Welcome everybody. I'm Chris Harding, the forum director for Open Platform 3.0 with the Open Group. The Open Group is a vendor-neutral consortium that develops standards and best practices and is proud to present this webinar on SMAC and Open Platform 3.0. SMAC has become a recognized term for some new technologies, social, mobile, analytics and cloud. And Open Platform 3.0 is an open group initiative to help enterprises make use of these and other emerging technologies. We have three experts who will be presenting today. I will not be presenting content, but will be moderating the panel discussion. These are Aravind Ajad from WIPRO, Bhupesh Naik from Infotis and Gautam Bhatt from IBM. And they will be joined for the panel discussion by Mark Skelton, who is a professor at Warwick University in the UK and has been heavily involved, particularly in the business-related aspects of our Open Platform 3.0 work. Aravind and Bhupesh have not been involved in that work. They are independent thought leaders who will be presenting their ideas on how the industry is developing in this area. Generally, Gautam has been involved and is involved in the Open Platform 3.0 forum, and he will be talking about what we are doing to develop the platform. What is Open Platform 3.0? It is not a product, it is a standard platform that will help enterprises to use not only social, mobile, analytics and cloud, but also other emerging technologies, and particularly the internet of things. And it does not yet exist. It is in process of being defined by the Open Group, and Gautam will be talking more about that. Its purpose, however, is to help enterprises take advantage of these wonderful new technologies that everybody is talking about. So to say more about these technologies and their effect, I will hand over to the first of our three presenters, Aravind. So perhaps we can move to his next, his first slide. Okay, thanks Chris. Good morning everybody who is joining the webinar. My name is Aravind Azhar. I'm a lead architect and practice leader in emerging technologies at Vipro. So next few slides I'm going to cover what is the impact of SMAC and how do we look beyond the obvious within SMAC to understand the real impact of SMAC on the application architecture. So if you look at the application evolution so far, there always has been an influence of technology change on the application. Each computing error, as you can see in the diagram here, is defined by a technology disruption, and then that has resulted in how the applications are architected. So one of the things that currently we are seeing as we are calling it a SMAC, the social mobility analytics and flow, is one such computing error which is actually currently happening, which would have a lot of influence on how the applications are architected. So what is that influence or impact? If we have the question ourselves, that is what I'm going to, whether I'm trying to cover in the next few slides. So the most common way to look at impact of anything is to discuss about it and then look at various things. But most often the case, what I've seen with respect to SMAC is that there has been a lot of hype, buzzwords, so the discussion stops at the obvious. It doesn't go beyond the obvious. It doesn't go beyond those key words, social mobility, etc. So how do we move beyond the obvious? The real impact, in my view, is the long-term impact. The impact of not the big words, but the various ways and means in which this impact is trickling down in two applications is what I see is the ratio of the impact. So the real impact, the way I see it, is the user experience, the user thinking, the automation, the agility, which the SMAC brings to the application and the station. How I see the impact is coming. How I see the SMAC is influencing the application. So the first one I see is that not technology, but the influence of SMAC goes beyond technology, especially the social computing and the consumer internet that has influenced significantly what users expect from applications. So this is one of the manifestations of how SMAC is influencing the application architecture. So now the users expect that the applications are always on. They expect that the applications are available on all the screens they are using, whether it is a mobile phone or it's a personal computer or a tablet and so on. So users expect that the applications are very intuitive. The users expect that the applications are provided a natural means of interaction. On top of all, the users expect that the applications understand who the user is, what the intent of the user is using the application and what environment in which the user is accessing the application. In short, the users expect that the applications behave contextually to their needs. So this is one of the key manifestations how I see that user behavior is influencing the application architecture because of SMAC. The second such manifestation I see is the technology and how it is used. Traditions of technology is always a set of course monolithic technology stacks that are actually meant to solve different kinds of problems to be used in a vest style scenario. But the new thinking is that use the right technology for the use case. The technologies are no longer monolithic but they are agile, lightweight and then expected that we use best of the breed and then bring them together as opposed to have a monolithic stack. So these technologies you see these are driven by communities. These are coming from the various open source organizations and then these are adapted by the product vendors. So this is a thinking I call polyglot thinking. This has a tremendous impact on how the applications are architected. So how do I see the future applications? What kind of architectures that we can expect in future applications? So I define them by three characteristics. One is the client awareness that is about understanding the devices in which the applications are accessed, understanding the form factors, being able to deliver capabilities natively to the clients using these applications. The second chapter is the idea of context awareness. This is about understanding the intent of the user, understanding the environment in which the applications are used, understanding the history, how the users have interacted in the past and then what they have done area and then behave accordingly. The third characteristic I see which is the most important one is what I call intelligence. The application has to be scaled automatically. They have to heal by themselves. They are dynamic, agile and self-configurable. So what is needed to deliver this kind of future application architectures in this era of, you know, smack and beyond? What makes these future application architectures? So I define six essential capabilities that are required to deliver such future application architectures. The first one is continuous availability, continuously available architectures which are always available, listening always. Smarter clients are delivering capabilities and then delivering rich experience to the user, close to the user. Contextual delivery which we just discussed is about how do we deliver relevant information and relevant services by understanding the context of the user. Elastic architecture, scaling the applications as needed and be elastic and be efficient in handling resources. Adaptive process which is basically having the ability to have highest flexibility within the process and being agile and then ability to change these processes as needed. And then intelligence and data sizes which is the most important of all is about delivering intelligence from the data, wherever the data is, whenever we need such intelligence. So all these capabilities if we look at independent, each of these capabilities require tremendous amounts of experience and thinking in order to deliver such capabilities within applications. So is it fair to expect that, you know, every application will be able to bring such capabilities, you know, to the table probably not. So that's where the platform thinking comes in. Platform thinking is all about how do we deliver these capabilities in a standardized way so that the applications can leverage these capabilities and deliver the future application architectures. So that ends my talk. Over to you, Bhupesh. Thank you. Thank you, Arvind and thank you for that great discussion as well. My name is Bhupesh Naik and I'm from the process and from the digital process integration unit and work as a lead architect within the organization. After Arvind has taken you through the application impact on the kind of SMAC influence that has been brought on, what I will discuss is a set of ideas and a set of influence points that in Internet of Things would actually see where the platform 3.0 also converge. We just have a quick look at what and where these social mobility analytics and clouds come in. We all know that there is a certain set of innovations happen within the enterprise while there is a certain set of innovations do happen for the consumers as well in the industry. And there is a there is a convergent point here where we see that the enterprise are kind of pressured or kind of influence to use the consumer innovation capabilities to drive their enterprises in the way they work in the way they operate. And this is where we see a lot of digital convergence coming into picture where we see a lot of enterprise app, you know enterprise organizations going towards the consumer great ecosystem wherein we see that the social mobility analytics of cloud, you know, which are more closer to the consumer driven, you know, innovations are being considered and are kind of used in certain enterprise to deliver their own operations to deliver new business model. Having said that, there is a particular set of consumer, you know, focus that has been coming up. We need to have again a small look at what the consumer focus does really mean. When we say consumers, it is not a mean that it has only detailed customers. It can be employees, your staff, your field officers and your trading partners, whoever are your touch points inside your business and who are kind of influencing your profitability. Now, each of the consumers does really interact with the business to experience a set of operations, you know, that can be, you know, doing some actions, collaborating, analyzing, but finally, actually having to decide on set of actions that a consumer will take, you know, while interacting with a set of business capability. Now, this experience