless curiosity, which drives him to explore new ideas and solve challenging problems. “I've always been a naturally curious person,” Aaron said. “When something piques that curiosity, I want to learn more and figure it out.” This mindset led him to develop Otherwise Brewing's gluten-free beer. He explained, “I wondered if I could make gluten-free beer that tastes good… it was a difficult technical challenge, but we figured it out.”Stellar's superpower is her ability to build inclusive, vibrant communities. “If I had to pick my superpower, I think it's honestly building community,” Stellar shared. She explained how creating a welcoming taproom for people with celiac disease and gluten sensitivities has been a core part of the brewery's success. “So many people with gluten issues can't hang out at breweries. We're proud to provide a space where they can enjoy a beer with their friends.”Aaron taught himself web programming to address a business challenge. He wanted better insight into Otherwise Brewing's sales data, but existing systems fell short. Driven by curiosity, he learned to write web hooks to connect inventory systems and create real-time dashboards. This innovation streamlined operations and demonstrated his ability to turn curiosity into actionable solutions.Stellar's community-building skills are best illustrated by the Otherwise Brewing taproom. She takes time to connect personally with customers, remembering names and stories while introducing people to one another. This thoughtful, inclusive approach has fostered a grassroots community of gluten-free beer lovers. “At any given time, you'll see people from all walks of life bonding over our beers,” Stellar said.Tips for Developing Aaron's Superpower:Ask “Why not?” when faced with conventional ideas or approaches.Pursue curiosity with action—learn new skills or experiment to find solutions.Embrace challenges as opportunities to innovate.Tips for Developing Stellar's Superpower:Take time to truly listen to people and remember their stories.Create inclusive spaces where everyone feels welcome.Focus on building relationships by introducing people with shared interests.By following Aaron's and Stellar's example and advice, you can make curiosity and community building a skill. With practice and effort, you could make these superpowers that enable you to do more good in the world.Remember, however, that research into success suggests that building on your own superpowers is more important than creating new ones or overcoming weaknesses. You do you!Guest ProfileAaron Gervais (he/him):CEO, Otherwise BrewingAbout Otherwise Brewing: Otherwise Brewing makes gluten-free beer using a proprietary process that allows us to match the flavors beer-lovers expect—with no limitations on style. We're making the world's most popular alcoholic beverage accessible to all, regardless of dietary restrictions.Website: otherwisebrewing.comLinkedIn Profile: linkedin.com/company/otherwise-brewingCompany Facebook Page: facebook.com/otherwisebrewingInstagram Handle: @otherwisebrewing Other URL: smbx.in/wowBiographical Information: Aaron Gervais co-founded Otherwise Brewing in 2019 with Stellar Cassidy, following several years of experimentation as a homebrewer. He oversees the company's operations, R&D efforts, and recipe design. In this role, he is responsible for developing Otherwise Brewing's production protocols, and his research into gluten-free brewing processes has led to a number of technical improvements that are unique to the company.Outside of beer, Aaron has led a diverse career, with 10 years of tech industry marketing, 5 years of arts nonprofit administration, and over 15 years as a freelance classical composer. As a composer, he has won many prestigious awards, and his music has been played around the world. He holds a Master of Arts in Composition from UC San Diego and a B.Mus from the University of Toronto.LinkedIn Profile: linkedin.com/in/aaron-gervaisStellar Cassidy (she/her):COO, Otherwise BrewingBiographical Information: Responsible for managing Otherwise's sales and customer relations, Stellar Cassidy is a veteran of the San Francisco craft beer scene. She has held positions as diverse as front-of-house manager, purchasing agent, sales representative, and event planner. Prior to founding Otherwise, Stellar led front-of-house operations at a number of well-known craft beer bars in San Francisco, including the Church Key and City Beer Store, and she has built a reputation in the local industry for attention to detail and customer satisfaction.Stellar holds a BA in Creative Writing and Performance Poetry in addition to a Cicerone® beer certification, the beer equivalent of sommelier credentialing.LinkedIn Profile: linkedin.com/in/stellar-cassidy-1a879830aSupport Our SponsorsOur generous sponsors make our work possible, serving impact investors, social entrepreneurs, community builders and diverse founders. Today's advertisers include FundingHope, and Envirosult. Learn more about advertising with us here.Max-Impact Members(We're grateful for every one of these community champions who make this work possible.)Brian Christie, Brainsy | Cameron Neil, Lend For Good | Carol Fineagan, Independent Consultant | Hiten Sonpal, RISE Robotics | John Berlet, CORE Tax Deeds, LLC. | Justin Starbird, The Aebli Group | Lory Moore, Lory Moore Law | Mark Grimes, Networked Enterprise Development | Matthew Mead, Hempitecture | Michael Pratt, Qnetic | Mike Green, Envirosult | Dr. Nicole Paulk, Siren Biotechnology | Paul Lovejoy, Stakeholder Enterprise | Pearl Wright, Global Changemaker | Scott Thorpe, Philanthropist | Sharon Samjitsingh, Health Care Originals | Add Your Name HereUpcoming SuperCrowd Event CalendarIf a location is not noted, the events below are virtual.SuperGreen Live, January 22–24, 2026, livestreaming globally. Organized by Green2Gold and The Super Crowd, Inc., this three-day event will spotlight the intersection of impact crowdfunding, sustainable innovation, and climate solutions. Featuring expert-led panels, interactive workshops, and live pitch sessions, SuperGreen Live brings together entrepreneurs, investors, policymakers, and activists to explore how capital and climate action can work hand in hand. With global livestreaming, VIP networking opportunities, and exclusive content, this event will empower participants to turn bold ideas into real impact. Don't miss your chance to join tens of thousands of changemakers at the largest virtual sustainability event of the year.Community Event CalendarSuccessful Funding with Karl Dakin, Tuesdays at 10:00 AM ET - Click on Events.If you would like to submit an event for us to share with the 10,000+ changemakers, investors and entrepreneurs who are members of the SuperCrowd, click here.We use AI to help us write compelling recaps of each episode. Get full access to Superpowers for Good at www.superpowers4good.com/subscribe

What if we told you the government owes you money…and you didn't even know it? In this episode, Matt and Luigi sit down with Julio Gonzalez, founder and CEO of Engineered Tax Services, to peel back the curtain on how the tax code can actually become a tool — not a penalty — for entrepreneurs and real‑estate investors.  We talk about the game‑changer "big beautiful bill," why R&D tax credits matter even to non‑tech firms, how cost segregation among real‑estate players is far more than "just depreciation," and why your accountant might be asleep at the wheel.  Julio brings the engineering + tax combo that's usually reserved for the Fortune 500 … but we're showing you how to use it too.

Shelby Rossi, global brand manager for goggles and helmets at Oakley, digs into what happens when brand and marketing plug into the product development process from day one. Using WTR ICON, Oakley's new surf helmet, as a case study, Shelby explains how a cross-functional "task force" of R&D, UX, product, sports marketing, and brand broke down silos, validated a real consumer problem, and reshaped how Oakley brings innovation to market.  About: This podcast is produced by Port Side, a creative production studio creating content strategy + production for active brands, rooted in emotion.  Enjoy this episode and discover other resources below: Slack Community | Tired of brainstorming with ChatGPT? Join us! Insight Deck | Want 20 of our favorite insights shared on the show?  Booklist | Here's our curated list of recommended books over the years. LinkedIn | Join the conversation and share ideas with other industry peers. Apple Podcast | Want to help us out? Leave us a review on Apple. Guest List | Have a Guest in Mind?  Share them with us here.  

