Adversity by Wolfwoodster on deviantart.com

Clearly, there are some challenged and, potentially, some flaws in concept.  One of the things that is most obvious in those who are discussing changing the workplace into a much more flexible and, in some cases, virtual environments is a strong white-collar, knowledge work, bias.  Perhaps this is only fair since Lean, although its principles are applicable anywhere, is primarily centered in manufacturing….so, ROWE and other models are based in office environments, and have to stretch a bit to find a foothold in manufacturing.

Perhaps the answer lies in the belief that a good process can be followed anywhere.  If people are thoroughly engaged in creating efficient, effective processes – they can work in a collaborative space to define that process – remotely or on location, and then be trusted to follow that process wherever they work from.  How can a leader do audits and make sure it’s being followed, however?

Good outputs are the results of good inputs, and the optimal method for deriving those outputs requires visibility into the process.  That is a bit of a dilemma for those of us advocating more flexibility in the work place.

David M. KasprzakWeb | Twitter | LinkedIn | More Posts (222)

]]> http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/02/01/how-do-you-go-to-the-gemba-when-the-gemba-is-anywhere-and-everywhere/feed/ 0 http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/31/short-term-thinking-misery-is-ok-as-long-as-its-less-lousy/ http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/31/short-term-thinking-misery-is-ok-as-long-as-its-less-lousy/#comments Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:25:01 +0000 David M. Kasprzak http://myflexiblepencil.com/?p=2605

Child Labor 4 by GMBAkash on deviantart.com

Last week, Mark Graban over at LeanBlog.org wrote a post that examined the labor practices at FoxConn, a supplier used by Apple and many other companies, where the working conditions are quite poor.  The post, entitled ““The speed and flexibility is breathtaking” – But in a good way?” generated quite a bit of discussion and a lot of ire directed at Apple by many – including yours truly.  It was pointed out, however, that Apple’s far from the only company utilizing FoxConn and turning a blind eye to its labor practices.  I am not an Apple fanatic – I’m a Droid & Samsung guy – but Samsung made the list of FoxConn’s customers.  Clearly, all of our smart phones and smart TV’s are coming with a heavy, human price tag.  I encourage you to click the link and head over to Mark Graban’s blog to join in on the discussion.

What I found really interesting on this topic is a sentiment I heard several times from other students while pusuing my MBA last year – When discussing third world textile plants, coal mines in the US, heavy manufacturing in Mexico and other, similar situations people would state these horrible conditions are acceptable since they allow people  working in those jobs to have it better than they would if the factories or mines had never been built.  In their minds, the factory jobs allow more people to have jobs and have more money, even if the safety records and environmental impact are seriously negative.

I think there are a lot of things wrong with that type of thinking.  Obviously, the long-term impacts to the environment, and the “use-them-up-and-spit-them-out” mindset don’t yield long-term, sustained growth.  The situation in these areas eventually leads to a Steinbeck-ian workers’ misery:  Workers must bid their labor lower and lower just to have any kind of income at all, even if that income isn’t enough to sustain them for very long.  Wrong is wrong.  Being less wrong doesn’t mean everything’s just fine – at best it means you’re on the right path upward, at worst, it means people who ought to be offended are willing to settle.

This post isn’t a pro-labor political statement, however.  What the situation makes me wonder about is how people at all levels – from students in a classroom, to policy makers, to captains of industry – take into account only what is needed right now and justify that any action taken is Okay as long as it settles some near-term turmoil.  Thinking about the future outcome of that action, or inaction, is often lost if it is even considered at all.

It’s not acceptable to say that today’s misery is acceptable as long as it’s not as bad as what the other guy is doing.  Why?  Because it’s also not as good as some other guy is doing, and we should always be pursuing the ideal.  Even if we do not know of a better way, we should be diligent in our minds about whether or not something is tolerable.  How often do we see underperforming departments, but continue to let them limp along?  How often do we see wasteful practices and ignore the problems?  Worse yet, how many senior members of the management team actively thwart their subordinates’ attempts at sharing information and voicing criticism?

