The Best: Radar App

It is that time of year again, time for tornadoes and severe weather. And if you are anything like me you are obsessed with tracking severe weather that might impact you.

Okay, chances are you are nothing like me. But, everyone can appreciate a good radar now and then. When someone says “looks like rain” the first thing everyone does is open up their weather app and start animating the radar, as if they know what’s going on.

I’ve been on a constant hunt for a good radar app for my phone. It has been a painfully slow journey but I have finally found one that lives up to my standards. It’s called RadarScope and it is the best radar application money can buy. You can find it on the App Store, Google Play, and they even have a Mac App.

And relative to other apps, it will take money to buy it. $10 to be exact for the mobile versions ($30 for the Mac App). Which is like a Rolls Royce in a world where apps cost under $1.

RadarScope is packed with features. Some are unnecessary for people that don’t know much about radar, but with a little knowledge it becomes an immensely powerful tool.

2015-04-10 22.01.22The first step to RadarScope is selecting the radar. The National Weather Service has radars deployed all over the country. User friendly radar services will stitch readings from these radars together so sweeping throughout the country is seamless. In reality, each radar acts independently, so in RadarScope you have to manually select the radar to get the readings.

At the bottom of the radar screen you’ll see a few icons, the left most finds your current location, the radar icon shows available radars and allows you to select the one you’d like to view, the play button loops the radar, and the sliders button launches into settings.

The middle text that reads “HD BREF 1” allows you to change your radar selection. This is where things can get hairy.

It helps to understand the basics of radar. It works by shooting radio waves out into the sky and keeping tabs on what waves have returned. That is the overly simplistic definition, but that’s largely what’s going on.

So basic radar measures reflectivity – in other words, we shot out a signal and it reflected off something and came back, so something is out there! That is the classic radar you’ll see on TV or online, showing you precipitation and its intensity.

But have you ever heard of “doppler radar indicated tornadoes?” In modern times, radar is what triggers a tornado warning, not a spotted tornado on the ground. And this radar technology is called velocity.

2015-04-10 22.01.36It essentially executes the same process as reflectivity (shoot a beam out, see if it comes back) but it can measure the direction the object is moving and the velocity in which it is moving. This is critical because tornadoes obviously have wind moving in different directions.

When you open this map, you’ll see green dots and red dots. Red dots indicate movement away from the radar (think double-R, Red is Running), and green indicates movement towards the radar. Additionally, the lighter the shade, the more intense the velocity.

So as you can imagine, red next to green is bad. And this is primarily how tornadoes are indicated on doppler radar.

RadarScope has some other awesome features. Head over to the settings section, click on “Layers” and turn on Storm Track. This provides a nice line indicating the direction the storm is moving. With this you can get a glimpse of how severe weather might impact your exact location.

If you are really a weather geek I’d also recommend paying the $10 a year to get the premium version. This turns on live lighting strike tracking. Cloud to ground lightning is serious stuff, and seeing if an approaching storm has a lot of it is particularly useful.

RadarScope will also provide outlines of counties currently under warnings. It also has a bunch of other radar types I didn’t talk about (like correlation coefficient, which detects the similarities of objects found on radar – helps in finding a tornado that is kicking up debris).

It also has a map overlay that shows storm totals for rain and snow events.

Basically, RadarScope is awesome. If you are interested in the finer points of radar and weather, get it. Don’t even hesitate.

Smartwatches are Superfluous

I’ve been wearing an Android Wear smartwatch for nearly a year, and not wearing one for a few days.

I can safely say one thing. Smartwatches are without a doubt superfluous items. They are wholly unnecessary. They are devices looking for a problem to solve. They will never be mainstream.

Okay, that’s a lot of ice water on a hot item in one paragraph, but I mean every word of it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve loved the year I’ve spent with Android Wear. But over the past few days living without it has been incredibly easy and painless. I haven’t missed anything.

Some background; I decided to stop wearing my Moto 360 for two reasons:

  1. I wanted to test its impact on my phone’s battery life.
  2. I had been feeling anxious the last couple of days and wanted to experiment with removing some distractions from my life.

I succeeded on both counts, my phone’s battery life managed to improve and I actually felt a little liberated without my watch. I didn’t have three devices buzzing around me when a text message arrived.