obviously comes through interactions that can be through visual sense, voice, contextual capabilities and these interactions are to be enabled via certain set of platforms which can be through digital information enabled platforms, analytics platforms and these platforms are then requiring a set of technology to kind of enable them through the top environment that I'm talking about. So as you see that it is more of a consumer focus that we bring in and because we are influencing the experiences on the consumers, we are kind of trying to converse the consumer and the enterprise innovations together to meet at a point where the experiences are transformed and the business innovations does really continue. Having said that, it is very important that we also look at when we speak about social mobility analytics and cloud in silos, we do understand that they have a particular set of importance in the ecosystem that we are talking about. But if you look at the Internet of everything, you know, I call it everything because, you know, there is not a limit to a thing that we talk about. We have physical entities, you know, which are assets which doesn't not exactly a machine, but we have people collaborating, you have machine, you know, interacting with people and that is through a set of networks which are again interoperable. For example, you may have 3D available or 4G available or it can be a Wi-Fi and then you have a set of gateways that are basically built upon using these different objects, you know, interacting and then these gateways are particularly a vertical set of gateways which are, you know, related to a certain set of, you know, functional capabilities which is energy transport medical. Just to give you an example that AD&D does really have come up with a digital life ecosystem which is more on the home security and it is based on the similar, you know, principles of how your different things, you know, different collaboration happens using social mobility analytics and clouds. For example, you may have a local analytics where a machine is interacting with, you know, the person on a variable device to interact with the person who is, you know, who is kind of giving a set of instructions to it and it has a local analytics to detect, process, gather and act upon it and then feedback to the, you know, the person or the user who is using it. So analytics would be, you know, only present in this particular ecosystem. Cloud will be only present to create on-demand gateways or create those applications and social will be only present for the people to interact and kind of interact not just with the people to people but also people to machine. So it is not, and this interaction is what the open platform will create a standard across and create a view in terms of how these interactions does really happen in an ecosystem viewpoint. So it is very key to understand that social mobility analytics and cloud, though they are key terms and can be individually be enabled and used, but it is more important that the conversions are more stronger and give result into a very stronger ecosystem like the net of everything. Having said that, it is also important to look at the influence on the enterprise architecture that we bring in. So while we know that the enterprise architecture does have a certain set of views that we generally follow, which is information, the process, the rules, integration, security, it is giving us a challenge and that that is something that the platform 3.0 will also address is that when cloud social mobility big data analytics and only channel experiences do come in, how are these particular viewpoints are going to change and impact the stakeholder viewpoints, right? So that is more important for us, while we say that we are going to use these technologies, while we say that we are going to use a conversion ecosystem, it is important to kind of give also a perspective to the different stakeholders of how a particular set of traditional viewpoints are going to change in the newer capabilities that we bring in. With that, I think I will close my session. Okay, thank you very much Chris, Arvind and Bhupesh for setting up a firm foundation on what SMAC is all about and its correlation with Open Platform 3.0. I believe that everyone can hear me really well. So keeping this in mind on what SMAC is and how that is part of Open Platform 3.0 as we saw in one of the preliminary slides. For the next few minutes, we will look into the work that has been done so far by the work streaming the open group in the context of Open Platform 3.0. So the work began with an identification and preparation of a list of business use cases as revealed on slide number 16. We see a total of 22 use cases which were developed throughout the study of the platform Open Platform 3.0. These 22 use cases spans across multiple industries, business processes, technologies and business domains with their sole intent to investigate and analyze the requirement characteristics of what an Open Platform 3.0 should be all about. On the right-hand side of the slide, we have provided a white paper link just led by Mark Scurton. It's part of the Open Group project and this is published by Open Group last month around 20th of March. So it covers every minor details of all the 22 use cases that we have been showing up on slide number 16. And a snippet of one of those use cases we would as well see in one of the subsequent slides as we proceed. So you might be wondering on what are the different components that are going to do and what is the relevance that each of it has in this context. So the systems that have been shown up on slide number 17 are derived from the use cases, the 22 use cases that we spoke of in the previous slide. And as you know in an object oriented paradigm, the interesting components are termed as objects and in order to link that concept, this diagram shows objects of different kind as you see. So we have the human objects, we have the utility objects, we have the moving objects and so on. So this particular slide 17 is to show the communication that flows among the different technologies in a business driven world with the help of 22 use cases. So the use cases have been further subdivided into what we call as a functional and non-functional aspect. We have the industry sectors to which it belongs to. And in this case we are talking about healthcare in specific and we are also covering on what are the functionalities served by this use case. So in this case, this use case is serving a functionality related to monitoring the health condition of the patient. The next one is on what are the business values derived out of it. And in this case it's all about improving the quality of life of the patient is what has been derived from this use case. So the next key aspect was with respect to understanding what are the business functions which helps drive the business functionality that we just looked into a while back. And finally about the actors who enable or influence the flow of information. And again from this use case we have categorized the actors into two. One is human actors and another one is machine actors. So again to go back to the first slide that we spoke of as part of the session in the form of the white paper. So the white paper has details about each of these use cases and slide number 80 is just an impact of what we have actually covered in detail in the white paper. So as the last while deriving the use cases, we ensure that we work on the raw data, the construct of the raw data as such and list the technologies from each of these use cases. So we were looking at that from an enterprise architecture standpoint, business standpoint and then derived from a technology viewpoint on how the raw data and the business use cases will proceed. Then we looked into a list of the standards collected which were circulated to each of those technologies. For example, we have in case of healthcare, we know that we have a medical data of the technologies and that is based on several of the standards such as the ICD-10 or 11 or the health level 7, which is from an independent organization and so on. So we respected the standards associated with each of the technologies which should compare to open platform 3 and then we are trying to correlate on how that has an impact on deriving an open platform 3.0 as an architecture or a standard in itself. And finally we mapped the technologies to each of the business use cases and that was the final step as part of the overall study. So as of now, what has been done so far is a musical component compared to the perceived goal or vision of open platform 3.0. And on slide number 19, if you can take a look at, it highlights the major activities which are still in pipeline. So the continued effort on further breaking up and analyzing the use cases by setting up the individual workgroups for cloud, Internet of Things, mobile and social in the context of ROGAP as an enterprise architecture is being seriously worked upon at this point. As we know that any project activity is incomplete without work products or deliverables. So with respect to what we have been talking about SMAC and open platform 3.0, the workgroup and the open group has a few deliverables as described on slide number 20. So one of them was the white paper that we spoke of a couple of times. The second one is with respect to the snapshot release that is still under preparation and due for release sometime next month. And what does the snapshot contain? It contains what has been thought about as a platform 3.0, I mean, just a standpoint based on the analysis of use cases. And the representation of snapshots is being performed using an archimage language, which again belongs to the open group. And followed by this we will have several other snapshots being published as we progress and as our group gets more and more matured with what open platform 3.0 should be all about. And finally, we can all expect a standard for standard release of open platform 3.0 sometime in the early 2015. So that is in a nutshell on what has been done in the workgroup at the open group and this is what I wanted to cover as part of the session. And I believe I can hand over the call back to Chris and thank you very much. Okay, thanks very much. So we now move to the Q&A session and we have a number of questions coming in. I think probably the first one which I will ask all the presenters and also Mark to comment on is a fairly crucial one. And I suspect we may get slightly different answers