Ever wondered what really happens behind the scenes at luxury business retreats and what makes them worth the investment?In this episode, Barbara takes you behind the scenes of a whirlwind season of retreats across the globe-from Greece to LA, Aspen, and beyond. After spending six weeks attending multiple high-level business and mindset retreats, she's sharing her biggest takeaways on what truly sets retreats apart from large conferences, the lessons learned from international event planning, and insider insights from top-tier entrepreneurs (including Jay Shetty himself).Barbara reveals how these intimate experiences have shaped her future retreats within The Council Mastermind, including a luxurious European experience in Greece, and why she believes curated, small-group events are the fastest path to transformation in business and life. Whether you're dreaming of attending your first retreat or hosting one yourself, this episode will inspire you to invest in experiences that expand your vision and your network.Tune in to hear:What Barbara learned from attending 5 retreats across Europe and the U.S.Why she prefers small, high-level retreats over massive conferencesBehind the scenes of Jay Shetty's viral social media strategyHow to properly plan and curate a luxury retreat experienceLessons learned from hosting (and attending) retreats that ran out of foodThe importance of R&D before choosing your retreat location or venueWhy investing in yourself through travel and community is key to long-term successSneak peek into The Council Mastermind 2026 retreats in Scottsdale, Newport Beach, and GreeceComment “COUNCIL” on Instagram to learn more about the Council MastermindHow To Get Involved:Life-Changing Money is a podcast all about money. We share stories of how money has impacted and radically changed the lives of others—and how it can do the same for you.Your host, Barbara Schreihans (pronounced ShREE-hands) is the founder and CEO of Your Tax Coach, and the creator of the Write Off Your Life Course. She is a top tax strategist, business coach, and expert in helping business owners and high-net-worth individuals save millions in taxes while increasing profits.When she's not leading her team, coaching clients, or dreaming up new goals for her company, you can find her drinking coffee, hanging out with her family, and traveling the world.Grab a cup of coffee and become inspired as we hear from those who have overcome and are overcoming their self-limiting beliefs and money mindsets!Do you have a burning question that you'd love to hear answered on a future show?Please email it to: podcast@yourtaxcoach.bizSign Up For Our NewsletterLife Changing Money PodcastGet Tax Help!

Loc Pham, the Philly Cookie Company, and the First-Annual Philly Cookie FestLoc Pham, a Vietnamese immigrant who arrived in America in 1991, shared his journey from initially studying to be an Engineer to learning Food Science, and eventually becoming a Pastry Chef and Founder of the Philly Cookie Company. He described how his career evolved through French bakeries, food processing, and corporate R&D roles before returning to his passion for baking, where he developed a unique shortbread cookie recipe inspired by Scottish shortbreads but with his own twist using molasses and brown sugar. The cookies, which are sold wholesale to over 20 retailers in Philadelphia and across 11 states, are noted for their buttery taste and subtle sweetness.Philly Cookie Festival PlanningThe discussion then switched focus to the upcoming Philly Cookie Festival happening on December 7th at Bok. The indulgently-sweet festival will feature 32 vendors, including 27 cookie vendors and 2 savory vendors, all required to offer a Philadelphia-themed item. The event will include activities such as a cookie decorating contest with Moon Flour Bakery, a cookie eating contest, and a Santa photo booth, with tickets available through Eventbrite and the event's Instagram page.Loc also mentioned there will be a children's activity corner sponsored by the Mendoza group, along with The Juvenile Law Center, another sponsor of the event, will be celebrating its 75th anniversary by hosting a cookie exchange during the festival. PLEASE NOTE: Anyone participating in the event and the cookie exchange who have dietary restrictions and/or allergies need to be cautious; some gluten-free and vegan options available, however there is no guarantee of the ingredients and food-processing procedures are.https://www.phillycookie.comEleni Chrisidis and The Brew Room:Eleni Chrysidis, co-founder of The Brew Room, discussed her and her husband Danny's journey into the food industry. Danny's background began with his family's restaurants, and had always desired to open a unique concept incorporating Greek elements. Years later, he and Eleni found the opportunity to open one in Ardmore, PA called The Brew Room. Eleni, who works in corporate consulting, supported Danny by managing the business setup and operations, highlighting the importance of organization and project management in launching a startup in the food industry. Both Danny and Eleni immigrated here from Greece, and are happy to introduce Ardmore residents to the relaxed, European-style coffee culture. When you visit, feel free to spend time enjoying one of their signature Greek pastries, sandwiches and coffee experiences. https://www.thebrewroompa.comREPLAY Chef Angie Brown and Rex At The Royal:Angie Brown is a well-known chef and restaurateur, gaining accolades and awarded top zagat ratings. In addition to being one of Philadelphia's sought-after chef's, Angie has been seen on television and is a member of the world renowned Philanthropic organization of Les Dames d'Escoffier - Philadelphia Chapter. And more recently she became the Culinary Director and Chef for Rex At The Royal, located in South Philadelphia. Rex at The Royal is known for being, "An innovative and multi-faceted hospitality establishment, creating exceptional experiences through a Food & Beverage program inspired by the culinary traditions of the American South, influenced especially by its coastal regions, and locally flavored by our home—the Royal Theatre on South Street in Philadelphia—expressed in elevated dining services, immersive special events, personalized private dining, and a thoughtfully appointed bottle shop" according to their website at https://www.rexphl.com.

Listen now: Spotify, Apple and YouTubeIf you're a product leader trying to navigate the shift from single-product focus to a broader portfolio—or wondering how AI is reshaping execution, team design, and strategic planning—this episode is for you.In this episode of Supra Insider, Marc and Ben sit down with Brian Balfour, CEO of Reforge, to explore how product orgs can expand into multi-product portfolios without losing focus, momentum, or clarity. Brian shares how his team shipped five new products in under a year, what most companies miss when trying to adopt AI, and how to avoid common traps like “Frankenstein workflows” and slow-to-die experiments.From deciding when to build vs. buy, to managing zero-to-one teams in parallel, to evaluating strategic threats in the AI era—this conversation is packed with practical frameworks and hard-earned lessons. You'll hear Brian's candid takes on M&A, cross-functional execution, PM bottlenecks, and the future of product development when language, code, and design start to collapse into one.Whether you're expanding your roadmap, building AI-native products, or simply trying to execute faster with fewer resources, this one's worth a listen.All episodes of the podcast are also available on Spotify, Apple and YouTube.New to the pod? Subscribe below to get the next episode in your inbox

In this episode of Planning Aces, we spotlight FP&A insights from three CFOs leading innovation with discipline: Chris Sands (InvoiceCloud), Steve Sutter (Celigo), and Niels Boon (Cint). Each shares how finance is shaping AI, go-to-market models, and data-driven transformation without losing rigor. From building an "AI Ops" function and embedding finance in sales strategy, to piloting AI tools in small, staged experiments, these leaders treat innovation as a managed process. Our resident thought leader joins to connect the dots, emphasizing structure, clear metrics, and portfolio thinking as the new essentials of FP&A. We're excited to welcome author and former CFO Glenn Hopper into the co-host seat. Glenn joins us as our resident thought leader, bringing a deep well of experience at the intersection of finance, technology, and AI. We're thrilled to have his voice and perspective guiding this next chapter of Planning Aces. Planning Aces: Chris Sands leans into organizational design, reallocating talent into a formal AI Ops team and emphasizing change champions. Steve Sutter focuses on commercial mechanics, tying FP&A to sales economics, talent mix, and scale-up guardrails. Niels Boon emphasizes risk-staged innovation, using small pilots for operational wins while ring-fencing bold synthetic-data bets as long-horizon R&D.

