By Marcelo Trevino, President, Global Regulatory Affairs and Quality Systems, TregMedical Compliance Services

[Editor's Note: This article has been updated to reflect the Dec. 10, 2019, publication ofISO 14971:2019]

Historically, risk management has been a complex subject, with different stakeholders assigning different values on the probability and severity of harm. In medical devices, its high importance has necessitated ISO 14971 providing a generic risk-management framework applicable to all medical devices, from design and development through production and post-production activities.

The third edition of ISO 14971 in addition to an updated companion report, ISO/TR 24971 provides clearer guidance and greater detail in the application of risk management concepts while aligning with essential safety and performance principles. European directives and regulations do not provide enough guidance on additional steps to take in the risk management process, nor on the acceptability of residual risks, so this standard represents the state of the art.

The new European EU MDR and IVDR require manufacturers to implement a quality management system that incorporates risk management. While Annexes Z have been prepared to harmonize the risk management standard with the European Medical Device and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device directives, as well as the new European regulations, ISO 14971:2019 waspublished on Dec. 10,2019,without including these Annexes, for now.

Risk Management Process Steps in ISO 14971:2019

While most of ISO 14971:2019s risk management concepts are not new, below is a summary of the risk management process as defined in the standards third edition:

Step 1: Risk Management Plan A risk management plan outlines all risk management activities to be conducted over a medical devices life cycle, including criteria for risk acceptability based on regulations, international standards, state of the art, and stakeholder concerns. Activities to verify implementation and effectiveness of risk control measures, as well as information to be collected during production and postmarket activities, also must be included in the plan. A risk management report is created after review of the plan execution.

Step 2: Risk Assessment The risk assessment step includes risk analysis and risk evaluation.

Risk Analysis: The medical devices intended use is documented, an essential step to determine the devices appropriate use. Reasonably foreseeable misuse errors (including abnormal use) and correct use are considered and documented. Usability engineering is applied to consider all risks and reduce them by adding controls, as needed.

Additionally, device characteristics that can affect safety are identified. Reasonably foreseeable events that can contribute to hazardous situations taking into account intended use, reasonably foreseeable misuse, and safety related characteristics all are relevant inputs in this hazard analysis. Finally, the risk of each identified hazardous situation is estimated, taking into account severity of harm and the probability of its occurrence.

Risk Evaluation: During this phase, risks are assessed using criteria for risk acceptability defined in the risk management plan. If the risk is deemed acceptable, it becomes the residual risk; otherwise, risk control activities are performed. The evaluation is documented as part of the risk management file.

Step 3: Risk Control Risk is reduced to an acceptable level. This can be done by designing the device to be inherently safe, ensuring that hazardous situations cant occur. If this is not feasible, then protective measures are implemented in the device design to reduce the probability of occurrence and the severity of a hazardous situation or harm. When protective measures do not sufficiently reduce risk, safety information is provided to device users in instructions, warnings, and contraindications. User training can also be incorporated. It is important to ensure that risk control measures do not incorporate new risks or influence other risks.

Risk mitigation measures are implemented, verified for effectiveness, and documented. Residual risks are then evaluated using risk acceptability criteria. If the risk is deemed unacceptable, more risk control activities need to be implemented. When risk controls are not feasible, a benefit-risk analysis can be conducted to determine whether benefits of using the medical device outweigh its residual risk. Depending on the outcome, the device may need to be modified, or its intended use limited.

Step 4: Evaluation of Overall Residual Risk The contributions of all individual risks together are analyzed to ensure that several small risks do not create an unexpected big risk. The method and criteria for acceptability of overall residual risk is documented in the risk management plan to ensure an objective evaluation takes place.

It is important to note that the criteria for acceptability of overall residual risk can differ from the criteria of acceptability of individual risk based on the organizations procedure to determine acceptable risk. Residual risks inherent in a devices use after all risk control measures have been implemented must be disclosed to users, allowing them to make an informed decision whether to use the device or find alternatives, considering the patients condition.

Step 5: Risk Management Review This step comprises conducting a review of the risk management plan to ensure it was properly executed and documenting that the residual risk is acceptable. This review is documented in the risk management report, providing evidence that the plan was effectively executed, the objectives were achieved, and that methods to collect production and post-production information are established.

Step 6: Production and Post-Production activities This step includes four phases, each with detailed activities to be implemented:

Summary of Changes from ISO 14971:2019

These are the new definitions in ISO 14971:2019:

Benefit: Positive impact or desirable outcome of the use of a medical device in the health of an individual, or a positive impact on patient management or public health.

Benefitscan include positive impact on clinical outcome, the patients quality of life, outcomes related to diagnosis, positive impact from diagnostic devices on clinical outcomes, or positive impact on public health.

It is important to note that the risk-benefit analysis requirements are not expected to change.

Reasonably foreseeable misuse: Use of a product or system in a way not intended by the manufacturer, but which can result from readily predictable human behavior.

