So, I wanted to start with some background to Verda and not assume that everybody knows who we are and what we do. We've had multiple conversations over the weekend and some people don't know. So I live in a little bubble where I work from home and I just assume everyone knows what we do. So, what I'm going to do is cover the results at a pretty high level of the two-year trial. We have PhDs and researchers and medical doctors who go to technical conferences that really present this in-depth. So I don't want to spend a lot of time just reading slides to you, but I'll kind of pick out the highlights from there. So what we've got is a five-year, non-randomized perspective-controlled study, and this occurred in Lafayette, Indiana in conjunction with Indiana University Health System. So we recruited 465 participants all the way back in August 2015, March 2016. So as you can see, we're presenting the two-year results that were collected about two years ago. So a lot has changed in the meantime. This is the first clinical trial that I've worked in. So my perception of science was you did a study and you wrote a paper and it was out in a week, and that's not true. This is actually a lot more work. So it's interesting when I read other studies now, I have a much different perspective on one, the amount of work that goes into it, and probably the amount of suffering as well for the researchers and also the participants. So we had an active arm started with an end of 378, and I like this picture of humans. If you're like me, you might fall into this trap of seeing a study with an end and forgetting that they're humans that are trying to do something in the real world and it's probably difficult, even if the intervention might seem easy on the surface. So I've worked with a lot of these people. I'm actually directly a few of their coaches, and it really is a journey. It's really an honor to work with them. Of the original 378, 262 were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and at the bottom, the average years of having that diagnosis was 8.4 years. So we didn't go out and really kind of cherry pick, newly diagnosed people who theoretically might be easier to treat. And then we have the rest of the averages. One takeaway is that this is the way science is communicated in studies, but at the end of the day, no one is that average patient, right? There's no one that had the age of 54 with exactly that BMI, with exactly that starting weight, with exactly that time of diagnosis, and a 67% chance of being female. So when we communicate these things, we're talking about group averages. And when that comes to an individual patient, they're kind of perspective in what might happen for them, but not necessarily always predictive, right? So kind of what we do, so we have two sources of innovation. So we have continuous remote care and the actual clinical protocol. And it's the combination of these two, which really are kind of like an exponential factor, right? There are practitioners who use similar protocols in a bricks and mortar clinic, right? But as far as trying to scale to really what's an epidemic level, how many bricks and mortar individual practitioners would just America need, much less India, China, the rest of the Western world, right? So the way that we see a good solution is through technology of continuous remote care and leveraging that platform to personalize care and coach care, but also provide better service. So the typical experience for our patients before they came to us was they have a primary care. They may have an endocrinologist, right?  Maybe you can see your endocrinologist once or twice a year, right? And everything that happens in the meantime, you're kind of on your own. You can call the office, you might get a call back. So we really want to change that paradigm there and provide almost real time care. You log your blood sugar, we see it. You have a question? We see it. We do sleep, right? So if you text me at two o'clock in the morning, I'm not going to respond on that side. So it's the combination of these two. And then the clinical protocol is medication management. We are licensed to practice medicine in 50 states, right? We're not just prescribing a low carb diet and saying, hey, go good luck, right? People on powerful diabetes medications, there is a significant safety risk for adopting a low carb diet without medical supervision. So here's how it kind of all looks in a graph. So we start with the patient, obviously. So they go through a pretty lengthy enrollment process. I think last year I fielded a question, like how do you help unmotivated people? I still don't have an answer to that. You have to sign up, and you have to do a phone call, and you have to get some labs. So to even get in the door, you had to show some motivation for doing this. So this is Wilma. I still haven't met her in person, I said that last year. She's a very nice lady, she's in a lot of our testimonial videos you see over here. So Wilma signs up, she's assigned to health coach, this is Catherine. The phone in the middle is the chat stream. So literally, there's no limit, she could talk to Catherine as much as she wants. Truly about anything, right? At the beginning it's a lot of education. People need the plan, like what do I eat? I have no idea what to eat, right? So that can happen in pretty much as real time as the patient can respond.  We do also do phone calls and video calls. So when a new patient enrolls, my first communication is not sending them a lengthy text message. It consists of, hey, let's schedule a phone call and a video call so we can get to know each other and start to build a relationship there. The patient also has a video call with the physician. In a technical medical sense, this is called an HMP, a health and physical. This would be the first time you meet a new doctor. Here it's going to happen over video. The doctor basically is getting the health, answering any questions that the patient has, not only about the treatment, but any other things. And then the physician and health coach talk regularly. This is Dr. Jeff Stanley. I literally talk to him every day that I'm working. So that communication truly does happen. The patient's going to get a starter kit for biomarker tracking. It's kind of a fancy word for saying we want you to test your glucose and your ketones. We send a cell phone enabled scale. It's kind of neat technology. You're going to do those things. And we're going to ask you to do them consistently to a certain standard that the doctor has prescribed on that side. Some other things come in the kit, like basic nutrition advice, cheat sheet, easy quick reference things. Not everybody wants to go to an app every time they have a question, right? It's easy to leave a one page laminated sheet of yes, no, simple nutrition choices. Inside the app also, we have a resource center. Patients are pretty handy, right? In the age of Google, we're pretty good at investigating and researching things. You know, some people like to go find stuff before they ask a question. So not everything needs to be routed to the coach. There are a lot of recipes in there, ideas, articles, blogs. Things are not completely public facing. All those types of things are always available. And then we have a patient community. So this has been advert over three and a half years. This is why they brought me in. I have a background in not only health coaching and sport coaching, but also addiction recovery. I started in 12 step groups when I was 21 years old. I've ran Facebook groups for both addiction support and also health and wellness topics. Verda said, hey, we want to have an online patient community where they can interact. And I'm like, I can do that. I don't run it like a 12 step group because obviously it's not a 12 step group. But there are some principles that apply for 12 step that I think fit really good with any kind of support model. And I'd say the primary foundation is that we want to share our experience and strength and hope with other people, right? So that's sharing wins, right? That's very motivating, especially if you're brand new and you see all these people doing great. But it's also sharing, we call it, well, we have a day for it. We call it fallible Friday. It's like, hey, this is the day that we're all gonna admit all the ways that we messed up and be honest. So that one, the person suffering in silence that thinks they're the only one quote failing isn't alone, right? And then we're gonna support each other and encourage each other to keep sharing openly and honestly. Cuz we all have to work through all of our problems together, right? If we are isolated at home thinking we're the only one suffering and maybe our only resources are coach and maybe we're not telling our coach. The chances of success go down quite a bit. So I was making a joke. I was like, can I get through the presentation without saying ketosis? And then I realized I put a slide with ketosis on it. I kind of threw this in, in light of the current diet war thing that's going on. I just kind of really don't understand.  If you have a medical problem, maybe there's a correct way to eat. I also kind of don't know what a quote keto diet is. People think it's macros and certain types of foods. And the way I look at it is it's completely different for every person. There are some general underlying principles that tend to work for most people. And it's good to have a starting point. But from there, it's really whatever works for you that you can do that helps you lower your blood sugar and produce some amount of ketones, right? And so everybody in this room, you could all try a stock keto diet and you might all get wildly variable results. But you might all start at the same place and we could make adjustments and then you could all kind of get to a similar place biologically. So generally it's carbohydrate restriction, right? If we know what keto is, we typically start at 30 grams a day. Seems to work for most people.  