In the first seconds of any presentation, your audience decides whether to lean in or tune out. This guide shows you how to design those opening moments—before you speak and through your first sentence—so you command attention, create immediate relevance, and set up the rest of your message to land. What makes a powerful presentation opening in 2025? Your opening starts before you speak—and the audience decides in seconds. In a smartphone-first era, those first seven seconds determine whether people lean in or drift off. The "silent opening" (walk, posture, eye contact) forms a first impression before a single slide appears. Conferences, town halls, and startup pitches now feel like a live feed—attention is earned fast or lost. Do now: Plan the pre-speech moment (walk, stance, pause) as deliberately as your first words. Decide what you want people to think before you speak, then choreograph for that outcome. How do I control first impressions before I even speak? Pre-stage signals set expectations—own your bio, the MC intro, and foyer chats. Event pages, LinkedIn blurbs, and the MC's script shape the audience's mental model. Brief the MC with a single, crisp positioning line ("Built Asia-Pacific revenue from ¥0 to ¥10B") and avoid laundry-list CVs. In B2B, hallway conversations are part of the show; in government or academic settings, your written session abstract becomes the first "slide" attendees see. Do now: Write a 20-word positioning line for the MC; update the event blurb; greet attendees with energy to "seed" a positive narrative. What should I physically do in the first 10 seconds? Walk briskly, take centre stage, pause, then project your first line. Movement signals confidence across cultures; a slight, purposeful pause lifts anticipation and quiets side-chatter. A strong first sentence delivered at higher vocal energy breaks through device distraction. Australian audiences prefer relaxed authority; Japanese audiences value elegant poise and clear structure; US audiences reward pace and punch. In all markets, eyes up—don't bury your face in the laptop while fumbling with HDMI. Do now: Rehearse a "no-tech" start: walk → plant → 1-beat pause → first line with 10–15% more volume than normal. How can I hook executives with a captivating statement? Open with an analogy, a bold fact, or good news—then explain the relevance. Analogy makes complex issues tangible ("Launching this strategic initiative is like learning to drive—lots looks simple until you're in traffic.") Bold fact creates a pattern interrupt (e.g., demographic shifts, cost-of-delay, risk concentration). Good news reframes the room: cite an industry uptick, an R&D milestone, or a customer win to signal value early. Startups often lead with traction; corporates often lead with risk or opportunity size—choose the frame that matches your audience. Do now: Draft three openers (analogy, fact, good news). Pick one that best answers your audience's "why this, why now?" Should I start with a question—and which ones actually work? Use questions to gather info, drive participation, or create agreement—sparingly. Hands-up questions give you a real-time snapshot and wake the room. Physical prompts ("Stand if you've led a cross-border project since 2023") add energy in offsites and leadership programs. Rhetorical questions align minds without calling for a reply ("What costs us more—slow decisions or rework?"). In high-context cultures, rhetorical alignment often outperforms cold-calling; in US sales kick-offs, rapid polling can boost momentum. Do now: Script one of each: (1) hands-up, (2) physical prompt, (3) rhetorical alignment. Choose the lightest touch that fits the room. How do I keep phones down and attention up from the first sentence? Design an attention moat: short sentences, elevated volume, and immediate relevance. Open with the outcome your audience cares about ("By the end, you'll have a 3-step opening you can deliver tomorrow"). Use names, dates, and entities to anchor time and credibility. Contrast markets (Japan vs. US) or sectors (consumer vs. B2B) to create novelty. Then promise—and deliver—one fast, valuable tactic before your first slide. Do now: First line = outcome; second line = entity/time anchor; third line = quick win. Keep each under 12 words. The simple checklist to design your opening this week Follow this 7-point "First 30 Seconds" checklist—then rehearse twice. Bio/MC line set. Walk-plant-pause mapped. First sentence bold. Choose one hook (analogy/fact/good news). One question type ready. Relevance statement tied to current priorities (growth, hiring, AI, cross-border). Fallback if tech fails. Pro tip: keep a printed one-page run-of-show; use it when slides go rogue. Conclusion Openings are a system, not a sentence. When you control pre-stage signals, choreograph the first 10 seconds, and deploy a deliberate hook, you earn permission to lead—whether in Tokyo, Sydney, or New York. Rehearse the system this week and make it your default. About the author Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He has twice won Dale Carnegie's "One Carnegie Award" and received Griffith University Business School's Outstanding Alumnus Award. A Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg delivers leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs globally. He is the author of Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, Japan Presentations Mastery, Japan Leadership Mastery, and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training, with Japanese editions including 『ザ営業』 and 『プレゼンの達人』.

In this episode, host April Walker, CPA, CGMA, Senior Manager — AICPA & CIMA, sits down with Mark Gallegos, CPA, MST, Partner — Porte Brown, to unpack key year-end tax planning strategies. They dive into new opportunities for individuals and businesses under the H.R. 1, P.L. 119-21, the law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), including the increased state and local tax (SALT) cap, expanded deductions and the return of immediate expensing for domestic research and development (R&D) costs. Tune in for practical insights on proactive planning and multi-year modeling to help clients maximize benefits under the new law.   What you'll learn from this episode: The impact of H.R. 1 on income tax planning Learn more about new and expanded deductions Hear about year-end actions that might be beneficial for taxpayers Why entity choice conversations might be necessary given the current law AICPA resources Planning after tax changes Tax Section Tax Section news and member FAQs Year-End Tax and Financial Planning Toolkit   Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices. This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you're not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You'll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.

Studio Ulster, a world-class virtual production company in Northern Ireland, has collaborated with Dell Technologies to elevate its virtual production capabilities. By leveraging Dell's AI infrastructure solutions, Studio Ulster is set to redefine the future of on-screen innovation. Why does it matter? Studio Ulster's £72 million virtual production facility in Belfast positions Northern Ireland as a global leader in virtual production. Developed by Ulster University in partnership with Belfast Harbour Commission and supported by Northern Ireland Screen, the facility is home to some of the world's most advanced virtual production technologies, pushing the boundaries of cinematic storytelling through using LED panels to create real-time, in-camera digital environments. The facility also houses CoSTAR Screen Lab, an integrated R&D lab driving advancements in screen and performance technology. Advancing Creativity Through AI Innovation Dell PowerEdge R760 servers provide the computing power required to handle the complex and resource-intensive workloads of virtual production. This technology supports multiple production stages, accelerates workflows and raises the bar for visual quality, enabling teams to bring their cinematic visions to life with confidence and ease. Leveraging Dell's extensive GPU technology ecosystem, the Dell team identified and deployed the optimal graphics cards to meet the environment's demanding rendering requirements, while ensuring seamless compatibility with the Unreal Engine matrix. Dell PowerScale's advanced AI capabilities are transforming how Studio Ulster delivers cutting-edge virtual production solutions. With trillions of data points generated every day, teams can now train machine learning models directly within their workflow - empowering artists to create and customise virtual sets quickly and efficiently from existing libraries. This saves production teams time and resources by eliminating the need to build sets from scratch. Dell PowerScale extends this high-performance foundation with next-generation data management, supporting intensive motion capture and 3D/4D scanning workflows. Its robust, scalable architecture ensures that massive data volumes move securely and quickly. Driving Sustainability and Global Impact Virtual production is transforming entertainment mediums everywhere, from blockbuster films to hit television shows to AAA gaming titles. It's not only faster and more cost-effective than traditional methods but also more sustainable. Ulster University's research shows that virtual production can reduce carbon emissions by up to 50% compared to conventional filming. The studio further amplifies its sustainability efforts by operating on 100% renewable energy and maintaining a BREEAM Excellent certification. Dell and Ulster University share a long-standing research partnership, spanning health, life sciences, and digital media. This collaboration has fueled innovation through PhD research funding and joint projects in media and entertainment. Professor Declan Keeney, CEO of Studio Ulster, said: "As we expand our virtual production capabilities, having the right infrastructure to manage intensive computational workloads is essential. Dell's expertise in compute and storage makes it the ideal partner to support our needs today and in the future. From managing terabytes of daily data to unlocking AI's potential, Dell's solutions are integral to how we're using technology to develop cutting-edge solutions within the entertainment industry." Mark Hopkins, General Manager, Ireland and Northern Ireland, Dell Technologies, said: "With AI transformation accelerating, Dell is empowering businesses across the island of Ireland to seamlessly adopt AI, drive faster insights, improve efficiency, and accelerate business outcomes. Together, with Studio Ulster, we're pioneering advancements in creative production, filmmaking, and immersive experiences for global audiences." More about Irish Tec...

