Chris Pepin: Good day, ladies and gentlemen. This is Chris Pepin. I’m going to be your host here on the podcast. I’m the founder of Progressive Reliability. And in this first series, we’re going to work with Tim Goshert and Doug Plucknette on a lot of the opportunities, challenges, and frankly, how to get through the COVID dilemma we’ve been going through for the past year.
We’re coming at the close of 2020 into 2021 currently, and things are still looking every bit as difficult. So we want to give you some really great takeaways, some good ideas, and frankly, we’re pulling from other downturns in tumultuous times with the knowledge that even though history doesn’t repeat itself, and what we’re going through has never necessarily been done before, it does echo. So, where can we pull from the past to find ways through? Where can we pull from experience?
And fortunately, Tim and Doug have 30-plus years of industry experience. They’ve seen a lot, although of course, in reliability and industrial, we never see it all. We’re going to draw on their experience and find some ways through and see what the opportunities are.
We understand thoroughly how difficult it is being short-staffed, having people out sick, having a myriad of other challenges to worry about that you’re all facing out there. So have a listen. This is our first podcast series, so we welcome any and all feedback as we’re learning how to do this thing as we go along, but really just want to provide some value and want to make sure it’s worth your time of investing. So for me, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for giving this podcast a try and we look forward to hearing how it works for you. Thanks a lot.
I want to introduce Tim Goshert. And we are doing this first podcast in the work-from-home era, so excuse any other additions that may come through. Tim, tell us a little bit about yourself and how we came to meet.
Tim Goshert: I’m a chemical engineer by trade; went to Penn State University, graduated a long time ago. I’ve spent 40 years in industrial plants and in engineering and reliability and maintenance.
My background is, first 30 years of my career spent with Cargill. They’re a global food manufacturer. Of that 30 years, I probably spent 20 years of that in the corporate reliability and maintenance improvement efforts on a global scale. Then I took an early retirement, left and went to a company called Allied Reliability who’s been in the business for over 20 years of consulting in reliability, condition monitoring, and maintenance improvement, and just recently retired from them.
I’m glad to be part of this, Chris. I ran into Chris maybe a year ago through an acquaintance of mine. Chris and I have been working together since that. So, it’s great to be joining you, Chris.
Chris Pepin: Yeah. Glad to have you. And Mr. Doug Plucknette, I know that both of you have worked together in the past, and we’re very fortunate to have both of you as an advisor. So Doug, why don’t you … For those in the audience who don’t know you yet, let them know who you are and what you’re about.
Doug Plucknette: Oh, good afternoon. I am Doug Plucknette, and let’s see. I met Tim, I think, around 2003. I had started the company Reliability Solutions and was offering RCM Blitz and was training facilitators and facilitating RCMs for Cargill when I met Tim. So I’ve known Tim for gosh, going on 20 years now.
Then later on, when he retired from Cargill, we worked together at Allied Reliability. And then following that, geez, I guess a while after the two of you met, Chris gave me a call and said, “Hey, this guy Tim Goshert recommended you come along and give us a hand as well.” So I’ve been helping Chris and Tim, I don’t know, it seems like it’s about four months now.
At any rate, my background is, I started at Eastman Kodak Company in 1981 as a skilled tradesperson. Worked as a journeyman, or actually went to the apprentice program first, then worked as a journeyman. Then I went to school at night at RIT. Ended up working in Kodak’s global equipment reliability group as a trainer for RCM Blitz, which I developed there, and a reliability engineer. So I left Kodak in 1999, started Reliability Solutions, and I have been offering training in defect elimination, RCM Blitz, FMEA for gosh, 20 years now.
I’m in the kind of semi-retirement phase of my life, and when this opportunity came up to help Pro Reliability get started, I thought this is a fun thing to do. So, that’s how Chris and I come to meet. We’re going to talk today about a topic that Tim and I have discussed several times in that when the pandemic came along, the three of us began talking about how this might impact companies going through the pandemic that we all are going through at this point in time. So that’s my story for today. Back to you, Chris.
Chris Pepin: Great having the both of you here. Yeah, this started during the height of lockdown and shutdown. What we were trying to look for and trying to understand is, although this is historically new for everybody, history may not be repeating itself, but it does echo. So the question started with, what has happened similarly? Was it the dot com bubble? Was it the real estate downturn? Even going back historically into the beginning of Tim and Doug’s career, what have they seen and where have they seen just this kind of disruption in the industrial world, in what’s coming about?
