iSixSigma

Adding Value or Creating Value?

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Adding Value or Creating Value?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #34831

    mman
    Participant

    Which term is more suitable “Adding Value or Creating Value?”as I have read that the first term is used more by accountants where the second is more suitable for quality or SS.  Thank You

    0
    #96583

    Rog
    Member

    Being a stickler for what words mean……
    To add value something must have already existed that had some value. That value has been added to.
    If one creates value the implication is that it did not exist before.
    There is a difference. There is also a difference between ‘cost’ and ‘value’ though the two are often incorrectly interchanged. Reducing cost does not necessarily add value for example. Though I am not a particular devotee one of the great things that Crosby did was clearly define ‘Quality’. I think that there is a very good case for doing the same with some of the words in common Six Sigma/business use.
    Rog

    0
    #96587

    DaveG
    Participant

    I think Crosby was and is vastly over-rated.  His definition of Quality as “conformance to requirements” implies that the requirements themselves are superior in some way;  yet “intelligent design” is largely an oxymoron in America and The Customer is usually the largest constraint in an improvement scenario.

    0
    #96619

    Mikel
    Member

    Two thoughts on your “creating value” –
    BB’s and MBB’s often see their value as much greater than the rest of the organization. If we start using words like “creating value”, it will make the problem worse.
    By definition, BB’s create nothing. They work on others creations.
    Value added are words accepted in the Lean community. We should use their definitions and words and do nothing that is contrary to the ideas of Lean. Six Sigma works well with Lean, lets make the language flow.

    0
    #96637

    Rog
    Member

    Hi Dave,
    I agree and I did say I wasn’t a devotee and you’ve hit on exactly the reason why. However it is a very sensible thing to define what one is talking about before one starts to discuss it. I remember my first Crosby training class and every single one of us had a hard time accepting his definitionof quality. Within the context of his scheme though it was probably the word ‘quality’ that was wrong rather than his definition. To me what he defined was ‘conformity’. I guess if he had called it that his approach would not have received as much attention as it did back then.
    Rog

    0
    #96639

    Diaconu
    Participant

    I agree ‘creating value’ is too big a claim to make. Most improvement activities build on what went before and are therefore value adding.
    To create value where none existed before would have to be something very original indeed.
    I would be interested in the distinction between cost and value. Costs are usually clearly identifiable but can the same be said for value. I have read many times that the cost of  preventative maintenance is much less than the cost of  breakdown maintenance. However the value of preventative maintenance extends beyond the immediate costs. It adds value because you can plan your business more effectively if you do not suffer random outages. How would one cost that value in Six Sigma terms? Are we missing out because we are not identifying oe being able to justify ‘high value’, low cost saving projects?
    Value is much harder to pin down than cost. I can save cost by not giving my plants fertilizer and keep them looking good by pulling the dead leaves off.(it takes me the same amount of time). The value of giving them the fertilizer is probably much higher because my plants will live longer and I can enjoy watching them grow rather than continually preening them and convincing myself that they are healthy.
    Does anyone have any insights as to how to capture the overall ‘value’ of a project rather than just it’s cost savings?
    Mia
    Mia

    0
    #96648

    DaveG
    Participant

    Mia,
    You answered the question – your gardening example is perfect!
    Value exists in the experience or outcome generated by the product or service, therefore “making money” is one kind of value.  Unfortunately, the laziest way to increase profits is to reduce costs, which often reduces value too.  Case in point:  I’ve heard that Home Depot solicits non-standard items with less / cheaper materials, like switchplates, so they can lower the price – but the consumer doesn’t know they are lowering value too.  Whether this is sleazy or clever is debatable, but you get the point.
    I like to use the example of buying capital equipment like a machining center, or in hiring a new employee:
    Machine:
    70% of Cost is for materials
    20% is for basic features
    10% is for crucial features
    The crucial features allow you to maximize your product value with minimal waste – yet the machine makers’ costs are probably highest to provide the crucial features (superior engineers, advanced processes, skilled tradespeople).
    Similarly, the first 70% of the cost of a new employee gets them in the door daily;  20% gets an employee with moderate experience, 10% gets a value-adding employee.
    The value is always at the “top”, yet cost cutting starts at the bottom and causes mediocrity to propagate.