from certain different people because the definition of open platform 3.0 is still being worked out. But what does open platform 3.0 mean? What is open platform 3.0? So can we start with that one? I'm sure Chris, thanks. Very good presentation and very interesting. Yeah, it's a digital platform for what we call digital ecosystems. So today we have enterprise architecture and we have SMAC which is some social mobility cloud and big data technologies. And what we're finding today is that the combination of those four technologies plus the internet of things and other technologies now are creating new value. And the challenge of putting together a SMAC solution which may be driven by mobility requirements or through social engineering requirements or through data analytic requirements is having a joined up story. And the critical thing about the open platform 3.0 initiative is to create a joined up value proposition as Gutan was saying with the use cases. We talk about vertical ecosystems of vertical supply chains of joining up the end to end supply of say automotive products or retail products using these technologies or a horizontal digital value chain or digital ecosystem where you have say a home which is made up of buildings, rooms, different consumer and products, TV, digital radio or carpets or chairs or food and other things. And what we're talking about now is the next generation of enterprise architecture moving into ecosystem architecture and the open platform 3.0 is an architecture initiative to help you drive that value. The way I look at it earlier in my slide I've talked about platform thinking, right. So I strongly feel that the platform thinking is key to deliver what SMAC promised and what is going to come beyond SMAC. So I think that open platform 3.0 will be one such platform or maybe the platform which can provide such capabilities to the applications. This includes standards, this includes standardization, this includes interoperability and many such capabilities which can be helping application architectures to deliver the capabilities which I think SMAC offered today. We have a long way to go here on the open platform and the key aspect that obviously all of the audiences will be looking at open platform is from my side as well as the convergence standards that we bring in similar to what Mark has mentioned. When we talk about the new capabilities like social mobility analytics in the cloud and how they interact each other to kind of give and derive a particular function solution or an ecosystem and standards of how this ecosystem will work in this particular convergent environment is, you know, we would see the lot coming in from the platform 3.0 discussions for them. Okay, yeah, thank you very much Chris and yes, this is the interesting topic and also on the fact that we have been looking at the traditional IT world infrastructure which exists even now most of the environments. And we are also looking from the platform 3 on how would that be. So if you look at the traditional world and if you make comparative study between what has been existing and what has been envisioned, I think that would bridge a very good gap on where we want to actually go. So in the past or even now most of the times we see that the environment that we work on is basically the infrastructure. And as maybe you say that it has a traditional world of, you know, the storage world, it has a modern system in place and it has education and learning and executed and we serve to the business functionality. But as we see with the major four technologies coming to play in the form of SMAC, we see that the environment has a mixture of all these different technologies residing or coexisting simultaneously, which means that at some point in time, there should be a very good communication or flow of information that has to happen if we have to deal with this network of forces. And this is something which you can reveal in the white paper that he spoke of. So this platform 3 is something which would address the growing needs of the technology advancement and how these four major technologies and others would coexist in an environment and how to deal with that. So that is about in a nutshell. And again on the snapshot I searched, yes, it talks about the various aspects that we have discussed in this webinar so far. And it also contains what is being thought about at this point and where this is going to head to us. So I think that is exactly what I wanted to cover as part of this. So that was a fairly fundamental question. And I think the answer is the definition of open platform 3.0 is emerging and you've heard the number of the considerations as to what it should look like and what it is looking like. I'm going to, if I may, not go to the specific questions of what it will contain at this point. But I would like to go to a question from Ceri, which is another very basic question. The key success factors to stick all different technology to work seamlessly together. So what do we think are the key factors that will make it all work? And maybe I can ask people in replying to this, perhaps to comment specifically on something that Paul Simmons raised in the chat, which is the question of identity. As something that people's identity needing to be understood by components of the platform. So I think it's a it's a it's a it's a very good question because as what Mark described earlier as well that when we talk about the digital ecosystems coming up and obviously you it is more focused on the consumer experiences. We talk about the evolution of innovations is from the consumers for a certain set of capabilities in debate right now. So it does really is important that the digital native as we call it right for the consumers, you know, and and their digital identity being a focused, you know, and focused area in this ecosystem. And the way it works is today, if I, you know, example, if I have an identity within a Facebook social ecosystem, I do have an identity within LinkedIn, and I do have an identity within multiple others so far. So this identity also has a certain set of attributes attached to it, which is my hobby is what I do what my transactions are. You know how do I, you know, behave in a particular situation for for a responses that I given what my dates are, and all of these digital, you know, profile attributes and the native digital native attributes and the characteristics will drive a lot of this ecosystem experiences for the consumer. And obviously it is key in a way that the profiles distributed profiles of digital native will have to kind of convert at a point where it can be used and available for different, you know, application capabilities as well as position capabilities that we built in to give a more focused experiences as we as we see in my slide of the pyramid that we have, you know, seen is that the experiences that we drive in terms of how the consumer really decides act and see is through the complete digital ecosystems and yes, the digital native, you know, capability will really be a key to be a success factor in this particular ecosystem. Yeah, Chris is smart. I think just very quickly, I think in terms of individual identity, what I'm finding with other research projects is the need for privacy and trust and security over the over the technologies, not just mobile or social. And I think a critical success factor is having a strong method for calibrating or measuring your individual value or individual security for a service, which could be from these from these different systems. And so I would see an open platform three providing a way of federated identity, not open ID or Facebook ID or one of those is just part of the elements but actually orchestrating or choreographing your identity between different participants in the ecosystem. So there's an efficiency and a value for the individual for the platform provider, you know, Amazon or IBM or HP or Oracle, so on and so forth, and, and the individual. And so there's today, there's many IDs, many accounts you have to log into. And I think this whole there is security for the individual needs to be really sorted out. So very critical point a very good point back to you. My answer to said he was no question is that, you know, the technology is working together requires, you know, that you know the bluing happens at different levels. One is, you know, a technology working with another technology in a seamless way. That's where I was talking earlier about political thinking of technology. So that's I think that is a common representation of you know how exchange how do we exchange information across technologies. So this is where I think a lot of focus on you know what could be the common way of representing information that can be exchanged between these various technologies. So Jason being one and excellent being, you know, the existing popular, you know, format that is out there already. So I think that is one level where I see a common format which is playing a role which can actually bind these technologies together. At the next level, I see even the location of services that happen across these technologies. That's where I think open API comes in. That's where I think there is some amount of standardization on how these APIs are defined and what could be the model behind these APIs which help these technologies to, you know, work with each other. That's where that's coming. So the other angle that I see to this is that, you know, not always the things will be, you know, a technology calling one another technology and so on so forth. It can go more than that. So the other way I see that, you know, there is an ability that's where I see the platform coming in as in how these technologies work together to a common bus sort of, you know, which can actually bring and do these technologies together. So I think the answer to your question study is that, you know, you had already covered some of the answers, but I think above and beyond that I see this a common way of representing information. And then the platform playing the role which can actually bring these technologies together. Yeah. So it's basically a continuation of what we heard from Mark and Dukesh Narvind is basically the mode of communication and there are already standards which have been defined and each of those standards are something which may be specific to an industry. And what we're talking about is how this open platform can address the challenging situation where in we have some data flowing in from across industries, across technologies, across actors and still maintain a common language which can be considered through the flow of event or the data from its source of origination until it reaches the back end. So that is something which is a challenging situation and which is being partly addressed in the snapshot which is being released later in the month of April. And but again that's not the end of it means and there are further studies going on in order to see what really what really is that we are going to emission and if that's exactly what we intend to achieve at the end of the day. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Gautam. And I like to move to a question from Pradeep. How do you see enterprises using consuming up platform 3.0? Is there a model defined for this so far? And perhaps when answering that we might think specifically because there's a question asked by Tapan relating to multi channel banking, omnichannel banking, whether the platform will enable new models of take up in particular industries and particularly perhaps in the banking industry. So that's a big question about the take up of the platform. Yeah, please. Maybe if you can just break this question into two, if you can repeat the first part of it please. Maybe that would be easy to start off with. I think I just lost on the first part of the question. Let's break it into two and the fundamental question is how do you see enterprises using slash consume open platform 3.0? Is there a model defined so far? So the question, the basic question is about the use of the platform. Yeah, it's a difference of understanding building a analytics database with a portal on the front of it, which I see a lot of the consultants is selling to clients today or selling an orchestration of hardware story or a social media mobile service. These are just point solutions and they are creating islands of value in large and small enterprises. I think the way that the open platform 3 will create a new type of service for customers is it will answer the customer value. What is the sort of service they need for their jobs? What do they need to do every day through mobile or social? And it's creating this digital value consuming it through a set of services which are geared towards what the individual, the consumer wants. I think it's the difference as you saw with some of the slides earlier. And so it's a different mindset. It's not creating a solution as we may do in the past but creating a business system value with a marketplace and a continuous improvement cycle, which is different. So I would argue that we're not there yet. And I think with the open platform 3, we will create a new type of consumer interface, an open API, a kind of new marketplace, a new set of services which are, as Chris was saying earlier, just to finish off with the security services which today are fragmented. This will be bringing this together into the next generation of integrated services. Back to you. Yeah, Chris, just to add on to what Mark just stated out, that with respect to these particular aspects, we have the model approach in the sense that we have this cloud, mobile, social, and internet of things, pretty wide, dispersed technologies in itself. They still exist and there is an architecture around each of these. That is one aspect of it. If you look at individual component perspective. And secondly, we have for each of those industries, we have an industry-specific framework or an enterprise architecture. So now the question that is being asked is pretty interesting. The question, if I'm not wrong, is whether there is a standard architecture which defines or covers all of these technologies into one under the umbrella of open platform 3.0. So in continuation to what Mark stated, that's something which needs to be worked upon. Although we have architecture existing in place for an industry, we have architecture for each of the technologies as such, which varies from one extremity to other extremities. But the only major challenge is how do we develop an architecture around all of these that we can claim as an open platform 3.0. And as we saw in one of those slides, this is something which is the next level of study that the open group workstream is involved in. So I could see the growth or the perspective of open platform 3.0 from the Togess aspect of enterprise framework. Sorry, it's Mark Skelton again. I certainly agree that we're doing more work. And I think just to repeat again, when we talk about connected cars, smart cities, smart buildings, smart retail and other connected workspaces, what we're talking about is the way that the open platform 3.0 will be consumed is you'll be consuming it in a digital workplace, a digital work of a combined surface of technologies, buildings, appliances. And the thinking that we're trying to introduce is a completely different way of looking at technology. It's part of your job, part of your work. So we need to get away from the idea that it's a portal, it's an engineered solution. It's something that will become integrated multidisciplinary into the car, into the building, into your workplace, the very place where you're listening now. It'll become part of the integrated fabric of the organization going forward in the supply chains around it. Thanks for that. Unless anyone has further points on that, I'd like to move on. One thing I'd like to do is briefly make comments on some of the questions that have been asked. Couldn't please share any links to get a good insight on open platform 3.0. The link that I posted on the chat, I think, earlier and which I'll post in the Q&A shortly is the best place to start for open platform 3.0. Would the convergence means a more standardized interfaces contributed by key industrial tech leaders? Would those big market players be willing to converge at the expense of their research and development? And that could be a huge discussion point. And I think the brief answer to that is we very much hope that that is how it will work. There's a few questions on the relation of open platform 3.0 to TOGAP. And a point generally to make on those is that open platform 3.0 is a separate forum in the open group to the architecture forum. Basically, TOGAP is about how you do architecture. Open platform 3.0 is more about the kind of architecture that you do for these new technologies. But the relation between open platform 3.0 and TOGAP is still really to be worked out in detail. So having got those very quick things off, I'd like to ask the panelists to comment on another question that's come in now, which is a very interesting one, which is how can we handle a huge volume unstructured data stream from the smack by using the open platform architecture? That's from Pravat. So that is a very interesting technical question. And I'd like to ask our panelists to comment on that. The answer to that is obviously the one, the capability that is pretty interesting and very core to the platform 3.0 is also the big data. And we look at the data to be the most critical or one of the most critical area in platform 3.0, which would handle a certain set of information in terms of structure and unstructured and also based on the velocity of that information. Having said that, obviously we'll also see a lot of changes in the integration middleware or the traditional integration middleware being transitioned into, which is the ESB architectures and the messaging architectures will move on to. There is already a set of standards if you have seen in the industry, which is MQTT, which takes care of a large set of data transitions between machine to machine capabilities. We have a certain set of standards coming out from different telco organizations like Telinor, introducing open objects, which is more to deal with how different things would behave and share the information effectively again over the network and over the wire with the little data connection or we can have a bandwidth. So convergence of obviously big data and certain transitions of ESBs into the newer ecosystem where you can see API based capabilities also coming up. We have a lot of API management technologies introducing in the digital ecosystem because a lot of thought laying monitoring for the particular information exchange. So I think there is a certain set of awareness in the particular industry to take care of this and the convergence of certain set of standards plus big data would really take care of that. Yes, just to add to what Rukesh is telling, this is Garvin. So I don't know specifically what open platform being available, but the unstructured data and handling streams of unstructured data, that is one of the emerging problems and I think it is more and more going to be very common that we need to handle these streams of data coming in. So back in general, I think in specific with respect to how big data is to handle data is good files a lot for its ability to do things real time. I think stream processing is one of them which actually requires a real time processing of data, especially the volumes of data that is coming in. So more and more I think there is a lot of interest in how big data technology is evolving to adapt to this new paradigm which is about processing data streams in real time. I think that is where Hadoop has a lot of efforts that are done in Hadoop 2.0 where in bringing real time data processing as one of the key components of it. Apart from Hadoop I think Spark and Storm and many other open source technologies which are actually trying to bring in the way in which the data streams can be processed in real time in a concurrent way, in a high volume way. I think it is going to be more and more common and I also see that there will be a lot more convergence that would happen between all these efforts, between Hadoop and Storm and Spark and many other technologies like ACA and so on and so forth. I would like at this point to say a very big thank you to our three presenters, Aravind Bhupesh and Gautam and Sima who joined us for the panel. And also a big thank you to everybody who participated in this webinar who asked some excellent questions. I see some great responses and discussion going on even now on the chat. So thanks everyone for this. If I can point you to the link, hcdps colon slash slash collaboration dot open group dot org slash platform three slash for further information and that's where the presentation that we use will be posted. So thanks to everybody for participating from myself and on behalf of the open group and I wish you all a pleasant rest of today.