Readily predictable human behaviour includes the behaviour of all types of users, e.g. lay and professional users.

Reasonably foreseeable misusecan be intentional or unintentional.

State of the art: Developed state of technical capability at a given time as regards products, processes and services, based on the relevant consolidated findings of science, technology and experience.

Thestate of the artembodies what is currently and generally accepted as good practice in technology and medicine. Thestate of the artdoes not necessarily imply the most technologically advanced solution. Thestate of the artdescribed here is sometimes referred to as the generally acknowledgedstate of the art.

Other definitions from ISO 14971:2007 such as those for harm, manufacturer, user error, and in vitro diagnostic medical device were updated with minor wording changes

Comparing ISO 14971:2019 with ISO 14971:2007 / EN ISO 14971:2012

Underlined sections above constitute title changes new to the third edition. The main body of the standard includes 10 clauses instead of nine, as well as three informative Annexes Annex A: Rationale for requirements, Annex B: Risk Management Process for Medical Devices, and Annex C: Fundamental Risk Concepts.

A summary of the most relevant changes incorporated to the standard can be found below:

Conclusion

ISO 14971:2019 provides a thorough process for manufacturers to identify medical device hazards, assess risks, control risks, and monitor the effectiveness of risk controls throughout the life of a device. This new edition, consisting of 10 clauses and three annexes (informative), is aligned with the general safety and performance requirements within the new EU MDR and EU IVDR; it is expected to become a European harmonized standard and therefore represents the state of the art.

While the existing changes are aimed at clarifying concepts and no changes have been made to the overall process to conduct risk management, manufacturers still need to consider device-specific standards. These can be used in addition to ISO 14971 to control specific risks associated with some unique device categories to demonstrate how risks can be reduced to acceptable levels.

It is anticipated that some organizations will have to spend some time updating references to the previous standard in existing quality system documentation. ISO 14971:2019 cancels and replaces ISO 14971:2007.However, a transitional period of three years following official publication is a common practice to allow stakeholders to successfully transition to the new edition.

About The Author

Marcelo Trevino is the President, Global Regulatory Affairs and Quality Systems, at TregMedical Compliance Services, a life sciences consulting firm focused exclusively on regulatory, quality, and compliance solutions for medical device companies.

Marcelo has 23+ years experience in quality and regulatory affairs, serving in multiple senior leadership roles with different organizations while managing a variety of medical devices: surgical heart valves, patient monitoring devices, insulin pump therapies, surgical instruments, orthopedics, medical imaging/surgical navigation, amongothers. He has an extensive knowledge of medical device management systems and medical device regulations worldwide (ISO 13485:2016, ISO 14971:2019, EU MDD/MDR, MDSAP). Mr. Trevino holds a B.S. degree in Industrial and Systems Engineering and an MBA in Supply Chain Management from the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. He is also a certified Quality Management Systems Lead Auditor by Exemplar Global.

He has experience working on Lean Six Sigma Projects and many Quality/Regulatory Affairs initiatives in the US and around the world including Third Party Auditing through Notified Bodies, Supplier Audits, Risk Management, Process Validation and remediation activities.

Additionally, he is a Certified Six Sigma Black Belt and Biomedical Auditor through the American Society for Quality (ASQ) and holds Certificates in Environmental & Sustainability Management Regulatory Affairs Management from University of California, Irvine.

He regularly publishes articles to assist corporations in their quest for exceptional quality and regulatory compliance.

View original post here:
Analyzing The changes To Risk Management Standard ISO 149712019 - Med Device Online

See also Personality assessments in the workplace: harmful or helpful?

William Mardsten introduced the DISC acronym in the 1920s to highlight four behavioral traits: dominance, influence, steadiness and compliance. This assessment has since been used by many companies to better understand the dynamics of the workforce.

Robert Rohm, owner of Personality Insights, developed a method to simplify and help people apply the DISC assessment. His refined model, known as the DISC Human Model of Behavior, modified the four-letter acronym to represent more intuitive primary descriptors: dominant, inspiring, supportive and cautious.

A distinguishing feature of the DISC assessment is that it highlights the strengths of a personality style.

It tells you whats right about you, not whats wrong about you. Its a wellness model, Rohm said.

An explanation of the primary descriptors of Rohms DISC model is as follows:

Dominant: Direct, demanding, decisive and determined. Individuals with this personality trait are outgoing and task-oriented.

Inspiring: Influencing, impressionable, interactive, impressive and involved. Individuals with this personality trait are also considered to be outgoing, but are more people-oriented.

Supportive: Stable, steady, sweet and shy. These individuals are more reserved, prefer consistency and are people-oriented.

Cautious: Calculating, competent, conscientious, contemplative and careful. Individuals with this personality trait are also more reserved and considered to be task-oriented.

People who understand the DISC Human Model of Behavior can gain confidence in their strengths and abilities, learn how to respond to conflict and discover what motivates them, according to Rohm.

