I'm going to kick off by giving an overview of the open group. I'm going to talk about what the open group has been doing and what we are working on currently. I said to those of you who were in the open platform 3.0 track yesterday that a lot of people think of us as originally thought of us as the Unix company. That's sort of where we started and now people tend to think of us as the EA company or the Togaf company. There's a lot more going on than that. You'll hear about one of those in some detail today, IT for IT, but there's a lot more too. I'm just going to give you an overview of what we're up to and hopefully you'll be surprised. The open group is a consortium of organisations, not individuals. You have to be an organisation of some kind to be a member of the open group, unlike the Association of Enterprise Architects, which is for individuals. We have now over 500 memberships signed with us around the world, as you can see from 42 countries. Our global presence, our global reach is something we're very proud of and it continues to grow. Over the course of last year, we added 92 new membership agreements from 25 countries, I think. They are here on this slide and this slide. Two new countries to us overall in the year, Morocco and Zambia. But it's something that is something we're very proud of, the global nature of it. The organisations that joined tend to join for a specific area of interest. The standard membership in the open group is something called silver. That means that you're a member of one forum, one area of interest. It might be architecture, it might be security, it might be IT for IT. But that's how we divide up our work groups effectively. We call them forums. Over the course of last year, we had new members join in all of these forums you can see here. Archymate, I'll talk to what each of these are in different degrees of detail shortly. But the Archymate Forum, Architecture, IT for IT, Open Platform 3.0, Security and the Open Trusted Technology Forum. We also had new members in the Healthcare Forum, the Exploration Mining Metals and Minerals Group, which is easier to say at the beginning of the day than later. We had some new gold members. Gold membership in the open group is where you participate in most of the forum activities that we have. So there are one or two that are not included in gold, but basically it's most of what we do if you're a gold member. And we had a new platinum member in the year, Huawei, from China. They joined us and they've brought quite a lot of energy and people and resource into the organisation. So the way that people participate in the open group is a number of ways. A lot of our work is done virtually. By virtue of the global spread, not everyone can get together face to face like we are this morning. So a lot of the work is done virtually, but we do put on a number of face to face events and taking those virtual events and the faced events in total. Over the course of last year, we had 51,000 people attended an open group event, which is quite a number. The cities listed there were the cities where we held face to face events. And then we had a number of webinars and podcasts which are increasingly popular. They allow people who can't travel to the other events to participate. So I'll put the numbers up. There's only one I'm going to actually refer you to. You can read the numbers, but we do have an active group following our blog. The way that the open group blog has taken off in the last year and a half has been very pleasing to us. Active LinkedIn groups, Twitter followers, this is the one I want to really bring your attention to. Nearly 7 million page views on the open group website last year. That's quite something for an organisation of our size and something we're very proud of. In terms of virtual participation, in WebEx meetings last year, this is as I say a way of getting us participation from people who can't travel. We had 11,788 person hours. So to save you doing the math, that's 572 days of effort on WebExes. And if you look at the online collaboration activities, that's a 47% increase on the previous year. More than 20,000 people participating. There's a lot going on. I don't expect you to be able to read what those individual bars are on there, especially on this projector. But it's spread across some. There's a big bulk that you can see in the middle, sort of a turquoisey colour, depending on what it looks like on your screen. That's the face consortium, which I'll talk to in a bit. Upcoming face-to-face events, we have our next quarterly event in London in April. We have four such events during the year, usually two in the US, two in Europe, sometimes two US, one Europe and one somewhere else. But they're set for this year as London, Austin, Texas and Paris. We've got an original meeting coming up in Japan. We have a long track record of participation from Japanese companies in the open group. They have some quite vibrant local events. And then Jakarta, Indonesia. We also had representation earlier this week at pink 16, which is we were there specifically because of IT for IT. And the RSA conference is a big security industry conference that's coming up in San Francisco week after next, I think. And we have a stand there and members help us man our exhibit stand. It's a good ground for us to tell people what we're doing in the security space. One of the things we're known for, obviously, is enterprise architecture. Togaf specifically, so the two jewels in the crown are Togaf and Archymate. I'll come to Archymate in a moment, but Togaf, a big part of the growth is around certification. And last year we exceeded 50,000 individuals around the world and are now certified in Togaf 9. There was a certification program for Togaf 8 too, but this is just Togaf 9, more than 50,000 now. And there's a whole ecosystem around this and our sponsors outside Panastra and SNA technologies are two of those organisations who help build that number through their training and it's a wonderful community. And many of you in this room, I know are Togaf certified and if you're not, do think about it. The top ten countries for Togaf certification, India is number three, which is quite impressive. The UK and the US had an unfair start with it really, but because of where the initial training organisations were based. So India is certainly an area where we are seeing a lot of Togaf certifications. Now I heard yesterday Palab was saying that Bangalore was possibly the number one city in the world in terms of Togaf certifications. Well, of good news and bad news. The bad news is it isn't anymore. But the good news is if you look at the top ten, four of them are in India. So well done to all of you. That really is quite something. So thank you for that. It's really very impressive. So we expect that to continue and the places may even change. I'm still not quite sure why London is number one, but apparently it is. So also I said about 50,000 certifications. We had more than 81,500 downloads of Togaf related materials last year from 166 different countries and more than 15,000 Togaf books were sold. There's a big interest in Togaf, a big community. So why is that? Well, here are some of the things that we hear. And the one, I'll let you read the slide, but the one that I would call out myself is it provides, apart from anything else, it provides a common language. It provides a way for people to communicate when they're going about enterprise architecture in a consistent way. And that saves a lot of time, a lot of heartache and can really help, really help the EA project get off the ground. 