It’s pretty well understood, I think, that allowing people at all levels to share and criticize is a hallmark of a good company culture.  If you are thinking about the long term, there’s not a single good reason to avoid process discipline, lean operations, worker-focused management styles, and the like.  It is only those short-term thinkers who would ever believe that poor practices are acceptable, and who are likely to enforce a mindset that prevents long-term thinking from ever taking hold.

David M. KasprzakWeb | Twitter | LinkedIn | More Posts (222)

]]> http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/31/short-term-thinking-misery-is-ok-as-long-as-its-less-lousy/feed/ 0 http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/30/since-you-built-it-they-will-come/ http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/30/since-you-built-it-they-will-come/#comments Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:05:24 +0000 David M. Kasprzak http://myflexiblepencil.com/?p=2600

Pseudo City by IronMaiden270 on deviantart.com

In manufacturing, there is an awareness that capital investments in equipment and machinery are often met with a need to run the machine as much as possible, in order to justify the expense of the equipment – regardless of the need for whatever the machine produces.  This can lead to stockpiles of finished-goods inventory with no place to go as plant managers try to drive their numbers down and keep their staffs from being laid off.  This waste of Overproduction is familar to Lean and is described well in Eli Goldratt’s classic, The Goal.

I have to wonder if those who are trying several approaches to changing the workplace through practices such as ROWE, flexible work arrangements, telecommuting or even something as simple as purging the cubicle farms in most office places are hampered by the capital investments companies have made in buying, building and leasing their current structures?

It would be a hard sell to tell any company, whether they have built an 80-story tower or have set up 300 cubicles or signed a 10-year lease that the best ting to change the culture of their organization would be to let most of their workers perform their functions where they want, when they want, and that the need for all that office space is, for the most part, gone by the way side.  Nonetheless, in an era when information is available nearly instantly, nearly anywhere, what value does a billion-dollar office building have?  Billions in real estate to produce that which no one can demonstrate adds significant customer value, and only prestige, seems like a practice of putting a lot of resources into something with little demonstrable value.

I suspect just as much work gets done just as well by those in small companies working in converted strip malls.  I’m also certain good work gets done (especially in those white-collar industries where there are more knowledge workers who could work anywhere, any time) by people who are sitting on their couch, in a coffee shop, a library, or on the beach.  After all, if you believe people are dedicated and intrinsically motivated, then you have little reason to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a building that adds nothing to the value of the product you produce.

Imagine home much infrastructure has been built, and must be maintained, at tremendous public expense, simply because of the perceived need to horde people into a specific location, for a specific amount of time.  Every major and secondary city in the United States contends with rush hour traffic problems – and all persist simply because of a misplaced perception that white-collar, knowledge work has to occur in a specific place, for a specific period of time and the equally misplaced perception that the larger, more expensive the facility that work takes place in, the better the company must be.

David M. KasprzakWeb | Twitter | LinkedIn | More Posts (222)

]]> http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/30/since-you-built-it-they-will-come/feed/ 0 http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/25/plan-for-peak-capacity-or-get-good-at-eliminating-waste/ http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/25/plan-for-peak-capacity-or-get-good-at-eliminating-waste/#comments Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:35:33 +0000 David M. Kasprzak http://myflexiblepencil.com/?p=2592

71 by PixelSoulPhoto in deviantart.com

Recently, our eldest son, who is just 7, was diagnosed with mononucleosis.  Typically, teenagers get this infection, which is commonly known as “the kissing disease.”  Just how he got it, we don’t know, but he’s going to be fine so – thanks, but no need to worry.

The infection caused his spleen to be enlarged, which means that his skiing lessons, swim classes, gym class at school and recess time are all put on hold for the next 6 weeks.  That’s a tough pill to swallow for a 1st grader.  While his teachers and school administrators are all working hard to accommodate him, they are having a bit of a difficult time of it, as there aren’t any extra staff members around every day to make sure he has someone to work with.

That mindset, however, got me to thinking about a classic problem faced in many organizations, large and small.  It points to a problem in the way we view staff capacity.  Namely, the instinctive reaction whenever current resources are strained to simply go out and get more resources, or to complain that we can’t meet the need because we’re not allowed to go out and get more resources.