It turned out that Tim had actually taught around a cycle of insanity in the past. And this insanity cycle is not necessarily pandemic or real estate or economically related, but there’s a lot of other factors and indicators. So, we wanted to create something that wasn’t fear-based. We wanted to create something that really showed here’s the opportunities, here’s the massive challenges, and here’s what’s going to happen in a predictable, reliable fashion that we can go through.
Tim really has a good grasp on the cycle that he’s seen many times in the past. And Doug has absolutely taken part in it, especially in his years at Kodak, which is a wonderful lens. We thought a lot of you may be coming up on something similar and feel something similar, and perhaps it wasn’t well-defined.
So today, we’re just going to broadly go over what this cycle of insanity is and where it impacts. Then we’ve got another couple of calls that we’re going to set up to go into some of the more specific nuances and niches that those of you listening may be facing and just kind of look at where are those real opportunities, where are those challenges and how can we really make the best out of a difficult situation? So Tim, tell us about the cycle of insanity, how it came about and kind of what you’ve seen in your career.
Tim Goshert: I had the opportunity working with Cargill as their Global Reliability and Maintenance Manager for over a decade. I had the opportunity to do what we call best practice workshops. We did these workshops typically one week a month in a different location, all over the world. And what we were trying to do is create a different culture in Cargill, in all their plants that they had. It was a culture more of reliability improvement.
As I was doing those workshops and facilitating, the workshops are really a facilitation and discussion of different topics. The topic of how do you keep a plant healthy, always came up. If you had healthy equipment in your plants, most likely it would produce production and quality products that you want for your customers when they wanted it, and it typically would do it at a lower cost. So the discussion item was, how can we keep our assets healthy? And the concept of asset health was what we were trying to convince and teach our plants and plant leadership that it’s very important to keep your plants healthy.
In that regard, what I developed or … I didn’t develop it. I just thought of it and put it maybe on paper as what myself and a lot of Cargill people have gone through, was a cyclical cycle in their plant where they had it running very well. The assets were healthy. Something changed that caused systems or programs that were keeping their assets healthy, to be eliminated. It could have been cost control issues. It could have been other things, external things like COVID-19 came about, and they started whacking programs that were keeping equipment healthy.
Then over time, without those programs in place, the health of the assets deteriorated. Their results got worse. The costs went up, production went down. They started having customer delivery problems until it bottomed out. Then at the bottom of the curve, when the plant’s equipment was the most unhealthy, they changed. They either changed regimes. The person in charge got changed, and they put new people back in. And what I saw was that those people that then came in, all they did was put back the programs that were in place before, that kept the equipment healthy.
So what took typically a year or two for it to go from a very healthy plant to a very unhealthy plant, then it took a lot more money in probably three to five years to get that plant back to the healthy form again. So after that happens, after the five year happens, the plant’s very, very healthy. People get rewarded, promoted because of that. New people come in and then the cycle starts all over again, where for whatever reason, the programs get depleted and then the health of the assets decrease. And so it’s a cyclical cycle that a plant goes through, maybe in a decade over the decades.
I’ve seen this happen in a lot of plants that I was at, or either a department. I’ve seen entire organizations go through that type of cyclical cycle. And that’s what I call “insanity curve”. This is insane. Why do we keep doing it this way? It costs more money. It’s hard on people because sometimes people would lose their jobs over things because they just didn’t have the tools to get the job done. So that’s sort of how I named the insanity curve, I suppose.
Chris Pepin: And Doug, one of the reasons that we really kicked off the insanity curve was because during the height of lockdown, we knew that there would be huge initial short-term benefits to shutting things down because we were talking about, as these programs get removed, the profit goes up. And because the programs have been in place, everything for the short term seems to be running just fine. It is so tempting and it is so rewarding from a short-term frame, but why don’t you tell us a little bit about your experience with this at Kodak? From the time you first came in and to the way things changed in your ride from the beginning, through the end of the insanity curve with them.
Doug Plucknette: My career at Kodak was 19 years long. The first three was my apprenticeship, and it was probably six months out of my apprenticeship we went through the first layoff. That’s an eye opening thing as a young person. I was newly married at the time. We had our first child. You’re worried about that, right? The first thing they’re going to talk about is who’s been here the longest, and so on and so forth.