80% of large businesses use Togaf. It depends which businesses you look at. But when you look at things like the Forbes 100, the Global 500, it's used just about everywhere and widely adopted by governments. So on the government point we spent a lot of time yesterday talking about governments. Does anyone remember who the number one ranked government in the world was from an e-government point of view from Korea? Absolutely. And here's something to back that up. Palab actually had 2014 statistics yesterday, but it was the same in 2010, 2012, and again in 2014, undisputed e-government leader. And we would say part of the reason that is, is they are using Togaf. If you look at this, this is a few charts from the South Korea government-wide enterprise architecture. They have taken Togaf and they have created what works for them, which is the key message about Togaf. You don't try and ingest all 800 pages of it and follow it slavishly, adapt it for what works for your organisation, and in this case what works for the Korean government. But it's very, very recognisable. We have lots of other examples of this kind of thing going on. South Africa is another one. They've got something very similar. Government-wide enterprise architecture based very closely on Togaf. Canada, all federal government projects use Togaf for enterprise architecture. They have a direct link to our website on the Canadian government intranet. Actively encourage people to use it. Same for Finland. The UK is a bit mixed in terms of the government, but there are some ministries, some departments where it's very strong. And the quote there is from the HM Revenue and Customs. They basically have adopted Togaf as has the biggest department in the UK government, which is the Department of Works and Pensions. Botswana, I haven't put anything down there. They have just taken a decision, which I'm not sure if it's public or it's about to be public, but they have taken a decision to basically do the same and require Togaf usage for all enterprise architecture work in Botswana. And closer to home, of course, or closer to this home, we heard yesterday about the great stuff that's going on in Andhra Pradesh. Yes, Togaf is a part of that, but what's even more pleasing from an open group point of view is it's not just about Togaf, it's about embracing the vision that we have been working with for 15 years of boundaryless information flow. So if you take a look at some of the materials from Andhra Pradesh, it is clearly directly related to boundaryless information flow. It says all the same things. If you look on our website about our mission and vision, it's pretty much the same thing. So it's so pleasing to see this being embraced. We feel it's as relevant now as it ever was when we started with this vision 15 years ago, and clearly we're not alone. Also fairly close to here, we have Bangladesh. I'm not sure if you can actually read that, but the government of Bangladesh is using Togaf. Now a lot of that is down to consulting organisations going in and explaining how the use of Togaf can help this. And one of the things that we hope for the future is that we'll see a lot more of this in government. And we think there are lots of opportunities to take what's been done in some of these territories and broaden that out. So it's a great success story for Togaf, and we want to make sure it continues. Talking of, the architecture forum of the open group is the body that works on evolving the standard. And they have been busy for some time now on working out what happens next with Togaf. What would the next version of Togaf look like? And the direction they're going in, there by no means certain yet, but the direction they're going in is to basically break Togaf up into essentially some core elements and then a series of guides that help the implementation. Also a big addition to the next version will be beefing up the security aspects of Togaf. That's one of the criticisms in the past of Togaf. It's a bit light on security. So we've actually had the security forum in the open group working with the architecture forum to get some security expertise in there. And there'll be a big difference there. And they're also working on a capability-based planning project jointly with the Arcumate forum. Talking of Arcumate, Arcumate is, that's the Wikipedia definition that you probably can't read, but basically it's a modelling language for doing enterprise architecture is how I would say it. It fits very nicely with Togaf. Lots of the same terminology. It's not Togaf doesn't mandate the use of Arcumate. You can use Arcumate far more broadly than when you're following Togaf too. It's pretty broad in its application. And one of the things we introduced in the third quarter of last year was the Arcumate model exchange file format. And that is basically where models are created using Arcumate. No matter what tool they're created in, they can be portable and interchangeable through this exchange file format. So that's proving to be very valuable for those using Arcumate. They too are working on a new version which is likely to be produced around about the middle of this year, second quarter of this year. The company review process it says on there, that's one of the procedures that we use in the open group for getting standards agreed and published. That is underway and that gives every member of the open group the opportunity to participate in the review of the next standard. The other thing, I'm not so worried about the forum survey but the model's repository. This is I think a great thing. I mentioned that models can be formed using different tools but trying to get some of those models put into a repository actually having produced a reference architecture version 2 which came out in October last year and last month we announced the manager's guide for IT for IT. A lot of work has been done by a lot of people to get to that point. There's a group of organisations who were working on this before they came to the open group. They had something to go with and they had some ideas about a reference architecture but they came to us 2 years ago saying okay we've got this far, we need some help in going further and spreading this internationally. We're very happy with what we've done with those members. What is it about? It's about managing the business of IT. Their latest publication just came out this month, in fact last week I think, which is a white paper on IT for IT in Agile. So it's worth a read. It's about managing the business of IT for IT. What's the problem? The problem as we know is that IT activity inside an organisation doesn't always get conducted in an integrated way. Things happen. There's not usually any overall plan. The way that technology is changing with all sorts of things like cloud agility, mobility, bring your own device, all of those things are proving very challenging for IT departments. They're also required, as we heard yesterday, required to do more with less money. So there's a big budget constraints. How might we tackle that? Well, what IT for IT does is it provides a reference architecture for managing the business of IT. A key concept of it is value chains, which is actually something that Michael Porter wrote about quite a few years ago now. It's a great concept if you compare IT for IT to how things have historically been done, which I'll come to in just a moment. There are value propositions. These are things we've heard from the organisations that are participating. So we've kind of divided them up into customers, but for customers, large customers of IT, the ability to track cost performance and business value and reduce risk is important. Total cost of ownership is something we hear a lot about. This helps with that. For the software vendors, they can deliver integrated solutions at lower cost and an opportunity to focus on differentiating innovation. The standard stuff that everybody would expect, what is their secret source or what is their particular value add for integrators. The company names listed here are listed because they are from the membership of the IT for IT forum. So there are obviously other examples, even in this room of the integrator category. I'll let you read those, but what I really want to say about it because you'll hear from experts on it later more than me. The organisations building it are pretty widespread. Those customer groups, the service providers and consultants and the vendors come together nicely to give a different set of perspectives and really help bring value to the standard. If I were to pick one customer out from the list, it would be Shell. If you go to the open group website, there are some great presentations from Shell employees on what the value is to them. They have embraced it absolutely completely and continue to do so. This is a quick look at what's there. The value chain concept, the next slide will say a bit more about that, but it basically takes us from the y to the what and then the reference architecture takes us from the what to the how. As they like to say, it's all about the data. You can use various models, it's very flexible. What's different about it? The traditional viewpoint of IT was plan, build, deliver and run. This takes a more integrated view. The integrated word is one that comes up a lock. You can see that the value chains are linked together. The four basic value chains are strategy to portfolio, which is really about in IT terms making sure that the right investments are made. Then requirement to deploy is about creating and maintaining quality delivery in the IT department. Your request to fulfil is about IT having a catalogue so that they know that service delivery can be performed in an organised way. Detector correct is basically maintaining it as things come up. The shop needs to keep running and that's really what that aspect is. You'll hear more about that from people more technical than me, but it's a