But……when does anyone start to examine how we do things, to look for inefficiency?  If we eliminated that inefficiency, how many hours of unnecessary processing, running around to find things or people, sitting in pointless meetings, etc. etc. could be done away with?

Inefficiency takes on many subtle forms.  Lean has 7 traditional wastes, and some would argue there are 8 or 9 other wastes to add, but the key to all of them is that they don’t necessarily jump out and bite you.  You have to be looking for them in order to uncover the really entrenched ones.

If you’re not looking for those wastes, when resources appear to be stretched to the limit, your reaction will never be, “We need to identify some unnecessary effort in order to make more efficient use of our existing resources.”  Instead, it’s always, “We simply need to get more capacity.”  This, of course, leads to more overtime, more people (who will get laid off when the peak is over) and, in general, the very mura  and muri that are at the heart of performance problems everywhere.

We know that all environments will, eventually, encounter resource limitations.  Managing for the unforseen, however, requires more than just building extra resources into the plan – it requires knowing how to slim things down when required, too.

David M. KasprzakWeb | Twitter | LinkedIn | More Posts (222)

]]> http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/25/plan-for-peak-capacity-or-get-good-at-eliminating-waste/feed/ 2 http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/23/so-will-culture-help-me-grow-my-business/ http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/23/so-will-culture-help-me-grow-my-business/#comments Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:16:31 +0000 David M. Kasprzak http://myflexiblepencil.com/?p=2519

stacks and stacks by caughtupinblue on deviantart.com

Obviously, I’ve been investing a lot of my time in learning about ROWE and, recently, I’ve also been spending time with Simon Sinek’s Start with Why.  I think both are concepts very worth engaging in, as I think they both point to a universal problem – the lack of interest with which we all seem to go about our daily lives.  We are, most definitely, lacking a sense of purpose out there.  It’s clearly been established and is discussed, in some way or another, across nearly every management improvement article, book and interview.

So, in thinking about these things, I have to wonder what good these things do for a company?  I mean, certainly the rank and file adore them – they make sense and appeal to base, humanistic concerns that ought to be much more a part of things in the workplace – and everywhere else – as we attempt to find our own, individual work/life balance.  But what about the decision-making check-writers at the top?  What’s in it for them?

All business is, to one degree or another, a volume business.  The size of a business is determined by its revenues.  While nearly every improvement school focuses on lowering costs – do they help to increase revenue?  Most businesses will live within a certain margin that is reasonable within the company’s industry.  True growth, however, occurs by selling more and increasing the volume of dollars flowing in.

So, how can a business see the impact of adopting progressive cultural experiments on total, overall dollars at its disposal?  If you had asked me up until a week ago, my answer would have been:  It can’t.

An employee-centric culture doesn’t necessarily give you the latest, greatest innovations in either management, product or service delivery, or design.  It doesn’t make your accountants faster or cheaper.  It doesn’t make your HR department more resilient, your marketing department more creative, your sales reps more ambitious and it doesn’t make customers throw tons of money at you.  At least, not directly.  Sure, there could be some statement about how engaged employees perform better, or how they are more likely to be creative or find innovation within their area of expertise.  I believe those things to be true, but they are hard to determine and there’s no real, direct cause-and-effect relationship between culture that can be measured with a yardstick to determine performance anyway.

Or can it?

Last week, I came across a post by Torben Rick entitled, “Can corporate culture boost financial performance” that made me aware of a new book by James Heskett, an Emeritus Professor at Harvard Business School.  The book, The Culture Cycle: How to Shape the Unseen Force that Transforms Performance.  The book is discussed in some detail in an interview with Professor Heskett posted on the Harvard Business School’s website.  Check out this excerpt:

Q: Your research produces an eye-opening number, that as much as half of the difference in operating profit between organizations can be attributed to effective cultures. Why is this true-how does culture affect the bottom line?

A: The point is that organization culture is not a soft concept. Its impact on profit can be measured and quantified. And in organizations with large numbers of customer-facing employees, the sum of the effects of employee turnover, referrals of potential employees by existing ones, productivity, customer loyalty, and referrals of new customers attributable to culture can add up to half of the difference in operating income between organizations in the same business.