This is the latest episode of the free DDW Narrated Podcast, called "How new scientific approaches are accelerating R&D". The episode covers two articles written for DDW Volume 25, Issue 1, Winter 2023/24.  The first article is called 'Accelerating recombinant protein vaccine discovery'. In the article, Jian He, Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) Head at WuXi Vaccines, explains why vaccination responses need to be rapid, efficacious and cost-effective if they are to outpace new viral threats emerging across the globe. The second article is called 'How 3D biology is informing drug discovery'. In the piece, DDW Editor Reece Armstrong looks at the advantages and opportunities 3D cell cultures, organoids and stem cells are bringing to drug discovery teams. You can listen below, or find The Drug Discovery World Podcast on Spotify, Google Play and Apple Podcasts.

Today, I'm joined by Brian Le Gette, founder & CEO of Ammortal.   A wellness technology company, Ammortal's immersive recovery chambers combine PEMF, red light, molecular hydrogen, breathwork, and meditation into a single therapeutic experience.   In this episode, we discuss building the future of regenerative wellness tech.   We also cover: Raising a Series A and scaling commercially Developing the product, pricing model, and partnerships Stacking cellular repair modalities with mind-body integration   Subscribe to the podcast → insider.fitt.co/podcast   Subscribe to our newsletter → insider.fitt.co/subscribe   Follow us on LinkedIn → linkedin.com/company/fittinsider    Website: www.ammortal.com  Locations: www.ammortal.com/locations  Commercial Inquiries: sales@ammortal.com   Partnerships: brian@ammortal.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ammortal_official Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ammortals    -   The Fitt Insider Podcast is brought to you by EGYM. Visit EGYM.com to learn more about its smart fitness ecosystem for fitness and health facilities.   Fitt Talent: https://talent.fitt.co Consulting: https://consulting.fitt.co  Investments: https://capital.fitt.co   Chapters:  (00:00) Introduction (01:20) Brian's background and entrepreneurial journey (02:40) What is Ammortal and the one-of-one category (02:55) The core modality stack and protocol design (05:10) Origin story (06:30) Positioning beyond wellness buzzwords (09:00) Why "tech doesn't heal—it aids self-healing" (11:30) Target customer: optimization-focused consumers (14:30) Distribution strategy (18:00) Pricing models and commercial partnerships (21:15) The experience design and musical cocoon concept (23:30) Education and onboarding for new users (25:30) Customer outcomes and use case versatility (27:35) Landing on "chamber" as the product descriptor (29:05) Long-term vision and R&D philosophy (31:15) The collaborative model for wellness innovation (32:45) Raising a Series A and scaling commercially (34:10) Conclusion

Fitt Insider: Read the notes at at podcastnotes.org. Don't forget to subscribe for free to our newsletter, the top 10 ideas of the week, every Monday --------- Today, I'm joined by Jared Pobre, founder & CEO of Caldera + Lab.   Launched in 2019, Caldera + Lab is revamping men's medicine cabinets with proprietary premium skincare formulas specifically engineered for guys.   In this episode, we discuss building a biotech-driven men's personal care brand.   We also cover:   Targeting the longevity-minded male consumer Prioritizing proprietary R&D over repurposed formulas Developing distribution strategies and hospitality partnerships   Subscribe to the podcast → insider.fitt.co/podcastSubscribe to our newsletter → insider.fitt.co/subscribeFollow us on LinkedIn → linkedin.com/company/fittinsider Caldera + Lab's Website: www.calderalab.com  Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/stores/CalderaLab/page/2A608586-7E58-411C-8057-FFD688968227   -   The Fitt Insider Podcast is brought to you by EGYM. Visit EGYM.com to learn more about its smart workout solutions for fitness and health facilities.   Fitt Talent: https://talent.fitt.co/  Consulting: https://consulting.fitt.co/  Investments: https://capital.fitt.co/    Chapters: (00:00) Introduction (01:08) Jared's background and Caldera + Lab overview (01:33) The evolution of men's skincare since 2016 (03:02) Formulation differences: women's vs. men's skincare (04:32) Custom formulations vs. menu-based co-manufacturing (06:24) Pioneering proprietary ingredients for men (08:00) Building the brand with bootstrapped resources (10:30) Clinical studies and efficacy testing (13:00) Customer acquisition and finding product-market fit (15:30) DTC and Amazon as core distribution channels (17:45) Storytelling and messaging strategy (21:53) Balancing scientific credibility with consumer messaging (23:12) Targeting the longevity-minded male consumer (25:11) Retail expansion strategy and Series A funding (26:15) Country clubs, luxury hotels, and hospitality partnerships (27:26) Product roadmap (28:49) Conclusion  

In this episode of the Supply Chain Podcast, host Thomas O'Connor discusses with Tamera Fenske, Kimberly-Clark's chief supply chain officer, how the leading consumer goods manufacturer traverses the peaks and valleys of the ever-evolving consumer landscape. Fenske details how Kimberly-Clark adjusts to these challenges with agility and makes changes within the organization to adapt to shifting consumer expectations.This episode explores:How consumers balance price-sensitivity with the desire for quality. (1:24)How Kimberly-Clark's supply chain works with the R&D and commercial divisions on product construction, product design and various cost elements. (2:57)Responding to the global market with agility and speed. (6:51)Building strong relationships with C-suite stakeholders. (10:21)Factoring strategy with talent in meeting organizational goals. (15:03)Tamera Fenske is a CPG supply chain leader who has worked in a variety of manufacturing and supply chain leadership roles and is known for unlocking best-in-class capabilities across a range of technologies, innovations and go-to-market models. As chief supply chain officer for Kimberly-Clark, Tamera has global responsibility for the enterprise supply chain's end-to-end manufacturing and distribution footprint, as well as the functional support areas, including procurement, quality, sustainability, occupational health and safety, strategy and capital engineering. Prior to joining Kimberly-Clark in 2022, Tamera served as senior vice president of manufacturing and supply chain for 3M Company, where she led end-to-end supply chain in the U.S. and Canada across all of its business groups and markets. During her 22-year tenure with 3M, she held various senior roles leading manufacturing, supply chain and operations for many of the company's global businesses, as well as plant management. She brings additional prior experience from Marathon Ashland Petroleum and Dow Chemical Company. She holds a bachelor's degree in environmental engineering from Michigan Technological University and has been a frequent presenter at supply chain leadership and manufacturing conferences, sharing her perspective on factory-of-the-future strategies and their impact on the bottom line, advanced process control applications that reduce variability and adopting scalable automation solutions to drive an end-to-end supply chain. Outside of work, Tamera enjoys spending time with her family and friends, hiking with her two dogs, traveling, scuba diving and enjoying the great outdoors.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week, we interview Amir Abolfathi. Amir is an experienced innovator and medical device executive with a proven record of building and scaling successful enterprises.  He was a founding team member of uLab Systems, Tusker Medical (acquired by Smith and Nephew), and Sonitus Medical. Amir also served for 6 years as an Officer and Vice President of R&D at Align Technology Inc. (NASDAQ: ALGN), the creator of a unique, invisible orthodontic product. Previously, Amir was the first member of the senior management team at Embolic Protection Inc. (acquired by Boston Scientific), where he was a consulting VP of Operations. In early 1995, Amir co-founded EndoTex Interventional Systems (acquired by Boston Scientific), developers of minimally invasive solutions for the treatment of carotid artery disease. Demonstrated strength in capital strategy and fundraising, with over $280M raised since 2006 and prior contributions to securing $300M from 1995 to 2006, supported by deep venture capital, banking, and strategic partnership networks. Inventor of more than 100 issued patents, with significant contributions in M&A, IPOs, and corporate spin-offs. Served as a public officer of a publicly traded company, bringing broad governance, compliance, and investor relations expertise. Currently, focusing on executive mentorship and board leadership, guiding entrepreneurs and next-generation executives to realize their vision, while serving as a trusted advisor and executive coach.