But allow me to elaborate a bit more on my realization that smartwatches are not a necessity and never will be. There a few reasons I believe this:

They Do Not Solve a Problem

Explain to me the problem that smartwatches solve that justify at $350 price tag? There isn’t one. It doesn’t replace your phone, it makes your phone – and the information on it – somewhat more accessible. However, it does this by, in many cases, making it more frustrating. The screen is considerably smaller, so any typing is out of the question, and voice dictation is still a social stigma.

At best, it solves the problem of providing you information closer to the point of need, but that’s a problem more in theory than in practice. In the several situations where I felt a smartwatch actually solved a problem, I can confidently say solving that problem was not worth the price tag.

Even when someone asks me if I like my watch, I say yes but then consistently struggle to explain its actual value.

Or maybe it solves the laborious task of removing your phone from your pocket and turning it on?

It De-Converges a Device Built on Convergence

On the flip side, smartphones solve a clear problem; the proliferation of devices. The solution is to converge all of these devices we would otherwise carry into a compact screen that fits in your pocket.

That’s awesome. It is a real problem. It also solves the problem of immobile information. Dumb phones could make calls but you still needed a GPS to get around. You still needed a newspaper to read the news outside of a building and without WiFi. The phone – and subsequent apps – solved this problem.

The phone was about convergence.

With the smartwatch we are essentially saying that the phone has reached such a high-level of convergence that we need an accessory to manage it all. In other words, there’s so much going on in your phone that you need a $350 device to decouple some of it.

That kind of seems…silly.

It is a Transient Device

I do believe there is a problem to solve with making information more accessible. The problem to solve is really one of parsing through the massive amount of information available. The solution for this is more in software, but there is a play for hardware.

From a hardware perspective, providing information at the point of need would mean that any deviation from the action I am performing is a distraction. The ultimately goal would be to have software parse the information, find the most relevant piece, and the hardware would serve it up without distracting the user.

The obvious endgame in wearables is one that integrates with your head and your eyesight. A solution that allows you to maintain your focus to the task at hand while simultaneously consuming pertinent information about the task.

A smartwatch does not achieve this. It is marginally better than a phone at providing information in a non-distracting fashion.

And the current solutions on the market only address the hardware side. Google is attempting to build logical software that can determine the information you need when you need it, and that is a principle of Android Wear, but it has not been successfully executed. The device still alerts you of every notification on your phone. User intervention is still required to customize the alert frequency.

Same goes for the Apple Watch, but Apple isn’t even trying to create the logic to parse through information. In fact, they are giving you more information with their solution. Their watch is an accessory in so much that it requires a phone to connect with, but it is clearly targeted as a device to interact with outside of just consuming information.

The real winner in this race will be the one that can create logical software that chunks information by relevancy and releases it to you intelligently. That’s the real problem.

So for now, smartwatches will appeal to tech geeks and early adopters, but don’t expect them to hit the mainstream. For everyone else they are just superfluous computers on your wrist.

Maintaining Silence in a Loud World

james-robertsonJames Robertson is an incredible man.

He wakes up every day and commutes 23 miles to work. At the end of the day, he’ll commute the same 23 miles home. No big deal, right? A lot of people commute that length or longer.

The difference is Robertson walks 21 of the total 46 miles of his commute. He commutes via public transit for the other 25.

Robertson made headlines recently for his unbelievable dedication to his work. However, if he had it his way, no one would know. Robertson was not screaming from the roof tops or complaining about his lack of transportation, he was just walking to work – minding his own business.

It was a fellow commuter who reached out to the Detroit Free Press to tell Robertson’s tale.

Robertson’s story is incredible. Of course the sheer number of miles he walks daily is amazing, but the fact that he did so silently and humbly is inspiring.

In her book “Quiet” Susan Cain describes the transition from a culture of character to one of personality. Once upon a time we valued a man of values over a man of humor and a good time.

I read Robertson’s story before the Super Bowl, and I could not help but juxtapose it to another famous male of our day; Richard Sherman.

If you asked people which name they recognized, Sherman or Robertson, I’m sure Sherman would take all the votes. After all, Sherman is famous for screaming on national television that he is the best cornerback in the National Football League. Sherman plays a game for a living, meanwhile Robertson walks 21 miles a day just to bust his ass on a factory floor.

Sherman is loud and brash, he is the opposite of humble. Robertson, however, is the poster child for humility.

