Why Do Business Transformations Fail When Speed Is the Answer?

In a business landscape where 70% of transformations fail and digital disruption threatens established giants, speed has emerged as the ultimate competitive weapon. Yet most organizations continue pursuing 18-month transformation marathons while their competitors sprint past them with 6-week improvement cycles. The mathematics of this mismatch are brutal: by the time your transformation launches, agile competitors have completed 13 improvement cycles, learned from each, and captured market share you’ll never recover.

What Is Causing the Transformation Failure Epidemic?

Business transformations fail at catastrophic rates despite decades of knowledge about how to execute them successfully. The numbers reveal a system fundamentally broken at its core.

According to McKinsey research, 70% of business transformations fail to achieve their intended outcomes. Gartner reports that 80% of digital transformations fail to deliver expectations. Forbes analysis shows 84% of companies fail at digital transformation. Most damning of all, Bain & Company’s 2024 research reveals only 12% of transformations achieve their original ambition.

These aren’t abstract percentages—they represent trillions in wasted investment and countless missed opportunities. The International Data Corporation forecasts that $2.8 trillion will be spent on digital transformations worldwide in 2025, suggesting that over $1 trillion will be wasted on failed initiatives this year alone.

Yet despite overwhelming evidence of failure, organizations keep returning to the same playbook. They launch massive, multi-year transformations that move too slowly to matter in markets that evolve by the quarter. They hire consultants who promise comprehensive solutions but deliver complexity instead. They invest millions in planning while competitors invest thousands in executing.

The pattern repeats with numbing predictability: extensive analysis paralysis, consensus-building that dilutes ambition, pilot programs that never scale, and launch dates that slip quarter after quarter while market opportunities evaporate. By the time these transformations reach implementation, the business problems they were designed to solve have mutated into entirely new challenges.

Meanwhile, a small minority of companies have figured out the secret: speed beats scale, iteration beats planning, and continuous small wins beat occasional large bets.

How Does Velocity Beat Scale in Business Transformation?

The mathematics of speed versus scale reveal a counterintuitive truth: smaller, faster improvements generate exponentially more value than massive, slow transformations.

Traditional approaches lock organizations into 18-month transformation timelines with one learning cycle per project, 70% failure rates, and all-or-nothing outcomes. In contrast, 6-week improvement cycles deliver 8-9 learning cycles in the same 18 months, dramatically higher success rates for incremental changes, and compound benefits from multiple wins.

This creates what systems thinkers call a “Learning Velocity Advantage”—an 8:1 ratio in organizational learning speed. While traditional transformations lumber toward uncertain outcomes, rapid cycles generate continuous improvement and adaptation. Each 6-week cycle teaches the organization something new about what works, what doesn’t, and what to try next.

The compounding effect is devastating to competitors. After six months, the rapid-cycle organization has completed four improvement projects and learned four distinct lessons. The traditional transformation organization has completed… planning. After twelve months, the gap widens to eight completed improvements versus perhaps a pilot program. By 18 months, when the traditional transformation finally launches, the rapid-cycle organization has implemented 13 distinct improvements, each building on lessons from the previous cycle.

But the advantage extends beyond pure numbers. Each completed cycle builds organizational muscle memory for change. Teams become comfortable with rapid implementation. Decision-making accelerates. Resistance to change diminishes. Meanwhile, organizations stuck in transformation mode watch their change-management muscles atrophy as month 12 becomes month 15, then month 18, then month 24.

The velocity advantage compounds in unexpected ways. Quick wins generate enthusiasm. Enthusiasm generates volunteers for the next cycle. More volunteers mean more improvements can run in parallel. Parallel improvements accelerate overall progress. Within 12-18 months, the organization develops what can only be described as an improvement metabolism—a self-reinforcing system that generates continuous enhancement.

Traditional transformations generate the opposite dynamic: fatigue. As month six becomes month 12, energy drains. Champions burn out. Skeptics multiply. Resources get diverted. By the time implementation arrives, organizational energy has dissipated entirely.

Why Can’t 18-Month Transformations Keep Up with Market Speed?

Markets evolve faster than traditional transformations can respond, creating a fundamental mismatch between organizational change speed and environmental change speed.

Research reveals that 75% of S&P 500 companies will disappear by 2027, many because they failed to adapt quickly enough. In this environment, 18-month transformations aren’t just slow—they’re strategically suicidal.