Well, luckily enough at that time, there was quite a bit of dead wood at the company. People that, for whatever reason, it might’ve been a warning or a final warning or had been documented. They go through that and they lay off some people. Then a few months later, you’re in another meeting.
Kodak was very transparent in terms of communicating in each department where they were. Then even as a company, we used to have … In Rochester at that time, Kodak employed about 58,000 people. They had a theater there. They would have state of the company meetings not everybody got to go to. It would be about 2,500 people, I think, in there.
The CEO would come and talk about where the company was and where we were headed, and what were some of the things they were going to do. Three months after the layoffs. If the picture isn’t any prettier, better say, “Yeah, we’ve got to cut costs.” Where does the cost-cutting come? You’ve taken some people. Where are we going next? So it was a slow and steady cutting of different things.
Not too long after I finished my apprentice program, I think about three years later, they decided, “Well, if you did the training program…” We had a big training department. We got these apprentice programs for pipe fitters and electricians, machinists, and welders. You name it; they had an apprentice program for it. “We should probably cut that.” So, they cut that program.
Then the next thing, “We’re going to cut the hours of training for each employee that you’ve been doing, and we’re going to cut …” The next thing was some of the … Kodiak was an incredible company in terms of employee benefits. “We’re going to cut some specific benefits.” One was they had what was the Kodiak Athletic Association. Softball leagues, bowling leagues, volleyball leagues, basketball leagues, we had all these things internally. Even had a shooting range for rifles, pistols, all kinds of benefits like that, and slowly those things go away. That impacts the morale of your people.
After a while, you’re down the road, and there’s another layoff. Another six months after that, they’re going to have another layoff and they’re continually cutting things. We had our own food service employees. Well, the next thing you know, they’re not employees any longer. They hired some other company to come in and do it, and the quality of that goes down. Well, it turns out the cafeterias to begin with, paid for the athletics association they paid through. We had our own Kodak medical doctors and nurses where you could go in and have physicals and doctor appointments while at work. Really, a forward-thinking tremendous company, and you’ve watched this go.
All the while, we’re sitting back and going, “Okay, what do we need to change? Because what we’re doing now, really isn’t working. It’s just continuing.” We get a little bit better, and then you get bad news again and it starts over. So, it was one of those things that it does. It drives the morale of the people down. While there was plenty of things that Kodak could have been doing to recover and be a better company, they took their eye off the ball. It was all focused on cost cutting. That’s really where this starts out.
The scary part of it is where we’re at today when it’s just a financial thing and you see it just as something temporary. As you pointed out before you asked me this question, there’s actually some benefits. When COVID started and they said only essential employees need to come to work, man, you’ve gotten rid of a whole bunch of staff, lots of supervision, engineers, and all that’s there are some maintenance people and operations people. And guess what? That equipment just hums along, just like it did before, without all those meetings.
Chris Pepin: As a follow-up, there’s some detractors who would say, “Well, Kodak is … It was an outmoded technology, or it was due to be replaced.” That’s why I wanted to pull back to Fujifilm and how this starting at the beginning of your career opened up to new competitors and new ways of manufacturing. There was a lot going on in film back then. Tell us about what was going on at that time.
Doug Plucknette: Initially, as you pointed out, it was just competition. Kodak realistically, and they ended up losing a lawsuit over, they had a monopoly in the film business. They ended up having to pay some to Polaroid, as I remember. Fuji came along, and I can remember our CEO saying, “We’re going to crush this competition.”
Realistically at that point in time, and these are things that I’m amazed when I work with other companies that their employees don’t know the things that we knew, and I talk about the transparency at Kodak. At that time, they told us it costs us 28 cents to put a 24-shot roll of 400-speed film on the shelf. And that roll of film was selling for high $4 / $5, low $6. Huge profit margin, right? So, that’s your cash cow. When all of a sudden somebody starts picking at that, you go, “Oh wow, what are we going to do?” Well, that’s really what started our cycling of insanity, was that. It really wasn’t until digital hit. It was still 10 years out, or more.
Even when digital came along and that cycle of insanity started, we got saved by Motion Pictures because the first digital films were pirated. So, the motion picture industry swore off of digital for quite some time, and there was actually an increase in production. We had gone from putting motion picture film on acetate base to ester base, which was much thinner. They could fit a full-length motion picture on a single reel so you didn’t have that interruption in the movie. It sold like crazy, and it kept Kodak healthy probably for another 10 years while the digital thing was happening.