Current and former CEOs such as Lou Gerstner (HBS MBA ’65) and Sam Palmisano (IBM), Ken Iverson (Nucor), Tony Hsieh (Zappos.com), and Scott Cook (HBS MBA ’76) (Intuit) who believe strongly in the importance of culture have been hinting at this, so I went out into the field and collected data that demonstrate it.

Once in a while, I love it when I am wrong.

Professor Hackett’s research would seem to indicate that the benefits of culture are not just idealistic arguments.  With data to support those arguments,  there’s growing evidence that the world of work could be a better place if only the decision makers made humanistic concerns as much a cornerstone of the business as the balance sheet.  The business benefits of culture, it would seem, are no longer a just a set of intangible theories, but a quantifiable phenomenon that can be demonstrated with objective evidence.

Since the benefits are real, observable, demonstrable and can be measured then we have to conclude that culture can, indeed, help decision makers to to grow the business.  The only thing left to do, then, is wonder why more business leaders aren’t investing in culture already?

David M. KasprzakWeb | Twitter | LinkedIn | More Posts (222)

]]> http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/23/so-will-culture-help-me-grow-my-business/feed/ 1 http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/18/sopa-blackout-the-silence-is-not-deafening/ http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/18/sopa-blackout-the-silence-is-not-deafening/#comments Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:38:20 +0000 David M. Kasprzak http://myflexiblepencil.com/?p=2578  

Stop SOPA by nabichan on deviantart.com

First off, I’d like to thank all of those bloggers and site owners out there for raising awareness of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) issue.  Personally, I’d like to thank Jamie Flinchbaugh for sending me a DM to make me aware of the issue, and to inform me that both he and Mark Graban would be joining major sites like Wikipedia and blocking out their sites today in protest.

I, too, do not agree with SOPA and I am glad that President Obama effectively killed it yesterday.  The Senate’s anti-piracy measure, PIPA, is still alive & well, however.  As you may have noticed, however, I have decided that I won’t be blacking out MFP for today.

 The reason?  Simple:  I don’t believe the correct response to the threat of censorship is to voluntarily censor one’s self.

What the internet has given us is the relentless ability to share ideas and information, in realtime, for both good and ill.  While no one would want to take away the “Good” what acts like SOPA intend to do are to take away the “Ill.”  At first glance, this seems reasonable and logical – we want to protect people from the objectionable and the illegal.  Unfortunately, what constitutes either Good or Ill are matters of time, place and circumstance and what tends to lead to societal, technological, and governmental change is when someone challenges the accepted distinctions between the two.

Yes, I believe property owners deserve to have their property protected and supported with the force of law.  This, of course, includes intellectual property.  What I disagree with when it comes to SOPA, however, is that the means for protecting this property should be to limit the ability of everyone to pursue whatever interests them.  To draw an analogy, it is like saying that in response to a rash of speeding cars on a particular street, no one in the town is allowed to own or drive a car, and the gas station needs to shutdown, too.  Unfortunately, in that situation, the powers that be don’t have the ability to patrol every street all the time or stop you from buying gas one town over, so you’ll need to monitor yourself.  If you don’t, you’ll get whacked with some penalties, too.  Nevermind that you might not be able to go to work or respond to an emergency if you need to.

Back to the blackout as a means of protest.  The response to the SOPA and PIPA bills that led to President Obama’s decision took place by means of……the internet!  The multitude of voices and the ability to dissemminate information on the issue, in many ways, on many platforms, and in huge volumes at very quick paces is what created the stir.  It is exactly this ability to allow information to flow that makes the internet so vital. 

Even those sites that are blacked out….aren’t really.  The “blacked out” sites contain inforation on SOPA and PIPA, demonstrating that the true strength of the internet lies in the sharing of information and ideas, even objectionable ones, and not in the power of silence.  Like this site, many of them are also hosted by GoDaddy and, of course, indexed by Google – who have raised the ire of some folks for supporting the SOPA bill or not blocking out their sites entirely today – proving  that the major internet providers will continue to be major providers, SOPA or not.