    0
    #96651

    KBailey
    Participant

    You guys have a good point, which relates to a couple assumptions some economists like to make: that consumers are rational and intelligent.
    The reality is that consumers (or our customers) can be irrational and/or unintelligent. In free market economics, however, we hold to the assumption for purposes of measuring value. When we hold ourselves to be better qualified (more rational and/or intelligent) than our customer to determine what is good for them, we open the doors to elitism and authoritarianism. On a micro scale, we might be right. On a macro scale, however, it doesn’t usually work out so well for most people. (I’m sure lots of socialists would disagree.)
    With Six Sigma, we sometimes must educate our customers, giving them better tools to determine value. However, we should never presume to be better judges than they of what is and isn’t of what value to them.

    0
    #96654

    mman
    Participant

    Thank You for immediate response and deep input.I have found an excellent article on the subject .If you are interested (and Rog) I can send it  to your direct email.I’m glad that this debate is enriching the subject,kind regards.    MMAN

    0
    #96656

    SSNewby
    Member

    My company, and industry (pharmaceutical and medical device), tends to try to stay as far into the cutting edge of technology and advances in therapeutic and diagnostic tools as possible, and we frequently lead the customer’s need recognition and perception of value.      The Field of Dreams analogy of “build it and they will come” tends to be too often on target.    Having, proportionately, many MD’s, PhD’s, MBA’s, etc., etc., on staff in product development, marketing, operations, and other roles also tends to lead us into an area of technological/physiological arrogance and feeling that we know better than the market.   Many times we are successful and many times we are not.   Over the years, both our successes and failures have been stunning.  
     The biggest concern that I have is that we very infrequently learn from our failure to calibrate effectively with the customer and his needs/wants.   We chalk it up to the market changing during the latter stages of the developmental cycle, changes to reimbursement regulations, FDA rule interpretations, fickle clinicians, carnivorous competitors, and the list goes on.   One of the biggest benefits of our moving along the Six Sigma path is the absolute necessity on a project-by-project basis to locate and listen to the voice of the customer (internal and external) and to assess all subsequent actions and organizational imperatives against the VOC to determine its cost/benefit/and appropriateness. 

    0
    #96657

    DaveG
    Participant

    I agree that feeling superior to your Customers can be risky, but companies should ask “What kind of Customers do we want?” because Customers can and do cause their suppliers to create waste.

    0
    #96658

    DaveG
    Participant

    wood95ATcox.net for the article.

    0
    #96659

    sweettalker
    Member

    I want customers with deep pockets who are willing to pay handsomely for whatever goods or services I want to produce, but who can’t figure out how to do it themselves for a lower cost. Anyone know where I can find these customers?

    0
    #96661

    SSNewby
    Member

    I know where you can find a development and marketing team.

    0
    #96662

    Dr.K. Murugan
    Participant

    Hi Rog, Dave, MMan and others
    I would like to paint this picture differently, if you guys do not mind!
    Painting 1: Cost & Value:
    Cost – something always seen from the supplier’s point of view &
    Value – something always seen by customers.
    Supplier can talk about value, but always validated by customer! You can’t say that you have created / added value, if it is not agreed by your customer.
    In the examples quoted in this discussion (gardening, employee & machine), if you look at them with a microscope, i think, they reveal the secret of supplier and customer.
    Painting 2: Add & Create:
    I ran a company with a name “AddValue Management Consulting” for a year (which does not exist now).  I did not figure out the difference between add and create.  I did not bother to do this hair-spliting.  But, I see a huge difference on the value.  Whether it is created or added!
    I hope the folks there reading this will agree that “adding value” or “creating value” means “adding value to the customer’s perception” or “creating value to the customer’s perception”. Do you agree with me?  If the answer is no – proceed reading further.  If the answer is yes, proceed reading further! (at least you will get a different perspective by reading this, I presume).
     Now, the word “perception” takes the vital part.  An example might help me convey this.  Suppose, I bring a hitherto unknown product to this country (but this does exist in other countries) and start marketing the product.  Let us call this as “shoes”.  Without adding or creating anything on the product per se, I am creating value in the minds of the customers in this country about the product.  Nothing was done to the product but everything was done to the customer!  What a beauty – customer feels great, satisfied and delighted with the mundane shoes!  So, the point I am trying to drive home is that the value addition or creation is based on the “needs and expectations” of the customer and not based on the product or service. 
    Customer perception rules and demands the value! 
    I do not want you guys to take me wrong.  I do not mean that you do not do anything with the product.  You guys remember Michael Porter’s value chain model.  Customer could feel there is a value in the product or service anywhere in the value chain.  This value chain starts with Customer requirement gathering / VOC – to design, to inbound logistics, to manufacturing (operation), to outbound logistics or after sales service. 
    So, add or create something in this chain which will be “perceived” by customer as “value”.  You either call it by adding value / creating value.
    What do you guys say?
    Thanks!
    Dr.K. Murugan (MBB)