The digital age has fundamentally changed market dynamics. Customer preferences shift in weeks, not years. Competitive threats emerge overnight from unexpected quarters. Technology choices become obsolete before implementations complete. Market opportunities come with expiration dates measured in quarters, not decades.

Consider the typical 18-month transformation timeline: Months 1-3 spent on assessment and planning. Months 4-6 on pilot programs. Months 7-9 on refinement based on pilot learnings. Months 10-12 on preparation for scaled rollout. Months 13-15 on initial implementation. Months 16-18 on correction and adjustment.

Now consider what happens in those same 18 months in your market: Three product cycles come and go. Customer acquisition costs shift by 40%. Two new competitors launch. A major platform changes its algorithm. Supply chain dynamics reverse twice. Economic conditions pivot. Regulatory requirements evolve.

By month 18, when your transformation finally launches, it’s addressing market conditions from month 1. The transformation was perfectly designed for a market that no longer exists.

As the Scaled Agile Framework notes, “achieving customer delight at the speed of the market requires validating innovations with customers and then ‘pivoting without mercy or guilt’ when the hypothesis needs to change.” Traditional transformations can’t pivot. They can only plow forward toward objectives that made sense 18 months ago.

The mismatch creates a vicious cycle. Markets move faster than your transformation. Your transformation becomes obsolete. You plan a new transformation to catch up. Markets move again. You fall further behind. Eventually, faster competitors capture the opportunities you identified but couldn’t execute on.

What Do Real Speed-Based Transformations Achieve?

Real-world examples demonstrate the stark contrast between speed-based and traditional approaches, with results that speak for themselves.

Tesla’s Production Transformation: From Big Bang to Rapid Iteration

During Tesla’s “production hell” with Model 3 manufacturing, the company initially attempted a massive automation push to achieve 5,000 cars per week. This big-bang approach resulted in production stuck at 2,000 cars per week for months, with massive investment generating minimal return.

Switching to daily improvement projects focused on small bottleneck solutions, Tesla achieved 5,000 cars per week within 10 weeks. Elon Musk’s reflection captured the lesson: “Excessive automation was a mistake. Humans are underrated.” The deeper lesson? Speed of iteration beats scale of ambition.

The Paper Mill Success Story: $75,000 Investment Beats Million-Dollar Transformations

A paper manufacturing plant used 6-week cycles to systematically transform operations with results that traditional transformations couldn’t match. Month 1 saw a 12% reduction in changeover time. Month 2 brought an 8% improvement in quality yield. Month 3 enhanced safety metrics by 15%. By month 6, the plant achieved 34% overall efficiency improvement. By month 12, it became the highest-performing plant in the entire company.

Total timeline: 12 months. Total investment: $75,000. Annual benefit: $3.2 million. Return on investment: 4,267%.

Compare this to traditional transformation approaches where companies spend millions over 18+ months for uncertain outcomes, often achieving less than 50% of intended benefits if they achieve anything at all.

How Does Speed Create Compound Advantages?

Speed generates multiple compounding advantages that traditional transformations miss entirely, creating exponential rather than linear improvements.

Momentum Building: The Psychological Acceleration Effect

Weeks 1-6 of the first project show improvement is possible, breaking through organizational skepticism. Weeks 7-12 of the second project build confidence that the first success wasn’t a fluke. Weeks 13-18 of the third project create expectation of success rather than surprise. Weeks 19-24 of the fourth project establish improvement culture as “how we work.” By week 25 and beyond, improvement becomes as natural as quarterly planning.

Each cycle builds on the last, creating unstoppable organizational momentum that traditional transformations never achieve. Traditional approaches generate the opposite pattern: initial enthusiasm that degrades into fatigue, skepticism, and resistance as months drag into quarters and quarters into years.

Risk Mitigation: The Portfolio Effect of Small Bets

According to McKinsey research, 55% of transformation value loss occurs during and after implementation. With 6-week cycles, risk is contained through multiple mechanisms.

Failures are small and recoverable rather than catastrophic. Learning happens quickly while memories are fresh. Course corrections are immediate rather than waiting for quarterly reviews. Resources aren’t overcommitted to single bets. When a 6-week project fails, the organization loses 6 weeks and modest investment. When an 18-month transformation fails, the organization loses years of progress, millions in investment, and immeasurable opportunity cost.