The DISC assessment puts people where they can succeed and put their best foot forward, Rohm said. It puts them where they can sparkle and shine by using their gifts, talents and abilities.

Follow this link:
Model of human behavior is one factor in workplace personality testing - Universe.byu.edu

Waymo acquired Latent Logic, a UK start-up that uses imitation learning to simulate models of human behavior on the road. Financial details of the acquisition were not disclosed, but it marks the launch of Waymos first European engineering hub, which will be located in Oxford.

Spun out of Oxford University in 2017, Latent Logic develops simulations of motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian behavior using data collected from traffic cameras. This data is used to create simulation environments that might help autonomous vehicles interact more safely with human beings. Cyclists are considered by many to be the most difficult detection problem for autonomous vehicles.

An archived version of the Latent Logic website describes its technology: There are two stages to our learning process: extraction of behaviours from raw data, and learning to imitate those behaviours. Computer Vision detects road users and tracks their motion. Imitation Learning, also known as Learning from Demonstration, then learns to create new, artificial behaviours which are indistinguishable from the ones used as the demonstration input, meaning our virtual humans are completely realistic. Our virtual humans integrate with our customers preferred simulator via a standard API.

Latent Logic continues, rather than hard-coding a specific set of behaviours, we apply machine learning to create agents that develop their own behaviours based on how humans actually behave. Because an a-priori description of human behaviour in all possible situations is almost impossible, agents with hard-coded behaviour cannot have the same flexibility and adaptability as our AI agents.

The video below shows a short demonstration of the companys technology:

Waymo has often touted its approach to autonomous vehicle simulation. In July 2019, it announced it had driven 10 billion miles in simulation. It also said simulation becomes more realistic as you gain more real-world driving miles, and no company has more autonomous driving experience than Waymo.

Apparently simulation software is in high demand these days. Just yesterday, The Information reported Uber is in talks to acquire Silicon Valley-based simulation startup Foresight. According to the report, Ubers simulation software has suffered from various deficiencies and still has trouble predicting how its self-driving car prototypes will handle the real world.

Latent Logic tweeted that its team will remain in Oxford. And its two founders, Shimon Whiteson and Joo Messia, CEO Kirsty Lloyd-Jukes and other members of the engineering team will join Waymo.

By joining Waymo, we are taking a big leap towards realizing our ambition of safe, self-driving vehicles, said Latent Logic co-founder and chief scientist Shimon Whiteson. In just two years, we have made significant progress in using imitation learning to simulate real human behaviors on the road. Im excited by what we can now achieve in combining this expertise with the talent, resources and progress Waymo have already made in self-driving technology.

Today, Latent Logic becomes part of Waymo. Their uniquely talented team, based in Oxford, UK, uses imitation learning to simulate realistic models of human behavior on the roadkey to developing safe self-driving vehicles.

Waymo (@Waymo) December 12, 2019

Waymo recently started to operate its self-driving taxi service near Phoenix, Arizona, called Waymo One, without human safety drivers. The program turned one year old on December 5, and to celebrate the company launched its ride-hailing app in Apples App Store. While this shows it is interested in eventually expanding its customer base, the self-driving service will certainly remain hyper-localized for some time.

In August 2019, the Waymo Open Dataset was released for autonomous vehicle researchers. Available for free, the dataset covers a wide variety of environments, from dense urban centers to suburban landscapes. It also includes data collected during day and night, at dawn and dusk, in sunshine and rain.

Read more here:
Waymo buys Latent Logic for simulation of human behavior - Robot Report

Whether your company wants to break into a new market, increase brand loyalty, or develop a healthy workplace culture, changing human behavior is a necessary aspect. And as any manager or marketer will tell you, this can sometimes feel like an impossible task - habit formation comes naturally to human beings, but this means the creation of new habits and behaviors is often a battle against deeply entrenched ways of doing things.

As if this wasn't difficult enough, companies also have to figure out how to change behavior in a sustainable way. It doesn't matter if employees behave responsibly and respectfully whenever a manager is looking but revert to destructive habits when left alone - or if consumers decide to try a new product or service for a few months only to abandon it. Companies have to understand how to encourage long-term habits that aren't liable to shift at a moment's notice.

With that in mind, let's take a look at what the experts have to say about facilitating sustainable behavioral change that will help companies become as productive and secure as possible.

Behavioral change begins with leadership

How many new senior-level executives have sat through a long and dreary PowerPoint presentation that included the word "leadership" on every slide? How many articles are published every day outlining the "top 10 ways to be a great leader"? When you think of all the books, podcasts, and seminars about leadership, it's striking that companies still have such a hard time identifying, educating, and supporting effective leaders.

According to Gallup's State of the American Manager Report, almost two-thirds of managers in the U.S. aren't engaged at work. Gallup points out that this has a direct impact on employee engagement (with 70 percent of the variance in employee engagement scores attributable to management), and a staggering 50 percent of U.S. workers report that they've left a job to get away from a bad manager.