A college student launched a GoFundMe for Robertson, with a goal of raising $25,000 for a new car. The initiative raised $315,000 and counting. Robertson was grateful, and he used his small fortune to buy a new Ford Taurus. A car that cost 10% of the amount raised. Again, the man is the epitome of humble and quiet.

If you were crafting a male role model for your son, would you make a man like Sherman or Robertson?

Hopefully, you answered the later. But in a world dominated by constant information, we have come to value personality over character.

In the book “Amusing Ourselves to Death” Neil Postman argues that the constant stream of information presented to us is morphing everything into entertainment. News, religion, politics, whatever – it all becomes entertainment.

Postman continued by theorizing that we will become desensitized, and will no longer care about a void of meaning so long as we are being amused.

Richard Sherman is amusement. He constantly reminds you that he is the best, he constantly reminds you that his counterparts on opposing teams are inferior, and he does so loudly.

Meanwhile, a man in Detroit was walking 21 miles a day to work so he could make $400. No one knew about James Robertson, the entire world heard the boasting of Richard Sherman.

As a culture, when we value loudness over quietness and egotism over humility, we will breed men who hold those values. Do we want those men?

I propose we begin valuing character again. That we teach our children the importance of greatness and being humble in that greatness. And that we, as adults, listen more than we talk.

Smells Like an Election

Ah, the smell of election season in the air.

Anyone who knows me knows I love elections. I purposefully left political commentary years ago, but I still enjoy the strategy and gamesmanship of elections.

So what the hell, I’ll blog the 2016 election. It is a fun one after all, primaries on both sides, old nominees that just won’t go away, a surplus of Clinton’s and Bush’s.

This election is pivotal. Gridlock will be the tone for the next two years of Obama’s presidency, with a Republican controlled Senate and House, absolutely nothing will be accomplished. Both sides will blame the other, and we will all suffer.

So who will take over the reigns and try to “fix” Washington? Good question…

Wait, Didn’t That Romney Guy Run Already?

Yes, twice. And he needs to stop. Romney, please, do not run for President.

It is not that I do not like Romney, I actually do, and vocally supported him in both 2008 (after Guiliani dropped out) and 2012, but old names is the main theme on both sides of this race, and the GOP desperately needs someone fresh and new.

Who that is, I have no idea, but Romney is neither fresh nor new. He is too robotic and emotionless for people’s liking, and running again just makes him look desperate and power hungry.

The latest polls, for what they’re worth, show him with as much as an 11 point lead, but that likely has more to do with name recognition than anything else. Once people start actually paying attention to the 2016 campaign, I think Romney will see that he’s not welcomed.

Clinton is Going to Be the Next President, Right?

Wrong. Here is my way too early prediction; Hillary will not be the next President of the United States.

I say that because 1.) I like to disagree with people and it is easy to predict she will win and 2.) it goes back to the name recognition blessing and curse. In most elections name recognition is a huge advantage, but we are not living in a world where information is disseminated through newspapers and by horses. Name recognition is important, but information is a dime a dozen now, and getting your name out there is much easier.

It is also a curse because in an election filled with has-beens, it is an advantage to be a never-was. Especially in today’s political climate. Sure, it makes fundraising more difficult, but it provides a clean slate to brand yourself on the national stage.

There is a certain contingent of democrats that love Hillary, and always will. But I think independents and middle-leaning democrats are not that interested in her. Someone else will emerge on the left to give her a run for her money, mark my words.

With that said, the Democratic ticket looks mighty thin right now. Biden is a joke, no one takes him seriously. Elizabeth Warren is too inexperienced. And everyone else is just a blip on the radar. Someone will emerge, but I don’t think they are on the current slate of potential nominees.

Who are the Strongest GOP Nominees?


Ha, just kidding. I think they go in this order:

1. Benjamin Carson – I say he is the strongest because I think he fits the profile for voters. He is well spoken, intelligent, has a non-political background, and has strong faith. His speeches have been right-wing porn for years, and he should have no problem raising funds. The downside to Carson is high lack of closet cleaning. Everybody knows everything about Romney, but Carson’s history has not been explored quite yet.