Today's guest, Robert Miller, brings a rare 360° GovCon perspective—15 years in government (Peace Corps → Capitol Hill → White House → CIA) followed by eight years in defense tech and AI sales. Rob led federal sales at Hawkeye 360 and CrowdAI (acquired in 2023) and now oversees $75M ARR across three divisions at a major defense contractor. In this episode, we break down how startups can truly win in federal: navigating product-market fit, cost-to-close, and working with large primes; using tools like SAM.gov, ARC, and Vulcan; and building mission-driven teams and Hill relationships. Rob also shares insights from his book Startup Statesmanship, a hands-on guide for founders entering GovCon. Key Takeaways Focus your ICP and go deep. Pick a tight segment + ideal customer profile and build depth (relationships, use-cases) before expanding. Master the economics. Rigor on cost-to-close and delivery—especially on firm-fixed-price R&D—wins or loses your margin in scoping. Protect your IP with primes. Use NDAs and teaming terms (workshare/rev-share), and share only what's necessary to win—not to be cloned. Join the Bootcamp: https://govcongiants.org/bootcamp Learn more: https://federalhelpcenter.com/ https://govcongiants.org/  Encore Funding: https://www.encore-funding.com/ 

The launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in October 1957 led to a geopolitical crisis that reshaped American science policy. Within months, Congress established NASA, and by 1961, President Kennedy committed the nation to landing a man on the moon before the decade's end. The resulting investment was massive, and the program still serves as a model of government spending for advocates of public R&D.  In a paper in the American Economic Review, authors Shawn Kantor and Alexander Whalley question whether the space race program succeeded as an economic policy that boosted economic growth and productivity. To estimate the space program's effects on economic growth from 1947 to 1992, the authors used data on NASA contractor spending and a novel identification strategy based on declassified CIA documents that allowed them to determine which US industries in which counties specialized in space-relevant technologies before the space race began. Their findings complicate the conventional narrative about public R&D and provide important context for current proposals to replicate so-called "moonshot" models in other domains. Kantor and Whalley recently spoke with Tyler Smith about the local effects of space race spending and why they didn't translate into long-term productivity gains.

Kirsten Maitland is the founder of Rebel Cheese, pioneering artisan plant-based cheeses and scaling a national brand by turning viral moments into lasting growth through bold innovation and relentless customer focus. Top 3 Value Bombs 1. You don't need to be an expert to disrupt an industry. Beginner's eyes create fresh opportunities. 2. Never compromise on quality, even when faced with explosive demand. You only get one chance to win skeptics. 3. Owning your vertical, obsessing over R&D, and listening relentlessly to customers fuels long-term innovation. Check out Kirsten's website. First-time customers get two free wheels with their order - Rebel Cheese Sponsors HighLevel - The ultimate all-in-one platform for entrepreneurs, marketers, coaches, and agencies. Learn more at HighLevelFire.com. The Dealmaker's Will - If you're ready to sharpen your instincts, elevate your mindset, and learn what separates deal-takers from deal-makers. Go grab your copy of The Dealmaker's Will today on Amazon. Quicksilver Scientific - Make advanced liposomal supplements so you can actually feel the difference - energy, focus, calm, recovery. Get 10 percent off plus free shipping at TryQS.com/fire!

Today, I'm joined by Jared Pobre, founder & CEO of Caldera + Lab.   Launched in 2019, Caldera + Lab is revamping men's medicine cabinets with proprietary premium skincare formulas specifically engineered for guys.   In this episode, we discuss building a biotech-driven men's personal care brand.   We also cover:   Targeting the longevity-minded male consumer Prioritizing proprietary R&D over repurposed formulas Developing distribution strategies and hospitality partnerships   Subscribe to the podcast → insider.fitt.co/podcastSubscribe to our newsletter → insider.fitt.co/subscribeFollow us on LinkedIn → linkedin.com/company/fittinsider Caldera + Lab's Website: www.calderalab.com  Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/stores/CalderaLab/page/2A608586-7E58-411C-8057-FFD688968227   -   The Fitt Insider Podcast is brought to you by EGYM. Visit EGYM.com to learn more about its smart workout solutions for fitness and health facilities.   Fitt Talent: https://talent.fitt.co/  Consulting: https://consulting.fitt.co/  Investments: https://capital.fitt.co/    Chapters: (00:00) Introduction (01:08) Jared's background and Caldera + Lab overview (01:33) The evolution of men's skincare since 2016 (03:02) Formulation differences: women's vs. men's skincare (04:32) Custom formulations vs. menu-based co-manufacturing (06:24) Pioneering proprietary ingredients for men (08:00) Building the brand with bootstrapped resources (10:30) Clinical studies and efficacy testing (13:00) Customer acquisition and finding product-market fit (15:30) DTC and Amazon as core distribution channels (17:45) Storytelling and messaging strategy (21:53) Balancing scientific credibility with consumer messaging (23:12) Targeting the longevity-minded male consumer (25:11) Retail expansion strategy and Series A funding (26:15) Country clubs, luxury hotels, and hospitality partnerships (27:26) Product roadmap (28:49) Conclusion  

In the second episode of our two-episode mini-series featuring Biotage, Esraa AboJasser and Dr. Lee Williams share more detail about their work, particularly in the North America region. Biotage is a global supplier and solutions partner to a wide range of customers within drug discovery, drug development, and analytical testing. The company's products and solutions are critical for anti-doping laboratories, scientists conducting anti-doping research, and labs across a variety of other fields. This episode explores Biotage's consumable products, their activities in North America, their educational endeavors, the company's goals for the future, preparations for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles, and more. Esraa is Market and Applications Manager in Analytical Testing at Biotage, and Lee is Director of R&D for Analytical Consumables and Applications at Biotage.

In this episode of Innovation Storytellers, I sit down with Annalisa Gigante, Vice Chair and Governing Board Member of the Henry Royce Institute, to explore how innovation truly works inside organizations. Annalisa has spent her career turning complex ideas into commercial realities. From helping bring new materials to everyday products like toothbrushes and ski poles to shaping billion-dollar innovation strategies for companies in life sciences, chemicals, and digital technologies, her story is both convenient and inspiring. We begin by tracing her unexpected path into innovation, back when it was still referred to as "business development." She recalls being handed a new material and told to find a market for it. That challenge taught her one of the most powerful lessons in innovation: how to transition from a technology-driven approach to a market-driven one.  Annalisa explains how curiosity led her to discover possibilities that her company's engineers had overlooked, opening up new consumer markets and changing how her teams thought about value. It was the beginning of a career spent helping organizations connect invention to impact. Throughout our conversation, Annalisa shares what it takes to create a lasting, innovative culture. She discusses building bridges between R&D and finance, how to measure and manage risk, and why learning to speak the language of every department is crucial. She describes innovation as a living ecosystem that depends on balance. Too much money and comfort can stifle creativity, but too little structure leads to chaos. Finding the "Goldilocks zone" for innovation, she says, is the real work of leadership. We also discuss deep tech and advanced materials, where patient capital and long-term vision are crucial. Annalisa offers a clear-eyed look at how breakthroughs move from the lab to the market and why the same principles apply whether you are scaling a startup or steering a global enterprise. She believes that innovation is as much about mindset as it is about technology, and that the most resilient organizations learn to treat failure as data, not defeat. Before we ended, Annalisa shares her passion for supporting women founders in the healthcare and life sciences sectors. With only a small fraction of funding going to female-led startups, she argues that closing this gap is not only fair but vital to solving the world's most challenging problems. It is a conversation about vision, courage, and the systems that allow great ideas to take root and thrive.  