The floor may not be a robot. I watch the news a lot. I'm always up late at night reading articles online, and when it's morning I turn on the news. You could call me a newsaholic, because when I have nothing to do I'm doing something news related. Anyway one day I was going through news channels until I found one I never saw before called, Channel A News. That's a weird name, I thought to myself. I turned it on and the weatherman was in the middle of talking about how cold it was outside. And in Miami, a below freezing temperature of minus 13 degrees Fahrenheit. What? Miami's never cold? I watched for a little bit more and it said that Indianapolis was snowing. I'm in Indianapolis and it's summer. The next day I turned on Channel A and it said that the White House got crashed into my car. I checked all the other channels I watched and none were reporting on the incident. I looked a bit more into Channel A and saw that they had a website. I read through it and it said all kinds of false stuff. A helicopter hit the Twin Towers in 2003. John F. Kennedy was stabbed in 1986. The Egyptian pyramids of Giza were bombed in 2017. All false. It's common knowledge that none of this happened. But it has videos of all of it happening. Nobody else on Twitter I asked knows of this channel. This must be from some alternate universe. It's common knowledge that the Twin Towers were torn down by wrecking ball. JFK didn't get stabbed, he got hit by a car. The pyramids of Giza were never built. Apparently there's another alternate universe where people believed that the Twin Towers were hit by two planes in 2001. JFK being shot was another belief, and they even think the pyramids of Giza are a thing. Weird stuff.


So hey guys, welcome to comic in if you're new make sure you hit the subscribe button and a little bell Count below hit the like button. I may even share with your friends Good job. We have cookies and milk might be seen in that shirt Hey guys, welcome back to comic good and this week's tour review is going to be of the master universe collection vintage battle cat and panthor That's right. He man a Skeletor had beasts to help in their battle against good and evil So let's take a closer look First off We'll go ahead and we'll do battle cat A battle cat was pretty cool because well It was battle cat. He was the most powerful beast in the universe Battle cat was pretty much just a solid green tiger No pose ability However He did come with removable armor and a Removable helmet So you can see What do you look like underneath? Now a lot of kids my age at the time would take the armor and the mask off and He'd be cringer, which was his alter identity in the TV show In many comics, however, he was always wearing the saddle, but he was not always wearing The mask the only time you wore the mask is when he man called down for the power of grayskull and then the mask Or get put right back Like so and what was really cool is he man because of his squat pose would fit right on the action figure Pretty cool Next up was Skeletor's evil kind of part the battle cat Panthor panthor was always just a little little cooler than battle cat for one particular reason Now as you'll see he is the same Sculpt as battle cat with the same armor just painted a different color what made panthor your unique is If you look closely He has felt on him. Yes, I'm feeling the felt And I can move my finger away. I felt the felt He also had these awesome Yellow eyes painted right on there and these look out of the shows on the camera, but he's really shiny This is one of the few panthors. I've come across that actually has most of its felt still on because over time it's come off with age So this is pretty cool and Like he man Skeletor with his squatted legs can fit right on top of battle cat. No problem so there you go my friends we have the Masters of the universe Collection original vintage battle cat and panthor Panthor is fairly easy to find On places like eBay if you're gonna add him to your collection He can go anywhere from fifteen twenty dollars usually Battle cat is a little tougher fine complete because you can usually find them either with his Helmet and not his saddle or you'll find with a saddle and not his helmet or you won't find him with any of it You'll have to go Get a collect and piece together yourself, which is what I had to do with this battle cat I had to get a new harness This is my original battle cat, but for some reason I was missing The saddle so the saddle ended up cost to me probably around 20 25 dollars So just to get him completed Totally worth it though when I got the saddle on there and I got my completed he-man put on there It looked amazing. I was playing with him for hours. So There you go Happy hunting my friend Hit that subscribe button make sure you hit the like


Your emphasis on the idea of restarting the convergence process, it's very much part of the political debate here, and in other member states they think that the purpose of the economic and monetary policies most always be brought back to what kind of convergence we were talking about, and we're talking about economic and social convergence, which appear in the commission's papers, but for some of us don't appear to get sufficient emphasis. May I just open the discussion by asking for a comment from you about the pace of some of the changes that are being contemplated. As you said, the development of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme is controversial. There's a three-stage process being proposed which will take some time to put together. We have the single resolution mechanism, which has new bail-in provisions in it, which seem, although I may be wrong, to have been rather ignored in recent actions to save banks in Italy, and I think perhaps also in Spain. And we have a continuing problem of non-performing loans weighing down on the bank's balance sheets. We have a particular issue with mortgage loans in this country. Some might fear that as we're wending our political way to getting the various solutions in place there, we will be overtaken by another banking difficulty, and we will again find ourselves with insufficient means to deal with the issue. Do you think there's a danger there? And if there is, is there any appreciation of the urgency of getting conclusions on these issues? Well, absolutely. In a perfect world, we'd have it done yesterday, and we'd be prepared well in time. And of course, in a monetary union with now 19 member states with different interests with different problems, it's sometimes difficult to find that agreement quickly. So I think, Edis, let's not forget that we have an agreement on fully harmonized deposit insurance schemes. Every member state now must build proactively, build up a deposit insurance system and a deposit insurance fund, which I think is a good thing in itself, but also will make it a lot easier at some point, hopefully sooner than later, to have that single or European scheme, because it's simply a matter of integrating the funds that are already being built up. If you realize now what little we had when we went into the banking crisis, I mean, it's pretty disgraceful. We told our deposit holders that they were insured, but very few member states had any preparation in place, had any fund build up. Many member states had banking sectors in size and in risks out of their span of control, basically. So I think we've made a lot of progress already. Banking sectors are already much better capitalized, are better supervised. We are building up deposit insurance funds. We are building up a resolution fund. We have the frameworks. So things are a lot more stable and we can manage shocks better already. Should we get it done quickly? Yes. Bail-in. I think one of the key problems that's holding us back, and this is true for the issue of bail-in in Italian banks, Edis, which is not popular in Germany or how we deal with MPLs, we want to go to the perfect set-up of the banking union, but we have to deal with legacy issues. If there were no legacy issues in our banks, not MPL problems in different countries, then I think it would be very easy to today take that step to have that Edis, that European common insurance system. So that's why I keep pushing, let's not wait for it, but let's do things in parallel. While we are all trying to deal with MPLs and progress is being made, we should gradually enter into this European deposit insurance scheme. We've designed it, I mean it was very technical or technocratic if you want. We've designed the same kind of mechanism in the single resolution fund where all of us, or all of the banks I should say, it's luckily not public money, it's bank money, all of the banks are contributing to building up this resolution fund, and gradually over time we are mutualising the debt, sorry, the risks. So if any problem occurs, I believe in 80 years time, you can use the money of all of the fund and not just the national contributions. The same kind of approach and how it will be designed exactly, let's get into it, same kind of approach we should take, we could take in the deposit insurance scheme. So my key issue would be let's not stop us from taking steps to that complete banking union because we are still struggling with legacy issues. We have to go through them in parallel. Now we're open to the floor. The interest rate at the moment is zero. Never has there been a better time for governments to borrow for investment, and at the same time the current construction within the Eurozone is such that governments are literally prohibited from making a set for major investments that will help to create sustainable growth in the future. But I think at a time when alternative energy, etc., the environment, all these things are so necessary and let's face it there are countries within the Eurozone in a very good position to invest. I think we're missing a historic opportunity because I'm very depressed when you talk about the dear term prospects because there's so much money available