We just don't know, we have to start somewhere, right? And that's really the individualization of the whole program, right? It's not a one size fits all really in anything in health and medicine. On that side, it's highly personalized. Also, not everybody can afford all different kinds of foods. I don't shop at Whole Foods. Most of my patients don't either, right? How can you do this at Walmart? How can you do this at Costco? How can you do this at Safeway, at Kroger, right? How can you do this at Burger King, right? Culture wise too, religion, omnivore, vegetarian. You can eat a vegan ketogenic diet. Maybe not the easiest thing in the world, but if you're super motivated and you like to cook, it's certainly possible. So we're result driven and I would say diet agnostic, right? It's what works for the person in front of me. In their preferences, but also their environment and any kind of constraints, whatever that might be. It has to work for them. Education, problem solving, yeah, I mean, sometimes there's a few meal delivery services that are okay, meal replacement bars, right?  Hey, that's all right. We have a solution for that, eat delicious Whole Foods. We prefer that until satisfied, no calorie counting. I think the default setting is what's the minimum amount we can ask someone to do and see if we get results. We can always add stuff on. Why start with the hardest program in the world and see if we can get 1% to follow? We'll start with the easiest thing with the least amount of requirements and have you take a run at it for 30 days. And if you need to adjust, we make the adjustment, right? When we talk about it being a lifestyle and not a diet, I'm looking at working with this person, I want you to eat this way in 20 years. I am not in a rush to get you to eat this way in two weeks and watch you stop doing it in 60 days and then start over again. So we take it slow. Patients usually like to go faster though. The faster results are better, it's motivating. And it's not zero-carb. I don't know if we've actually got that complaint before, but we do recommend five daily servings of vegetables. At certain times people add on nuts and berries. We do try to systematize at certain times when the results are good and people are willing and possibly wanting to and I think there's a good chance of success that they can eat more carbs, right? I think long-term success, the more options we have is generally better. But there's a right time to do it. There's a right way to systematically test adding these foods. And that ties back into the biomarker logging and also how we feel. Hey, you want to add some berries in? We can systematically check your glucose and see what your individual response is, right? We don't just, hey, day 30, you can eat berries, cuz not everybody can. All right, so at a high level at two years, so what we saw was diabetes reversal of 55%. And that's defined as patients who have an HPA1C under 6.5. Without diabetes specific medications, too much coffee this morning. There's definitions of reversal and remission from the American Diabetes Association, so we follow those. There's also the definition of what diabetes is as defined as hyperglycemia with an A1C of 6.5, so we go with those. Medication elimination, so 67% of all diabetes specific prescriptions were discontinued over the course of that two years. And weight loss at the end of two years was 12%, so again, an average. Diabetes specifications is basically everything except metformin. Cuz there are indications for metformin for other things, right? So here's how the charts look. So on the left we have blood sugar changes, HPA1C for two years. So the usual care observational arm and then in blue are the patients who actually did the program. The usual care arm, they were in the same health system, in the same city. And they were doing something, at least seeing a diabetes educator. The American Diabetes Association has actually adopted low carb as a potential therapeutic tool, and in the city of Lafayette's pretty small. And if you're familiar with Dr. Halberg, she's pretty famous there. So I would not suspect that some of our 87 people in the usual care arm at some point get recommendations to do low carb. So that'll be interesting to see. But we don't, I don't think we have a report of any of them. What we did have is we had people drop out of the usual care arm when they could pay to join Verda. So they left the trial being the control group. It paid to do what everybody else was doing, which to me is success. So what we saw was average starting A1C of 7.5 at one year at 6.2. And then at two years, it goes back up a little bit to 6.6. So what are some explanations? One is we look at medication spend. So medication cost goes down at two years. Pretty certain that's not become not because pharmaceuticals got cheaper. People want to get off medications. I don't know if we'd classify ourselves as aggressive. I think we do the correct thing for the patient for safety and shared decision making. People want to try to do this without meds. I still haven't met that patient who just wants to take the meds. I think it's very cynical view. I assume there's providers and practitioners that see that. I just haven't met that person. I also haven't seen that unmotivated person who doesn't care about their health and doesn't care what they weigh or what their A1C is. Everybody cares. So one explanation is we could see an increase in A1C simply by deep prescribing more meds, right? I think another one is, hey, people didn't follow the program is great. I don't think that's unrealistic, especially with what we see in other trials. Here's the weight loss graph chart. So the dash line is clinically significant weight loss. Someone's decided 5% was clinically significant. So if you run a weight loss trial and you get more than that, you're basically doing awesome. So as you see, it went down to about 14% at the end of year one and we're at 12%. So people take the weight off. Some people add a little bit back on. 75% of patients lost more than 5% and 49% of patients lost more than 10%. Of course, we have outliers both way. We have some people who didn't lose any weight and we have people that lost over 100 pounds on that side. So what do we see in other trials, similar trends, right? So then I look at it from a coaching perspective and go, we did pretty good compared to some other type of interventions. The Tay study was a carbohydrate restriction study. Direct and wing, very low calorie and look ahead was intensive. So there was nutrition and I think exercise, right? We all kind of see the same thing. So are we all validating human nature? And then we need to put more effort into supporting people with behavior change. We, well, me personally, I think we collectively say yes. Yes, more needs to be put in this. It's very interesting if we can figure out what the perfect diet is. But at the end of the day, if nobody can do the perfect diet, what's the point of having it, right? If we have a pretty good plan that works for most people and we can get world class helping them do it, I think that's a lot better use of our time there. Here's some additional outcomes. So a decrease in metabolic syndrome rate, insulin resistance as measured by HOMA IR, body weight we already talked about. We saw a pretty good decrease in C-react protein and white blood cells, so markers of inflammation. Decrease in triglycerides and increase in HDL and then improvements in liver function. We actually published a paper on a non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. So that was a really good one. So there are other benefits besides just reduction in control and blood glucose. We published a cardiovascular paper that showed improvement I think 22 of 26 markers for cardiovascular risk. That's kind of a contentious topic these days. So we picked 26 markers. If you prefer LDL, you can look at that. If you prefer any of the other markers, or a calculator, or a mix, and a match, and a ratio, you could plug all our numbers in and you can kind of make your own decision about what you think the outcome is. We think it's helpful on that side. So I would talk about coaching and then how do we actually work with people? And I meant to print out what I was gonna say and I didn't. So I'm gonna read off my phone to at least keep me going. So we talked about plans and diet plans. So whether it's health coaching, nutrition, sports, business, education, I think we're driven to want the perfect plan, right? There's this illusion of there, if I get this perfect plan, I'm just magically gonna get whatever's at the end of the rainbow, right? And what I've come to learn is there is no perfect plan, first of all. I think it's interesting to put effort and time into trying to develop a perfect plan, and I think that's a waste of time. I'm glad people are researching more in biology and metabolism and figuring all these things out, right? I think going from a plan that's 90% good to 95% is great. But at the end of the day, if we have the perfect plan and no one can do it, it's totally worthless, right? I don't care, I mean, I could download Usain Bolt's 100 meter sprinting program for myself. Am I gonna be in the Olympics? No, right? So one of my favorite philosophers has this saying, this is the famous philosopher Mike Tyson. Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth, right? And I think we've all been there. Hopefully we haven't all been punched in the mouth. But we've all had this great plan. We grew up, we had the elementary school plan, and we had the high school plan, and maybe we had the college plan, and maybe we had the masters and the PhD plan if we played sports. We had the training program, we had the coach. Our parents maybe had a plan for us.  Here's your diet plan, right? You want to get a trainer, here's your plan. We have plans everywhere, right? I think a lot of coaches, and I fell into this trap especially in sports when I first started coaching is I spent all my time trying to figure out how to design plans. And then I'd give them to people, and then they wouldn't do them. Like, okay, so obviously I'm not paying attention to normal people, right? But I did the same thing. I had plans my whole life, and people gave me great plans and great advice. And I had multiple coaches and mentors and teachers and professors who were trying to teach me these lessons of, you're the problem, not the plan. You can't follow the plan because you need to develop some other skills, right? You don't need more information, you don't need more education, you know, whatever's going on in your life and in your head, that's what's stopping you from following the plan. So that's what we see here, right? I don't fault people. Yes, you need a plan, preferably you need a plan that might get you where you want to go with your goals. But at a certain point, when you have the education and you know the plan and you know what to do, we have to develop other skills. And I specifically work still with clinical trial patients and patients that have been doing this a year longer, because the question is not, what do I eat? The question is, I know what I should be eating, I don't know why I'm not doing it, and that is a question that is not answered with another meal plan, right? So last year I talked about defining a purpose and meaning for doing what we're doing, right? I think the deeper level purpose, the better. It's they, why do you want to join Verda? I want to get off medications. Excellent goal, I want to lose weight, excellent goal. Why do you want to get off medications? Well, they're unhealthy for me, correct, right? Why do you want to lose weight? Well, because that makes me more healthy. I'm not getting to the why yet, right? Why do you really want to do this? And eventually we end up with the question, why do you want to be healthier? People get, it's kind of a stumper, right? It's kind of one of those that we want to go, duh, who wants to be unhealthy? But really the answer below that is purpose, right? Is it your kids, right? Is it your vocation? For me, it's being of service to others with no expectation. And that's my definition of love, right? When I'm healthier, I can be of service to our patients without any expectations and hold space for them and really love them and help them. When I'm healthy, I'm a better spouse. I'm being of service to my wife. I'm present in the relationship, right? No expectations is harder in a marriage, but it's practice. I have kids, right? When I'm healthier, I'm present with my kids. I'm being of service to them, right? Whatever that might look like. So when we can get people down to this level, I think that's really when we have something to tap into, right? So when you walk in the office on Tuesday morning and there's donuts, you're texting me, I don't know, I got these cravings. I like donuts too. And I'm putting myself in their position. I'm going, hey, are those really going to serve you to reach your goals? Because donuts in my face are very strong emotional drives, right? I've been doing this for six years. I will eat a donut. If we can have that conversation, if they can get that gap in the space, right, where they say, hey, this is not really going to serve my health. This is not going to help me serve and reach my goals. And this means I'm not going to be more present for or more available or tap into what my real underlying purpose for doing this is. I think that's typically enough emotional pull. Am I going to pick donuts over my wife? Am I going to pick donuts over my kids? It doesn't mean we don't make mistakes, right? But the chances are we're not going to do that. So some more practical things. Not everybody wants to do this, right? We have a purpose. We set standards. Standards could be habits. It could be behaviors. Purpose could be meaning. We tend to come in with goals and we build this foundation on goals. And sometimes we reach goals and then we lose our foundation and we got to keep cycling goals and eventually we run out of goals. So I like to build on purpose. If you get a purpose deep enough that underlies any kind of goal you want to do anywhere in life, right? So one other thing that I think, well, I don't think anything on that slide. Blue sky. All right, so one other thing I work on, so I call these the five C's. So people typically, here's the two things people tell me they want after plans. Coach, I need motivation and I need willpower. I have no idea how to give you that. Motivation, if it's not internal, if it's externally, it's driven by rewards and punishments, carrots and sticks. I have no reward I can give you greater than your purpose and your health, period. Even if I gave you money, I gotta give you money for the rest of your life, right? Great analogy. I want my kids to do chores. I gotta tie a purpose to it that he's serving the family and we love him. And this is great being part of our community. Or I can give him $5 and I have to give him $5 for the rest of his life, right? Rewards are fine, they're short term incentives. We work for money, our companies do it, but I can't reward. And I'm certainly not gonna punish a patient. I have no sticks, right? And willpower, we could debate if free will even exists. If you've meditated at all, you realize you don't really create most of your thoughts, so that's debatable. So I just find motivation and willpower tracks are kind of like dead ends. We just, we never go anywhere. So whenever I hear willpower motivation, I move to what I call the five C's. We wanna work on commitment, which is actually different than a motivated decision. A lot of people confuse a motivated decision to do something with commitment. All right, so I wanted to learn to play the ukulele. I had free lessons from an expert who's a friend online. My mom bought me the ukulele for Christmas. No barriers, I'm motivated. I'm gonna do it with my son, I have this vision, this fantasy, that we're gonna be like playing in a jam banjo band. And we do lesson one, and it's hard, and he quits, and I quit. We had a motivated decision, we had no commitment. First sign of adversity, we give up, right? That's the difference. So commitment is an act, right? These are also things that I think we wanna change our self narrative and we would all rather label ourselves these things, than I'm not the person that can stick with anything. I'm not the person that's consistent. I'm certainly not compassionate with myself. Woe is me, everything's always terrible, right? So we have this self narrative, maybe we've failed in other things. Those are factually true, but what we wanna do is try and change that self narrative to some of these things that I think we all show at times, and we all rather label ourselves as, right? And I really think we're searching for transformational outcomes, but we have to transform as a person to get them. If we get transformational outcomes without personal transformation, we lose them, right? We can certainly, we've probably all gotten outcomes without being a better person. But we don't hold on to them, the lottery winner, right? They blow all the money, because they're the same person. They just have $10 million now, right? They didn't have that chance to transform. So we wanna transform as a person in the process. Consistency, it starts with a C, so it worked better than Discipline and Habits. You could give a whole talk on habits. I'd recommend James Clear's book, Atomic Habits, Danny Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow. If you don't wanna read a book, Simon Marshall has a one hour course that's designed for health coaches. But honestly, any human that takes it, it's called Nudge Tactics for Health Coaching. And Simon's super engaging. I actually watched it three times because I had to pay attention. Compassionate curiosity is really like, we don't know what's gonna happen. When you sign up, I got group averages. I don't know how you're gonna do, and I'm gonna be honest with you, right? But you might do better than the group average. I don't know, we have to get to know each other and start working through it. And I want you to stay curious, right? That helps us through the fall over period, right?  