Torch is a leadership development platform designed to solve these problems. By providing founders, CEOs, and senior-level executives with a personalized solution that gives them access to rigorous, data-driven performance metrics, one-on-one coaching, anonymous colleague feedback, and other tools that increase accountability and transparency, Torch helps companies maintain a consistent focus on leadership. As Torch co-founder and COO Keegan Walden explains, the platform exists to "create sustained positive behavior change among employees."

There's a reason Torch has raised $13.5 million and worked with high-profile clients like Reddit co-founder and CEO Steve Huffman. Garry Tan, the co-founder of Initialized Capital, learned that he needed to be less avoidant of conflict and has embraced radical candor (among other things) as a result of his coaching. Unlike typical training solutions, which treat leadership as a skill that can be taught in an afternoon or two, Torch recognizes that leadership has to be developed and maintained over time. As Walden observes, "If standard training seminars were all it took to make managers into great leaders, we would have solved this problem long ago." Considering the impact that effective managers and other leaders have on employee behavior, it's clear that a more holistic, evidence-based approach to leadership development is long overdue for many companies.

How education can change employee behavior

Just as leadership training can be a tedious and exhausting slog for managers, other forms of employee training are often even worse. If you've ever suffered through a battery of "training modules" on sexual harassment, updated HR policies, or cybersecurity, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

According to a survey conducted by the Society of Human Resource Management, just a quarter of employees say they're "very satisfied" with the job-specific training offered by their companies. Meanwhile, Gartner reports that 64 percent of managers "don't think their employees are able to keep pace with future skill needs." Despite the fact that companies spend more than $70 billion on training annually, it's clear that there are serious problems with the way companies are attempting to educate their employees and change their behavior.

Zack Schuler is the founder and CEO of a cybersecurity awareness training company NINJIO, and he's trying to change the dismal status quo when it comes to employee education. Like so many important subjects, cybersecurity is often addressed in a boring and perfunctory way - from mass emails to stuffy meetings with the IT team that are forgotten as soon as they end. Schuler describes these as "check-the-box" cybersecurity exercises that have nothing to do with creating lasting behavioral change - they're just a way for companies to feel like they've done something to make themselves more secure.

NINJIO emphatically rejects this approach. By offering three to four-minute Hollywood-style training episodes (which are based on real-life hacks and breaches), NINJIO makes employee engagement its top priority. The first step toward changing employees' behavior is capturing and holding their attention - how else will they retain the information they learn and put it into practice? This is why NINJIO relies on narrative-driven content, which has repeatedly proven to be a more effective learning tool than more traditional forms of studying. NINJIO also uses gamification techniques such as quizzes and leaderboards, which are designed to consistently reinforce what employees learn.

Behavior change begins with engagement and education, but this is a lesson many companies still haven't learned. While countless employees are still subjected to what Schuler describes as "death by PowerPoint" training initiatives, it's only a matter of time before companies realize that there's a better way to educate people.

Our habits define who we are

While it's crucial for employees to retain and recall what they learn, the ultimate goal is to get them to a point where they don't have to. In other words, they have to develop the right habits. A study in Psychology, Health & Medicine explains that habit formation "is an important goal for behavior change interventions because habitual behaviors are elicited automatically and are therefore likely to be maintained."

However, the most successful change agents don't stop there, which is why the theme of a recent NINJIO whitepaper is the intersection between habit formation and identity. For example, the whitepaper cites a 2019 study in Frontiers in Psychology, which reports that "individuals for whom habits are strongly related to feelings of identity show stronger cognitive self-integration, higher self-esteem, and a stronger striving toward an ideal self."

This is why NINJIO points out that good cybersecurity habits reflect "positive aspects of identity, such as responsibility, accountability, prudence, awareness, and so on." The same applies to the characteristics of an effective leader. A 2018 Deloitte survey found that U.S. employees value leaders who are communicative, flexible, and patient - all characteristics that Torch helps managers develop by giving them the tools to evaluate themselves, create a plan to change negative behaviors, and put that plan in motion.

The relationship between identity and behavior doesn't just apply to employees, either - consumers are also increasingly concerned about what their purchasing decisions say about who they are and what they value. This is why we've seen a dramatic rise in the number of belief-driven buyers - consumers who choose to do business with brands that reflect their attitudes on social and political issues. This is an extension of the surging demand for authenticity, which has a well-documented positive effect on brand trust. In other words, if brands genuinely believe in the principles they espouse and take steps to act on those principles, consumers will change their behavior accordingly.

Nobody wants to be a reckless employee who puts the whole company at risk, an ineffective manager who employees dread working with, or a consumer who supports unethical companies. This is why the most powerful behavior change strategy is to help people become the best version of themselves, a strategy that won't just make employees better at their jobs, companies better places to work, and relationships with consumers stronger than ever.