Why? Because as information flows around the internet people do 2 very human things:  They get creative, and they get bored.  If a site is down, folks will find a way around the problem.  They will go elsewhere or someone will be bold enough to create an illegal site in protest, possibly hosted overseas and beyond the reach of the very laws it seeks to overturn.  It might even gain enough popularity to cause legislation or whole industries to realign with what people desire – as expressed (you guessed it) in droves on the internet. 

It is that expression of discontent that matters – and it should be done as loudly as possible, with full voice by all those with something to say.  The awareness of SOPA and PIPA that brought about the President’s action did not come through site owners voluntarily taking their sites down – it came about through the collective voices of all those site owners and readers emailing, texting, tweeting, and calling Washington on web-enabled cell phones.

I’d much rather see people articulating their exact thoughts on thousands of sites as to why this issue, or any issue that they feel needs to be confronted, is important to them than see those same sites showing a boilerplate message or a simple, blank screen.  Through volumes of posts expressing their point of view on an issue, is how change occurs.

Actually, come to think of it, that’s exactly what’s happened on this issue already, isn’t it?

Oh, and by the way……..

It’s working.

David M. KasprzakWeb | Twitter | LinkedIn | More Posts (222)

]]> http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/18/sopa-blackout-the-silence-is-not-deafening/feed/ 0 http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/17/if-you-dont-like-it-no-ones-going-to-make-you-eat-the-whole-thing/ http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/17/if-you-dont-like-it-no-ones-going-to-make-you-eat-the-whole-thing/#comments Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:22:03 +0000 David M. Kasprzak http://myflexiblepencil.com/?p=2575

Nibbling by SquirrelStalker on deviantart.com

Since I began blogging about ROWE a little while back, I’ve had a few emails from folks who have expressed that they have attempted to introduce ROWE in their own workplaces, only to find supervisors whose minds are closed to the concept (a situation I understand entirely).  Typically, the supervisor / manager / business owner will state, even if he or she has bothered to become familiar with the concept is, “That will never work here.”  The idea then is discarded, to wither and die on the slag heap of management indifference.

Unfortunately, what these folks fail to realize, is that no one is telling them that they need to jump into the new idea with both feet.  All that they are being asked to do is to 1) familiarize themselves with the idea, 2) consider the possibilities, 3) identify what would be required to make it happen – which is not the same thing as granting permission to do it.  Think of this as assessing the ROI.  4) Test the idea and see what happens in a controlled experiment.

Honestly, that’s all there is to it.  For one, any kind of change should be entered into gradually whenever possible.  While we tend to idolize those who make bold changes for their pioneering spirit, we also tend to forget that for every successful venture, 100 failed one lie in its wake.  Truth is, the importance of the PDCA-cycle increases as the certainty of the outcome decreases.

It reminds me of a rule we instituted in our house a few years ago when our son was becoming a picky eater.  It is this:  ”If you give something new an honest try, but find that you don’t like the taste so much that you simply can’t eat it, no one’s going to make you eat the whole thing. But, you can’t just nibble around the edges.  You have to give it an honest try, first.”  It has worked wonderfully over the years.  Along the way, we’ve discovered that he likes cauliflower, while I refuse to eat it.  I like asparagus and green beans – he’s not so big on them.  He’ll also eat mexican, chinese, mediterranean, bar-b-que, lobster, fish, and on and on.

Perhaps a bit contrary to conventional thinking, it’s not about allowing him the freedom to explore.  It’s about allowing him the freedom to return home.

And that’s all it takes to initiate change – an honest try, and a sense of trust.

 

David M. KasprzakWeb | Twitter | LinkedIn | More Posts (222)

]]> http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/17/if-you-dont-like-it-no-ones-going-to-make-you-eat-the-whole-thing/feed/ 2 http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/16/product-innovation-captures-the-imagination-process-innovation-captures-markets/ http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/16/product-innovation-captures-the-imagination-process-innovation-captures-markets/#comments Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:56:21 +0000 David M. Kasprzak http://myflexiblepencil.com/?p=2569

innovation distinguishes by MutantPuppy on deviantart.com

Last week, John Biggs posted an article over at Tech Crunch entitled, “Why Samsung is the next apple.”  Here’s a passage from that piece:

Samsung is number one in TVs for the sixth year in a row, selling approximately two TVs a second in November. While a minority of those TVs have been what Samsung is calling Smart TVs, all new TVs in 2012 will include boxless interactive television, which means a few things. First, it means Google and Apple are in trouble. Two TVs per second definitely beats any performance metrics for Google’s platform and, more important, Samsung has headed off Apple at the living room media pass.