I put them together because compassion is necessary for curiosity, right? We probably beat ourselves up. I mean, even people that are successful, it's like an epidemic of just not being compassionate to ourselves. And really, I think courage, right? It's, this is hard. Everything's hard. Everything worth doing is hard. If it's easy, you don't need commitment, consistency, and courage if it's easy. Like sitting on my couch is easy. I mean, I don't need to show any commitment to do that. That's like my default setting. NFL's on Sunday, I'm on the couch, right? There's no effort there. So everything worth doing is hard and everything that we value is hard. And we're gonna be afraid, right? We have the uncertainty. We don't know how it's gonna go. We've never done this before, right? Our brain is seeking certainty, right? That's the brain's job. It looks out and it's like, oh, look at this situation. Well, here's something that happened in 1988 that was like 8% similar. That's how it's gonna go, and that's just not how it works, right? So it's kind of staying open and we're gonna have fear, right? Anytime we try anything new, anytime we fail, anytime we fall down, anytime we struggle, we could say they're all learning experiences, right? But if we don't get back up and show courage, we didn't really learn anything from them, right? We just stay down. And I think that's a big role of the coach is when a patient shows any of these, I tell them because I have to reinforce that they're developing the skill, right, and they have to be recognized. Yes, I wanna recognize you for weight loss. Yes, I wanna recognize you for getting off of medication. Yes, I wanna recognize you for excellent glucose and correct choices. But I also wanna recognize you for all of these things of how you're transforming the self and becoming a better person. Because when these happen and these become our self narrative, the chances of maintaining the outcomes exponentially increase. And the last one I talked about a little before was community.  Why do we come to this conference? And we can watch all these YouTube videos, right? And I didn't, I didn't need to fly here. I mean, I had to talk but it's like we come here to meet other people and connect and be in community, right? I came from 12 step groups, right? If I had to quit using drugs, sitting in my basement thinking I'm the only guy using drugs, what are my chances? That's a miserable existence. I certainly didn't wanna go to a group and say with a bunch of other men and tell them, I don't wanna listen to these guys. But after a while you kinda get there and you realize we're all very similar. We have similar problems. We have similar hopes, fears, and dreams, right? And when we feel not alone and we can share those things with other people and get support, I find that very powerful. I never got to the campfire slide. So there's all my contact information. Yeah, if we have any questions. The books and resources that you mentioned really quickly. The habits ones? Yeah, so James Clear wrote a book called Atomic Habits. And if you like podcasts at all, I'll just be honest, I haven't read either of these books, but I've heard James Clear on eight podcasts. And after you listen to about 12 hours of somebody talk about their book, I'll probably buy it just to give them money. It's a challenging thing for authors, right? That's how they make their money, but they have to market it by going on a two hour podcast and telling all their information. So Atomic Habits by James Clear. And you honestly could find him on a podcast and get the gist. And then Thinking Fast and Slow by Danny Kahneman. So our CEO, Sami Inkanen, read it. And he's got this deal where if he reads a book and he likes it, he'll pay for all the employees to buy it.  And I'm like, well, I want to read whatever he's reading. Plus if I bump into him, I want to talk to him and show him my Reddit, because it looks good for me, right? Hey, I'm doing what you said on that side. So Thinking Fast and Slow by Danny Kahneman. He's been on some podcasts, but I'm about halfway through and I would say that's definitely worth a read. It is a very interesting book and you can't get out of it anything from a podcast interview. And then the online course is by Simon Marshall. And that's called Nudge Tactics for Health Coaches. And it's kind of like if you've done a Coursera course, but it's way better.  And Simon's was about an hour, here's my thing with Coursera. I start doing it. I start playing on the internet. I'm doing like 87 other things. And I'm kind of like paying attention because I figure I can pass the test and get the certificate. And then Simon starts in five minutes in. I'm going, I have to stop because I have to actually pay attention to this. Not because I need to to pass the quiz at the end to get the certificate, but because the information is so good and well presented. And it's an hour. So I've watched it three times. And Simon lives in San Diego, but he had to be in Boulder because his wife's a professional triathlete. So we were kind of hoping he would be here. Great guy. And he's been on some podcasts with Chris Kelly from Nurse Balanced Drive. He works with them, and he wrote a book called The Brave Athlete with his wife. So I've purchased that, not read it yet. I'm really interested in working with athletes and high school kids. So I think that'll be good, yeah, cool. Hi, thank you for your talk. That was amazing. It's actually a big part of the paleo community to be healthy. It's not just via diet. And you had mentioned, you seem to look at the concept of willpower. And some of those rah-rah messages we get from people that aren't necessarily very helpful. And I have a second question, but could you address how you look differently at the way you helped to motivate people? I think your whole talk was quite a bit different. Yeah, so I guess I'd clarify that motivation's not bad. And willpower's certainly not bad. They're not really tappable resources as far as. And I do this, if you talk to some of the high school kids I coach, they'd be like he's the least inspirational coach we have ever worked with. And that's also, and I get fired up sometimes. So maybe that's not totally true. But it's kind of, if we continually need repeat motivation, we have to keep going to the well and we keep having to find outside reasons outside of ourselves. And I think it's a harder practice and a better practice to search in within for, you could call it, intrinsic motivation. I prefer the word inspiration, because we always have access to ourselves, even though we don't feel we do. And if we create that reconnection and relationship with ourselves and tap into that inspiration, we are not dependent on any external thing to fuel us. And that's kind of the way, but it's a difficult practice. So I will motivate people, because I need to use every tool available. So I do get calls. Coach needs motivation. I'm not going to give him the spiel about inspiration. I'm like, let's jump on the phone. And then what I try to do is I don't try to use the technique of motivating them. I try to be positive in my affect. And if we're on a video call in my facial expression, and I'm really seeing it as, this might sound cheesy, but I'm trying to bring a ray of sunshine into their life. And because I think whether you believe in mirror neurons or not or whatever that is, if I'm smiling and I'm positive, that person's going to change a little bit versus if I get on a call and somebody's like, and I mirror that, now what are we doing? So I do that with kids. Like I show up every day, and I'm consistent with my positive attitude. And I'm consistent with my positive talk. And I'm consistent without punishing, without being critical, especially in groups. Now I will correct individually, those kind of things. So we don't want to not tell people when they're doing something wrong, because that's not serving them. That's not love, right? But there's certain ways to do it to show that you still care. So it's kind of establishing the care first. Somebody makes a mistake. That kind of rambled into a second tangent there. Does that make sense? Does that help? Yeah, actually, that was amazing. You're helping me understand that.  You're helping me understand that it looks like you're evolving into a real helpful and partnership with your clients, helping them get better. Did you find through the years, and my last question then, did you find through the years as you kind of, as you matured as a man, as well as a teacher and a motivator, did you find that maybe there were, and I don't want to be, I don't know, the term toxic masculinity might have a, that's kind of a new buzzword. But did you find that you recognized that some of that didn't work, and so you were masculine enough yourself to say, hey, dude, that being that blunt or mean or aggressive is not helping our clients? Yeah, I don't think any of our coaches coached that way. But if you go to a sport, I think it's an epidemic in sport, and there are certainly a group of male coaches who are very public about trying to change that. And you could call that old school. Certainly punishing and yelling at people, that works for short-term compliance. If I want short-term compliance with a kid, I'm guaranteed to get it by punishing and yelling at them, right? I could do that with my kids. But what am I ensuring I'm not getting is learning and long-term behavior change, and I'm not improving our relationship at all. So I'm destroying trust and connection for this short-term outcome that I'm forcing. And bosses couldn't do that with employees. Spouses do it. It's expedient in the short term. If it's an emergency and this place is on fire and I yell at you to get out, OK, but any other situation, if it's not a life and death emergency, I don't think it really needs to be handled that way. And I've certainly handled situations that way. And I don't know if that sometimes is our default nature. But I try really hard. It's a constant practice. But I think if the goal is always long-term behavior change and improvement from a caring, loving place, then it just takes time. Yeah. Does that help? Great. Thanks. And you're welcome. That's a great message. Thank you.