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

Read the original post:
Tips for Sustainably Forming Habits and Changing Human Behavior - Inc.

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Thanksgiving is behind us, Christmas is around the corner and the rest of the long, dark winter lies ahead -- and that means peak reading season is upon us.So here are a few books I will read, or atleaststart. What attracted me to these books is how they approach thinking about thinking: Each tries to tease out why our general understanding on a subject is so often wrong; they explore better cognitive frameworks that could help us comprehend issues more clearly; they consider unique perspectives in securities trading, national security, genetics and artificial intelligence.

On to the reading:

No. 1. "Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" by Robert M. Sapolsky.

The professor of biology and neurological sciences at Stanford University (and a MacArthur Fellowship winner in 1987) takes a deep examination into the most basic question of human behavior: Why do we do the things we do?

He probes the things that influence and determine behavior: neurology, endocrinology, structural development of the nervous system, culture, ecology and the millions of years of evolution. Why we do what we do turns out to be even more complicated than you might have imagined.

No. 2. "The Mosquito: A Human History of Our Deadliest Predator" by Timothy C. Winegard.

Forget sharks, terrorists or guns: Mosquitoes have killed more people than all other factors in history combined. Of the 108 billion humans who have ever lived, almost half -- 52 billion -- have died from mosquito-borne illnesses. For 190 million years, the mosquito has been waging a war against the rest of the planet, and for all of that history we have been fighting a mostly losing battle.

This has long been one of my very favorite topics; I am thrilled there is finally a book dedicated to it.

No. 3. "The Man Who Solved the Market: How Jim Simons Launched the Quant Revolution" by Gregory Zuckerman.

This is my nominee for finance book of the year: I read it, reviewed it and interviewed the author for Masters in Business. All thats left is to reread it slowly and deliberately, with no purpose other to enjoy the tale of how one brilliant man saw the markets in a different way from everyone else.

No. 4. "Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity" by Jamie Metzl.

What will happen to children, lifespans, the plant and the animal world when humans begin to retool the world's genetic code? Metzl tackles the risks and potential rewards to tinkering with the determinants of life as if they're just another piece of software.

No. 5. "Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do" by Jennifer L. Eberhardt.

Investors know that unconscious bias is at work all the time, undermining our goals. What we may not realize is how bias infects our visual perception, attention, memory and actions. The author suggests solutions to managing our biases, but I remain skeptical we can get past our own error-prone nature.

No. 6. "Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World" by David Epstein.

Among top performers, specialization is the exception, not the rule. Thats the startling conclusion of Epstein, a journalist with Sports Illustrated and ProPublica. Considering some of the worlds most successful athletes, artists, inventors, scientists and business people, he found that it was the generalists who excelled, not the specialists.

No. 7. "The Spy and the Traitor: The Greatest Espionage Story of the Cold War" by Ben Macintyre.

What colleagues, institutions and competitors do you trust? How does counterintelligence and disinformation affect how we make decisions? These issues are explored in this nonfiction tale of the three-way Cold War game of espionage between the U.S., the U.K. and the Soviet Union.

No. 8. "Trick Mirror: Reflections on Self-Delusion" by Jia Tolentino.

Tolentino looks at the basic building blocks of social media and how we use it to deceive not so much others as ourselves. This series of essays tracks among other things the evolution of the internet from a band of enthusiastic geeks and hackers to the trolls and agents of agitprop that have taken over.

No. 9. "Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know" by Malcolm Gladwell.

Communication breakdown is the focus in this tour of errors, miscommunication and lies. One of our era's most engaging storytellers, Gladwell roams from Fidel Castro to Bernie Madoff and lots of folks in between. His big premise: the default condition of our species is to assume others tell the truth. This makes all of us vulnerable to the deceptions of politicians, salespeople and con artists.

Story continues

No. 10. "Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence," by Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans and Avi Goldfarb.

What happens if we rethinkthe concept of artificial intelligence as a drop in the cost of prediction? That is the question tackled by the three authors of this book, all economists at the University of Torontos Rotman School of Management. The conclusion is that AI, instead of complicating human affairs, may improve decision-making.Enjoy, and let me know if youveread any good books lately atbritholtz3@bloomberg.net

To contact the author of this story: Barry Ritholtz at britholtz3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.net

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Barry Ritholtz is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is chairman and chief investment officer of Ritholtz Wealth Management, and was previously chief market strategist at Maxim Group. He is the author of Bailout Nation.

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion

2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Read the original:
10 Books on Thinking About Thinking - Yahoo Finance

In todays attention economy, when a viewer willingly chooses to watch a program, advertisers have to respect that choice. If they didnt, it would have drastic consequences.

Attention is a resource; a person has only so much of it, wrote Matthew B. Crawford in a 2015 New York Times column. Its trueand consumers have no shortage of choices to spend their TV viewing time. When they do make a choice, it should provide value, otherwise theyll find value elsewhere.