Then consider Samsung’s lead in cellphone sales. While many would argue that Samsung specializes in meh and me-too, 60 million cellphones sold in 2011 can’t be a fluke. This isn’t about Android or iOS or Windows Phone – it’s about Samsung making and selling millions of phones to millions of people. Samsung is mercenary. They’re happy to use anyone’s OS as long as it puts phones into boxes and boxes into shopping bags.

So you have two superlatives: biggest phone manufacturer and biggest TV manufacturer. Add in some tablets, some washing machines, and some acceptable software and you have a real and vibrant ecosystem. The next year will bring plenty of efforts to bring streaming media into the home, but the guy who is already there will win.

The article also goes on to state, “Samsung makes TVs. They make everything – the screen, the PCBs, and the case. Apple will be outsourcing their manufacture and they won’t be able to compete on price, especially when they’re buying panels from Samsung.”

Recently, Bill Waddel posted a couple articles on the Evolving Excellence blog discussing Apple’s culture, its perceived ability to innovate well ahead of the market, and the likelihood that the company could sustain its advantage.  The articles, “A Tough Obituary to Write” and “Product vs. Processes” contended that Apple was destined to lose out in the long term, in large part due to less-than-stellar manufacturing practices that would, eventually, undermine any product innovations the company could produce.   Bill states:

The Apple business model has been all about innovative products, but mediocre processes and, as a result is a business model that has been a series of spectacular bottle rockets but is not sustainable.  It comes a no big surprise to me that Samsung just passed Apple in smart phone sales. Before long someone will surpass them in pad sales – it is inevitable. It is also why I give such short shrift to the economists and politicians who are all in on the innovation band wagon.  By and large, they mean innovative products, not innovative processes, so they are urging an unsustainable business and economic model.

Of course, the best of all worlds is to do both – great products and great processes – but if a company is going to focus on one, making a line up of good products through great, innovative processes is the way to go, rather than to keep searching for the great product while paying little attention to processes.  It is very much a ‘tortoise and the hare’ deal – slow and steady wins the race every time - even though there are times during the race when the hare might look fantastic.

Those articles at Evolving Excellence, published in October, look like they’re saying much the same thing as the tech crunch article.  Apple, for all the articles and books written about its relentless ability to create new products, change paradigms, and establish a cult-like following among those who adore its products – is losing market share.  It’s losing out, primarily, to Samsung – and this is particularly interesting since Samsung is Apple’s largest supplier.

As Apple loses ground, it does so at the hands of a savvy competitor.  Samsung is supplying components to its competitors, while simultaneously manufacturing products of its own.  The products, which have been “meh” and “me too”  according to the Tech Crunch article, appear to be breaking beyond that mold since Samsung has achieved product innovation with its Smart TVs, which seem to be setting a new standard.

Is the run that Apple has had on its decline?  It could very well be.  Although the innovations introduced there have been the stuff of modern-day fables, the sustainability of the business model appears to be suffering in the face of competition that was content to be a second-mover.  Straight out of business school textbooks, the second mover has the advantage of watching the first invest heavily in changing the landscape of the market.  While Apple has certainly redefined the market over the past decade or two, it seems that its strength is faltering.

I can only imagine what all those authors out there, who have been extolling the virtues of Apple’s culture and its methods for constantly creating innovation, will be saying when the company is far from #1, and a far more savvy and process-oriented competitor dominates the field.

It looks like that’s happening much sooner than anticipated.

 

David M. KasprzakWeb | Twitter | LinkedIn | More Posts (222)

]]> http://myflexiblepencil.com/2012/01/16/product-innovation-captures-the-imagination-process-innovation-captures-markets/feed/ 0