Good afternoon everyone, welcome back to Las Vegas. Viva Las Vegas, it's theCUBE Live, covering Clickworld 23 at Mandalay Bay. We're excited to be here. Lisa Martin with Dave Vellante. We have a great guest lineup today. We're talking with ClickExecs, customers, analysts, partners, we've got a partner, customer, no, a ClickEmployee turned partner next as our guest. Please welcome Chris Parara, partner and general manager at SDG Group. Welcome Chris, great to have you on the program. Thank you, happy to be here. Yeah, so tell the audience a little bit about SDG Group, what you guys do, and then we'll kind of dig into the Click partnership. Sure, so SDG Group, we're a global systems integrator. We specialize in only data and analytics. We work together globally, it's a unique thing about us. Even though we have several offices and over 1800 people, we operate as an integrated single entity. So when we staff our projects, it's people from all over the world working to execute those projects. I mentioned we're data and analytics, so we have services, everything from data management and engineering into business analytics, advanced and predictive analytics, and then also advisory services around the data and analytics function. And we cross all industries. The US entity, which I represent, is largely focused on life sciences, consumer products, manufacturing and healthcare. Got it, okay. So larger companies generally, is that fair to say? It's a bit of a mix. We do work primarily with larger organizations, but we have a separate part of the organization that handles, let's say, the commercial or the mid-tier organization. And I have to say, because it's really an important thing, we really pride ourselves in treating a company, no matter how small or how large, the same. So that's what, when we break our groups up, so we have a team of people focused in commercial and a team focused in enterprise, it allows us to give the dedication, regardless of their size. And do you serve small businesses as well? Absolutely, small and non-profit. We have customers that are a few million in revenue, so very small to very large. So what's the maturity model look like in today's data world? Can you paint a picture of the spectrum from the sort of least sophisticated to the most sophisticated? Yeah, that's actually a great question. So the maturity model is interesting in that it varies significantly from company to company. So you can have a large organization that's lower on the maturity curve or very far along, and the opposite with smaller companies. So it is very much an individual journey. What we often find is, and this is where Click had a lot of value, or has a lot of value, a company that's, let's say, a little bit lower on the maturity curve has data still, a lot of data, data all over in many different sources, still has the same need to be able to take that data and do something with it. So they're able to maybe move forward with something like, let's say, visual analytics as a starting point to be able to get moving and use analytics. Even though they haven't really had the time or the wherewithal to put together an entire data architecture. So they get moving, and that helps to move on the maturity curve, and then they'll start to eventually put more attention to the data architecture so that they can build it in a more scalable way, and in a way that can handle maybe more volumes of data, let's say. And then in the larger organizations, the challenge they have is you might have many different departments, and you can have a department that's much further along than another. So wrangling that across a massive enterprise becomes challenging, and that's where you see the large centers of excellence or IT organizations building programs that are repeatable so that they can spread it through the various departments in an organization to bring the maturity up. Talk a little bit about some of the trends that you're seeing from a data integration and analytics perspective, and how is SDG Group with Click helping customers really ride the waves so that they can actually leverage data to drive business effects? Yeah, so great question. I would say the major trend that we've seen is the growth of, let's say, the hyperscalers or the large cloud-based data warehouses that are now able to handle a lot more data effectively than they could not more than five, six years ago. So very recently, companies were still struggling with how do we handle all of this data. So what we've really seen is much more attention now is put on, now that we can put the data in one spot, how do we handle it in a way that's automated? How do we handle it in a way that brings, let's say AI and ML intelligence into the process so that you don't need as many people to manage a system that's growing much larger than it had in the past? So you're seeing a lot more around data ops, around DevOps, around different, let's say metadata-driven data integration so it's driven in a way that you can automate it. You could bring intelligence that detects data quality and helps to improve it automatically. So that's a lot of the trend, build the intelligence into the process that allows you to get that data. And then on the other side, let's say, well, the front-end side or the visual side, we're seeing a lot of attention put to also building intelligence to understanding what the data has to say. Because there's so much more volume, this system can help to identify anomalies, bring insights out, and automate that to an audience that's very broad, right across different functional areas, different levels, different experiences. So it really helps to create the insights that ultimately drive behavior. And that's something that I think is happening on both sides. So getting data right is so hard for organizations, which is why it's such a great business for you. And I wonder if we could talk about the sort of discussion that's going on in the industry about the failures of big data or centralized data warehouses, shove everything into one location. And you hear a lot of talk about data fabrics, and they talk about a lot here. I don't hear much data mesh topic, but Jamakthagani has coined the data mesh to decentralization of data and responsibility. That's a whole nother organizational challenge in and of itself. And then with foundation models, it's like, oh, I want all my data to be in at least one logical place so I can run AI on it. So there's this tension between having everything in one place, a single source of truth, but that generally is the state of the art, building dashboards, looking backwards, what's happening. But we always talk about this real time, talk about IoT, data at the edge, real time inferencing. And they seem to be really counter-poisoned, like this tension there. And I know it's sort of a bigger topic, but I feel like I'm always giving up on the decentralization of data. I mean, it's happening, but it's so hard that I actually think the right answer is put it all into a central location, and that's what Snowflake's trying to do, BigQuery's trying to do it. Even Databricks is saying, do it with open tooling. And so it just seems like that's the only way to make it secure, get it governed, and actually apply AI to it. What are your thoughts on that whole centralization versus decentralization topic? So it's an interesting debate. To some extent, I would almost argue it's impossible, but does it make sense to have all the data in the same place? So for example, if I'm putting all the data in one spot, which is important for your key data and the data that you, let's say, own and manage, but anything that I bring in, I'm going to have to own and manage. So let's say I'm starting to get to the more complex use cases. I'm using weather data. I'm using data that is not owned by my company. Do I want to be responsible for managing and owning that data, or do I want to be able to have that data leverageable so I can access it? So then you really start thinking about the single version of the truth is somehow related to process, making sure that you have data management, master data management, making sure the data is somehow accurate when you bring it together, and then you can get that single version of the truth. That being said, I do believe a lot of the data should come together, and that's where you see companies like Snowflake doing a lot of very innovative things. The Snowflake data cloud in the share is a perfect example of that, right? So now I have another company that wants to expose their data to their client base. They're not actually physically having to move, they're expressing that data through the share, and then they're going to be able to access that data as if it was in the same place. So you're able to leverage modern techniques like that, but I do think companies have to think about what data do I want to be in that single place? What data will never be, because it's not as easy for me to manage and own, and that's really some of the things we think about when we bring data together for our customers. But a whole industry has been born to try to avoid doing these complex joins around thousands and thousands of data sets, put it into a central and clean it, integrate it, make sure it's of high quality, and then put it into a place that you can trust. We hear a lot about trust. All to sort of avoid doing these sort of complex operations. But it feels like that the future, I mean I look at this GPT stuff, is a lot of complex operations, and it just feels like we're entering this whole new era, and this whole industry that's been built up around it is evolving. No question. 