Market Responsiveness: The Agility Multiplier

Traditional approaches require 6-18 months to respond to market changes. 6-week approaches enable response in 6-12 weeks. This creates a 4-12x faster market responsiveness advantage. In volatile markets, this speed differential determines survival.

When customer preferences shift, rapid-cycle organizations can respond within a quarter. When competitors launch innovations, they can counter within weeks. When regulatory changes emerge, they can adapt before the next cycle. Traditional transformation organizations can only watch and add “market changes” to their growing list of reasons the transformation needs re-scoping.

Resource Efficiency: The Burnout Prevention

Bain research found that transformations often fail because they overload “star players,” leading to burnout. Six-week approaches prevent this through natural constraints.

Each project requires only 8-10 hours per week from team members. Projects complete before fatigue sets in. The load spreads across multiple teams rather than concentrating on a few “transformation heroes.” Broad organizational capability builds rather than knowledge concentrating in a few exhausted experts.

After 12 months of 6-week cycles, dozens of employees have learned how to execute rapid improvements. After 12 months of traditional transformation, a few exhausted champions know how to run transformations while everyone else knows how to wait for instructions.

What Are the Hidden Costs of Slow Transformation?

While organizations plan their 18-month transformations, hidden costs accumulate in ways that never appear on project budgets but destroy value nonetheless.

Opportunity Cost: The Revenue Never Earned

An engineering consulting firm spent 8 months developing the “perfect” project management system. During those 8 months, 23 client complaints went unaddressed. Two major clients switched to competitors, specifically citing the firm’s inability to respond to issues. Employee satisfaction scores declined 15% as teams struggled with outdated systems. Revenue dropped $1.2 million in the period.

Using 6-week cycles, they could have implemented 5-6 improvements, addressing critical issues immediately while developing capability for continuous enhancement. Instead, they optimized for perfection and generated $1.2 million in losses plus two lost clients worth millions more in lifetime value.

Competitive Disadvantage: The Market Share Lost Forever

Research shows that organizations achieving highly successful agile transformations had three times higher chances of becoming top-quartile performers. Speed isn’t just about internal efficiency—it’s about market position.

While you plan, competitors implement. While you analyze, competitors learn. While you prepare, competitors capture market share. While you transform, competitors have already evolved again. By the time your transformation completes, the market landscape has shifted so dramatically that competitors have established new defensive positions you can’t penetrate.

Employee Disengagement: The Talent Exodus

Research indicates the average employee underwent ten planned enterprise changes in the past year. Change fatigue from lengthy transformations compounds this problem exponentially.

Quick wins from 6-week cycles counter this by showing immediate progress, maintaining energy and enthusiasm, building confidence through success, and preventing transformation exhaustion. Meanwhile, lengthy transformations generate the opposite: skepticism about whether anything will actually change, disengagement from “just another initiative,” resume updating as talented employees seek organizations that actually execute, and organizational learned helplessness.

Why Do Organizations Stay Addicted to Failed Transformation Models?

Organizations persist with failing approaches due to psychological, economic, and cultural factors that override evidence of better alternatives.

The Heroic Narrative: Legacy Over Results

Leaders want to be remembered for bold transformations, not incremental improvements. The psychological appeal of “the person who transformed the company” overwhelms the practical reality that companies excelling at continuous small improvements consistently outperform those attempting periodic revolutions.

Board presentations featuring massive transformation initiatives generate applause. Presentations about 52 small improvements generate yawns. But applause doesn’t correlate with results, and yawns don’t predict failure. The heroic narrative creates perverse incentives where leaders optimize for story quality rather than outcome quality.

The Consultant Complex: Misaligned Incentives

Traditional consulting models thrive on lengthy, complex transformations. Six-week cycles don’t generate the same fees as 18-month engagements. A six-week improvement project might bill $50,000. An 18-month transformation bills $5 million. The economic incentive structure actively works against speed.

Consultants have perfected the art of transformation complexity. Every analysis reveals the need for deeper analysis. Every pilot program requires more pilots. Every implementation phase needs another preparatory phase. It’s not malicious—it’s business model optimization. But it’s optimization that destroys client value while generating consultant fees.

The Planning Fallacy: Analysis Paralysis Masquerading as Diligence

Organizations believe more planning leads to better outcomes. The reality? More planning leads to later outcomes, and later outcomes in fast-moving markets mean obsolete outcomes.