Opportunities to sincerely engage people today are few and far between, and in order to make the most of those opportunities to engage, marketers must consider the attention economy as part of their overall media plans. Effectively reaching a consumer today is a three-tiered problem: the device the viewer is using, the show the viewer is watching and when they watch it.

How a viewer directs their attention should mirror how advertisers approach their audiences. The challenge is that every consumer does this in different ways. For an advertiser, that means there are thousands of permutations of their viewers. They may want to reach an auto intender segment, but each viewer in the segment has a unique path to content.

To get back to the humanity at the center of TV advertising, marketers must return to the basics of the job: observing human behavior and reacting to it. Consumers are people, more than a collection of habits. Marketers must understand how people are watching TV today, across linear, OTT, VOD or any other means.

There are the advanced cord cutters who only watch on-demand; people who tune into linear TV for a set amount of time; and those who fall somewhere in the middle, sometimes watching live and sometimes on-demand. Whether theyre logging in through a set-top box or another device, no viewer is content to sit within one walled garden; everyone has their own stable of services and providers. Marketers need to continue the conversation with viewers across devices in a way that makes sense. If marketers dont account for dynamic consumer behavior in 2020, their heads will be in the sand.

Whats the right combination of channels, and how can a marketer frequency cap for those viewers? How can advertisers orchestrate a TV campaign across channels, dynamically reacting to consumer behavior without oversaturating?

These are a few basic tenets of orchestrating TV campaigns around human behavior:

1. Approach planning in a truly holistic way. Start with audience and data, and demand an understanding of the audience segment viewscape. Learn how the percentage of audience spreads across channels, and then find out about how they overlap. Holistic campaign planning isnt just about getting different teams to work together. Its about deduplicatingan audience.

Platforms have to react dynamically to consumer preferences to more accurately respect and respond to allocation by consumer. If youre a marketer, you need to allocate to mirror that allocation of attention.

2. Dont buy in siloes. Buying from only one provider is easy, but no one provider reaches everyone, and marketers cant drive their businesses forward this way. The same goes for buying just one mediumno one medium can provide complete access to audiences. When people cord cut, for instance, many still keep an over-the-air connection to local stations because they still want local news, or maybe they buy a service like Hulu to access live TV. Marketers need to understand how viewers move from app to app and view premium versus local content.

Dynamically reacting, or the ability to optimize across channels and devices, means learning what worked in one area, and letting it influence whats done in other channels.

3. Be your own scorekeeper. TV is about measurable business objectives, but its also about a media buy and reconciling your audience. At the end of every campaign, marketers should have a holistic story about their money. Each provider will tell the very best version of how a marketers money was spent, but stories from various channels may not correlate. Marketers must demand unified reporting across devices and segments in order to become their own scorekeepers. Otherwise they cant learn. Even with the best of intentions, results will be skewed at the service provider level, device level or otherwise.

More:
Let's get back to the human at the center of TV advertising - AdAge.com

Latent Logic uses "imitation learning" to create simulations of human behavior which can be used in vehicle testing. Most AI training uses reinforcement learning, in which an AI gives answers to problems that are coded as either correct or incorrect. Over time, reinforcement-based AI can learn the correct answer more quickly.

However, this can be rather inefficient. By contrast, imitation learning has machines mimic human behaviors to learn some of the implicit knowledge that people have about the world, making it faster for the AI to model the optimal solution. Waymo could use this technique to train autonomous vehicles by having AI model complex human behaviors like cars cutting each other off or a pedestrian appearing in an unexpected location.

Latent Logic is based in Oxford, UK, which is something of a hub for self-driving vehicle research. For example, there's Oxbotica, a group which has trialed an autonomous grocery delivery vehicles, self-driving taxis and driverless shuttles. BAE Systems worked with researchers in Oxford to develop a hefty off-world autonomous vehicle based on a Bowler Wildcat. There's also the University of Oxford, which performs research into autonomous vehicles as well.

Acquiring the company gives Alphabet a foothold in a key location in the UK and access to a hub of local talent. "We see an exciting opportunity in Europe, not only in continuing to build our partnerships with major automakers but also in benefitting from the world-class technology and engineering capabilities in Oxford and beyond," Drago Anguelov, Waymo's principal scientist and head of research told The Guardian.

Waymo does not plan to launch self-driving car services in the UK yet, but the company has confirmed it has plans to operate in Europe in the future.

The rest is here:
Waymo enters the UK with acquisition of self-driving AI startup Latent Logic - Engadget

They were building a bridge when they happened to dig up history.

Connecticut Department of Transportation crews were excavating the site of a new bridge in January 2019 when they came upon evidence of southern New Englands oldest humans, dating back 12,500 years, the Hartford Courant reports.

Archaeologists had long suspected there may be ancient remnants beneath the soil by Avons Old Farms Road, but didnt have the money to excavate it themselves. In the process of building a bridge over the areas Farmington River, state workers found them.