for investment offering a far higher return than 0%. Thank you very much. Thanks for that. So first of all the points that I hear this a lot that the Eurozone countries is so much worse than the non-Eurozone. So it's interesting to look at some of these examples. For example, Sweden and Denmark, Sweden had a major banking crisis in the 90s and sorted it out heavy-handedly, nationalised all the major banks, deep restructuring, deep recapitalisation, very strict macro-prudential policies. And yes, they went into the crisis in 2008 in a completely different position than many of our countries were. Was that to do with the fact that they were Euro and non-Euro? No, they had the crisis already before we even had the Euro. So I mean, look at Sweden, the reason why the Swedes got through the crisis so much better is because they sorted out their banks and their policies already before the crisis. Finland did actually quite well in the crisis, only had an sort of an adverse almost asymmetrical shocks two years ago, three years ago. So in the first years when all of us went in the slumps, Finland did fine and that was a Euro country. Czechia and Slovakia, Slovakia became a Euro country during the crisis years has done very, very well economically and Czechia, the Czech Republic has done a lot less than Slovakia. Neighbours, Euro country, non-Euro. So if you realise that 90% or more of our policies and how our economies are doing is still influenced by national politics and national structural elements in our economies, you need to look a little deeper. I've had this debate with Stiglitz when we crossed arms in Amsterdam, he made exactly this point, he said, just look at the non-Euro, it's so much better. If you zoom into it, the differences are much more distinctive than just Euro and non-Euro. Anyway, should we now all spend more? It very much depends on what the fiscal situation is. If your debt is at 130%, and investments on the private side are already low, I'm not sure that's a very good idea. I would go for really reforming your economies, reforming your legal system, reforming how your competitiveness rules are, etc., making sure that, first of all, you start increasing private investments in your economy. Instead of on top of that, let's say 130% debt to GDP increasing your spending. In Germany and the Netherlands a lot, this is of course the other example, there is fiscal space, debt is relatively low, the government's can borrow at 0%, but yet the economy is booming. Why would the government, in a period when the economy is at 3% or 3.5% already, and a lot of stress is building up in the housing market again, etc., why would the government then start spending a spending spree, I mean economically in terms of being counter-cyclical, it doesn't make sense. By the way, the investments in solar energy and wind energy in those countries are extremely high, and they need less and less government subsidies. So, with a very small incentive, we can trigger private investments in huge wind parks in the North Sea. It doesn't require a big public spending spree. So here again, I'd look really more specific at countries rather than saying let's start spending a lot of money. Thank you. It seems to me there's a non-Euro country not too far away that hasn't been doing spectacularly well either. Please, please. Thanks very much, Chair. Paul Sweeney is my name. Tomorrow, as you probably know, more than 90 fascist members of parliament will take their seats in Germany, and I agree a lot of progress has been made in Europe in recent years, but that kind of thing that's happening. The rise of the far right is quite worrying. In Ireland, our anti-tax parties are on the far left. We're quite unusual on this. They're particularly opposed property taxes, which I think are rather good taxes. The anti-tax parties are on the far left. Yeah. Right. I'm just letting that sit. They've really done it. They've really milked it, but it's an interesting phenomenon. But my question is, I'm a member of the Economic Committee of the European Trade Union Confederation, and last week we had a meeting, and we had a paper put before us, a technical services note to the Eurogroup, which I find and others found very disturbing. It seems to me, and my question really is, and I'll explain what's in the paper in a minute, that this kind of paper is playing into the hands of the right, and in Ireland's case, the far left, it's basically an anti-tax paper. It's a paper against social charges, which you call financing labor tax cuts.  Now, I have a number of questions to ask you. Do you think that tax is a burden? Do you think that tax is theft? Do you think that tax is a charge or a payment? If it's a burden and you're a public servant, are you a burden? You have to use your words very carefully, and there's a use amongst technical people to use the language of the far right. And if you're disparaging taxes, which I am proud to pay myself and make a point of paying every penny, because I believe I'm buying civilization.  Now, of course, you didn't write this paper, it was addressed to you. But you know the paper, I'm sure. But essentially, it's all about reducing employers' purest side. You must be aware that the labour share of national income has fallen by 10% in many European countries and in East Germany, and this is a move to make it fall further. Let me make a remark about the rise of the extreme right in Europe, because it's, of course, extremely worrying. And some people have said that the outcome of the elections in the Netherlands and France has been quite moderate. I don't agree with that. Extreme right has again grown in a number of seats in the Dutch parliament, and they've done extremely well in the presidential elections in France. So that worry is very much alive, and I very much share that. I'm not sure that it's a euro issue. I think the populism and the, is just as strong and the same kind of movements is going on in the US. So I'm not sure the euro crisis whole explanation. I do believe that the fact that ordinary working people have not seen a wage improve, and this is true for the US and Europe, for a very, very long time is one of the factors. In the Netherlands, the, let's say, average disposable income for working people hasn't improved since 2001. So it's been for 15, 16 years completely flat. The paper you refer to is about the tax wedge on labor. Why is that problematic? And why do I think it's problematic? I presume it's drawn up by the commission, but we ask for it. Because the factor labor in our economy is being taxed so heavily that it's become very interesting for, of course, employers and in the economy to have as little labor as possible. So economically, I think it will make a lot of sense to shift that late, that tax pressure away from labor, and to, for example, to consumption, or to green taxes, or to capital taxes. So that's what the paper is about. I'm also proud to pay tax. I very much agree. And I think we should look carefully at who's actually paying it and how we can make sure that the factor labor is not, on the one hand, not improving its wages, and on the other hand, is being taxed very heavily and increasingly so over the crisis years. So there is the two sides I've been pushing in my country, but I don't have direct influence on it, on wage increases. I think there is a lot of space to improve wages in the Netherlands, and the same is true in Germany. And I've been pushing and working on reducing the tax wedge on labor's income. I simply want people to have more money in their pay pocket. How do you call it? Pay package. And that doesn't mean that we have to go along with the sort of the anti tax. By the way, I'm not sure that the extreme right or the populist right are anti-tax. I'm maybe in some countries, but certainly not everywhere. It strikes me that the populist right are also very much in favour of the welfare state and early retirement ages and welfare schemes. If you look at the populist party in the Scandinavian countries and in Denmark, one of their key agenda points is hands off of the social welfare state. So the image that you describe of the extreme right being anti-tax and anti-government etc. is certainly for some of the extreme right populist parties, not quite right. David Kron. In the commission's paper on fiscal policy that was produced with the last years, or the end of years, annual growth survey, it was critical of the lack of a fiscal stance at the Euro area level and that it was producing suboptimal governance because within a time of downturn, it tended to be pro-cyclical, making recovery in some member states even more difficult. And that what was needed was a repartition, or that was their word, but I think that means a division of the fiscal effort into individual member states. Do you go along with that at all? And I'm not quite sure how it would be done either. So the fiscal stance for the Eurozone as a whole has been debated ever since Maastricht. And already then, some people said we shouldn't just have fiscal rules for member states, but we should look at the whole integrated fiscal stance. It was never decided that way, so the whole rule book, so to speak, has been designed on the fiscal efforts of member states. And the complex situation is now that in the member states that are economically doing well, there is fiscal space. So economically there's not many arguments for Germany to start spending heavily, even though you could argue that the infrastructure in Germany or the educational system in Germany really could require an investment. But in other countries where there is very little fiscal space and the rules would require them to take a contractionary sort of approach in their budget. In those countries, there's a huge demand for investments, also public investments. So that we haven't solved it yet. And every time people say, let's have a fiscal stance for the Eurozone, the problem is how to then implement it. So the commission now says over the whole of