    0
    #96665

    DaveG
    Participant

    1 Welcome to this Website
    2 The Produce section at your supermarket
    3 Your local auto garage / oil change outlet

    0
    #96666

    DaveG
    Participant

    You are right, but let’s dig deeper.  To paraphrase Jim Womack, improvements should extend across, or at least recognize, the entire value chain (if you believe in benefitting all stakeholders, not just certain ones).  The key to that is profound process knowledge within each company and between Customer and Supplier.

    0
    #96667

    sweettalker
    Member

    Perhaps we don’t have the same idea of deep pockets and handsome payment.
    I’m thinking along the lines of crunching some numbers, drawing a flow chart or two, discussing my findings over lunch, and walking out with a check so big I can buy GE or Microsoft and pay cash. I don’t think I’ll find anyone around the produce section of my supermarket with pockets that deep.
    Am I just shopping at the wrong supermarket, perhaps?

    0
    #96668

    Mikel
    Member

    Just what we need – more mumbo jumbo.
    Simplicity is what we need here – not this

    0
    #96669

    John H.
    Participant

    The history of the Electric Light as a product provides some insight into this topic. As a standalone item, its value was limited in scope except as a novelty. However, with the invention of the Dynamo, the creation of the Power Industry, Electric Appliances etc. value was added. The Consortium of Industries at that time assured this. To create a need for their products, an embryonic GE handed out free Electric Irons to create demand. If you asked me to pick an embryonic product today with strong added value potential, I would choose Fuel Cells.
    Just some thoughts,
    -John H.  

    0
    #96672

    narayanan
    Member

    Six Sigma is all about Adding the created value to the core business.
     

    0
    #96677

    rathinakumar
    Participant

    The Zen master showed his disciples a beautifully shaped and exquisitely painted antique Ming dynasty cup and asked them what was the most valuable thing about the cup. They guessed ” the shape”, “the colour”, “the antique value” etc. Said the Master at the end ” the space inside”.
    This probably tells us a few things :
    1. Every object has a fundamental quality that is its quintessential property.
    2. Value depends on recognising this property and using it.
    3. Value lies in the eye of the valuer (as in “casting pearls before swine”.) 
    Raja

    0
    #96678

    John M
    Participant

    Here is where the post was probably initated from and is answered from Jim Womack LEI. READ:
    Dear John,
    I was out on tour this past week, listening to companies’ stories as they try to achieve a “lean” transformation. And I was struck, as I often am, by confusing terminology. The companies I visited thought they were “adding value” but I mostly watched them adding cost. So let me try to clarify things.
    I always use the term “creating value” rather than the more familiar “adding value” because the former is the voice of the customer while the latter is the voice of the accountant. Companies add up their costs – both bought-in materials and internal spending on capital and labor plus their margins – then subtract the cost of their purchased items to determine how much “value” they have “added”. The problem is that this leaves out the customer, the only one who can determine value. Often, what a company really means by “adding value” is “adding cost”. Whether the extra cost creates any value is known only to the customer, and many managers never ask!
    A quick example, in case I haven’t been clear: Let’s suppose a company buys some nuts and some bolts and assembles them into a simple product. These purchased items clearly are costs. Then lets suppose the company uses a lot of labor to store these parts, take them to the point of assembly, assemble them, rework the defective items, store the assembled goods, hunt for missing items, and then ship them. Finally, let’s suppose that the bought-in items cost 50 units and the selling price for the finished product is 100 units. Clearly the company must have “added” 50 units of “value”. Right? Wrong!
    From the customer’s standpoint this company may only have added fifty units of “cost” including its margin, and created very little value. The reason is simply that most of the steps consuming the resources – storing the parts, hunting for them, reworking them – added cost but no value from the perspective of the customer. Customers actually would have thought the product was more valuable (and been willing to pay more) if these steps had been left out and the product had been delivered faster!
    Because products come as a bundle of value and costly waste and because the firms in most industries currently mix the two, customers often have no choice but to purchase the waste along with the value. But what if some lean thinking firm in your industry separates value from waste and eliminates the waste? If that isn’t your firm, watch out!
    Words aren’t a substitute for action, but the wrong words often get in the way of the right actions if managers can’t tell the difference between value and cost. So I hope lean thinkers will sharpen their language to focus on actually creating value, often by eliminating unnecessary costs.
    Best regards,
    Jim
    Jim Womack
    President and Founder
    Lean Enterprise Institute