This is the once-in-lifetime opportunity to look [at a site of this age] in Connecticut, State Historic Preservation Office staff archaeologist Catherine Labadia tells the Courant of the site, which is estimated to be more than 12,000 years old and date back to the Paleoindian Period. This site has the potential to make us understand the first peopling of Connecticut in a way we havent been able to.

The $14.7 million project unearthed prized evidence of human activity roughly six feet beneath the surface, showing traces of evidence regarding human behavior, archaeologist David Leslie says, including holes, walls, a hearth and house posts from temporary dwellings.

And in addition to being ancient, the relics found are also vast. Leslie, who led the dig, says roughly 15,000 artifacts and 27 features which are more highly valued turned up at the site.

And people have been looking for Paleoindian sites for quite some time, says Leslie, adding that evidence from the Paleoindian era is rare in New England and right now, this is the oldest.

While the bridge-building project wasnt intended to uncover history, its quite common that construction reveals museum-worthy finds, experts say.

Far and away most of the archaeological resources that get investigated happened through ... agencies doing their work, going about their business and spending money, says DOT staff archaeologist Scott Speal. While the construction crew didnt intend on finding the artifacts, the National Historic Preservation Act required the DOT to search for them before building.

They afforded us time and money to excavate the entire site, says Leslie.

The discovered artifacts and historic landmark have been named the Dr. Brian D. Jones Paleoindian Site, in honor of a late archaeologist who worked on the site and lost his battle with cancer in July 2019.

Brian had a feeling that there could be the potential for archaeology here, says Leslie.

It was almost like a gift that was given to him, says Labadia.

Read more from the original source:
Construction workers accidentally uncover ancient site in Connecticut - New York Post

Robin Fears

Volker ter Meulen

Joachim von Braun

Today, the number of hungry, undernourished people across the planet is increasing, with micronutrient deficiencies impairing the overall health of more than 2 billion people worldwide. Early child mortality and morbidity are unacceptably high, and problems related to unsafe food, food waste, and poorly managed agricultural systems continue, as do problems associated with overconsumption. The impacts of inadequately managed agricultural systems are damaging land, water, and atmospheric systems, which, together, are posing unprecedented threats to global food security. These problems are rooted in deficient and deeply intertwined policies and practices that need to be addressed on a global scale. These challengesall related to food distribution, agricultural systems, and planetary healthlie squarely in the path of achieving global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and equity in the distribution of resources across global populations.

Although research related to crop cultivation has made great contributions to agricultural productivity, global leaders have begun to recognize the severity of problems rooted in inequity and the expanding demands of populations. In response, they have been increasing efforts to identify scientific endeavors to foster responsible innovation in food systems and, in tandem, shape necessary related local, national, and international policies.

Such scientific leadership has recently coalesced in the form of a global network of academies of science, medicine, and engineering called the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP). The IAP was launched in 2016 by bringing together three established networks of academies (the InterAcademy Panel, the InterAcademy Medical Panel, and the InterAcademy Council). A recent IAP project was designed to work toward the goal of promoting science that will inform societal priorities at the intersection of food/nutritional security and global environmental health. The organization brings together networks of experts from Africa, Asia, America, and Europe to analyze food systems at national, regional, and global levels (http://interacademies.org/37646/Food-and-Nutrition-Security-and-Agriculture) to apply research-based evidence to transform current practices to sustainably feed the planet in the context of global environmental change (1).

To date, the IAP has published five reports that clarify controversial issues, identify potential best practices across regions, and shed light on cross-cutting policy concerns. The authors strike an unusual balance by developing a consensus on many critical recommendations related to food and nutrition security while acknowledging the profound regional differences in agricultural productivity and cultural preferences. The reports powerfully clarify the urgent need for investment in research infrastructure together with the obligation by participants to share robust and verifiable data related to population health, nutrition, agricultural practices and outputs, climate change, ecological systems and sustainability, and human behavior.

Policy-makers must aggressively push for additional and plentiful funding for research related to food and nutrition security because the impact of innovative science is already clear and unequivocal. For example, we already know that gene sequencing and editing can lead to improved and efficient means to breed plants and farm animals with characteristics that serve both the health of people and the environment. New advancements in science have also shown the potential for capitalizing on new understandings of diet-gut microbiome-disease linkages and expanding the use of innovative functional foods and personalized nutrition coupled with smart monitoring of individual status. Of course, the use of any advance must be grounded in stringently reformed regulatory systems that are acceptable to stakeholders.

IAP reports highlight the very large body of scientific knowledge already available to shape and promote more effective food and nutrition security. With a focus on the availability of new information, policy-makers can use this evidence to develop sustainable systems that will support healthy populations, linking these goals to other policy objectives including those related to the circular economy and bioeconomy. As a whole, the reports illuminate how research can clarify and resolve the complexities of the food-energy-water-health nexus, ranging from how social sciences research can inform and transform consumer and farmer behavior to the benefits of studying neglected crops. While focused on how empirical evidence can drive effective policy, the reports reaffirm the central importance of basic and applied science in driving policy, underscore the imperative to address knowledge gaps through increased international collaboration, and ardently articulate the imperative to prioritize education across all topics.