The Law of Speed states: “The speed of improvement is limited by the speed of decision-making.” Excessive planning doesn’t prepare—it paralyzes. Each additional month of planning is a month competitors spend executing. Each additional analysis is another delay while market conditions evolve. Each additional stakeholder meeting is another opportunity for decisions to get diluted into consensus mush.

The Scale Illusion: Confusing Size with Impact

Leaders assume only large changes create large impacts. The mathematics prove otherwise: 52 small improvements compound into transformational change with far higher success probability than one large improvement.

The illusion persists because human psychology overweights dramatic one-time events and underweights consistent small actions. We remember the bold restructuring, not the 50 process improvements that actually drove results. We celebrate the major system implementation, not the daily optimizations that generated value. We promote the transformation leader, not the continuous improvement champion.

How Has Technology Made Speed Even More Critical?

Digital capabilities have made speed not just advantageous but mandatory, while simultaneously making traditional transformation approaches obsolete.

Real-time data eliminates the lag between implementation and learning. Modern analytics enable immediate feedback on improvements, collapsing the time from “we tried something” to “we know if it worked” from months to hours.

Cloud infrastructure and DevOps practices allow technical changes in days, not months. What once required hardware procurement, data center scheduling, and complex rollout planning now happens with configuration changes and deployment pipelines. Technical barriers to rapid change have evaporated.

Digital tools enable distributed teams to work in parallel, multiplying improvement capacity. A company can run five simultaneous 6-week improvements across different geographies, effectively achieving 30 weeks of improvement in 6 weeks of calendar time.

Machine learning can identify patterns across multiple quick improvements, accelerating optimization. After 10 rapid cycles, AI can analyze which approaches generated the best results, which contexts favored which solutions, and which next improvements offer the highest probability of success.

Organizations clinging to 18-month transformation cycles waste these technological advantages. They’re bringing Industrial Revolution approaches to Information Age problems, manual transmission thinking to autonomous vehicle challenges.

How Do You Build a Speed-Oriented Culture?

Transitioning from transformation marathons to improvement sprints requires fundamental cultural changes that extend far beyond process modifications.

Success isn’t launching one perfect transformation—it’s continuous adaptation. The paradigm shift requires redefining what “winning” means from “we executed the perfect transformation” to “we improved continuously and adapted constantly.”

Project approval must happen in 48-72 hours maximum. Resource allocation within one week. Solution implementation in no more than 2 weeks. Exception handling requires same-day response. Any timeline exceeding these parameters requires explicit executive approval, forcing conscious decisions about delay costs.

Each 6-week success deserves recognition proportional to its contribution. This builds the momentum and confidence needed for sustained improvement. Traditional transformation culture celebrates the launch while ignoring the hundreds of improvements that actually drove results. Speed-oriented culture celebrates the improvements themselves.

With 8-9x more learning cycles, organizations need systems to capture and share insights rapidly. Knowledge management shifts from post-mortem documentation to real-time capture. Lessons from cycle one immediately inform cycle two rather than waiting for the end-of-project retrospective that happens after memory has faded.

What Is the Strategic Implementation of Speed?

Organizations ready to weaponize speed need clear frameworks for transitioning from traditional transformation to rapid improvement approaches.

Months 1-2 focus on pilot speed: launch 2-3 initial 6-week projects, demonstrate speed’s advantages, build initial capability, and generate early wins. The goal isn’t perfection but proof—evidence that rapid cycles can deliver results that build organizational belief.

Months 3-4 scale velocity: expand to multiple concurrent projects, develop rhythm and cadence, build supporting infrastructure, and measure compound impact. Success shifts from “can we do this?” to “how many can we do simultaneously?”

Months 5-6 establish sustained acceleration: achieve 25% employee participation, establish 6-week cycles as norm, create competitive advantage through speed, and plan next improvement waves. The organization shifts from “we’re trying rapid cycles” to “this is how we work.”

Months 7+ cement speed as strategy: make rapid improvement core competency, use speed for market differentiation, build innovation pipeline, and sustain competitive advantage. Speed becomes identity rather than initiative.

How Do You Measure Speed’s Impact?

Organizations must track speed-related metrics across three dimensions to understand whether velocity is generating value.

Velocity metrics include time from idea to implementation, number of improvements per quarter, learning cycles completed, and market response time. These measure whether the organization is actually getting faster rather than just feeling faster.