the Eurozone, a neutral fiscal stance would be appropriate, meaning not contractionary, but not expansionary. It doesn't really mean anything, because in some countries there really would be, in economic terms, need for some public investments in other countries, economically not really. I don't have the answer to it. I think it's become a sort of a symbolic debate. Some would argue that the real answer is having a fiscal capacity, a budget at a European level in which you can then level it out between these countries. That would of course only work if it's really sizable. So having a small fiscal capacity, a small Eurozone budget, I don't think will help us very much. I mean, it can be for a short period of time, for a few small member states, you could use it. But for larger member states, or real adverse shocks. If we want to have in the future a really sizable and effective fiscal capacity for the Eurozone, we need to discuss whether some of the major policy areas that are now in national hands, that we are prepared to give away that sovereignty. What do national governments spend their money on? Welfare systems, pension systems, health care, and hopefully some on educational systems. So these are the big costly policy areas. So if we really want to create a Eurozone fiscal capacity of some size, you would have to give some of this up. Otherwise I don't see how we can shift fiscal capacity to the Eurozone level. That debate is only just starting. So I mean, there are lots of people who say we need as a monetary union to have that sizable fiscal capacity. But no one has really discussed where does the money come from. I will presume it comes from national budgets. We then shifted to the Eurozone budget. What policy area would go with it? Some discussion now about unemployment benefits schemes. Shouldn't we have a Eurozone unemployment insurance system? I think that's quite interesting. But it will be for the future. Why do I say that? Because economically and politically, we are so far apart how labour markets are designed and works. Some countries don't even have an unemployment benefit scheme. I mean, maybe from my perspective, that's hard to imagine, but this is the situation. Some countries have very strong, very sort of elaborate unemployment benefit scheme. But then the governance is very different. In some countries, these funds, social funds, are actually owned by the unions or are owned by or run by the social partners. In some countries, it's an integrated part of the government budget run by the government. So I mean, we really need to think deeper about what it means when we say we want a sizable, in the future, fiscal capacity in Eurozone. It's about these topics. And in this, in this country, probably a referendum. But indeed. Yes, sir. This year. Thank you. My name is Patrick Leningen. Just two questions very briefly. In your remarks, you talked about a reform fund, effectively, at the commission level to support reform in member states. And then you also talked about a European IMF type institution to support reforms. How would you envisage those being financed? Either at an annual basis from national budgets of member states, or by a capital infusion into some type of institution.  Just in that role, just one question. Last year, you agreed the banking sector agreement with civil side organizations with major Dutch banks and the Dutch government. It was with Oxfam and then major banks in the Netherlands. I'm wondering if you could comment on its implementation. And do you see that type of agreement as something that could be used in other European countries either at national level or as a European wide agreement? Thank you. Right. On the funding side, I think we're going into a very difficult debate anyway about the multi annual framework, the financial framework, which is about the seven year period of the EU budget. It's going to be usually complex anyway, so let's make it even more complex. It's going to be complex because the UK is leaving and they are of course a net contributor. And it will have huge effects on the next net contributor, but also the recipient countries. Are we going to downscale the budget to the size of the UK population or the UK contribution? And how are we going to redistribute the costs? So that's one element. I think another one is the financing of the common agricultural policy. I know this is in Ireland also followed very closely, but that debate is also going on. And here the position of countries is changing. Should that remain fully communitarian or should it be renationalised to some extent? I think that could also be part of that discussion. There is a discussion which I'm very interested in, is about European public goods. What is it that the EU actually has an added value? What policy areas? And obviously a lot of attention goes to migration, border control, security, anti-terrorism. And you know I'm not a federalist in the sense that I think everything should be done at the European level. And as long as it's done at the European level it's the best answer to whatever the problem is. I don't agree with that. But there are some very strong cases where doing it jointly at an EU level would be much better. And border control I think is very obvious. Most of our internal borders are gone in Schengen and we didn't organise the outside border control. So let's do that, but it will require really development of institutions and budget etc. The same would go for cooperation on defence issues. So I think creating space inside the EU budget for these EU public goods, security, migration, border control will also require quite a puzzle. Perhaps even extending the budget. But it's easy for me to say as I'm leaving my job as finance minister, if I would be responsible for the next five years I would not be so eager. But there is a strong case here. And then on top of that we want to create a new instrument. I think we should look at the structural funds as we know them. Not to take away the money, but to say we want to connect these transfers from the structural funds to a reform programme or reform efforts that countries are going through. And how can we make them work in parallel? So that's the kind of funding I would be looking at. But it's going to be a hugely difficult debate about the EU budget. The second point, a question was about the agreement which we have in the Netherlands with the banks. This is about sustainability, human rights, and the banks have agreed that they will respect all international standards regarding human rights, that they will take a huge responsibility for sustainability, the climate issue. It's still in development. I mean if you want to know is it a huge success? I think in itself that the banks with the government and the NGOs came to such an agreement was already a huge success. The next step will be transparency. They need to become much more transparent on where they actually invest their money. How do they in practice fulfil these commitments? So I'm positive, I'm optimistic. Ask me again in five years time and I'll tell you whether it's been a huge success. We are actually trying to do that with different sectors of the economy. It's a very sort of Dutch way. I don't know whether you know this world. We like to call it the polder model. Most part of the Netherlands is of course below sea level and the only way we can keep our feet dry is by having this polder model. The polder is the low land below sea level and we have all kinds of institutions and negotiations and talks and tables around which we sit to organise the fact that the Netherlands remains dry. So this is where the word polder model comes from. We like to sit down and have sort of a national agreement with in this case the banks but we try to do that in different sectors. It is said as you probably know that if the Dutch have been born in Ireland they'd be the richest people in the world and if the Irish have been born in the Netherlands they'd all have drowned centuries ago. Thank you Chairman. I have a very simple question. In the Bretton Hood arrangement the emphasis is always on the deficit countries through the adjustment. Something similar seems to be happening in the Euro area. It is always the deficit countries that have to do all the work rather than the surplus countries. In the Euro area this is quite clear that German surplus becomes bigger and bigger because the deficit countries have to do all the work. How do you arrange or what kind of proposals have you discussed in relation to making the adjustment much more balanced between the service countries and the deficit countries? No you're right the rules are much more strict on one side the balance and on the other. So I think that Germany is very much aware of this and the way that it works but it's also very reluctant to become responsible for some of the more domestic problems that our colleagues have and this is very much about the feeling that the Germans have that they always have to pick up the bill in Europe and have to pay for whatever risks occur. But I think the answer is twofold so as long as we don't have a more balanced sort of mechanism on two sides deficit and surplus countries I think the Germans should look at and I think they are at investing more for example in infrastructure but also the educational system in Germany is not the highest ranking and another way to readdress this issue is by increase of wages and there really is a lot of room for wage improvement in the German economy and I was at the IMF meetings a week ago in Washington and one of the things that struck me is that the economists really don't know the answers anymore and the politicians don't have the power to do it. What do I mean by that? That everyone is puzzled in every room I was in in Washington by what's happening now in our economies in terms of technological developments, productivity very low, labor markets not strained not even in the countries that have had a very strong economic recovery there is still