Andrew Jordan, a CPA specializing in IT services and managed service providers (MSPs), discusses the implications of recent tax code changes for MSPs. The new legislation, referred to as the "big, beautiful bill," has introduced significant modifications, including the reinstatement of 100% bonus depreciation. This allows MSPs to write off the full cost of new servers and equipment in the year they are put into service, which can greatly benefit their financial planning and tax strategies.Jordan also highlights the expansion of Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) provisions, which can enable certain small businesses to sell their stock without incurring taxes. This is particularly relevant for MSPs considering an exit strategy, as it can mean retaining more of the sale proceeds. However, to qualify, businesses must be structured as C corporations, which is less common among MSPs that often operate as S corporations. Jordan emphasizes the importance of planning and understanding the implications of this structure for future sales.Additionally, the conversation touches on the Research and Development (R&D) tax credits, which are broader than many realize. Activities such as developing new automation scripts or configuring server setups can qualify for these credits, potentially leading to significant tax savings. Jordan advises MSPs to track their labor costs and time spent on R&D activities, as this can help determine eligibility for credits and refunds.Finally, Jordan addresses the potential changes to overtime deductions and the importance of aligning with a CPA who matches the business owner's risk tolerance. He encourages MSPs to stay informed about these evolving tax regulations and to consider how they can optimize their financial strategies in light of these changes. The discussion underscores the need for proactive financial planning as MSPs prepare for future growth and potential sales.

BONUS: Organizations as Ecosystems — Understanding Complexity, Innovation, and the Three-Body Problem at Work In this fascinating conversation about complex adaptive systems, Simon Holzapfel helps us understand why traditional planning and control methods fail in knowledge work — and what we can do instead. Understanding Ecosystems vs. Systems "Complex adaptive systems are complex in nature and adaptive in that they evolve over time. That's different from a static system." — Simon Holzapfel   Simon introduces the crucial distinction between mechanical systems and ecosystems. While mechanical systems are predictable and static, ecosystems — like teams and organizations — are complex, adaptive, and constantly evolving. The key difference lies in the interactions among team members, which create emergent properties that cannot be predicted by analyzing individuals separately. Managers often fall into the trap of focusing on individuals rather than the interactions between them, missing where the real magic happens. This is why understanding your organization as an ecosystem, not a machine, fundamentally changes how you lead. In this segment, we refer to the Stella systems modeling application. The Journey from Planning to Emergence "I used to come into class with a lesson plan — doop, doop, doop, minute by minute agenda. And then what I realized is that I would just completely squash those questions that would often emerge from the class." — Simon Holzapfel   Simon shares his transformation from rigid classroom planning to embracing emergence. As a history and economics teacher for 10 years, he learned that over-planning kills the spontaneous insights that make learning powerful. The same principle applies to leadership: planning is essential, but over-planning wastes time and prevents novelty from emerging. The key is separating strategic planning (the "where" and "why") from tactical execution (the "how"), letting teams make local decisions while leaders focus on alignment with the bigger picture. "Innovation Arrives Stochastically" "Simply by noticing the locations where you've had your best ideas, we notice the stochasticness of arrival. Might be the shower, might be on a bike ride, might be sitting in traffic, might be at your desk — but often not." — Simon Holzapfel   Simon unpacks the concept of stochastic emergence — the idea that innovation cannot be scheduled or predicted in advance. Stochastic means something is predictable over large datasets but not in any given moment. You know you'll have ideas if you give yourself time and space, but you can't predict when or where they'll arrive. This has profound implications for managers who try to control when and how innovation happens. Knowledge work is about creating things that haven't existed before, so emergence is what we rely on. Try to squash it with too much control, and it simply won't happen. In this segment, we refer to the Systems Innovation YouTube channel. The Three-Body Problem: A Metaphor for Teams "When you have three nonlinear functions working at the same time within a system, you have almost no ability to predict its future state beyond just some of the shortest time series data." — Simon Holzapfel   Simon uses the three-body problem from physics as a powerful metaphor for organizational complexity. In physics, when you have three bodies (like planets) influencing each other, prediction becomes nearly impossible. The same is true in business — think of R&D, manufacturing, and sales as three interacting forces. The lesson: don't think you can master this complexity. Work with it. Understand it's a system. Most variability comes from the system itself, not from any individual person. This allows us to depersonalize problems — people aren't good or bad, systems can be improved. When teams understand this, they can relax and stop treating every unpredictable moment as an emergency. Coaching Leaders to Embrace Uncertainty "I'll start by trying to read their comfort level. I'll ask about their favorite teachers, their most hated teachers, and I'll really try to bring them back to moments in time that were pivotal in their own development." — Simon Holzapfel   How do you help analytical, control-oriented leaders embrace complexity and emergence? Simon's approach is to build rapport first, then gently introduce concepts based on each leader's background. For technical people who prefer math, he'll discuss narrow tail distributions and fat tails. For humanities-oriented leaders, he uses narrative and storytelling. The goal is to get leaders to open up to possibilities without feeling diminished. He might suggest small experiments: "Hold your tongue once in a meeting" or "Ask questions instead of making statements." These incremental changes help managers realize they don't have to be superhuman problem-solvers who control everything. Giving the Board a Number: The Paradox of Prediction "Managers say we want scientific management, but they don't actually want that. They want predictive management." — Simon Holzapfel   Simon addresses one of the biggest tensions in agile adoption: leaders who say "I just need to give the board a number" while also wanting innovation and adaptability. The paradox is clear — you cannot simultaneously be open to innovation and emergent possibilities while executing a predetermined plan with perfect accuracy. This is an artifact of management literature that promoted the "philosopher king" manager who knows everything. But markets are too movable, consumer tastes vary too much, and knowledge work is too complex for any single person to control. The burnout we see in leaders often comes from trying to achieve an impossible standard. In this segment, we refer to the episodes with David Marquet.  Resources for Understanding Complexity "Eric Beinhocker's book called 'The Origin of Wealth' is wonderful. It's a very approachable and well-researched piece that shows where we've been and where we're going in this area." — Simon Holzapfel   Simon recommends two key resources for anyone wanting to understand complexity and ecosystems. First, Eric Beinhocker's "The Origin of Wealth" explains how we developed flawed economic assumptions based on 19th-century Newtonian physics, and why we need to evolve our understanding. Second, the Systems Innovation YouTube channel offers brilliant short videos perfect for curious, open-minded managers. Simon suggests a practical approach: have someone on your team watch a video and share what they learned. This creates shared language around complexity and makes the concepts less personal and less threatening. The Path Forward: Systems Over Individuals "As a manager, our goal is to constantly evaluate the performance of the system, not the people. We can always put better systems in place. We can always improve existing systems. But you can't tell people what to do — it's not possible." — Simon Holzapfel   The conversation concludes with a powerful insight from Deming's work: about 95% of a system's productivity is linked to the system itself, not individual performance. This reframes the manager's role entirely. Instead of trying to control people, focus on improving systems. Instead of treating burnout as individual failure, see it as information that something in the system isn't working. Organizations are ever-changing ecosystems with dynamic properties that can only be observed, never fully predicted. This requires a completely different way of thinking about management — one that embraces uncertainty, values emergence, and trusts teams to figure things out within clear strategic boundaries. Recommended Resources As recommended resources for further reading, Simon suggests:  The Origin of Wealth, by Eric Beinhocker The Systems Innovation YouTube channel   About Simon Holzapfel   Simon Holzapfel is an educator, coach, and learning innovator who helps teams work with greater clarity, speed, and purpose. He specializes in separating strategy from tactics, enabling short-cycle decision-making and higher-value workflows. Simon has spent his career coaching individuals and teams to achieve performance with deeper meaning and joy. Simon is also the author of the Equonomist newsletter on Substack, where he explores the intersection of economics, equality, and equanimity in the workplace.   You can link with Simon Holzapfel on LinkedIn.