    0
    #96694

    mman
    Participant

    As an initiator of the question I have the same article.But it is not the end of the story.This type of “building-up”debate is the best model for excellent “brain -storming”.You can end up with several valuable ideas and concepts from different points of view ,full of wisdome and deep analysis.    kind regards.   MMAN

    0
    #96707

    KBailey
    Participant

    It sounds like Mr. Womack may be somewhat off track in his interpretation of whether or not 50 units of value is added, in his example.
    It’s true that price doesn’t equal value, but it a measure of value. If the cost is 50 units and the price is 100, it’s not because the company added 50 units of cost. For the selling price to be 100 units, the first condition that must exist is that the product must have a value of at least 100 units to the customer. The second condition is that the product must have a value of 100 units or less to the seller. As long as value to seller is less than value to buyer, price can fall anywhere between the two values, depending on bargaining skill.
    As a producer, value added or value created is measured by the difference between cost of components and selling price. The reality is that we don’t know what our product is really worth to our customers and they don’t know what the value truly is to us.
    If we know the value to the customer is higher than the price, we’ll hold out for a higher price. Similarly, if they knew the value was less to us than the price, they’ll press us for a lower price. Price negotiation is all about trying to gauge the true value to the other party while not revealing the true value to you, including factoring things like the likelihood of finding another supplier/customer.
    In Mr. Womack’s example, we may actually have added 100 units to the customer, but they’re not going to tell us that because they don’t want us to raise the price to 150. We may only have added 10 units of cost, but we’re not going to tell them that because they’ll tell us they’ll only pay 60. Alternatively, if our cost was only 60 but we knew that the product was actually worth 150 to someone, we might decide to expand into our customer’s business and put them out of business. The thing is, we don’t know that. Because we don’t know, the price of 100 is truly the best measure we have of actual value.
    Even if we didn’t add (or create) real value to the customer – which is precisely the case with a stereotypical middleman – we may have added value to our organization if we have done something that allows us to get a higher price.
    As Mr. Womack points out, it’s important to try to understand what’s of value to the customer, and to deliver that, because that is the key to commanding a higher price in the long-term. You want as big of a piece of their margin as you can get. At the same time, you want to keep your own costs down, because you want to keep as much of your revenue as you can rather than giving it away to suppliers for no good reason.
    However, you still need to look at the value to your organization. Your customers are looking out for their bottom line. Your vendors are looking out for theirs. Your job is to look out for your bottom line. In the long-term that requires creating real value for your customers, but you’re doing so with a view toward how that will help your bottom line. You can create all the value in the world – but if you’re not doing it to make money, you’re not going to be around as a business.

    0
    #96716

    John H.
    Participant

    Raja
    I like your 3 point summary of  value.
    John H.
     

    0
    #96732

    DaveG
    Participant

    k,
    You are saying value is transactional – the difference between the Price and the Producers’ COGS.  It is not.  Value is not expressed in terms of dollars, but of stakeholders’ experiences throughout the product lifecycle.

    0
    #96744

    Rog
    Member

    Please send article to [email protected]
    Thanks

    0
    #96748

    Rog
    Member

    Hi Dr Murugan,
    I think I am basically in agreement with you. I have a fairly coarse explanation of value as being something that you customer is willing to pay for. Ultimately anything that you do to ‘add value’ to your business either allows you to reduce your price and keep/grow your number of customers and still make a profit or allows you to generate a higher margin and keep your cusotmers because you meet a need that they have that no-one else does for the same price. Yes it has to be a benefit that is confirmed directly or tacetly by the customer.
    I think as suplpiers and customers, internally and externally we all see cost issues and value issues. Maybe the distinction is that cost are obvious whereas value is a little harder to pin down.
    As a real example take a look at staff turn over. High staff turnover immediately generates recruiting costs and training costs that can be easily accounted for. The training in some way is a value adding excersise because at the end of it you get a more capable employee. However if you had retained your original employee you would not have incurred that cost. In reality you may well have trained them further at the same cost as a new employee but ended up with an even more valuable and flexible employee. In essence the first scenario adds cost and the second adds value. You are right though it only adds value if that employee can now use their training to benefit the company in a way that becomes real to the customer.
    Without doubt there is a added value in retaining most of your employees. But what causes the high turnover? work environment, safety performance, poor wages, coporate culture….I guess each employer would cite their own reasons. Identifying the direct ‘value’ of maintaining a pleasant work environment may be very difficult to establish.
    To conclude I think it is a very reasonable standpoint that you put forward that ‘value’ is seen by the customer. If the customer sees or perceives no value addition then you probably only added cost by undertaking the activity. My great caution would be that, like the causes of accidents, the causes of value are not always immediately apparent. A Lean excersise may save cost by reducing WIP but may well have a hidden value in improving the workplace and increasing employee retention.
     Sometimes as a supplier looking inwards they may never become apparent and it is therefore essential that good customer dialogue is maintained.
    Rog
     