2. Scott Walker – He has a strong story; working to bring back Wisconsin – a generally blue state – by fighting Unions and being all conservative and stuff. That will help win the nomination, but the Union issue might bite him in the general election, especially in strong Union swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

3. Chris Christie – Is he too harsh for the national stage? That remains to be seen. His brash “shut up and do as I say” attitude works in New Jersey because, well, that’s kind of how people in New Jersey act, but it probably won’t play as well in say, Iowa. And that’s a rather important state in this whole nomination process. Regardless, he trumps Carson for speeches most utilized as right-wing porn, and he plays very well for independents. Strong conservatives do and will continue to take issue with him, but assuming he can get enough center-focused republicans on board, he could be okay.

4. Paul Ryan – He had his closet cleaned out during the last presidential election. He is smart, numbers focused, and loves to talk about big issues like taxes and Social Security. He is rare in that he actually provides solutions to problems, instead of just pointing them out. The issue with Ryan is his stage presence and overall oratory skills. He’s well spoken, but not in the “fire-up a crowd” kind of way.

5. Jeb Bush – A certain group of people will ignore him because his last name is Bush. More mature people will actually explore his background and make a decision. Personally, I don’t know enough about his history to make a solid choice. From a pure strategy perspective, he needs to distance himself from his family without distancing himself from his family. Easy, right? In a race full of names, that might be his curse.

How to Maximize Failure

Fail and fail fast.

That is becoming a common line in the business world. Finally, people and companies are embracing the concept of failure.

That is fantastic. The idea that “Failure is not an Option” is silly, of course failure is not an option, it is a requirement.

You will fail. Like it or not, it will happen. And as the tired line goes, you have to learn from those failures.

But while people spend time “learning” from their failures, there is a more fruitful way to approach the idea of failure.

It is time to minimize and maximize our failures.

Yes, failure will happen, but that does not mean you should not attempt to minimize it.

The first step in minimizing failure is to understand what causes failure. This depends on the industry and a myriad of other factors. For instance, for a retail outlet, failure might be not closing the sale, and the reason is a lack of training or employee autonomy.

That business can minimize failure by providing adequate education for their employees and giving them the freedom to close the sale — regardless of what it takes (within reason of course).

However, regardless of your efforts to minimize failure, it will occur. The key then is to maximize failure when it does happen.

What the hell does that mean? Failure has a cost, it is not a direct expense, but rather an opportunity cost. Put a different way, how much profit would you have made on that failure?

This does not have to be exact science, it is rather a guiding variable to understand the concept of maximizing your failures.

For example, let’s say you were in the running for a $100,000 deal, and your company’s profit margin was 8%. That means theoretically you would have netted $8,000 on that deal.

So, how can you derive $8,000 worth of value out of that failure? People always talk about “learning from their mistakes” but how many actually do that in practice? In the wake of failure, it can be difficult to fully comprehend all you learned from it.

Maybe that deal stretched your team beyond their comfort zone and they learned something new they can apply elsewhere. How much would it have cost to source that learning from a third party?

Maybe two junior-level employees worked the deal and picked up indispensable knowledge and experience about closing deals and dealing with potential clients. How much would it have cost to source that training from a third party? And would it have been of the same quality as real world experience?

At the end of the year, determine the potential profit lost from all your deals, and do not view that as a lost opportunity, but as an investment in your employees. Ask yourself, did we get this much value out of those experiences?

If the answer is no, why not? Do your employees self-evaluate themselves after failures? Do you have a framework for self-evaluation? Do you embrace and encourage failure or do you punish it?

Understand that some employees will thrive on failure and learn an immense amount from it without the intervention of a superior. But others might not be that inwardly focused, and may need some external prompts to self-reflect on their experiences.

Ultimately, you should not fire someone for failing, you should fire them for not learning from those failures — or not deriving enough value out of them.

Maximizing your failures provides the prospective that not all failures are created equal. Not landing a $1 million deal is more impactful than not landing a $10,000 deal. However, hopefully you learned more from the former than the latter.

Either way, you should be aware of your “cost of failure.” Then you can begin comparing failure year-over-year.

And hopefully begin minimizing it overall.

The Best: Car Mount

Not too long ago I commuted one hour 20 minutes each day. I spent a lot of time in the car and relied on my phone quite a bit.

And like most people, I retired my standalone GPS unit years ago, relying solely on my phone and Google Maps (free map updates are nice).