That’s the craziest part about Kodak is they invented digital photography and kept ignoring it. They kept saying, “Oh, it’s grainy. Oh, it takes up a lot of memory. Computers are not that fast.” And in that same amount of time that they’re saying that all of a sudden, online businesses are popping up. My dad had retired. He was down in Florida. This is mid-1990s, and they’re already ordering their groceries online. And I’m saying to my boss, “Holy smokes. If my parents can do this at a computer, they’re going to figure out this photography stuff and it’s going to go wild. We need to be investing a lot more money in this.”
That’s not what the C-suite was saying. They’re saying, “No. It’s complex. People don’t like it,” blah, blah, blah. Again, the cycle of insanity commences and continues and the next thing you know, a company that employed 58,000 people … I think when I left, it was in the high 30s. Today, that company is, I think for Rochester, total is somewhere around 4,000.
Chris Pepin: Yeah.
Doug Plucknette: So, a tremendous impact. And along the line, they made some very foolish moves. There’s still a company called Eastman Chemical, which was part of Eastman Kodak. They gave it away. “We really don’t want to be in the chemical business anymore. Now that we’re out of film, we probably shouldn’t be highly invested in this chemical business.” Guess what? Eastman Chemical is extremely healthy, still doing great business today.
Chris Pepin: So what’s interesting is it sounds like there’s two different walls. For one, there’s the complacency of profitability or the complacency that comes with being a market leader. And then there’s also the cost-cutting measures. So there are two separate things, and of course it became a war on two fronts for you.
Tell us a little bit about what can be done to combat the insanity curve. There’s those that are listening that have seen, “Okay, this smells familiar. This could be going on,” Tim, what’s the hope in the disruption of this? And where have you seen a company be able to get out of it, get aware of it? What can people that are listening and feeling a little overwhelmed by this kind of situation, what can they do and what can they start looking for?
Tim Goshert: Well, I think it’s a matter of focus. Again, people in crisis focus on cost-cutting like Kodak did, and I’ve seen other companies do, when they should be focusing on providing value to the customer and being innovative. So if you’re in an industrial plant, you want to focus on trying to bring value to the plant and to your customers? That value is typically uptime in quality of product, and also being flexible to use new products.
I think Kodak would have a different story today if they had focused on innovation, focused on and had some vision when it came to the digital world that we all live in today. It could be a whole total different story for the company and a lot of people in that company. So, I think that was what people need to do is try to take the focus away from just sheer cost-cutting and reduction of people, to the value portion. What activities bring value?
Again, taking it back to a plant, a healthy piece of equipment producing quality products is a value. That value it provides is production and quality products, that healthy piece of equipment. So, what types of activities does a plant need to focus on, to make sure their equipment is healthy? Those kinds of activities I think are important, especially when you’re confronted with consistent cost-cutting ideas. I would try to flip the story and look at the value.
Chris Pepin: You know something that I was thinking about, Doug, because you’ve had a fantastic career, your story went the opposite of Kodak’s over your time there. So for those that are maybe stuck in a cycle or in a place where things don’t look optimal for the company, what can you recommend that they can take with them for themselves to be able to do as well as you’ve done, and to be able to establish their skillset and themselves the way you have over time, even in spite of that?
Doug Plucknette: Number one is, as this goes on, you have to focus on what are the right things to do? I understood that well in maintenance. I had some really good mentors. As an apprentice, I’ve worked with a group of guys that were just incredible in terms of their trade skills. So by the time I got out, I was a journeyman. It’s a type of thing.
There was two classes of pipe fitters when I went through there. I want to say there was 20 in each class. There may have been more. Four years later, I’m already working as a lead man and all the other guys in my class are going, “Holy smokes. How’d you jump so quick?”
Do what you can to make yourself better. Any opportunity that you have to make yourself a better employee is going to further your career. Whether it’s at that company, or somewhere else, or even working for yourself. That was one of the things. Look for a level of competence in the people that I worked for. I looked for those guys that put in the extra mile that worked at a high quality, what they did.
Then I got lucky in that I also had in that same timeframe, a young engineer that said the power in what you do as a maintenance person really comes from understanding the process. It’s really evident that you know how to do what you were trained to do. You’re that much better if you understand how we make what we make, and how that works.
That’s really what drove me to go into one of the first courses I took was statistical process control. Understand statistical process control. I worked in a chemical plant. We’re making a polymer that turned into ester film. We made that film base right from glycol and methanol and different additives. Through a reaction process, there was three different types of reactors and how they work.