In this bonus episode recorded live at EDUCAUSE in Nashville, Dustin has an energizing conversation with Jeff Dinski and Mike Wulff from Ellucian. They discuss the evolving role of technology in higher education—from designing intuitive student-first systems to closing the gap between academic credentials and real-world workforce needs. They unpack what it really takes to build agile, data-driven institutions, and highlight Ellucian's latest innovations that aim to transform student outcomes.Guest Names: Michael Wulff - Chief Product and Technology Officer at EllucianJeff Dinski - Chief Strategy and Corporate Development Officer at EllucianGuest Socials:Mike WulffJeff DinskiGuest Bios:Mike Wulff - As Chief Product and Technology Officer, Mike Wulff leads Ellucian's engineering and product management teams, driving growth initiatives focused on digital transformation and cloud adoption. Mike has more than 25 years of experience in the software industry, architecting and developing complex industry-focused solutions. Previously Mike served as a Senior Vice President of R&D at Ellucian, leading the teams responsible for the development of Ellucian's ERP and SIS solutions.Jeff Dinski - As Chief Strategy and Corporate Development Officer, Jeff Dinski is responsible for driving Ellucian's growth strategy with a focus on market expansion, strategy and insights, corporate development, competitive intelligence, and analyst relations. He brings deep knowledge and expertise in market analysis and strategy to this newly created role. With more than 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur and operator in the education technology and media sectors, Jeff has delivered extraordinary results for both large conglomerates and startups. - - - -Connect With Our Host:Dustin Ramsdellhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/dustinramsdell/About The Enrollify Podcast Network:The Higher Ed Geek is a part of the Enrollify Podcast Network. If you like this podcast, chances are you'll like other Enrollify shows too!Enrollify is made possible by Element451 — The AI Workforce Platform for Higher Ed. Learn more at element451.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this Kitchen Side episode of The Long Game Podcast, the Omniscient Digital team explores the tension between moving fast and making smart decisions. Speed is often praised in startups and growth environments, but it can lead to thrashing, burnout, and wasted effort when misapplied. Through reflections on agency work, in-house roles, and working with clients, they examine how to balance urgency with focus, and how strategic patience—paired with tactical speed—can create real momentum. They also share real-world SEO and AI examples of teams pivoting too fast, chasing trends, and missing out on compounding gains due to lack of prioritization, alignment, or decisiveness.Key TakeawaysSpeed ≠ Thrashing: Speed is powerful—but not when it means jumping between tactics without a long-term direction.Experimentation Requires Discipline: The best teams move quickly within a defined portfolio of experiments, not across constant strategic shifts.AI and SEO Demand New Timelines: Understanding how long it takes to see results from AI Overviews or SEO changes is critical for smart investment.Strategic Decisions Need Time: Channel or strategy-level shifts should have space to breathe—tactical pivots can happen faster.Avoid Becoming the Bottleneck: Leadership speed often comes down to fast approvals, trust, and timely delegation.Portfolio Thinking Beats All-In Bets: High-performing orgs allocate some resources to R&D and experimentation while maintaining core execution.Alignment Enables Flow: Teams that communicate clearly and early across departments unlock faster execution and reduce friction.Show LinksConnect with David Khim on LinkedIn and TwitterConnect with Alex Birkett on LinkedIn and TwitterConnect with Allie Decker on LinkedIn and TwitterConnect with Omniscient Digital on LinkedIn or TwitterWhat is Kitchen Side?One big benefit of running an agency or working at one is you get to see the “kitchen side” of many different businesses; their revenue, their operations, their automations, and their culture.You understand how things look from the inside and how that differs from the outside.You understand how the sausage is made. As an agency ourselves, we're working both on growing our clients' businesses as well as our own. This podcast is one project, but we also blog, make videos, do sales, and have quite a robust portfolio of automations and hacks to run our business.We want to take you behind the curtain, to the kitchen side of our business, to witness our brainstorms, discussions, and internal dialogues behind the public works that we ship.Past guests on The Long Game podcast include: Morgan Brown (Shopify), Ryan Law (Animalz), Dan Shure (Evolving SEO), Kaleigh Moore (freelancer), Eric Siu (Clickflow), Peep Laja (CXL), Chelsea Castle (Chili Piper), Tracey Wallace (Klaviyo), Tim Soulo (Ahrefs), Ryan McReady (Reforge), and many more.Some interviews you might enjoy and learn from:Actionable Tips and Secrets to SEO Strategy with Dan Shure (Evolving SEO)Building Competitive Marketing Content with Sam Chapman (Aprimo)How to Build the Right Data Workflow with Blake Burch (Shipyard)Data-Driven Thought Leadership with Alicia Johnston (Sprout Social)Purpose-Driven Leadership & Building a Content Team with Ty Magnin (UiPath)Also, check out our Kitchen Side series where we take you behind the scenes to see how the sausage is made at our agency:Blue Ocean vs Red Ocean SEOShould You Hire Writers or Subject Matter Experts?How Do Growth and Content Overlap?Connect with Omniscient Digital on social:Twitter: @beomniscientLinkedin: Be OmniscientListen to more episodes of The Long Game podcast here: https://beomniscient.com/podcast/

Can classical schools really prepare students for STEM careers? Many parents wonder if a humanities-rich education leaves room for science and technology. Our guest, Diane Gray, scientist, musician, contractor, tutor, and mother of seven, says yes. After 12 years in biotech R&D, Diane completed a master's in Classical Studies to explore how classical Christian education and STEM can thrive together.In this conversation with host Davies Owens, Diane shares her research comparing STEM and classical models, revealing that the two are not in competition, but complementary.