     

    0
    #96750

    Diaconu
    Participant

    Dear Jim,
    I completely agree. Especially with the fact that the missuse of words gets in the way of doing the right thing. As a definition of ‘accountant’ how about…
    ‘One who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing’.
    Mia

    0
    #96751

    Rog
    Member

    Raja- Nice example.
    Stan – Is this the simplicity you crave?
    As an after thought I have often viewed the core of a good business as being the application of simple thinking to complex processes not the application of complex thinking to simple processes. Interestingly that does not place Six Sigma at the ‘core’ of good business as it is the latter of the two. It’s one of many possible improvement tools but it is not an essential part of running a good business.
    Althoughh this interesting string of posts may be quite wordy and descriptive it has at it’s heart a very simple and important concept. That is that cost and value are not the same.
    Rog
     

    0
    #96755

    Diaconu
    Participant

    Quite true,
    As has been said somewhere else in these posts all value is not always immediate or obvious. By only looking at what is immediate and obvious it is often possible to reach one particular outcome as to what the value of an excersise is. Is the value of me driving to the store to buy groceries only that I return home with food for my family?
    That may be the purpose of the task and exchanging money for food certanly changes the ‘value’ of what I now have in my household. However I have added to many value streams along the way.
    Say I shop at my local store and that keeps my local economy healthy and attracts more residents and therefore a wider choice of vendors for services some of who are customers for the products I produce…that’s one potential value outcome. Another is that I shop at a large chain supermarket out of town. It’s cheaper but it is shown to be removing the diversity and interest of other vendors in my neighborhood. What is the long term value of that excersise?
    Whther we buy, move, make or sell in our businessses we do not do so without suppliers and customers, We are to some extent interdependent.
    There is a lot more to value than profit. It’s not wrong to look at it in that way but it’s not the whole story by a long way. As a business any ‘value adding’ improvement must ultimately allow me a wider negotiating window with my customer. Maybe that’s the way to establish whther it has any value…can you map it to providing the benefit?
    Mia
     

    0
    #96764

    mman
    Participant

    Nice Definition.It is true.I should add that your contribution in this regard is “adding value”.Do you agree?     MMAN

    0
    #96766

    KBailey
    Participant

    I’m saying that value added is the difference between COGS and selling price. True value is different for the buyer than for the seller, in order for a transaction to take place. Dollars are an imperfect measurement, as all measurements are. However, value is expressed in terms of dollars, all the time, through buying decisions.
    To the end consumer, value is the improved quality of life experience, as you pointed out. There’s no basis for measurement that allows us to directly express intangible value such as warm fuzzy feelings, comfort, or the pleasurable flavor of a nice juicy steak, because these things are subjective. We don’t need to, because in the marketplace, all that matters is relative value; that is, what will one party give up in order to obtain something else, and these exchanges are usually done with money.
    In fact, money was invented precisely for the purpose of representing relative value in order to facilitate these exchanges. Each individual can compare the values for him/herself in terms which can be expressed in of the dollars that could “buy” a different experience, and which translate into time and energy we sacrifice. 
    Employees and other stakeholders also have their intangible value they seek. Employees express the non-monetary value of a particular job in terms of dollars required to get him/her to do the job. When there are many job opportunities with similar monetary value to an employee, it’s tough to measure all the key factors precisely enough to model the relationships between the key factors and the pay packages. It’s theoretically possible – it’s just that it would be so difficult and expensive that we fall back on our intuition instead.
    For a producer, the value of a finished product is the selling price, assuming a 100% probability that it can be sold at that price with no additional transactional or warranty costs. The value of raw goods to a producer is simply replacement cost (COGS), assuming no additional transactional costs, and no delays or other impact to the ability to produce and sell the goods/services at the expected price.
    These assumptions are never really true. All we can say as outside observers measuring value in terms of dollars, is that the sale price represents an upper limit for the true value to the seller and a lower limit on the true value for the buyer – again assuming rational and intelligent parties. (Darn these assumptions! If we just put good measurement systems in place for all of life’s inangibles, we wouldn’t need to fall back on these assumptions and approximations.)