When I started there, we struggled at that plant to probably make 3 million pounds of polymer a week. It would be made into film. At that time, it was just graphic art. Within five years, we were making 5 million pounds a week like it was nothing. How did that happen?
What really happened, strangely enough, a few of us guys in that maintenance group took that SPC course. Our operators every shift were recording data. How long was the heat up time? How long was your action time? How long was the dump time? How much of each raw material was put in? What level of vacuum did they have? What temperature did they have? We started looking at that stuff. There was actually a year at Eastman Kodak Company that I made more in suggestion than I did in my hourly pay, and I worked a lot of overtime.
Chris Pepin: Yeah.
Doug Plucknette: So, Kodak had a suggestion program is a time. Getting involved in those things, and that’s what I tell people today … It’s great to be a tradesperson. It’s great to be an operator, but look at the opportunities your company offers you.
They sent me to this training. That training taught me to look at a process in engineering. Like I said, this engineer was one of those that I asked him a question, “How does this work?” and he’d be able to draw that out. “Here’s what goes on in that chemical reaction. This is what a polymer chain looks like. Here’s what happens in a pre-polymer reactor. Here’s what happens in a polymer reactor. Here’s what happens at a fluidized reactor. This is what’s going on in there. This is what the scrubber does.”
Then understanding that and putting that all together is the power of, “Alright, what type of materials? How come we’re having a leak in this particular system? We don’t have it over there. Oh, gee. There’s a difference in the type of metal. We’re looking at 3/16 stainless on one, and here we’ve got a section of 304 on this.” I can tell you that you learn some of that in welding, but realistically what’s the makeup of that? What’s the difference between those two metals? Why would you want one versus the other? Learning those types of things is what brings the power into your career, and makes you more valuable.
I can remember sitting in meetings, being 25, 30 years old. Another engineer speaking up about, “I think this is what happened,” and I’d say, “No, that’s not what happened because this is what goes on in that reactor.” And their department manager is sitting back in a chair and leaning back and look at me going, “Where the heck does this kid come from? How do you know that?” Because I took the time to ask questions and learn.
Find those guys like Tim Goshert that understand the process as a maintenance person, and learn from them. There’s power in that. That’s also what gave me the confidence to go back to school. Go at night.
Chris Pepin: It’s really interesting too, especially with your seniority in the industry, how few people actually just put their hand up and ask the questions and seek the mentorship. Have you found it to be a little interesting how you know what you know, you’ve done what you’ve done, and so few people will take the opportunity to try and figure out, “Okay, what’d you do or what worked well for you? Or how did you get to do this?” What would you say the percentage of people you’ve faced that have actually come around with those follow-up questions would be?
Doug Plucknette: It’s probably 10%.
Chris Pepin: Yeah.
Tim Goshert: This goes back to another training program that they sent me to, which was called Performance Management, which was taught by Dr. Aubrey Daniels. It was a two-week course. It’s industrial psychology. It’s the power of positive reinforcement and how to get the most out of employees.
Dr. Daniels at the time said you got a 10/80/10 split with your employees, and he went through the data that showed that. He said 10% are high performers. Those are people that you don’t have to motivate them in any way. They’re just interested in how things work and how things are done. And you’re not going to find them goofing off. They’re not employees that take sick time. They want to come to work. They’re high performers.
Then you got 80% of the people, and he goes, and those are the ones we want to look to motivate. Because those 80% are capable of doing everything you need them to do plus more, but we don’t really … We hope they’re going to look at the 10% and go, “Uh, yeah, I can do that,” when the reality is they look at the 10% and go, “That dude is crazy.”
Then there’s that bottom 10, and they’re trying to convince the upper 80 to do less.
Chris Pepin: Yep.
Doug Plucknette: And who do you think wins?
Chris Pepin: Yeah, that’s a factor that we use on the recruitment side of our business. It’s called a trait. You can’t train it. It’s just an untrainable thing. And you always want to look for people with those traits because frankly, just for whatever reason, you can’t build it. 80% of the innovation comes from 20% of the work.
We have something called the Pareto Principle, which was found in crop yields initially, before the Modern Age, when 20% of the crops would yield 80% of the output. And it was found that that works anywhere in your wardrobe. You probably wear 20% of your clothes, 80% of the time. So, there’s always these little tricks and factors that come up that are really interesting to observe, and it’s always great to light up. I think the audience we have are the types of folks who understand that.