So it goes without saying that a solid car mount is meaningful to me, my phone needs to be securely supported and visible.

ram-car-mountI’ve tried several car mounts, from manufacture ones (HTC’s One M8 car mount is actually fantastic), to third-party ones. But without question the best car mount money can buy is the Ram Mount X-Grip.

Ram makes great mounts because they make mounts.

I know that sounds obvious, but the truth is most companies that sell cell phone mounts make cell phone accessories, or in the case of manufactures they make phones. Ram specializes in mounts.

They make mounts for industrial farming, commercial aviation, law enforcement, and even the military. It shows in their product quality.

The first thing I noticed when opening the X-Grip box was how rock solid if felt. But beyond build quality, the product just does what it should do.

I need a car mount to do a few things: hold my phone securely, not vibrate when I drive, and stay suctioned to my windshield or dash.

The Ram Mount X-Grip gets all three done. Placing your phone is easy, just cinch two corners of the X-Grip, place your phone, and release. Done.

The phone can be tilted side to side or rotated by loosening the lock. And for once the thing doesn’t vibrate like mad when I drive.

It is also easy to transport, unlock the suction cup, pull off, and apply elsewhere.

I do not hesitate recommending the Ram Mount X-Grip when someone asks for a solid car mount. And that is why it is the best car mount money can buy.

The Best is a series dedicated to products that I personally own and love. A co-worker pointed out that I do extensive research on everything I buy (which is true), but that also means I generally end up loving what I buy. So I decided, why not spread the love?

How Not to be a Veruca Salt

Remember Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?

She was the stuck up little girl who was spoiled by her wealthy father and wanted everything right now – specifically a golden goose. When her father asks Willy Wonka how much for a golden goose he replies “she can’t have one.”

This sends Veruca into a musical spoiled brat rage, until she ultimately meets her demise going down the goose egg chute.

Despite the seemingly over-the-top portrayal of spoiled brats, this depiction is not too far from how some companies act when they need a solution to a problem.

Veruca Salt being an annoying brat

Veruca Salt being an annoying brat

Frequently the tone is “I want it now” with the powers that be pressuring employees to deliver projects immediately, without understanding the repercussions of that demand.

Typically, if the tone is “I want it now” it indicts a greater problem with mixed priorities. In that tone, the priority is not creating a good solution that solves the correct problem, the priority is developing a solution – any solution – to prove that the objective was met.

Unfortunately, the objective should not be developing a solution, the objective should be developing a solution that solves the correct problem. The solution is not the objective, it is exactly that – the solution. And by definition you cannot have a solution without a problem.

Oftentimes, the “I want it now” mentality is driven by a need to spend money. The end of year comes and you have extra dollars to burn, this can happen for a variety of reasons, but if it happens often it can signal poor planning at the enterprise-level.

But even if this occurs infrequently, it is typically executed poorly. Solutions are rushed, requirements are not gathered, and ultimately a poor piece of software is developed. Instead, work with the service company that develops your software, they will gladly let you pre-pay for a bucket of hours that you can utilize in the new year for a thoughtfully designed approach.

I’ve seen the “I want it now” mentality from within the walls of a Fortune 500 company, and from the outside at a service company, it is a common mentality, and I oftentimes think that if we could overcome it a new era of innovation and productivity would be unlocked.

Think about all the solutions developed that are poorly created, and the impact they have on business. The problems they are intended to solve remain unsolved, which creates more problems. Employees grow frustrated by a solution they have to rework or learn to work around, and while their previous process may have been manual and inefficient, frustrated employees working around a piece of technology is just as inefficient.

Additionally, there is a contingent of IT folks trying desperately to make the technology work, despite its flawed design. This typically occurs when a company has spent a large amount of money developing and rolling out a solution. The larger the time and money invested, the less likely a company is to squash a poor solution.

This syndrome of “I spent so much money, so dammit we are going to make this work” baffles me. Even when everyone knows the solution is poor and causes more problems than it solves, the powers that be refuse to squash it dead.

It is one thing to be a Veruca Salt, it is another to be stubborn and not willing to admit when a poor solution was created.

So, how do you avoid being a Veruca Salt?

Create a group that plans technology one, three, and five years out

If you do not have an Enterprise Architecture group that oversees all technology planning organization wide, you are bound to become a stubborn Veruca Salt.