great approach, a great way of looking at it. There are people who have already used it for real who have some great case studies to tell. This is the release trend, this is how we got to where we are. The January 2013 date was when they really came to the open group and we created a forum around that. It's a very active group, very busy group and they are constantly working on evolving it, making it more usable and spreading the word. Quote from Gartner, again I'll let you read it, but the important bit is down the bottom. Gartner estimates that for a £1 billion per annum IT function, the benefit of using IT for IT could be saving of 5% to 20% of the total budget. So it's not to be sneezed at. Where it fits in the overall IT landscape, it's pretty broad application. It doesn't replace ITIL, it's compatible with it as it is with various other frameworks and methods that you might be using. Pretty broad application. I'll switch from IT for IT, as I say we'll hear more about that. Open Platform 3.0, this is about the convergence of some of the technologies that we've seen coming at us over the last few years. Mobile, big data, internet of things, bring your own device, cloud, SOA. What does that mean for the platform? What does that mean for a digital business? All of this stuff is great if you can take advantage of it, but it's also really threatening if you can't. So finding what we're trying to do in the forum is to find a platform. What is the platform that this stuff can operate on? Maybe not the exclusive platform, but what can we bring together to assist or enable organisations to take advantage of the opportunities that these technologies offer and transform their businesses accordingly? So they're working on effectively building blocks for the digital IT or digital business and architectural patterns. One of the obvious things that an organisation inside the open group will look at is how can we leverage the architecture expertise in the organisation in the membership. So taking a look at some of the architecture patterns for what that third platform might be is important. We have history with platforms, as I said at the beginning, we started with UNIX and brought the various flavours of UNIX together in a single UNIX specification. One of the things we're doing is trying to learn from previous platforms when we're thinking about what the third platform might be. We do have two published standards in that space in the Internet of Things area, the open messaging interface and the open data format. There's a quote there that I hope you can read, but this was from a professor in Finland who says that together these standards can do for the Internet of Things what HTTP and HTML did for the internet. So let's hope you're right, there's much more to be done in this space, but we do have a good start. They do have a snapshot of what the first version of the open platform might be. A snapshot in open group terms is when something is published saying this is the direction that the standard looks to be going in and we look for feedback from the community as to is this the right direction, what have we got right, what have we got wrong. One of the new activities in this space is the digital business strategy and customer experience work group. This is something that our new platinum member I mentioned Huawei are driving quite hard. They come from a telco background, still obviously very active in the telco, but they are looking to bring some of the work that they've done in changing the customer experience in that industry to other industries working with partners there in different industries. The other thing I'd pick out from there was there's a business data lake fast track going through right now. We heard in the track yesterday those of you who were there about business data lakes and what a data lake is and we have a starting point for what that might be in open group terms going through review during the process at the moment. It's actually been contributed as a starting point by Capgemini. So that's a lot of activity there as well and a broad scope. Other forum activity, I mentioned Open Trusted Technology Forum. They are focused on mitigating the risk of maliciously tainted and counterfeit products in the supply chain. So what they have worked on to date is a standard and accreditation program which enables vendors to make a public statement, a credit their product line saying we know where every part of this, every component in this product line comes from and we're absolutely certain that it's not tainted, malicious, etc. And if it is, if it proves to be then we'll fix things much along the same lines as UNIC certification has been in the open group for a long time. So it's very interesting to government of course. It's very interesting to anyone that buys a lot of IT or a lot of systems. And in fact we're proud that it's just become a formal ISO standard. So the open group has a status with ISO, PAS status that allows us to take some of our standards, submit them to ISO on a sort of fast track basis. So that's now a formal ISO standard. And what that group is working on, IBM were the first to step up to the accreditation program and their case study on how they did that and the benefits to them and what they learned along the way is underway. That's what one of the things that they're working on as well as the white paper. And for those of you if any who are involved in any cyber security, NIST stuff in the US, there's an implementation guide that they're working on there. So that's OTTF, the security forum. Security forums had a long history in the open group. We've done various things. Their recent focus I would say for the last couple of years has been more on risk than broader security. They are also as I say working with the architecture forum on the security aspects of the next version of Togaf. But a lot of the focus has been on risk. And in there they've created something called open fair. It's based on, well I'll come to that in just a moment. Open fair is basically based on two standards. We also have OISM3, which is a framework for managing information security. There are some interesting case studies on using that in particularly the financial services world, some of the banks. So open fair is based on two standards. It's a certification of people programme, somewhat like Togaf and Archimate. And it's based on, the body of knowledge for that is two standards, the open risk taxonomy and the open risk analysis. And I know those of you who were at our open group event in Bangalore last year heard a presentation on that by Bill Estrum. And that is one that we need to, it's very broadly applicable. It's probably a good way of putting it. Some of the early interest has been in insurance companies and financial services organisations. Some of them in the US in particular are training their people in this. And interestingly my son is also using it on his university course, which was something new. Other forums, Open Real Time and Embedded Systems forum, they do a lot of work particularly in the military space and the government space. They're working on multiple independent levels of security APIs for critical systems. So the kinds of systems where it's really important that real time means real time is what they're working at. Things like so that when a fighter pilot pushes the button things happen when they're supposed to. That's one example. And the open group based work group is around the single unit specification. That's an activity that evolves that specification gradually in conjunction with ISO and IEEE. So industry verticals, that's also something we have. The healthcare forum, they have been doing a lot of work on what the healthcare landscape is. There's obviously a lot of potential efficiency opportunities in the healthcare industry around the world. And they are looking at how some kind of standardisation can help achieve some of those things. So they've taken a look at the landscape so far of what the healthcare industry is on an international basis. Face I'll come to in just a moment and then the other one that's vertical is the Exploration Mining Metals and Minerals Forum. They have a very well thought of reference architecture for that industry. And I think it's actually probably something that is a good starting point for reference architectures for other industries. We just haven't gone there quite yet. David's nodding I see. So the face consortium, this is about avionics. Traditionally avionics, particularly military avionics, they are designed by large parts of them at least are designed by one organisation. You basically have a giant system that you buy from one major supplier. They may have obviously had contributions to that system from other organisations, but