Doug Plucknette: By the way, Dr. Daniels also said about the top 10, they can and often will be your most difficult employees.
Chris Pepin: Yeah because they care.
Doug Plucknette: They do care.
Chris Pepin: And they’re a pain in the ass. Yeah because it matters.
Doug Plucknette: And when they get to a point when they have gone quiet, you’re about to lose them because they no longer care. They’re going to tell you things, and they might be things that you don’t like to hear, but oftentimes are the things that are the truth. So he says, “Don’t think for a minute that those employees, because they are so motivated that they don’t need positive reinforcement. They still need to be recognized.” And what you end up doing is because they do some much, you just go, “That’s Tim. That’s the way Tim is. And you wind up taking those people for granted.
Chris Pepin: Because they don’t want to accept the recognition because they’re always looking for a better way. So they’re the least likely to acknowledge the recognition, but they’re the ones that need it the most too.
Doug Plucknette: Yeah.
Chris Pepin: It is an interesting dynamic. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we got off into the talent management side of things, which, being a talent acquisition company happens from time to time.
But what I want to wrap this up with is there’s several topics that we’ve touched on here and we’re going to come up with in the next subsequent parts of the series. There’s effects that this insanity curve has on health, safety and environment. For your folks, obviously, there’s the effect of the insanity curve on your people, which you’ve heard a bit about. Doug and Tim are great examples of regardless of the curve and regardless of where you sit; you can still build a heck of a career for yourself. Reliability and equipment lifecycle was just right where we got started today.
Then the last piece that we want to get to is, how do you manage the skills and the wisdom that Doug and I were talking about? How do you manage those that have gone quiet? How do you make sure that your organization, if you’re a leader, doesn’t lose its most innovative people? And frankly also, if you yourself are in a situation where you’re going to need to look for a change or you’ve been put in a position where you’re forced to one, what to do, and what the opportunity is and what that life looks like afterwards.
So I think we’re about out of time, but Tim, I just wanted to kick it over to you. Do you have any final comments for our first meeting here, with respect to Doug’s comments, as well as anything else you’d like to leave for the audience?
Tim Goshert: Yeah. I guess I would like to reinforce what Doug said about being that top 10%. You as a person strive to be that 10%. Be curious. Understand what you’re working with. Learn all the time, and take the extra effort. I think you’ll provide value.
I think one of the things that I chose to do probably after a few years of my career with Cargill was I learned on my own. I was reading quite a bit. Nearly a book a month on different topics that, all of a sudden, if you do that for a five-year period, you learn a lot. You understand a lot. And then people around you and in your organization believe that you’re the expert because you have just immersed yourself in a certain topic or field. And that’s what happened to me with reliability and maintenance.
So, I would challenge people not to be complacent, to do the extra work, do it on your own, and learn. Learn things that interest you.
Chris Pepin: Doug. Anything? Any final comments for today?
Doug Plucknette: I think I’m good, and I’m looking forward to the rest of this discussion. We’ve got a lot of great things to talk about.
Chris Pepin: Yeah.
Doug Plucknette: That’s the best part about this. I think when we initially started discussing this, it was, “Oh gosh, here’s what’s going to happen. Here’s what’s coming.” And thanks to Tim, it was, we need to just swap this around and say, “What are the potential benefits of this? What can we get out of this?” And that’s really what the end of this is to say, “Look, there’s opportunity here.” And there’s opportunity for everybody. Everybody.
I look forward to finishing these out and having people comment on some of the things that we’re discussing, because we’ve all been through it. There is that light at the end of the tunnel. It is going to come. A lot of people are going to find a benefit from this, and that’s the exciting part.
Chris Pepin: Well, thank you very much for giving this a listen. We hope you got some value. Please feel free to comment and catch us on the Internet. Obviously, we are heavily involved on LinkedIn. So if you look up Progressive Reliability. Or we also have a short hand, PRORELI. You can reach me directly. I’ve got a short handle, email@example.com. My name’s Chris Pepin. So, make that real simple, firstname.lastname@example.org. And you can reach out with any questions or comments.
We are wide open to help bring some value to the market. And again, thank you so much for listening. We look forward to seeing you on the next two episodes, which are being launched simultaneously. So you’ll find those as well as the white paper on our website. So you can go to proreli.com. And we’ve got a white paper on the research and the details we’ve pulled from these three interviews. Thanks a lot.