Impact metrics include cumulative improvement percentage, revenue and efficiency gains per cycle, customer satisfaction improvements, and competitive position changes. These measure whether speed is generating business results rather than just activity.

Cultural metrics include employee engagement in rapid improvement, decision-making speed, cross-functional collaboration, and innovation frequency. These measure whether speed has become embedded in organizational DNA rather than remaining a program.

The three dimensions together reveal whether speed initiatives are working. Velocity without impact means busy-work. Impact without culture means unsustainable hero efforts. Culture without velocity means aspiration without execution.

What Is the Competitive Reality for Slow Organizations?

Research reveals that organizations with successful agile transformations were “five to ten times faster” than traditional organizations, creating a competitive dynamic that functions as different games entirely.

While you plan, competitors implement. While you analyze, competitors learn. While you prepare, competitors capture market share. While you transform, competitors have already evolved. The gap doesn’t narrow—it compounds.

After six months, the speed gap results in 4 completed improvements versus ongoing planning. After 12 months, it’s 8 improvements versus perhaps a pilot. After 18 months, it’s 13 improvements versus one launched transformation. But the real gap isn’t the number—it’s the learning, momentum, and market position those improvements generated.

The fast organization hasn’t just completed 13 improvements. It’s developed 13x the organizational learning. It’s built muscles for change that the slow organization never developed. It’s captured market opportunities that no longer exist. It’s established competitive positions the slow organization can’t penetrate.

Which Companies Are Winning with Speed?

Market leaders across industries demonstrate speed’s power through their operational approaches rather than their public transformation announcements.

Amazon built its dominance through rapid experimentation and continuous improvement, not massive transformations. The company’s ability to test, learn, and scale quickly created lasting competitive advantages that slower, larger competitors couldn’t match. When Borders and Barnes & Noble were planning e-commerce transformations, Amazon had already completed dozens of improvement cycles.

Netflix transitioned from DVD rentals to streaming through rapid iteration, not a single massive transformation. Speed of adaptation kept them ahead of larger, slower competitors like Blockbuster, which planned the perfect transformation while Netflix executed imperfect iterations that compound into market dominance.

Spotify uses 6-week “bets” similar to rapid cycle methodologies, allowing fast innovation and market response. This approach enabled them to outmaneuver Apple Music, YouTube Music, and other competitors with vastly larger resources but slower organizational metabolisms.

These companies don’t do transformations—they transform continuously through speed. The difference isn’t semantic. It’s strategic, operational, and ultimately determinative of market position.

People Also Ask

What percentage of business transformations actually succeed?

According to Bain & Company’s 2024 research, only 12% of business transformations achieve their original ambition. McKinsey reports a 70% failure rate, while Gartner and Forbes show even higher failure rates for digital transformations specifically, reaching 80-84%. These statistics have remained consistent for over a decade despite billions invested in transformation improvement.

How long should a business transformation take?

Traditional transformations take 18-24 months but face 70% failure rates. Research and case studies demonstrate that 6-week improvement cycles completed consecutively over 12-18 months generate superior results with dramatically higher success rates. The key is replacing one massive transformation with 8-13 rapid improvement cycles that build on each other.

Why do most digital transformations fail?

Most digital transformations fail because they move too slowly for rapidly changing markets, overload key talent leading to burnout, fail to focus on critical roles and capabilities, and spend too much time planning rather than executing. Organizations pursuing 18-month transformations find that market conditions change faster than they can adapt, making their carefully planned solutions obsolete before implementation.

What is the learning velocity advantage?

The learning velocity advantage refers to the 8:1 ratio in organizational learning speed between 6-week cycles and 18-month transformations. In the same 18-month period, organizations using rapid cycles complete 8-9 learning iterations compared to one learning cycle in traditional approaches, enabling them to adapt and improve exponentially faster than competitors.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can 6-week cycles really transform a business, or are they just incremental improvements?

Six-week cycles create transformation through compound improvement rather than single dramatic changes. The paper mill example demonstrates this perfectly: 12 months of 6-week cycles transformed them into the highest-performing plant company-wide with $3.2 million in annual benefits from a $75,000 investment. The mathematics prove that 13 small improvements with high success rates generate more transformation than one large improvement with a 70% failure rate. True transformation comes from systematic improvement velocity, not transformation event size.