basically you get tied in from a customer point of view. Think of a Department of Defence, for example, customer point of view. You get tied into certain ways of doing things with certain suppliers. What face is about is really providing a common environment for avionic systems. In my words, the cockpit of the future is a good way of looking at it. The approach is to move away from this kind of monolithic system to something more like an app store, which sounds a bit scary when it's in planes, but the concept being that you can buy what you want from different vendors and they'll plug and play together because they're going to be compatible, compliant with a common environment. That's what face is about. There are now more than a thousand individual participants participating from the member organisations in that. It's a really vibrant group. I was at one of their meetings a couple of weeks ago when various vendors were demonstrating where they had got to so far in using this. It's getting put in procurements, which is a really good indicator that it's going to be real. It's a US-only activity because of some of the security aspects or encryption aspects involved. We hope that will change because there is interest in this same kind of thing from other governments other than the US, but it's been a great activity so far. It's about to spawn something called SOZA, which is the Sensor Open Systems Architecture. Currently it's started inside Face, but it's going to go out on its own inside the Open Group, but as a separate forum and is more broadly applicable. It's basically anything where sensors are important, so it's not just military application. Lastly, I started by mentioning Unix. First time for a quite a long time there is considerable interest and effort and real activity from the Unix system vendors. To rejuvenate the Unix standard and the Unix brand. It's reached a point where there's Unix and Linux and some people think Unix is old and Linux is new, and the reality is that they're so close together that that isn't necessarily the case. We're putting some effort into some work in Unix and extolling the virtues, what it's all about. It's pleasing to see we've had a number of attempts at doing this over the years that I've been with the organisation. They've always crashed on the rock of the product marketing people inside the individual organisations because they'd rather spend their money on promoting their own versions rather than the commonality. There seems to be a sense now that it's time to promote the commonality as well. That's potentially quite exciting for us. Final thought, this is a quote that some of you may have seen before, but have a choice, you can either create your own future or become the victim of a future that somebody else creates for you. A call to action of participation. Many of you are here from member organisations of the open group and we'd love you to participate actively if you don't already and for those of you who aren't members, then hopefully you've got a sense of some of the things that are going on that might entice you to join us. So that's all I have to say. I'm happy to take any questions if there are any. There's one question over this table here, James. So I could you repeat the question? UML standard and Archiment standard. Archiment is sort of at a higher level than UML. They're not mutually exclusive. They can be used with each other. In fact there's a white paper on using them together. But UML tends to take you down much deeper when you're using it. For me, with my non-technical background, if I look at UML diagrams and models, they don't mean anything to me. If I look at an Archimate thing, it's at a level that I can comprehend. So it's a question of different levels really. They don't even look the same but you can use them together and people do use them together. We actually have an activity going on with OMG, which is the standards body responsible for UML, to work further on positioning the two and how they might work together or creating an Archimate specific element inside UML. So there. But there is a white paper on our website about how they can be used together. Any more? Hi Stu. Here. Thank you for that comprehensive overview. My question is on Archimate as well. What tools do you recommend for using Archimate? Currently we are using a tool, Archie. But there is a problem. When teams work together using Archie, they are not able to share the models in control or reuse things like system architecture. Are there any work going on in creating a more comprehensive tool for Archimate? Yes, there is. Archie is there to, it's an open source. You can take it, you can use it and it's a good starting point but obviously it does have its limitations. What we can't do as the open group because neutrality is our most important word really, we can't recommend particular tools from particular vendors but what I can tell you is we do have a certification programme for Archimate tools. So we would point you to the register of Archimate tools and say all of those have stepped up to be certified by us. So pick from them. But there are individuals here I know who could probably give you their experience of using various different tools but I can't point you to one, I'm afraid. Okay, thanks. My question is also on Archimate. Sorry, there's a bright light, there we go. Where we found the overlap in the Archimate is the BPMM business motivation model and the BPMM notations. Is there any work done to make this notation seamlessly work together? Is there any roadmap on that? There is a cooperative project with OMG as I mentioned about bringing the two closer together or at least making it easier to use the two. I can't give you a roadmap or a timeline for that but if you see me afterwards I can put you in touch with the people who might be able to do that. I know there is activity there, there are so many things they're trying to deal with at the same time it's a question of which one they spend time on. I think there was one more. Making you work, James. He's running. What visible benefits are seen after TOGAF certification? What visible benefits are seen in the industry after TOGAF certifications? So where would you go after TOGAF certification? What visible benefits are seen in the industry, basically after TOGAF certification? Is there a backlog or Hyderabad having more number of TOGAF certified persons? So what are the visible benefits seen in the industry as such? Do you want me to respond to that? Yes. I think one of the reasons why India is very high on the list for TOGAF certifications is because the customers of the companies they work for are demanding architects who are certified. There's a big demand, particularly currently in the western market, from both government and commercial customers for TOGAF certified people. So that's basically the virtuous circle. You'd have heard yesterday the amount of work that's now going on in India. There's increasing demand within India also for enterprise architects and for TOGAF certification. There's a useful survey that's done every quarter by a company called FUT. The FUT report. FUT, F-W-O-T-E, they do a US quarterly salary survey against certifications. You'll find TOGAF is pretty much near the top. It's sort of second only to OpenCA. So there's basically for the individual, particularly for you in the US, you earn more money. That may or may not be true in this country because there's no survey so I don't know. There's increasing demand worldwide, which is what's driving the people to do it, because there's increasing demand for enterprise architects and currently TOGAF is the most common. It's the de facto standard that people are using as their method. So it has that direct benefit both to the employers and to the individuals who achieve certification. So it's a good thing. Next, any more questions? Hi. One more. Hi Steve. So my question is open platform 3.2 I understand has an offshoot which is open public sector data. I know there's a business scenario and a white paper that was published on your website. Could you throw some light on what's happening on that front, the open public sector data front? Is there something that you're taking beyond just that business scenario that you've documented? To be honest, I'm not aware of anything going beyond that. What the forum has done is taken a look at a number of different industries, a number of different use cases, I think 21 they've done so far. And some of them have resulted in white papers. When they've kind of gone through that stage, it's then okay, which of these are we going to focus on next to go through and do more on. So right now I'm not aware of anything specific in that space, but the way it works is if there's an interest in the forum in diving down further into that group, then that's going to happen rather than another industry. So it really depends on where the interest of the members in the forum are. So as an extension to that, as a practitioner and someone who's passionate about open data, is there any way that one could engage with that forum that you just mentioned?  