The News RundownSteve leads off with the latest tariff turmoil, as trade negotiations between the U.S. and Canada stall amid the Trump administration's response to an ad created and paid for by the Ontario government running in U.S. media whose key auto  sector is endangered by Trump trade policies. They also explore luxury corporate earnings, where Hermès continues to shine, while.  Gucci owner Kering struggles to regain footing. Meanwhile, Mattel falls short as retailers tighten orders ahead of the holidays.The discussion then turns to job cuts at Target, Amazon, GM, and Nestlé, revealing how automation, AI, and tariff pressures are reshaping corporate structures, before turning to  Amazon's plan to replace up to 600,000 roles with robotics. They also cover ChatGPT's meteoric rise to No. 2 in product search, challenging Google and signaling a shift in how consumers discover products.Throughout, they underscore the precariousness of retail confidence heading into the holiday season — from Tractor Supply's cautious guidance to Deckers' HOKA sales slowdown.Blank Canvas Strategy: Finding Retail's 'New Earth'In the second half, Steve introduces "Blank Canvas Strategy"— a methodology for retailers to reimagine their businesses from the ground up, free from legacy constraints. Unlike Blue Ocean Strategy, which focuses on discovering compltey untapped markets, this framework helps brands reinvent their core business models before disruption makes them irrelevant.Steve urges leaders to recognize when their "planet" (current business model and market domain) becomes uninhabitable, and to begin building "Earth Two" — an alternative growth destination. Together, the hosts examine why incremental change doomed once-iconic retailers like Blockbuster, Sears, and Pier 1, and how others like Dick's Sporting Goods and RH (Restoration Hardware) succeeded by boldly innovating their business designs.They close by discussing how executives can carve out time, treasure, and talent for R&D, overcome the fear of cannibalization, and lead with the courage to disrupt themselves before competitors do.After the focused content discussion it's on to the most remarkable stories of the week, including Walmart's massive commitment to deploying 90 million supply-chain sensors to track pallets and fresh-food products.The episode wraps with what needs to be on everyone's radar screens. One recommendation: keep your eyes on "GU" the first U.S. store fromUniqlo's parent company, Fast Retailing. Located in New York's Soho neighborhood, Gu is a bright, energetic space with "eye-poppingly good prices" and strong shopper buzz. About UsSteve Dennis is a strategic advisor and keynote speaker focused on growth and innovation, who has also been named one of the world's top retail influencers. He is the bestselling authro of two books: Leaders Leap: Transforming Your Company at the Speed of Disruption and Remarkable Retail: How To Win & Keep Customers in the Age of Disruption. Steve regularly shares his insights in his role as a Forbes senior retail contributor and on social media.Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

Most marketing books promise tips. Scalable Acts of Marketing shows you how to build a system that scales.  Written after thirteen years of helping grow Service Express from $30 million to $350 million in ARR, Joshua Leatherman's field-tested guide blends a business fable with a hands-on playbook. In this episode, Joshua Leatherman (Cyderes) joins Drew to walk through how durable growth happens when marketing speaks in outcomes, earns executive trust, and runs one motion across brand, demand, sales, and success. He connects the fable's lessons to real-world moves inside growth-stage companies, laying out a playbook any marketing leader can use to build momentum that lasts. In this episode:  How to shift from activities to outcomes that a CFO and CRO will back  How to own pipeline with clear SQO definitions, shared attribution, and consistent follow-up  How to stand up RevOps as “Switzerland,” with shared KPIs, fast handoffs, and five-minute speed-to-lead targets Plus:  Why marketing must stay on the field after the first meeting  How to use R&D (“rip off and duplicate”) to accelerate playbooks  What to hire for right now: Curiosity, learning velocity, and accountability  How authoritative content fuels discovery in an AI-led world If you're ready to build a marketing system that earns trust, investment, and results, this episode shows where to start!  For full show notes and transcripts, visit https://renegademarketing.com/podcasts/ To learn more about CMO Huddles, visit https://cmohuddles.com/

In this episode, I sit down with Frank Kendall and talk about one of the biggest traps in defense procurement — the endless search for “acquisition magic.” Frank exposes why every few years, someone promises a revolutionary new system to fix everything — and why those reforms almost always fail. From $30 billion MRAP programs that saved lives but were later abandoned, to R&D overruns averaging 25%, he lays out a brutally honest framework for how the government should manage risk, cost, and speed the right way. Key Takeaways: There's no such thing as acquisition magic — sustainable improvement comes from training, data, and risk management. The MRAP program cost $30B but proved that taking calculated risk can save lives when done strategically. Defense R&D programs average 25% overruns — but smart leadership can bring that down to 10% without killing innovation. Learn more: https://federalhelpcenter.com/ https://govcongiants.org/ 

Jim and Todd welcome Joe Beatrice, Founder, and Tripp Stimson, Chief Whiskey Scientist, from the highly acclaimed Barrel Craft Spirits to the studio. While their award-winning whiskeys have graced the show before, this episode offers listeners a chance to hear directly from the minds behind the brand. Joe and Tripp share the origin story of Barrel Craft Spirits, their unique philosophy as non-distilling producers (NDPs), and their intricate approach to sourcing, blending, and finishing exceptional spirits. The tasting kicks off with a Barrel Foundation Single Barrel release, clocking in at 105.8 proof. Tripp explains this expression builds upon their original Foundation bourbon (their first product bottled below cask strength at 100 proof). It involves selecting unique barrels, creating a micro-blend just above proofing strength, re-barreling that blend into a single cask, and allowing it further maturation in a specific rickhouse location before final bottling. This particular barrel, sourced from Indiana, offers delightful notes of stone fruit like peach and apricot. Next up is the Barrel Foundation Double Barrel. This takes select whiskeys used in the original Foundation blend (aged 5-9 years) and finishes them in new, heavily toasted American oak barrels. The result is a darker, richer expression compared to the single barrel, showcasing notes of milk chocolate, apple, and nuanced pepper, demonstrating the transformative power of a secondary maturation in toasted oak. Joe Beatrice then takes listeners back nearly 14 years to the brand's inception. He recounts a random distillery visit sparking the idea, quickly realizing he wanted to build a brand, not necessarily a distillery, focusing intensely on sourcing and blending the best possible liquid. He discusses the early days, embracing cask strength when few others did, championing transparency as an NDP during a time of consumer skepticism, and gambling on the idea that drinkers would crave variety and new experiences over consistency – a gamble that clearly paid off. Tripp Stimson shares his extensive background in biochemistry and spirits R&D, explaining how his path converged with Joe's. They bonded over a shared philosophy, recognizing the immense challenge and capital required to build a distillery versus the creative freedom and market potential of focusing on sourcing and blending expertise, drawing parallels to the esteemed merchant bottler tradition in Scotland. The conversation delves deep into the art and science of their blending process. The core team, consisting of Joe, Tripp, and Nick Christensen, starts with whiteboard concepts and intent but allows the whiskeys themselves to guide the final creation. They meticulously sample and catalog thousands of barrels, developing a unique shorthand to understand the characteristics imparted by different distilleries, mash bills, ages, yeast strains, distillation styles, cooperage, and even micro-climates from various maturation locations across the country. They speak of layering flavors like building a symphony, using different barrels (young and old) to "fill the gaps" across the palate – from the initial taste to the mid-palate complexity and the lingering finish – iterating until the blend reaches its optimal saturation point of complexity without any single component overpowering the others. They also explain their "derived mash bill" calculation, providing consumers with valuable data points even for complex blends. The third tasting features Barrel Bourbon Batch 37, a blend of 8-to-15-year-old bourbons from Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, bottled at 111.38 proof. Joe describes these numbered batches as their flagship line, representing a high bar for their blending prowess. Tripp elaborates on the value of incorporating significantly aged whiskeys (like 15-year-old) not necessarily for the age statement itself, but for the specific, nuanced qualities they bring, balancing them with younger components to achieve a complete, well-rounded, and complex flavor profile that avoids being overly oaked. Finally, they pour the Barrel Cask Finish Series: Armagnac Finish. This series highlights the interaction between their whiskey blends and specific cask types. This expression uses bourbons aged 7-to-15 years, finished in Armagnac casks for up to two years. Tripp emphasizes their patient approach to finishing, sometimes waiting years for the whiskey and cask to fully integrate and reach their peak potential, rather than adhering to rigid timelines. The result is a rich, complex whiskey redolent with dark fruit notes like fig and raisin, perfect for contemplative sipping. Throughout the episode, Joe and Tripp offer fascinating insights into the evolution of the whiskey market, the rise of the educated consumer, navigating market fluctuations, and Barrel Craft Spirits' strategy of continuous innovation and quality across various price points. Be sure to check out our private Facebook group, “The Bourbon Roadies” for a great group of bourbon loving people. You will be welcomed with open arms!