    0
    #96767

    DaveG
    Participant

    Very insightful!

    0
    #96768

    SSNewby
    Member

    Benoit Mandelbrot won the 2003, Japan Prize for Science and Technology, which would seem to many to be the capstone of an illustrious and brilliant Yale math career, yet all of his work with complexity theory and chaotic systems pales in comparison to what this forum has achieved.  
    I may be wrong, but it looks to me that we have created using words and pure logic alone, the philosophical equivalence of a fractal combining the characteristics of both Mandelbrot and Julia sets (a significant accomplishment).   After all the definition of a fractal is best described through its attributes: a fractal is “rugged”, which means that it is nowhere smooth, it is “self-similar”, which means that parts look like the whole, it is “developed through iterations”, which means that a transformation is repeatedly applied and it is “dependent on the starting conditions”. Another characteristic is that a fractal is “complex”, but nevertheless can be described by simple algorithms.   Chaotic system, strange attractors, non-smooth form, endlessly replicating itself yet oddly convoluted – I think we’ve got it.  Fellow Six Sigma-tites, we have done well. 

    0
    #96772

    Rog
    Member

    Pulling together two other strands of posts I’ve contributed to this year and your post on fractals makes for an interesting point.
    One post noted how Toyota had become very successful because they adhered to simple core philosophies that were not only understood by all of their managers but were also implemented by them and understood and practiced by all employees.
    Another post noted the self organisation of quality structures and referenced some mathematical modelling of ‘BOIDS’ (simple mathematical creatures that followed simple rules and exhibited flocking behavior and self organization when presented with various obstacles).
    Noting what has been said in this thread there is surely the case that certain fundamental principles applied to a business will generate a solid core of good profitable behavior. The more deeply embedded they become the more one can concentrate ones management efforts on developing the business rather than maintaining or continuously changing it’s structure. In fact, bonded by the core principles, the business would function with a very fluid organisation. Now that would be an interesting place to work!
    Rog
     

    0
    #96773

    Dr.K. Murugan
    Participant

    Hi Rog
    Great to see your reinforcing thoughts to mine.  I appreciate your well matured thoughts.  I see a lot of this in many of your messages.  Good Rog, keep it growing!  Good to share in this forum.
    I know it is difficult to see the bigger picture by all, but by many.    Bigger picture takes one on the right direction.  One of my colleagues in my previous organization used to tell me that THE DIRECTION IS MORE IMPORTANT IN LIFE THAN THE SPEED (thanks, Ashish Desai).
    Why do I bring up this point, always the context is important. When anyone starts at GB and moves on to BB – the speed is very important.  When one matures and sees a number of projects, the direction sets in. Then he or she matures to direct a program or an initiative for an organization.  Why some organizations fail to maintain the enthu and momentum of six sigma is more of, I would attribute to, the wrong DIRECTION. 
    Philosophically, I see a large similarity in human life cycle with six sigma learning life cycle. Childhood, adulthood and the later matured stages of human growth.  In six sigma the stages are GB, BB & MBB and more…
    Maturity sets in only at later point of time, as a normal process (there may be exceptions). (A divergent: I do not know how skewed the normal distribution if you do Age vs Maturity!  Probably we need to look at the normality fit test p value to see whether this will follow normal distribution! Any HR folks have got something researched on this – if anyone has it, would you mind sharing this with me by sending that to: [email protected])
    But, Childhood and adulthood is to deal with more speed and then the life experience brings wisdom and the maturity starts building…
    It was just a flow…
    Dr.K. Murugan
     

    0
    #96783

    Mikel
    Member

    What BS
     

    0
    #96787

    SSNewby
    Member

    Gee Rog, now I feel bad.  I was just kidding, albeit in a somewhat snotty and, evidently, too abstract way.  And, of course, after thinking about it, I sincerely apologize for being obtuse.  
     I chose fractals as an analogy when I really meant to describe a collection of mentally flagellating repetitive mono-positional techno-crap.   Hope that helped.

    0
Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 40 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.