Well, it basically means being a member of the open platform forum and then participating in the... Yeah, and since I understand, I guess one of your Platinum members out there, I would have thought it should not be so much of a challenge getting to interact with that forum and probably contributing to what is to be done on that front of the public sector data. Absolutely, it shouldn't be a challenge. So is your challenge that things happen in the wrong time zones or everything's remote? No, the challenge is more about the fact that I do not know how to go about it in approaching that forum, getting that going with them. Well, as a Platinum member, all employees of Platinum members are able to go into our system and subscribe to the relevant forums of their choice through our system. So you can do that yourself. I suggest to fast-track that process. We might talk afterwards and I can then put you in direct touch with the forum director, Chris Harding, and he'll be able to guide you through that. Thanks, thanks a lot. You're welcome. My suggestion is try it online now. If you fail to do it by the coffee break, we'll help you out. I'll do an introduction to Chris anyway because that will help you make sure that you're with the right people. Hi Steve, I have one question. As an open group, when we say enterprise architecture, nowadays the definition of the enterprise is moving from the large scale to the small scale. There are a lot of startups. Now, when we say TOGAF certified architect, we are reachable to the only enterprise architect like a MNC level. Now, most of the startups want to adopt these standards, but the reachability is very less. From the organization, what are your plans to create a reference architecture that can be useful for the startups? Even they are having a kind of a hundred members with the scale of software engineering to the till senior software engineering. It's something that we do here a lot of the organizations that have the case studies and have used TOGAF tend to be the larger ones. There aren't too many case studies that I'm aware of of use inside a small organization. One that I am aware of is actually one we did ourselves inside the open group. I was personally involved in that a few years ago. We didn't just try. We did put ourselves in the shoes of a small organization, which is what we are in terms of staff, and say, okay, we don't have an architecture team. How do we go about implementing TOGAF? There is a white paper on that published that I would refer you to on the website. In terms of a reference architecture for startups, it's a great idea. It's a question of the resource in the forum to do that. They are focused on the next version of TOGAF, but that may be very good input into maybe that's something that should be there in the guides. Maybe there should be a guide for small and medium-sized enterprises using TOGAF. I'm not aware of a specific activity to create a reference architecture. It's really a question of what the members in the forum want to do. We can suggest it, certainly. We can tell them we think it would be a good thing, but they're the ones that would need to create it. The other thing I would say is, whilst it's far from a startup organization, one of the most fascinating examples of taking TOGAF when they hadn't even heard of it and using it is BAE systems. These are the people that produce submarines in the UK. We had a series of presentations from them at our London event last year. Somebody came in and said, you need to go look at this TOGAF thing. They did, and they knew nothing about enterprise architecture. They never even heard the words, but went in and looked at TOGAF. As they described it, they took out a black pen and deleted every word that had more than three syllables in TOGAF. What they were left with was something that, ah, this could be useful. This could actually really help us. They really didn't have the expertise, they didn't have training, they weren't certified. They're now a lot more mature in their use of it, and they have got people trained. But to get going, they took the pocket guide to TOGAF. That's what they went through and tried to make sense of it for their own organization. As I say, they're far from a start-up organization, but in terms of enterprise architecture maturity, they really were starting from the ground, and they had a very small team. There were two people working on this, and then they broadened it out. It's a great case study and there are a series of presentations on the website that might be of interest or might give you some ideas. But in terms of a specific reference architecture, we don't have a specific plan for one for start-ups, but it certainly seems like a good idea or certainly some guidance on using TOGAF inside a small organization. May I suggest that emphasis as a member of the Architecture Forum could create an activity to create to build some reference architecture? Absolutely. I would like to share that. One of the biggest things and surprises to people, and Steve talked about it, are members. Our members do all the work. We as staff, we get to talk about it, but we don't do the work. It's our members. The analogy we use is we're the personal trainers in the gym. We can guide you to the things that will help you and the things that will be there, but we're not going to do the work out for you.  You can only take it so far. It's not a perfect one, but it is the analogy. It's down to the members to work there, but that's an activity that certainly would make a lot of sense if there's the will inside the Forum to do it. Thank you, Steve. Just I would like to add the suggestion. In Infosys, we started the incubation centre for our own engineers. As per your suggestion, in Infosys, we have started the incubation centre for our own employees. In Hyderabad SCG Poacharam, we are running a lab for incubator ideas. Right now, we are working on 200 POCs. We are adopting this open group architecture to create the case study. We will submit the same to you. That's great to hear. Thank you. If I can add, I have gone through a presentation from Mark from Business Design, presented on architecture and agile environment. I think you might want to add up that. Mark Lonkhurst? Yes, from Biz Design. From Biz Design, yeah. Thank you.


The aviation industry of Russia continues to receive supplies from the Russian company Avia Fed Service, which, for its part, bought most of the spare parts in Ukraine. Vasniy Astoriai, a Russian outlet, reported this. Since the beginning of the full-fledged invasion of Ukraine, Avia Fed Service has supplied the Russian Defense Ministry, Rostec and the Presidential Air Force with spare parts worth at least 650 million rubles were $7.3 million in 2022-July 2023. Most of it, 370 million rubles or $4.1 million came from Ukraine, according to Customs data. The company imported spare parts for an 124 aircraft manufactured by the Kharkiv Fed Machine Building Plant for almost 120 million rubles or $4.1 million spare parts for radars of Ka-32 helicopters manufactured by the Kyiv Plant radar for more than 67 million rubles or $757,000 spare parts for in 24 and in 12 aircraft engines produced by MotorSitch, products of the Kyiv Artem Plant, the Kharkiv Aggregate Design Bureau, the Vovchansk Aggregate Plant and other Ukrainian enterprises for approximately 170 million rubles or $1.9 million.There were also deliveries from France, the USA and the UK before the start of the war in. Ukraine's East in 2014, the Kharkiv Fed Machine Building Plant was the main supplier of Avia Fed Service. Russia accounted for 70% of sales. The outlet writes, with the beginning of the war in Donbas, the plant officially stopped deliveries to Russia. In 2018, Avia Fed Service came under Ukrainian sanctions according to Vaznia Storiai. This did not prevent the supply to the Russian Federation, not directly, but through the linker company registered in the United Arab Emirates. The company has a website in several languages, including Russian. It says that it is focused on the supply of aircraft parts from E8, Mi-17, and Ka-32 helicopters anywhere in the world, Aleksandr Shetnik, director of Avia Fed Service, told Vaznia Storiai that the Ukrainian products that came to the company in 2022-2023 were purchased earlier and were simply lying abroad. However, he could not answer the question of how it was possible in the case of deliveries through Bukhater G1, registered a few months ago.