100%. And you're seeing every where you go, people talking about oh, we've been using large language models for years. But doesn't it feel like we're at this sort of weird inflection point, and it's a bit unpredictable in terms of privacy and public policy. That usually means chaos, but then great opportunity for people. Agreed. And I would say that the data and analytics space has been evolving for decades, and it feels like you get to these points of an inflection point, and then you get a significant change. And I feel like we have just come to now get things, data in the cloud in ways you can really process massive volumes of data very quickly, which you had a hard time in the past. So I think there's continual improvement, and now with GPT and other capabilities coming, I think there's another one coming. It's almost like the inflection points are coming faster than they have in the past. And from a client perspective, it's normally challenging, because you're trying to build your strategy for the long term, and all of these factors are constantly flowing around it, and you have to really think about, for example, now, if I'm going to spend a lot of money to build these systems, how do I build it in such a way that if something does change, I can pivot without having to rebuild the entire system, which would have been the case 10 years ago, right? You would have to rebuild everything and start from scratch. That's why data warehouses had earned such a bad reputation. You'd spend millions of dollars to build them. They wouldn't really work effectively, and then you'd end up implementing something brand new with another technology starting from scratch. And now I think we're starting to see a little bit more freedom in the development of the code. Yeah, not to mention the ethics, the privacy, the IP rights, who owns the data, Lisa?  Right, well, with all this flux and the data explosion, we could talk about the data explosion every day at every event. What is, when you're talking with customers, what's the unique differentiator, the value prop of SDG Group with CLIC? How are you helping customers manage data effectively so that they can drive business outcomes like improving revenue with so much dynamics going on? Yeah, so two things. One is I would say, from an SDG perspective, our value prop is typically centered around the three pillars of expertise as we call it. And basically that is, we'll bring industry knowledge to make sure you can do it within the context of your industry. We're going to bring the technical knowledge in this case to make sure we can get deep and talk about how CLIC can be a competitive advantage for them. And then we bring practice knowledge. And that practice is more wrapped around, are we focusing on data management and engineering? Or are we focusing on visual analytics or something like that? So we typically will try and bring that as our value prop. Then with CLIC, as an example, CLIC themselves have a very powerful value proposition. One of the nice things about CLIC is that, and I'll talk in a minute about the broader tool set, but CLIC has the ability to ingest data at a visual level, which gives you the uniqueness to be able to move fast. So even if you're not building the full-on system right out of the gate, because maybe you don't have a good vision for what you need yet, but you need to address business questions and you want their input, you can start to almost in a very agile way, work with the business users to say, well, what is it that you're trying to accomplish? And in the discussions, you can literally build examples of visuals, of dashboards, of full-on applications very, very quickly to show them the art of the possible. And then as you move forward, you start to map out what the bigger, long-term, strategic system should look like, and then you execute that also in a fairly iterative way. So the value prop you get from customers, if the customers in the combination is in the context of your industry and your needs, we can bring a very flexible and agile system that can address business needs across all functional areas potentially and across all industries. So it's a really powerful value prop at the intersection. Which I imagine will expand, given the talent acquisition. So SCG Group has a very strong click practice. You just did a great job talking about the joint value prop there. You also have a very strong talent portfolio. Talk a little bit about how you expect the TAM to expand and the value prop to expand as well once that acquisition closes. Yeah, it's interesting when the acquisition, the intent to acquire was first announced, I initially thought, oh, wow. Click as a company is going to truly be a data company now. They will be seen as a strong data company. They have always been a data company, but primarily focused on visual and then over time making acquisitions, getting closer and closer to data, and now very significant. And then I thought the same thing on the talent side. When I looked at talent, I thought, okay, wait a minute. You can be perceived oftentimes, not just talent, but that space, can be perceived as almost a utility. So now, they're no longer just a utility. They have a face that brings their data and their information to life, to the customer. So I think the value proposition from the combination to a customer is enormous flexibility in where you're putting, let's say, the intelligence of your solution. Because I'm a big believer that any company, almost regardless of the level of maturity, the knowledge that goes into the systems comes from all different levels. It comes from IT. It comes from data scientists. It comes from, let's say, a power user. It comes from casual end users that know the business very well. That logic can come from all over. So now with the combined organizations, I think a customer can start building business logic at, let's say, a business level, and then they can, depending on what the specifics of the integration are, you could potentially leverage that same knowledge that's coming from the business and the actual code that's being developed in a front end solution, and almost pull it back and industrialize it across the entire organization. Imagine the power of a company that has IT people. Many companies don't know the business logic. Many they might not. But imagine being in, let's say, an IT role where you're responsible for building out that data foundation, but you don't know the business logic. Typically you'll go gather requirements. You understand what they're looking to build. You'll go through a process to develop and then code what that logic is. Now imagine if you have different stakeholders in this architecture where the business can actually put the business logic in and you can almost inherit it. Same thing, it would be enormous. It would be game changing in the market. This is so, it's such an interesting topic because you're absolutely right today, the data is embedded into the app, into the business logic, not the reverse. And what you're talking about is flipping the equation on its side. That's where data mesh gets interesting, but the tools aren't there today. It's too hard to glue everything together. You have people playing with knowledge graphs. I don't know how much you know about this, but is it an area that you've looked at? I mean, the problem with knowledge graphs basically take people, places, things, and create relationships between them and the semantic layer that there's knowledge across that layer, which is kind of cool. But the problem is you don't have the flexibility of the query flexibility of relational database. And so you have to go back pre-sequel 15 years back. And so bringing those two worlds together is really challenging. But if you could, to your point, it would absolutely change because now you can build a digital twin of your business in real time. Like the woman from Ford this morning talking about how most of the dashboards are being built by business people. Okay, great. That in and of itself is so hard. But we're talking about something much more difficult and impactful down the road. That's like data nirvana. Am I making any sense? Yeah, absolutely. And to your point with the evolution and the maturity. So a lot of those technologies are starting to become in the, let's say, in the viewpoint of a lot of companies. Still a little early on for us. We're starting to get involved, but not so much. But to your point, it does help understand the relationships in the data and then to depict it in a way that people can understand it very clearly. So getting there, at least for us, but not quite there yet. Yeah, and it's early days. But actually, the reason I'm cautious about saying it's early days, because we used to talk about, oh, it's the first inning. Well, you're blinking, it's the ninth inning these days. And so, you're seeing companies, I don't know if you do work with like DBT Labs, that sort of API-ifying the data and the data warehouse and the metrics and, you know, Mugley has got his new company. Mugley was the CEO of Snowflake, a Microsoft guy. He's a relational AI. They're kind of thinking about new data structures and new data platforms, which is kind of interesting. You got companies like AtScale out there doing semantic layers. There's all these sort of interesting developments that point to the future. It's really hard to predict right now, but there's real tech that's hard. That's all around data. And it's going to be interesting to see what these guys do, because they're very clearly smart about M&A, and they can move fast, and they're agile in that regard. And then, you know, if and when they go public, now they're going to have even greater resources. Absolutely. I think it's one of the things for me that really does differentiate click in the market. To your point, there's a lot of technologies out there and a lot of very good, very powerful technologies. There's many technologies that are popping up that focus on a specific piece of the equation, and then more and more are popping up. So the integration for customers becomes a primary focus. How do I bring all these technologies together to provide some kind of an outcome that's really hopefully differentiated? Click is taking a different tactic where they're saying, okay, we're going to try and own a bit more of that so that a client doesn't have to have as many technologies. And so as Click's acquisition strategy, to your point, has deliberately expanded and moved it across, I think back to when I was a part of Click, you know, Click was very much a visual tool and that's what it was known for. And then my coupon came on, they started making more acquisitions and some very good acquisitions that started expanding all the way. They covered the entire scope and process of data all the way from ingestion all the way through to data engineering now, data management, they have governance, they've got AIML or AutoML, they've got visual analytics. So they've really covered the whole thing.  