But this is not enough: Research outputs must also be integrated coherently into addressing the SDGs, climate objectives, and other agreed upon societal priorities, a task mandating a redesign of the science-policy interface for food, nutrition, and agriculture. The issues for food and nutrition security are relevant to multiple SDGs. There is an urgent need for additional science-informed analysis of the interactions among SDGs in support of decision-making for systems in transition in an uncertain and rapidly connected world. Policy-makers will, we believe, greatly benefit from taking a broader sweep of research evidence available to them, including the valuable lessons learned in the institutions of the European Union and African Union that stress the benefits of strengthening science-policy connectivity at regional and global levels. Capitalizing on scientific opportunities is something that should pervade public policy widely, beyond those funding and prioritizing the research agenda.

Following this, we see substantial value in constituting an international panel on food and nutrition security and agriculture focused on shaping policy choices and strengthening governance mechanisms. Such a panel would draw on the related large scientific community and could be clearly charged with addressing the most pressing food and agriculture questions as the global challenges continue to mount, particularly those related to population, climate, human nutrition, and sustainable use of land and water resources. These questions are extraordinarily diverse in nature and complexity, ranging from how best to balance the difficult trade-offs between nutritional and environmental goals, to how to collect, verify, and use data in global scientific analyses, to how to attract and incentivize consumers to prefer healthy sustainable diets. In summary, achieving healthy populations requires national actions supported by new international approaches to improve food systems functioning underpinned by an increasingly robust and ambitious science base.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, so long as the resultant use is not for commercial advantage and provided the original work is properly cited.

Excerpt from:
Global food and nutrition security needs more and new science - Science Advances

Apologies to Taylor Swift and Andrew Lloyd Webber, but the most interesting cat content online right now is a Snapchat filter that lets humans try on a feline face. The resulting clips are adorable, confounding, and a great example of just how little we know about cat cognition.

In a video compilation making the rounds online, cats look at a phone screen that shows their owners with a cat face filter. The cats whip their heads around to look up at the human, and then back to the screen. It appears the cat recognizes that their owners face should be on the phone, but it is not, Kristyn Vitale, who studies cat behavior at Oregon State University, said in an email to The Verge.

However, its particularly challenging to figure out what this behavior says about cats because we know so little about cat cognition to begin with, says Sarah-Elizabeth Byosiere, an animal behavior researcher and director of the Thinking Dog Center at CUNY Hunter College. In cats, its as elusive as cats general personalities can be, she says. Thats partly because they often dont cooperate well in research studies, making data hard to come by. When a researcher tried to test if cats understood what it meant if someone pointed at where food was hidden, for example, multiple subjects wandered off from the testing site.

The video hints at some interesting questions about cat cognitive awareness. It might be a sign the cat recognizes its owner, Vitale said. But it isnt a sign that cats pass the mirror test, despite what some people responding to the video seemed to think.

The mirror test is a key measure of self awareness for animal behavior researchers. It was designed in 1970 to figure out if an animal can recognize itself. When animals are introduced to a mirror, their first reaction is often an aggressive, threatening posture, Byosiere says. They first appear to think its another animal. And then slowly, you see many start to interact with the mirror, she says. In the test, researchers mark the animal with paint or a sticker somewhere they cant normally see. If, when they look at the mark in the mirror, they try to touch it on their body, its a sign they recognize themselves as the animal in the mirror.

But in the videos, the cat isnt looking at itself, its looking at a person. And the cat filters arent on a mirror theyre on a screen, which can flicker in subtle ways, and might be visually different from a mirror to animals. Researchers have started to study how dogs respond to stimuli on a screen, and it seems that they recognize objects on the screen the same way they do in real life. Because theres not much research on cat cognition, we dont know how cats interact with screens, or how they would perceive the properties of screens, Byosiere says.

Its also hard to draw conclusions from videos taken in an uncontrolled environment. We can never really get at what the owner did beforehand, she says. Theres no way to know if its the first time the cat has seen the filter, or if theres something else going on in the background that gets their attention. We dont know if this context is unique, or if it indicates anything about how attentive cats are.

The Verges deputy editor Elizabeth Lopatto tested the filter with her cat, Jeeves, with mixed results. Jeeves turned back to look at her face on the first try, but only after she spoke. And the second time, Jeeves uninterested jumped off her lap and wandered away.

Even if they cant prove anything about how cats think, the videos are fun. Most scientists and researchers really do like these videos, Byosiere says. If the cats are happy to do this, and its not disturbing them, great. They also show that people are interested in learning why their cats behave the way they do, she says. Its exciting because then hopefully theres room for people to do this type of research on cats.

Read more here:
The Snapchat cat filter shows how little we know about cat cognition - The Verge