Welcome all to this session on building a path to net zero aviation in association with the world economic forum clean skies for tomorrow initiative. This is a two part session with a public live stream. That's what we're doing right now, followed by a second half, which is a private session for forum members and partners to have the opportunity to interact directly with the panelists. I want to take you on my journey. I've been lucky enough to work with the development of sustainable aviation fuels throughout my career. In fact, I started working on sustainable aviation fuels. When people said there was no way that we would ever be able to fly a commercial plane on a drop in replacement bio derived or alternative derived fuel. And here we are 15 years later, there are seven certified drop in sustainable aviation fuel pathways, and we've completed more than 300,000 commercial flights. While that seems like a drop in the bucket, the reality is it's no longer a question of if we can do this, but rather how quickly we can do it how quickly can we come to the point where sustainable aviation fuels are on every plane that we get on. And to achieve this, we're going to need tremendous collaboration because as you know, our climate emergency dictates that we need to do this faster and faster. So we need collaboration like the World Economic Forum, Clean Skies for Tomorrow, Ayata and the Jet Zero Council, as well as all the businesses and governments and the airlines that are represented here today. What I'm most excited about is to see this tremendous interest in what we call scope three emissions, which is basically bringing in all the brands and the large businesses to the table. Over the course of this session, we will focus on challenges and priorities across the aviation value chain, trying to drive this energy transition and highlighting the commitments that will be necessary to create an equitable path forward for a net zero aviation. So with that, let me introduce the wonderful lineup that we have today. We have Dr. Fang Lu, the Secretary General of the International Civil Aviation Organization. Mr. Dick Benchop, Chief Executive Officer of the Royal Shipple Group. Ms. Gracia Vitadeni, Chief Technology Officer of Airbus and the Right Honorable Grant Shaps, Secretary of State for Transport, Department for Transport of the United Kingdom joining us today. So if I may, what I'd like to do is, in the order that I've just presented them, ask each of our presenters to spend a couple of minutes giving us their perspective on what we are doing now. Let me start with Dr. Fang Lu, please. Thank you, Jennifer, for our wonderful introduction. I will start with quote the UN Secretary General Gutierrez in his recent statement. He's saying, build a sustainable system driven by renewable energy, green jobs, and a reliable future. As I feel Secretary General, I'm greatly encouraged that governments and the air transport industry have both the motivation and the opportunity to answer that call. As you rightly said, this journey needs everyone's participation. And during the recent events are organized by a kill in the areas of innovation and environment stakeholders from around the world arrive with strong commitments, ambitious road maps, and dozens of exciting new climate solutions. Tremendous innovations in hybrid, electric, and hydrogen proportion were discussed. Recent, exponent advances in battery energy density and increased the sustainable aviation fuels deployment were appreciated. And the common core was heard on the need to accelerate the pace at which we identify, assess, and regulate these advances to the benefit of all. Today's innovations, however, represent some very significant aviation paradigm shifts. And they are also heavily relying on new investments, incentives, and partnerships being attracted and realized. As you know, Achilles United Nations Specialized Agency and setting international standards for aviation and assist the MMSD to implement these standards. And we already established COSIA international standards for aviation and working on the other guidance and materials for implementation. And we are very happy that the COSIA standards has been started for implementation as of January 1st of this year, and according to our regulations and also our assembly resolutions. So, Achilles is where many of these participants happen and we will continue to drive progress in all areas of aviation sustainability. We will also work to help enable and not stiff the paradigm shifts now anyway, while ensuring throughout this coming evolution that our sector's overall sustainability is appreciated based on the many social environment and economic factors which compress it, but not only based on annual emissions. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Dew for your remarks. I would like to now proceed to Mr. Dick Ben-Shaw, please. Thank you very much, Jennifer. And thanks for inviting me to participate in this conversation. Perhaps strange because aviation is in the deepest crisis of its existence, but I want to highlight at the start of the discussion three positive developments I see around sustainability. The first one is around commitments, which is like the starting point. And I see that the aviation sector, the airports or the airlines are now really coming together around the commitment towards net zero aviation in 2050. So in line with the Paris Agreement. And I think those are important steps. Secondly, if you think about the first 10 years towards 2030, there's a heavy burden on the introduction, the scaling up of sustainable aviation fuels. And it's good to see that we are now getting beyond the first pilots that really factories, plants are being built and developed, whether it's in Singapore or in the UK or in the Netherlands, which will be at full scale and using various technologies but getting those sustainable aviation fuels towards the market. And it's positive as well. I believe that we see all kinds of fuel players acting in this space. So it's not just companies like yourselves, Jennifer and Sky Energy and other dedicated companies, but you see the big fuel players moving into this area as well. DP, Shell, Uniper, Nestay and others. So there's now serious investments on the table to get us beyond this phase of demonstration projects. And the third element and at least it's taking shape in Europe and I hope that will be an example elsewhere is that to get to scale to get further than even the first set of plants. You need really policies in place and regulation in place to solve the chicken and egg issue between supply and demand. And Europe is now on the verge of announcing its refuel aviation initiative as I believe it's called, which will introduce a blending mandate for sustainable aviation fuels. And that would be an enormous step forward. And I think it would be an enormous investment to further investment by the private sector. So there's a lot still to be done and I'm happy to talk about that as well. But I would like to kick us off with those three positive developments around commitment, around private investment and around public policy on sustainable aviation fuels that is getting started now. Thank you, Dick. It's amazing how important your role and that of airports has been. You've been one of the leaders from the beginning and so we thank you for being here and for your remarks. I would like now to turn to Ms. Bitadini, who will go ahead and give us her viewpoints on this topic. Thank you very much, Jennifer. Yes, it's a great pleasure to be among all of you and really a honor to be back at Davos or be it in 2D this time. Allow me a moment of nostalgia. It was just last January. I participated in a West session on Clean Skies of Tomorrow. And during this session, we were discussing about the challenge of balancing our commitment to developing sustainable technologies to decarbonize air travel with the growing passenger and aircraft demand at the time. Well, these days the question I get asked most highlights are quite different paradox. So is aviation still committed to net zero or will it focus rather on recovering profitability first? Well, let me be crystal clear. This is a false choice. We have accelerated our ambition to fly carbon neutral into a really tangible plan to bring a zero emission aircraft to markets by 2035. But while we recognize that developing a climate neutral aircraft is maybe the most direct contribution that we can bring as a manufacturer. Well, the challenge of climate change goes well beyond one single entity. And this week we've seen leaders such as President von der Leyen, Chancellor Merkel, President Moon Jae-in reiterate that multi-lateralism and cross-industry unity is the common