That's one way to look at it. But then the other side to look at it from a customer's perspective is no, they're providing the customer with a unique value prop that makes it so that they can get as much or as little as what they need at that moment. And then if they do decide there's another technology for one of those components they want, Click is open, they're a great partner company. So they partner with a lot of these technologies, as you mentioned. So then yeah, plug them in and use them for the component that you want to use them for. So it gives both options. They're not building a database yet. So that's cool, don't go there yet. But then Mike talked about the areas that they're leading in the magic quadrant. And when I listen to you speak, it's like those magic quadrants are like these bespoke sets and they're all coming together as a platform. That's why I asked Mike, are you an ISV? Of course I knew he was going to say a platform. But it's almost like you need a magic quadrant for this data platform. And what's the data platform? Is that Snowflake? Is that the Snowflake in its ecosystem? Is that something like Click, which is really doing that data integration and the data management? But it is all coming together as the industry matures. It is true. And one thing I will say that I'm very impressed with some of the companies you're mentioning, a Click, a Snowflake, AWS, a lot of these firms, they do a very good job of working together for the benefit of the customer. And I've seen it time and time again where they will make sure that they're supporting the integration, they're making sure the customer gets the right level of service and support that they need. And even with partners, frankly, as everything has shifted into the cloud, it's more important that for the vendors that they have some stake in the game. So they work very closely with us as well, just to make sure that the customers are successful. And that's important because this integration is pretty complex at times. Well, it's interesting to watch AWS kind of gluing together all the bespoke, you know, primitives, right? They're clearly doing that now, they have to do that. Whereas you see Microsoft taking a different sort of more abstracted view. Now with ChatGPT, it's a heavily abstracted view of the world. I'm not saying one's right or wrong. There's needs for both.   You know, there's no one right answer. That's exactly right. There's different ways to approach it. Wrap us up with a customer example that you think really demonstrates very clearly the value crop, the differentiation, the STG group and click bring to the table. Yeah, so I guess I'll use one that we're presenting with here today. Oh, well, technically tomorrow. But we are presenting here and I think it's a great example of a good joint value prop. So we're presenting with Novartis tomorrow. Hopefully you'll be able to join us one o'clock. And we're talking about their use of click, click sense being rolled out to tens of thousands of users across the globe.  And they've been working with click for several years now. They have leading edge tactics for implementing it and integrating it with other capabilities. So really powerful user interfaces that can support different users based on who they are. So one person logs in, they'll see a completely different environment than the other. But behind the scenes, you're leveraging the same architecture. So it's again, one of the other value props that click brings. Click is not just, and I'm referring to click sense in this context, it's not just a traditional reporting tool. It's an entire platform that is connected to the rest of the technologies that are there. So from a delivery perspective, you can get in and you can build any custom system you want, leveraging common architecture. So I think that adds a lot of scale. It adds a lot of ease of maintenance for the customer. And most importantly, it gives the end users a really flexible and intuitive way to consume the information. Chris, what do you see in the spending climate?  Okay, cool. Nobody wants to talk about the macro here. I get it, but still security and analytics are top two. You know, you see that in clouds there as well. But even those are coming down a little bit since last fall, really. Are you seeing sort of people look at analytics as semi-discretionary? Being careful about that work. Let's say they're able, because there's so much cloud action going on, they're able to dial it down just like they were able to dial it up. What are you seeing in terms of the spending climate? That's an excellent question. So, and it's very timely. So we are seeing a lot of pressure on finances across the board. However, what we're noticing is the use of analytics is still important. It's still a priority and it's still a factor in how they move forward with their spending. I will say though, their clients are much more focused on how do we do things efficiently? How do we pay attention to the costs? How do we keep them at bay, make sure they don't become too much? And maybe that's using some more people internally and then working with consultants in a different way to empower their people. So it's shifting a little bit of the dynamics. In some cases, it's the opposite. They struggle with turnover or they have to let go of people. In those cases, they'll rely a little bit more on service providers like us. And then we provide ourselves in bringing a global model that can help them adjust to the cost pressures that they've got. But to answer your question, I still see clients focusing and prioritizing on analytics as a key spend during this time. Awesome. This has been such a great conversation, guys. We could keep going, we're out of time, but you've done such a great job, Chris, of talking about what you guys are doing together with Click, how you're helping customers manage the data explosion really efficiently. High fives all around. That was awesome. Thank you so much for joining us and sharing your insights. We really appreciate that. Thank you for having me. And we want to thank you for watching. If you are our at Click World, you can catch Chris and Novartis tomorrow at 1 p.m. We appreciate you watching for Dave Vellante and our guests. I'm Lisa Martin. We're going to be back with our next guest in just a minute, so don't go anywhere.


Yn ymddangos. Mae yna'r Martin Jenkins, yng Nghymru Cymru, ac ymddangos Cymru, yng Nghymru Cymru. Mae'r ymddangos yw'r ysgol yw'r ysgol yw'r cyffredinol yng Nghymru, ac mae'r cyffredinol yw Tom Cockrum, yng Nghymru Cymru, yn yng Nghymru. Tom wedi gweld, yn ymdangosol, yn ymdangosol, ac mae'r cyffredinol yw Tom, yng Nghymru, yn ymdangosol yw'r cyffredinol, ac yn ymdangosol yy tyifeid y fawr, ac mae'n effediadus cyhoed y bydd yw, There's copies of the slides and of the video so please use that. I've also sent it round on the Twitter feed as well so the link is easily accessible. The tiny URL that's Yinee and Dark dalla Phe cooper is called swoje. that would be useful to actually look at. Having done my introduction, I'm now going to sort of allow T for me to do his introduction. Gwelwch i ddweud i'r gweithio ar gyfer Olp C 2019. Yn ymwneud yma, ymwneud ymwneud yng nghyrchynedd proffesiad o'r pethau yn ymddangosol. Yn ymwneud yw Thomas Cochran, rydyn ni'n ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud yn ymwneud ymwneud. Wrth gweithio ar y leoleddau a leoleddau yn Ynwneud yn New Zealand, ac yn ymddangosol i'r ysgrifennidd ymwneud yn ymddangosol. a ydych chi'n meddwl o'r martyn Jenkins o'r Coventry Unedig ac y Ysgrifennu Tegweld Fygrifes. Dwi'n ymweld ar y dyfodol y maen nhw'n ei ddweud o'r cyfnod fwyaf a'r ddechrau a'r ddweud i'r dysgu ..en i'r subynllun o'r ydydd llyfradwy yng Nghymru... ..y'r Llyfr Gilydd H&A. Gybodaeth H&E i Llyfr Gilydd Cynllun... ..yngnwch os ydych chi'n gwylio pethau owowod, oeddwn i'r cyflodiad... ..yny'r cyflodiad o'r lleol ym Mhwyshawnau演hwysion... ..yna'r cwysynebu o herfod... ..inell o'r cyfalion o'r Llyfr Hwylian... ..yna'r eich cyflodiad yn cyfnod oedd... pare thriving sort of analysis and se if there's a way of providing a bit more of a close mapping between the two particularly for people who want to explore getting SEMOD accreditation, who already haveة HEA fellowship or visa versa so yes part of this process we're doing a systematic through the Campbell library and the yn y brifysgol sydd yn ymgyrch ar gyfer y cyfnod. Mae'n arweithio'r cyfnod sydd yn ymgyrch ar gyfer y cyfnod. Felly, rwy'n cael ei wneud, ond mae'n fawr o'r cyfnod.  