very little push on wage levels upward push so what's going on in our economies and it struck me that even the cleverest economists that always are in these meetings couldn't really explain it but it's a it's a huge problem it's a huge problem in the U.S. it's a huge problem in more and more of the eurozone countries why is it that the economy is booming the private sector is heavily investing but we don't see anything in productivity and we don't see anything in wage increase but that's what should happen thank you Jeremy Harrison I was very struck by a point that you made that when you said let's not be too quick to make private risks a public problem and I wondered if you you agree that there's a good case for being very cautious about making private responsibilities a public problem too I mean in the in the affairs of the banks over recent years it's fairly clear that as well as maybe failures of regulation they have above and beyond that been major failures of corporate governments and if you have a situation you may not want to comment on a particular Irish issue at the moment but should you have a situation where frankly the banks have scammed their customers over quite a serious period of time is not the first thing to do to turn around to the boards of those banks and actually to say to them you have not exercised your corporate responsibility for ethical and responsible trading for the period that you didn't do that why should you be paid as directors and if that failure to exercise it becomes willful I you don't do anything about it why should you not be disqualified from being directors in future isn't just a case for saying governments have actually allowed the banks to blame their lack of corporate responsibility on hypothetical lack of regulation I agree that doesn't mean to say that I don't think we need regulation but regulation has sometimes become an excuse for those in charge of the banks or corporates to say well I've stuck to the rules and regulations so I'm fine and that's not always the case you can give your customers a really bad and unfair deal and still be inside the law and I won't comment on the situation that's now all over your newspapers but we've had exactly the same kind of examples in the Netherlands schemes with derivatives being sold to small companies these company owners didn't ever clue how the derivatives worked couldn't imagine how it could go wrong and it did go wrong and we're still sorting it out and now we've had huge scandals with ink I'm not sure what the English word would be sort of income insurance policies in which private people would pay in monthly terms hoping that they would build up some kind of sort of a little pension fund but the administration cost that the banks made them pay every month exceeded the return on their investment and this happened to seven million people in the Netherlands seven million so I mean and we've seen it in England we've seen it in Italy it's happened all over the place miss selling and yes I've been very active in regulating we've did lots of regulating at European level and a national level but every time it boils down to the fact if the financial sector doesn't realize that how important confidence between them and their customer is and how damaging these recurring incidents I mean is to that confidence if they don't see it as their responsibility we're never going to sort it out we will have a highly dense regulation and thousands and thousand people working at the supervisor but we're never going to win that struggle in the Netherlands I don't know how you have done it in Ireland that the supervisors need to check do a fitness check on all the responsible top people in the financial sector. So before you can become anything at board level or even the level below that, you need to be checked. And it's a check on your personal ethical behaviour, also whether you've paid your taxes, but also on how you've done in previous jobs in the financial sector. And if you've been in some way responsible for a scandal in your institution, you may lose your approval to work in the financial sector.  It's an unfortunate way to do it, but that may have worked. The point is frequently made that in the United States, for example, where financial institutions have been fined huge amounts of money, that simply doesn't solve the problem, because the people who caused the difficulty still stay there or they get paid a large amount of money to leave. Yeah, and the shareholders pay the fine. The issue I'm asking about is, you mentioned about high-debted countries, obviously Eurozone does a few of them, but one stands out like a sore thumb, and it's been an ongoing issue, i.e. Greece. How do you see Greece playing out, going forward? And if Greece were forced out or actually left over on volition, could Eurozone survive? I.e. one goes, can you bring friends to rest them? I think if you look at how much political capital has been spent on keeping Greece inside, I'm sure that we're not going down that road of what if and could it happen? I don't think anyone is going down that road again. And I mean, literally, political capital spent. Governments have fallen in the Eurozone over Greece, and I'm not talking about the Greek government. So a lot of political capital spent in the determination to keep the Eurozone intact and keeping Greece in. So the situation with Greece is, of course, as I said in my speech, many of the problems that we had during the crisis were already caused in the years before, and that was certainly true for Greece. Institutions very weak, the whole society and the economy very politicized. Everything is in the end decided by the politicians. And if the government changes, then it works all the way down into the economy. People lose their jobs and get replaced. So it's a major effort to introduce sound governance throughout the private and public sector. But it's happening and it's gradually taking place. It's slow, it's tough, but it is happening. And I think it's key for confidence to return to Greece. So in 2014 already Greece was coming out of the crisis. It had some growth, unemployment was going down, investors were returning, and then the Syriza government came in and in 2015 everything collapsed and we had to start all over again. Now we're in the third program, things are back on track. So my key point is, and I made it when I was in Athens, it's about stability. Create stability, gradually keep on working on the reform agenda. We will help to stabilize the economy. We will also help to manage the debt burden. A lot has been done there. We've basically flattened out their sort of annual debt burden, the amounts that they have to pay on an annual basis. They've completely flattened it out for the next 20 years. So the debt is still high, but what they have to do to service it on an annual basis is very manageable. And we stand ready if they do their part. We stand ready to do more if necessary. And the program ends in 18, the summer of 18, summer next year. The size of the program is something like 86 billion, but I don't think we'll use half of what is needed. So that's also a good sign. We'll stay well below that 86 billion. And that also helps the debt issue. And at the end of the program, summer next year, we will look again at how sustainable the debt is and what more needs to be done. But stability is very much the key to get that confidence back. I think the final question would be Mary Cross, who's chairing our reflection group on the future of EU 27. Thank you. Mr. Thank you for a very clear expose. I suppose my question in a way is more political than economic. You laid a lot of stress on convergence. And I just wonder if you feel confident that you can keep moving forward in this direction because there's quite a lot of discussion in the papers we have from Europe at the moment and the swirling around in the EU about groups of countries moving forward in certain areas. And obviously a danger is that the Eurozone may move forward and create a chasm with other non-Euro member states. And this is obviously a worry for all of European member states. So how do you keep them moving together particularly with the wide variety of types of countries not in the Euro already? Well I think Jean-Claude Junger is right when he says that in principle we should really push and help countries to gradually catch on and connect to the Eurozone because it's quite complex. I think the integration of the Eurozone countries will continue sometimes with shocks, sometimes gradually, but this process will continue. And it will create political issues if a number of countries sort of follow up or get disconnected. The appetite to become a Euro country wasn't of course very strong during the Eurozone crisis but at the moment the Eurozone is doing better on average than the non-Euro countries. And that is something that a couple of years ago no one would have expected. There is interest now in Denmark and Sweden to become part of the Banking Union. The Banking Union is of course now Eurozone member states but it's an open concept anyone can join, EU members, and I think they will. So I would be very much in favour without forcing countries, I don't think that could ever work but to try and keep countries as involved as possible. That could be in the Banking Union sort of as a halfway station integrating into the Eurozone. I can't solve it completely. I think the integration of the Eurozone will continue, it will progress and if countries say well we simply don't want to be then they will be a different kind of member. Thank you, Jeroen. Thank you very much indeed for your frankness and straightforwardness in dealing with the issues. I'm sure I speak for a good many people here, if not for everybody but I say that I've been struck by your frequent references to convergence and we look forward very much to seeing the results of that kind of thinking and going through in your work for the ESM. Thank you very much indeed for coming. Thank you.