denominator to stimulating a really sustainable and long-term recovery. And to this extent, I'm really pleased to see at least some beacons of optimism. We've seen the 13 airlines of one world coming together to pledge net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and the SAF partnership on sustainable aviation fuels between Microsoft and Alaska Airlines. We clearly have the right level of ambition in my view and science-driven targets. Now we need to progress on the regulatory frameworks on public policy support and on robust and safe technology pathways to get us there. So I do applaud the World Economic Forum for reorienting all industries towards our collective goal. And I certainly do look forward to our discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Gracia. I really appreciate your remarks, especially a view that false choices are the wrong way to think about things. We're way smarter than false choices, and I appreciate your comments on that. Next, I would like to call on the right Honorable Grant Shaps to give us his views and perspectives. Jennifer, thanks very much and good afternoon to everyone. I have to say it's a real pleasure to be invited to join you today. I wish it was in happier times. I wish it was in happier times for aviation in particular. I think as we approach the first anniversary of the COVID outbreak, there's no doubt that the pandemic has hit this industry harder than probably any other. And like many governments, we've been working flat out throughout 2020 and now into 2021 as well to work out how to support the airline and airport sector. But it's been an incredibly tough year. But I think now finally, with vaccinations taking place at an increasing pace, we're up to 7 million in the UK. We're vaccinating at over 2 million a week. We now see a route to the recovery. And our economic plan is to, as the saying goes, to build back better. Absolutely fundamental to that plan is to decarbonize in aviation, making flights cleaner and greener so the sector can grow in a sustainable and resilient way. And as others have said, it's a process that had already started well before coronavirus. But I consider it to be more important than ever as we come out, but we pursue it even more actively. So the UK was the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to get to net zero by 2050. That means net zero in all carbon emissions and it means we need to sort out aviation. And within the aviation sector, we've launched what we've called the Jet Zero Council. And of course, governments can't tackle the issue alone. And that's why we're working really closely with industry. Last summer, I co-chaired the first meeting and then continued since then of the Jet Zero Council. And that's with leaders from government, from aviation, from aerospace, and of course from academia. And our single overriding goal is to make net zero a possibility in aviation and to do so well before 2050. But even more importantly, a collaboration, as Grazia and others have said, is going to be required to work if we're going to make this happen. And that means working at a global level to decarbonise the sector. And that's why we're now working through IKO to set global net zero long-term goals and standards for aviation emissions. And that's why I'm looking forward to our hosting COP26 in the UK in Glasgow in nine months time. And we want to use COP26 to help accelerate the transition to cleaner aviation. So we're going to be working with the World Economic Forum, with other states to develop new policy tools, which will help drive the deployment of sustainable aviation fuels. And for the summit itself, we're seeking to arrange revision for sustainable aviation fuels for delegates at key UK airports. And we're going to be encouraging others to do the same across the world. So Jennifer, I'm absolutely delighted to be here at this event. Thank you very much. And I'm really looking forward to our discussion. Thank you so much. The emphasis on collaboration, especially as you said, the stage for the master collaboration of COP26 really is a clear path forward. So thank you very much for your remarks. I'm going to now go through and provide some questions to the panelists. And I'm going to start by asking, Dick, which public policies do you see as being important in driving aviation and creating a sustainable transition? And if there was a framework or other policies that you'd like to see set forth and prioritize, we'd like to hear your views on that as well. Yeah, thank you very much. And I think it's a key question because we have to get policies right and regulation right in order to provide the right incentives to get investment going. And then we are going to make the transition indeed. And I'm positive about certain planks of it that are coming into place. For example, the focus now on sustainable aviation fuel, the European mandate to be developed indeed. But at the same time, you see that there's still what I would say almost a bit of a scattergun approach to policy as far as aviation and sustainability is concerned. You see a lot of things that are being done and are being tried, but not really effective at the moment. And we need to focus. And there's really two areas to focus or three areas to focus on, of course. One is general emission trading emission pricing schemes like that that help to to get the right incentives that both to to the sector as well as to consumers. Secondly, then then take a tackling the real big issue of the aviation fuels through mandates. And then thirdly, how to support research and development into new propulsion as well in this age of electric flying or hydrogen flying that will that will come. But we see a lot of other attempts or a lot of other discussions as well, aviation tech, Texas, ticket, Texas, which are not really helpful because yes, they had cost, but they don't drive greening and they don't drive sustainability. And for that sector, which is indeed in its biggest crisis and as one of the hardest hit sectors, we have to be very focused. Yes, we are going to add cost because sustainability will have it cost, it will have enormous benefits as well, but it will have cost investments have to take place. And in order to do that, we have to focus on those measures on those policies that drive the right incentives that drive the right investments. And in a way, there's not enough international coordination in this sense. And there's strengths of policymaking, especially around taxation, which do not drivers in the right direction, which are a distraction. And it's almost it feels like we are not serious enough then in terms of tackling this this big issue. So let's focus and take the right measures and not get diverted as we are currently to a too large extent. Thank you, Dick. Really appreciate your remarks. And actually that leads me directly then to a question for Dr. Liu. You talk about cost and pricing and the importance of thinking about costs differently. And I think IKEA has been thinking about this for quite a long time and trying to set a forward view. Can you talk a little bit about policies and how to ensure we pay more for sustainability, but that we appreciate and understand that that is what needs to happen. Can you can you share IKEA perspective on that? Like everyone knows, this COVID-19 is great challenging for the vision sector, but also provide enormous opportunity as well for our sector to build back better in terms of green aviation and also to meet our aspiration goals, which are under discussion by 2050 zero net emission. So as you can see, the airlines already started to think about and also some of them already take action to require some fuel in extensive aircrafts and to purchase a greener and more efficient and fuel efficient aircraft to modernize that fleet. That is one of the this kind of the majors. And then also more important is government and also private sector as well should work together like W.E.F., one of these kind of opportunity to have the public sector and the private sector to work together to develop the common path to move further. And then from actual side, as you already know, we are now in the process to develop to developing our framework leading to the 25th aspiration goal framework, which will be considered in 2022. And starting from this year and the next year, there are numbers of this kind of webinars and also seminars and the full all the stakeholders to come over to share that as a practice and share their innovative solutions are in order for our sector to move further. And one of the most important thing I want to emphasize that aviation is a global business. We have a global network. We need the global solutions. That is, through RTO, we view this global solution, which can help to address this issue by joining the efforts across the world, which can benefit to everyone. And then not only I would also emphasize, not only government and also companies. I think individual, you also play important role. Individual is also the passenger base for airlines. And let's say, if you are going to travel to one destination, there is options for you to take. Either you take a big aircraft to the business airport and with more emissions. But there is another option. There is electrical and a small airport aircraft and to the local airports, and then with less emission. So also passenger can make a choice, which also can help the airlines and manufacturers and also government to work for this common objective. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Liu. And that actually gives us a perfect opportunity to go to Gracia, who can maybe tell us a little bit about what the OEMs are doing. We talk about hydrogen. We talk about SAF. We talk about electric vehicles. How do these things come together in creating a more sustainable path to net zero? Yes, Jennifer. I think it's important to underline, first of all, that already well before the crisis, it was a widely accepted view that preserving our climate and environment is the indispensable foundation upon which to build the longer term future. Both ecologically and economically, societally and politically. And we did see early and quite veritable signs of this when the EU declared a climate emergency and outlined very ambitious plans for a European Green Deal. We heard Larry Fink announcing plans to make sustainability his new global investment standard. And I mean, last year at the West, the climate protection movement did very positively dominate the agenda. So based on these signals, one could say that the pandemic has increased global understanding of how dependent we are on our environment. And it's become quite clear that any significant industry recovery and profit in the years to come will depend on ambitious climate protection plans in parallel. And again, from the Airbus perspective, we have accelerated our decarbonization ambition into a tangible plan to bring a zero emission aircraft to market by 2035. We've rolled out zero year three aircraft concept all relying on hydrogen as primary power source, exploring different technology pathways, different architectures. And this is really a crucial element of how we plan to contribute to the decarbonization of our industry. That being said, another key implication for the industry, especially Europe, is finding a balanced way forward for alternative fuels and solutions. And in this respect, I see absolutely three priorities. First of all, the need to boost production and uptake of sustainable aviation fuels. And to do that, we're going to need a dedicated and stable, robust set of policy measures throughout legislation and financing. Six of my industry, CTO Pierce and I signed a letter soliciting IKO's indispensable support and action on SAFs, which really underpins the importance of this joint industrial commitment. We're also working on other SAF initiatives with our colleagues at Safran at Rolls Royce and we're really excited about that. More specifically, I really believe this policy should include prioritization of sustainable fuels for aviation, investing into developing high impact feedstock and conversion technologies and cost effective financing. Because SAF provide a short and long term solution to decarbonizing the sector, while technology in parallel continues to evolve to achieve even more fuel efficient aircraft than today. And it also plays a key role in industry-wide carbon reduction as all existing aircraft can already safely fly on a SAF blend up to 50% with certified that. Second priority, implementing a green stimulus for airlines to enable them retiring old and less environmentally friendly aircraft. You know, replacing a single-ail aircraft can save more than 4,500 tons of CO2 per year. And if you consider a long range aircraft, well that saving goes up to 37,000 tons per year. So really creating the right conditions, the right financing framework to allow airlines to modernize their fleet towards more fuel efficient aircraft is a win-win and it would support absolutely the European green agenda. Third and last point, we need to catalyze an industry collaboration, unlike any we've seen in recent history, really joining forces with all stakeholders across the industry, across the political arena and research institutions. It's absolutely important to note that as with every new technology or innovation rollout, a global transition to zero emission flight requires a total rethink of many elements of our quite intricate aviation ecosystem. You mentioned hydrogen, take hydrogen. We're going to need to see a technical redesign of current aircraft. So engineers will need to take the technologies developed in automotive and space, bringing the weight and the cost down and making really the technology safe and compatible with commercial aircraft operations. And we're going to need to mobilize, of course, airport infrastructure, right? We've started working with several airports, including Sripol and airlines, working on the concept of an airport hydrogen hub. And of course, we're going to need the collaboration from aviation authorities to certify future hydrogen powered aircraft to airworthiness safety standards. Not to mention, of course, government collaboration as a critical piece of the puzzle. And we do welcome in the sense, the support we're receiving from different nations among which France, Germany, the UK and Spain, plus of course European Union to fund R&T in this regard. Thank you, Gressia. I hear a lot about technology, but every single speaker has also mentioned policy. And so nobody better to speak of that than Secretary of State Shaps and how you see policy, public private partnerships, as well as government initiatives like your Jet Zero Council, as we head into COP26, as the most impactful cop ever is what I'm hearing you say. Please go ahead. That's right. I think this really will be the most impactful cop ever because we have a moment in our history where the world is sort of coming together around this policy discussion. And I just was listening to the other speakers that I was I was remembering a time when Al Gore must have just produced his his film and inconvenient truth and we weren't yet in government in the UK. He came to meet the shadow cabinet, as we were at the time. And one of the questions that was thrown to him was, what will happen given that you may well persuade the West to pursue these net zero targets in time. And of course, this is now, you know, a decade and a half ago, really. But what are you going to do because you'll never get China to go along with that. And ironically, China have announced their net zero target before 2060, before the United States of America. So you ask how important policy is a policy is everything in this or certainly a very large chunk can't do it without policy. And I think that's why it's encouraging that really now this moment in time, we have the whole world coming together. And I'm recognizing how important it is for us to reach those zero carbon targets. And America ducked out of this for a little while for the last few years. But it's clearly coming back in a strong way. I know that John Kerry's been given the post of the climate. Envoy for COP26. And so there's a heavy weight approach to dealing with climate starting at a policy level. And my best direct experience about a two-fold. First of all, just in cars and in vehicles. The UK has legislated or set a target for 2030 more than target. It will be legislation to rule out any further sales of petrol or diesel vehicles. So that's in 2030, that's in nine years time. And similarly, we have this, as I mentioned before, legislative target for 2050 to be net zero. And aviation absolutely has to one of the more tricky parts of this. It's much easier with the cars. We already have the technology. It's already there. I drive an electric car. Lots of people will planes are different as has been discussed. But I think that's why things initiatives like the jet zero council can make a big difference. Once again, it brings together the policy, the academics, the industry. All of the kind of the best thinkers and doers in this field and brings them all under one roof. And I think in some ways, only the power of government as a convener can help to do that. And of course, sometimes we can help to a grease the wheels or maybe there's a better sort of jet zero comparison that I can use in order to. I was going to say put rocket boosters under it, but that would be wrong again, you know, to electrify the process and accelerate it up to up to altitude.