Yr hyn, Tom i'r clywed o'r rhaid i'r cyfansol... ..yddiogelio'r cyflwyno'r cyffredinol... and the HTA accreditation and the role of CMUL and what impact they were actually having on practice. We recognise that these frameworks have been beneficial in terms of setting standards, that professionalisation against something that Melissa mentioned in the opening of the conference yesterday and also used in progression pathways now. So they bring very much some personal benefits to those who are actually engaged in going through the accreditation process in terms of encouraging the conversations, the confidence that comes from the peer recognition, but what's the evidence of those, of the engagement actually on practice. So that's why we're doing the systematic analysis to actually see what the literature says about that. And at the moment I said the indications are that that's potentially sort of, the evidence is not quite there in that respect. So I'll go back to Tom who will explain a little bit more about that systematic review. Thank you all and welcome to our presentation for OLC 2019. Apologies for this. The testing of the thing did not work. As part of this process we're doing a systematic review through the Campbell library. The Campbell library has a very set process for doing this. It's a very structured systematic review process and we're in the process of doing that. We haven't finished yet, but some interesting things are coming out of that systematic review. So as part of that process we do a title registration. We do a protocol, the review protocol looks at the review criteria that we're looking at, the databases that we're searching, the key words that we're using and does it in a reproducible way. So far we've looked at Scopus, Web of Science, Eric and Google Scholar, looking with various key words around higher education, professional development, mapping and the scholarship of teaching and learning. And thus far there's certainly a gap in the literature. There's a gap around, particularly around sea mould accreditation. There's a gap around the impact of accreditation frameworks and there's really nothing at the moment that looks at mapping these different accreditation pathways. So we think this might be of interest to people to look at and see what some of the ways of perhaps cross-pollinating between the two frameworks and some of the issues around the impact and professional development of these accreditation pathways. So Martin will talk to you through a little bit more about... So we've started the systematic analysis. The flow diagram here represents where we're at at the moment so Tom highlighted the databases that we've actually made use of, identified a couple of thousand potential references which have been screened down and then filtered further. And there's 36 items that have been particularly highlighted. Again, there's a list of those in the Google folder of people who are actually interested. One of the reasons for doing this systematic analysis is that it's there as something that can be replicable. So if people are interested they can also be repeating exactly the same research that we're actually doing at the moment. The work that Tom and I are doing now is to actually go through that and then we'll say we'll be hoping to publish the outcomes for that analysis. The next element that we've referenced to this day is the mapping of the Seamult and the UK PSF. Those of you who know Tom will be aware of how passionate it is about the Seamult generally and pushing that. The issue that, again, as part of our conversation that we were conscious of is that in both our cases and we don't think we're unique in this is that how our institutions put much more emphasis on getting HEA accreditation. But again, recognising the things that have been said at this conference about encouraging more professional development and getting more people to be more digital champions and being critical around the pedagogy is about how can we perhaps encourage more people down the Seamult route. Now we're aware that there's been mapping done by Oult of the UK PSF to the Seamult but that's fairly high level and maps the actual dimensions of the UK PSF against the core areas of Seamult. And we were thinking perhaps could we do something that's perhaps a little bit more practical that might help people with that sort of translation. Now this is where we need your feedback. So the approach we've taken is to look at some evidence that people have used as part of HEA applications and then just to sort of list those against the core areas onto the Seamult with an indication of which dimension they've been used in the HEA applications. So it's given people more practical examples of what evidence could be used and how it sort of relates and it could cross-populate in that respect and say this is just a screenshot of the table, the full table is available on the Google Docs so please have a look at it, give us your feedback. Is it useful? Have you got any other ideas or examples that would actually help enhance this as well? We're always happy to receive that. So that's the sort of process and I say that we really need sort of feedback now as to sort of whether this is actually practical and useful as a sort of a way forward. The third element as part of what we're doing and this is building on work that Tom has been doing for a number of years now is providing that support structures for people through the Seamult process. Now Tom's been running this Seamult, this online sort of network and he's very keen to make that sort of an international collaboration. We've had one member of staff from Coventry go through the process Liz, who's now deserted us for the University of Highlands and Islands who actually was a participant in this network to help her Seamult accreditation. The next iteration of this support network is running again starting on the 20th of September and so Tom will be, he's really keen for Peterbill to participate in that and open that as a network. I say it's not a sort of how to in terms of policing the Seamult it's there very much as that sort of sharing network. So again picking up points that Sue was raising yesterday, the importance of that sort of sharing and collaboration in what we actually do. Now Tom was going to talk about this, I'm hopeful this may jump to the beginning again. This is a structured framework for supporting Seamult accreditation. So HAA Fellowship has a very structured support network, very structured support across the UK, Australia and increasingly in New Zealand but there's been very little structured support for Seamult accreditation. So what we've developed is a Seamook, a connectivist MOOC and we've run this four times already. We're about to start the fifth iteration of this and we'd be really keen for people to join us in this journey, join this community or practice effectively a network of like-minded people wanting to explore issues around learning technologies and at the same time looking at the potential of creating an e-portfolio for Seamult accreditation. So we run a weekly webinar. We have a course hub for this. So it's on WordPress. So it's seamultseamook.wordpress.com. There's a sign up page there if you're interested in joining us. We're aiming to kick off our next iteration on the 20th of September. So only a couple of weeks after the conference we're going to have an initial webinar which will introduce the Seamook and hopefully Martin will be able to join us for that. And then each week we'll have a weekly webinar discussing the weeks, activities, the issues around different parts of the portfolio and what it means, and also create this international network. So the final thing to mention, linked to this which some of Tom's asked to push, is that they are also developing through AUT are these SOTLs. So the Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning which is a term that's come out of work that Tom has been doing that sort of research network clusters. There are a number of those that he's keen to sort of get people involved in and linked to that also they have a symposium in February and again details of those are there and again links within this sort of presentation and so you can follow up on those if you're actually sort of interested. So that's sort of the overview. I'll say there's very much sort of work in progress that we're doing at the moment around those three strands of actually doing the systematic analysis on the impact of the accreditation frameworks starting to do some mapping to see whether there's practical value to encourage that sort of linkages between the UK PSF and CMOL and that greater engagement in professional development activity linked to technology enhanced learning and then there's also there's a practical support network that's sort of being developed. The links to a lot of the resources mentioned I say in the presentation up on the Google Doc and I say we do welcome your feedback so contact Tom or myself and sort of really really do want to hear from you. So thank you very much. We'll deliver high quality mapping data for all stages of education. Future developments include a text and data mining service working with satellite data and machine learning and smart campus technology.