What if our business problems are too complex for 6-week solutions?

Complex problems get broken into manageable improvements that build toward comprehensive solutions. Tesla didn’t solve Model 3 production in six weeks—they solved specific bottlenecks in daily and weekly cycles that compounded into achieving production targets within 10 weeks. The paper mill didn’t transform overnight—they improved changeover times, then quality yields, then safety metrics, each building on the previous improvement. Complexity is an argument for rapid cycles, not against them, because rapid cycles let you discover which aspects of complexity actually matter versus which are analysis paralysis.

How do you get executive buy-in for 6-week cycles when they expect comprehensive transformations?

Present the mathematics: 70% of their comprehensive transformations fail. Show the compound ROI: $75,000 generating $3.2 million annually beats $5 million generating uncertain returns. Propose a pilot: run three 6-week improvements while planning their comprehensive transformation, then compare results. Most executives who see tangible results in 18 weeks versus ongoing planning become converts. The key is framing rapid cycles as de-risking the comprehensive transformation through learning, not as replacing it—though results usually make replacement obvious.

What resources are required to run multiple 6-week improvement cycles?

Each 6-week cycle requires 8-10 hours per week from team members, dramatically less than traditional transformations that often require full-time dedication from “star players.” This lower resource requirement actually enables running multiple cycles simultaneously across different teams. A company can run 5 concurrent 6-week improvements with 25 people working part-time more effectively than one transformation with 5 people working full-time, because learning compounds across parallel efforts.

How do you prevent 6-week cycles from becoming chaotic or unfocused?

Clear governance prevents chaos: 48-72 hour project approval, explicit decision rights, weekly progress reviews, and defined success metrics. The structure is actually tighter than traditional transformations because shorter cycles force discipline—you can’t spend three weeks debating approaches when implementation must start by week two. Focus comes from limiting concurrent cycles initially (start with 2-3, scale to 5-8) and ensuring each cycle has clear, measurable objectives tied to strategic priorities.

What happens when a 6-week cycle fails?

When a 6-week cycle fails, you lose 6 weeks and modest investment, then immediately apply those learnings to the next cycle. When an 18-month transformation fails, you lose years and millions with no rapid recovery path. The risk profile difference is fundamental: rapid cycles treat failure as learning (which it is) while transformations treat failure as catastrophe (which it is). Organizations running rapid cycles actually expect some cycles to fail or underperform—that’s part of the learning velocity advantage. The goal is increasing the success rate, not achieving perfection.

How do rapid cycles work in highly regulated industries?

Regulated industries often benefit most from rapid cycles because compliance requirements make transformation mistakes catastrophic. A financial services company can pilot a process improvement in one region, validate compliance, document results, and scale—all within 6-week cycles that manage regulatory risk better than massive transformations. Healthcare organizations can improve specific workflows with full regulatory documentation in weeks rather than risking non-compliance in years-long implementations. The key is scoping improvements within regulatory boundaries rather than attempting to transform entire systems simultaneously.

Can this approach work for technology implementations that require months of development?

Technology implementations benefit from rapid cycles through phased delivery and continuous integration approaches. Instead of building the perfect system for 18 months, build the minimum viable increment in 6 weeks, deploy it, learn from real usage, and enhance in the next cycle. This is how successful technology companies work—Amazon, Netflix, and Spotify all use rapid deployment cycles for technology that traditional organizations would spend years planning. The difference is treating technology as continuously evolving rather than as a fixed end-state to build toward.

About the Author

Todd Hagopian has transformed businesses at Berkshire Hathaway, Illinois Tool Works, and Whirlpool Corporation selling over $3 billion of products. Hagopian doubled his own manufacturing business acquisition value in just 3 years before selling, while generating $2B in shareholder value across his corporate roles. He is the author of The Unfair Advantage. As Founder of the Stagnation Intelligence Agency, he is a SSRN-published author. Todd is the leading authority on Stagnation Syndrome and corporate transformation. He has written more than 1,000 pages (www.toddhagopian.com) on Corporate Stagnation Transformation, earning recognition from Manufacturing Insights Magazine and Manufacturing Marvels. His research has been published on SSRN. He has been Featured over 30 times on Forbes.com along with articles/segments on Fox Business, OAN, Washington Post, NPR and many other outlets, his transformative strategies reach over 100,000 social media followers and generate 15,000,000+ annual impressions.