I personally have enjoyed watching the evolution to digital format, expanded content, broad editorial appeal and foundational information that can be used to direct readers to more specific information where appropriate. I particularly enjoy Bill Kalmar's shared perspectives and look forward to one day reaching retirement age myself. Overall I believe this is a better product than Quality Progress, and I have seen continual strides over the past couple of years.

That said I have a few constructive criticisms that might prove helpful. Business decisions and practical applications of continuous improvement programs change based on business sector and company size. It would be nice to see more information from the perspective of small business operations (where lean isn't a mantra but rather a requirement to remain profitable and stay in business) and/or defense contracting (which is substantially different from automotive or health care industries). From time to time there should be recognition that continuous improvement can still take place without big business bureaucracy, buzz-words or overhead... there might actually be times when small business approaches are still the best way to eliminate waste and ensure fiscal health using old-school process development and customer service techniques.

My only other comment relates to advertising. While I certainly understand the use and placement of ads within the online articles and editorial columns (you have to pay the bills), it's a bit of an irritant to have the ads appear when printing an article I particularly like. It would be much preferred to have the ads filtered out when the option to print is used. I have already seen the ads by the time I elect to print and would really like a "clean" copy to retain for historical purposes.