In typical IT teams, there are support groups for every aspect of the organization; one for Marketing, Sales, and any other business critical team. This is great for diving into granular details of supporting that portion of the business, but it is awful for creating efficient processes and technology, without overlap.

I’ve heard countless tales of groups designing, and even developing, a solution only to find out that it already exists within the organization, or is being developed by another group in parallel. To avoid this, someone in the organization needs an enterprise-wide view of the technology roadmap.

This group should then influence the capital dollar allocation for each supporting IT group. This ensures there is no overlap in development, and one group can piggyback off another group’s development.

They can also plan several years in advance and be forward looking, constantly adjusting their plans based on the latest innovations. This practice has to be fluid, because today’s hypotheses for technology in three or five years, are typically inaccurate. But someone in the organization needs to be responsible for zooming out and not focusing on the day-to-day granularity.

Reward Good Solutions, Not Just Big Ones

Most groups in charge of technology have some reward system for the work they do. This is good, it plays into employees intrinsic need for reward and recognition, and provides something for employees to work towards.

However, these awards are typically polluted by politics and the size of the solution. They are awarded to solutions that involved a large number of people, instead of ones that were successful.

This isn’t to say that large solutions cannot be successful, of course they can. And when they are, they should receive reward and recognition. However, too often the litmus test for receiving an award is the size of the solution and the group that worked on it.

Instead, consider smaller solutions that achieved their goals and objectives and solved their problem with great success, even if these solutions were only led by ten, five, or even one person. This will set the precedent that well thought out solutions that solve the problems they were designed to solve will receive reward and recognition.

In fact, rewarding a large group of people for a large project can actually have a negative impact on employee morale. When I was working in Corporate America, I was given two CIO Excellence Awards – the highest honor of the department. They were both for massive projects for which I had little impact. Of course I was grateful to receive the honor, but I felt there were several other smaller projects I worked on where I had a more meaningful impact.

Hire Problem Solvers, Not Just Subject Matter Experts

Conventional wisdom is to hire subject matter experts for certain roles. IT needs to focus on mobile technology, social media, and email marketing, so they hire people that are “experts” in those areas.

The problem with experts is that they come with natural biases. Their experience can oftentimes cloud their judgement of problems and solutions. This typically manifests itself in putting the solution before the problem; in other words, recommending a solution before the problem has been properly defined.

Problem Solvers, on the other hand, are chameleons, they can adapt to a variety of roles because they focus on problem definition and have a laser focus on solving the problem, with a neotenous view.

Of course there is still a place for subject matter experts, they should work alongside the problem solvers to find the correct solution and define the real problem, but organizations should build an army of problem solvers they can pull from when a new solution is needed.

Juggle Patience with Impatience

Regardless of the implementation of the above recommendations, it will all be for naught if there is not some cultural transformation in the organization. The culture needs to shift from immediate results and immediate gratification, to one of patience and understanding that the right solution takes time to design and implement.

However, you cannot wait forever, and there needs to be some sense of urgency when developing software. That is a fine line to walk, it is not easy to be patient and impatient at the same time; but it can be done. It all starts with setting realistic deadlines. Steve Jobs was famous for setting tight deadlines, but delaying launches until the product was perfect.

Jobs understood that deadlines were important for work to get done. Our brains are designed to work within the framework of challenges, and a directive and deadline provides just that – get “x” done within “y” timeframe. However, Jobs also understood that launching a subpar product was unacceptable and detrimental to Apple’s long-term success.

Long-term thinking is a culture shift by itself. The current mindset is the short-term gain is easy, but betting on the long-term is risky. But the truth is both are risky. Take for example the cell phone industry.

Carriers are designed to bank on short-term gains, they are prepared to nickel and dime customers at every turn, risking the long-term loyalty of those customers. Every time a decision is made to take the short-term gain, a long-term risk is taken.

Weighing the long-term with the short-term is vital. It takes patience, but it typically pays off in the end.

Veruca Salt was impatient, she wanted the golden goose and she wanted it now. Meanwhile, Charlie was patient and honest. He sought the long-term benefits instead of the short-term rush of revenge. He waited and was presented with a fantastic situation, ownership of the chocolate factory.

Patience reaps rewards, but it has to be juggled appropriately with the increased demands of the business world. That juggling act is no small feat.

But it pays much larger dividends than being a Veruca Salt.